EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 32 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT International Cooperation under the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) - Factsheets for International River Basins 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) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 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 content Acronyms Foreword Introduction 1. International River Basins - category 1 1.1. Danube River Basin District 1.1.1. General Information 1.1.2. Governance and public participation 1.1.3. Characterisation of the River Basin District 1.1.4. Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status 1.1.5. Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status 1.1.6. Monitoring, assessment and classification of groundwater quantitative and chemical status 1.1.7. Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential 1.1.8. Environmental Objectives and Exemptions 1.1.9. Programme of measures 1.1.10. Measures related to water scarcity and abstractions 1.1.11. Measures related to pollution from agriculture 1.1.12. Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 1.1.13. Measures related to hydromorphological alterations

1.1.14. Economic analysis and water pricing policies 1.1.15. Considerations specific to Protected Areas 1.1.16. Climate Change and droughts 1.1.17. Recommendations 1.2. Elbe River Basin District 1.2.1. General Information 1.2.2. Governance and public participation 1.2.3. Characterisation of the River Basin District 1.2.4. Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status 1.2.5. Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status 1.2.6. Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential 1.2.7. Environmental Objectives and Exemptions 1.2.8. Programme of measures 1.2.9. Economic analysis and water pricing policies 1.2.10. Considerations specific to Protected Areas 1.2.11. Climate Change and droughts 1.2.12. Recommendations 1.3. Ems River Basin District 1.3.1. General Information 1.3.2. Governance and public participation

1.3.3. Characterisation of the River Basin District 1.3.4. Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status 1.3.5. Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status 1.3.6. Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential 1.3.7. Environmental Objectives and Exemptions 1.3.8. Programme of measures 1.3.9. Measures related to pollution from agriculture and other sectors 1.3.10. Measures related to hydromorphological alterations 1.3.11. Economic analysis and water pricing policies 1.3.12. Considerations specific to Protected Areas 1.3.13. Climate Change and droughts 1.3.14. Recommendations 1.4. Meuse River Basin District 1.4.1. General Information 1.4.2. Governance and public participation 1.4.3. Characterisation of the River Basin District 1.4.4. Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status 1.4.5. Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status 1.4.6. Monitoring, assessment and classification of groundwater quantitative and chemical status 1.4.7. Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential

1.4.8. Environmental Objectives and Exemptions 1.4.9. Programme of measures 1.4.10. Economic analysis and water pricing policies 1.4.11. Considerations specific to Protected Areas 1.4.12. Climate Change and droughts 1.4.13. Recommendations 1.5. Odra River Basin District 1.5.1. General Information 1.5.2. Governance and public participation 1.5.3. Characterisation of the River Basin District 1.5.4. Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status 1.5.5. Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status 1.5.6. Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential 1.5.7. Environmental Objectives and Exemptions 1.5.8. Programme of Measures 1.5.9. Economic analysis and water pricing policies 1.5.10. Considerations specific to Protected Areas 1.5.11. Climate Change and droughts 1.5.12. Recommendations 1.6. Rhine River Basin District

1.6.1. General Information 1.6.2. Governance and public participation 1.6.3. Characterisation of the River Basin District 1.6.4. Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status 1.6.5. Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status 1.6.6. Monitoring, assessment and classification of groundwater quantitative and chemical status 1.6.7. Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential 1.6.8. Environmental Objectives and Exemptions 1.6.9. Programme of measures 1.6.10. Economic analysis and water pricing policies 1.6.11. Considerations specific to Protected Areas 1.6.12. Climate Change and Droughts 1.6.13. Recommendations 1.7. Sava River Basin District 1.7.1. General Information 1.7.2. Governance and public participation 1.7.3. Characterisation of the River Basin District 1.7.4. Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological and chemical status 1.7.5. Monitoring, assessment and classification of groundwater quantitative and chemical status 1.7.6. Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential

1.7.7. Environmental Objectives and Exemptions 1.7.8. Programme of measures 1.7.9. Economic analysis and water pricing policies 1.7.10. Considerations specific to Protected Areas 1.7.11. Climate Change and Droughts 1.7.12. Recommendations 1.8. Scheldt River Basin District 1.8.1. General Information 1.8.2. Governance and public participation 1.8.3. Characterisation of the River Basin District 1.8.4. Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status 1.8.5. Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status 1.8.6. Monitoring, assessment and classification of groundwater quantitative and chemical status 1.8.7. Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential 1.8.8. Environmental Objectives and Exemptions 1.8.9. Programme of measures 1.8.10. Economic analysis and water pricing policies 1.8.11. Considerations specific to Protected Areas 1.8.12. Climate Change and Droughts 1.8.13. Recommendations

1.9. Finnish-Norwegian International River Basin District: Paatsjoki/Pasvik/Pasvikelva, Näätämö/Neiden and Teno/TanaUutuanjoki River Basins 1.9.1. General Information 1.9.2. Governance and public participation 1.9.3. Characterisation of the River Basin District 1.9.4. Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological and chemical status 1.9.5. Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential 1.9.6. Environmental Objectives and Exemptions 1.9.7. Programme of measures 1.9.8. Economic analysis and water pricing policies 1.9.9. Considerations specific to Protected Areas 1.9.10. Recommendations



Acronyms EQS Environmental Quality Standard Directive FD Floods Directive km Kilometre km2 Kilometre squared KTM Key Type of Measure ICPDR International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River ICPR International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine iPoM Joint Programme of Measures iRBD International River Basin District iRBMP International River Basin Management Plan PoM Programme of Measures WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Water Information System for Europe



Foreword The factsheets for the International River Basin Management Plans cover a wide range of issues and are not identical in all. This is because information for some issues may be available in some international River Basin Districts (iRBDs) but not in others, depending on the level of cooperation. The International Basin Assessment factsheets were drafted on the basis of the national river basin management plans (RBMPs), international iRBMPs (where available), as well as information that was reported by the Member States through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) electronic reporting. All tables, figures and maps presented in this report have been sourced from WISE. Where information was not available regarding international cooperation in the second water management cycle, the report uses information obtained from the 2012 Pressures and Measures study on international cooperation . The compilation reflects the situation as reported to the European Commission in 2016 and with reference to either the international or national River Basin Management Plans (RBMP), where appropriate.





Introduction The Water Framework Directive (WFD) stipulates that Member States shall ensure that a river basin covering the territory of more than one Member State is assigned to an iRBD. Appropriate administrative arrangements, including the identification of the appropriate competent authority for the international river basin district shall be established by the Member States. Member States shall ensure that the environmental objectives of the Directive are met in international river basin districts. To this end, Member States shall coordinate at the international level on a programme of measures. In the case of an international river basin district falling entirely within the Community, Member States shall ensure coordination with the aim of producing a single international river basin management plan (iRBMP), including involving third countries. If an iRBMP is not produced, Member States shall produce river basin management plans covering at least those parts of the international river basin district falling within their territory to achieve the objectives of the Directive. The European Commission is required to report to the European Parliament and Council in 2018 on progress made by Member States with implementing the WFD. The present document is part of this reporting and comprises a series of fact sheets for the international river basins (RB) which are describing the application of the Directive at iRBD. International river basin districts and their coordination mechanisms International river basins in the EU are either shared exclusively between EU Member States or between EU Member States and third countries. There are 75 iRBDs and 30 sub-basins in the EU. International coordination mechanisms (agreements, working groups etc.) under the WFDe vary among the different international river basins districts. Based on their level of cooperation, four main categories were identified. An overview of different types of international cooperation is given in Table 1 . Table 1 Different types of international coordination in relation to the WFD Category Formal international agreement International coordinating body iRBMP produced 1 Yes Yes Yes 2 Yes Yes No 3 Yes No No 4 No No No EU Member States were requested to report to WISE the international river basin districts in their territory and the level of international coordination taking place in these iRBDs. Greece, Ireland and Lithuania are not covered by this assessment due to late reporting. The categories of these iRBDs were taken from the assessment of international coordination in the first cycle . The map below shows the international river basin districts and their level of international coordination. Figure 1 Overview map of iRBDs Selection of iRBDs for the assessment 21 iRBDs were chosen for the assessment (see Table 2 ). The selection was based on the following criteria: All iRBDs with iRBMPs were selected. In cases where EU Member States/third countries share several iRBDs (e.g. there are four iRBDs shared between Portugal and Spain), the most representative basin was identified, taking into account the overall iRBD catchment area size, the balanced share of catchment area between the iRBD sharing countries and the level of international coordination. iRBDs that hold an insignificant international share (e.g. <1 %) were excluded. International basins shared with Greece (5 iRBDs ), Ireland (2 iRBDs ) and Lithuania (2 iRBDs ) were not assessed due to delays in the adoption of the national level River Basin Management Plans and reporting. As a result, Category 4 basins (see Table 1 for explanation) were not assessed. Table 2 presents the list of basins included in the assessment and the categories of these iRBDs as reported by the EU Member States. Table 2 List of selected iRBDs for which an assessment was done

