EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 47 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: France Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Table of contents Acronyms Foreword General Information Status of second river basin management plan reporting Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plans Recommendations Topic 1 Governance and public participation 1.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.1 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 1.2 Progress with Commission recommendationss Topic 2 Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 2.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 3.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first the RBMPs 3.3 Progress with Commission recommendations

Topic 4 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 4.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 4.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 4.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 5 Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 5.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 5.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 5.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 6 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 6.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 6.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 6.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 7 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 7.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle for designation 7.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 7.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 8 Environmental objectives and exemptions 8.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 8.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 8.3 Progress with Commission recommendations

Topic 9 Programme of measures 9.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 9.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 9.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 10.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 10.2 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture 11.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 11.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 11.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 12 Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 12.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 12.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 12.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology 13.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 13.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 13.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies

14.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 14.2 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 15 Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 15.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 15.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 15.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change 16.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 16.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 16.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Acronyms EQS Directive Environmental Quality Standards Directive FD Floods Directive Km Kilometre km2 Kilometre squared KTM Key Type of Measure PoM Programme of Measures QA/QC Directive Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Water Information System for Europe Annex 0 Member States reported the structured information on the second RBMPs to WISE ( Water Information System for Europe ). Due to the late availability of the reporting guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying what information they were unable to report and the reasons why. This Annex was produced using a template included in the reporting guidance. If Member States reported all the required information, this explanatory note was not necessary.



Foreword The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) requires in its Article 18 that each Member State (MS) reports its River Basin Management Plan(s) (RBMPs) to the European Commission. The second RBMPs were due to be adopted by the Member States in December 2015 and reported to the European Commission in March 2016. This Member State Assessment report was drafted on the basis of information that was reported by Member States through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) electronic reporting. The Member State Reports reflect the situation as reported by each Member State to the European Commission in 2016 or 2017 and with reference to River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States may have changed since then.





General Information Map A Map of RBDs Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) International RBDs (within European Union and Switzerland) International RBDs (outside European Union) National RBDs (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters



Information on areas of the national RBDs including sharing countries is provided in Table A: Table A Overview of France‘s RBDs RBD Name Short Name Size (km2) Countries sharing RBD FRA Scheldt, Somme and coastal waters of the Channel and the North Sea Scheldt 19362 BE, NL FRB1 Meuse Meuse 7901 BE, DE, LU, NL FRB2 Sambre (part of the Meuse international RBD) Sambre 1103 BE FRC Rhine Rhine 23736 BE, CH, DE, LU, NL FRD Rhone and Coastal Mediterranean Rhone-Mediterranean 123846 CH, ES, IT FRE Corsica Corsica 10896 - FRF Adour, Garonne, Dordogne, Charente and coastal waters of Aquitania Adour-Garonne 118502 ES FRG Loire-Brittany and Vendee coastal waters Loire-Brittany 168857 - FRH Seine and Normandy coastal waters Seine-Normandy 96581 BE FRI Guadeloupe Guadeloupe 4769 - FRJ Martinique Martinique 2065 - FRK Guyana (French) Guyana 85938 - FRL Réunion Island Réunion 2998 - FRM Les cours d’eau de Mayotte Mayotte 1761 Source: RBMPs reported to WISE. Mayotte was only recently subject to the RBD and has different deadlines for reaching good status. The share of France in the respective international RBDs is 99.3 % (Garonne), 92.1 % (Rhone), 50.8 % (Scheldt), 26.0 % (Meuse-Maas), 12.1 % (Rhine), 0.55 % (Ebro) and 0.23 % (Po). France has a number or parts of major international river basins on its territory with established international co-operation and RBMPs (Rhine, Meuse, Scheldt). There are also a number of river basins where very small stretches of river cross the national frontiers, such as part of the river Po (mainly in Italy), and small parts of the Ebro (mainly in Spain and Andorra). The Rhône river basin is shared with Switzerland. In these cases there is established co-operation on a bilateral level, although no international RBMPs have been adopted. Each of these RBDs is therefore considered as international. Table B Transboundary river basins by category and % share in France Name international river basin National RBD Other RBD names Countries sharing RBD Co-ordination category 1 2 km² % km² % Ebro FRD Adour Garonne (FR) / Cantabrico Oriental (ES) ES 474 0.55 Garonne FRF Ebro (ES) ES 80122 99.3 Meuse-Maas FRB1 Meuse / Maas (BE, NL) BE, DE, LU, NL 8919 26.0 Po FRD Po/Rhône CH, ES, IT 173 0.23 Rhine FRC Rhine (BE), Rhein BE, CH, DE, LU, NL 23830 12.1 Rhone FRD CH, Po (IT) CH, ES, IT 88977 92.1 Scheldt FRA Escaut / Scheldt (BE) BE, NL 18486 50.8 Source: WISE electronic reports

Category 1: International agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMP in place. Category 2: International agreement and permanent co-operation body in place. Category 3: International agreement in place. Category 4: No co-operation formalised.



Status of second river basin management plan reporting A total of 14 RBMPs (Scheldt, Meuse, Sambre, Rhine, Rhone-Mediterranean, Corsica, Adour-Garonne, Loire-Brittany, Seine-Normandy, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guyana, Réunion, Mayotte) were published between 23 November and 22 December 2015. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ .



Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plans The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMPs of France are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation France’s Competent Authorities include its Basin Committees, which bring together government and private stakeholders. This led to the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders in the development of all the French RBMPs. The public consultation on the draft RBMPs led to improvements at different levels in almost all French RBDs. Some of France’s RBDs are part of international RBDs where cooperation includes the development of international RBMPs and PoMs: the Scheldt, Meuse/Maas and Rhine. France did not report on the international dimensions of Rhone-Mediterranean, Seine-Normandy or Guyana RBDs. Nonetheless, in the Rhone-Mediterranean RBD, France has strengthened cooperation with Switzerland and with Italy. France has not reported coordination with Belgium with regard to the Seine-Normandy RBD (the share of territory in Belgium in this RBD is, however, quite small). No information is provided on coordination between the Guyana RBD and neighbouring third countries. ·Characterisation of the RBD Most national types are linked to an intercalibration type. However, 32 % of surface water bodies do not have a corresponding intercalibration type reported (23 % if we only consider mainland France). For the Réunion RBD, the typology has not been made biologically relevant for all types for the second cycle. Reference conditions are available for some biological quality elements in all water types for rivers and lakes. However, there are still some significant gaps in the establishment of comprehensive reference conditions for all water body types in all water categories in France, which raises doubts about the robustness of the classification of ecological status/potential.

For surface waters and groundwaters, in all 14 RBDs the significance of pressures was linked to failure of objectives. However, for groundwater, the significance of pressures was not defined in terms of thresholds in all 14 French RBDs and the same applies to eight RBDs for surface water. France carried out a comprehensive analysis of the gap that needs to be filled in order to reach the environmental objectives of the Directive. That analysis was done in terms of significant pressures. Some, but not all, pressures are linked to specific sectors and activities. The weakest part of the reported gap analysis concerns hydromorphological pressures, which in the vast majority of cases have not been apportioned between the responsible sectors or activities, unknown or obsolete being reported instead. 13 of the 14 French RBDs have established inventories of emissions (Mayotte has a different timetable). All RBDs except the Scheldt and Sambre have complete inventories, with only one group of substances missing in these two RBDs. The methodology used was reported as “other” and the data quality was uncertain. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status There was a small increase in the number of surveillance monitoring sites and overall, there is good representation in surveillance monitoring of water bodies in the different status/potential classes. However, the number of operational monitoring sites decreased by about 72 % in coastal waters, rivers and transitional waters in the 13 RBDs that reported for both the first and second RBMPs. There is no monitoring programme for lakes in the Guadeloupe and Guyana RBDs, even if lake water bodies have been identified in both RBDs. At least one biological quality element was monitored in almost all water bodies included in operational monitoring. In lakes and rivers in some RBDs, some biological quality elements which had not been monitored for the first RBMPs were now monitored. However, the extent of the monitoring of most biological quality elements in transitional waters has decreased. There are still major gaps in the monitoring and assessment of the hydromorphological quality elements. For example, the number of RBDs in which hydromorphological quality elements were monitored in lakes was reduced from nine to six. For rivers, this went down from 11 to 8 RBDs. For most biological quality elements and River Basin Specific Pollutants, the minimum recommended sampling frequency was not respected. The Directive allows for different frequencies when justified, but no explanation was provided by France for the frequencies adopted. There was a reduction of the number of water bodies in unknown status. Over 99 % of coastal and river water bodies, 98 % of transitional water bodies and 93 % of lake water bodies have now been assigned an ecological status/potential class. All the required biological quality element assessment methods have been developed for rivers, transitional and coastal waters, although reference conditions were not developed for coastal and transitional waters. Assessment methods have not been developed for phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates in lakes. Standards were developed for most required general physicochemical quality elements in rivers, lakes and transitional waters. Standards for nutrient conditions were not developed for coastal waters, even if nitrogen and phosphorus are classified in some water bodies. The classification method for general physicochemical quality elements is, therefore, unclear. Environmental Quality Standards were reported for 10 River Basin Specific Pollutants in water in rivers and lakes, and for one pollutant in water for coastal waters and transitional waters. For biota, an Environmental Quality Standard has been set for one substance, for all four water categories. The standards have been derived in accordance with the Technical Guidance n. 27 and the analytical methods are in line with either Article 4(1) or 4(2) of Directive 2009/90/EC. However, no information was provided on how those River Basin Specific Pollutants were selected. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies Between the two RBMPs there was an increase in the proportion of surface water bodies with good chemical status from 43 % to 63 %. The proportion of surface water bodies with poor chemical status decreased from 23 % to 16 % and the proportion with an unknown chemical status also decreased from 34 % to 21 %. Overall, 52 % of surface water bodies were classified for chemical status with low confidence, 33 % with medium confidence and 15 % with high confidence, reflecting a combination of monitoring, expert judgement and grouping used in the assessment of chemical status. A large proportion (from 63 % to 91 %) of the lake, transitional and coastal water bodies in France was monitored for chemical status; about a quarter of river water bodies were monitored. No territorial waters were monitored nor assessed for chemical status. The operational monitoring programme covered most of the water bodies failing to achieve good status. All 41 Priority Substances were monitored in 12 of the 14 RBDs. In the two remaining RBDs 36 substances were monitored. All discharged substances were monitored (no inventory was reported for Mayotte). The sampling frequencies were in line with the recommended minimum frequency for surveillance monitoring, except for Guyana and Reunion RBDs, where lower frequencies were applied, due e.g to local difficulties related to accessibility, seasonality, analytical capacity and costs. Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were monitored in biota for status assessment in six RBDs. Monitoring was undertaken at what seems to be a small proportion of sites. The reported frequencies met the recommended minimum at the majority of sites.

