EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 37 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Belgium 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) 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) 47 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 Plan(s) Recommendations Topic 1 Governance and public participation 1.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 1.2 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 2 Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 2.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second RBMPs 3.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 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 second cycle 4.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle 5.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle 6.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle 7.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle 8.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 8.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 9 Programme of measures

9.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 9.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 11.2. 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 second cycle 12.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle 13.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since first 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 second cycle 15.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle 16.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 16.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Acronyms and definitions 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 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 RBMP prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States may have changed since then.



General Information Belgium (Map A) has a population of about 11 million and has a total area of 30 528 km2. The country consists of three regions: the Brussels-Capital Region, the Flemish Region and the Walloon Region.

Map A Map of River Basin Districts (RBDs) Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) International RBDs (within European Union) International RBDs (outside European Union) National RBDs (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters Belgium has four RBDs, of which the Meuse and Scheldt cover most of the Belgian territory. The Rhine and Seine RBDs cover a much smaller part of Belgium. Because of the division of responsibilities among the different regions of the federal state of Belgium there are several plans for the same RBD within Belgium. The areas of the national RBDs including sharing countries is provided in Table A. Table AOverview of Belgium’s RBDs RBD code Region Size (km2) Countries sharing RBD BESchelde_VL Flanders 12 027 FR, NL BEEscaut_Schelde_BR Brussels Capital 162 FR, NL BEEscaut_RW Wallonia 3 773 FR, NL BENoordzee_FED Federal 128 FR, NL BEMaas_VL Flanders 1 601 DE, FR, LU, NL BEMeuse_RW Wallonia 12 278 DE, FR, LU, NL BERhin_RW Wallonia 770 AT, CH, DE, FR, LI, (LU),( IT), NL BESeine_RW Wallonia 80 FR Source: RBMPs reported to WISE The three large international RBDs on Belgian territory (Scheldt, Meuse and the Rhine) have international co-operation in place, including international agreements and international cooperation body. Belgium’s percentage share of each international RBD is shown in Table B. Table BTransboundary RBDs by category and percentage share in Belgium Name international RBD National RBD RBD Name Countries sharing RBD Coordination category 1 4 km² % km² % Scheldt BESchelde_VL Scheldt FR, NL 12 027 33 BEEscaut_Schelde_BR Scheldt (Brussels) FR, NL 162 0.4 BEEscaut_RW L’Escaut FR, NL 3 773 10.3 BENoordzee_FED North Sea FR, NL 128 0.4 Meuse BEMaas_VL Maas DE, FR, LU, NL 1 601 4.6 BEMeuse_RW Meuse DE, FR, LU, NL 12 278 35.5 Rhine BERhin_RW Rhine AT, CH, DE, FR, LI, (LU), (IT), NL 770 0.4 Seine BESeine_RW Seine FR 80 0.08 Source: WISE electronic reporting. Belgium provided additional countries that share a RBD – shown in brackets. Category 1: International agreement, permanent cooperation body and international RBMP in place. Category 2: International agreement and permanent cooperation body in place. Category 3: International agreement in place. Category 4: No cooperation formalised. Status of second river basin management plan reporting

A total of eight RBMPs (Scheldt, Scheldt (Brussels), L’Escaut, North Sea, Maas, Meuse, Rhine and Seine) were published between 2 March 2016 and 8 March 2017. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency (EEA) EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/

Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMPs of Belgium are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation Advisory groups were used for the active involvement of stakeholders in Flanders, and ongoing stakeholder involvement is indicated for the Federal RBD for coastal waters. For two RBDs of the Flanders Region and the RBD of the Brussels region, the RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans were combined in a single plan. In all three regions, joint consultation of RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans was undertaken. Belgium did not adopt and publish all RBMPs in accordance with the timetable in the WFD. Belgium has organised RBD management along regional lines based on the regional competences in Belgium, thus splitting river basins into separate RBDs for each region. While coordination occurs at several levels – including bilateral cooperation among regions, national coordination and coordination within international RBDs – it is not clear if this is sufficient to ensure that the environmental objectives established by the Directive are achieved efficiently. ·Characterisation of the RBD No information about whether typologies used by Brussels region were validated against biological data could be found in the RBMPs . 50 water bodies (~10%) were reported not to have applicable common intercalibration types including artificial, heavily modified and natural water bodies. It is unclear how the results of intercalibration are translated to these types and water bodies . Further characterisation work for groundwater bodies has been undertaken since the first RBMPs, by describing the geological formation and whether or not they are layered. Groundwater body links to terrestrial ecosystems have been reported in all six RBDs. Links to surface water bodies are only reported by four RBDs: the two RBDs in Flanders provided an explanation of why this information was not reported to WISE. Expert judgment is used by a number of RBDs in Belgium to assess the significance of pressures arising from water abstraction and water flow modifications on surface waters and pressures on groundwater from point sources, diffuse sources and water abstractions. This brings into question the reliability and comparability of the assessment of these pressures in Belgium. Significance of pressures on surface waters were reported as not linked to failure of objectives nor defined in terms of thresholds in the Wallonia RBDs. For groundwater, the pressures have only been linked to failure of objectives in three RBDs. Seven RBDs reported significant pressures to be addressed in the Programme of Measures (PoM) but the gaps to good status were not quantified. The situation is similar for chemical substances. Belgium explained in Annex 0 that the information is available but could not be reported in the required format. Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses have been established in all RBDs except the North Sea . The inventories all include all 41 Priority Substances. Tier 1 of the methodology was implemented for some of the substances deemed relevant at RBD level, which is not in line with the CIS Guidance Document n°28, higher tiers were also implemented in some cases. The data quality ranged from medium to very uncertain, or was not reported. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status Overall, there has been an increase in operational monitoring sites and a reduction in surveillance monitoring sites. Only one lake was included in surveillance monitoring, while they were five in the first RBMPs. In the Maas RBD, there is no surveillance programme for lakes, even if lakes have been delineated. In the Schelde RBD there are no monitoring programmes for the only coastal water body delineated. All expected biological quality elements and general physicochemical quality elements were reported to be monitored in rivers and lakes. In rivers, there has been an improvement in the monitoring of hydromorphological quality elements since the first RBMPs. However, hydromorphological quality elements were reported to have been monitored in lakes for the first RBMPs but not for the second. Belgium subsequently explained that the hydromorphological characteristics of lakes are only monitored in cases where they have changed in comparison to the previous RBMP, which was not the case between the first and second RBMPs for any lakes in Belgium. In the coastal water body in the North Sea RBD, hydromorphology was not monitored and only two general physicochemical quality elements were monitored.