Category International

River Basin EU Member States/Non-EU countries Category 1 Danube Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia Non-EU: Switzerland, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova, Montenegro, Macedonia Elbe Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Poland Ems Germany, The Netherlands Meuse Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, The Netherlands Odra Czech Republic, Germany, Poland Rhine Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, , Luxembourg, The Netherlands Non-EU: Switzerland, Liechtenstein Sava Croatia, Slovenia Non-EU: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia Scheldt Belgium, France Teno/Tana Finland Non-EU: Norway, Russia Category 2 Adige/Etsch Italy, Non-EU: Switzerland Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru Poland Non-EU: Moldova, Ukraine Garonne – Cantabrico -Ebro France, Spain Guadiana Spain, Portugal Gauja/Koiva Estonia, Latvia Isonzo/Soca Italy, Slovenia Luleälven, Umeälven, Piteälven Sweden Non-EU: Norway Rhone France, Italy Non-EU: Switzerland Torneälven/Tornionjok Sweden, Finland Non-EU: Norway Category 3 Eider Germany, Denmark Narva Estonia, Latvia Non-EU: Russia Schlei Trave Germany, Denmark Vistula Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania Non-EU: Ukraine, Belarus



1.International River Basins - category 1 1.1.Danube River Basin District 1.1.1.General Information Map 1.1.1 Danube International River Basin District Source: WISE reporting 2016 The Danube International River Basin District (iRBD) is shared by Albania, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, the Republic of Serbia, Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland and the Ukraine. 14 countries with territories > 2,000 km2 in the Danube River Basin are, together with the European Union, Contracting Parties to the Danube River Protection Convention. The Convention established the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). The International River Basin District Management Plan (iRBMP) was elaborated in the frame of the ICPDR. Two EU Member States – Italy and Poland – and three non-EU Member States – Albania, Macedonia and Switzerland - are not Contracting Parties to the Convention as their international shares of the Danube are less than 2,000 km2 (see Table 1 ). As such, their territories are not covered by the iRBMP. This report focuses on the information included in the iRBMP for those countries who are cooperating in the frame of the ICPDR. Information reported to WISE by the Contracting Parties of the Danube River Protection Convention which are EU Member States (with the exception of Italy and Poland) complement the report. The Danube iRBD is allocated by the Member States cooperating in the frame of the ICPDR to cooperation Category 1, which means that an international agreement, a permanent co-operation body and international WFD RBMP is in place. Italy assigned its share of the Danube basin to the ITA Eastern Alps River Basin District, which includes also other basins next to the Danube, and assigned it in contrast as a Category 2 basin. Poland designated its share of the Danube Basin as a Category 3 basin. Poland reported to WISE information for its share of the Danube Basin. Italy reported to WISE information for the entire Eastern Alps River Basin District and not just the share of its national district within the Danube. The iRBMP can be downloaded from the ICPDR website . The table below presents the size of the total catchment area and national shares within the iRBD (km2; %).

Table 1.1.1 Size of the total catchment area and national shares for each international RBD Shared International RBD Total Area of Shared International RBD (km2) EU Member States/Non-EU countries in International RBD EU RBD Code National Area within International RBD (km2) National Area within International RBD (%) Danube 674,929.8 Austria AT1000 80,423 10 Bulgaria BG1000 47,413 5.9 Croatia HRC 34,965 4.4 Czech Republic CZ1000 21,688 2.9 Germany DE1000 56,184 7.0 Hungary HU1000 93,030 11.6 Italy ITA 565 <0.1 Poland PL1000 430 <0.1 Romania RO1000 232,193 29 Slovakia SK40000 47,084 5.9 Slovenia SIRBD1 16,422 2 Albania N/A 126 <0.1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 36,636 4.6 % Macedonia 109 <0.1 Moldova 12,834 1.6 Montenegro 7,075 0.9 Serbia 81,560 10.2 Switzerland 1,809 0,2 Ukraine 30,520 3.8

Source: iRBMP



1.1.2.Governance and public participation Cooperation framework: International, bilateral and/or multilateral agreements in place covering certain cooperation aspects The key international multilateral agreement in the Danube iRBD on water management is the Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River (Danube River Protection Convention). Since 2000 the implementation of the EU WFD was declared as the highest priority of the contracting parties of the ICPDR (Resolution of the ICPDR Ordinary Meeting 2000 in Sofia). Further resolutions were adopted in which all contracting parties – including the Non-EU Member States - agreed to participate in producing a coordinated international River Basin Management Plan according to the requirements of the EU WFD. That the implementation of the WFD is considered a priority in the iRBD was also confirmed by the Danube Declaration, which was adopted in the frame of an ICPDR Ministerial Meeting on 13 December 2004 (Vienna), and follow-up Declarations. The main objective of the Convention is to ensure that surface waters and groundwater within the Danube River Basin are managed and used sustainably and equitably. This involves: - the conservation, improvement and rational use of surface waters and groundwater; - preventive measures to control hazards originating from accidents involving floods, ice or hazardous substances; and - measures to reduce the pollution loads entering the Black Sea from sources in the Danube River Basin. A number of different international Expert and Task Groups are set up to address specific water management issues. The Expert Group on River Basin Management (RBM EG) coordinates the implementation of the EU WFD in the Danube River Basin. The Flood Protection Expert Group defines and prepares tasks related to the implementation of the EU Floods Directive (FD) in the Danube River Basin such as the development of flood hazard and risk maps and the Danube River Basin Flood Risk Management Plan. In addition to the Danube Convention, a multitude of bi- and multilateral agreements are in place. Joint activities within the iRBD Development of an iRBMP and link to national RBMPs The management of the iRBD is based on three levels of coordination – Part A (international, basin-wide level), Part B (national level and/or the international coordinated sub-basin level for the selected sub-basins Sava, Tisza, Prut and Danube Delta), and Part C (Sub-unit level, defined as management unit within the national territory). The ICPDR serves as the coordinating platform between the countries to compile multilateral and basin-wide issues at Part A of the iRBD. According to the iRBMP, to ensure coherence with Part A and Part B, it is necessary for the national plans to refer to the main findings of the iRBMP. This includes providing information on the significant water management issues for surface and groundwater bodies identified at the basin level and how they relate the activities at national level. In addition to developing significant water management issues at international level, four other documents produced by the ICPDR, while not legally binding, are intended to serve as a "common roadmap" guiding national activities and supporting harmonization of actions throughout the basin. The documents are: ·Joint Statement Navigation; ·Guiding Principles on Sustainable Hydropower Development in the Danube Basin; ·ICPDR Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change; and ·Ecological prioritisation approach for measures to restore river and habitat continuity. According to the iRBMP, the national plan should refer to the above documents and take their findings into account with developing national activities in the relevant fields. However, the implementation of the measures in the Joint Programme of Measures is primarily a national task and performed via national water management plans. Areas of joint cooperation In the field of public consultation, meetings of the ICPDR and its expert group for public participation, which existence is specific compared to other river basin commissions, supported a basin-wide exchange on the national consultation work. To support information exchange between the responsible authorities and interlink national public consultation activities with the basin-wide level, information on national significant water management issue documents and draft management plan consultation measures was collected and centrally published on the ICPDR website. A consultation was held on the draft iRBMP at international level, as well as an online survey and a stakeholder workshop. Comments were evaluated and reactions have been published in an overview reply table . Sectors and observers involved within the development of the iRBMP There are 23 organisations approved as observers to the ICPDR, all of which had the opportunity to contribute to the development of the iRBMP through the relevant expert groups, task groups and plenary meetings (Standing Working Group and Ordinary Meetings). Sectors include:

·Hydropower ·Navigation ·Public and private water services providers/utilities ·Environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) ·Dredging ·Tourism ·Research ·Sport fishing ·Government Agencies/Commissions Existence of a transboundary Accident Emergency Warning System An Accident Emergency Warning System is in place in the Danube - River Basin. It is activated if a risk of transboundary water pollution exists and alerts downstream countries with warning messages in order to help national authorities to put safety measures timely into action. The warning system is operated, maintained and enhanced by the ICPDR and it is regularly tested. In addition, the ICPDR is currently assessing the potential accident risk hot-spots and updating the catalogue of contaminated sites of the Danube Basin. Accident risk spots represent mainly existing industrial and energy production facilities that process, store, produce or release hazardous substances. The accident risk spots inventories being compiled will evaluate the potential risk of the selected facilities based on the Water Risk Index values. The Water Risk Index assesses the hazard of the industrial sites based on the hazard degree of the processed materials and their volume stored at the sites. Contaminated sites include old industrial facilities, abandoned sites and landfills. For the contaminated sites, the risk assessment includes a rough assessment of the real risk based on the flood probability and safety conditions of the sites. 1.1.3.Characterisation of the River Basin District Coordination of the Article 5 assessment The iRBD sharing countries coordinated on elements of Article 5. The Danube Basin Analysis report was first published in 2004. It was also updated in 2013 and published on the ICPDR’s website. The report provides details on characterisation; pressures and impacts; designation of the heavily modified and artificial water bodies; Impact and Risk Assessment; Inventory of Protected Areas; Economic analysis; and Integration issues. The Danube Basin Analysis provides the analytical basis for the iRBMP. Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies Surface water Steps were taken to coordinate the delineation of transboundary surface water bodies. According to Danube Basin Analysis, while each country has its own approach for water body delineation, the approaches are similar. Water bodies were identified by typological criteria and afterwards updated based on the analysis of the pressures and monitoring data. The water bodies described in the Danube Basin Analysis cover those relevant on the basin-wide level, respectively rivers, with catchment areas larger than 4,000 km2, and lakes >100 km2. All other water bodies are dealt with in detail in the National Reports (Part B). According to the Danube Basin Analysis, the criteria used for the delineation of water bodies are similar among the Danube countries. A change in type is indicated as the most frequent reason for the delineation of water bodies as well as a change in pressure, in particular a change in the degree of pollution. Also, changes in the hydrological regime and in morphology were frequently used criteria.