France has monitored all 14 Priority Substances in sediment and/or biota for trend assessment (except in the Réunion RBD, where sediment monitoring is not possible due to local hydromorphological conditions and trend monitoring is reported in water). The spatial extent could not be determined (as not properly reported to WISE). The reported frequency met the recommended minimum frequency at the majority of sites. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies There was a significant increase of the number of groundwater bodies and of the numbers of monitored groundwater bodies and of monitoring sites. Still, 25 % of groundwater bodies are not monitored and grouping of groundwater bodies for monitoring purposes was not indicated. All groundwater bodies now have a clear quantitative status and the groundwater body area failing good status was significantly reduced. However, it is not clear from the reporting how status was assessed in the absence of monitoring data. According to information subsequently provided by France, the groundwater bodies without monitoring are indirectly assessed by pressure and/or modelling approach. Environmental objectives related to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have not been considered in all river basin districts where such ecosystems exist and cause risk. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies Monitoring decreased from 89 % coverage of surveillance monitoring in the first RBMPs to 84 % of all groundwater bodies. Not all groundwater bodies at risk are object of operational monitoring. Not all substances causing risk are object of surveillance and operational monitoring. The overall status improved significantly, as the number of groundwater bodies failing good status dropped from 235 to 199 (from 31 % to 25 % in terms of total groundwater body area failing good status). There was no consideration of groundwater associated surface waters in threshold value establishment and no consideration in status assessment in the Rhone-Mediterranean river basin district where such ecosystems are related to risk. ·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential No major changes in the methodology for heavily modified water body designation have taken place. General information about the definition of significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use and the wider environment and of better environmental options is found in a national guidance document. The methodology for defining good ecological potential has not changed since the first RBMPs. Good ecological potential is defined using a hybrid approach (combining the Prague and the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance approaches); however, it is not defined in two RBDs with designated HMWB (Guyana and Réunion). Good ecological potential biological values are derived for diatoms (rivers) and phytoplankton (lakes), thus still missing the biological quality elements which are most sensitive to hydromorphological alterations. Mitigation measures are also identified for defining good ecological potential, but no description is provided of the ecological changes expected due to the mitigation measures. ·Environmental objectives and exemptions ·The increased number of exemptions in a number of RBDs is an issue of concern. Progress with the justifications for the application of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions should be continued and uncertainties further reduced. Justifications need to be reviewed and updated in order to ensure that all possible measures are implemented for a timely achievement of the WFD objectives. ·For the application of Article 4(7) France needs to ensure a thorough assessment of proposed new projects in line with the requirements of the WFD and as further specified by the Judgment of the Court in case C-461/13. ·Programme of Measures Significant progress in the completion of measures does not seem to have been made between the two cycles. For the second cycle, finance has been secured for all measures and all relevant sectors.Lack of finance was reported as an obstacle to the implementation of the first Programmes of Measures. New legislation or regulations to implement the Programmes of Measures in the first cycle were reported as necessary and already adopted in all 13 previously reported RBDs. With a few exceptions, most significant pressures seem to be covered by operational KTMs.

38 national basic measures and 204 national supplementary measures have been mapped against predefined KTMs and the basic measure types are indicated for all RBDs. National measures have been mapped against a wide range of KTMs. No KTMs have been reported to tackle River Basin Specific Pollutants or Priority Substances causing water bodies to fail good status. Indicators of gaps have not been reported for 2027. Indicators for the scale and progress of the implementation of measures have not been reported for 2021 or 2027. ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity Water abstraction has not been identified as a significant pressure at the river basin district level. However, several river basin districts have more than 10 % of groundwater bodies in bad quantitative status or more than 20 % of surface water bodies with significant abstraction pressures. Water resource allocation and management planning in relation to abstractions is included in the RBMPs. There is a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control water impoundment and abstractions as well as a register of impoundments and abstractions. Complementary measures are reported for addressing abstraction pressures, and water reuse is foreseen as a measure in most of the river basin districts. ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. No gap assessment in terms of load reduction was done but there is information on the number of water bodies for which a measure is planned in the second cycle. Safeguard zones have been established for abstractions. Implementation of basic measures under Article 11(3)(h), for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at source, is ensured in all RBDs with differentiated rules for different parts of the RBDs. Supplementary measures are applied in all RBDs. General binding rules for nitrates, pesticides, phosphorus and sediments to control diffuse pollution from agriculture are set and applied in all RBDs. No information is available in the RBMPs on the use of mandatory versus voluntary measures. Progress is anticipated in relation to pesticides. However, no specific link is made to the Directive on Sustainable Use of Pesticides. Financing of agricultural measures is secured in all RBDs. ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture Many KTMs have been reported to tackle a wide range of non agricultural pressures causing pollution, including for example pollution from urban and industrial waste water treatment plants, or pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure. Two national plans are in place to better know and better control pollution, one plan dealing with micropollutants in general, and one more specifically on plant protection products. France chose to report KTMs as linked to pressures and not specifically to substances, so it is not possible to know whether measures are in place to tackle pollution from all substances causing failure and to suppress emissions from all priority hazardous substances. Efforts are being made to tackle pollution from nutrients at basin wide level, however it could not be determined whether the expected progress will be sufficient to reach the WFD objectives. ·Measures related to hydromorphology

Operational KTMs to address the significant hydromorphological pressures are reported for 11 out of the 14 RBDs where such pressures are identified. However, significant hydromorphological pressures have not been clearly related in the WISE reporting to specific sectors and drivers. Operational KTMs for hydromorphological pressures are missing for three RBDs (Réunion, Guyana and Martinique.) For the KTMs, indicator values are only reported for 2015, but not for 2021 and 2027. Therefore, no conclusions can be reached on the number of measures that will still be needed after 2021 for hydromorphological pressures. Although hydromorphological measures to restore ecological continuity in the Rhine have been agreed in the framework of the International Convention for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR), these measures have not yet been implemented in France. In four RBDs (Rhone-Mediterranean, Corsica, Adour-Garonne and Martinique) ecological flows have been derived for all relevant water bodies. In two of these RBDs (Adour-Garonne, Martinique) the derived ecological flows have been implemented in all relevant water bodies, while in the other two there has been partial implementation and the work is still ongoing. In the remaining 10 RBDs, ecological flows have been partially derived and work is still ongoing. Specific measures to achieve ecological flows are planned in some but not all RBDs. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies Cost recovery calculations vary widely, as do the values reported. The RBMPs do not describe how ‘adequate incentives’ are provided. The definition of water services varies across the French RBDs, including in the language used to describe them. ·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) For Protected Areas related to Shellfish and for Drinking Water Protected Areas additional objectives have been set for both surface and groundwaters. However, France reported that, for the majority of Protected Areas designated under the Birds and Habitats Directives, no specific water objectives have been set to protect dependent habitats or species because the additional needs are not known. Progress with establishing the need for additional objectives is, so far, limited. The specific monitoring activity in relation to Protected Areas was significantly higher in the first cycle than in the second. The reported monitoring programmes for Protected Areas in France seem to be insufficient both in coverage and in number of monitoring sites. ·Adaptation to drought and climate change Climate change was considered in various ways in all RBDs and it is stated that the Common Implementation Strategy guidance document on adaptation to climate change was used. No drought management plans have been reported for France, and there is not always a clear distinction between droughts and water scarcity. Recommendations ·France should ensure transparency on how coordination within the international river basin districts is taking place and include clear information in national RBMPs on international coordination efforts. ·France should continue to improve international cooperation, including coordinated assessments of the technical aspects of the WFD such as ensuring a harmonized approach for status assessment and a coordinated Programme of Measures in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. ·France has made important progress on the significance of pressures and its quantification, but further work is needed in the identification of all pressures, in particular hydromorphological, which also need to be apportioned among different sectors. ·Reference conditions are still incomplete for all required Quality Elements, in particular for hydromorphological and biological Quality Elements. This work therefore needs to be completed.