Environmental quality standards were established for approximately 104 River Basin Specific Pollutants in water, covering all eight RBDs (the total number is uncertain because of possible errors in the electronic reporting of some substances). The vast majority of the Environmental Quality Standards in water have been derived in accordance with the Technical Guidance Document No. 27 and the analytical methods used for most of the substances meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4.1 of the Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive (QA/QC Directive) (2009/90/EC) for the strictest standard applied. Environmental Quality Standards were also derived for nine substances in sediment, but were not derived in accordance with Technical Guidance Document No. 27 though the analytical methods meet the requirements of Article 4.1 of the QA/QC Directive. River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored in all surface water categories, while they had not been monitored in lakes for the first RBMPs. All 79 River Basin Specific Pollutants were included in surveillance monitoring and all were sampled in water at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all of the sites where they were monitored. All the required quality elements are monitored in most, but not all, river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring. However, this is not the case for any of the coastal, lake and transitional water bodies included in surveillance monitoring, although for transitional water bodies some of the required quality elements are monitored. The confidence in classification of ecological status/confidence is reported as high for almost all water bodies, which is a major improvement since the first RBMPs, where no information was given on confidence. Belgium is still quite far from achieving good status/potential in all surface water bodies and the timing for the achievement of objectives is unknown for 60% of the water bodies. The classification of ecological status is based predominantly based on monitoring data. Assessment methods are complete for most biological quality elements in all water categories and RBDs. All the biological quality elements with methods developed are used for classification in most water bodies in all water categories. Assessment methods are developed for all relevant hydromorphological quality elements in rivers and for morphological conditions in transitional waters, and were reported to be related to the sensitive biological quality elements. Methods for the assessment of the physico-chemical quality elements are developed for most of the relevant quality elements for the different water categories and are related to the sensitive biological quality elements. However, the nutrient standards are close to or higher than the nutrient saturation level for nutrient sensitive biological quality elements. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies The extent of monitoring for Priority Substances was high in Belgium: 82 % to 100 % of river water bodies in seven of the eight RBDs in Belgium were monitored for more than 10 Priority Substances in water. The remainder were monitored for between zero and four substances. All lake water bodies in the Maas RBD and 53 % in the Schelde RBD were monitored for four Priority Substances, with the remaining monitored for more than 10 Priority Substances. All water bodies (coastal and territorial) in the North Sea RBD were monitored for six to 10 Priority Substances. The coastal water body (Zwin) in the Schelde RBD was not monitored for any Priority Substances. 83 % of transitional water bodies were monitored for more than 10 Priority Substances, with the remainder monitored for four Priority Substances. For status assessment, a large proportion of surface water bodies were monitored for more than 10 Priority Substances in water in most RBDs. Fewer substances were monitored in the remaining RBDs. There is a lack of consistency in the frequency of monitoring of Priority Substances in water with examples of frequencies that meet the guideline requirements of the WFD and instances where they do not. Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene are monitored in biota in coastal, river and transitional water bodies in most RBDs for status assessment. Monitoring is undertaken in a limited number of water bodies. The frequency reported in all RBDs met the requirements of once every year in at least some sites. For trend assessment, Belgium has monitored all 14 of the Priority Substances required for the monitoring of long-term trend in sediment and/or biota in sediment in river water bodies in four RBDs and fewer in the remainder. The frequency of the monitoring meets the minimum guidelines in the Directive but the spatial extent of monitoring is limited. In all but one of the RBDs in Belgium, 41 Priority Substances have been included in inventories, though not all are discharged or monitored. All water categories, including territorial waters, are monitored and classified for chemical status in Belgium.

Overall between the two cycles there was a large decrease in proportion of surface water bodies with good chemical status from 35 to 2 % and a significant increase in the proportion failing to achieve good status from 30 to 98 %. This pattern occurred across all RBDs, except those that had all their water bodies with poor status in both the first and second RBMPs (Schelde Brussels and North Sea RBDs). Importantly, the proportion with unknown status has reduced from 35 % to less than 1 %. Between 10 and 41 Priority substances are used in the classification of chemical status depending on the RBD. Grouping is applied for the classification of chemical status (though not in the North Sea RBD) but the basis for the approach is not well described in the RBMPs. Overall 43 % of surface water bodies in Belgium were classified for chemical status with high confidence and 57 % with medium confidence. Between 13 and 41 (depending on the RBD) of the environmental quality standards laid down in Part A of Annex I of the EQS Directive for assessment of the chemical status of bodies of surface water were applied and used in the assessment of chemical status. However, in RBDs where not all the standards have been applied, Belgium reported that alternative and/or additional standards for particular Priority Substances had also not been applied. It is therefore unclear which standards have been used in the assessment of chemical status. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies There has been an increase in coverage for quantitative monitoring in the second cycle; nearly all groundwater bodies are now covered by monitoring. The number / area of groundwater bodies failing good quantitative status dropped significantly. The confidence in quantitative status assessment is high for 50% of the groundwater bodies and medium for the remainder. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies Chemical monitoring covers almost all groundwater bodies. The number of operational monitoring sites has increased significantly in the second cycle. Not all substances causing risk are subject to surveillance and operational monitoring in all RBDs. Not all WFD core parameters are monitored in all RBDs. The needs of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have not been considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values. Only in the Flanders region and Scheldt (Brussels) RBDs, where groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems exist, they have been considered in status assessment while for the other RBDs they were not. In the three Walloon river basin districts, where groundwater associated surface waters exist, they have not been considered in status assessment. Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential Sufficient information is provided on criteria for the identification of substantial change in character, the types of physical alterations and the water uses which are considered for the designation of heavily modified water bodies. However, no information could be found on criteria used for the assessment of significant adverse effect of restoration measures on the use and the wider environment or an explanation of how better environmental options have been assessed. Mitigation measures for achieving good ecological potential have been reported in WISE, but no description of the ecological changes that these measures are designed to achieve could be found in the RBMPs. Furthermore, no methodological document on the definition of good ecological potential is available yet for Wallonia. ·Environmental objectives and exemptions Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies and quantitative and chemical status of groundwater bodies have been reported, although a significant number of unknowns remain. Drivers, Pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions are reported. Also impacts leading to exemptions are reported.

The level of information provided behind the justification of exemptions varies a) depending on the reason, and b) depending on the different regions. Therefore, the application of the justification of technical feasibility for Article 4(4) exemptions might be an issue of insufficient implementation of WFD requirements, as relevant information is lacking in some RBMPs and reported background documents. ·Programme of Measures Some progress has been made in carrying out cost-effectiveness analyses. No clear summary of progress has been provided and it is not possible to judge if any improvements have been achieved towards attaining WFD objectives. In particular it is not clear whether the PoM is sufficiently ambitious (in a large number of water bodies the objectives will not be achieved even by 2027). No clear financial commitment for the implementation of the PoM has been received from all relevant sectors in any of the RBDs. Most significant pressures are covered by KTMs, particularly in the RBD’s in Flanders, where all are covered. A few significant pressures are not covered by operational KTMs, notably none for diffuse agricultural pollution in groundwater in the Rhine RBD, and abstractions/flow diversions and alterations of water level or volume in groundwater (L’Escaut - Walloon). In addition, no water retention measures seem to be operational although these were included in relation to the Floods Directive (FD) . Belgium has mapped a total of 155 measures and 112 supplementary measures against a total of 22 predefined KTMs, eight KTMs related to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and 10 regionally defined measures. KTMs to tackle RBSPs in surface water and groundwater have been reported for the Flanders Region (Schelde and Maas RBDs). There is no information on the number of surface water bodies causing failure of objectives due to River Basin Specific Pollutants, and no KTMs have been reported to tackle River Basin Specific Pollutants, in the Walloon and Brussels Regions. KTMs used to tackle Priority Substances have been reported for the Flanders Region (Scheldt and Maas RBDs). There is no information for Priority Substances in the Walloon Region (four RBDs). There is an almost complete absence of gap analyses , making it difficult to judge progress or expected progress in achieving WFD objectives (limited information for the North Sea RBD only). Joint consultation of RBMPs and FD Flood Risk Management Plans have been carried out (in all except the North Sea RBD), and the RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans have been integrated into a single plan for the Scheldt in the Brussels and Flanders regions, and for the Maas in the Flanders region only. ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity Water abstraction pressure is relevant for a few RBDs in Belgium. The Water Exploitation Index is only reported for one region (Wallonia) with a value of 6.4 % (2011), and not for other regions. However, according to the information provided by Belgium, Flanders reported such data via State of the Environment. The main uses for water consumption have not been reported to WISE. Regarding measures under Article 11(3)(c), in two out of three RBDs which face water abstraction pressures, new measures or significant changes are foreseen in the second RBMPs. Water reuse has been included as a measure in terms of managing water resources in three RBMPs. Measures for the prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies - Article 11(3)(f) - have been implemented in the previous cycle, and new measures or significant changes are planned. The RBMPs do not include a water resource allocation and management plan. RBDs, which face significant abstraction pressures and inconsistency with WFD-objectives (the Maas and the Scheldt RBD), exempt small abstractions from permits (although they are registered and thus controlled).

