EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 34 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State:Cyprus Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans

{COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Table of contents Acronyms Foreword General Information Status of second river basin management plan reporting Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) Recommendations Topic 1 Governance and public participation 1.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 1.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 1.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 2 Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 2.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 2.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second RBMPs 3.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first RBMP 3.3. Progress with Commission recommendations

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

Topic 9 Programme of measures 9.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 9.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 9.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 10.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 10.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 10.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture 11.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 11.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 11.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 12 Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 12.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 12.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 12.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology 13.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 13.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 13.3. Progress with Commission recommendations

Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies 14.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 14.2. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 15 Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 15.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 15.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 15.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change 16.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 16.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 16.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Acronyms and definitions EQS Directive Environmental Quality Standards Directive FD Floods Directive Km Kilometre km2 Kilometre squared KTM Key Type of Measure PoM Programme of Measures QA/QC Directive Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Water Information System for Europe Annex 0 Member States reported the structured information on the second RBMPs to WISE ( Water Information System for Europe ). Due to the late availability of the reporting guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying what information they were unable to report and the reasons why. This Annex was produced using a template included in the reporting guidance. If Member States reported all the required information, this explanatory note was not necessary.



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





General Information Cyprus has a population of 0.8 million and a total surface area of 9,250 km2. Cyprus is the largest island in the eastern Mediterranean (Map A). The two main mountain ranges are the Pentadactylos in the north and the Troodos in central and south-western part of the island. Between them is the fertile plain of Messaoria. Map A Map of River Basin Districts Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) International River Basin Districts (within European Union) International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) National River Basin Districts (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters Cyprus has one River Basin District (RBD) that covers the country’s whole territory (Table A). Cyprus being an island, the RBD does not share catchments with other Member States or with other countries. According to the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No 10 on Cyprus, the application of the acquis is suspended in those areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control. Table A Overview of Cyprus‘s River Basin Districts RBD Name Size (km2) CY001 Cyprus 11023 Source: RBMPs reported to WISE

Status of second river basin management plan reporting A total of one RBMP (Cyprus) was published on 7 October 2016. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency (EEA) EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ .

Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMP of Cyprus are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation ·Cyprus used several mechanisms to involve stakeholders, including via advisory groups and their involvement in drafting of the RBMPs.

·Open meetings were held in different cities to inform the public and stakeholders of the RBMP. ·Cyprus did not adopt and publish the RBMP in accordance with the timetable in the Water Framework Directive. ·Characterisation of the RBD ·A new and improved typology was developed for rivers and the national types are reported to fit with the intercalibration types. ·For what concerns surface water bodies, there are significant gaps in the establishment of reference conditions for all water bodies. The second RBMP refers to a project that was underway for the establishment of reference conditions for lake water bodies in Cyprus, which will be used in the third RBMP. For groundwater, further characterisation work has been undertaken since the first RBMP, by describing the geological formations and whether they are layered or not. Cyprus has also done an assessment of linkages with surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems. ·For surface waters and groundwater, significance of pressures was linked to failure of objectives and defined in terms of thresholds. ·Cyprus has reported gaps that have to be filled for some (but not all) significant pressures on groundwater and surface water bodies. Some of the pressure types (e.g. diffuse sources) have been apportioned among sectors/activities. ·An inventory of all Priority Substances has been reported in the second RBMP. Tiers 1 to 4 were implemented for substances deemed relevant at RBD level, and Tier 1 was implemented for substances identified as not relevant, as recommended by the CIS Guidance Document n°28. The data quality was assessed as good. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status ·There was an increase in the number of monitoring sites used for the surveillance and operational monitoring of coastal waters since the first RBMP. Cyprus did not report any surveillance or operational monitoring sites in rivers and lakes. This was a reporting error, and the information subsequently provided by Cyprus shows also a significant increase in the number of monitoring sites in rivers, both surveillance and operational. There was, however, a decrease in monitoring sites in lakes, for which there were no operational sites for the second RBMP. It should be noted, however, that reservoirs, which had been reported as lakes in the first RBMP were now reported as rivers, so the number of delineated lake water bodies decreased significantly. ·The proportion of surface water bodies in good or better status/potential was 58 % in the second RBMP, compared to 40 % in the first. The proportion with unknown status/potential significantly decreased, from 21 % in the first RBMP to 1 % in the second. ·More biological quality element assessment methods have been developed since the first RBMP. ·Fish in rivers have not been reported as having been monitored or classified, and no assessment methods have been developed. The justification given previously by Cyprus was that there are no indigenous fish in its freshwaters taking into account historical information on ecology, climate and pressures. A specific measure has been included in the Programme of Measures for the period 2016-2021 to further investigate the fish fauna in rivers in Cyprus. Cyprus subsequently clarified that investigative projects, which included monitoring of fish, have already been carried out since 2010. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies ·Between the two RBMPs the proportion of surface water bodies in good chemical status increased from 74 % to 85 %. The proportion of water bodies in unknown status decreased from 21 % to 12 %. ·Around a quarter of rivers and a third of lakes and coastal waters were monitored for chemical status. This means that a significant number of water bodies were classified in the absence of monitoring data for these water bodies, and it may at least partly explain the significant proportion of water bodies classified with low confidence (58% of waterbodies). ·Territorial waters were neither monitored nor classified. ·Altogether 39 of the 41 Priority Substances were monitored in water and used for status assessment. This included all the Priority Substances identified as discharged. The monitoring frequencies met the recommended minimum frequency for surveillance monitoring but not for operational monitoring. No explanation could be found for the reduced frequencies. ·For status assessment, Cyprus clarified that mercury and hexachlorobenzene, and hexachlorobutadiene were monitored in biota in coastal waters at the recommended minimum frequency. No monitoring of biota was undertaken in surface freshwaters as Cyprus has yet to identify a suitable biota species for such monitoring. ·According to WISE, Cyprus did not perform any monitoring for long-term trend assessment. However, Cyprus subsequently clarified that since 2013, the 14 relevant Priority Substances are monitored in river sediment.