·France should further strengthen monitoring of surface waters by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories. In particular, hydromorphological quality elements should be monitored at a sufficient number of sites for a reliable assessment of status/potential. Operational monitoring needs to include all water bodies which are subject to significant pressures. The monitoring frequency should be in line with the minimum recommended frequency, especially for surveillance monitoring, unless adequately justified. ·France should have a clear and transparent method for the selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants. ·France should complete the development of assessment methods for all biological quality elements in all categories of water bodies, and develop reference conditions for transitional and coastal waters. River Basin Specific Pollutants should be included in the assessment of transitional waters, and to a larger extent in coastal waters. ·France should continue to progress in the assessment of hydromorphological and general physicochemical quality elements. France should develop standards for nutrient conditions for coastal waters and clarify the classification methods used. The assessment of hydromorphological quality elements should be linked to sensitive biological quality elements, and should cover all categories of water bodies. ·The number of unknowns in chemical status should be further reduced and confidence in the assessment further improved. Monitoring should be performed in the relevant matrix in a way that ensures sufficient spatial coverage and temporal resolution to reach sufficient confidence in the assessment for all water bodies, if necessary in combination with robust grouping/extrapolation methods. If a different matrix or reduced frequencies are used, the corresponding explanations should be provided, as required by the Directives. ·For trend monitoring, where sediment monitoring is not possible, monitoring in biota should be considered. ·France should improve harmonisation of groundwater status assessments among RBDs, including the consideration of natural background levels. Continued improvement is needed concerning groundwater monitoring (especially operational) and grouping methodologies need to be clarified. France should also ensure appropriate assessment and classification, taking into account the links to aquatic and terrestrial dependent ecosystems. ·Good ecological potential needs to be defined also for the remaining RBDs where heavily modified or artificial water bodies are designated. ·The increased number of exemptions in a number of RBDs is an issue of concern. Progress with the justifications for the application of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions should be continued and uncertainties further reduced. Justifications need to be reviewed and updated in order to ensure that all possible measures are implemented for a timely achievement of the WFD objectives. ·For the application of Article 4(7) France needs to ensure a thorough assessment of proposed new projects in line with the requirements of the WFD and as further specified by the Judgment of the Court in case C-461/13. ·France should ensure that funding for all measures and relevant sectors will be secured. ·KTMs should cover all the significant pressures and be operational. In addition, KTMs should be reported to tackle River Basin Specific Pollutants or Priority Substances, to clearly show whether the measures are sufficient to reach the objectives of the WFD (the objective of reaching good status, but also the objective to suppress emissions for priority hazardous substances). ·Water scarcity and over-abstraction should continue to be addressed in those river basin districts where they translate into significant pressures and cause poor quantitative status. ·France should complete a comprehensive gap assessment for diffuse pollutant loads from agriculture (nutrients, agri-chemicals, sediment, organic matter) across all waters (including coastal waters) in all RBDs, and link it directly to mitigation measures in the third RBMPs (as per WFD Article 11(3)(h)), to facilitate the achievement of WFD objectives. ·In the third RBMPs, France should state clearly to what extent, in terms of area covered and pollution risk mitigated, basic measures (minimum requirements to be complied with) or supplementary measures (designed to be implemented in addition to basic measures) will contribute to achieving the WFD objectives. The contribution of the measures on an RBD-wide basis in all RBDs should be considered and sources of funding identified (e.g. CAP Pillar 1, RDP), as appropriate, to facilitate successful implementation of these measures. ·In the third RBMPs France should make the links between the WFD and supporting programmes (ND, SUD, Echophyta) more explicit and ensure that an expert and effective advisory service is available to farmers to aid successful implementation of measures. RDP funds need to be made available to support the successful implementation of the RBMPs’ agricultural measures. ·France should continue their efforts to tackle nutrient pollution, and clearly assess and report the expected effect of the measures on status. ·France should continue its efforts to implement and report hydromorphological measures for all water bodies affected by hydromorphological pressures, and for all RBDs, also to meet international commitments to remove obstacles to river continuity. ·France should apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies or justify any exemptions using Article 9(4). France should transparently present how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. It should transparently present the water-pricing policy and provide a transparent overview of estimated investments and investment needs. ·France should consider developing drought management plans for areas more at risk of drought, particularly in light of the fact that abstraction is identified as a significant pressure for both surface water and groundwater bodies in the country.





Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.1.1 Administrative arrangements – RBDs France has reported 14 RBDs. Of these, eight are located in “metropolitan” France, one in Corsica and the remaining five in France’s overseas territories outside of Europe. In the first cycle, France reported one fewer RBD (a total of 13): in the second cycle, the island of Mayotte, previously included with La Réunion, was designated a separate RBD. France reports that four of its mainland RBDs are part of international RBD: Scheldt (part of this RBD is in the international Escaut/Scheldt RBD); Meuse (part of the Meuse international RBD); Sambre (also part of the Meuse international RBD); and Rhine (part of the Rhine international RBD). France did not report that the Rhone-Mediterranean RBD is part of an international RBD: however, the Rhone itself arises in Switzerland, a non-European Union country, and its basin includes Lake Geneva (Lac Leman) and other water bodies in Switzerland. In addition, a small catchment (the Roya or Roia River) is shared with Italy and a small share of the Segré River basin (96 % of which is in Spain) lies in this RBD. France did also not report that Seine-Normandy RBD is part of an international RBD: a small portion of this RBD is located in Belgium, which has reported it as an international RBD. Finally, France did not report that Guyana, located in South America, is part of international RBD(s). 1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities France lists three sets of competent authorities. These include 12 Comités de bassin (Basin Committees) for the 14 RBDs (the Rhine-Meuse Committee covers the Meuse, Sambre and Rhine RBDs): these Committees are responsible for the preparation of the RBMPs. Corresponding to each of these 12 Basin Committees there is a Préfet coordonnateur de bassin (Basin Coordinating Prefect), responsible for the assessment of groundwater and surface water, co-ordination of implementation, economic analysis, enforcement of regulations, implementation of measures, monitoring of groundwater and surface water, preparation of the Programme of Measures, pressure and impact analysis, public participation and reporting to the European Commission. There are two exceptions: instead of a Prefect, the corresponding Competent Authority in Corsica RBD is the Président du conseil executif de Corse (President of the Executive Council of Corsica), and in Mayotte RBD, it is the Representative of the State. Finally, the Ministry of Ecology, Energy and the Sea is listed as a Competent Authority responsible for reporting to the European Commission (under the current government, this Ministry has been renamed Ecological Transition and Solidarity). 1.1.3 RBMPs – structure (sub-plans, Strategic Environmental Assessment) France did not report the use of sub-plans for any of its RBDs. All of France’s RBMPs underwent a Strategic Environmental Assessment procedure. 1.1.4 Public consultation Documents were available for the requisite six months for all of France's 14 RBDs. In all the RBDs, documents were available for download. Paper copies were in general available in municipal buildings. Six RBDs carried out a direct mailing via email, and seven a direct mailing via the post. In five RBDs, documents were distributed at exhibitions. France reported that stakeholders in all RBDs were actively involved via advisory groups (presumably the River Basin Councils, which bring together public bodies and stakeholder groups). Stakeholders were involved in drafting in all but one RBD (Guyana). Five RBDs used regular exhibitions for active involvement, and two RBDs - Meuse and Rhine - established geographical commissions, with information meetings at local authorities and inter-municipal structures as well as dedicated Internet spaces. The stakeholders that were actively involved, according to the information available in WISE, were: agriculture/farmers; local/regional authorities, in all RBDs but Adour-Garonne; NGOs/Nature protection in all but Adour-Garonne; water supply and sanitation; consumer groups in all RBDs but Adour-Garonne, Corse and Mayotte; energy/hydropower in all but Guadeloupe, Martinique and Mayotte; fisheries/aquaculture in all RBDs but Adour-Garonne, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guyana and Mayotte; industry in all RBDs but Adour-Garonne, Martinique, Mayotte; navigation/ports in all but Guadeloupe, Martinique and Mayotte. (France informed, however, that the consultation in the Adour-Garonne RBD included local/regional authorities, NGOs/nature protection, consumer groups, fisheries/aquaculture and industry.)