To determine whether the delineation of surface water bodies by the Member States was coordinated, GIS data reported to WISE from the bordering Member States for transboundary stretches in the Danube basin were assessed. The examples below show that coordination has not always resulted in similar delineation. Map 1.1.2 Comparison of the delineation of a river along the Austrian-German border Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016 The brown line shows water body ATOK303070000 in Austria, the grey line shows the water body DERW_DEBY_1_F633 in Germany. While the starting points for the river are different, the end points match between the two countries , . Map 1.1.3 Comparison of the delineation of a river along the Austrian-German border Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016 The brown line shows the water body ATOK305340007 in Austria, the grey line shows the water body DERW_DEBY_1_F654 in Germany. The start and end points for the water body are different between the two countries. Map 1.1.4 Comparison of the delineation of a river along the Hungarian-Slovakian border Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016 The brown line shows the water body HUAEP443 in Hungary, the grey line shows the water body SKD0018 in Slovakia. The start and end points for the water body are different between the two countries. Map 1.1.5 Comparison of the delineation of a river along the Bulgarian-Romanian border Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016 The brown line shows the water body RORW14-1-B3 in Romania, grey line shows the water body BG1DU000R001in Bulgaria. The start and end points of the delineated water body are close to each other. Additionally, Bulgaria reported to WISE a more detailed spatial dataset, which includes also small tributaries along with the main stream of the water body. Groundwater Coordination took place on the delineation for transboundary groundwater bodies. According to the iRBMP, transboundary groundwater bodies are made up of national parts (which comprise individual national groundwater bodies that have been aggregated). The iRBMP and the Danube Basin Analysis provide an overview of important transboundary groundwater bodies in the Danube River Basin. They are defined as follows:

important due to the size of the groundwater body which means an area > 4000 km² or important due to various criteria e.g. socio-economic importance, uses, impacts, pressures interaction with aquatic ecosystem. The criteria were agreed bilaterally. Other groundwater bodies, i.e. those with an area larger than 4000 km² and fully situated within one country of the iRBD, are dealt with at the national level. Information on 11 aggregated transboundary groundwater bodies of basin-wide importance with eight countries concerned (Germany, Austria, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova) is provided in the iRBMP. These aggregated groundwater bodies have been agreed by all countries sharing their parts. The most frequent method applied for the delineation of the aggregated groundwater bodies is based on geological boundaries in combination with a hydrogeological approach. In some countries other criteria like importance for water supply, groundwater quality, water temperature or surface water catchment areas were additionally considered. Typology Coordination of surface water bodies The iRBMP states that typology was updated for the second cycle. The typology of the Danube River was developed in a joint activity by the basin sharing countries for the first Danube Basin Analysis in 2004. The Danube typology therefore used a harmonised system used by all these countries. The Danube typology was based on a combination of abiotic factors of System A and System B. The most important factors are ecoregion, mean water slope, substratum composition, geomorphology and water temperature. Ten Danube section types were identified and the morphological and habitat characteristics are outlined for each section type. In order to ensure that the Danube section types are biologically meaningful, these were validated with biological data collected during the first Joint Danube Survey in 2001. All the Member States in the Danube iRBD reported to WISE that there was coordination on typology of surface water bodies. The typologies of the Danube tributaries were developed by the countries individually. Stream types relevant on transboundary water courses were bilaterally harmonised with the neighbours. Most countries in the iRBD (Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria) have applied System B (Annex II, 1.2.1 WFD) for establishing their river typology. Slovakia and Ukraine have used System A. Countries using System B have used a number of optional factors to further describe the river types. River discharge, mean substratum composition and mean water slope are most frequently used. The common factors used mostly in iRBDs typologies are ecoregion, altitude, catchment area and geology. For the development of the typology of transitional and coastal waters System B was applied. The transitional waters are differentiated into lacustrine and marine transitional waters. Coordination in the Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies The Danube Basin Analysis states that on the basin-wide level, the Danube countries have agreed on general criteria as a common base for the definition of reference conditions for rivers. These have then been further developed on the national level into type-specific reference conditions. The definition of reference conditions was based on the following approaches: ·spatially based approach using data from monitoring sites; ·approach based on predictive modelling; ·definition of temporally based reference conditions using either historical data or ·palaeo-reconstruction; or ·use of expert judgement (where none of the above methods was possible). For lakes, reference conditions were developed individually by the countries. The methods most frequently applied were the use of historical data, expert judgement and spatially based methods. Hungary also used historical data and palaeo-reconstruction for phytoplankton and physico-chemical conditions to define reference conditions in its lakes. A comparison of reference conditions reveals that similar approaches are being applied. All countries are basing their assessment on species composition, abundance and the diversity of species. In some cases, additional parameters were used (e.g. age structure, biomass, ratio of sensitive to insensitive species). Coordination on Significant Water Management Issues (SWMIs) The iRBMP defined four significant water management issues for surface and groundwater bodies:

·Pollution by organic substances ·Pollution by nutrients ·Pollution by hazardous substances ·Hydromorphological alterations These issues relate to the impacts on the ecological and chemical status of surface waters. For transboundary groundwater bodies, both, qualitative and quantitative issues are addressed. In addition to these significant water management issues, the ICPDR is working on other relevant key issues like sediment management and invasive alien species in order to improve the data basis for these issues with the aim to determine their relevance on the basin-wide level and to propose appropriate measures.

1.1.4.Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water ecological status Monitoring of ecological status/potential Joint monitoring programmes for surface waters and application of joint methods/joint surveys and interlaboratory tests The iRBMP describes the international monitoring programme of the basin. The TransNational Monitoring Network is a joint programme for the countries cooperating in the frame of the ICPDR. The major objective of the monitoring network is to provide an overview of the overall status and long-term changes of surface water in a basin-wide context (with particular attention paid to the transboundary pollution load). To meet the requirements of both the WFD and the ICPDR, the Trans National Monitoring Network for surface waters consists of the following elements: ·Surveillance monitoring I: Monitoring of surface water status; ·Surveillance monitoring II: Monitoring of specific pressures; ·Operational monitoring; ·Investigative monitoring. Surveillance monitoring I and operational monitoring is based on collection of national data on the status of surface water and groundwater bodies for the development of the iRBMP. Investigative monitoring is primarily a national task. However, on the basin-wide level, the Joint Danube Survey serves the investigative monitoring as required e.g. for harmonisation of existing monitoring methodologies; filling information gaps in monitoring networks; testing new methods; or checking the impact of “new” chemical substances in different matrices. Joint Danube Surveys are carried out every six years. The monitoring networks’ laboratories have a free choice of standardized analytical method, providing they are able to demonstrate that the method in use meets the required performance criteria. To ensure the quality of collected data, a basin-wide Analytical Quality Control programme is regularly organized by the ICPDR. During the 3rd Joint Danube Survey (2013) altogether 68 sites were sampled along a 2,581 km stretch of the Danube, 15 of which were located in the mouths of tributaries or side arms. The findings of 3rd Joint Danube Survey are supportive to the implementation of WFD as they provide an extensive homogeneous dataset production of which was mainly based on WFD compliant methods commonly used by the Danube experts. Sensitive Quality elements (excluding river basin specific pollutants) According to the WFD and as explained in the CIS guidance on monitoring, for operational monitoring, Member States are required to monitor for those biological and hydromorphological quality elements most sensitive to the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject. The iRBMP provides information on macrozoobenthos, phytobenthos, macrophytes, phytoplankton and fish and their link to pressures. EU Member States were required to report to WISE which assessment methods of biological quality elements they considered to be sensitive for impact types. The analysis differentiates four biological quality elements (or three biological quality elements and two sub- biological quality elements), nine different impact types and four different water categories. The Member States reported for their entire national shares of the iRBD, not just for those water bodies delineated under the International Danube River Basin Management Plan. An important assessment parameter is whether there is a minimum agreement between the iRBD sharing countries sharing a border with each other on the sensitivity of biological quality elements. Such an agreement would be expressed by the fact that there is at least one biological quality element that is considered to be sensitive (for each pressure) in both Member States. Such a quality element can then be used as the least common denominator for comparable assessments of ecological status, provided that the Intercalibration has been successful.

