TABLE OF CONTENTS

Glossary. 4

1. Introduction.. 6

2. Member States interim reports on progress in implementation of the Programmes of Measures 7

2.1 Contents of reporting. 7

2.2 Status of reporting. 9

3. Some Key facts from Member States' reports. 10

4. The basis for an effective Programme of Measures: reliable data and a sound methodological approach 11

4.1 The need for a reliable data basis for PoMs. 11

4.2 Gap analysis: what needs to be done to achieve the objectives?. 16

5. Targeting of measures to reduce pressures and impacts to achieve WFD objectives. 19

5.1 Introduction. 19

5.2 Apportionment of pressures and impacts to sources. 20

5.3 Approaches to assigning measures to sectors/sources to reduce pressures. 21

5.4 Assigning measures across the polluters and activities/sectors responsible for the impacts. 22

5.5 Cost effectiveness. 23

5.6 Assessment of disproportionate costs. 25

5.7 Effects of uncertainties. 25

6. Overview of implementation of Article 11.3.a Basic Measures. 27

7. Overview of implementation of Article 11.3.b-l other Basic Measures. 29

7.1 State of implementation in 2012. 29

7.2 Delays in implementation. 30

7.3 Financing of basic measures (Article 11.3 b) to l)) 32

8. Overview of implementation of Article 11.4 Supplementary Measures. 34

8.1 State of implementation in 2012. 34

8.2 Delays in implementation. 36

8.3 Financing of supplementary measures. 37

9. Reporting of Key Types of Measures. 39

10. Progress with implementation of measures to reduce pressures (nutrients, organic matter) from agriculture 42

10.1 Context. 42

10.2 Quantification of the scale of agricultural pressures. 43

10.3 Assessment of measures for the achievement of WFD objectives. 43

10.4 Key Types of Measure. 44

10.4.1 KTM2. Reduce nutrient pollution in agriculture beyond the requirements of the Nitrates Directive. 45

10.4.2 KTM12: Advisory services for agriculture. 48

11. Progress with implementation of measures to reduce pressures from chemicals. 49

11.1 Context. 49

11.2 Quantification of the scale of chemical pressures. 50

11.3 Assessment of measures for the achievement of WFD objectives. 51

11.3.1 Basic and supplementary measures. 51

11.3.2 Measures required by the EQS Directive. 51

11.4 Key Types of Measure. 51

11.4.1 KTM3. Reduce pesticides pollution in agriculture. 53

11.4.2 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. 54

11.4.3 KTM16: Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms) beyond the requirements of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive. 56

12. Progress with implementation of measures to reduce pressures from hydromorphological alterations 57

12.1 Context. 57

12.2 Quantification of the scale of pressures from hydromorphological alterations. 58

12.3 Assessment of measures for the achievement of WFD objectives. 60

12.4 Key Types of Measure. 62

12.4.1 KTM5. Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….62

12.4.2 KTM6: Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………65

13. Progress with implementation of measures to reduce pressures from urban waste water treatment 68

13.1 Context. 68

13.2 Quantification of the scale of the pressures. 69

13.3 Assessment of measures for the achievement of WFD objectives. 70

13.4 Key Types of Measure. 70

13.4.1 KTM1. Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants beyond the requirements of the Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment 71

14. Progress with implementation of measures to reduce pressures from water abstractions. 73

14.1 Context. 73

14.2 Quantification of the scale of the pressure. 74

14.3 Assessment of measures for the achievement of WFD objectives. 74

14.4 Key Types of Measure. 75

14.4.1 KTM7: Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of minimum ecological flow.. 76

14.4.2 KTM8: Water efficiency measures for irrigation (technical measures) 78

15. Obstacles to the implementation of measures. 79

15.1 Overview of obstacle reported in 2012. 79

15.2 Inspection and enforcement of measures. 80

16. Overall progress with implementation of programmes of measures. 81

17. Main changes and improvements envisaged for the second planning cycle. 83

18. Annex - Recommendations to the Member States. 85

Glossary

AA || Annual Average

APSFR || Areas with Potential Significant Flood Risk

AWB || Artificial Water Body

BD || Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)

BWD || Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC)

CAP || Common Agricultural Policy

CEA || Cost Effectiveness Analysis

CIS || Common Implementation Strategy

COD || Chemical Oxygen Demand

COM || European Commission

DIS || Data Information Sharing

DWD || Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC) as amended by Directive (98/83/EC)

EARDF || European Agricultural Rural Development Fund

EC || European Commission

Eflows || Ecological Flows

EFTA || European Free Trade Association

EIA || Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC)

EQS || Environmental Quality Standard

EU || European Union

FD || Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

FHRM || Flood Hazard and Risk Maps

FRMP || Flood Risk Management Plan

GEP || Good Ecological Potential

GES || Good Ecological Status

GIS || Geographical Information System

GWD || Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC)

HD || Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)

HMWB || Heavily Modified Water Body

HPP || Hydro Power Plant

IED || Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU)

IMP_POM || Progress on the implementation of the Programmes of Measures

IPPCD || Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (96/61/EC)

KTM || Key Type of Measure

MAC || Maximum Allowable Concentration

MS || Member State

MSFD || Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC)

N || Nitrogen

NAP || Nitrates Action Programme

ND || Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC)

NVZ || Nitrate Vulnerable Zones

OP || Operational Programme

P || Phosphorus

PA || Partnership Agreement

pe || Population equivalent

PFRA || Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment

PoM || Programme of Measures

PPPD || Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/EEC)

RBD || River Basin District

RBMP || River Basin Management Plan

RBSP || River Basin Specific Pollutant

RDP || Rural Development Programme

SCG || Strategic Coordination Group

Seveso || Major Accidents (Seveso) Directive (96/82/EC)

SIIF || Structured Information and Implementation Framework

SWD || Staff Working Document

UWWT || Urban Waste Water Treatment

UWWTD || Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC)

WB || Water Body

WFD || Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

WFS || Web Features Services

WISE || Water Information System for Europe

1. Introduction

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) establishes a framework for sustainable water management through the development of River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) and Programmes of Measures (PoMs), with the objective of preventing deterioration of the aquatic environment and of achieving good status of all water bodies by 2015.

According to the WFD, the PoMs are established in order to achieve the environmental objectives of the Directive, and should therefore include the actions that Member States plan to take for that purpose.

The WFD PoMs are made of basic and supplementary measures.

Basic measures are the minimum requirements to be included in the PoMs. They consist of:

measures associated with the implementation of other Community legislation for the protection of waters (referred to in WFD Article 11(3)a and Annex VI, for example, measures to achieve compliance with the objectives of the Nitrates and Urban Waste Water Treatment Directives) and other WFD-specific basic measures (WFD Articles 11(3) paragraphs b to l) that are required to achieve the environmental objectives. These WFD-specific basic measures are largely administrative and regulatory instruments such as permit regimes, general binding rules, etc. These instruments should enable the authorities to exert control over all activities that can have a significant impact on water bodies and therefore potentially hinder the achievement of the environmental objectives.

Basic measures are often not enough to achieve the environmental objectives. In those cases, supplementary measures are required (Article 11(4)). The WFD is not prescriptive on the type of supplementary measures. These can be of very diverse nature and Member States are able to tailor them to the situation in their River Basin Districts (RBDs) as long as the objectives are met.

PoMs were due for the first time in December 2009, as part of the RBMPs, and should have been made operational by December 2012. The RBMPs and PoMs have to be updated every 6 years.

Member States were required to report to the Commission on the progress in implementation of their PoMs by December 2012 (WFD Article 15.3). Details of this reporting are provided in the following section.

In November 2012 the Commission published a Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources[1]. The Blueprint set out key actions that need to be taken by water managers and policy makers to address the challenges faced by the aquatic environment. As part of the Blueprint package, the Commission published the 3rd Implementation Report of the WFD[2], based on the first RBMPs, and containing already some preliminary conclusions on the PoMs. The report included as well specific assessments of implementation and recommendations for each Member State.

As a follow up of the Blueprint the Commission Services held a series of bilateral meetings with Member States during 2013 and 2014[3] with the aim of reviewing implementation and discuss the way the Member States were to take forward the Commission's recommendations.

The aim of this report is to provide an overview of the progress made by Member States in the development and implementation of PoMs under the WFD. It draws on the conclusions from the abovementioned reports and assessments (Commission assessment of the first River Basin Management Plans; Member States’ interim reports on the progress in implementation of their programmes of measures; information from bilateral meetings with Member States), and an in-depth assessment of five key aspects/pressures (agriculture, chemicals, hydromorphology, urban waste water treatment and water abstraction) undertaken in 2014. It supports the key conclusions and recommendations included in the Commission Communication which it accompanies, as far as WFD PoMs is concerned[4].

In addition, a number of key recommendations for each Member State are included in Annex.

2. Member States interim reports on progress in implementation of the Programmes of Measures 2.1 Contents of reporting

Interim reporting to the Commission on progress in implementing the PoMs was required by 22 December 2012 based on a reporting template[5] agreed in May 2011 by the Commission and Member States through the Common Implementation Strategy[6] (CIS). The reporting template focused on reporting progress in implementation and, as such, did not request information on the effectiveness the measures implemented so far. Estimates of effectiveness should have been part of the PoMs as reported in 2009 and ultimately the measured impact in terms of improvement in water status will only be available as part of the 2nd RBMP in 2015.

The contents of the 2012 reporting on progress was structured in two main parts:

- for all individual measures as reported in the PoMs adopted in 2009, Member States were required to provide a qualitative indication of progress in terms of whether the implementation of the measure had been completed, it was on-going or had not been started. For measures involving construction or building works, the on-going category was differentiated between "planning on-going" and "construction on-going" (see Box 1 for more details about the definition of these terms).

- for some Key Types of Measures (KTMs), defined as those expected to deliver the bulk of the environmental improvement, the Member States were required to provide an estimate of progress on the basis of quantitative indicators, based as well in the categorisation of measures completed, on-going and not started. Member States were asked to identify the relevant KTMs for each RBD out of a list of the 16 KTMs expected to be the most important across the EU (Annex 1 to the reporting template). Member States could also add other KTMs that were not on the list, if they were considered important in their RBDs. For each KTM a list of possible quantitative indicators was provided, to accommodate differences in data availability between Member States. The Member States were asked to report at least one quantitative indicator, but as many as they wished.