Tourism stakeholders are indicated in three RBDs: Scheldt, Sambre and Rhone-Mediterranean. In the Meuse and Rhine RBDs, other stakeholder groups involved include local water commissions (CLE of the SAGEs) and other public concertation bodies (SCOTs) as well as parties involved in the Floods Directive . In the Rhone-Mediterranean and Corsica RBDs, amateur fishing associations were involved. The impact of public consultation was: the addition of new information in 11 of the 14 RBDs; adjustment to specific measures in 10 RBDs; commitment to further research in six RBDs; commitment to action in the next RBMP cycle in five RBDs; changes to selections of measures in five RBDs; greater coordination of public policies and finance for measures in two RBDs; and changes to methodology in one RBD (out of France's 14 RBDs, only one, Guyana, reported no changes following public consultation). France subsequently informed that as part of the RBMP and PoM consultations in the Meuse and Rhine RBDs, the Basin Coordinator Prefect and the President of the Rhine-Meuse Basin Committee requested the opinion of the Presidents of the Regional Chambers of Agriculture for Alsace, Champagne-Ardenne and Lorraine and the Presidents of Departmental Chambers of Agriculture. These bodies are also represented on the Basin Committee and participated in its working groups, which defined the fundamental orientations and provisions of the RBMPs. Drinking water and waste water treatment enterprises were widely consulted. The Basin Coordinating Prefect and the Basin Committee chairman moreover sought the opinion of the municipalities, which have authority for drinking water and waste water treatment (mayors of 3,240 municipalities) and as well as the Presidents of inter-municipal structures (the Établissements public de coopération intercommunale, EPCIs, of the Rhine and Meuse). In addition, local government bodies are represented on the Basin Committee (with 40 representatives, 40 % of the total) that approves the RBMPs. France subsequently clarified that in the Loire-Brittany RBD, local water commissions (commissions locales de l’eau), which prepare lower-level water management plans, are closely associated with the work to prepare the RBMP, on the one hand, by being officially consulted in the same way as other bodies and on the other hand, through their own networks. In the Adour-Garonne RBD, 1,200 organisations were consulted, and 291 gave an opinion on the RBMP and POM, including: Chambers of Agriculture and of Commerce and Industry, Regional Councils and socio-economic councils, local water commissions, inter-municipal organisations and others. 1.1.5 Integration with other European Union legislation: Floods Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive All of France's RBDs organised joint consultation for their RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans. For all of France's RBMPs, there was joint consultation with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive . Further information on coordination in relation to measures is provided in section 9.1.1 of this report. 1.1.6 International coordination and co-operation France reports that four of its RBDs are part of international RBDs - Scheldt (part of this RBD is in the international Escaut/Scheldt RBD), Meuse, Sambre (also part of the Meuse international RBD) and Rhine. For all four, France reports that international cooperation is taking place in the frame of international agreements, permanent co‐operation bodies and that RBMPs and Programme of Measures were prepared at international level (designated as category 1 cooperation). In addition, explicit links were made with national RBDs within the international RBMP (for further information see the reports on international coordination on the Water Framework Directive). As noted above, France did not report on the international dimension, nor on international coordination, for the Rhone-Mediterranean, Seine-Normandy or Guyana RBDs. For the Rhone-Mediterranean, in 1963 France and Switzerland signed an agreement to protect Lake Geneva, which is part of the Rhône International River Basin District: cooperation is undertaken via the joint Commission created under the agreement (CIPEL, Commission internationale pour la protection des eaux du Léman). France and Switzerland have also signed administrative agreements for several small, shared sub-catchments in the RBD and have discussed a framework for integrated water management in the RBD as a whole. In addition, France and Italy have signed a protocol to establish stronger coordination on their shared sub-catchment of this international RBD (for further information see the reports on international coordination on the Water Framework Directive). Regarding Seine-Normandy, where a small share of the RBD lies in Belgium, France informed that there are exchanges with Belgium. 1.1Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle There was one main change: in 2011, Mayotte became a "Département et Région d'Outre-Mer". Consequently, in the second cycle it is included as a new RBD, named Les cours d’eau de Mayotte. 1.2Progress with Commission recommendationss There were no recommendations for this topic.



Topic 2Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle

2.1.1 Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies 14 RBDs reported data on the delineation of water bodies in the second RBMPs. There are only data for 13 RBDs in the first cycle because the Mayotte RBD had not been designated as a separate RBD (previously included with La Réunion). Excluding Mayotte, there was a small increase in the numbers of coastal water bodies (4) in the second RBMPs compared to the first ones, relatively small decreases in numbers of lake (-17) and river water bodies (-132) and larger decreases in numbers of transitional water bodies (-10) ( Table 2.1 ). The Rhone-Mediterranean RBMP explained that other changes included the modification of the water body route and the modification of attributes such as the name. Excluding Mayotte, in the second RBMPs 7 % of surface water bodies were designated as heavily modified and 2 % as artificial ( Figure 2.1 ). The largest proportion of heavily modified water bodies was for lakes (70 %) and the smallest for rivers (4 %). The proportion of heavily modified water bodies in the same 13 RBDs (excluding Mayotte) was the same as in the first cycle for coastal water bodies, with small increases in lakes (69 % in the first cycle, 70 % in the second), in rivers (3.3 % in the first cycle to 4.4 % in the second) and transitional waters (25 % in the first cycle, 28 % in the second). At the RBD level, there was an increase in the numbers of heavily modified river water bodies in 6 of the 11 RBDs with designated heavily modified river water bodies and no change in the other five. In each of the six RBDs there was also a decrease in numbers of natural river water bodies and it is implied that some natural river water bodies in the first cycle were designated as heavily modified water bodies in the second cycle. The largest increase in heavily modified water bodies was in Rhone-Mediterranean RBD, rising from 136 in the first cycle to 176 in the second. The RBMP for Rhone-Mediterranean only compared the status assessment of the two cycles, for those water bodies that remained the same . Table 2.2 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in France between the second and first cycles. There were no significant changes overall in the minimum sizes of each water body category. The minimum size criteria reported were 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and 0.5 km2 surface area for lakes. However two RBDs were different: Guyana has minimum size criteria of 20 km2 catchment area for rivers and Loire-Brittany had a minimum size criteria 10 km2 surface area for lakes. Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in France designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first cycles. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category Source: WISE electronic reports. Table 2.1 Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in France for the second and first cycles Year RBD Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total length of water body (km) Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies 2016 FRA 4 3 55 2 425 4 64 5 503 2016 FRB1 4 4 141 2 948 2016 FRB2 1 2 11 357 2016 FRC 25 57 473 10 187 2016 FRD 94 837 2 633 40 010 27 754 32 2 519 2016 FRE 6 4 210 2 865 4 28 14 2 100 2016 FRF 107 329 2 681 38 887 11 829 10 1 145 2016 FRG 141 224 1 893 97 853 30 467 39 11 876 2016 FRH 47 150 1 651 25 817 8 285 19 1 911 2016 FRI 1 0 47 364 11 3 080 2016 FRJ 1 1 20 249 1 1 19 976 2016 FRK 1 361 841 20 130 9 528 1 1 961 2016 FRL 3 1 24 617 12 395 2016 FRM 26 604 17 1 399 2016 Total 435 1 971 10 706 243 312 94 2 956 179 27 864 2010 FRA 4 3 55 2 431 4 60 5 503 2010 FRB1 4 4 141 2 999 2010 FRB2 1 2 11 362 2010 FRC 25 57 473 10 204 2010 FRD 103 843 2 610 39 996 27 755 32 2 523 2010 FRE 6 4 210 2 880 4 28 14 2 109 2010 FRF 105 330 2 680 38 906 12 576 11 1 537 2010 FRG 141 225 1 940 98 047 30 513 39 11 887 2010 FRH 45 146 1 679 25 840 7 271 19 1 937 2010 FRI 47 365 11 3 090 2010 FRJ 1 20 244 4 14 19 967 2010 FRK 1 350 934 18 810 8 622 1 1 943 2010 FRL 3 1 24 600 13 156 2010 Total 439 1 963 10 824 241 684 96 2 840 164 26 652 Source: WISE electronic reports. Table 2.2 Size distribution of surface water bodies in France in the second and first cycles Year RBD Lake area (km2) River length (km) Coastal (km2) Transitional (km2) Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average 2016 FRA 0.52 0.8 0.67 8.12 224.13 44.09 25.1 233.3 100.64 1.08 40.03 15.97 2016 FRB1 0.62 1.34 0.92 1.93 180.78 20.91 2016 FRB2 1.54 1.54 1.54 8.51 92.87 32.46 2016 FRC 0.52 10.97 2.28 1.33 213 21.54 2016 FRD 0.09 578.22 8.9 1.06 187.88 15.2 1.76 354.43 78.72 0.12 188.34 27.94 2016 FRE 0.38 1.16 0.65 2.04 74.23 13.64 0.28 724.49 150 1.08 13.75 6.95 2016 FRF 0.34 57.65 3.08 1.29 194.19 14.5 1.08 216.72 114.54 1.7 611.1 75.38 2016 FRG 0.04 54.26 1.59 3.29 508.05 51.69 38.37 1,321.74 304.51 0.61 185.11 15.57 2016 FRH 0.43 45.91 3.2 0.4 161.13 15.64 15.93 330.85 100.56 0.57 145.18 35.58 2016 FRI 0.35 0.35 0.35 1.72 17.67 7.74 35.84 937.22 279.96 2016 FRJ 0.81 0.81 0.81 5.43 23.89 12.45 6.37 191.35 51.38 1.2 1.2 1.2 2016 FRK 361.49 361.49 361.49 0.85 227.39 23.94 1,960.60 1,960.60 1,960.60 7.4 199.71 58.65 2016 FRL 0.15 0.4 0.25 6.3 57.71 25.7 0.73 69.33 32.89 2016 FRM 6.85 67.79 23.21 1.41 303.18 82.3 2010 FRA 0.52 0.8 0.67 8.13 224.87 44.2 25.1 233.3 100.64 1.08 40.03 14.97 2010 FRB1 0.63 1.34 0.92 1.93 180.75 21.27 2010 FRB2 1.54 1.54 1.54 8.53 93.03 32.91 2010 FRC 0.52 10.97 2.28 1.33 213.05 21.57 2010 FRD 0.09 578.12 8.19 1.06 187.98 15.32 1.76 355.05 78.83 0.12 188.53 27.97 2010 FRE 0.38 1.17 0.66 1.14 74.41 13.71 0.29 727.6 150.62 1.09 13.79 6.98 2010 FRF 0.34 57.52 3.14 1.29 195.75 14.52 1.08 420.84 139.77 1.7 283.34 48.04 2010 FRG 0.04 54.19 1.6 3.29 507.81 50.54 38.34 1,320.31 304.81 0.7 227.39 17.11 2010 FRH 0.43 45.88 3.25 0.4 161.03 15.39 15.96 355.88 101.97 0.57 157.64 38.68 2010 FRI 2 17 7.77 35 940 280.91 2010 FRJ 5.64 23.16 12.21 6.37 191.99 50.9 0.02 9.33 3.48 2010 FRK 350 350 350 2 191 20.14 1,943.00 1,943.00 1,943.00 2.34 372.09 77.78 2010 FRL 0.03 0.4 0.17 5.12 51.32 25.01 0.41 33.58 11.97 Source: WISE electronic reports. Overall there was an increase of 10 % in the number of groundwater bodies, from 574 in the first RBMPs to 631 in the second (Table 2.3). In the RBMPs it is explained that due to better characterization of groundwater bodies a refined delineation of groundwater bodies was carried out. In the Guyane RBD groundwater bodies have been combined together so there are fewer . In the Réunion RBMP it is explained that a new national reference system for assessing groundwater bodies had been developed which incorporates recent hydrogeological knowledge from the studies "altitude aquifers", "signal processing", "GSAM" (Galerie Salazie Amont), which allowed for the review the delineation of the groundwater bodies in the first RBMP. 11 homogeneous aquifer systems were identified, within which a coastal area was distinguished. The second RBMP takes into account this new delimitation with now 27 bodies of water (16 water bodies 2010-2015). In the Rhone-Mediterranean RBMP it was reported that deep water bodies were removed and based on improvements of knowledge and the revision of the hydrogeological entities some groundwater bodies were split. No transboundary surface water or groundwater bodies were reported by France. Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by France on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles. The water body category with the most changes was river water bodies (n=790) with water bodies created, split, aggregated and deleted. Groundwater bodies were also changed, with the most significant number of changes related to splitting of water bodies. Table 2.3 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in France for the second and first cycles Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 FRA 16 475.68 3,067.38 1,304.99 2016 FRB1 11 183.23 2,627.48 1,060.40 2016 FRB2 2 671.26 882.25 776.76 2016 FRC 15 208.12 8,424.66 2,280.08 2016 FRD 238 12.15 5,912.07 642.91 2016 FRE 15 8.61 3,199.76 591.86 2016 FRF 105 1.86 40,031.94 3,634.93 2016 FRG 143 6.52 38,610.89 2,414.02 2016 FRH 53 110.57 60,943.01 3,491.08 2016 FRI 6 20.21 678.27 279.54 2016 FRJ 6 114.64 279.16 180.53 2016 FRK 2 3,555.61 83,797.15 43,676.38 2016 FRL 27 6.07 389.83 92.72 2016 FRM 6 1.4 141.79 61.33 2016 Total 645 2010 FRA 16 475.68 3,067.38 1,306.67 2010 FRB1 11 183 2,633.00 1,062.00 2010 FRB2 2 671.26 873.45 772.36 2010 FRC 15 208 8,432.00 2,282.13 2010 FRD 180 17 8,021.00 786.27 2010 FRE 9 33 6,152.00 1,000.11 2010 FRF 105 2 40,096.00 3,641.24 2010 FRG 143 7 15,113.00 1,489.14 2010 FRH 53 111 61,021.00 3,497.00 2010 FRI 6 20 678 294.67 2010 FRJ 6 114 279 180.33 2010 FRK 12 19 19,726.00 7,308.50 2010 FRL 16 70 302 176.56 2010 Total 574