·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies ·All groundwater bodies are now monitored and have a status. ·The groundwater body area failing good status significantly decreased from 92 % of the total area to 57 %. ·All associated ecosystems were considered although they are not considered to be presenting a risk. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies ·No surveillance monitoring and no operational monitoring has been reported, although 73 sites are listed for monitoring of chemical status. Cyprus subsequently noted reporting errors and clarified that the chemical monitoring has improved in the second RBMP and that chemical status is based on 92 operational monitoring stations. All stations are monitored twice a year. ·Contrary to the conclusion drawn from the electronic reporting, Cyprus clarified that all WFD core substances are monitored in all groundwater bodies. ·Despite the reported information, according to Cyprus, the confidence in status results is high and the assessment methodology is clearly described. ·Associated ecosystems have been considered in the status assessment although there is no related risk identified. ·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential ·The methodology for heavily modified water body designation explains the identification of substantial changes in character as well as provides information on the assessment of significant adverse effects on the use and the assessment of better environmental options. ·The focus of the methodology is on river water bodies linked to dams; the two lakes and the four coastal water bodies are assessed in less detail and less specific criteria are applied. For lakes, there is no available data about the status of the biological quality elements. For this reason, only the significance of the hydromorphological alterations is considered. ·Although good ecological potential is defined on the basis of mitigation measures, it has not been defined yet in terms of biology for rivers. For impounded rivers (reservoirs), GEP has been defined in terms of biology in the intercalibration for lakes and the assessment of the status of impounded rivers was carried out on that basis. Furthermore, the ecological changes expected from the mitigation measures in biological terms are not described in any quantitative terms. ·Environmental objectives and exemptions ·Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies and quantitative and chemical status of groundwater have been reported. ·Drivers, pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions are reported. ·Commission recommendations regarding further detailed justifications for applying Article 4(4) exemptions have been followed. ·The application of Article 4(7) exemptions may be an issue of insufficient implementation of WFD requirements as it remains unclear if the reported process covers all steps of Article 4(7). ·Programme of Measures ·Progress has been made with the targeting of measures.

·Cyprus reported that some measures have been completed and clarified subsequently that in fact the majority of measures have been completed. A lack of finance is the main obstacle. More transparent information is needed on how measures have been selected and prioritised. Cyprus clarified that the measures included in the Programme of Measures are targeted to the significant pressures and formulated taking into consideration a number of factors including EU and national environmental policies, progress and experience of the first Programme of Measures, the status of water bodies and the results of the pressure and impact analysis, the financial resources and mechanisms available, the technical feasibility of the measures needed and the timescales in which good status should be achieved. ·A significant amount of the funds required for the second Programme of Measures has been secured from European Union funding. Cyprus has reported that financing is in place from relevant sectors. ·Not all significant pressures appear to have been addressed by KTMs, and KTMs have been reported for significant pressures which have not been reported as causing water bodies to fail objectives. Cyprus clarified that only the pressures with measurable indicators are mapped to KTMs. Additionally only one KTM is related to each significant pressure. As a result of this, some pressures for which measures are included in program of measures are not correlated to KTMs and some KTMs that could be relevant are not reported in WISE. ·National basic and supplementary measures have been mapped against KTMs. Cyprus clarified that only the pressures with measurable indicators are mapped to KTMs. Additionally only one KTM is related to each significant pressure. As a result of this, some pressures for which measures are included in program of measures are not correlated to KTMs and some KTMs that could be relevant are not reported in WISE. ·The range of KTMs against which national measures have been mapped is limited. ·Cyprus has reported indicators for those pressures where operational KTMs have been reported. ·The RBMP and Flood Risk Management Plan have not been fully integrated. However, the WFD and Floods Directive have been co-ordinated in terms of consultation, objectives and measures. Financial commitment has been obtained from the flood protection sector for the implementation of WFD measures. ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity ·The Water Exploitation Index + (2009-2013) is 73.1 % for Cyprus, which is far beyond the preliminary European sustainability threshold. ·Direct measurement/monitoring of urban water consumption is in place. ·The current method for determining agricultural water consumption still presents weaknesses, and metering control needs improvements. ·A permitting regime and a register of abstractions for surface water and groundwater is fixed by law. ·Water efficiency and reuse measures are in place. ·The control and sanction system can be described as rather weak; the illegal abstractions phenomenon appears to persist. ·Water pricing for agriculture is not incentive-based, although a new water pricing law and system is being implemented. ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture ·There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. ·Management objectives for nutrient pollution and a gap assessment for nutrients has been undertaken. A gap assessment, regarding nitrogen, phosphorus and biological oxygen demand, including an evaluation/prediction of how effective the measures are/would be at reducing the pressures to the level to achieve good status, was performed. ·Implementation of basic measures Article 11(3)(h) for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at source has been established across the whole RBD. ·Only one supplementary measure has been included as part of the Programme of Measures.