It should be recalled that according to the WFD, the measures need to be made operational at the latest by 22 December 2012. This concept largely corresponds to the category 'measure completed' as described in the reporting template.

Box 1: Guidance on the interpretation of “not started”, “on-going” and “completed” for different types of measures[7]: Reference date is a best estimate of the situation towards the end of 2012. Therefore, any reference below to "has not started", "planning on-going", "construction on-going", "on-going", "has been completed", etc. is to be understood as referring to the estimated situation towards the end of 2012. · Measures involving construction or building works (e.g. a waste water treatment plant, a fish pass, a river restoration project, etc): o Not started means the technical and/or administrative procedures necessary for starting the construction or building works have not started. o Planning on-going means that administrative procedures necessary for starting the construction or building works have started but are not finalised. The simple inclusion in the RBMPs is not considered planning in this context. o Construction on-going means the construction or building works have started but are not finalised. o Completed means the works have been finalised and the facilities are operational (maybe only in testing period in case e.g. a waste water treatment plant). · Measures involving advisory services (e.g. training for farmers): o Not started means the advisory services are not yet operational and have not provided any advisory session yet o On-going means the advisory services are operational and are being used. This is expected to be the situation for all multi-annual long/mid-term advisory services that are expected to be operational during the whole or most of RBMP cycle. o Completed means an advisory service that has been implemented and has been finalised, i.e. is no longer operational. This is expected only for advisory services that are relatively short term or one-off, and which duration is time limited in relation to the whole RBMP cycle. · Measures involving research, investigation or studies: o Not started means the research, investigation or study has not started, i.e. contract has not been signed or there has not been any progress. o On-going means the research, investigation or study has been contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. o Completed means the research, investigation or study has been finalised and has been delivered, i.e. the results ore deliverables are available (report, model, etc.). · Measures involving administrative acts (e.g. licenses, permits, regulations, instructions, etc.): o Not started means the administrative file has not been opened and there has not been any administrative action as regards the measure o On-going means an administrative file has been opened and at least a first administrative action has been taken (e.g. requirement to an operator to provide information to renew the licensing, request of a permit by an operator, internal consultation of draft regulations, etc.). If the measure involves more than one file, the opening of one would mean already “on-going” o Completed means the administrative act has been concluded (e.g. the license or permit has been issued, the regulation has been adopted, etc). If the measure involves more than one administrative act, “completed” is achieved only when all of them have been concluded.

2.2 Status of reporting

Reporting was done electronically through WISE[8]. Most Member States and RBDs reported by the deadline of 22 December 2012 or later but in time for the Commission to include the assessment in this report. A number of RBDs reported only in the last few months and therefore it was not possible to include them in the assessment presented in this report.

Table 1 presents the status of reporting as at the end of 2014. The EU-wide statistics included in this assessment report cover only the submissions in the first two columns.

Table 1. Status of WISE reporting (unless noted in brackets the reporting dates refer to all RBDs in each Member State).

Member State || WISE electronic reports received by the deadline and included in the assessment || WISE electronic reports received after the deadline but included in the assessment || Not included in the assessment

AT || 20/12/2012 || ||

BE || 21/12/2012 (Flanders) || 15/01/2014 (Wallonia) || 24/11/2014 (Brussels) No report (Federal)

BG || || 21/02/2013 – 1/03/2013 ||

CY || 22/12/2012 || ||

CZ || || 07/01/2013 (Danube) 04/02/2013 (Oder) || Not reported (Elbe)

DE || 12/12/2012 || ||

DK || || || Not reported to date

EE || || 28/06/2013 ||

EL || || || A paper report was received on 12/12/2014

ES || 19/12/2012 (Ebro, Jucar, Tinto, Odiel and Piedras, Guadalete and Barbate, Guadalquivir, Guadiana, Tajo, Cantabrico Occidental,Cantabrico Oriental, Galicia Costa, Miño-Sil) 20/12/2012 (Andalucia) || 22/02/2013 (Segura, Duero) || 22/10/2014 (Catalonia) 13/11/2014 (Ceuta and Melilla) Not reported to date (7 RBDs in Canary Islands)

FI || 21/12/2012 || ||

FR || 20/12/2012 || ||

HR || || || Not reported to date

HU || || 16/06/2013 ||

IE || || 08/02/2013 ||

IT || 21/12/2012 (except Sicily) || || Not reported to date (Sicily)

LT || || 31/12/2012 ||

LU || || 27/12/2012 ||

LV || || 28/12/2012 ||

MT || || 28/02/2013 ||

NL || 14/12/2012 || ||

PL || 21/12/2012 || ||

PT || || 11-25/07/2013 (except Madeira and Azores) || Not reported to date (Madeira and Azores)

RO || || 15/02/2013 ||

SE || 19/12/2012 || ||

SI || || 20/12/2013[9] ||

SK || 21/12/2012 || ||

UK || 17-20/12/2012 (except Gibraltar) || || Not reported to date (Gibraltar)

The Commission has opened EU pilots to inquire a number of Member States about the missing reports.

3. Some Key facts from Member States' reports

The following is a summary of some main facts extracted from the Member States' reports. More details are provided in the remainder of the report.

· At EU level, 23% of WFD-specific basic measures (Article 11(3) b to l) were reported as completed, 66% on-going and 11% not started. The figures reported for supplementary measures (Article 11(4)) were 29% completed, 54% on-going and 17% not started.

· The type of WFD measures more commonly reported by Member States (MS) (beyond existing pre-WFD directives) are

o Construction or upgrade of urban waste water treatment (19 MS).

o Reduce nutrient pollution in agriculture (16 MS).

o Improving river continuity and other hydromorphological measures (16 MS).

o Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty (15 MS).

o Drinking water protection measures (15 MS).

· Two thirds of the RBDs reported that the basic measures (Nitrates Directive plus the WFD basic measures in Article 11(3) b to l) are not sufficient to tackle diffuse pollution from agriculture, indicating a need to take supplementary measures.

· Around three quarters of the RBDs indicated that basic measures are not sufficient to address water flow regulation and morphological alterations, indicating a need to take supplementary measures.

· However, on average around 20% of the WFD basic measures (Articles 11(3) b to l) are reported as completed and only 10% of the hydromorphological and diffuse sources supplementary measures have been completed (75% are on-going, 15% have not yet started)

· The type of basic measures more often reported as significantly delayed are those related to water abstraction (31 RBDs or 23%).

· The majority (75% or more) of supplementary measures have been completed only in 2 Member States. 11 Member States have significant percentages (more than 20%) of supplementary measures not started.

· Funding/financial obstacles is the most common reason indicated for delays in implementing supplementary measures, affecting 7% of the supplementary measures at EU level

· EU funds have been reported as used sparsely in funding supplementary measures. 13 Member States report having financed more than 10% of supplementary measures using the main EU funds (Cohesion, Structural and/or Rural Development) of which only 3 finance more than 20% of measures.

· 8 Member States have quantitatively assessed the pollution loads from agriculture, but only 1 has estimated the reduction needed to achieve WFD good status. Most Member States recognise the contribution of the Nitrates Directive implementation but only in qualitative terms, not assessing how much they will close the gap to good status, and how much additional effort is needed.

· The situation is similar for chemical pollution, with most Member States only programming measures that will reduce pressure but there is no assessment of how much these measures will close the gap. Only 11 Member States consider atmospheric deposition as significant.

· As regards hydromorphological measures, hydropower is the most commonly cited driver responsible for interruption of river continuity, followed by water supply and flood protection. Progress in implementation is slow, with 80% of the measures either not started or still on-going in 8 Member States.

· Measures related to waste water treatment beyond UWWTD have progressed significantly, with 7 Member States showing more than 75% of the measures either completed or under construction, although situation is very diverse. 5 Member States indicated more than 75% of the measures have not started or are on-going.

· As regards water abstraction and establishment of ecological flows, implementation delays are significant, with 8 Member States reporting at least 50% of the measures as not started.

· Reporting of drinking water protection measures shows good progress with 9 Member States above 60% completion.

4. The basis for an effective Programme of Measures: reliable data and a sound methodological approach 4.1 The need for a reliable data basis for PoMs

In designing the PoMs, the WFD article 11(1) requires Member States to take into account the previous planning steps. Indeed, the design of appropriate measures to achieve the objectives can only be done on the basis of adequate knowledge of the pressures, impacts and status affecting the water bodies[10]. The WFD planning process is designed to deliver this knowledge base required to take well informed decisions.

The 3rd implementation report and the bilateral meetings showed that the first PoMs were affected by significant gaps in many Member States as regards the pressures and impacts analysis, development of assessment methods and monitoring of water status (see Table 2). Unless these gaps are filled, it is difficult to design robust PoMs, targeted to the existing significant pressures and based on sound status data.

A number of significant gaps are common to many Member States.

The assessment of hydromorphological pressures needs to be improved substantially. The pressure analysis should be based on an inventory of pressures at the necessary level of detail as to serve the purpose. In some cases the Member States only took into account large modifications, in the context of the identification of heavily modified water bodies. However, this approach does not guarantee that all relevant hydromorphological pressures which may cause water bodies to fail their environmental objectives are recorded and taken into account in the subsequent planning steps. The availability of information on hydromorphological pressures for the first RBMP was scarce in many Member States, as this issue was largely not regulated before the WFD. However, it is expected that Member States will have much better information basis for the update of the pressures and impacts analysis for the 2nd RBMPs. The bilateral meetings show that this is the case in many Member States.

Another significant gap affecting many Member States is the availability of biological assessment methods sufficiently sensitive to hydromorphological pressures. This has been recently highlighted again[11] as a significant gap. If assessment methods are not sufficiently sensitive to hydromorphological pressures, they are not able to detect ecological degradation and therefore will overlook significant impacts which will not be picked up in the design of the PoMs.

Chemical monitoring has also been identified in the 3rd implementation report as needing significant improvement. Due to the gaps in monitoring and assessment, it was not possible at that time to establish the 2009 baseline for chemical status. At EU level, as many as 40% of surface water bodies were reported as unknown chemical status in the first RBMPs. On this weak information basis it is not possible to design adequate PoMs.