Source: WISE electronic reports.

Table 2.4 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in France between the second and first cycles Type of water body change for second cycle (wiseEvolutionType) Ground-water Body Lake Water Body River Water Body Transitional Water Body Coastal Water Body change 283 6 790 11 11 Aggregation 2 27 1 Aggregation and splitting 7 35 3 Splitting 102 148 2 2 Creation 35 5 299 1 17 Deletion 19 9 424 2 ExtendedArea 4 ReducedArea 1 9 2 Change in code 2 38 1 No change 213 424 9360 79 139 Total water bodies before deletion 682 444 11130 97 179 Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 663 435 10706 95 179 Source: WISE electronic reports. 2.1.2Typology of surface water bodies Other than for five coastal water types shared between Guadeloupe and Martinique RBDs, all types reported for the overseas RBDs were unique to the specific RBD. All types reported for the overseas RBDs had no corresponding intercalibration types. Note that ecological status/potential has been reported for surface water bodies in the overseas RBDs. A number of types are shared by more than one European French RBD: 38 % of coastal water types, 62 % of lake water types, 52 % of river water types and 46 % of transitional waters are shared by more than one RBD. For example, coastal type C1 is common to four RBDs and lake type A6b to six RBDs. Table 2.5 shows the number of surface water body types at RBD level in France for the first and second cycles. In general there was an increase in number of types from the first cycle to the second, which was largely due to the types from Mayotte RBD being reported separately in the second RBMP. 35 of the 48 coastal types, 33 of the 34 lake types, 139 of 145 river types and 15 of the 16 transitional water types reported in the second cycle were common to the first cycle. For the Réunion RBD, the typology was based on geology, hydrology and geomorphology and there is no evidence that it has been made biologically relevant. Other RBMPs refer to the national methodology for defining types. Overall, 32 % of surface water bodies do not have a corresponding intercalibration type reported. Considering only the nine French European RBDs, there are 23 % of surface water bodies without a corresponding intercalibration type. The RBMPs did not provide information on whether the typology was coordinated with other Member States, but it was reported that the types were coordinated at a national level. It is unclear how the results of intercalibration have been translated to all national types. Table 2.5 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in France for the first and second cycles RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 FRA 9 9 3 3 2 2 3 3 FRB1 9 9 3 3 0 0 0 0 FRB2 12 5 4 1 2 0 3 0 FRC 18 18 8 7 0 0 0 0 FRD 143 61 31 19 3 3 7 7 FRE 143 5 31 2 1 1 4 4 FRF 143 48 31 12 5 5 7 7 FRG 143 40 31 14 12 5 26 12 FRH 143 27 31 6 2 4 7 7 FRI 4 3 0 1 0 0 6 6 FRJ 3 3 1 1 1 1 7 7 FRK 8 8 1 1 3 2 1 1 FRL 6 6 2 2 0 0 6 5 FRM 3 0 0 8 TOTAL 145 34 16 48 Source: WISE electronic reports. Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs. 2.1.3 Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in France with reference conditions established for the first and second cycles. There are significant gaps and shortcomings in the establishment of comprehensive reference conditions for all water body types in all water categories in France, which brings into doubt the robustness of the subsequent classification of ecological status/potential. For the types in the European RBDs, reference conditions have been established for some physicochemical quality elements for all coastal types but not for any biological or hydromorphological quality elements. In lakes, reference conditions have been established for some biological quality elements for all types but not for any type in terms of hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. In transitional waters, the only reference conditions established are for 12 of the 13 types for the physicochemical quality elements and not for any types for the biological and hydromorphological quality elements. Reference conditions have not been established for any hydromorphological or physicochemical quality elements for any river body type. The situation in terms of biological reference conditions for river types is better to some extent, in that they have been established for 103 out of the 122 types for some but not all biological quality elements. The other 19 river types do not have reference conditions for any biological quality element. Reference conditions have only been established for five coastal water types for some biological and some physicochemical quality elements in the French overseas RBDs. Limited reference conditions were also reported for lakes and river types in those RBDs: two of the five lake types only for some biological quality elements and six of the 23 river types only for some biological quality elements. Reference conditions have not been established for any transitional type for any quality element. There is no information on coordination of reference conditions at the European Union scale in the RBMPs. In the Réunion RBMP it was indicated that there was lack of knowledge for reference conditions for some biological elements, because it was the first time they had been set. It is indicated that knowledge will be improved, and that this may have an effect on the definition of reference conditions and hence biological assessment in the future. Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types in France with reference conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of types in each category Water category Water types Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Physicochemical quality elements Lakes (34) All Some 91 % None 9 % 100 % 100 % Rivers (145) All Some 75 % None 25 % 100 % 100 % Transitional (16) All Some 75 % None 100 % 100 % 25 % Coastal (48) All Some 10 % 65 % None 90 % 100 % 35 %