·Safeguard zones for drinking water protection have been established. ·Financing of measures is secured and the costs of the measures are reported. ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture Cyprus has made progress on the recommendation to accelerate the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. Cyprus did not include either 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), or KTM16 (Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms)) in its list of KTMs addressing pollution from sectors other than agriculture, despite the fact that both Priority Substances and River Basin Specific Pollutants could cause non-compliance. The Programme of Measure does not explicitly link measures to individual Priority Substances or River Basin Specific Pollutants causing failure of objectives. Cyprus subsequently pointed out that 55 specific measures to tackle Priority Substances and River Basin Specific Pollutants are included in the Programme of Measures, in addition to some relevant horizontal measures. Especially, 10 out of 55 measures included in the Programme of Measures are specific to tackle Priority Substances. ·Measures related to hydromorphology ·According to information subsequently provided by Cyprus, a methodology for the assessment of hydromorphological pressures has been developed for the second RBMP. In addition, during the first cycle, authorities have registered all hydromorphological pressures and a regulation and licensing framework has been established for activities potentially leading to hydromorphological alterations. In the second RBMP, 43 % of the surface water bodies classified with ecological status less than good are facing significant hydromorphological pressures and relevant measures are included in the program of measures to tackle them. Monitoring activities are still ongoing to verify measure effectiveness, e.g. on the ecological effectiveness of ecological flows and studies on fish fauna. ·Ecological flows have been derived and implemented for all relevant water bodies. For the preparation of the second RBMP, a specific analysis was conducted for the identification of the e-flows in heavily modified river water bodies downstream of dams with the aim of achieving good ecological potential. This is used to formulate three relevant measures for the determination of environmental flows in selected dams (release environmental flows downstream of dams, release environmental flows targeted in selected sites of significant ecological importance and release flood flows in selected dams), which define the standards for ecological flows in Cyprus. ·The specific KTM23 on Natural Water Retention Measures is not reported as operational to tackle any significant pressures in the second RBMP. However, the RBMP refers to synergies with measures taken under the Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP). According to information provided by Cyprus during the assessment, Natural Water Retention Measures are included in the FRMP where appropriate. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies ·Environmental and resource costs have been calculated and attributed to the water users to a certain extent. ·No information on the incentive function of the water pricing policies was reported in the RBMP but a new water pricing law/system has since been implemented to cover the water pricing requirements of the WFD. ·No information on the application of the polluter pays principle was reported. ·A rather broad definition of water services has been used. ·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) ·A detailed and comprehensive description of the regulation in safeguard zones is provided. ·The plan includes information about monitoring specifically for protected areas, which has been put in place in accordance with the requirements of the various Directives. ·Adaptation to drought and climate change ·The Common Implementation Strategy guidance document on how to adapt to climate change was used for preparing the RBMP.

·KTM 24 - Adaptation to climate change is not operational; but according to the information provided by Cyprus several measures are strongly linked to climate change effects. ·A drought management plan including key measures exists and is aligned with the RBMP.

Recommendations ·The preparation of the third RBMPs should be carried out in accordance with the WFD timetable, to ensure that they are adopted on time. ·Cyprus should continue to improve the quality of monitoring by increasing the number of sites and by monitoring all relevant quality elements, finalising the measure aimed at investigating the fish fauna in rivers. ·Cyprus made significant progress in the characterisation of water bodies. However, further work is still needed on the apportionment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater bodies among different sectors. Further information should be provided on the methodologies used to define significant pressures and on the thresholds to define the significance of pressures. ·The assessment specifically of the lake and coastal water bodies needs to be improved in terms of biology. In case water bodies achieve good status they need to be designated as natural water bodies. Associating abstractions as "substantial changes in character" needs to be reconsidered in the context of relevant principles in the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document No. 4. ·The surveillance monitoring of lakes should be improved and lakes should also be included in operational monitoring. ·Cyprus should have a clear and transparent method for the selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants. ·Cyprus should continue improving the confidence in the assessment of surface water chemical status for all water categories (including territorial waters, whose status should be assessed), and further reduce the proportion of unknown status. In particular, monitoring should be performed in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage to classify all water bodies (in combination if necessary with robust grouping /extrapolation methods), all Priority Substances should be considered in the assessment of status, in the relevant matrix. If reduced frequencies or a different matrix are used, corresponding explanations should be provided, as required by the Directive. ·Cyprus should perform trend monitoring in sediment and/or biota, to ensure that all the relevant substances specified in Directive 2008/105/EC are monitored in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage. ·Cyprus should increase utilisation of metering (especially for agriculture) to better determine the quantitative status of water bodies and to secure their long-term protection considering that abstraction of groundwater is a significant pressure in Cyprus, mainly due to unregulated self-abstractions, and permits requiring alignment with environmental constraints. ·The increase of the application of Article 4(4) exemptions between the first and the second cycle is an issue of concern. Efforts need to be continued to ensure the implementation of an ambitious program of measures in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. ·Further progress is needed regarding the possible use of exemptions according to Article 4(7) in order to ensure thorough assessment of proposed new projects in line with the requirements of the WFD and as further specified by the Judgment of the Court in case C-461/13. An ex-ante assessment of the expected effects of a planned project at quality element level is required. In case deterioration / non-achievement of good status / potential is expected, all the conditions as outlined under Article 4(7) need to be fulfilled and thoroughly justified for the authorisation of a project. ·Cyprus should ensure that KTMs are reported for all significant pressures causing failure of objectives, and include KTM15 and KTM16 where relevant. ·Cyprus should ensure full implementation of measures and law enforcement to address over-exploitation of groundwater bodies, tackling water demand problems and illegal abstractions. It should promote more efficient irrigation networks, less water-intensive crops, and maximise water reuse. ·In the third RBMPs, it should be stated clearly to what extent, in terms of area covered and pollution risk mitigated, basic measures (minimum requirements to be complied with) or supplementary measures (designed to be implemented in addition to basic measures) will contribute to achieving the WFD objectives. Sources of funding should be identified (e.g. CAP Pillar 1, Rural Development Programmes-RDP), as appropriate, to facilitate successful implementation of these measures. ·Cyprus should continue to review and develop the strategy for the delivery of WFD objectives, in cooperation with the farming community and Cypriot CAP delivery authorities, to ensure the third RBMP is technically feasible and all relevant policies and instruments (e.g. RDP, CAP Pillar 1, Nitrates Directive) contribute significantly to RBMPs. Irrigation investments made through the RDP must be carried out to ensure water saved goes back to restore depleted aquifers.