As regards the assessment of chemical and quantitative status of groundwater, the first RBMPs in most Member States did not adequately cover the dependent surface water and terrestrial ecosystems. This was mostly due to the lack of knowledge on the interlinkages between groundwater and surface water. Again, this is an area where significant improvements in the knowledge base is expected for the second RBMPs.

Table 2: Identification of main gaps in the pressures and impacts analysis, development of methods for the assessment of status and monitoring networks in the first RBMPs[12]. Note: situation has improved significantly in the meantime as Member States improved their methods in view of the second RBMPs.

Member State || Pressures and impacts analysis || Methods for assessment of status || Monitoring networks || Comments

AT || J || J || J || Largely in place for the first RBMP.

BE || K || K || J || Improvements in the assessment of hydromorphological pressures are needed. Missing assessment methods in coastal waters and in consideration of surface water and terrestrial dependent ecosystems in groundwater status assessment. Improvements to GEP[13] needed in Wallonia.

BG || K || K || K || Significant improvements are needed in the analysis of pressures and impacts (including re-delineation of river water bodies), development of assessment methods and monitoring. GEP needs improvement.

CY || K || K || K || Improvements in the assessment of quantitative pressures are needed, as well as the development of assessment methods for hydromorphology and chemical monitoring. GEP needs improvement.

CZ || K || J || J || Assessment of hydromorphological pressures needs completion. Assessment methods and monitoring was largely in place for the first RBMP. GEP needs improvement.

DE || J || K || K || Some gaps in biological and hydromorphological assessment methods and chemical monitoring.

DK || || || || Not assessed[14]

EE || K || K || K || Harmonisation and improvement in the consistency of the pressures and impacts analysis is needed, in particular for hydromorphology. Some gaps in assessment methods and monitoring for rivers and lakes need to be filled. GEP needs improvement.

EL || K || L || L || Robust criteria for assessing significant pressures need to be developed, in particular for hydromorphology. Significant gaps in assessment methods. First RBMP relied on existing monitoring data, WFD monitoring started only in 2012. GEP needs to be established.

ES || K || K || K || Improvements in pressures and impacts analysis are needed, in particular to overcome inconsistencies as regards hydromorphology. Significant gaps in assessment methods and monitoring (chemical and ecological status). Inconsistencies in the ecological status results. GEP needs improvement.

FI || J || J || J || Largely in place for the first RBMP.

FR || J || K || K || Significant gaps in assessment methods and monitoring of ecological status. GEP needs improvement.

HR || K || L || L || Improvements are needed in the pressures and impacts analysis, in particular for transitional and coastal waters. First RBMP was based on pre-WFD methods. GEP needs improvement.

HU || K || K || K || Improvements are needed on the pressures and impacts analysis, in particular for chemicals and hydromorphology. Significant gaps in assessment methods and monitoring for ecological and chemical status. GEP needs to be established.

IE || K || K || K || The assessment of hydromorphological pressures and impacts needs to be improved. Assessment methods were largely in place for the 1st RBMP but needed consolidation and completion. Some monitoring gaps.

IT || K || L || L || Groundwater assessment methods and monitoring missing in 4 regions for the first RBMP. Significant gaps in methods and monitoring of surface waters. Decree regulating methods and monitoring was adopted in 2010 only. GEP needs to be established.

LT || K || K || K || Improvements are needed in the pressures and impacts analysis to reduce the number of unknown pressures and link thresholds of significance with risks of failure of good status. Significant gaps in assessment methods and monitoring for surface waters. GEP needs improvement.

LU || K || K || K || Improvements are needed in the pressures and impacts analysis and in particular in the definition of reliable thresholds of significance. Gaps in assessment methods, in particular for hydromorphology, and in monitoring networks.

LV || K || K || K || Improvements are needed in the pressures and impacts analysis and in particular for hydromorphology. Gaps in monitoring and assessment methods for surface water. GEP needs to be established.

MT || K || L || L || Pressures and impacts analysis needs improvement, in particular as regards diffuse pollution and hydromorphology. No assessment methods and monitoring for inland surface waters and significant gaps in coastal waters.

NL || J || J || J || Largely in place for the first RBMP.

PL || K || L || L || Improvements needed in the pressures and impacts analysis, in particular in thresholds of significance and their link to the risk of failing good status. Very significant gaps in monitoring and assessment methods. GEP needs to be established.

PT || K || K || K || Improvements needed in the pressures and impacts analysis, in particular in hydromorphology and water abstraction. Significant gaps in assessment methods and monitoring in the first RBMP.

RO || K || K || K || Thresholds of significance need to be linked to risk of failing to achieve good status to improve the pressures and impacts analysis. Significant gaps in assessment methods and monitoring in the first RBMP. GEP needs improvement.

SE || K || K || K || Improvement needed in pressures and impacts analysis, in particular for hydromorphology. Significant gaps in assessment methods and monitoring networks. GEP needs improvement.

SI || L || K || K || Very significant pressures overlooked in the first RBMP, in particular (but not only) hydromorphological pressure assessment incomplete. Significant gaps in assessment methods and monitoring of surface waters.

SK || J || K || K || Significant gaps in assessment methods for ecological status and monitoring of surface waters.

UK || J || K || K || Some gaps in assessment methods and monitoring of surface waters in the first RBMP.

Legend:

J || Largely in place in the first RBMPs.

K || Significant gaps in the first RBMPs.

L || Very significant gaps in the first RBMPs.

Recommendations (as included in the Communication)

Member States need to step up their efforts to base their PoMs on a sound assessment of pressures and impacts on the aquatic ecosystem and on a reliable assessment of water status. Otherwise, if the basis assessment of pressures is flawed, the entire RBMPs will be ill-founded and there is a risk that Member States will not carry out their work where it is most needed and in a cost-effective way.

Monitoring should be maintained and/or improved. In particular, the monitoring of water status should be improved for surface water, especially as concerns priority substances. The remaining shortcomings in the methods to assess the ecological status of water should be urgently addressed in several Member States. The development of methods sensitive to hydrological and physical alterations of water bodies is particularly important, and some Member States have done this already. The resulting increased knowledge base should ensure that measures are better targeted to achieve WFD objectives.

4.2 Gap analysis: what needs to be done to achieve the objectives?

The WFD PoMs should be designed to achieve the WFD environmental objectives (WFD Article 11(1)). The default objective in WFD is to achieve good status[15] for all water bodies by 2015. This objective is quantified[16] and linked to a clear timetable. Therefore, in designing the PoMs, Member States are expected to identify which measures are needed to achieve good status[17].

The starting point is the current situation, as reflected in the pressures and impacts analysis and the status assessment on the basis of monitoring.

In the process of designing the PoMs, it is important first to establish the business as usual (or baseline) scenario, i.e. to understand how far will the existing and already planned measures lead us towards the objective of good status. On the basis of this assessment, the WFD specific basic measures (Article 11(3) paragraphs b to l) and supplementary measures (Article 11(4)) can be designed to fill the remaining gap by reducing the pressures to levels compatible with good status. Figure 1 depicts schematically this process.

Figure 1. Simplified illustration of a process to identify and fill in the gap between the current status and the 2015 objective of good water status.

If more than one combination of measures can achieve good status, a cost-effective analysis can help identifying the optimum solution able to deliver the desired result at the lowest cost.

Once Member States have established how much would it cost to achieve good status to whom and by when, then it is possible to assess whether exemptions need to be applied due to disproportionate costs, technical unfeasibility or natural conditions.

The Commission’s assessment shows that many Member States have not followed this logic in designing their PoMs. Instead, they have included in the PoMs measures that are largely already in place or in the pipeline and, in some cases, additional measures identified ex-ante as feasible. Then an assessment is done of how far these measures will contribute to the achievement of the WFD’s environmental objectives and, for those water bodies not achieving good status, an exemption is applied without proper justification as required by WFD.

Other Member States designed their PoMs on the basis of a number of scenarios reflecting different combination of measures. The plausible scenarios are often built on the basis of measures identified ex-ante as feasible. Again, this ex-ante assessment is often based on expert judgement and/or inputs from the affected sectors. This approach pre-empts the result and is not adequate to justify the exemptions according to WFD. Judgements on feasibility should be based on a transparent assessment of what is needed to achieve good status.

The WFD’s environmental objectives are quantified and linked to a clear timetable. The approach taken by many Member States – of ‘moving in the right direction’ based (largely) on business-as-usual scenarios – is clearly not sufficient to achieve the environmental objectives for most water bodies.

Another important aspect linked to the approach taken in designing the PoMs is the consequences of the application of exemptions. In most cases, when exemptions are applied and the achievement of ‘good status’ is postponed, it is not clear whether measures are taken to progress towards the objective, as required by the directive (Article 4(4)d).

Further information on the approaches taken by Member States can be found in the following sections of this report, but the overall conclusions is that very few Member States have performed a quantitative gap analysis to underpin the design of the PoMs.

Recommendations (as included in the Communication)

In order to correctly design the PoMs, Member States need to identify the most cost-effective combination of measures that are needed to fill in the gap between water’s current status and ‘good status’. This gap analysis is necessary to understand what needs to be done to achieve the objectives, how much time it will take and how much it will cost to whom. In addition, properly justifying exemptions due to technical unfeasibility or disproportionate costs are possible only based on this analysis. Moreover, even if exemptions are justified, Member States need to ensure that measures progress as far as possible towards the objectives.

5. Targeting of measures to reduce pressures and impacts to achieve WFD objectives 5.1 Introduction

Measures should be targeted in terms of their type and extent to ensure that pressures are addressed and that this will deliver improvements towards achieving good status or potential in the individual water bodies. The measures should be designed based on the assessment of the actual status of the water body, supplemented with the information from the analysis of pressures and impacts affecting the water body.

Each step of the planning process of the WFD is, therefore, necessary to ensure the correct measures are implemented in the appropriate location. The planning process started with the transposition of the Directive into national law and the administrative arrangements, and it was followed by the characterisation of the RBD (including the pressures and impacts analysis, the economic analysis, the delineation of water bodies and the establishment of the typology and reference conditions for surface water bodies: the basis for the ecological status assessment). The status assessment based on sufficient (parameters, frequency, etc.) and updated monitoring results is a fundamental element of the planning process, but is also often the weak part of the chain. Finally, the environmental objectives are set and the PoMs to achieve those objectives are established.