·Measures related to pollution from agriculture There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. A gap assessment for nutrients and pesticides has been undertaken in all of the RBDs. For the North Sea RBD the area of agricultural land to be covered by measures to achieve environmental objectives was reported. Basic measures are implemented in the Seine, Scheldt, Rhine, Meuse, Maas, and L’Escaut RBDs and supplementary measures to reduce nutrient pollution are applied in all RBDs. It is not clear from the RBMPs what part mandatory or voluntary measures will take in achieving the WFD objectives. Financing of measures is secured in Wallonia. ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture A wide range of Key Type of Measures (KTMs) relevant to addressing chemical pressures have been identified in four of the Belgian RBDs (Escaut-Scheldt, North Sea, Maas and Schelde) – but not in the other four. A register of waste-water discharges exists in seven out of eight Belgian RBDs although it covers groundwater in only two of them. Authorisation and/or permitting regimes to control waste water point source discharges are in place in seven out of eight Belgian RBDs for surface and groundwater. The RBMP of the Schelde RBD contains specific measures to reduce the emissions of all identified River Basin Specific Pollutants, and to tackle pollutants causing poor groundwater status . Measures to address, the River Basin Specific Pollutants in the Scheldt (Brussels) and Wallonia RBDs are mentioned only in a general (not substance-specific) way in the RBMPs. Measures for groundwater pollutants are also not specified in detail. ·Measures related to hydromorphology The links between hydromorphological measures and pressures have been made more obvious in the second RBMPs. Operational KTMs were reported in all five RBDs with significant hydromorphological pressures. However, for the majority of water bodies reported to have significant hydromorphological pressures, the driver is unknown/obsolete or indicated as "other", that is, not specified as one of the key sectors indicated in the WISE reporting. Indicators on the gap to be filled for significant hydromorphological pressures by 2021 and 2027 are not reported. Even if the reporting of this gap was optional, the lack of such information does not allow any conclusions on the level of ambition in closing the gap. No indicator values were reported either for the KTMs. In the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD, ecological flows have been derived for some relevant water bodies but the work is still ongoing. This is seen as progress from the first cycle, where it was announced that a study of base flow values would be done. For the other seven RBDs, ecological flows have not been derived for all water bodies at risk of failing environmental objectives due to abstractions, flow diversions or impoundments, but there are plans to do so during the second cycle. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies Water services are defined differently in the Belgian RBDs. Not all RBMPs include information on environmental and resource costs. With the exception of the North Sea RBD the economic analysis was reported as updated.

·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) There was a significant increase in the number of Protected Areas reported for Article 7 for Drinking Water (from 379 to 587), Habitats (from 263 to 499) and for Birds (from 218 to 386). For the remaining types, the numbers were similar. Additional objectives for surface water Protected Areas have been established in some RBDs for Drinking Water and Protected Areas under the Habitats and Birds Directives, and the Ramsar Convention. However, for some habitats areas, the default objective of good status is considered sufficient, although it has not been assessed in detail. The reported monitoring programmes was only reported in Wallonia, being less completed than in the first cycle, as the scale of monitoring of groundwater Article 7 Drinking Water areas is reduced by half with the remainder at a comparable scale in terms of the number of monitoring sites. Exemptions to additional objectives for Protected Areas have been applied for the first time in the second cycle. ·Adaptation to drought and climate change Climate change was considered in only a few river basin districts (Maas and Scheldt) and the Common Implementation Strategy guidance document on how to adapt to climate change was used in these. KTM 24 – “Adaptation to climate change” is applied in Flanders and Wallonia; No specific sub-plans addressing climate change were reported for Belgium. Droughts were not reported to be relevant for the country.

Recommendations The preparation of the next cycle of RBMPs should be carried out in accordance with the WFD timetable, to ensure the timely adoption of the third RBMPs. Belgium should further ensure that consultation processes at various levels (regional, national, international) are coordinated. Belgium 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 PoM in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. Although Belgium has made progress in characterisation, further work is needed on the apportionment of significant pressures; in particular hydromorphological pressures and to better identify "unknown anthropogenic pressures". Belgium still needs to address, for all RBDs, the links between status, individual pressures and the PoM. Furthermore, the assessment of significance of pressures needs to be more based on numerical tools rather than expert judgement. Belgium should continue to expand its monitoring programmes in order to cover all relevant quality elements and, in particular, the biological quality elements. Belgium should make sure that the nutrient standards used are such that they do not cause a risk of failure in reaching good status for the nutrient sensitive biological quality elements. Monitoring for status assessment should be completed to reach sufficient confidence and spatial coverage for all the Priority Substances as well as the monitoring frequencies in all monitoring sites according to the Directive. Trend monitoring arrangements should be completed in all RBDs to ensure that all the relevant substances specified in Directive 2008/105/EC are monitored in a way that provide sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage. Improve status assessment of groundwater, and further uptake links with associated aquatic ecosystems and dependent terrestrial ecosystems. Ensure that all core parameters are monitored and continue improving operational monitoring for groundwater bodies at risk.

For Flanders the criteria used for the assessment required under WFD Articles 4(3)(a) and 4(3)(b) need to be made transparent, i.e. the assessment of significant adverse effects of restoration measures on uses or the wider environment and an explanation of how better environmental options to deliver the beneficial objectives served by the HMWB have been assessed. For Wallonia the methodology used for the definition of good ecological potential needs to be made available in order to improve the transparency of objective setting for Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies. The overall significant and stagnant number of exemptions which are still applied in the second RBMP is an issue of concern and an important number of unknowns regarding the timeframe for the achievement of the objectives remains. Efforts need to be continued to implement the required measures in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. Improvements have been made in terms of the justification of exemptions compared to the first RBMPs, which should be further continued for the different justifications in all regions. Cost-effectiveness analyses should be conducted and details provided of prioritisation of measures based on the cost-effectiveness analyses . The RBMPs should clearly identify the gap to good status for individual pressures and water bodies, and the PoM should be designed and implemented to close that gap. Belgium should make clear financial commitments for the implementation of the PoMs. In the third RBMPs, 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 and identify sources of funding (e.g. CAP Pillar 1, RDP), as appropriate, to facilitate implementation of these measures. Continue to review and develop the strategy for the delivery of WFD objectives, in cooperation with the farming community and the authorities in charge of CAP in Belgium to ensure the third RBMP is technically feasible and that all relevant policies and instruments (e.g. RDP, CAP Pillar 1, Nitrates Directive, etc.) contribute significantly to RBMPs. KTMs should be operational and cover all the significant pressures causing failure to objectives in all RBDs. In addition, all Priority Substances and River Specific Pollutants identified as causing failure should be associated with KTMs. In order to ensure an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution, it is important that Belgium, in particular Wallonia, identify and implement KTMs specific to addressing pollution by the Priority Substances and River Basin Specific Pollutants, and that it take a more substance-specific approach to identifying measures to tackle groundwater pollutants. Belgium should extend the coverage of its register of waste water discharges to better cover discharges to groundwater. Belgium should make sure that the necessary hydromorphological measures to achieve good status are designed and included in the next cycle of RBMPs, including those targeting the good ecological potential for heavily modified water bodies, and should ensure the necessary funding to implement those measures. Belgium should continue prioritising the use of green infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements in water quality, flood protection, habitat conservation, etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. Continue to apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of wastewater, also when they are 'self-services', for instance self-abstraction for agriculture, or justify any exemptions using Article 9(4). Transparently present how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured (disaggregated into at least industry, households and agriculture), i.e. demonstrating how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account. Transparently present the water-pricing policy, including the use of adequate incentives for users to use water efficiently, and documenting volumes, prices, and costs associated with water services. Provide a transparent overview of estimated investments and investment needs. Belgium needs to continue its work on the additional needs that need to be set for all relevant Protected Areas and their additional associated objectives. It also needs to ensure that monitoring of surface and groundwater bodies covers all relevant Protected Areas.



Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 1.1.1Administrative arrangements – RBDs Belgium has reported eight RBDs, which are structured by international RBD and by region: ·Four Belgian RBDs are part of the Escaut/Scheldt/Schelde international RBD: L’Escaut in the Walloon Region; the Escaut/Scheldt (Brussels) in the Brussels Region; the Schelde in the Flanders Region; and the North Sea coastal waters, managed by the Federal government.