·Cyprus should improve how it reports the links between KTMs and tackling individual chemical pollutants. ·All on-going and planned measures should be included in the next programme of measures. ·Cyprus should continue to apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies or justify any exemptions using Article 9(4). It should continue to transparently present how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. It should also continue to transparently present water-pricing policy results and provide a transparent overview of estimated investments and investment needs. ·Further work is needed in order to set additional objectives for all relevant Protected Areas. Cyprus should also plan a complete monitoring programme for all relevant Protected Areas.



Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 1.1.1Administrative arrangements – river basin districts Cyprus has one RBD that covers the country’s whole territory. Cyprus did not adopt and publish the RBMP in accordance with the timetable in the Water Framework Directive: according to the information reported to WISE, the RBMP was published in October 2016. 1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities Cyprus has reported one Competent Authority, the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment. The Ministry holds all the main roles for the RBMP: monitoring and assessment of status for both groundwater and surface water, pressure and impact analysis, economic analysis, preparation of the RBMP and the Programme of Measures, public participation, implementation of measures, coordination of implementation and reporting to the European Commission. 1.1.3River Basin Management plans – structure and Strategic Environmental Assessment No sub-plans were prepared for the RBMP. A Strategic Environmental Assessment was undertaken for the RBMP and Programme of Measures. 1.1.4Public consultation The public and interested parties were informed of the consultation of the RBMP via Internet, invitations to stakeholders, local authorities, media (papers, TV and/or radio), meetings and written consultation. Documents were available for download, and were available for the required 6 months. Cyprus informed that consultation on the draft RBMP was open to all stakeholders, and all documents were uploaded for consultation on the website of the WDD (Water Development Department). Three types of stakeholder groups were actively involved in the development of the RBMP: local/regional authorities, NGOs/nature protection and water supply and sanitation. These stakeholders were involved via advisory groups, involvement in drafting and a workshop. It can be noted that energy/hydropower, industry and fisheries/aquaculture stakeholders had been reported as being actively involved in the preparation of the first RBMP but were not reported in the second cycle. Cyprus informed that seven open meetings were organized in different cities to inform the public. Invitations were open to all stakeholders covering all the main sectors of activities such as water supply, sanitation, agriculture, industry, NGOs, consumers and local authorities. The participants in these meetings were mainly from sectors such as water supply, agriculture, local municipal authorities and consumers. From sectors like energy, industry, and fisheries only representatives from the competent Authorities participated. Public consultation led to the addition of new information, adjustment to specific measures, commitment to action in the next RBMP and the addition of new river water bodies.

1.1.5Integration with the Floods Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Cyprus held a joint consultation of its RBMP and Flood Risk Management Plan under the Floods Directive but did not co-ordinate consultation of the RBMP with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive . Cyprus informed that during the preparation and the consultation of the second RBMP, the programme of measures for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive was under formulation. For this reason, in the Programme of Measures of the second RBMP, it is clearly noted that the measures formulated for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive are considered as supplementary to the second RBMP. This statement is also included in the second RBMP. 1.1.6International coordination and co-operation The Cyprus RBD does not share catchments with other Member States or with other countries. 1.2.Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle No significant changes were observed. Although reporting to WISE suggests that public consultation appeared to be less broad in terms of involvement of stakeholders compared to the first cycle (energy, industry and fisheries stakeholders were actively involved in the first RBMP but were not reported as being actively involved in the second cycle), Cyprus informed that for the second cycle, only the main stakeholders that participated in the meetings or provided feedback for the preparation of the second RBMP were reported. 1.3 Progress with Commission recommendations There were no recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first Programme of Measures.