Source: WISE electronic reports. 2.1.4Characteristics of groundwater bodies 13 of the 14 RBDs (all except Mayotte) reported data on the geological formation of their aquifer types and whether or not the groundwaters are layered. The same 13 RBDs reported whether groundwater bodies are associated with one or more surface water bodies and whether a terrestrial ecosystem is directly dependent on the groundwater body. 2.1.5Significant pressures on water bodies Overall the most significant pressures on surface water bodies in France in the second RBMPs were diffuse agricultural and “Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Unknown or obsolete” (i.e. physical alterations to the water body from an unknown source) ( Figure 2.2 ). Diffuse agricultural pressures were the most significant on surface water in France in the second cycle: 36 % of coastal waters, 26 % of lakes, 30 % of rivers and 60 % of transitional water bodies, were reported to be affected. Pressures arising from Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Unknown or obsolete were also reported to be significant in rivers (33 % of river water bodies) and transitional water bodies (37 %). Point source pressures from urban waste water were significant in 27 % of coastal water bodies and 49 % of transitional water bodies. Diffuse agricultural pressures were reported in 13 of the 14 RBDs with rivers. Abstraction or flow diversion for public water supply and pressures from dams, barriers and locks (unknown or obsolete) were both significant in 12 RBDs. 8 of the 11 RBDs with coastal waters reported significant point source pressures from urban waste waters, and seven RBDs reported significant pressures from physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Unknown or obsolete and diffuse agriculture. 11 of the 13 RBDs with lakes reported significant diffuse agricultural pressures and five physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Unknown or obsolete and point source pressures from urban waste water. Diffuse agricultural pressures were again significant in the most RBDs with transitional waters (six out of eight RBDs) with physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Unknown or obsolete pressures and point source pressures from urban waste water significant in five RBDs. In the first RBMPs, the most significant pressures in France (based on 13 RBDs, excluding Mayotte) were from diffuse sources (38 % of surface water bodies) followed by point source pressures (30 % of surface water bodies) and river management pressures (Figure 2.3). It is not possible to make a direct comparison between the two cycles because of changes in pressure definitions between the two cycles and because of changes in water body delineation. In addition, different RBDs reported either aggregated pressures or disaggregated pressures in the first RBMPs: the comparison would have to be based on aggregated data. In the second RBMPs, 39 % of surface water bodies in France were subject to significant diffuse pressures compared to 38 % in the first ones. There has been little change between the two cycles in these significant pressures on surface water bodies between the two cycles. In the Rhone-Mediterranean RBMP, it was explained that better data and better ways of identifying/defining pressures led to a better detailed view on water bodies at risk. In that way, at an RBD level it may seem as if there are more pressures exerting a negative impact on water bodies, but in the RBMP it is concluded that this is not the case. The higher detail serves towards a better understanding of relevant pressures and a better management for tackling these. In the Réunion RBMP, it is indicated that, due to changes in socio-economics (such as increase in population, increase in intensity of agriculture and food industry) and the implementation of large sanitation works, expected pressures change accordingly and there may be more of an issue in relation to water quantity and water quality as a consequence. The most significant pressures on groundwater bodies in France in the first RBMPs were diffuse sources (66 %), water abstraction (72 %) and point source pressures (7.1 %). Similarly to surface water, it is not possible to make a direct comparison between the first and second cycle. In the second cycle the significant pressure affecting the largest proportion of groundwater bodies in France was diffuse agriculture (54 %), followed by abstraction or flow diversion - Public water supply (38 % of groundwater bodies) and abstraction or flow diversion - agriculture (11 % groundwater bodies) ( Figure 2.2 ). 11 of the 14 French RBDs reported diffuse agriculture as a significant pressure, followed by abstraction or flow diversion - Public water supply (10 RBDs) and abstraction or flow diversion - Industry (seven RBDs). Figure 2.2 The 10 most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in France for the second cycle Source: WISE electronic reports. Figure 2.3 Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in France in the first and second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note that there were 11414 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 11523 for the first cycle. Source: WISE electronic reports 2.1.6Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater The Mayotte RBD only used expert judgement to assess the significance of pressures on surface water bodies. Numerical tools were used to assess the significance of point source pressures in four RBDs, expert judgement in two and a combination of both in the other eight RBDs. Numerical tools were used in fewer RBDs (two) to assess diffuse source pressures, expert judgment in one and a combination of both in the other 11. A combination of numerical tools and expert judgement was used in most RBDs (11) to assess water flow pressures with expert judgment being used in the other two RBDs that assessed this pressure. Numerical tools were used by most RBDs (8), expert judgement in one and a combination of both in the other five RBDs to assess water abstraction pressures on surface water bodies. It was largely unclear what tools had been used to assess significant pressures for the first RBMPs.

The tools used for the assessment of point source, diffuse source and water abstraction pressures on groundwater varied among the French RBDs in the second RBMPs with cases of numerical tools, expert judgment and a combination of both being reported. Artificial recharge pressures were assessed either by expert judgment or a combination of expert judgment and numerical tools in the seven RBDs that assessed this pressure. It was largely unclear what tools had been used to assess significant pressures for the first RBMPs. For surface waters, significance has been defined in terms of thresholds in six of the 14 French RBDs whereas in all 14 RBDs significance was linked to failure of objectives. For groundwater, significance was not defined in terms of thresholds in any of the 14 French RBDs whereas in all 14 RBDs significance was linked to failure of objectives. For example in the Rhone-Mediterranean RBMP, there is a graph that displays the percentages for which certain parameters have caused failure of reaching good ecological status in 2015. These parameters include (1) morphology and/or continuity, (2) hydrology, (3) dangerous substances, (4) pesticides, (5) diffuse pollution except for pesticides and nitrogen and phosphorus, (6) organic material and oxidisables, (7) other and (8) pressure unknown. Morphology (>70 % of the water bodies) and pesticides (>40 %) were the main pressures. There are maps included, such as in the Scheldt RBMP, which show an increase in nitrate concentrations per area, which may be linked to not reaching good status objectives for groundwater. In the Réunion RBMP, there was no indication of how pressures have been identified for the second cycle, but that the first cycle was reported rather late, so no new methodology has been identified. However, the combination of status assessment and the identification of pressures led to the determination of water bodies that were at risk, not at risk, or uncertain of reaching good status by 2021. 2.1.7 Significant impacts on water bodies For France as a whole (14 RBDs), the largest impact on surface water bodies in the second RBMPs was from altered habitats due to morphological changes (40 % of surface water bodies), chemical pollution (37 %), nutrient pollution (33 %), organic pollution (28 %) and altered habitats due to hydrological changes (25 %) ( Figure 2.4 ). In the first RBMPs, information on impacts was only reported for 11 RBDs. The most significant impact was altered habitats (36 % of surface water bodies), nutrient enrichment (26 %) and organic enrichment (21 %). The data for the two cycles are not comparable because of the difference in the RBDs reported and also in terms of differences in the definition of the impact types between the two cycles. The largest impact on groundwater bodies in the second RBMPs was from chemical pollution (28 % of groundwater bodies) and nutrient pollution (24 %) ( Figure 2.4 ). Figure 2.4 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in France for the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies Source: WISE electronic reports 2.1.8Quantification and apportionment of pressures France has reported information on the gaps to be filled to achieve objectives in groundwater for 13 of its RBDs. Gaps are reported for the different sectors responsible for diffuse, point and abstraction pressures in particular. For example, gaps to be filled in terms of diffuse agricultural pressures are reported for 11 RBDs. For surface waters, France has reported information on the gaps to be filled to achieve objectives for all 14 of its RBDs. Gaps are reported for the different sectors responsible for diffuse, point and abstraction pressures in particular. For example, gaps to be filled in terms of diffuse agricultural pressures are reported for 13 RBDs, in terms of point - Urban waste water pressures for 14 RBDs and point – Industrial Emissions Directive plants pressures for 12 RBDs. However, there has been no apportionment of pressures/impacts for some hydromorphological pressures such as for "Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore" where "Unknown or obsolete" is reported and for "Dams, barriers and locks" where "Unknown or obsolete" are reported. In the Réunion RBMP source apportionment of pressures on surface water from sectors contributing nitrate, phosphorus and organic loads to surface waters has been undertaken. In the Scheldt RBMP there was no specific link made to the sectors, but in the Programme of Measures, each parameter is clearly linked to a sector for which action is needed . There is no quantitative data linking drivers/impacts to failure of good status for groundwater. France did not report any information on the quantification of gaps to be filled for chemical substances causing failure of status objectives. It should be noted that France reported water bodies that are in less than good chemical status and on Priority Substances that are causing the failures. 2.1.9Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive requires Member States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I of the Directive for each RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States to further target measures to tackle pollution from Priority Substances. It should also inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in reducing (or suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for Priority Substances. 13 of the 14 French RBDs established an inventory of emissions: the exception is the Mayotte RBD. Mayotte became and outermost region of the European Union in 2014, which means that the European legislation (including the WFD and associated Directives) entered into force on 1st January 2014 in this RBD. All RBDs except the Scheldt and Sambre had inventories for all Priority Substances. The only missing substances in the inventories for those two RBDs were those belonging to the group of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 was followed for all substances considered in the inventories. The methodology tier was reported as “other” and the data quality as uncertain. 2.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle

Excluding Mayotte, which is a new RBD in the second cycle, there was a small increase in the numbers of coastal water bodies (4) in the second RBMPs compared to the first, relatively small decreases in numbers of lake water bodies (-17) and river water bodies (-132) and larger decreases in numbers of transitional water bodies (-10). There was an increase in the number of groundwater bodies from 574 in the first cycle to 631 in the second cycle. Overall in France (excluding Mayotte) the proportion of heavily modified water bodies in the 13 RBDs was the same as in the first cycle for coastal waters, with small increases in lakes (69 % in the first cycle, 70 % in the second), in rivers (3.3 % in the first cycle to 4.4 % in the second) and transitional waters (25 % in the first cycle, 28 % in the second). At the RBD level, there was an increase in the numbers of heavily modified river water bodies in six of the 11 RBDs with designated heavily modified river water bodies and no change in the other five. The largest increase was in Rhone-Mediterranean RBD, from 136 in the first cycle to 176 in the second. In each of the six RBDs there was also a decrease in numbers of natural river water bodies and it is implied that some natural river water bodies in the first cycle were designated as heavily modified water bodies in the second cycle. In general there was an increase in number of types from the first cycle to the second, which was largely due to the types from Mayotte RBD being reported separately in the second cycle RBMP. 35 of the 48 coastal types, 33 of the 34 lake types, 139 of 145 river types and 15 of the 16 transitional water types reported in the second cycle were common to the first cycle. At the aggregated pressure level, 29.5 % of surface water bodies in France were affected by significant point source pressures in the second cycle, compared to 30 % in the first cycle. In the second cycle, 38 % of surface water bodies in France were subject to significant diffuse pressures, compared to 38.6 % in the first cycle. 2.3Progress with Commission recommendations ·Recommendation: Refine the significance of the pressures by quantifying those which are likely to prevent the achievement of environmental objectives. and ·Recommendation: Apportion pressures by their sources and identify the responsible sectors/areas. Assessment: France has reported a comprehensive set of gaps required to be filled to achieve objectives in groundwater and surface waters in terms of significant pressures. The pressures are identified by sectors and activities for some but not all pressures. The biggest gap in the reported information is in terms of hydromorphological pressures which in the vast majority of cases have not been apportioned between the responsible sectors or activities: instead unknown or obsolete is reported. In conclusion there has been significant progress on this recommendation but it has not been completely fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle. Assessment: There has been little if any progress on this recommendation in terms of characterisation. Reference conditions are still not complete for all the required quality elements with significant gaps remaining. Reference conditions have not been established for any hydromorphological quality element in any of the four water categories, and not for any biological quality element in coastal and transitional waters. This calls into doubt the validity in the assessment of ecological status/potential in France. This recommendation has not been fulfilled. (Further information on progress with respect to measures is provided in Chapter 9). Topic 3Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 3.1.1Monitoring of ecological status/potential Monitoring programmes All 14 RBDs reported monitoring programmes. There was a separate monitoring programme for groundwater. In terms of surface waters, there were either a surface water monitoring programme (e.g. in the Scheldt and Adour-Garonne RBDs) or separate programmes for each water category (e.g. the Rhone-Mediterranean and Corsica RBDs). In general, monitoring programmes covered each water category identified in the RBD. The exceptions were for lakes in the Guadeloupe and Guyana RBDs where lakes were identified but no monitoring programme was reported. Monitoring sites There were small increases in the number of surveillance monitoring sites from the first to the second RBMPs in coastal, lakes, rivers and transitional waters overall in the 13 RBDs that reported information for both cycles (the Mayotte RBD did not report separately in the first RBMP). Proportionally the largest increase was in transitional waters where numbers increased by 25 % from the numbers reported in the first RBMPs. Surveillance sites were not reported in the second RBMPs for lakes in Guadeloupe, Martinique and Guyana even though lakes have been identified in the water body characterisation. Figure 3.1 shows the percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring for the first and second RBMPs. Overall, the number of operational monitoring sites decreased by about 72 % from the first RBMPs to the second in coastal waters, rivers and transitional waters in the 13 RBDs that reported for both cycles. There was a small increase (five sites) in operational sites in lakes. In rivers there was a decrease in numbers of operational sites in seven RBDs, an increase in four and no change in two RBDs. The same proportion of coastal, lake and river water bodies were included in surveillance monitoring for the second RBMPs as had been for the first overall in the 13 RBDs which reported data for both cycles. For transitional waters the proportion included in surveillance monitoring increased from 58 % for the first RBMPs to 62 % for the second.

In contrast to surveillance monitoring, overall in the 13 RBDs with information for both cycles there was a decrease in the proportion of coastal (40 % to 29 %), lakes (49 % to 48 %), rivers (33 % to 26 %) and transitional (75 % to 53 %) water bodies included in operational monitoring compared to the first RBMPs. These changes in the proportion included in each type of monitoring are not seemingly explained by the relatively small decreases in the numbers of water bodies identified in each category from the first to the second RBMPs, which was around 1 % in each category. Representative RBMPs from three RBDs were examined to obtain any additional information on the changes in monitoring from the first to the second RBMPs. The number of monitoring sites has changed over time for the Scheldt RBD and Rhone-Mediterranean RBD, due to the new delineation of water bodies (grouping or new water bodies) or due to the extension of the network in order to increase representativeness of the network. For example, in the Scheldt RBD there has been a selection of previously unreported existing sites to be representative of agricultural activities. No change has been made or reported in terms of ecological indicators for the status assessment for either of the RBDs. There was no information for the Réunion RBD. Figure 3.1 Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in France for the first and second RBMPs. Note no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring Source: WISE electronic reports Surveillance monitoring of surface water bodies Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes between the first and second RBMPs, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMPs. Table 3.1 Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in France for the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported in the first RBMP, the second RBMP data does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op second RBMP FR_A 42 40 4 2 4 4 4 4 FR_B1 27 62 2 FR_B2 8 9 1 1 FR_C 80 283 15 1 FR_D 396 656 43 38 10 17 18 9 FR_E 22 23 6 5 4 3 5 3 FR_F 352 377 53 38 10 10 7 1 FR_G 420 959 48 76 16 9 25 10 FR_H 216 648 28 58 5 7 12 12 FR_I 25 16 FR_J 20 18 1 1 1 12 6 FR_K 51 29 7 FR_L 20 10 1 2 10 2 FR_M 20 17 Total by type of site 1699 3085 201 222 79 51 133 47 Total number of monitoring sites 3756 320 110 158 first RBMP FR_A 42 43 4 4 2 4 4 4 FR_B1 27 87 2 FR_B2 8 6 1 1 FR_C 80 376 15 FR_D 396 658 45 47 12 18 18 8 FR_E 22 23 6 5 4 3 6 7 FR_F 355 935 52 38 8 10 7 1 FR_G 420 957 49 78 16 30 25 22 FR_H 216 1161 23 44 5 7 12 12 FR_I 20 17 11 7 FR_J 14 1 3 12 FR_K 53 13 4 FR_L 20 2 1 10 4 Total by type of site 1673 4265 199 217 63 72 109 65 Total number of monitoring sites 4967 315 96 129 Sources: Member States electronic reports to WISE Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes for the second RBMP in France. Note that no differentiation is made between sites used for ecological monitoring and/or chemical monitoring Monitoring Purpose Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal CHE - Chemical status 3100 320 85 116 DWD - Drinking water - WFD Annex IV.1.i 16 ECO - Ecological status 3740 320 95 146 NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 1341 1 3 OPE - Operational monitoring 3085 222 51 47 RIV - International network of a river convention (including bilateral agreements) 26 SEA - International network of a sea convention 35 8 16 SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring 1134 151 31 46 SUR - Surveillance monitoring 1699 201 79 133 TRE - Chemical trend assessment 1286 154 36 45 Total sites irrespective of purpose 3756 320 110 158 Source: WISE electronic reports Surveillance monitoring should include “sufficient surface water bodies to provide an assessment of the overall surface water status within each catchment or sub-catchments within the river basin district”. Overall in France, there is good representation of water bodies among the status/potential classes that are included in surveillance monitoring ( Figure 3.2 ). All coastal water bodies included in surveillance monitoring were monitored for at least one of the required biological quality elements. However, 60 % of these water bodies did not have any hydromorphological quality elements monitored and 2 % had none of the physicochemical quality elements monitored. 16 % of transitional water bodies included in surveillance monitoring had none of the required biological quality elements monitored, 69 % none of the hydromorphological quality elements and 9 % none of the physicochemical quality elements. In rivers, 82 % of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring did not have any hydromorphological quality elements monitored, 1 % none of the biological quality elements and 0.1 % none of the physicochemical quality elements. The situation for lakes in France is similar, as 62 % of water bodies included in surveillance did not have any hydromorphological quality elements monitored, 5 % none of the biological quality elements and 7 % none of the physicochemical quality elements. Figure 3.2 Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that is included in surveillance monitoring in France Source: WISE electronic reports