For rivers, the table below lists the assessment methods of biological quality elements sensitive for each impact type. There is a full agreement between the riparian countries on sensitive quality elements for nutrients (aquatic flora), organic pollution (benthic invertebrates) and morphological pressures (benthic invertebrates and fish). A number of Member States also reported a biological quality element sensitive to chemical pressures, namely benthic invertebrates (note that this assessment comes in addition to the risk assessment for priority substances and river basin specific pollutants). In the case of temperature pressures, three groups of border sharing countries do not use the same biological quality element (i.e. Austria-Slovakia, Austria-Hungary and Hungary-Romania). In the case of hydrological pressures, seven out the eight Member States that reported assessment methods share the same biological quality element benthic invertebrates. Table 1.1.2 Sensitivity of biological quality elements towards different impact types for river water bodies EU Member State Phytoplankton Other aquatic flora Macrophytes Phytobenthos Benthic invertebrates Fish Assessment method mainly sensitive to nutrient pollution Austria yes yes yes Bulgaria yes yes yes yes Croatia yes yes yes Czech Republic yes yes yes yes Germany yes yes yes yes yes Hungary yes yes yes yes yes yes Romania yes yes yes Slovakia yes yes yes yes Slovenia yes Assessment method mainly sensitive to organic pollution Austria yes Bulgaria yes yes yes yes Croatia yes yes yes Czech Republic yes yes yes Germany yes Hungary yes yes yes yes yes Romania yes yes yes yes yes Slovakia yes yes Slovenia yes yes Assessment method mainly sensitive to chemical pollution Bulgaria yes Czech Republic yes Germany yes yes Hungary yes yes yes yes Assessment method mainly sensitive to elevated temperature Austria yes Germany yes yes Hungary yes yes yes Romania yes Slovakia yes yes yes Assessment method mainly sensitive to altered habitats due to hydrological changes Austria yes yes yes Bulgaria yes yes yes Croatia yes yes yes yes Czech Republic yes yes Germany yes yes Hungary yes yes yes yes yes Slovakia yes Slovenia yes yes Assessment method mainly sensitive to altered habitats due to morphological changes Austria yes yes yes Bulgaria yes yes yes yes yes Croatia yes yes yes yes Czech Republic yes yes Germany yes yes Hungary yes yes yes yes yes Romania yes yes yes yes Slovakia yes yes Slovenia yes yes Source: WISE reporting 2016 Coordination of River Basin Specific Pollutants (RBSPs) and matrices monitored The WFD requires Member States to identify and select river basin specific pollutants and their environmental quality standards (EQS) at the national, river basin or water body level. According to the iRBMP, the monitoring and assessment of river basin specific pollutants was coordinated in the basin. The analysis of a large amount of organic substances during the 3rd Joint Danube Survey enabled in cooperation with the EU FP7 project SOLUTIONS to provide suggestions for the update of the Danube river basin-wide list of specific pollutants. The prioritization methodology, which was based on the approach developed by the prioritization working group of the NORMAN network and the results of the 3rd Joint Danube Survey, produced a list of 20 substances suggested as relevant for the Danube river basin based on the target screening of 654 substances. As part of the reporting to WISE regarding the assessment of ecological status, Member States were asked to report information regarding river basin specific pollutants at RBD level . As such, the information in this chapter covers the whole Danube district, not just the surface water bodies at basin-wide level, as defined in the iRBMP. Nevertheless, the information the Member States reported is still relevant for surface water bodies at basin-wide level. Danube countries not part of the EU are not part of the assessment as they did not report to WISE. For the reporting to WISE, Member States could report pollutants using pre-defined codes from a list set by the European Commission, and they could report pollutants to a category “other”. The “other” category is not uniform among the Member States and therefore the information reported for these pollutants cannot be compared within the iRBD. The river basin specific pollutants reported by the Member States to WISE were evaluated. The summary of the evaluation concern three essential aspects: 1which and how many substances have been selected for the entire basin or parts of it; 2whether the substances have an environmental quality standard and are monitored; and 3whether the environmental quality standards are the same or in one or another way comparable (in the same range/order of magnitude, for the same matrix). For environmental quality standards of river basin specific pollutants, different aspects have to be taken into account to make comparisons. They can only be compared for a given substance if the specific pollutant matrix (water, sediment, biota etc), the unit (mg/L, µg/L etc.), the scale at which the standard is applied (national, water body, river basin etc.), the category (rivers, lakes, coastal water, territorial water and transitional water) and the standard (AA-EQS , MAC-EQS ) are comparable. Therefore, there are many different approaches and dimensions for such a comparison. This assessment covers selected aspects of the topic at the iRBD scale for reasons of practicability. The most important aspects are environmental quality standards for 1) AA-EQS, 2) for the matrix water and 3) setting of the standard at the national level. The relevant results are a quantitative description of the harmonisation and cooperation with respect to river basin specific pollutants. A summary for the number of established environmental quality standards is given in the table below. The table shows the number of Member States that have established an environmental quality standard for a certain river basin specific pollutant. This shows how many national standards defined at the national level can be compared between how many countries and describes the extent of harmonization .

Table 1.1.3 Summary of the assessment of river basin specific pollutants for the Danube basin Number of Member States Number of river basin specific pollutants with an environmental quality standard River basin specific pollutant scale National All 1 73 69 2 50 54 3 16 15 4 4 5 5 1 2 6 1 3 7 2 0 8 2 3 9 0 1 Source: WISE reporting 2016

There are 10 EU Member States that are part of the Danube (excluding Italy and Poland). Table 1.1.3 shows that there is not one river basin specific pollutant with an environmental quality standard that is monitored in all ten Member States in the Danube. 16 (national) environmental quality standards can be compared between at least three riparian countries. In this context, the results of the 3rd joint Danube survey should lead to significant improvements as this initiative resulted in a list of 20 pollutants that are considered to be relevant for the entire basin (see analysis of the iRBMP information above). Currently there are four pollutants with an environmental quality standard at the national level in at least four countries (that doesn’t necessarily mean that the standards are the same or in the same order of magnitude). This means that there are few specific pollutants with quality standards set at the same geographical scale that are comparable in the iRBD. River basin specific pollutants are only useful and supportive for the assessment of ecological status if an environmental quality standard has been adopted and the pollutants are monitored. The information the Member States reported to WISE was assessed using the following reporting elements: 1)RBSPvalue: If a value is provided in WISE criterion “EQS-yes” is fulfilled 2)chemicalLastMonitored: If a value>=2010 is provided in WISE the criterion “Monitored: yes” is fulfilled For each river basin specific pollutants, the criteria mentioned above were evaluated according to the scheme given in table below. A filter is applied, considering the following schema elements: a) chemicalSubstanceCode, b) chemicalMatrix c) chemicalPurpose, d) rbspCategoryRW. Table 1.1.4 shows how many river basin specific pollutants can be used for the assessment of ecological status. The number of pollutants that can be integrated into the assessment of ecological status ranges between 4 (Hungary) and 58 (Czech Republic). The Czech Republic, Germany and to a lesser extent also Slovakia have a comprehensive set of pollutants that have been be used for status assessment while most other countries have a short list of such status indicators. This information describes the role that river basin specific pollutants pay in the frame of the ecological assessment and whether the approaches are comparable. The results do not describe whether and how often these pollutants have been used in the frame of status assessment. Table 1.1.4 Synthesis of environmental quality standards and sampling of river basin specific pollutants with pre-defined codes in the WISE reporting Member State or Region Monitored: yes Environmental quality standard: yes Not monitored Environmental quality standard: yes Monitored: yes Environmental quality standard: no Substances (number and percentage) that can be used for the assessment of the ecological status Austria 9 13 85 9 / 10 % Bulgaria 16 21 38 16 / 30 % Croatia 7 0 11 7 / 39 % Czech Republic 58 13 24 58 / 71 % Germany 57 20 61 57 / 48 % Hungary 4 0 49 4 / 8 % Romania 81 3 29 8 / 22 % Slovenia 31 0 33 31 / 48 % Slovakia 16 5 60 16 / 21 % Source: WISE reporting 2016 Environmental Quality Standards for river basin specific pollutants A comparison between environmental quality standards is given in the figure below. There is limited agreement between the riparian countries. There are only 15 pollutants with the same environmental quality standard but this standard is shared only between two countries (7 of them between Romania and Germany). The same measurement value leads to different results of status assessment for most of the substances for most of the countries. For the majority of substances, the environmental quality standards differ by one order of magnitude or more. This makes it difficult to compare status between the Member States. The different standards used may also partly explain why some Member State identify certain substances as river basin specific pollutants while other Member States don’t. Improvements can be expected from harmonisation as a consequence of the 3rd Joint Danube Survey.



Figure 1.1.1 Ratio between the maximum and the minimum environmental quality standard for river basin specific pollutants in the Danube iRBD Source: WISE reporting 2016 Status Classification

Use of monitoring results for classification – transboundary harmonization According to the iRBMP, the monitoring programme has made a considerable effort towards harmonisation. The findings of JDS3 are supportive to the implementation of WFD as they provide an extensive homogeneous dataset production of which was mainly based on WFD compliant methods commonly used by the Danube experts. These data do not replace the national data used for the assessment of the ecological and chemical status, being an excellent reference database serving for future efforts of method harmonization in the DRB, especially concerning the development of a concerted type-specific approach to the status assessment of large rivers. Status classification The iRBMP states that the outcome of the Joint Danube Survey in 2013 showed that there are still differences between national sampling and assessment approaches and underlined the need for further harmonization of the sampling methods in the Danube River Basin. The discussion on sampling and assessment methods shall be continued within the ICPDR and be also addressed in the frame of the next Joint Danube Survey. There is some evidence from analysing GIS layers reported to WISE by the Member States that coordination of the status has taken place between countries in several cases. However, the iRBMPn does not make a clear statement and discusses confidence levels achieved for all data collected, which should enable meaningful assessments of status in time and space. Intercalibration exercise and Geographical Intercalibration Group (GIG) All Member States in the iRBD reported intercalibration types to WISE. 19 Geographical Intercalibration Group were reported for rivers, six were reported for lakes, one for transitional waters and one for coastal waters. 1.1.5.Monitoring, assessment and classification of surface water chemical status Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters As described under information on monitoring of ecological status, the Danube iRBD has a joint monitoring programme (Transnational Monitoring Network for the Danube) coordinated in the frame of the ICPDR. The programme is based on common methodologies. The programme includes all countries cooperating in the frame of the ICPDR. During the 3rd Joint Danube Survey, several new analytical techniques and strategies were applied. Coordination of monitoring and assessment of chemical status Due to the 2013 update of the Environmental Quality Standard Directive, a review was carried out by the ICPDR of those priority substances for which more stringent standards were used in 2015 and this caused the change of the chemical status of a surface water bodies from good in 2009 to bad in 2015. In most of the Danube countries for this iRBMP the environmental quality standards set out in the Environmental Quality Standard Directive were applied. In Germany, Austria, Romania and the Czech Republic the new environmental quality standards for substances from the updated Directive have been used. The priority substances causing non-compliance in this iRBMP due to more stringent standards adopted were benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, fluoranthene, mercury, nickel, lead and PBDE. In the Danube catchment all priority substances have been analysed. Figure 1.1.2 shows the number of priority substances monitored in each riparian country. Between 29 and 41 substances have been analysed in each country. Differences may originate partly in the fact that not all countries have fully implemented the amendment of 2008/105/EU in 2013/39/EU or the substances are not discharged. In combination with the numbers of samples for each substance (see Figure 1.1.3 and paragraph below) a comprehensive picture of the situation for Priority substances can be given for the entire catchment. Figure 1.1.2 Number of Priority Substances analysed in the EU Member States of the Danube iRBD Source: WISE reporting 2016 The frequency distribution of the number of priority substance samples in water from 2010 to -2015 is given in Figure 1.1.3 . The number of samples per substance is for the entire catchment between 300 samples and 3500 with an average of 1700 samples in the entire water management cycle. The complete picture is displayed in Figure 1.1.3 . A vast majority of substances (ca. 75 %) is analysed between 1400 and 2500 times within the 2010-15 period. Figure 1.1.3 Frequency distribution and accumulated frequency of the number of samples per Priority Substance