Topic 2Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 2.1.1Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies There have been significant reductions in the number of lake and river water bodies delineated between the two cycles ( Table 2.1 ). Overall, Cyprus designated 216 river water bodies for the first cycle. For the second cycle, 174 were identified, similarly for lake water bodies the number decreased from 18 to 8. The reasons provided in the RBMP for these changes were that the typology was revised allowing merging of water bodies that previously were of different types and splitting of water bodies that previously were of the same type, as well as the availability of new monitoring data. The RBMP also reported that some lakes were re-delineated as rivers because they were river reservoirs . Table 2.1 Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Cyprus for the second and first cycles Year RBD Lakes Rivers Coastal Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total length of water body (km) Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies 2016 CY001 8 20 174 1,777 22 869 2010 CY001 18 28 216 2,579 26 865 Source: WISE electronic reports There was also a decrease in the number of coastal water bodies, though the total area of the coastal water bodies slightly increased in the second RBMP compared to the first RBMP indicating that the average size of the water bodies increased in the second RBMP. This was a result of studies which proposed the merging of neighbouring coastal water bodies, new monitoring data and to enable better targeting of measures.

Table 2.2 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in Cyprus between the first and second cycles. The RBMP also reported that the size threshold used for the delineation of water bodies has changed since the first cycle . The minimum size criteria reported for rivers was 10 km2 in terms of catchment area but the minimum size for lakes was not reported. Table 2.2 Size distribution of surface water bodies in Cyprus in the second and first cycles Year RBD Lake area (km2) River length (km) Coastal (km2) Mini-mum Maxi-mum Aver-age Mini-mum Maxi-mum Aver-age Mini-mum Maxi-mum Aver-age 2016 CY001 0.06 10.06 2.52 0.03 (0.26) 3.33 (53.3) 0.79 4.02 87.13 39.5 2010 CY001 0.03 10.05 1.58 0.21 85.61 11.94 2.91 79.67 33.27 Source: WISE electronic reports. Values in parentheses were supplied by Cyprus as the values reported to WISE are areas rather than lengths. There was an increase in the proportion of rivers that were designated as heavily modified in the second RBMP (29 %) compared to the first RBMP (23 %): this was also accompanied by a decrease in the number of natural rivers and an overall decrease in the total number of rivers identified ( Figure 2.1 ). The number and proportion of heavily modified lake and coastal water bodies decreased significantly between the two cycles. Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in Cyprus designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first cycles. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category Source: WISE electronic reports. There was also an increase of one in the number of groundwater bodies delineated in the second RBMP though the total area of groundwater bodies decreased, Table 2.3 . Table 2.3 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Cyprus for the second and first cycle. Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 CY001 21 1.9 2,396.95 284.97 2010 CY001 20 2 2,385.00 313.05 Source: WISE electronic reports. Groundwater bodies were reported to be split because there were different pressures and to allow for the better targeting of measures, or because of their differing geological environment and better knowledge of groundwater since the first cycle, and more monitoring data. Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by Cyprus on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles. Table 2.4 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in Cyprus between the second and first cycles Type of water body change for second cycle Groundwater Body Lake Water Body River Water Body Coastal Water Body Aggregation 1 3 splitting 6 69 Aggregation and splitting 8 ExtendedArea 1 Creation 14 (10 rivers line + 4 impounded rivers) 1 Deletion 2 6 105 2 Change in code 1 82 (71 rivers line and 11 impounded rivers) 11 No change 15 7 Total water bodies before deletion 23 8 279 (264 rivers line + 15 impounded rivers) 25 Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 21 8 174 (159 rivers line +15 impounded rivers) 22 Source: WISE electronic reports. Information in brackets was subsequently provided by Cyprus.

The water body type with the most changes was river water bodies, with water bodies defined (n = 14), and removed (n = 105). However, there may be some issues with the data in Table 2.4 , as there do not appear to have been 105 river water bodies removed since the first cycle. No information on consequences of the changes in re-delineation were reported in the RBMP, but it is likely that the status assessments for surface water and groundwater bodies between the two cycles are not directly comparable. 2.1.2Typology of surface water bodies There have been changes in the typology of water bodies reported by Cyprus between the two cycles. One new type has been reported for coastal waters covering both natural and heavily modified water bodies. There has been a reduction of lake types from four in the first cycle RBMP to three in the second RBMP, type code L4 was not reported in the second RBMP . The RBMP mentions that no significant changes have taken place in the typology of lake and coastal water bodies. Table 2.5 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Cyprus for the first and second cycles RBD Rivers Lakes Coastal 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 CY001 3 4 4 3 3 4 Source: WISE electronic reports.

Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs. Four river types were reported in the second RBMP and only three in the first RBMP: the coding of all types was different for each cycle. In the second cycle the river water body typology has been revised and the following four types have been derived; P - Perennial mountain streams; I - Intermittent streams; Ih - Harsh intermittent streams; and E - Ephemeral / episodic streams. The RBMP reported that the river typology and the river water bodies used for the first cycle revealed significant disadvantages during the implementation of the WFD. There were issues with the lack of knowledge about the different types of rivers. It was therefore decided to develop new typologies for rivers. The first RBMP did not provide information on the validation of surface water types with biological data, the methodology described only referred to abiotic elements. At the time when the typology was devised no biological data were available for Cyprus’ freshwaters. Consequently, no validation against such data was possible. Work was on-going on the validation during the first cycle. For river water body types, the temporary stream regime (TSR)-Tool, was used, to relate the four types to biological communities for the WFD-monitoring. It was stated that type E cannot be made biologically relevant because appropriate methods do not yet exist. No specific information was provided for the other types. All four national coastal water types have the same equivalent intercalibration type. The three lake types covering all eight lake water bodies do not have equivalent intercalibration types. Two common river intercalibration types have been used to intercalibrate the three national river types, each of which include both natural and heavily modified water bodies . The forth river type has no equivalent intercalibration type equating to 6 % of total river water bodies . 2.1.3Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Cyprus with reference conditions established for the first and second cycles. Reference conditions have not been set for any quality element for the lakes in Cyprus. The second RBMP referred to a project that was ongoing for the establishment of reference conditions for lake water bodies in Cyprus . Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types in Cyprus with reference conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of types in each category Water category Water types Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Physicochemical quality elements Lakes (3) All Some None 100% 100% 100% Rivers (4) All Some 100% 100% 100% None Coastal (4) All 100% Some 100% None 100% Source: WISE electronic reports For all four river types, reference conditions have been established for some but not all of the relevant biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. In terms of coastal water types, reference conditions have been established for all physicochemical quality elements for all types, for some but not all biological quality elements in all types and for no hydromorphological quality elements in all types. There are, therefore, still significant gaps in the establishment of reference conditions for lake water bodies in Cyprus. This casts doubt on the reliability and comparability of the assessment and classification of the ecological status/potential of all water bodies in Cyprus. 2.1.4Characteristics of groundwater bodies Cyprus reported details of the main geological formation of the aquifer type and whether or not the groundwater bodies are layered for all their groundwater bodies. 67 % and 5 % of groundwater bodies in Cyprus were reported to be linked to surface water bodies and to terrestrial ecosystems, respectively. 2.1.5Significant pressures on water bodies Nine significant pressure types affected river water bodies in the second RBMP; with diffuse other pressures affecting 48 % of river water bodies and diffuse agriculture 47 % ( Figure 2.2 ). Four significant pressures affected lakes in the second RBMP with diffuse agricultural pressures affecting all eight water bodies. No significant pressures were reported to be affecting coastal waters.

The RBMP reported that a revision of the pressures and impacts on the surface water and groundwater was completed. There have been significant changes in the numbers of water bodies delineated in Cyprus between the two cycles with changes in coding and there have been significant changes in the definition and reporting of pressure types. It is, therefore, difficult to make quantitative comparisons between the two cycles. At the aggregated pressures level, 43 (20 %) of river water bodies were affected by point source pollution in the first cycle RBMP; in the second RBMP it was 18 (10 %) of river water bodies affected. In the first RBMP, 104 (46 %) river and 8 (44 %) lake water bodies were affected by diffuse source pressures; in the second RBMP it was 116 (67 %) river and 8 (100 %) lake water bodies affected. Overall, there was an increase in the reporting of diffuse pressures and a decrease in hydromorphological pressures ( Figure 2.3 ). Three significant pressure types were reported to be affecting groundwater in the second RBMP ( Figure 2.2 ). The most significant in terms of the proportion of water bodies affected was abstraction or flow diversion pressures (71 % of groundwater bodies), followed by diffuse agriculture and diffuse pollution from discharges not connected to sewerage network (both 19 %). In the first RBMP Cyprus reported five significant (aggregated) pressure types affecting groundwater bodies. The largest proportion (95 %) was affected by diffuse sources followed by abstraction pressures (85 %) and saltwater intrusion (65 %). For the same reasons as for surface waters, it is difficult to compare pressures on groundwater between the two cycles. In the first RBMP 95 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be affected by diffuse pressures, in the second RBMP (at the aggregated pressure level) it was 33 %: it is unlikely that the two values are comparable.



Figure 2.2 The most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in Cyprus for the second cycle Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 2.3 Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Cyprus in the first and second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note there were 204 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 260 for the first cycle Source: WISE electronic reports 2.1.6Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater For the second RBMP a combination of both numerical tools and expert judgment were reported to have been used to assess point source, diffuse source and pressures on water flow on surface water bodies. Numerical tools were used to assess water abstraction pressures. A combination of both numerical tools and expert judgment were reported to be used to assess pressures on groundwater. The significance of pressures on surface water and on groundwater was defined in terms of thresholds and was linked to the potential failure of objectives. No information was provided in the RBMP regarding any changes to the methodologies or criteria for defining significant pressures. No information on the threshold used to define significance was found in the RBMP either , . 2.1.7Significant impacts on water bodies Figure 2.4 shows the significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Cyprus for the second cycle. For surface waters “no significant impact” was reported 48 % of the time. The most common impact on surface waters was altered habitats due to morphological changes (includes connectivity) (26 %), followed by nutrient pollution (18 %). In 76 % of groundwater bodies abstraction exceeds available groundwater resource. 43 % of groundwater bodies are affected by saline intrusion and 33 % by chemical pollution. Figure 2.4 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Cyprus for the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies Source: WISE electronic reports 2.1.8Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status