The PoMs should have become operational by December 2012 at the latest. There is a need to monitor the effects and effectiveness of the measures in the improvement of the water status and (as stated in Article 11.5) where monitoring or other data indicate that the objectives set are unlikely to be achieved. The cause of the possible failure should be investigated, relevant permits and authorisations should be reviewed, monitoring programmes reviewed and adjusted and amended or additional measures devised to ensure achievement of objectives.

In terms of the objective of achieving good status by 2015, the aim would be to identify the gap in water body status/potential expected by 2015 and the status required by the Water Framework Directive. How large the gap that must be filled to achieve WFD objectives in any particular RBD and Member State will depend, for example, on how Member States have implemented the requirements under other Directives (e.g. the relative stringency of measures in national Nitrates Action Plans) and policies, as well as differences in the type, extent and magnitude of pressures on water bodies. The gap should be filled with measures that would be implemented under the Water Framework Directive for those water bodies expected to be failing objectives in 2015 without exemptions.

The gap to the achievement of objectives will be caused by significant pressures on water bodies: the sources and sectors responsible will have to be identified to determine where actions on the ground are needed to reduce pressures to levels in/on water bodies compatible with the achievement of objectives. The required reduction of the pressures to fill the gap to the achievement of objectives should then be quantified: this can be expressed in different ways depending on the nature of the pressure. For example: for nutrient pollution it could be in terms of the required reduction in the loads of nitrogen and phosphorus in the receiving water bodies; for pressures arising from the hydromorphological alteration of water bodies it could be expressed as number of barriers that have conditions not compatible with the achievement of Water Framework Directive objectives; and, for water abstractions the volume of water abstracted or diverted that has to be reduced to achieve objectives.

The assessment of the first RBMPs has shown that the measures are often not concrete and the expected achievements not always clear. In general, it should be better reflected that the PoMs should be based on the result of the analysis of pressures and impacts and the status information from the monitoring programmes. Often the definition of the measures is too vague and there is little clarity on the scope of the measures.

Furthermore, the financial commitment, the bodies or organisations responsible for the implementation, the planned timetable and the expected effects on the improvement of the status are not described in the majority of the RBMPs. This lack of detail in defining the measures concretely may lead to insufficient action to tackle the specific problems of the water bodies and hinder the achievement of the WFD at local level.

The aim of using source apportionment is primarily to give a clear picture of the most important sources for a given pressure or impact. In this context a source might be considered as a combination of a pressure type (e.g. diffuse or point source pollution combined with the responsible sector or driver like diffuse – agriculture or diffuse – forestry).

5.2 Apportionment of pressures and impacts to sources

Table 1 summarises the information found on how the identified impacts and pressures on water bodies have been apportioned to the responsible sources and sectors. Source apportionment information is required so that measures can be targeted affectively at sources to reduce the pressures to levels compatible with the achievement of WFD objectives.

The information was primarily obtained from an in-depth assessment of the information presented by Member States in their bilateral meetings with the Commission on the implementation of their first RBMPs and PoMs. This was supplemented as necessary by the information reported in 2012 on progress with implementation of the PoMs and the first RBMPs and supporting documents.

Table 1: Apportionment of identified impacts between the sources and sectors responsible for the pressures

Approach adopted || Member States

No information || PL

Impacts and pressures not apportioned between sources and sectors || BE (Brussels region); MT; PT

Qualitative apportionment: sources identified but their relative contribution to impacts and pressures on water bodies not assessed or quantified || CY; DE; ES; FI; IE; HU; IT; LU; LV; RO; UK

Quantitative apportionment for all impacts (e.g. nutrient pollution) and sources (e.g. agriculture and waste water discharges) || -

Quantitative apportionment for some impacts and all their pressures || CZ; SE; LT

Quantitative apportionment for some impacts and just their main pressures || AT; EE; FR; SK; BE (Flanders and Wallonia); FI; NL, RO; UK;

There are differences in approaches between RBDs in the MS, for example because some regions within a MS may have different Competent Authorities. || IT; SE; FR; BE; UK

None of the 23 Member States assessed seems to have undertaken source apportionment for all impacts and pressures though 12 Member States have undertaken source apportionment for some impacts in relation to some if not all sources/sectors. 11 Member States or regions of a Member State have only undertaken a qualitative apportionment where the main sources of pressures have been identified but their relative contributions to the pressures have not been quantified.

Examples of the methodologies used:

A mathematical model presumably validated by monitoring data was used to assess the impacts of point and diffuse pollution sources on the rivers in Lithuania, as well as to calculate the pollutant concentrations in the main rivers and to identify the input loads of individual pollution sources. The source of hydromorphological alteration pressures were identified as being from hydropower plants and straightened rivers. So other than for some chemicals, the sources of which were unknown, the sources of practically all pressures were identified during the preparation of the first RBMPs. A source apportionment has been made for some pressures for example, in the Scheldt RBD in Belgium (Walloon region) it has been determined that the chemical industry and food industry are responsible for 81% of the COD and for 84% of the total phosphorus discharged by the whole industrial sector. However for the other pressures such as from hydromorphological alterations though the main sources are identified their relative impacts have not been apportioned. In the Czech Republic and Romania quantitative apportionments have been made mainly for nutrients and organic pollutants from point (discharges) and diffuse sources. The quantitative apportionment was detailed (at facility level (discharges) and quantification of diffuse sources on water body level) both in kg/year of pollutants. For most of the RBDs in France an apportionment between domestic / agricultural / industrial sectors for phosphorus, organic matter and nitrogen was done without any differentiation between point sources and diffuse sources. In Sweden source apportionment has only been made for nutrients - not for other impacts such as those from hazardous substances. 5.3 Approaches to assigning measures to sectors/sources to reduce pressures

Table 2 summarises the results of the assessment of the approaches used by 23 Member States in assigning measures to sectors/sources to reduce pressures.

Table 2: Summary of other approaches to applying measures to reduce pressures

Approach || Member States

Applied to those sectors affected by Article 11.3.a basic measures || CY; IE; LU; LV; RO

Applied to sectors where legal mechanisms and enforcement were available || IE; LV

Applied to sectors where measures were considered as being most cost effective || BE; NL; LV

Focus on sectors where measures are known from past experience to reduce pressures/improve status || SK; LV

Sectors that have traditionally been regulated and subject to improvement measures || IT; IE; SK

Sectors identified as being a source of significant pressures on water bodies || AT; CY; EE, FI, FR; MT; LU; BE; NL; LV; IT; IE; SK ; RO

On sectors where other (than Article 11.3.a) measures were already in place || IT

Other approach || EE; ES; FI; LT; PT; SE; BE; NL

No information found || CZ; IT; ES

Note that more than one approach may apply in a Member State

14 Member States targeted measures at the sectors identified as being a source of significant pressures on water bodies and three MS applied measures to sectors where measures were considered as being most cost effective. No relevant information was found for 3 Member States.

For example the measures in the Irish PoMs focus primarily on basic measures (Article 11.3.a). They have been applied to sectors based on a combination of a source-based apportionment (i.e. point versus diffuse sources of P with some differentiation into agriculture sources and wastewater discharges for example) and expert judgement derived from past experience of water management.

5.4 Assigning measures across the polluters and activities/sectors responsible for the impacts

Table 3 summarises the results of the assessment of 23 Member States in terms of how measures were selected across the polluters and sectors responsible for the impacts on water bodies

Table 3: Summary of approaches to assigning measures across the sectors responsible for pressures and impacts on water bodies

Approach || Member State

Focus predominantly on one sector || None

Focus on the sectors contributing most to the pressures and impacts || AT; BE; CY; DE; EE; FR; HU; IE; LT; LU; LV; MT; NL; RO; SE; SK

Focus on the sectors where the measures were considered to be most effective in reducing pressures || FI; PT; UK; EE; LT; NL; SE

Focus on the sectors where measures were considered to be most cost effective || BE; FR; LV; RO; UK

Focus on those sectors where measures were more enforceable || LT

No information found or the approach was not clear || CZ; ES; IT; PL; FR

Note: More than one approach may apply in each Member State

16 Member States indicated that measures were focused on the sectors contributing most to the pressures and impacts on water bodies and 7 to the sectors where the measures were considered to be most effective in reducing pressures. There was no or unclear information for 6 Member States.

Examples of the approaches:

Harmonised approaches for development of Programmes of Measures were developed at the national level in Germany. Measures have been developed for each respective theme (i.e. agriculture, groundwater, hydromorphology, water pricing etc.). On the one hand, this ensures a common approach in the Länder, especially in RBDs with multiple administrative districts. On the other hand, the information provided in the plans remains very general as only overarching categories of measures are provided. The PoMs for the more southerly RBDs in Sweden clearly address the main polluting sectors - waste water from households, industry and agriculture. However, when it comes to the most important pressure in the 2 northern RBDs – from hydromorphological alterations - the approach is more complicated. A substantial part of the costs for physically reducing the impact from hydromorphological pressures is for building fish passes where roads or rail tracks cross over rivers. This source seem relative minor compared to the many hydropower facilities in these areas impacting large lengths of the rivers which seem not be prioritised for measures: the money spent on the minor obstacles in the rivers may be lost if the problems at the large hydropower facilities are not solved. Another example for reducing the impacts of hydromorphological pressures and restoration of river continuity are the PoMs in Austria. They are following a prioritisation approach based on ecological effectiveness of the measures. According to this prioritisation river stretches were identified where the restoration of river continuity would be of highest importance and effect for the improvement of the conditions for endangered medium distance migratory fish species. All obstacles in these river stretches have to be made passable for migratory fish regardless whether the obstacle is due to hydropower plants, flood protection works or other sources. 5.5 Cost effectiveness

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is an appraisal technique that provides a ranking of alternative measures on the basis of their costs and effectiveness, where the most cost-effective has the highest ranking.