Source: WISE reporting 2016 An important aspect for chemical status assessment is whether the water samples have been taken with the frequency recommended as a general rule in the WFD . Monthly samples should be analysed for WFD compliant assessment of chemical status at a given site. Other frequencies need a justification based on expert judgement or technical knowledge. If the analysis excludes all frequencies that are lower than 12/year, the number of samples decreases from ~70500 to ~50100. This means that 71 % of the samples of Priority Substances in the Danube catchment can be used for WFD compliant assessment of chemical status without any further justification. In some countries, almost all samples (reported to WISE) can be used for WFD compliant status assessment without any further justification.



Table 1.1.5 Percentage of Priority Substance samples (matrix water) that have been taken with the frequency recommended in the WFD (monthly samples >=12 Member State Percentage of Priority Substance samples with a frequency >= 12/y Samples usable for assessment of chemical status without any further explanation Austria 43 % (out of 1 196 samples) 516 Bulgaria 71 % (out of 3 008 samples) 2 124 Croatia 23 % (out of 3 352 samples) 780 Czech Republic 50 % (out of 14 370 samples) 7 128 Germany 97 % (out of 10 845 samples) 10 496 Hungary 98 % (out of 2 181 samples) 2 136 Romania 70 % (out of 14 796 samples) 10 296 Slovakia 85 % (out of 8 868 samples) 7 524 Slovenia 71 % (out of 8 108 samples) 5 796 Source: WISE reporting 2016 The total number of samples (see table below) was calculated by combining the information of the WISE reporting elements “chemicalfrequency” and “chemicalCycle”, as also illustrated in the reporting guidance under chapter 4.3.5. Table 1.1.6 Number of analysed water samples for each Priority Substance and each national iRBD share for the period 2010-15 Number of samples for Priority substances (period 2010-2015) Austria Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Germany Hungary Romania Slovakia Slovenia CAS_104-40-5 - 4-nonylphenol 12 48 172 318 106 84 218 222 84 CAS_107-06-2 - 1,2-Dichloroethane 26 48 77 396 336 84 427 222 211 CAS_115-29-7 - Endosulfan 24 74 65 163 91 612 222 102 CAS_117-81-7 - Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) 101 80 52 12 52 222 86 CAS_118-74-1 - Hexachlorobenzene 28 108 65 368 163 91 557 222 102 CAS_12002-48-1 - Trichlorobenzenes (all isomers) 36 396 157 84 557 180 116 CAS_120-12-7 - Anthracene 12 68 49 345 187 84 567 222 108 CAS_122-34-9 - Simazine 44 158 100 447 566 19 601 222 320 CAS_127-18-4 - Tetrachloroethylene 26 126 221 426 336 84 543 222 211 CAS_140-66-9 - Octylphenol (4-(1,1',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol) 36 172 318 104 219 222 84 CAS_1582-09-8 - Trifluralin 68 405 459 84 376 222 224 CAS_15972-60-8 - Alachlor 44 32 62 447 459 12 628 222 320 CAS_1912-24-9 - Atrazine 44 74 104 447 566 19 600 222 320 CAS_206-44-0 - Fluoranthene 12 36 53 417 187 84 560 222 108 CAS_2921-88-2 - Chlorpyrifos 36 67 417 291 12 382 222 320 CAS_330-54-1 - Diuron 28 44 384 566 84 514 222 114 CAS_34123-59-6 - Isoproturon 28 44 414 554 84 518 222 114 CAS_36643-28-4 - Tributyltin-cation 12 24 12 180 173 CAS_470-90-6 - Chlorfenvinphos 48 67 368 195 12 382 222 320 CAS_50-29-3 - DDT, p,p' 152 65 392 157 19 635 222 130 CAS_50-32-8 - Benzo(a)pyrene 12 152 49 417 187 563 222 108 CAS_56-23-5 - Carbon tetrachloride 26 120 77 396 336 84 306 222 211 CAS_608-73-1 - Hexachlorocyclohexane 158 65 368 163 84 620 180 102 CAS_608-93-5 - Pentachlorobenzene 36 61 368 163 84 559 222 130 CAS_67-66-3 - Trichloromethane 26 120 77 426 336 84 526 222 205 CAS_71-43-2 - Benzene 36 75 426 334 546 222 24 CAS_7439-92-1 - Lead and its compounds 179 212 202 660 567 85 961 258 618 CAS_7439-97-6 - Mercury and its compounds 179 200 202 421 271 85 755 258 606 CAS_7440-02-0 - Nickel and its compounds 179 183 136 666 565 84 963 258 619 CAS_7440-43-9 - Cadmium and its compounds 179 209 311 826 303 85 999 258 619 CAS_75-09-2 - Dichloromethane 26 36 77 396 336 84 542 222 211 CAS_79-01-6 - Trichloroethylene 26 126 287 426 336 84 431 222 211 CAS_85535-84-8 - Chloroalkanes C10-13 12 12 180 82 CAS_87-68-3 - Hexachlorobutadiene 108 77 396 283 84 523 222 121 CAS_87-86-5 - Pentachlorophenol 36 67 312 106 84 222 80 CAS_91-20-3 - Naphthalene 12 48 53 345 283 84 561 222 108 EEA_32-02-0 - Total cyclodiene pesticides (aldrin + dieldrin + endrin + isodrin) 368 161 631 180 130 EEA_32-03-1 - Total DDT (DDT, p,p' + DDT, o,p' + DDE, p,p' + DDD, p,p') 80 8 368 161 7 270 180 130 EEA_32-04-2 - Brominated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154) 12 180 12 EEA_32-23-5 - Total Benzo(b)fluor-anthene (CAS_205-99-2) + Benzo(k)fluor-anthene (CAS_207-08-9) 163 556+550 180 108 EEA_32-24-6 - Total Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene (CAS_191-24-2) + Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene (CAS_193-39-5) 163 547+9 180 108

Source: WISE reporting 2016 Transboundary harmonisation of monitoring and assessment Chemical status monitoring was coordinated in the basin based on national methodologies to some extent. The iRBMP mentions that a specific problem in the assessment of the chemical status is the application of the environmental quality standard in biota. The iRBMP further states that the lack of detection of the mercury problem in most of the Member States might be a consequence of the insufficient monitoring practices and of the fact that more stringent standards for mercury in water have not been set. In case data from other Danube countries will be available in future due to a better monitoring performance, the chemical status of water bodies in iRBD will very probably further change negatively. In some countries a large number of priority substances is still not analysed because of lacking analytical instrumentation and because no proper methods are available. 1.1.6.Monitoring, assessment and classification of groundwater quantitative and chemical status Joint monitoring of groundwater quantitative and chemical status