A differentiated presentation between ecological status and potential and including all types of quality element can be viewed here: https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement_Status_Compare/SWB_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false&:showVizHome=no The water category with the highest proportion of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring where all the required biological quality elements are monitored is rivers (82 % of water bodies), followed by coastal waters (70 %), lakes (35 %) and transitional waters (5 %). There was a wide variation among the RBDs in terms of monitoring all the required biological quality elements: in six of the eight RBDs there were no water bodies where all biological quality elements were monitored in transitional waters. In five RBDs all required biological quality elements were monitored in all water bodies included in surveillance monitoring and in three there were none. The extent of monitoring of the hydromorphological quality elements in France is much smaller than for the biological quality elements. For example, 8 of the 10 RBDs with lakes did not have any lake water bodies where all required hydromorphological quality elements were monitored; in the other two all required elements were monitored. Overall in France, 2.5 % of lake water bodies, 4 % of coastal water bodies, 15 % of river water bodies and 22 % of transitional water bodies included in surveillance were monitored for all required hydromorphological quality elements. There is a high percentage of coastal water bodies in which all relevant physicochemical quality elements are monitored in water bodies included in surveillance monitoring (96 % in France as a whole). For rivers the overall value for France is 18 %, 36 % in lakes and 64 % in transitional water bodies. As for the other quality element groups, there was a wide range of variation among the RBDs: in some, all elements were monitored in all water bodies, in others there were none. Operational monitoring of surface water bodies For operational monitoring, the WFD requires the selection of parameters indicative of the biological quality element, or elements, most sensitive to the pressures to which the water bodies are subject. At least one biological quality element is used in every transitional water body, in 98 % of coastal, 95 % of river and 98 % of lake water bodies included in operational monitoring. In terms of hydromorphological quality elements, only 18 % of transitional, 43 % of coastal, 6 % of river and 59 % of lake water bodies included in operational monitoring have at least one these elements monitored. 99 % of river, 98 % of lake, 93 % of coastal and 82 % of transitional water bodies included in operational monitoring include at least one physicochemical quality element. International surface water body monitoring 26 sites (in the Scheldt, Sambre and Rhine RBDs) were reported to be part of an international network of a river convention and 59 (in the Scheldt, Rhone-Mediterranean, Corsica, Adour-Garonne and Guadeloupe RBDs) sites to be part of an international network of a sea convention. Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) Table 3.3 illustrates the quality elements used for the monitoring of surface water bodies for the second RBMPs: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring.



Table 3.3 Quality elements monitored for the second RBMPs in France (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). Note; quality element may be used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Phytoplankton Macrophytes Phytobenthos Benthic invertebrates Fish Angiosperms Macroalgae Other aquatic flora Other species Hydrological or tidal regime Continuity conditions Morphological conditions Rivers No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Transitional Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Coastal Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes General physicochemical quality elements Transparency conditions Thermal conditions Oxygenation conditions Salinity conditions Acidification status Nitrogen conditions Phosphorus Conditions Silicate Other determinand for nutrient conditions Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Transitional Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Coastal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Source: WISE electronic reports In coastal waters there was no change in the RBDs monitoring phytoplankton from the first to the second RBMPs. However, there was some deterioration from the first to the second RBMPs in the biological quality elements monitored in coastal waters. For example, macroalgae were no longer reported in the second RBMP in the Guadeloupe RBD, and benthic invertebrates no longer reported for the Martinique RBD. There has been no change from the first to the second RBMPs in the number of RBDs reporting that phytoplankton is monitored in lakes, but macrophytes appear to be no longer monitored in one RBD (Corsica) for the second RBMP. Phytobenthos was reported to be monitored in lakes in three more RBDs (Meuse, Rhine, Réunion ) for the second RBMPs compared to the first, and fish were reported for three RBDs that had not been reported for the first RBMPs. Nine RBDs reported that hydromorphological quality elements were monitored for the first RBMPs in lakes but this was reduced to six RBDs for the second. Macrophytes were reported to be monitored in rivers by the same RBDs for the second RBMPs as for the first, but this still left a gap in that the Corsica RBD did not monitor this element. In terms of phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates in rivers, two and one more RBD, respectively, reported that these were now monitored for the second RBMPs. However, three fewer RBDs reported fish were monitored in rivers for the second RBMPs compared to the first. Similarly to lakes, for the first RBMPs 11 RBDs reported that hydromorphological quality elements were monitored in rivers whereas for the second it was only eight RBDs.

In transitional waters phytoplankton was reported to be monitored in one more RBD for the second RBMPs than for the first. However, the extent of the monitoring of the other biological quality elements in transitional waters decreased from the first to the second RBMPs: five RBDs reported macroalgae for the first RBMPs, two for the second; five reported angiosperms for the first RBMPs, three for the second; seven reported benthic invertebrates for the first RBMPs, six for the second; and six reported fish for the first RBMPs, five for the second. In terms of monitoring hydromorphological quality elements in transitional waters, four reported them to be monitored for the first RBMPs and three for the second. Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the six years covered by a RBMP. For phytoplankton this should be done twice during the monitoring year and for the other biological quality elements once during the year. As a guideline, operational monitoring should take place at intervals not exceeding once every six months for phytoplankton and once every three years during the six year cycle for the other biological quality elements. Greater intervals may be justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. All biological quality elements used for the surveillance monitoring of coastal waters, rivers and transitional waters were monitored at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites. This was not the case for lakes where only one element (phytobenthos) was monitored at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites: the lowest rate was for fish where they were sampled at 66 % of sites at the minimum frequency. Only two biological quality elements out of the 19 used for operational monitoring across the four water categories were sampled at the minimum recommended frequency for operational monitoring at all sites: macroalgae and fish in transitional waters. For the other quality elements, the highest and lowest rates were: for benthic invertebrates (95 % of sites) and angiosperms (61 % of sites) in coastal waters respectively; for macrophytes (75 % of sites) and phytoplankton (1 % of sites) for lakes, respectively; for phytobenthos (93 % of sites) and fish (45 % of sites) for rivers, respectively; and the lowest for transitional waters was for macrophytes (42 % of sites). River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored Overall in France, 10 different River Basin Specific Pollutants were monitored. All were monitored in all water categories, but not in all RBDs. Seven substances were monitored in 12 RBDs, including MCPA, linuron, oxadiazon and copper. Chlordecone was monitored in four RBDs. Table 3.4 Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants in the second RBMPs and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants in the first RBMPs in France. Note that the data from both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and also not all Member State reported information at the site level meaning that there were no equivalent data for the first RBMPs Year Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal first RBMP Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants 223 2940 77 101 second RBMP Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 231 2561 37 37 Sources: WISE electronic reports In coastal waters, substances were monitored only in water at a maximum of 37 sites each (23 % of total sites in coastal waters) and a minimum of four sites. Oxadiazon, linuron, MCPA and copper were monitored at 37 sites. In lakes, all substances were monitored in water, nine in sediment, six in settled sediment and one (chlordecone) in biota, at one site only. Linuron, oxadiazon and MCPA were monitored at the highest number of sites in water (229, 72 % of lake sites), followed by copper (219 sites). In rivers, all substances were monitored in water, seven in sediment, six in settled sediment and one (chlordecone, 57 sites) in biota. All were monitored in more sites for water than for the other matrices, with linuron monitored at 2398 sites (64 % of river sites), oxadiazon in 2360, copper and zinc in 2297 sites. In transitional waters, substances were monitored only in water. Eight of these substances were monitored at 37 sites (34 % of transitional water sites), including oxadiazon, linuron and copper. The monitoring in sediment was reported to be exclusively for long-term trend assessment. The WFD indicates that, for the surveillance and operational monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants, the frequency of monitoring should be, respectively, at least once every three months for one year during the six year cycle and at least once every three months every year (this frequency is to be understood for monitoring in water). Greater intervals can be applied provided they are justified on the basis of expert judgment or technical knowledge. All River Basin Specific Pollutants monitored in water were monitored at least at the minimum recommended frequency of four times per year in most of the sites. No explanation was found for the reduced frequencies. Minimum monitoring frequencies in biota are specified for the assessment of Priority Substances in Article 3(2)c of the EQS Directive : this is once per year for operational and surveillance monitoring purposes, unless greater intervals can be justified on the basis of technical knowledge or expert judgment. It thus seems consistent to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants in biota at the same frequency. The only substance monitored in biota, chlordecone, was monitored at all 57 sites at a frequency of at least once a year. Use of monitoring results for classification Over 99 % of coastal and river water bodies, 98 % of transitional water bodies and 93 % of lake water bodies in France have been assigned an ecological status or potential class. Grouping was not used in the assessment and classification of any water body for any quality element and expert judgment was only rarely used. Therefore overwhelmingly monitoring results were used in the classification of water bodies in France. In many cases more water bodies are monitored for biological quality elements than those for which monitoring results are used in classification of ecological status or potential. However, there are examples where more water bodies are classified using monitoring results for the biological quality elements than were reported to be directly monitored. For example in France, 4063 river water bodies were classified using the results of monitoring phytobenthos while 2874 were directly monit