Uncertainty on costs, effectiveness and time-lagged effects of measures needs to be dealt with throughout the economic analysis process associated with the WFD, and more generally throughout the process of identifying measures and developing the RBMP. Sources of uncertainty are highly diverse according to situations and river basins, but will exist with regards to the assessment of pressures, impacts, baseline, costs or measures effectiveness. It is important that key areas of uncertainty and key assumptions made for the analysis are clearly spelt out and reported alongside the results of the analysis.

Table 4.1 summarises the results of the assessment on the use of cost effectiveness analysis in 23 Member States.

Table 4.1: Summary on Member States use of a cost effectiveness analysis for the development of the programme of measures

The use of cost effectiveness analysis || Member State

For measures for all significant pressures || DE, FR; LT; LU; LV; PT; RO; UK

For measures for some but not all significant pressures || AT; BE; CY; CZ; ES; HU; NL; SE, FI

A cost-effectiveness analysis was not undertaken || EE; IE; MT; PL

No information or not clear || IT; SK

Eight of the 23 Member States assessed have used a cost-effectiveness analysis in the development of their programmes of measures for all significant pressures and a further 8 for some but not all significant pressures. A cost effectiveness analysis appears to have not been undertaken in 4 Member States and no information or unclear information on this was found for 2 Member States.

Efforts have been done in the first implementation cycle to assess the cost-effectiveness of different measures as an instrument to support decision making towards a cost effective implementation/achievement of the WFD objectives. At the same time, various difficulties were faced; therefore additional information on the effectiveness of measures and the expected progress in achieving the WFD objectives as linked to their related costs are desirable for the third implementation cycle/in the second RBMPs.

In most of the RBMPs it is stated that a cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted during the development of the PoMs that is either for all measures, or for a selection of measures, or for a specific sector. In the majority of cases, it was reported that the CEA influenced the final selection of measures. However there is a great variety regarding the level at which the cost-effectiveness analysis has been performed. In addition, in approximately half of the cases the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed for measures related to all significant pressures, while in the remaining ones either the CEA was not performed or only dealing with measures linked to some of the significant pressures.

The CEA often targeted only the supplementary measures, while in general the methodologies used are often unclear or poorly reported. A variety of approaches was taken, e.g. using expert estimations, case study approaches, reference to general procedures implicitly dealing with CEA, using modelling and decision support tools, stakeholder participation etc.

Besides some methodological considerations, various gaps in information availability did limit the use of a CEA (Table 4.2); the main factors here are the lack of information on the environmental effectiveness of some measures in terms of reducing pressures and improving water body status for some pressures, as well as the lack of information on the time-lag between making measures operational, the pressures being reduced and improvements being apparent.

Issues related to the regulatory effectiveness of some measures in terms of reducing pressures and improving water body status for some pressures as well as to the costs information of measures for some pressures also hindered the use of cost-effectiveness analysis on some cases.

Table 4.2: Factors limiting the use of cost-effectiveness analysis in the first programmes of measures

Factor || Member State

Lack of information on the environmental effectiveness of some measures in terms of reducing pressures and improving water body status for some pressures || AT; BE; DE; FI; FR; LT; LU; MT; PT; SE; UK

Lack of information on the regulatory effectiveness of some measures in terms of reducing pressures and improving water body status for some pressures || AT; DE; FI; MT; UK

Lack of information on the time-lag between making measures operational, the pressures being reduced and improvements being apparent || AT; DE; FI; LT; LU; MT; PT; RO

Lack of information on the costs of measures for some pressures || DE; IE; LU; PT; RO; SE; UK

Other || ES; HU; LT; LU; PL; SE

No information || CY; CZ; EE; FR; IT; LV; NL; SK

5.6 Assessment of disproportionate costs

The WFD allows for an extended time to the achievement of objectives or the application of less stringent objectives if properly justified on the grounds of disproportionately expensive measures (Articles 4.4 and 4.5). The argument of the measures being disproportionately expensive was used by 17 of the 27 Member States when applying exemptions in their first RBMPs with the proportion of surface waters exempted for this reason up to 55% of exempted surface water bodies depending on the Member State.

However, there was little information found on the details and the process of determining disproportionately expensive measures in the first RBMPs. In addition a review of cost and benefit information used in the first RBMPs published in 2012 showed that limited information on cost and benefit was currently available[18]. This was true in particular with respect to the benefits of WFD implementation: such information was rarely included in the RBMPs and in total, benefit information could only be found for 22 RBDs.

Therefore, in most cases alternatives approaches that vary considerably across the EU (e.g. linked to affordability affordability/financial impact, in some cases linked to distributional effects etc.) have been used to conduct the disproportionality of costs assessment. Also a check of alternative financing mechanisms that could influence the disproportional cost evaluation is lacking in most of the RBMPs.

5.7 Effects of uncertainties

Measures should be targeted in terms of their type and extent to ensure that pressures are tackled and reduced, and that this will deliver improvements towards achieving good status or potential in the individual water bodies. The measures should be designed based on the assessment of the actual status of the water body, supplemented with the information from the analysis of pressures and impacts affecting the water body.

Therefore, uncertainty in the robustness and suitability of methods used in the Article 5 analysis of pressures and impacts, and/or in the confidence of the results of monitoring and the subsequent assessment of ecological and chemical status can fundamentally affect how measures are targeted at water bodies at risk of failing objectives or those that are assessed as being at less than good status from all significant pressures in a RBD.

Table 5 summarises the effects of uncertainty had on the programmes of measures developed for the first cycle in the 23 Member States assessed.

Table 5: Effects of uncertainty of the targeting of measures to tackle pressures in the first RBMPs

Effect || Member State

The effects of uncertainty were not considered when targeting measures || BE; CY; ES; FI; HU; IE; IT; LU; LV; MT; PL; PT; RO*; SK

Measures were targeted only on water bodies with well quantified pressures || CZ; HU; IE; LT; NL; SE; SK; UK

Measures were targeted only on water bodies clearly at risk of failing objectives || IE; LT; LU; NL; PL; PT; RO; SE; UK

Only expert judgment has been used in the assessment of pressures and impacts || EE; FI; IE

Measures were targeted at those water bodies failing objectives with a defined level of confidence in their status || AT; FR; LT; UK

Measures were targeted at those water bodies failing objectives whose status was assessed with compliant methods for at least one but not all biological quality elements || HU

Measures were targeted at those water bodies failing objectives with types that had been intercalibrated || LT

Measures were targeted at those water bodies failing objectives that are only monitored for physicochemical quality elements || CZ

Measures were targeted at water bodies that are failing objectives and are not directly monitored but have been assessed using the monitoring results from monitored water bodies in the same group || LT; PT

No information || DE

Note more than one “effect” may apply to a Member State.

* For basic measures only in RO.

The effects of uncertainty appear to have not been considered when targeting measures in 14 of the 23 Member States assessed: in addition in Romania uncertainty was not considered in applying basic measures but was in terms of supplementary measures. In 12 Member States measures were targeted only on water bodies with well quantified pressures and/or were clearly at risk of failing objectives.

As an example of the effect of uncertainties on the design of programmes of measures, in the United Kingdom (England and Wales) for many of the diffuse sources the knowledge of the detail of sources and pathways was too uncertain to know what measures would be feasible and effective, particularly at a detailed site specific level. For this reason, the measures included in the first RBMPs in England and Wales focused on actions planned for other drivers, national measures, and locally targeted actions to control pollution.

A common theme among Member States was the use of measures during the first cycle designed to reduce uncertainties (e.g. LT, PT, SE and UK). Such measures could be related to research, monitoring and assessment. In Lithuania the uncertainties identified in the RBMPs were in relation to a) the status of river water bodies; b) the impacts of certain risk factors on river water bodies; c) the ecological status in lakes and good ecological potential in artificial lakes; and, d) about the reasons for poor status.

6. Overview of implementation of Article 11.3.a Basic Measures

22 Member States reported in their first RBMPs that all basic measures under Article 11.3.a had been implemented in all their national RBDs and their national parts of international RBDs. For the remaining 6 Member States some of the basic measures had not been implemented in all RBDs.

In 2010 Member States were asked to report whether or not basic measures planned for their first programmes of measures were enough to reduce significant pressures to levels compatible with the achievement of WFD objectives such as the achievement of good status by 2015. Table 1 shows the percentage of RBDs that reported that basic measures (Article 11.3.a to 11.3.l) were enough to achieve WFD objectives. The Table shows that basic measures were enough in the largest proportion of RBDs for pressures arising from transitional and coastal water management and in the smallest proportion of RBDs for diffuse source pressures.

Table 1: Percentage of RBDs where the implementation of Article 11.3.a to 11.3.l basic measures were considered as being enough to achieve WFD objectives

Significant pressure on surface water bodies || Percentage of RBDs

Transitional and coastal water management such as estuarine/coastal dredging and tidal barrages (136) || 66%

Other morphological alterations such as barriers and land sealing(138) || 60%

Water Abstraction for example for agriculture or public water supply (149) || 47%

Other Pressures such as introduced species and recreation (152) || 40%

River management such as the physical alteration of river channels and river dredging (142) || 33%

Water flow regulation and morphological alterations such as flood defence dams and weirs (154) || 14%

Point Sources such as those from urban waste water treatment works and industrial installations (156) || 12%

Diffuse Sources such as those from agriculture and urban areas (156) || 8%

Source WISE 2010 electronic reports. The numbers in parenthesis after the pressure type are the numbers of RBDs that reported on whether or not basic measures were enough. All 28 MS reported.

If Article 11.3 basic measures were considered not to be enough, Member States were asked to provide information on which specific Article 11.3.a basic measures and Article 11.3.b to l basic measures were considered not to be enough to tackle significant pressures.