The iRBMP states that monitoring of the 11 transboundary aggregated groundwater bodies of basin-wide importance has been integrated into the Transnational Monitoring Network of the ICPDR. For groundwater monitoring in the frame of the transnational network, a 6-year reporting cycle has been set, which is in line with reporting requirements under the WFD. The monitoring programme includes both quantitative and chemical (quality) monitoring. It shall provide the necessary information to: ·assess groundwater status; ·identify trends in pollutant concentrations; ·support groundwater body characterisation and the validation of the risk assessment; ·assess whether drinking water protected area objectives are achieved and support the establishment; and ·assessment of the programmes of measures and the effective targeting of economic resources. According to the iRBMP, to select the monitoring sites, a set of criteria has been applied by the countries, such as aquifer type and characteristics (porous, karst and fissured, confined and unconfined groundwater) and depth of the groundwater body (for deep groundwater bodies, the flexibility in the design of the monitoring network is very limited). The flow direction was also taken into consideration by some countries, as well as the existence of associated drinking water protected areas or ecosystems (aquatic and/or terrestrial). As regards quantitative monitoring, WFD requires only the measurement of groundwater levels but the ICPDR has also recommended monitoring of spring flows; flow characteristics and/or stage levels of surface water courses during drought periods; stage levels in significant groundwater dependent wetlands and lakes and water abstraction as optional parameters. Coordination and harmonization of assessment of quantitative and chemical status According to the iRBMP, the Danube countries used different methodologies for the assessment of quantitative and chemical status; and the establishment of threshold values, trend and trend reversal assessment. Despite there being overall coordination facilitated by the ICPDR Groundwater Task Group, further harmonisation of the national methodologies is still needed. Data gaps and inconsistencies are still available in the collected data, resulting in uncertainties in the interpretation of data. To achieve a harmonisation of data sets for transboundary groundwater bodies, there is a need for intensive bi- and multilateral cooperation. In addition, the interaction of groundwater with surface water or directly dependent ecosystems need further attention. The results of the status assessment of the 11 transboundary aggregated groundwater bodies of basin-wide importance are provided for the whole national part of a particular groundwater body (so called: aggregated groundwater body). If a national part of an aggregated groundwater body consists of several individual national-level groundwater bodies, then poor status in one national-level part is decisive in characterising the whole national part of aggregated transboundary groundwater body as having poor status. To indicate the diversity of different status results of individual groundwater bodies within aggregated groundwater bodies a concept of the aggregation confidence levels was developed by the ICPDR. The reason of introducing these specific confidence levels for the iRBMP was the need to distinguish between the cases when all individual groundwater bodies in an aggregated groundwater body have the same status (high confidence) or not (medium confidence) or the assessment is based on the risk assessment data (low confidence). Information about the WFD-related confidence levels of status assessment for the individual national (non-aggregated) groundwater bodies can be found in the national plans and in WISE.



1.1.7.Designation of heavily modified water bodies, artificial water bodies and definition of good ecological potential Cooperation and joint activities regarding heavily modified water body designation The 2004 Danube Basin Analysis included provisionally identified heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies on the basis of specific basin-wide criteria. For the 2009 iRBMP, the Danube countries reported the nationally identified artificial and heavily modified water bodies. The Non-EU Member States performed a provisional identification based on criteria outlined in the 2004 Danube Basin Analysis, whereas all water bodies have been fully considered for the designation. Updated information on the designation of heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies was reported by the Danube countries for the 2013 Danube Basin Assessment and the 2015 iRBMP. For the first iRBMP, the designation of heavily modified water bodies for rivers and transitional waters was performed for: ·The Danube River ·Tributaries in the iRBD > 4,000 km2. For the Danube River, the Danube countries agreed on a harmonised procedure for the final designation (the designation for Croatia, Serbia and the Ukraine was provisional) and on specific criteria for a step by step approach. The designations for the tributaries are based on national methods and respective reported information. However, the preconditions for the basin-wide final designation (regarding both the Danube River and tributaries > 4,000 km2) are to follow the EC HMWB CIS guidance document. The designations for coastal and lake water bodies are based on national methods. The assessment of the GIS layers for the transboundary water body shown in Map 1.1.3 (transboundary water body between Austria and Germany) and Map 1.1.5 (transboundary water body between Romania and Bulgaria) show a heavily modified water body designation from both Member states involved.

Cooperation and Joint methods and approaches for the determination of Good Ecological Potential (GEP) The iRBMP states that ecological potential for surface water bodies is assessed on the basis of specific typologies and reference conditions, which have been defined by individual EU Member States according to WFD Annex V. The iRBMP does not indicate whether international coordination took place . Member States were requested to report to WISE information on how good ecological potential is assessed. Reporting to WISE by the Member States indicates Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Slovakia and Slovenia use the CIS approach, Austria and Romania use a hybrid Prague /CIS approach. Austria, Bulgaria and Slovenia assess good ecological potential at water body level, whereas Germany and Slovakia assess for groups of HMWBs/AWBs of the same use/physical modification. The most commonly used elements are benthic invertebrates (6 Member States) and fish (5 Member States). As with ecological status, the use of at least one quality element by all Member States could be used as the least common denominator for comparable assessments of ecological potential. Similar mitigation measures were reported. 1.1.8.Environmental Objectives and Exemptions The iRBMP states that details on the application of exemptions related to Art. 4 (4), (5), and (7) are part of the national Part B reports. There are no joint methods for applying exemptions in the basin but coordination has taken place in some instances. The transboundary water body shown in Map 1.1.4 , which is shared by Hungary and Slovakia, is also exempted under Article 4(4). Thereby Hungary refers to natural conditions, while Slovakia refers to technical feasibility. For the transboundary WB shown in Map 1.1. 5, both Romania and Bulgaria have both reported Art 4 (4) justified by technical feasibility, which is an indication of coordination . Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia reported to WISE that exemptions have been coordinated for surface water bodies. The other Member States in the Danube - Czech Republic, Croatia and Slovenia - reported that they were not. A similar situation is found with respect to reporting on coordination of exemptions for groundwater bodies. Austria, Germany and Hungary reported to WISE that exemptions have been coordinated for groundwater bodies but Romania and Slovakia reported that they were not. Croatia, Czech Republic and Slovenia do not have transboundary groundwater bodies in their share of the iRBD. In the case of Bulgaria, none of the transboundary groundwater bodies have exemptions as they are in good chemical and quantitative status. With respect to the application of Article 4 (7), future infrastructure projects (until 2021), including brief descriptions (if provided), are compiled in Annex 7 of the iRBMP. 1.1.9.Programme of measures General information A Joint Programme of Measures (iPoM) has been developed and includes joint activities agreed by the countries sharing the iRBD that target at achieving aims for the basin-wide scale. Joint significant water management issues have been defined, a common vision and management objectives have been set and measures of basin-wide importance have been selected. The respective management objectives describe the steps towards the environmental objectives in the iRBD. In addition, future development scenarios were developed and the estimated effect of measures on the basin-wide scale is assessed. The iPoM was developed along the line of the identified joint significant water management issues. The iPoM builds upon the results of the pressure analysis, the water status assessment and includes, as a consequence, measures of basin-wide importance oriented towards the agreed visions and management objectives for 2021. Joint implementation mechanisms and link to national implementation The iRBMP describes how the measures will be implemented through national and international mechanisms. The ICPDR serves as the coordinating platform between the countries to compile multilateral and basin-wide issues at Part A (basin-wide level) of the iRBD. The iRBMP provides links to national RBMPs, aiming to further improve the linkage between the international Danube basin-wide level and the national level. The iRBMP states that the national plans (Part B) should reflect the four significant water management issues identified on the basin-wide level and indicate how far they are relevant as well on the national level. According to the iRBMP, the Joint Programme of Measures is based on the national programmes of measures. Priorities for the effective implementation of national measures on the basin-wide scale are highlighted and are the basis of further international coordination. Some additional joint initiatives and measures on the basin-wide level that show transboundary character are presented as well. They are undertaken through the framework of the ICPDR. The effect of national measures on the Danube basin-wide scale is estimated and presented. Key findings and conclusions on identified measures and their basin-wide importance, as well as priorities regarding their implementation on the basin-wide scale, are summarised as part of the iPoM. The implementation of the measures of basin-wide importance is ensured through their respective integration into the national programme of measures of each Danube country. Joint implementation of measures in the first management cycle Each chapter of iPoM - organic pollution, nutrient pollution, hazardous substances pollution, hydromorphology and groundwater - includes a sub-section on progress in the implementation of measures from the first iRBMP. For organic pollution, the first iRBMP included major efforts for the improvement of the urban waste water and industrial sector by upgrading or constructing sewer systems and waste water treatment plants as well as introducing Best Available Techniques (BAT) at the main industrial facilities. This resulted in considerable reduction of organic pollution. For nutrient pollution, the first iRBMP summarized, on the basin-wide level, the basic measures in the urban waste water, industrial and agricultural sectors and the implementation of the ICPDR Best Agricultural Practice (BAP) recommendations as the main measures to address nutrient emissions. For hazardous substances pollution, the Danube countries took significant steps in order to close the information gap on hazardous substances pollution. This included prioritisation of the emerging pollutants, data collection on the major point sources releasing hazardous substances and accident risk analysis of the industrial and contaminated sites.