·Two RBDs are part of the Meuse international RBD: the Maas in the Flanders Region and the Meuse in the Walloon Region. ·The Walloon Region has one RBD that is part of the Rhine international RBD, the Rhine RBD, with its RBMP, and one RBD that is part of the Seine, the Seine RBD. 1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities Belgium is a federal state which has delegated competence with regard to water policy to the regions. Belgium reported four Competent Authorities: ·the Federal Public Service For Public Health, Food chain Safety and Environment (national level); ·the Government of Brussels Capital Region; ·the Coordination Committee for Integrated Water Policy in the Flanders Region; and, ·the Walloon Government. Cooperation among regions includes national coordination within the Steering Group on Water in the Coordination Committee for International Environmental Policy (CCIEP). Formal coordination also takes place within international RBD commissions (that is, for the Scheldt and the Meuse). Belgium subsequently clarified that, the CCIEP mainly deals with the coordination of Belgian comments, positions or delegations on policy matters as well as reporting to international organisations. They have also informed that the Steering Group on Water of the CCIEP operates according to the general mandates of the CCIEP and coordinates the implementation of the WFD and the FD. In addition, bilateral consultations are held between the regions, both at the regional level between the competent administrations and at the local level, e.g. within the basin structures and the working groups on transboundary water consultations. 1.1.3RBMPs –structure The two RBMPs in the Flanders Region (for the Schelde and the Maas RBDs) have two types of sub-plans: for groundwater systems and for river sub-RBDs (see Figure 1.1 below). For the Flanders Schelde RBD, for example, there are 10 sub-RBD plans and five groundwater plans. Figure 1.1 Issues, sectors, sub-basins or water categories in Belgium supplemented by more detailed sub-plans for the second cycle RBD Agriculture Chemical industry Hydropower Transport Water Scarcity and droughts Climate change Coastal erosion Rural planning Urban planning Nutrient enrichment Chemical pollution Other: groundwater and sub-basins BEMAAS_VL ✓ BESCHELDE_VL ✓ Source: WISE electronic reporting ✓ Covered by sub-plans

1.1.4Public consultation For all of Belgium's RBMPs, draft documents were available for public consultation for the requisite six months. In the two RBDs of the Flanders Region and for the North Sea RBMP, documents were available for download. For the four RBMPs produced in the Walloon Region, documents were available for download and paper copies were available in government buildings and distributed at exhibitions, and the documents were also mailed directly. In the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD, documents were available for download and paper copies were available in government buildings and distributed at exhibitions. Stakeholders were actively involved in all eight Belgian RBMPs. Stakeholders groups that were actively involved were: agriculture/farmers, industry, Non-Governmental Organisations/nature protection and water supply and sanitation in the Walloon Region. These groups were involved in addition to local/regional authorities and ports/navigation in the Flanders Region; and fisheries/aquaculture, local/regional authorities and Non-Governmental Organisations /nature protection for the North Sea RBMP. Stakeholders were involved in drafting in all four RBMPs prepared in the Walloon Region and in the RBMP of the Brussels Capital Region. Stakeholders were also involved via regular exhibitions for the four RBMPs in the Walloon Region. For the two RBMPs prepared in the Flanders Region, stakeholders were involved via advisory groups. Ongoing stakeholder involvement was indicated only for the North Sea RBMP for coastal waters: via the Coordination Committee for International Environmental Policy with regional authorities, via the International Scheldt Committee with other stakeholders and through synergy with ongoing Marine Strategy Framework Directive implementation stakeholder involvement. The impacts of consultation were: adjustment to specific measures, for all plans except the North Sea RBMP for coastal waters; commitment to further research in six RBMPs (those of the Flanders and Walloon Regions); commitment to action in the next RBMP cycle, for the two RBMPs in the Flanders Region; addition of new information (for the four RBMPs in the Walloon Region); and, for the Federal RBMP for Coastal Waters, corrections of text that did not have any influence on assessment or measures. 1.1.5Integration with the FD and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive The two RBMPs of the Flanders Region (Schelde and Maas) are integrated with the Flood Risk Management Plans into a single plan. This is also the case for the Scheldt (Brussels) RBMP and Flood Risk Management Plan. Joint Consultation of the RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plan was carried out for seven of Belgium's eight RBMPs (the exception being the North Sea RBMP, where the FD is not applied). Joint consultation was not carried out with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 1.1.6International coordination and cooperation All of Belgium's RBDs are part of international RBDs. For three RBDs – Scheldt, Meuse and Rhine – a common international RBMP and a PoM are in place (designated as Category 1 cooperation). For these, links have been made with national RBMPs within the international RBMPs. Coordination with other Member States has taken place within the commissions for these international RBDs. Belgium and its regions were involved in intensive cooperation activities in all three international RBDs, including on monitoring, identification of significant water management issues and the preparation of national and international RBMPs and PoMs. For the Scheldt international RBD, for example, an international RBMP was prepared; regarding the PoM, some measures were coordinated among Member States, both via the Scheldt Commission and its working groups and bilaterally (for further information see the reports on international coordination on the WFD). In addition, Belgium has a range of bilateral agreements in place with neighbouring Member States: for example, the Flanders Region and the Netherlands have established the Flemish-Netherlands Bilateral Maas Commission for cooperation on water management in the Meuse International River Basin . For the 4th RBD, the Seine, coordination is at the level of Category 4 (no formalised cooperation). For none of the RBMPs, however, did Belgium report to WISE that there was international coordination on public participation. See Chapter 9 for information about international coordination on measures. 1.2Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the following: ·The RBMPs for the region of Wallonia should be urgently adopted. The public consultation in Wallonia will finish on 18 January 2013, and the plan should be adopted as soon as possible after this process is finalised. ·Given the lack of adoption of the plans in the Wallonia and recent adoption in Brussels capital, it is difficult to ensure that there is an effective coordination in the implementation of the WFD, including the setting of objectives and exemptions, and the definition of the necessary measures. The coordination between the different Belgian entities (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels and the Federal coastal waters) should be enhanced for the next cycle of RBMPs. The implementation of the Directive should be coordinated across the RBDs, to ensure the achievement of the environmental objectives established under Article 4, and in particular all PoM need to be coordinated for the whole of the river basin district, including within a Member State. ·Ensure good coordination between the different regions. In the past, plans were developed separately by each of the Regions and by the Federal government for coastal waters. Although the Regions and the Federal government participate in the International River Commissions of the Scheldt and the Meuse, this is not sufficient to enable effectively coordinated implementation of the WFD. In particular, the PoMs need to be clearly linked where they concern pressures and measures that affect several Regions (e.g. pollution from the Regions that affects coastal waters).

·Ensure that consultation processes at various levels (regional, national, international) are coordinated and that key information (pressures, monitoring, status, environmental objectives and exemptions, measures) is made available in a consolidated way for the whole of the RBDs (at least for the Belgian part), avoiding separate products available in different timelines which made impossible having a completed picture of the RBD.



Assessment: While the information reported to WISE is insufficient to further assess whether intra-regional cooperation improved in the second cycle, Belgium subsequently clarified that coordination occurred at several levels, including bilateral cooperation among regions, national coordination and coordination within international RBDs. Evidence from the assessment of other topics nonetheless indicates there remain some different approaches between the regions on key issues of WFD implementation (i.e. the definition of Good Ecological Potential). The information available indicates that mechanisms are in place and that cooperation among Belgium’s regions has improved; consequently, these recommendations are partially fulfilled.

Topic 2Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 2.1.1Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies There was no change in the numbers of identified coastal, lake and transitional water bodies between the two cycles ( Table 2.1 ). However, overall in Belgium there was a decrease in the number of river water bodies from 320 in the first RBMP to 302 in the second for example, in the Scheldt RBD there was a decrease, with 155 river water bodies in the second cycle versus 160 in the first cycle. The RBMP reported that this was due to updates in the RBD boundary and merging of homogeneous water bodies. The minimum size (length) of rivers in Belgium has not significantly changed between the cycles (Table 2.2). For example, the minimum length in the Meuse RBD in the first cycle was 1.9 km, and 2.2 km in the second. In the Scheldt RBD, the minimum length of a river water body in the first cycle and in the second cycle was 0.3 km. The minimum size of water bodies has been reported for RBMP in Belgium which varies between RBDs. The Scheldt (Brussels) RBD has a small area and low number of water bodies, and expert judgement was used to select the three main surface water bodies for the reporting. There was an increase in number of heavily modified river water bodies from 87 in the first RBMP to 99 in the second cycle in the Scheldt RBD accompanied by a reduction in natural rivers from 40 to 23 implying that some natural water bodies in the first RBMP have been designated as heavily modified in the second ( Figure 2. 1). There were also smaller reductions in natural and an increase in heavily modified river water bodies between the two cycles in the Meuse RBD. In contrast, in the Maas RBD, there was a small increase in the number of natural rivers, and small decrease in the number of heavily modified rivers between the two cycles. The number of groundwater bodies was the same for both cycles and there are only some small differences in their areas ( Table 2.3 ). Table 2.1 Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Belgium for the second and first cycles Year RBD Lakes Rivers Transitional Waters Coastal Waters 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 BEESCAUT_RW 79 1 509 2016 BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 3 39 2016 BEMAAS_VL 3 5 15 273 2016 BEMEUSE_RW 257 4 952 2016 BENOORDZEE_FED 1 128 2016 BERHIN_RW 16 287 2016 BESCHELDE_VL 15 36 155 2 246 6 43 1 1 2016 BESEINE_RW 2 39 2016 Total 18 40 527 9 346 6 43 2 130 2010 BEESCAUT_RW 79 1 533 2010 BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 3 39 2010 BEMAAS_VL 3 5 17 270 2010 BEMEUSE_RW 257 4 929 2010 BENOORDZEE_FED 1 1 428 2010 BERHIN_RW 16 295 2010 BESCHELDE_VL 15 36 160 2 203 6 42 1 1 2010 BESEINE_RW 2 40 2010 Total 18 40 534 9 309 6 42 2 1 429 Source: WISE electronic reporting