Table 2: Overview of Article 11.3.a basic measures that were reported as not being enough to tackle significant pressures on surface water bodies in the first RBMPs

Pressure || Article 11.3.a measure

BWD || BD || DWD || Seveso || EIA || SSD || UWWTD || PPPD || ND || HD || IPPCD

Point Source (156) || 22% || 8% || 12% || 19% || 10% || 6% || 60% || 8% || 8% || 14% || 38%

Diffuse Source (156) || 18% || 9% || 15% || 8% || 18% || 20% || 10% || 21% || 63% || 19% || 4%

Water Abstraction (149) || 1% || 9% || 11% || 0% || 10% || 0% || 1% || 1% || 0% || 13% || 1%

Water flow regulations and morphological alterations (154) || 1% || 11% || 2% || 0% || 19% || 0% || 1% || 0% || 5% || 18% || 2%

River management (142) || 1% || 14% || 1% || 0% || 18% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 7% || 18% || 1%

Transitional and coastal water management (136) || 1% || 2% || 0% || 0% || 6% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 2% || 3% || 1%

Other morphological alterations (138) || 0% || 9% || 1% || 0% || 12% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 4% || 10% || 1%

Source: WISE 2010 electronic reports. Percentages in table cells are the percentage of RBDs where Article 11.3.a basic measures were not enough to achieve WFD objectives. In brackets next to the pressures is the number of RBDs reporting whether these measures were enough or not to tackle the listed significant pressures on surface water bodies. Note that the percentages in the rows do not add up to 100% as more than one measure may be needed (but insufficient) to address significant pressures on surface waters.

Key to table

BWD || Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC)

BD || Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)

DWD || Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC) as amended by Directive (98/83/EC)

Seveso || Major Accidents (Seveso) Directive (96/82/EC)

EIA || Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC)

SSD || Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC)

UWWTD || Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC)

PPPD || Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/EEC)

ND || Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC)

HD || Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)

IPPCD || Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC)

The cells highlighted in red indicate for which significant pressure on surface waters the basic measure that was most considered not to be enough to achieve WFD objectives. For example, for point sources, measures implemented by Member States under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive were not enough in 60% of RBDs (within 20 Member States) for which there is reported information and those measures incorporated in Member States Nitrates Action Programmes were not enough to tackle diffuse source pressures in 63% of RBDs (within 22 Member States).

7. Overview of implementation of Article 11.3.b-l other Basic Measures 7.1 State of implementation in 2012

As described in section 3.1, Member States reported on which Article 11.3 basic measures were considered as being enough to reduce significant pressures to levels compatible with achievement of WFD objectives. If they were considered not to be enough, Member States were asked to provide information on which specific Article 11.3.a basic measures and Article 11.3.b to l basic measures were considered as not being enough to tackle significant pressures.

Table 1 presents the Article 11.3.b to l basic measures that were reported in 2010 as not being enough to achieve WFD objectives.

Table 1: Overview of Article 11.3.b to l basic measures that were reported as not being enough to tackle significant pressures on surface water bodies in the first RBMPs

Pressure || Article 11.3

b || c || d || e || f || g || h || i || j || k || l

Point Source (156) || 9% || 13% || 5% || 5% || 1% || 72% || 13% || 17% || 6% || 33% || 28%

Diffuse Source (156) || 5% || 12% || 4% || 3% || 1% || 17% || 71% || 17% || 3% || 21% || 15%

Water Abstraction (149) || 7% || 31% || 15% || 48% || 1% || 8% || 9% || 13% || 1% || 1% || 8%

Water flow regulations and morphological alterations (154) || 3% || 16% || 1% || 8% || 1% || 9% || 13% || 76% || 1% || 2% || 9%

River management (142) || 1% || 13% || 1% || 4% || 1% || 1% || 8% || 54% || 1% || 1% || 8%

Transitional and coastal water management (136) || 1% || 2% || 1% || 1% || 1% || 4% || 7% || 18% || 1% || 7% || 1%

Other morphological alterations (138) || 1% || 2% || 1% || 1% || 1% || 4% || 3% || 32% || 1% || 1% || 1%

Source: WISE 2010 electronic reports. Percentages in table cells are the percentage of RBDs where Article 11.3. b to l basic measures were not enough. In brackets next to the pressures is the number of RBDs reporting whether these measures were enough or not to tackle the listed significant pressures on surface water bodies

Key

Article || Short name

11.3.b || Measures for the recovery of cost of water services (Article 9)

11.3.c || Measures to promote efficient and sustainable water use

11.3.d || Measures for the protection of water abstracted for drinking water (Article 7)

11.3.e || Controls over the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater and impoundment of fresh surface waters

11.3.f || Controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies

11.3.g || Requirement for prior regulation of point source discharges liable to cause pollution

11.3.h || Measures to prevent or control the input of pollutants from diffuse sources liable to cause pollution

11.3.i || Measures to control any other significant adverse impact on the status of water, and in particular hydromorphological impacts

11.3.j || Prohibition of direct discharge of pollutants into groundwater

11.3.k || Measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters by priority substances

11.3.l || Any measures required to prevent significant losses of pollutants from technical installations and to prevent and/or reduce the impact of accidental pollution incidents

The cells highlighted in red indicate for which significant pressure on surface waters the basic measure that was most considered not to be enough to achieve WFD objectives. For example, for pressures arising from hydromorphological alterations, measures implemented by Member States under Article 11.3.i (measures to control any other significant adverse impact on the status of water, and in particular hydromorphological impacts) were not enough in 76% of RBDs (within 23 MS) for which there is reported information, and those measures incorporated in Article 11.3.g measures (requirement for prior regulation of point source discharges liable to cause pollution) were not enough to tackle point source pressures in 72% of RBDs (within 22 MS).

Figure 1: Progress at the EU level on the implementation of basic measures (Article 11.3.b to l) reported in 2012

Key as for Table 4.1. Based on 24 MS, number of RBDs in brackets. DK and EL did not report; HR has only recently published its first RBMPs and is yet to report on their progress. LV did not report on this aspects. BE data covers the RBDs in Flanders and in Wallonia but not the ones in Brussels and in the coastal region.

7.2 Delays in implementation

Member States were asked to report if there were substantial delays in the implementation of basic measures required under Article 11.3. b to l. Table 2 summarises at the EU level (24 MS) the proportion of RBDs where basic measures were reported to be delayed in 2012. Substantial delays were reported in all categories in the range of 9-23% of the measures planned.

Table 2: Number of RBDs reporting substantial delays in implementation of Article 11.3.b to l

Article 11.3 || Basic Measure || Number of RBDs reporting substantial delay || % of RBDs reporting

d || Protection Water Abstraction || 31 || 23%

i || Adverse Impact || 25 || 19%

g || Point Source Discharges || 23 || 17%

e || Controls Water Abstraction || 21 || 16%

b || Cost Recovery Water Services || 20 || 15%

c || Efficient Water Use || 18 || 13%

h || Pollutants Diffuse || 16 || 12%

j || Pollutants Direct Groundwater || 14 || 10%

k || Surface Priority Substances || 13 || 10%

l || Accidental Pollution || 12 || 9%

f || Recharge Augmentation Groundwater || 12 || 9%

In terms of Article 11.3.d measures for the protection of water abstraction, substantial delays in implementations were reported in France (12 RBDs), Sweden (10 RBDs), Ireland (7 RBDs) and Spain (2 RBDs). Fifty one (35%) of the 144 RBDs reporting information on the state of implementation of Article 11.3.b to l measures had at least one measure that was substantially delayed. In 29 (20% of RBDs) at least 10% of the measures and in 12 (8% of RBDs) at least 50% of the measures were substantially delayed.

Table 3 summarises at the Member State level the reasons reported for basic measures being delayed or not completed. To do this, the reasons have been categorised into broad “types” of reason or obstacles.

At the EU level (23 MS), 12% of basic measures were delayed or uncompleted because of legislative/regulatory/administrative barriers and, as described above, Ireland and the Czech Republic reported that 30% of their basic measures had been delayed for this reason. Funding or finance issues were also reported to be causing delay or non-completion of 3% of basic measures at the EU level, with the highest proportion in Italy (15%), Portugal (10%) and Spain (7%).

Table 3: Summary of reasons for substantial delays and/or explanation of the state of implementation of basic measures (Article 11.3 (b to l)) in 2012

MS || fund || research || adm || tech || later || general || update || not appl

AT (33) || || || || || || 3% (0%) || ||

BE (77) || || || || || || || ||

BG (44) || 5% (5%) || || || || || || ||

CY (11) || || || || || || || ||

CZ (33) || || || 30% (27%) || || || || ||

DE (110) || || || || || || || ||

DK (NR) || || || || || || || ||

EE (33) || || || || || || || ||

EL (NR) || || || || || || || ||

ES (165) || 7% (7%) || 2% (2%) || 4% (4%) || || 5% (0%) || 1% (1%) || 1% (1%) || 1% (0%)

FI (88) || || || || || || || ||

FR (143) || 1% (0%) || || 8% (8%) || || || || ||

HU (11) || || || 9% (9%) || || || || ||

IE (77) || || || 36% (36%) || || || || || 9% (0%)

IT (62) || 15% (15%) || || || || || || ||

LT (44) || || || || || || || ||

LU (22) || || || || || || || ||

LV (NR) || || || || || || || ||

MT (11) || || || || || || || ||

NL (44) || || || || || || || ||

PL (110) || 5% (5%) || || || || || || ||

PT (88) || 10% (0%) || || 6% (0%) || || || 5% (1%) || || 2% (0%)

RO (11) || || || || || || || ||

SE (110) || N/A || || N/A || || || || ||

SI (NR) || || || || || || || ||

SK (16) || || || 13% (13%) || || 13% (13%) || || ||

UK (165) || || || || || || || ||

EU (1508) || 3% (2%) || 0.2% (0.2%) || 4% (4%) || 0% (0%) || 1% (0.1%) || 0.5% (0.2%) || 0.1% (0.1%) || 1% (0%)

Note: Bold numbers in cells are the percentages of basic measures with the reason for the substantial delay in implementation. Numbers in brackets in cells are the percentages of measures reported to have a substantial delay. Numbers in brackets next to MS codes are the number of basic measures reported at the RBD level. All measures included in this table were either reported as not started or on-going, some with a substantial delay. All had a textual description of the state of implementation. NR = not reported.