For hydromorphology, 168 measures to improve river continuity were agreed on national level to be implemented by 2015. 80 measures have been completed and 45 are in the construction phase. For 36 measures the planning process is on-going, while for seven measures the implementation process was not started. The measures for reconnection are completed for three adjacent wetlands/floodplains and some of the planned measures have already been implemented. Six adjacent wetlands/floodplains still need to be reconnected. Construction works were ongoing for two wetlands/floodplain. In the first iRBMP 139 measures addressing hydrological alteration (impoundments, water abstractions, hydropeaking) were indicated to be implemented by 2015. For groundwater, similar progress has been described for quality and quantity issues. Poor quantitative status has been tackled by Hungary through the revision of relevant legislation by 2013 concerning the licensing of domestic wells, construction and rehabilitation projects, demand management measures and inter alia, promotion of adapted agricultural production such as low water requiring crops in areas affected by droughts. Serbia focused its measures on research, development and demonstration projects and construction designs for new groundwater sources. 1.1.10.Measures related to water scarcity and abstractions Joint identification of Pressures and Objectives A basin-wide questionnaire indicated that water scarcity and drought are not considered as a significant water management issue for the majority of the countries. Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Montenegro and Serbia consider them as a significant water management issue at national level. The main sectors affected by water scarcity and drought include agriculture, water supply, biodiversity, other energy production, hydropower, navigation and public health. The ICPDR concluded that water scarcity and drought is not considered as an issue requiring coordination and management on the basin-wide level in the second cycle. This is also due to the fact that the relevance of the issue and the situation is differing between the countries and regions within the iRBD. Hydrological alterations impact the status of water, and surface water abstraction was identified as a key pressure that require measures on the basin-wide scale. Water abstraction from groundwater bodies of basin-wide importance is not a significant pressure in the Danube but a cause for failure in quantitative status in Serbia and Hungary. For surface water bodies, the ICPDR’s basin-wide vision for hydrological alterations is that they are managed in such a way, that the aquatic ecosystem is not influenced in its natural development and distribution. The management objective for surface water abstraction is enabling ecological flow, ensuring that the biological quality elements are in good ecological status respectively good ecological potential, and the flow requirements for protected species and habitats are met. For groundwater bodies, the ICPDR’s basin-wide vision is that the water use is appropriately balanced and does not exceed the available groundwater resource in the Danube River Basin District, considering future impacts of climate change. Management objectives were defined up to 2021 for all iRBD sharing countries, namely that over-abstraction of groundwater bodies within the iRBD is avoided by sound groundwater management. In addition, a management objective for solely EU Member States was defined: implementation of the WFD requirements that the available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long-term annual average rate of abstraction. Coordination on addressing water scarcity and droughts and abstractions As it was concluded that water scarcity and drought pressures are not relevant at basin-wide scale, measures have not been addressed by the joint body and there is no joint approach in the iPoM. However, a specific chapter of the iRBMP is dedicated to water scarcity and droughts. Maintaining an exchange on the topic is considered to be beneficial, also in relation to the ongoing discussions on climate change adaptation, what should be facilitated via the exchange of best practice examples. Water scarcity and drought measures were included in a number of Danube countries' national PoMs, whereas specific measures are planned or already under implementation (e.g. increase of irrigation efficiency, reduction of leakages in water distribution networks, drought mapping and forecasting, education of public on water-saving measures, market-based instruments, wastewater recycling and rain water harvesting). Measures to address pressures Measures regarding water scarcity/abstraction are included in the iRBMP. For 21 surface water abstractions, restoration measures to ensure ecological flows are planned to be implemented by 2021. For groundwater abstraction, measures focus on abstraction controls (registries). References are also made to explore solutions for preventing the deterioration of groundwater quantity and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems dependent on groundwater, for example through restoring wetland areas that are in direct contact with aquifers. 1.1.11.Measures related to pollution from agriculture Joint identification of Pressures and Objectives Nutrient pollution from agriculture is a significant pressure in the iRBD. The iPoM defined general management objectives for pollution i.a. from agriculture at the basin scale, namely: ·Further reduction of the organic pollution of the surface waters from the major agricultural installations by implementing the Industrial Emissions Directive (EU Member States) and introducing Best Available Techniques at a specified number of industrial facilities (Non-EU countries). ·Further reduction of the total amount of nutrients entering the Danube and its tributaries and the nutrient loads transported into the Black Sea. ·Further reduction of the nutrient point source emissions by the implementation of the management objectives described for organic pollution as they address the nutrient pollution as well.

·Further reduction of the nitrogen pollution of the ground and surface waters by the implementation of the EU Nitrates Directive according to the developed action programs within the designated vulnerable zones or the whole territory of the country (EU Member States). ·Ensuring sustainable agricultural production and soil nutrient balances and further reduction of the diffuse nutrient pollution by implementation of basic and cost-efficient supplementary agri-environmental measures linked to the EU Common Agricultural Policy (EU Member States) and by implementation of best management practices in the agriculture considering cost-efficiency (Non-EU countries). ·Further reduction of the diffuse pollution of agricultural chemicals by implementation of supplementary measures linked to EU Common Agricultural Policy, implementing the Sewage Sludge Directive and the Pesticides Directive (EU Member States) and by implementation of best management practices in the agriculture (Non-EU countries). ·Ensuring the safe application of chemicals (EU Member States: by implementing inter alia the Plant Protection Products Directive, the REACH Regulation and the Biocides Regulation). ·Nutrient pollution from agriculture was reported to be addressed by all of the EU Member States in the iRBD. All of the EU Member States except Austria, Slovenia and Slovakia reported to WISE that they identified general management objectives regarding nutrient from agriculture for their national shares of the iRBD. In addition to the general management objectives, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Hungary and Romania reported to WISE that they set quantitative management objectives for reducing nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. Coordination on addressing pollution from agriculture The iPoM includes measures to address pollution from organic, nutrient and hazardous substances pollution. Joint measures to address agriculture pollution are also included. One joint measure mentioned is the elaboration of basin-wide management strategies with the ultimate aim to reduce nutrient loads of surface and coastal waters. A set of measures related to the concept of best agriculture practice is also set and implemented in the entire Danube Basin. The concept has been applied to different extent among the countries to manage inter alia diffuse nutrient emissions that are partly covered by the Nitrates Directive for nitrate pollution in the EU Member States. It concerns appropriate land management activities (source and transport control measures) that are able to prevent, control and minimize the input, mobilization and transport of nutrients from fields towards water bodies. In addition, the ICPDR intends to organize in close cooperation with the agricultural sector and all relevant stakeholders a broad discussion process with the aim of developing a guidance document on good agricultural practices in the iRBD. The objective of the guidance would be to recommend agricultural practices and policy instruments towards the reduction of water pollution caused or induced by nutrients from agricultural sources. The document would provide with a sound knowledge base on the agricultural sector and the linkages to water environment, highlight the existing relevant European legislative framework and financial mechanisms, summarize cross-compliance as well as supplementary measures related to the Common Agriculture Policy and other financial programs. The guidance document would also recommend potential policy tools and cost-effective measures supported by case studies in order to facilitate the introduction of good agricultural practices within the iRBD. Measures to address pressures The iPoM includes national measures that address the joint management issues and objectives set in the international plan. For organic pollution, the iRBMP states that it recommended that the Non-EU Member States introduce regulations for manure and sewage sludge application on agriculture fields. Reference is made to the implementation of the IED directive and the application of best available technology is recommended for Non-EU Member States, for which the ICPDR developed guidance documents. For nutrient and hazardous substances pollution, reference is also made to implementation of the Nitrates Directive and the Pesticides Directive, as well as to the measures linked to the EU CAP. The iPoM refers to the implementation of agri-environmental measures to address agriculture pollution. They cover a wide range of measures including nutrient management (e.g. nutrient balance calculations, optimization of fertilization), modified cultivation methods (restricted crop rotation, catch crops, green manure crops), land use changes (maintenance of grasslands, buffer strip allocation), soil conservation (erosion control techniques, ensuring proper soil coverage, maintenance of humus content in topsoil, maintenance of tile drainage systems) and additional natural water retention measures (wetlands, grass filters and grassed waterways). Annex 13 of the iRBMP presents tables on the implementation of the Nitrates Directive in the Member States and which measures they implement as a result, for example manure storage requirements, spreading of nutrients restrictions, restrictions of some agricultural activities on slopes and afforestation (in the context agri-environmental measures under the Common Agriculture Policy). The Annex also indicates which of the iRBD sharing countries implement the following measures: ·Organic farming: Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Croatia, Czech Republic, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine. ·Measures against erosion: buffer strips: Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine. ·Erosion-minimizing cultivation systems (catch crops): Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine. ·Re-establishment of wetlands: Austria, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Slovenia and Ukraine ·Nutrient balances: Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Slovenia. ·Farm advice: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine.