Table 2.2 Size distribution of surface water bodies in Belgium in the second and first cycles Year RBD Lake area (km2) River length (km) Transitional (km2) Coastal (km2) Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean 2016 BEESCAUT_RW 2.31 107.43 19.11 2016 BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 10.13 14.93 13.09 2016 BEMAAS_VL 0.65 3.27 1.53 1.6 79.72 18.18 2016 BEMEUSE_RW 2.25 119.56 19.27 2016 BENOORDZEE_FED 128.26 128.26 128.26 2016 BERHIN_RW 5.44 45.84 17.92 2016 BESCHELDE_VL 0.08 19.87 2.39 0.32 109.93 14.49 0.16 26.15 7.24 1.46 1.46 1.46 2016 BESEINE_RW 13.22 25.89 19.55 2010 BEESCAUT_RW 2.35 107.44 19.4 2010 BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 10.13 14.93 13.09 2010 BEMAAS_VL 0.54 3.64 1.62 1.6 79.72 15.85 2010 BEMEUSE_RW 1.92 122.68 20.12 2010 BENOORDZEE_FED 1 428 1 428 1 428 2010 BERHIN_RW 5.44 45.89 18.45 2010 BESCHELDE_VL 0.08 19.84 2.37 0.32 109.93 13.77 0.15 24.48 6.93 1.45 1.45 1.45 2010 BESEINE_RW 13.56 26.76 20.16 Source: WISE electronic reporting.

Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in Belgium 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 reporting. Table 2.3 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Belgium for the second and first cycles Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 BEESCAUT_RW 10 72.56 1 382.00 566.06 2016 BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 5 21.23 162.49 87.08 2016 BEMAAS_VL 10 45.9 875.05 352.01 2016 BEMEUSE_RW 21 38.15 3 311.10 591.66 2016 BENOORDZEE_FED 2016 BERHIN_RW 2 65.63 668.03 366.83 2016 BESCHELDE_VL 32 49.27 6 051.10 1 364.36 2016 BESEINE_RW 2016 Total 80 2010 BEESCAUT_RW 10 73 1 382.00 566 2010 BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 5 21 162 86.8 2010 BEMAAS_VL 10 46 875 351.3 2010 BEMEUSE_RW 21 38 3 588.00 592.1 2010 BENOORDZEE_FED 2010 BERHIN_RW 2 65 668 366.5 2010 BESCHELDE_VL 32 48 6 050.00 1 360.16 2010 BESEINE_RW 2010 Total 80 Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.2Identification of transboundary water bodies in national shares of international RBDs Belgium did not report any transboundary surface water bodies . However, there is evidence of coordination on adjacent water bodies, provided in the relevant overarching reports of the Scheldt and Meuse RBDs. A difference in the magnitude of rivers was identified: while RBDs in Wallonia included all rivers (including small water bodies), France included only the larger ones, while the Flanders region and the Netherlands had a similar and intermediate approach. It was reported that for the transboundary surface water bodies, the coherence of characterization was checked for each of the water bodies (bi-or multilaterally between Member States). Homogeneous transboundary stretches of the Meuse River were defined using a joint and coordinated typology. Belgium also did not report any transboundary groundwater bodies . 2.1.3Typology of surface water bodies In the second RBMP, Belgium reported two coastal water types, six lake types, three transitional water types and 41 river types ( Table 2.4 ). The maximum number of types to be shared by RBDs was two in RBDs in both the Flanders and Wallonia RBDs, but not common to the two regions . No information was found in the RBMPs on how the typologies have been made biologically relevant . Table 2.4 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Belgium for the first (2010) and second (2016) cycles RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 BEESCAUT_RW 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 BEMAAS_VL 7 5 8 1 0 0 0 0 BEMEUSE_RW 30 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 BENOORDZEE_FED 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 BERHIN_RW 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 BESCHELDE_VL 9 7 12 6 3 3 1 1 BESEINE_RW 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 45 41 13 6 4 3 2 2 Source: WISE electronic reporting Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs.

There was a significant decrease in the number of water body types in Belgium from 64 in the first cycle RBMP to 53 in second RBMP. There was a reduction by seven types in lakes, all of which were in the two Flanders RBDs. For rivers, there was a reduction in types in six of the eight RBDs with rivers, an increase in one, and no change in the other. In the two largest RBDs, there were differing numbers of river types identified in second RBMP: 29 in the Meuse RBD and seven in the Scheldt RBD. Six river, one coastal, two lake and one transitional water equivalent intercalibration types were reported by Belgium in second RBMP. 50 water bodies (~10%) were reported not to have applicable common intercalibration types including artificial, heavily modified, and natural water bodies. Therefore it is unclear how the results of intercalibration are translated to these types and water bodies. In general, there has been a coordination of typologies with neighbouring states. For example, in the Meuse International RBD, there was a coordinated approach among Member State’s parties for the typology of the rivers in the International RBD, but not for lakes. The exception was reported to be for Brussels Region, because there are very few water bodies, and they are highly modified or artificial for which there were no equivalent counterparts. 2.1.4Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Table 2.5 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Belgium with reference conditions established for the first and second cycles. For one of the two coastal water types (in the Scheldt RBD) reference conditions had not been established for any quality element. For the other type in the North Sea RBD, reference conditions were reported to be established for all biological quality elements and physico-chemical quality elements but for none of the hydromorphological quality elements. Table 2.5 Percentage of surface water body types in Belgium with reference conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physico-chemical quality elements Water category Water types Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Physico-chemical quality elements Rivers All 90% 53% 43% Some 10% 10% None 47% 47% Lakes All 100% Some None 100% 100% Transitional All 100% Some None 100% 100% Coastal All 50% 50% Some None 50% 100% 50% Source: WISE electronic reporting All six lake types in Belgium were reported to have reference conditions established for all biological quality elements but for none of the hydromorphological and physico-chemical quality elements. Of the 18 lakes in Belgium (all in the Flanders RBDs), 17 are artificial and the other heavily modified. The significance of the lack of comprehensive reference conditions for lakes needs to be assessed in relation to assessing the ecological potential of these lakes . 25 of the 58 river types were reported to have reference conditions for all relevant biological, hydromorphological and physico-chemical quality elements: all of these types were in the Wallonia RBDs. The other 6 river types in the Wallonia RBDs had reference conditions for all hydromorphological quality elements but only for some biological quality elements and physico-chemical quality elements. For all the river types in the Flanders RBDs reference conditions have been established for relevant biological quality elements and for all physico-chemical quality elements. This information is available in the RBMPs but was not always reported through WISE. For the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD (two types) reference conditions have been established for all biological quality elements but for none of the hydromorphological and physico-chemical quality elements. There are still gaps in the establishment of reference conditions in Belgium. As with lakes, for transitional waters, reference conditions were established in all 4 types for all relevant biological quality elements but for none of the hydromorphological and physico-chemical quality elements. 2.1.5Characteristics of groundwater bodies Six RBDs in Belgium have delineated groundwater bodies. All RBDs reported the geological characteristics of the aquifers and whether they are layered or not. Groundwater body links to terrestrial ecosystems have been reported in all six RBDs but links to surface water bodies are only reported by four RBDs: the two RBDs in the Flanders region provided an explanation of why this information was not reported to WISE. 2.1.6Significant pressures on water bodies The most significant pressure on rivers in Belgium was from diffuse agricultural sources (96% of river water bodies in six RBDs) ( Figure 2.2. ). Atmospheric deposition was significant in all eight RBDs with 82 % of river water bodies being affected and point source pressures from urban waste water in seven RBDs affecting 79 % of river water bodies. In terms of lakes, 89 % (of the 16) lake water bodies are affected by diffuse agricultural pressures, 28 % by ‘physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Unknown or obsolete’ and ‘diffuse atmospheric deposition’ in 22 %. All six transitional water bodies in Belgium are affected by ‘diffuse agricultural pressures,’ ‘atmospheric deposition’ and ‘physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Unknown or obsolete.’ Figure 2.2 The 10 most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in Belgium for the second cycle Source: WISE electronic reporting The pressures reported for each cycle are not directly comparable as the methodology for the identification of pressures has changed. Therefore the changes shown in Figure 2.3 are not actual changes in pressures. Figure 2.3 Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Belgium in the first and second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note there were 554 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 560 for the first cycle