Key to Table

fund || Funding/finance obstacles

research || Research/investigation/developments/further work needed

adm || Legislation/regulation/administration barriers

tech || Technical barriers/difficulties

later || Not yet included/Planned to start later in the cycle/next cycle

general || General description only

update || Waiting for updates of information

not appl || Not needed/applicable

7.3 Financing of basic measures (Article 11.3 b) to l))

Member States were asked to report on the source of EU funds for the financing of Article 11.3.b to l basic measures. Figure 2 shows that 81% of these other basic measures were financed from non-EU funds, indicating that potentially there could be better utilisation of EU funds by Member States. The EU funds most commonly reported were structural (9%), rural development (5%) and cohesion fund (3% of measures, however it should be noted that not all Member States and regions are eligible for support from the cohesion fund). A more detailed breakdown per Member States is given in Table 1.

Figure 2: The use of different sources of EU funds for the financing of other basic measures (Article 11.3.b to l) at the EU level in 2012

Note: Based on 22 Member States. DK, EL and HR have not reported to WISE. DE, FI and LV did not report on this aspect.

Table 4: Percentages of Article 11.3 (b to l) other basic measures financed from EU funds in 2012

MS || Cohesion || Fisheries || Life+ || Rural Development || RTD || Struc-tural || Other EU funds || Non-EU funds

AT (33) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 100%

BE (66) || 0% || 0% || 3% || 3% || 0% || 0% || 3% || 92%

BG (44) || 7% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 11% || 2% || 79%

CY (11) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 100%

CZ (33) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 27% || 0% || 73%

DE (NR) || || || || || || || ||

DK (NR) || || || || || || || ||

EE (33) || 36% || 0% || 0% || 9% || 0% || 27% || 0% || 55%

EL (NR) || || || || || || || ||

ES (165) || 4% || 1% || 1% || 4% || 1% || 17% || 2% || 79%

FI (NR) || || || || || || || ||

FR (143) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 10% || 0% || 2% || 1% || 87%

HR (NR) || || || || || || || ||

HU (11) || 27% || 0% || 0% || 18% || 0% || 18% || 82% || NR

IE (77) || 0% || 0% || 4% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 96%

IT (62) || 2% || 2% || 2% || 8% || 0% || 13% || 2% || 48%

LT (44) || 9% || 9% || 0% || 9% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 73%

LU (22) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 9% || 0% || 91%

LV (NR) || || || || || || || ||

MT (11) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 18% || 0% || 82%

NL (44) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 100%

PL (110) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 2% || 0% || 98%

PT (88) || 1% || 0% || 0% || 5% || 0% || 58% || 0% || 39%

RO (11) || 9% || 0% || 0% || 9% || 0% || 0% || 9% || 100%

SE (110) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 9% || 0% || 0% || 36% || 64%

SI (50) || 8% || 0% || 0% || 4% || 0% || 0% || 2% || 86%

SK (16) || 25% || 0% || 0% || 13% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 63%

UK (165) || 0% || 0% || 1% || 4% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 96%

The number in brackets is the number of basic measures (summed from the RBD level) reported by Member State.

In BE in the RBDs in Wallonia region, due to the lack of consolidated data, the information on EU Funds is lacking, even though some of the measures were financed by EU Funding.

Note: a measure may be funded from more than one source and so the percentages for a MS do not necessarily add up to 100%. NR = not reported

8. Overview of implementation of Article 11.4 Supplementary Measures 8.1 State of implementation in 2012

Figure 1 presents the state of implementation of supplementary measures in 2012 at the Member States level. As well as there being a large difference between Member States in the number of supplementary measures reported (given in brackets next to the MS abbreviation), there is also a large difference in the state of implementation:

In around one-third of Member States over 20% of their supplementary measures had not been not been started in 2012; In around 80 % of Member States less than 20% of their supplementary measures had only been completed in 2012.

In their 2010 reports, Member States provided details on which supplementary measures were used to tackle each of the significant pressures on their water bodies. In their 2012 reports on progress with the implementation of programmes of measures, details were provided on the progress being made with implementation of the supplementary measures. Therefore, an indication of the progress being made in tackling significant pressures through the application of supplementary measures could be obtained by linking the two datasets.

Figure 2 shows (aggregated at EU level) the state of implementation of supplementary measures in 2012 being used to tackle point source, diffuse source, water abstraction and hydromorphological pressures on surface water bodies. For all the four pressure categories over 80% of measures were either not-started or on-going indicating that at the mid-way point of the first cycle that there was still a large “gap” to be filled if all measures were to be completed by 2015. There were only small differences between the four pressure types with the supplementary measures for water abstraction pressures having the largest proportion of completed measures (19%) and hydromorphological alteration pressures the smallest (10%).

Figure 1: Percentage of supplementary measures in each Member State that was not-started, on-going and completed in 2012

Note: numbers in brackets are the number of measures summed at the RBD level for each MS. NR = not reported. BE data covers the RBDs in Flanders and in Wallonia but not the ones in Brussels and in the coastal region.

Figure 2: State of implementation of supplementary measures being used to tackle significant pressures on surface water bodies

Note: the number of Member States on which the figure is based is shown in brackets next to the pressure type. Hydromorphological alteration pressures are an aggregation of pressures arising from water flow regulations and morphological alterations, river, transitional and coastal water management and other morphological alterations. The following MS are not included in the figure above: DK, EL and HR have not yet reported on progress; the 2010 and 2012 data from CZ, MT, SE and SI could not be linked. BE data only covers the RBDs in Flanders but not the ones in Wallonia, in Brussels and in the coastal region. The data are based on the average state of implementation of measures for each MS so that MS reporting many more measures than others do not unduly bias the overall picture.

8.2 Delays in implementation

As with Article 11.3 b to l basic measures, Member States were asked to report whether there was a substantial delay in implementing supplementary measures included in the first RBMPs in 2009, and to explain any such delays. 85% of the 39 measures in the Czech Republic, 53% of the 152 in Sweden and 37% of the 459 in Germany were reported to be delayed. In comparison only 0.4% of the 2240 measures in the United Kingdom were delayed and none in Austria, Estonia, Hungary, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Slovakia.

In 74 (54%) of the 136 RBDs with reported information on the state of implementation of supplementary measures, there was at least one measure reported to be substantially delayed. Fifty RBDs (37%) had substantial delays in implementation of at least 10% and in 15 (11%) RBDs with at least 50% of their supplementary measures.

In addition, Member States could also explain the state of implementation of any measure be they delayed or not. Table 1 summarises the reasons given for delays in implementation and the state of measures. The information reported in national languages has been categorised in a number of broad reasons and/or obstacles. Though this is not a precise categorisation it is sufficient to indicate the main reasons and obstacle for delays in implementation of supplementary measures.

At the EU level (25 MS), around 7% of supplementary measures were delayed or not completed because of financial/lack of funding reasons with over 10% being delayed in 8 Member States. Around 4% of supplementary measures at the EU level were delayed or not completed because further research and/or investigations were needed, and around 3% because there were legislative/regulation/administration barriers.

Table 1: Summary of reasons for substantial delays and/or explanation of the state of implementation of supplementary measures in 2012

MS || fund || research || adm || tech || later || land || general || staff || update || no need || no prior || new || plan || cost

AT (22) || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BE (524) || 1.2% || 2.4% || 5.3% || 4.7% || 5.3% || || 2.4% || 0.6% || 1.8% || 0.6% || 7.6% || || ||

BG (370) || 7.0% || || 0.8% || 0.5% || || || || || || 0.5% || || || ||

CY (54) || 13% || 13% || 2% || 2% || 11% || || || || || || || 2% || ||

CZ (39) || 15% || 23% || 23% || 8% || 8% || || 8% || || || || || || ||

DE (459) || 22% || || 29% || 11% || || 22% || || 22% || || 4% || || 4% || ||

DK (NR) || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

EE (74) || || || || || || || 35% || || || || || || ||

EL (NR) || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ES (1237) || 11.2% || 0.1% || 0.5% || 0.2% || 0.1% || || 2.2% || || 2.7% || || || || 0.2% ||

FI (620) || 9.5% || 0.5% || 1.1% || 1.9% || 6.1% || 0.2% || 1.8% || 0.2% || || 0.3% || || || ||

FR (644) || 1.1% || 0.2% || 3.6% || 3.1% || 0.3% || || 0.5% || || || 0.2% || || || ||

HR (NR) || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

HU (37) || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

IE (470) || 3.8% || 1.3% || 5.3% || 0.2% || || || || || || 1.5% || 1.3% || || 0.2% || 1.3%

IT (412) || 23% || || 0.2% || || 0.2% || || || 0.7% || || || || || ||

LT (125) || 0.8% || || 5.6% || 6.4% || 0.8% || 1.6% || 0.8% || || || || || || 0.8% ||

LU (74) || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

LV (117) || 33% || 3% || 3% || 3% || 24% || || || || || || || || ||

MT (28) || || || 18% || 4% || || || || || || || || || ||

NL (112) || 18% || || 5% || || || 4% || || || || || || || ||

PL (41) || 7.3% || || 9.8% || 4.9% || || 4.9% || || || || || || || ||

PT (391) || 12.3% || || 0.8% || 0.5% || 3.1% || || 1.0% || || 0.5% || || || || ||

RO (190) || 4.7% || || 5.8% || 0.5% || || 0.5% || 0.5% || || || 0.5% || || || ||

SE (152) || || 6.6% || 6.6% || || 19.7% || || 13.2% || || || || || || 7.2% ||

SI (115) || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SK (59) || 3.4% || 10.2% || || 3.4% || || || 5.1% || || || || || || ||

UK (2240) || || 12.5% || 0.3% || 0.5% || || || 0.0% || || || 0.1% || || || ||

EU (8277) || 7.1% || 4.1% || 3.4% || 1.7% || 1.7% || 1.4% || 1.3% || 1.3% || 0.5% || 0.5% || 0.4% || 0.2% || 0.2% || 0.1%

Note: numbers in brackets are the number of supplementary measures reported at the RBD level. All measures included in the Table were either reported as not started or on-going, some with a substantial delay. All had a textual description of the state of implementation. NR = not reported. In BE only Flanders reported on substantial delays. AT and LU did not provide textual descriptions.