Montenegro did not report to the ICPDR. With respect to prioritisation approach for relevant measures, the iRBMP states that the critical area concept is an emerging approach in several countries that aims to find technically and economically feasible measures. It considers that management activities should focus on those areas where the highest emissions come from and where the highest fluxes from land to water probably are transported. Targeting management actions to these critical fields can provide cost-efficiency (high river load reduction at minimal implementation costs and area demand). Nevertheless, it should be taken into account that due to the longer time necessary for an effective management of diffuse nutrient pollution (longer residence time of groundwater, stored nutrients in bottom sediment of reservoirs) the water quality impacts of any changes in agriculture induced by the implementation of the Nitrates Directive or best agricultural practices recommendations will probably not be instantly visible but after several years or even decades only. In order to enable a comparable grouping of measures in the national and international programme of measures, the European Commission introduced the concept of Key Types of Measures (KTMs) in 2012 to simplify reporting . KTMs are groups of measures identified by Member States in the PoMs which target the same pressure or purpose. The individual measures included in the PoM (being part of the RBMP) are grouped into KTMs for the purpose of reporting. The same individual measure can be part of more than one KTM because it may be multi‐purpose. All the Member States reported applying KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture and KTM3 - Reduce Pesticides pollution from agriculture. Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany and Hungary also reported applying KTM12 - Advisory services. 1.1.12.Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture Joint identification of Pressures and Objectives Pollution from sectors other than agriculture is addressed by all the Member States. Coordination took place to identify pressures stemming from pollution from sectors other than agriculture. The iPoM defined management objectives for pollution from sectors other than agriculture at the basin scale, namely: ·Further reduction of the organic pollution of the surface waters via urban waste water within the iRBD by implementing the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (EU Member States) and by constructing a specified number of wastewater collecting systems and municipal wastewater treatment plants (Non-EU Member States). ·Further reduction of the total amount of nutrients entering the Danube and its tributaries and the nutrient loads transported into the Black Sea. ·Further reduction of the nutrient point source emissions by the implementation of the management objectives described for organic pollution as they address the nutrient pollution as well. ·Further reduction of the organic pollution of the surface waters from the major industrial installations by implementing the Industrial Emissions Directive (EU Member States) and introducing Best Available Techniques at a specified number of industrial facilities (Non-EU Member States). ·Further decrease of the phosphorus point source pollution by implementation of the EU Regulation on the phosphate-free detergents (EU Member States) and by reduction of phosphates in detergent products (Non-EU countries). ·Closing knowledge gaps on the hazardous substances of Danube basin relevance. ·Further elimination/reduction of the amount of hazardous substances entering the Danube and its tributaries (EU Member States: by implementing the Environmental Quality Standards Directive). ·Further reduction of the point source emissions by the implementation of the management objectives described for organic pollution as they address the hazardous pollution as well. ·Ensuring the safe application of chemicals (EU Member States: by implementing inter alia the REACH Regulation). ·Minimisation of the risk of accidental pollution events by using enhanced technologies and putting in place appropriate safety measures (EU Member States: by implementing the Seveso, Mining Waste and Industrial Emission Directives, Non-EU Member States: by fulfilling the obligations/adopting recommendations of the UNECE Convention on the transboundary effects of industrial accidents). Coordination on addressing pollution from sectors other than agriculture The iPoM includes measures to addresses organic, nutrient and hazardous substances pollution from sectors other than agriculture. A number of joint measures are described as well. The ICPDR has been supporting the introduction of the phosphate-free detergents in the Danube countries which committed themselves at ministerial level to initiate the introduction of a maximum limit for the phosphate content of the consumer detergents. In addition, the Danube countries have made efforts in order to ensure effective and quick responses to transboundary emergency cases. The Accident Emergency Warning System (AEWS) was developed to timely recognise emergency situations in order to help the national authorities to put safety measures timely into action. Measures to address pressures

For the most part, the iRBMP focuses on basic measures when describing the measures of basin-wide importance, e.g. implementation of the Urban Waste Water Directive, SEVESO, Mining Waste Directive, UNECE Convention on the transboundary effects of industrial accidents, the Industrial Emissions Directive, the Sewage Sludge Directive, REACH Directive and the EQS Directive. Annex 12 provides an overview of basic and supplementary measures related to progress in urban wastewater and industrial sectors by 2015. The focus is on the UWWTD and IED Directives as well as P-free detergents and BAT. All Member States reported KTMs to WISE, mainly related to the urban waste water (KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants; KTM21- Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure) and industrial sectors (KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil); KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Substances; KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants).

1.1.13.Measures related to hydromorphological alterations Joint identification of Pressures and Objectives Hydromorphological pressures are a basin-wide issue in the Danube. Three key hydromorphological pressure components of basin-wide importance have been identified, namely interruption of longitudinal river continuity and morphological alterations; disconnection of adjacent wetlands/floodplains, and; hydrological alterations, provoking changes in the quantity and conditions of flow. The iPoM defined general management objectives for river continuity, namely: ·Construction of fish migration aids and other measures at existing migration barriers to achieve/improve river continuity in the Danube River and in respective tributaries to ensure self-sustaining sturgeon populations and specified other migratory fish populations. ·Specification of number and location of fish migration aids and other measures to achieve / improve river continuity, which will be implemented by 2021 by each country. ·New barriers for fish migration imposed by new infrastructure projects will be avoided; unavoidable new barriers will incorporate the necessary mitigation measures like fish migration aids or other suitable measures already in the project design according to BEP and BAT. ·Restoration, conservation and improvements of river morphology, habitats and their connectivity for self-sustaining sturgeon populations and other type-specific fish populations in the Danube River and the respective tributaries, also contributing to the improvement of other aquatic biological quality elements. ·Specification of location and extent of measure for the improvement of river morphology, which will be implemented by 2021 by each country. ·Closing the knowledge gaps on the possibility for sturgeon and specified other migratory species to migrate upstream and downstream through the Iron Gate I & II dams including habitat surveys, based on progress achieved on this issue. If the results of these investigations will be positive the respective measures should be implemented and step by step a similar feasibility study will be performed for the Gabčíkovo Dam and in case of positive results also for the Upper Danube. All the Member States reported measures addressing river continuity, other hydromorphological measures and sediment management to WISE. All the Member States except Slovakia and Slovenia reported to WISE that they set general management objectives to address hydromorphological alterations. In addition, all the Member States, except Slovenia and Slovakia reported establishing quantitative management objectives. Coordination on addressing hydromorphological alterations The iPoM includes measures to addresses hydromorphological alterations, which includes interruption of river continuity and morphological alterations; disconnected adjacent wetlands/floodplains; and hydrological alterations. Joint measures have been included in the iPoM. A major focus for measures in the iRBD is on establishing/improving migration for long and medium distance migrants of the Danube River and the connected lowland rivers that are addressed at the Roof level. In support for implementing fish migration measures, the ICPDR organised in 2012 a workshop on river and habitat continuity. The workshop allowed for exchange between fish migration experts and for the elaboration of the Technical Paper “Measures for ensuring fish migration at transversal structures”, summarising the latest knowledge on fish migration aids. The iPoM also describes the project “Towards a Healthy Danube – Fish Migration Iron Gates I & II”. The project was initiated in 2013 and completed in October 2014. The project allowed for further investigations on potential technical solutions and for the elaboration of a road map, providing guidance for a project process that leads to a feasibility analysis of the implementation of fish migration measures at both Iron Gates I and II. Further steps are now being carried out jointly to fulfil the roadmap. Within the iRBD, river continuity measures are being planned jointly taking into account ecological prioritisation process in the Danube. In order to enable a sound estimation of where to target measures most effectively at the basin-wide scale, an ecological prioritisation of measures to restore river and habitat continuity in the iRBD was carried out for the first iRBMP. The elaborated approach provided indications on the step-wise and efficient implementation of restoration measures at the basin-wide scale. It provided useful information on the estimated effects of national measures in relation to their ecological effectiveness at the basin-wide scale and served as a supportive tool for a number of countries in the implementation of measures. Therefore, it also supports feedback from international to national level and vice versa. The ecological prioritisation approach has been further developed and updated for the DRBM Plan – Update 2015.

To avoid or mitigate new hydromorphological pressures, the iPoM includes a sub-chapter on future infrastructure projects. The management objectives include precautionary measures (best environmental practices and best available techniques) that should be implemented to reduce and/or prevent impacts on water status. In the framework of the ICPDR, respective guidance has been developed in this regard for inland navigation (Joint Statement) and hydropower (Guiding Principles). Both documents describe respective processes in detail and the organisation of regular meetings. Measures to address pressures The Danube countries have reported on the measures that will be undertaken by 2021 to ensure fish migration (where still needed) e.g. by the construction of fish migration aids. Measures that will be taken are intended to ensure both up and downstream migration of fish and will also help to improve the migration of other fauna. The functioning and maintenance of function of fish migration aids is important to be monitored and assessed. The iRBMP summarises the numbers of measures to address river morphology and their implementation status but does not specify which measures are being implementing in the iRBD sharing countries. All the Member States reported to WISE that they are applying KTM5 ‘Improving longitudinal continuity’ and KTM6 ‘Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity’. Other hydromorphological measures have been addressed in the iPoM. These relate to the restoration of wetlands and floodplains and hydrological alterations. The iRBMP mentions that the Danube countries have to report information on national wetlands/floodplains >500 ha with a potential to be reconnected to the adjacent river and respective reconnection measures to be undertaken by 2021 or beyond regarding WFD art. 4(4). As regards hydrological alterations, the iRBMP describes river impoundments, water abstraction and hydropeaking. 1.1.14.Economic analysis and water pricing policies An economic analysis has been undertaken and is part of the iRBMP. The Danube Basin Analysis (article 5 report) was updated in 2013; it includes an economic analysis of water use. The iRBMP includes a summary chapter of this economic analysis. The summary includes sub-chapters on 1) description of relevant economic water uses and economic meaning (including characteristics of water services and uses; 2) cost recovery; 3) projection trends in key economic indicators and drivers up to 2021; and 4) economic assessment of measures (including sub-chapters on cost-effectiveness analysis; cost-benefit analysis and approaches towards disproportionality of costs); as well as 5) a summary and key findings section. The information on economic analysis and water pricing policies summarized in iRBMP is based on the joint work performed for the 2013 Update of the Danube Basin Analysis. Two questionnaires were developed and sent out in 2013 for the collection of information on economics from the Danube countries (the information was updated, if necessary, by the Danube countries in 2015). The questionnaires treat inter alia water pricing, cost recovery and environmental and resource costs - topics which are closely interlinked. Annex 11 of the iRBMP presents a synthesis on the approaches in place in the Danube countries. The collected information is summarised in form of tables. A second survey was undertaken in the aftermath of the ICPDR Task Group on Economics meetings in Zagreb and Vienna (2014/2015), and concerns approaches towards Disproportionality of Costs and Exemptions, as well as projections of trends regarding socio-economic developments. The results of this survey are presented in the Chapter 7 Economic Analysis and in the Annex 11 of the iRBMP. The overview tables, as well as the summary in the main body of the iRBMP, highlight the commona