Source: WISE electronic reporting The most significant pressure on groundwater bodies in Belgium in the second RBMP was ‘diffuse agriculture’ (51 %) and ‘point Industrial Emissions Directive plants’ (25 %) and ‘point non-Industrial Emissions Directive plants’ (24 %) ( Figure 2. 2). In first RBMP, 46 % of groundwater bodies were affected by diffuse source pressures, in the second RBMP it was 56 %. Similarly, in terms of point source pressures 14 % of groundwater bodies were affected in the first RBMP and 25 % in the second. 2.1.7Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater There were differences between the regions in Belgium in the tools used to define significant pressures on surface waters. Whilst the four Wallonia RBDs, the Scheldt (Brussels) and North Sea RBDs used a combination of numerical tools and expert judgement for point and diffuse sources, the two Flanders RBDs used numerical tools. For water abstraction pressures the RBDs in Wallonia used a combination of both expert judgment and numerical tools, whilst in the Flanders region expert judgment was used. Significance of pressures was linked to failure of objectives and was defined in terms of thresholds in the Flanders RBDs but not in the Wallonia RBDs. Expert judgment was used to assess significant point sources on groundwater in six RBDs; in the seventh (the Maas RBD) a combination of expert judgment and numerical tools was used. In five RBDs, a combination of both expert judgement and numerical tools was used to assess diffuse sources and in the other two expert judgment only. Expert judgement was used for water abstraction pressures in five RBDs and two used a combination of both. Significance has been defined in terms of thresholds in all seven RBDs and was linked to failure of objectives in three RBDs. 2.1.8Significant impacts on water bodies Nutrient pollution was the most significant impact on all surface water categories 65 % of surface water bodies) and on groundwater (44 % of groundwater bodies) in Belgium ( Figure 2.4 ). Chemical pollution was also significant in surface and groundwaters. Acidification also impacted 89 % of lakes in Belgium. Figure 2.4 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Belgium for the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.9Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 73 % of groundwater bodies in Belgium were reported to be at risk of failing good chemical status. Each of the six RBDs with groundwater bodies reported some groundwater bodies at risk. Thirty-three different pollutants were reported to be putting groundwater bodies at risk of failing chemical status in Belgium. The most significant in terms of proportion of affected groundwater bodies were nitrate (51 % of groundwater bodies across all six RBDs), pesticides (40 % of groundwater bodies across six RBDs) and sulphate (27 % of groundwater bodies across three RBDs). Further information on the chemical status of groundwaters is provided in Chapter six of this report. Fifteen percent of groundwater bodies in Belgium were reported to be at risk of failing good quantitative status: three of the six RBDs reported no groundwater bodies to be at risk. The reasons for the risk were reported as water balance in three RBDs and saline intrusion in one RBD. Further information on the quantitative status of groundwaters is provided in Chapter 5 of this report. 2.1.10Quantification of the gap and apportionment of pressures The only RBD to report on the gaps to be filled by measures was the North Sea RBD. It is clear from the information reported that diffuse source pollution has been apportioned as the main sources relevant to this RBD: agriculture, transport, atmospheric deposition and other. The other RBDs reported significant pressures to be addressed in the PoM but no gaps were reported. The Annex 0 reported that the information is available but could not be reported in the required format. Belgium reported eighteen chemical substances relevant to groundwater and fifty-four relevant to surface waters which are to be subject to measures but no gaps to be filled were provided for any of the substances. The Annex 0 reported that the information is available but could not be reported in the required format. Further information on the PoM is provided in Chapter 9 of this report. 2.1.11Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive 2008/105/EC (EQS 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 EQS 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 (suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for priority substances (priority hazardous substances). All RBDs except the North Sea RBD reported inventories for all Priority Substances. The two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 has been followed for all substances considered in the inventories. Tier 1 of the methodology was implemented for many of the substances included in the inventories, including for some of the substances judged relevant at RBD level. Tier 4 (source oriented) or a combination of Tier 1 (point source information) and Tier 2 (riverine load) were also implemented. In some cases the methodology applied was not reported. The data quality was assessed as medium, uncertain or very uncertain, or wasn’t reported.

2.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle Overall in Belgium, there was a decrease in the number of river water bodies from 320 in the first RBMP to 302 in the second. There was an increase of heavily modified river water bodies from 87 in the first cycle to 99 in the second in the Scheldt RBD accompanied by a reduction in natural rivers from 40 to 23 implying that some natural water bodies in the first cycle RBMP have been designated as heavily modified in the second. There was a significant decrease in the number of water body types in Belgium from sixty-four in the first cycle RBMP to fifty-three in the second RBMP. There was a reduction by seven types in lakes, all in the two Flanders RBDs. For rivers there was a reduction in types in six of the eight RBDs with rivers, an increase in one and no change in the other. In the two largest RBDs there were differing numbers of river types identified in the second RBMP: twenty-nine in the Meuse RBD and seven in the Scheldt RBD. In the first cycle RBMP, diffuse source pressures were affecting 72 % of surface water bodies increasing to 100 % of surface water bodies in second RBMP. 44 % of surface water bodies were affected by point source pressures in the first cycle rising to 83 % in second. In the first cycle, 46 % of groundwater bodies were affected by diffuse source pressures, in the second cycle it was 56 %. Similarly, in terms of point source pressures 14 % of groundwater bodies were affected in the first cycle and 25 % in the second. 2.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first cycle RBMPs and PoM requested action on the following: ·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: Hydromorphological pressures have been identified in all RBDs, although not all hydromorphological pressures have been fully assessed in all RBDs (for example, the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD did not report on the assessment of dams barriers and locks and hydrological pressures). Hydromorphological pressures have been addressed for the RBDs in Wallonia. Overall progress has been made, but there are further steps that can be taken. For the second cycle one of the two RBDs with coastal waters (the North Sea RBD and the Scheldt RBD) identified specific significant pressures. However the Scheldt RBD only reported “unknown anthropogenic pressures” . There has therefore been progress in one RBD but none in the other on this aspect of the recommendation. Belgium did not report any transboundary surface or groundwater bodies to WISE: but there is evidence of coordination. Overall, there has been some progress in improving characterisation but this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify the gap to good status for individual pressures and water bodies, and that PoM are designed and implemented to close that gap since none of the three Regions carried out an assessment/analysis of how far pressures (and their corresponding sources) have to be reduced to achieve the WFD objectives. Assessment: Identifying the gap to good status has only been reported for the North Sea RBD. The other RBDs explained in their Annex 0 why this information was not reported to WISE: Flanders and Brussels Regions claimed it was too difficult; Wallonia stated that it has the information but not in the required format . The reported tools to assess significance of pressures show that expert judgment is still used for some pressures. The use of numerical tools only (including modelling), was reported by some RBDs for some pressures. Overall, this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Establish a quantitative source apportionment and a link between pressures/impacts and their sources. Belgium should use these as a basis for determining PoM. Assessment: Only evidence of limited progress: see previous recommendation. Therefore this recommendation has been partially fulfilled.



Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second RBMPs

3.1.1.Monitoring of ecological status/potential Monitoring programmes Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. Monitoring programmes were generally organised in terms of surveillance and operational purposes for each water category in the RBDs. Of note is the surveillance and operational programme for territorial (for chemicals) and coastal waters in the North Sea RBD. In the Maas RBD there is no surveillance programme for lakes, and in the Scheldt RBD there is no programme for the one coastal water body even though these water categories occur in these RBDs. Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for surveillance and operational monitoring Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes between the cycles. Table 3.2 shows the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMPs. There was an increase from four to six surveillance sites reported in coastal waters between the two cycles ; however, for lakes, rivers, and transitional waters there were decreases. Proportionally the largest decrease was in lakes where 11 sites had been used for the first RBMPs and only one for the second RBMPs, with the Maas RBD no longer monitoring any of its three lakes for surveillance purposes. In terms of rivers, there was an increase in numbers between the cycles in one RBD, a reduction in two, and no change in four: overall there was a 9% decrease in Belgium. The number of surveillance sites was halved in transitional waters between the two cycles. Overall in Belgium there was a 7 % increase in the number of sites used for operational monitoring between the two cycles. Proportionally, the largest increase (75 %) was in lakes. There was also an increase for rivers, but a 23 % decrease in transitional waters. In terms of rivers, there were increases in two RBDs (those in the Flanders region), a decrease in one (Meuse RBD) and no changes in the other four RBDs with rivers. Table 3.1Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Belgium for the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported in the first RBMPs, the data for the second RBMPs do not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring second RBMP Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Territorial Surv. Op. Surv. Op Surv. Op. Surv. Op. Surv. Op. BEEscaut_RW 14 74 BEEscaut_Schelde_BR 8 5 BEMaas_VL 8 42 19 BEMeuse_RW 36 142 BENoordzee_FED 6 6 1 2 BERhin_RW 3 7 BESchelde_VL 52 393 1 70 3 10 BESeine_RW 1 1 Total by type of site 122 664 1 89 3 10 6 6 1 2 Total number of monitoring sites 721 89 10 6 2 first RBMP BEEscaut_RW 14 74 BEEscaut_Schelde_BR 9 5 BEMaas_VL 6 38 3 10 BEMeuse_RW 36 143 BENoordzee_FED . 4 5 BERhin_RW 3 7 BESchelde_VL 65 385 8 41 6 13 BESeine_RW 1 1 Total by type of site 134 653 11 51 6 13 4 5 Total number of monitoring sites 870 51 13 5 Sources: Member States electronic reporting to WISE Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in Belgium Monitoring Purpose Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal Territorial CHE - Chemical status 366 4 2 ECO - Ecological status 369 3 HAB - Protection of habitats or species depending on water - WFD Annex IV.1.v 204 MSF - Marine Strategy Framework Directive monitoring network 4 2 NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 43 OPE - Operational monitoring 89 664 10 6 2 RIV - International network of a river convention (including bilateral agreements) 20 Strategic Environmental Assessment - International network of a sea convention 6 2 SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring 54 SUR - Surveillance monitoring 1 122 3 6 1 TRE - Chemical trend assessment 54 UWW - Nutrient sensitive area under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 426 Total sites irrespective of purpose 89 869 10 6 2 Source: WISE electronic reporting The RBMPs and background documents provide a limited amount of explanation of the observed changes. For RBDs in Flanders, the official decree that describes the monitoring programme is provided but does not elaborate on the changes made. For the Meuse RBD, some general information is provided with some details on the reasons for the changes. There is a total of over 40 modified monitoring sites in rivers. The reasons for these changes include: ·Abolition of a number of measuring stations that were not necessary (e.g. stations used to determine reference conditions); ·Some stations have been changed for reasons of safety of access; and, ·Some stations have been changed due to a more rational planning of the network. The background document on the monitoring programme for RBDs in the Wallonia region includes a description of the new monitoring programme and a comparison with the first cycle monitoring, but no further reasons or background are provided about why changes have been implemented . For the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD, the changes are described in the RBMP but no justification or further detail is provided in the RBMP or background document.

Surveillance monitoring of surface water bodies There were no changes in the number of delineated coastal, transitional and lake water bodies between the two cycles and only small changes in the number of rivers (534 in the first RBMPs to 527 in the second). In general in Belgium, a larger proportion of lake, river, and transitional water bodies were monitored operationally than for surveillance purposes: for example 71 % and 17 % of river water bodies, respectively ( Figure 3.1). Figure 3.1Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Belgium for the first RBMPs (2010) and second RBMPs (2016). Note no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring Source: WISE electronic reporting Overall, there appears to have been a reduction in surveillance monitoring and an increase in operational monitoring. For the second RBMPs, only one lake out of 18 in Belgium was included in surveillance monitoring, while for the first RBMPs, five had been included in surveillance monitoring. There was a small increase of river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring, from 90 in the first RBMPs to 92 in the second. The Scheldt RBD has a coastal water body but no monitoring data was available. Monitored surface water bodies in the surveillance programme were distributed throughout the status classes in rivers ( Figure 3.2) but were limited to less than good classes for the other relevant water categories. Figure 3.2Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring in Belgium Source: WISE electronic reporting 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 Operational monitoring of surface water bodies The only changes in the numbers of water bodies included in operational monitoring between the two cycles were for rivers. Overall there was a small increase, from 69 % of river water bodies in the first RBMPs to 71 % in the second. In three RBDs (all in the Wallonia region) there were small increases in the number included in operational monitoring, and small reductions in the two RBDs in the Flanders region. Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) Table 3.3 illustrates the quality elements used for the monitoring of surface waters for the second RBMPs; no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. In the first and second RBMPs, two biological quality elements were reported to be monitored in the coastal water body in the North Sea RBD. Note that it has been accepted by the Common Implementation Strategy Working Group on Ecological Status that angiosperms and macroalgae are not applicable in coastal and transitional waters in Belgium. In addition, hydromorphology was not monitored, and only two general physicochemical quality elements were monitored. Hydromorphological quality elements were reported to be monitored in lakes in the first RBMPs, whereas in the second RBMPs they were not. All required biological quality elements and general physicochemical quality elements were reported to be monitored in both cycles.

Table 3.3Quality elements monitored for the second RBMPs in Belgium (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). Note: quality elements may be used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring. Note that angiosperms and macroalgae are not applicable in coastal and transitional waters in Belgium.