Key to table

fund || Funding/finance obstacles

research || Research/investigation/developments/further Work needed

adm || Legislation/regulation/administration barriers

tech || Technical barriers/difficulties

later || Planned to start later in the cycle/next cycle

land || Lack of land/acquisition

general || General description only

staff || Lack of staff

update || Waiting for updates of information

no need || Not needed

no prior || Low priority

new || New/information/findings

plan || Planning/approval barriers

cost || Not cost effective

8.3 Financing of supplementary measures

Member States were also asked to report on the source of EU funds for the financing of supplementary measures. Figure 3 shows that 81% of supplementary measures were financed from non-EU funds. The EU funds most commonly reported were structural (8%) and rural development (4%) funds. A more detailed breakdown per Member States is given in Table 2.

Figure 3: The use of different sources of EU funds for the financing of supplementary measures at the EU level in 2012

Note: Based on 24 Member States. DK, EL and HR have not reported to WISE. DE did not report on this aspect.

Table 2: Percentages of supplementary measures financed from EU funds in 2012

MS || Cohesion || Fisheries || Life+ || Rural development || RTD || Structural || Other EU || Non-EU

AT(22) || 0% || 0% || 18% || 14% || 0% || 14% || 0% || 68%

BE(524) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 3% || 0% || 1% || 2% || 94%

BG(370) || 7% || 0% || 1% || 6% || 0% || 7% || 0% || 79%

CY(54) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 100%

CZ(39) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 28% || 0% || 72%

DE(NR) || || || || || || || ||

DK(NR) || || || || || || || ||

EE(74) || 18% || 0% || 0% || 7% || 0% || 12% || 0% || 82%

EL(NR) || || || || || || || ||

ES(1237) || 2% || 0% || 2% || 1% || 0% || 17% || 2% || 78%

FI(620) || 0% || 0% || 1% || 10% || 0% || 6% || 1% || 83%

FR(644) || 0% || 0% || 3% || 11% || 0% || 19% || 1% || 70%

HR (NR) || || || || || || || ||

HU(37) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 100%

IE(470) || 0% || 0% || 5% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 95%

IT(247) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 4% || 0% || 11% || 2% || 84%

LT(125) || 9% || 2% || 1% || 3% || 0% || 1% || 0% || 85%

LU(74) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 100%

LV(117) || 5% || 1% || 1% || 4% || 0% || 14% || 1% || 74%

MT(28) || 11% || 0% || 11% || 7% || 0% || 7% || 4% || 71%

NL(112) || 3% || 0% || 2% || 1% || 0% || 2% || 4% || 89%

PL(41) || 12% || 12% || 7% || 22% || 0% || 15% || 5% || 68%

PT(391) || 7% || 0% || 0% || 7% || 0% || 42% || 1% || 45%

RO(190) || 3% || 0% || 0% || 14% || 0% || 1% || 4% || 97%

SE(152) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 13% || 0% || 0% || 13% || 87%

SI(115) || || || || || || || || 100%

SK(59) || 0% || 0% || 0% || 17% || 0% || 0% || 0% || 83%

UK(8277) || 0% || 0% || 0.2% || 1% || 0% || 2% || 0% || 97%

Note: The number in brackets is the number of supplementary measures (summed from the RBD level) reported by Member State. Note: a measure may be funded from more than one source and so the percentages for a MS do not necessarily add up to 100%. NR = not reported.

In BE in the RBDs in Wallonia region, due to the lack of consolidated data, the information on EU Funds is lacking, even though some of the measures were financed by EU Funding.

9. Reporting of Key Types of Measures

In 2012, Member States were asked to report on 16 defined Key Types of Measures (KTM). KTMs were expected to incorporate Article 11.3 (b to l) basic measures and supplementary measures. Their implementation and completion were expected to deliver the bulk of the actions required to achieve WFD objectives, i.e. to reduce significant pressures to the extent required to achieve good status or to prevent deterioration of status in high and good status water bodies. A key type of measure was expected to be reported by Member States only if it was related to a significant pressure in that Member State. Member States could identify a limited number of key types of measures for each RBD and provide for those quantitative indicators of progress in implementation. Member States were also given the possibility to report different or additional KTMs according to their specific situations and requirements.

There were large differences in the numbers of KTMs reported by Member States, and also between the RBDs within the Member States (Figure 1). Spain and Italy reported on all 16 KTMs, but not for all of their RBDs, and Lithuania did not report any. KTM 1 (Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants beyond the requirements of the Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment) was the most frequently reported (19 MS) and KTM 8 (water efficiency measures for irrigation), the least frequently (6 MS) (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Number of Key Types of Measure reported by Member States

Note: DK, EL and HR have not reported to WISE

Figure 2: Number of Member States reporting on the different Key Types of Measure

Note: DK, EL and HR have not reported to WISE

Key to KTMs

KTM || Title

1 || Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants beyond the requirements of the Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment

2 || Reduce nutrient pollution in agriculture beyond the requirements of the Nitrates Directive

3 || Reduce pesticides pollution in agriculture

4 || Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil

5 || Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams)

6 || Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity

7 || Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of minimum ecological flow

8 || Water efficiency measures for irrigation (technical measures)

9 || Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from households

10 || Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from industry

11 || Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from agriculture

12 || Advisory services for agriculture

13 || Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.)

14 || Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty

15 || 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

16 || Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms) beyond the requirements of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive

Table 1 gives an overview of the KTMs reported by Member States – three Member States (DK, EL and SI) have not reported. It should be noted that it would not necessarily be expected that all KTMs would be reported by Member States as significant pressures types vary across Member States and some may not be required. These differences may reflect differences in the extent and type of pressures between and within Member States but they may in some cases also reflect a lack of a common understanding of what is meant by a “Key Type of Measure” and what should be reported. This is particularly the case where a Member States has reported a pressure as being significant but then not reported the KTM associated with that pressure. For example a further 6 Member States might have been expected to report KTM 5 (improving longitudinal continuity) which is associated with pressures arising from hydromorphological alterations of water bodies.

Member States were not asked to report on any substantial delays in the implementation of KTMs. However, as KTMs are composites of Article 11.3.b to l basic measures and supplementary measures, and substantial delays have been reported on both types of measure (section 4.2 and 5.2, respectively), it is reasonable to assume that there will also be substantial delays in the implementation of some KTMs in some Member States.

The state of implementation of the KTMs associated with the 5 Topic/pressures selected for in-depth assessment is presented in the following sections.

Table 1: Breakdown of the Key Types of Measure reported by Member States in 2012

MS(RBDs) || Key Types of Measure

1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || 5 || 6 || 7 || 8 || 9 || 10 || 11 || 12 || 13 || 14 || 15 || 16

AT(3) || 3 || 3 || || || 3 || || 2 || || || || || 3 || || || ||

BE(6) || 6 || 6 || 6 || 6 || 5 || 6 || 6 || || 6 || 6 || 6 || 6 || 6 || 6 || 6 || 6

BG(4) || 3 || 1 || 1 || 3 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || || || || 3 || 3 || 2 || 1 || 1

CY(1) || || || || 1 || || 1 || || || || || || || 1 || 1 || 1 ||

CZ(3) || 3 || || || 3 || 3 || 3 || || || || || || || || 3 || ||

DE(10) || 9 || 10 || || || 10 || 10 || || || || || || 9 || || 9 || ||

DK || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

EE(3) || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 2 || || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 2 || 2

EL || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ES(15) || 10 || 8 || 2 || 8 || 4 || 13 || 10 || 9 || 7 || 5 || 3 || 3 || 7 || 14 || 6 || 3

FI(8) || 3 || 4 || || || 4 || 2 || 1 || || || || || 1 || 4 || || ||

FR(13) || 12 || 11 || 12 || || 13 || 13 || 5 || 7 || 13 || 13 || 13 || 7 || 12 || 11 || 13 || 11

HR || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

HU(1) || 1 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

IE(7) || 7 || 7 || 7 || 3 || || || || || 7 || 7 || 7 || || 7 || 7 || 7 ||

IT(7) || 6 || 5 || 3 || 4 || 3 || 5 || 6 || 6 || 2 || 1 || 2 || 3 || 5 || 7 || 4 || 4

LT(4) || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

LU(2) || 1 || 2 || 2 || || 1 || 2 || 2 || || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 1 || || 2 ||

LV(4) || 4 || 4 || || 4 || 1 || 3 || || || || || || || || 4 || || 1

MT(1) || || || || || || || || 1 || || || || 2 || || 1 || ||

NL(4) || || || || || 4 || 4 || || || || || || || || || ||

PL(10) || 2 || 2 || || || || || 9 || || 10 || 9 || 10 || 2 || 1 || 10 || ||

PT(8) || 2 || || || || || || || || || || || || 2 || 4 || ||

RO(1) || 1 || 1 || || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1

SE(10) || 3 || || || 5 || 5 || 5 || || || || || || || 5 || || ||

SI (2) || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SK(2) || || 2 || || 2 || || || || || 2 || || || || || || ||

UK(15) || 5 || 5 || 5 || 1 || 15 || 15 || 4 || || 4 || 4 || 4 || 15 || 5 || 3 || ||

SUM || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Note: the numbers in the brackets are the number of RBDs for which the measure was reported. DK, EL and HR have not reported. LT and SI did not report any KTMs. Also note that Member States were able to report new Key Types of Measure if they were different from the predefined KTMs. BE reported 7 different new KTMs; BG 2, ES 17, FI 5, FR 1, IE 22, IT 1, LV 5, PL 10, RO 6 and SK 3.

Key to KTMs

KTM || Title

1 || Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants beyond the requirements of the Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment

2 || Reduce nutrient pollution in agriculture beyond the requirements of the Nitrates Directive

3 || Reduce pesticides pollution in agriculture

4 || Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil

5 || Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams)

6 || Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity

7 || Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of minimum ecological flow

8 || Water efficiency measures for irrigation (technical measures)

9 || Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from households

10 || Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from industry

11 || Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from agriculture

12 || Advisory services for agriculture

13 || Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.)

14 || Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty

15 || 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

16 || Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms) beyond the requirements of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive

10. Progress with implementation of measures to reduce pressures (nutrients, organic matter) from agriculture 10.1 Context

Agricultural activities are significant sources of pressures on water bodies in the EU.

The assessment of the first RBMPs showed that agriculture was a significant source