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 Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Transitional Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Coastal Yes Yes No No No No (Yes) No General physicochemical quality elements Transparency conditions Thermal conditions Oxygenation conditions Salinity conditions Acidification status Nitrogen conditions Phosphorus Conditions Silicate Other determinand for nutrient conditions Lakes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Transitional No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Coastal No No Yes No No Yes No (Yes) No No Source: WISE electronic reporting. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Belgium All required biological quality elements and general physicochemical quality elements were also reported to be monitored in rivers in all seven RBDs with rivers for the first and second cycles. However, only three of the seven RBDs – Scheldt and Maas (all three elements) and Scheldt (Brussels) (only hydrological regime) - indicated that they monitored hydromorphological quality elements in the first RBMPs. In the second RBMPs, six of the seven RBDs reported that these elements were now monitored, indicating some progress. In the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD only hydrological regime was still monitored, leaving gaps in terms of river continuity and morphological conditions. In terms of transitional waters, the same biological quality elements and hydromorphological quality elements were reported for both cycles. None of the lake and transitional water bodies included in surveillance monitoring (one and three respectively) was monitored for all the required biological, hydromorphological, and general physicochemical quality elements. In terms of the biological quality elements, only phytoplankton (in two of the three water bodies) in transitional waters and phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates in lakes were monitored. Phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates were monitored in the coastal water body included in surveillance monitoring but hydromorphological and some general physicochemical quality elements were not monitored. In terms of rivers, all the required biological quality elements were monitored in four of the seven RBDs with rivers, representing 62 % of the river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring. For the hydromorphological quality elements, 73 % of those river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring were monitored for all required elements. 99 % of river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring were monitored for all required general physicochemical quality elements. Two biological quality elements (phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates) were used for the operational monitoring of coastal waters; only one of the two coastal water bodies was included in operational monitoring. For transitional waters, all four relevant biological quality elements were included in operational monitoring. Whilst all relevant biological quality elements were included in the operational monitoring of lakes, phytoplankton was monitored in all those water bodies monitored operationally, followed by fish and benthic invertebrates (78% of water bodies), phytobenthos (72 %) and macrophytes (67 %). Again, all relevant biological quality elements were included in the operational monitoring of rivers, with benthic invertebrates being monitored in 90 % of river water bodies included in operational monitoring, followed by phytobenthos (88 %), macrophytes (72 %) and fish (70 %). In Belgium as a whole, all coastal, lake and transitional water bodies at less than good ecological status/potential were included in operational monitoring, while in rivers 88 % were included. 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 period covered by a RBD management plan; that is, once every six years. For phytoplankton, this should be done twice during the monitoring year and once during the year for the other biological quality elements. 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. Only two biological quality elements were used for the surveillance monitoring of coastal waters: both phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates were sampled at the minimum recommended frequency at all three sites used. In transitional waters, only one biological quality element (phytoplankton) was sampled at the minimum recommended frequency at the two sites used. Only fish and phytoplankton were used in the surveillance monitoring of lakes, with one site for each. The site for fish was sampled at the minimum recommended frequency, while the site for phytoplankton was not. Five biological quality elements were used for the surveillance monitoring of rivers and none were sampled at the minimum recommended frequency at all the sites where they were monitored. The maximum proportion of sites where the minimum recommended frequency was met or exceeded was for phytoplankton and phytobenthos, for which 76 % of sites were sampled at the minimum frequency, and the minimum for fish (56 % of sites). Overall, only 69 % of the sites used for the surveillance monitoring of the biological quality elements in surface water bodies in Belgium were sampled at, or greater than, the minimum recommended frequency. For operational monitoring it was only 24 % of sites. Three sites were used for operational monitoring in one of the two coastal water bodies and the sites were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency for phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates. In contrast, none of biological quality elements used in transitional waters were sampled at the minimum recommended frequency. Although more biological quality elements and more sites were used for the operational monitoring of lakes compared to surveillance, three of the five elements were not sampled at the minimum recommended frequency at any of the sites; the other two were in line with the minimum recommended frequency at 44 % of the 46 sites used for phytobenthos and 27 % of the 41 sites used for benthic invertebrates. None of the five biological quality elements used in the operational monitoring of rivers were sampled at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites. No sites were sampled at least at the recommended frequency for phytoplankton whereas for benthic invertebrates 44 % of sites were. River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored A total of 79 different River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored in the two Flanders RBDs and the North Sea Federal RBD in Belgium, all of them in water and three in sediment. Polychlorinated biphenyls, copper and zinc were monitored in sediment at one site in coastal waters and two sites in territorial waters. All surface water categories, including territorial waters, were monitored for at least some of the pollutants. No information on the individual chemical substances monitored was reported by the four Walloon RBDs and the Brussels Region RBD. Table 3.4 summarises the number of monitoring sites in each of the categories monitored for River Basin Specific Pollutants. This is mainly from the information reported at the generic quality element level. The notable differences between the two cycles are an increase in the number of monitoring sites in lakes (from 0 to 22) and in rivers (from 523 to 617). Table 3.4Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants reported in the second RBMPs and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants reported in the first RBMPs in Belgium. Note the data from both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and not all Member State reported information at the site level meaning that there were no equivalent data for the first RBMPs RBMP Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Territorial second Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 617 22 7 1 2 first Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants 523 0 5 1 2 Sources: WISE electronic reporting.Note: the data for rivers, lakes and transitional waters were reported at the generic quality element level; that for coastal and territorial waters was from reporting on chemicals monitored at the site level.

River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported in the first RBMPs to be monitored in rivers, transitional and coastal waters. In the second RBMPs this has been extended to lakes and territorial waters . Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements: once every three months is recommended for “other pollutants” which are taken here to equate to river basin specific pollutants. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a river basin management plan i.e. six years. For river basin specific pollutants this should be done four times for the surveillance year, and for operational monitoring four times a year for each year of the cycle. Greater intervals may be justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. All 79 River Basin Specific Pollutants were included in surveillance monitoring and all were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all of the sites where they were monitored. Information on the individual River Basin Specific Pollutants was not reported at the site level for the Wallonia region RBDs, though information was reported at the generic quality element level. For the Rhine and the Seine RBDs it is also unclear whether the lack of reporting of exceedances is a reporting mistake or means that there are no River Basin Specific Pollutants exceeding their Environmental Quality Standards in these two RBDs. Transboundary surface water body monitoring Belgium did not report any transboundary surface water bodies. Three RBDs reported river monitoring sites that are part of an international network of a river convention . In addition, there are sites in the North Sea RBD in coastal and territorial waters that are part of an international network of a sea convention. 3.1.2.Ecological Status/potential of surface water The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Belgium in the second RBMPs is illustrated in Map 3.1 . Figure 3.3 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in Belgium in the first RBMPs with that in the second RBMPs and that expected by 2015. Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological status/potential. The information for Belgium is shown in Figure 3.4. Map 3.1Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Belgium based on the most recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) High Good Moderate Poor Bad Unknown RBDs Countries outside the European Union



Figure 3.3Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Belgium in the second RBMPs, in the first RBMPs and expected in 2015. The number in parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for both cycles. Note the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2008 to 2014. The year of the assessment of status for the first RBMPs is not known

Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.4Expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Belgium. The number in the parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each category Source: WISE electronic reporting All water bodies have been classified, except 13 heavily modified water bodies and one natural river water body in the Meuse RBD and one coastal water body in the Scheldt RBD. The proportion of unknowns has decreased from 7 % in the first RBMPs to 3 % in the second RBMPs. There has been an increase between the two cycles in the proportion of surface water bodies at good or better status/potential: the proportion of less than good status/potential surface water bodies remained the same. The ecological status/potential is still less than good for more than 70 % of all classified river water bodies. All lakes (18 water bodies), transitional waters (six water bodies) and the only coastal water body which was classified are in less than good ecological status/potential. More than half of the river water bodies and 2/3 of the lakes are in poor or worse status in the second RBMPs. This shows that Belgium has a long way to go to achieve the good status/potential objectives, which may be why the timing of achievement of objectives is reported as unknown for 60 % of the water bodies ( Figure 3.4). Three RBMPs were examined in more detail for information on the changes described by the Member State in the ecological status/potential of surface water bodies between the first and second RBMPs. For the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD, data on fish were lacking in the period 2009-2010, and data were therefore incomplete. It is reported in the RBMP that a general trend can be described: as the principle 'one out/all out' was applied, an insufficient or bad value for fish in 2013 has led to a decrease of status compared to the first cycle, when fish data were not used. In the Scheldt (Flanders) RBD none of the 176 assessed waterbodies achieved a good ecological status or potential in the second RBMP as was the case in the first RBMP. There are improvements noticeable in the Scheldt RBD for individual biological quality elements, but not for the overall ecological status. In the Meuse (Wallonia) RBD there was an increase in the number of water bodies with a good or high ecological status (130 in the second RBMP versus 115 in the first RBMP). Confidence in ecological status assessment Figure 3.5 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. The confidence in classification of ecological status/potential is given as high for 99% of surface water bodies, which is a major improvement since the first RBMPs, where no information was given on confidence. It should also be noted that no water body was classified with low confidence. Figure 3.5Confidence in the classification of ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Belgium based on the most recently assessed status/potential Source: WISE electronic reporting Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element All the relevant biological quality elements are used for classification in most of the water bodies in all water categories and RBDs ( Figure 3.6). All the general physicochemical quality elements and hydromorphological quality elements are classified in almost all water bodies in the Scheldt and Maas RBDs. The hydromorphological quality elements are reported not to be classified in rivers in the four RBDs of the Wallonia region (Escaut, Meuse, Rhine and Seine RBDs). Hydromorphological quality elements are not classified in rivers in the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD. The hydromorphological quality elements are also missing in lakes in the Maas RBD and the Scheldt RBD and in coastal waters in the North Sea RBD. River Basin Specific Pollutants were used in the classification of ecological status/potential in all water categories in all RBDs.

Changes in the status/potential at the quality element level between the two RBMPs were reported to be consistent for some quality elements in some water bodies in the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD and a few water bodies in the Scheldt RBD, but there is no clear pattern towards better or worse. In the Scheldt and Maas RBDs information on change was reported for many water bodies, but the vast majority show no change; for those that show a change, some are to the better and some to the worse with no clear pattern and there is no information about the reason for change. For the other water bodies and quality elements and RBDs the change is either unknown or there is no information. Figure 3.6Ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of lakes and rivers in Belgium. Note that water bodies with unknown status/potential, and those that are monitored but not classified or not applicable, are not presented Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.7 compares the classification of biological quality elements in terms of ecological status/potential for the two cycles. It should be noted that this comparison should be treated with caution as there are differences between the numbers of surface water bodies classified for individual elements. Figure 3.7Comparison of ecological status/potential in Belgium according to classified biological quality elements in rivers and lakes between the two cycles. Source: WISE electronic r