One third of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing to be in good chemical status because of seven different pollutants and one other determinant (electrical conductivity). The pollutant affecting most groundwater bodies was nitrate (33 %). 76 % of groundwater bodies were at risk of not being in good quantitative status with saline intrusion causing the risk in 43 % and water balance in 76 % of these groundwater bodies. 2.1.9Quantification of gap and apportionment of pressures The gap to the achievement of objectives in groundwater have been reported for one (Abstraction or flow diversion - Agriculture) of the three significant pressures on groundwater: the two pressures without a reported gap are diffuse source pressures from agriculture and from discharges not connected to the sewerage network. A table is included in the RBMP for every surface water body that has a significant pressure identified that can affect its status and the sector the pressure related to. Gaps have been reported for one sector/activity causing diffuse pollution - agriculture. The other three responsible sectors had no gaps reported. Abstraction pressures and gaps have been apportioned between the two responsible sectors (agriculture and public water supply) and point sources between three of the four responsible sectors (urban waste water, waste disposal sites and mine waters) but not for aquaculture . Gaps have also been reported for two pressure types arising from physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore and three arising from dams, barriers and locks even though these specific pressures were not reported at the water body level. No gaps were reported for chemical substances causing failure of status objectives even though seven pollutants were reported to be causing failure of good chemical status in groundwater, one River Basin Specific Pollutant causing failing of good ecological status/potential and six Priority Substances causing failure of good chemical status in surface water bodies . 2.1.10Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQS Directive) requires Member States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I EQS Directive for each RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States to further target measures to tackle pollution from priority substances. It should also inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in reducing (respectively suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for priority substances (respectively priority hazardous substances). Cyprus reported that all Priority Substances had been included in an inventory of discharges, emissions and losses. The cyclodiene pesticides and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were reported as grouped determinants rather than as individual component substances. The two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 has been followed for all substances considered in the inventories. For substances deemed not relevant at RBD level, Tier 1 of the methodology was implemented (consideration of point sources only). Tier 1 to 4 was implemented for all substances identified as relevant at RBD level, in accordance with the Guidance Document. The data quality was assessed as good. 2.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle The RBMP reported that the river typology and the river water bodies used for the first cycle revealed significant disadvantages during the implementation of the WFD. There were issues with the lack of knowledge about the different types of rivers. Another drawback was the fact that the characterization of river water bodies did not adequately respond to the pressures on water bodies. In the light of this it was decided to establish a new network of river bodies with a new typology for rivers. There have been significant reductions in the number of lake and river water bodies delineated between the two cycles. Overall, Cyprus designated 216 river water bodies for the first cycle: for the second cycle 174 were identified. Similarly for lake water bodies the number decreased from 18 to 8 which was due to reservoirs being reclassified as river water bodies as per CIS guidance. There was also a decrease in the number of coastal water bodies though the total area of the coastal water bodies slightly increased in the second RBMP compared to the first RBMP indicating that the average size of the water bodies increased in the second RBMP. There was also an increase by one in the number of groundwater bodies delineated in the second RBMP though the total area of groundwater body decreased. There was an increase in the proportion of rivers that were designated as heavily modified in the second RBMP (29 %) compared to the first RBMP (23 %): this was also accompanied by a decrease in the number of natural rivers and an overall decrease in the total number of rivers identified. The number and proportion of heavily modified lake and coastal water bodies decreased significantly between the two cycles. There have been changes in the typology of water bodies reported by Cyprus between the two cycles. One new type has been reported for coastal waters covering both natural and heavily modified water bodies. There has been a reduction of lake types from four in the first RBMP to three in the second RBMP, type code L4 was not reported in the second RBMP. L4 was a lake type for water reservoirs up to the first RBMP and in the second RBMP the water reservoirs were reported as rivers. Four river types were reported in the second RBMP and only three in the first RBMP: the coding of all types was different for each cycle. 2.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first Programme of Measures requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle. Assessment: It was reported that the assessment of significance of pressures was based on thresholds and linked to failure of objectives for the second RBMP. There has been progress on this aspect. A review of Cyprus’ rivers has been undertaken for the second RBMP. The RBMP reported that the river typology and the river water bodies used for the first cycle revealed significant disadvantages during the implementation of the WFD. A new network of river bodies with a new typology for rivers was developed.

Cyprus subsequently stated that a contract has been awarded, for the determination of reference conditions in the lake water bodies of Cyprus and the results from this report will be available to use in the next management cycle (third RBMP). Overall this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Present in the second RBMPs improved identification of pressures from chemical pollutants on the basis of the inventory of Priority Substances emissions (established since June 2013). Assessment: An inventory of all Priority Substances has been reported for the second cycle. The two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 has been followed for all substances considered in the inventories. Tier 1 to 4 was implemented for most substances and for a limited number Tier 1 of the methodology was implemented. The data quality was assessed as good. This recommendation has been fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Provide a more detailed analysis of pressures and impacts, as well as an improved risk assessment based on the improvement of the monitoring network. The RBMPs should be explicit about the impacts related to each significant pressure and provide quantitative figures on the scale of the pressures that need to be reduced, to reach WFD objectives. Assessment: Cyprus has reported gaps that have to be filled for some (but not all) significant pressures on groundwater and surface water bodies. Diffuse sources have been apportioned between the contributory sectors/activities . Numerical tools have been used to assess the significance of water abstraction pressures on surface waters and a combination of numerical tools and expert judgement for water abstraction pressures on groundwater bodies for the second RBMPs. Also the significance of pressures on surface water and on groundwater was defined in terms of thresholds and was linked to the potential failure of objectives. This indicates that there has been progress on this recommendation. Overall this recommendation has been fulfilled. ·Recommendation 5 (Topics 2 and 9): Develop further the hydromorphological assessment methods so that improved biological monitoring results will allow for better risk assessment and more targeted measures concerning hydromorphological pressures. Assessment: This recommendation relates to a number of Topics. In terms of characterisation, Cyprus reported that a combination of both numerical tools and expert judgment have been used to assess point sources, diffuse sources and pressures on water flow on surface water bodies and numerical tools were used to assess water abstraction pressures. The significance of pressures on surface water was defined in terms of thresholds and was linked to the potential failure of objectives. Cyprus subsequently noted that for the second RBMP, a methodology for the assessment of the hydromorphological pressures (the IPI index) was developed and was used for the review of the impacts and pressures carried out under Article 5 of the WFD and further developed. In terms of characterisation, this recommendation has been fulfilled.

Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1.Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second RBMPs 3.1.1. Monitoring of ecological status/potential Monitoring programmes Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. Cyprus reported monitoring programmes for each of its surface water categories. Those for lakes and rivers cover monitoring of chemical status and ecological status separately. The programmes for coastal waters cover monitoring for surveillance purposes and operational purposes separately. Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for surveillance and operational monitoring Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes between the cycles, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second cycle. Figure 3.1 shows the percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in the first and second RBMPs. The zeros reported for rivers and lakes for the second cycle are considered to be a reporting error. In the second RBMP Cyprus only reported monitoring sites in coastal waters for surveillance and operational purposes. No quality element was reported to be monitored and only chemical substances (River Basin Specific Pollutants and Priority Substances) were associated with monitoring sites. Monitoring sites in all water categories with details of the quality elements monitored were reported in the first RBMP. Therefore, this lack of data in the second RBMP is believed to be a reporting error. There was an increase in the number of monitoring sites used for the surveillance and operational monitoring of coastal waters. For the second RBMP, 20 and four sites were used for surveillance and operational monitoring, respectively, compared to seven and one for the first RBMP.

Table 3.1 Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Cyprus for the second and first cycles. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported in the first cycle, the second cycle data does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring Rivers Lakes Coastal Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op Second RBMP CY_001 0 (52) 0 (34) 0 (6) 0 20 4 Total number of monitoring sites (86) (6) 24 First RBMP CY_001 19 12 10 1 7 1 Total number of monitoring sites 31 11 8 Source: Member States electronic reports to WISE. The values in brackets were not reported to WISE but were subsequently provided by Cyprus. Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in Cyprus Monitoring Purpose Lakes Rivers Coastal CHE - Chemical status 3 46 (3) ECO - Ecological status 6 87 (24) OPE - Operational monitoring (0) (32) 4 SUR - Surveillance monitoring (6) (52) 20 Total sites irrespective of purpose 6 86 24 Source: WISE electronic reports. The values in brackets were subsequently provided by Cyprus.



Figure 3.1 Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Cyprus for the first RBMP and second RBMP. Source: WISE electronic reports. Note that no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for ecological status/potential Cyprus only reported monitoring sites in coastal waters for surveillance and operational purposes in the second RBMP. No quality element was reported to be monitored. The lack of data for other water categories in the second RBMP is believed to be a reporting error . There was a reduction in the number of delineated water bodies in all three water categories in Cyprus for the second cycle compared to the first. Furthermore, 15 reservoirs which were reported as lakes in the first RBMP were reported as rivers in the second RBMP, thus making river and lakes water body numbers not directly comparable. This makes direct quantitative comparisons between the first and second RBMPs very difficult. 14 (64 %) coastal water bodies were included in surveillance monitoring for the second cycle compared to 7 (27 %) for the first. In terms of operational monitoring, one coastal water body was monitored for both cycles. Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring. Note that surveillance monitoring has only been reported for coastal waters and all coastal waters are reported to be in good or better status. Figure 3.2 Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring in Cyprus Source: WISE electronic reports Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants)

No data were reported to WISE on the quality elements monitored. Cyprus subsequently stated that more quality elements were monitored for the second RBMP compared to the first . River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored Eight River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored in in Cyprus: six in water and two in fish. All six that were monitored in water were monitored in rivers and lakes, and three of them also in coastal waters. Two pollutants (heptachlor and heptachlor oxide) were monitored in fish in coastal waters. Boron was monitored in water at the most sites (71), followed by copper (47) and zinc (46). Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements: once every three months is recommended for river basin specific pollutants in water (every year for operational monitoring, and one year per cycle for surveillance monitoring). As already described, Cyprus reported the purpose of monitoring (surveillance versus operational monitoring) only for sites in coastal waters and not in other water categories. The three River Basin Specific Pollutants which were monitored in water in coastal waters, both for surveillance and operational monitoring, were all sampled at a greater frequency than the recommended minimum frequency. River Basin Specific Pollutants in rivers and lakes were reported to be monitored 12 times during one in every four years. This reported frequency meets the recommended minimum frequency for surveillance monitoring but not for operational monitoring. Annex V, section 1.3.4 of the WFD does not explicitly define the matrices to which the minimum required frequency of monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants (“Other Pollutants”) applies. Required monitoring frequencies are specified for Priority Substances in biota and sediment in Article 3(2)(c) of EQS Directive: this is once per year for operational and surveillance monitoring purposes. For consistency this required frequency of once per year has been applied to the monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants in biota/sediment. Heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide were monitored in fish at six sites in coastal waters 12 times every year in the six year RBMP cycle, which is greater than the minimum recommended monitoring frequency. Table 3.3 shows the number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants in the second cycle and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants in the first cycle. Table 3.3 Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants reported in the second RBMP and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants reported in the first RBMP in Cyprus. Note the data from both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and also not all Member State reported information at the site level meaning that there were no equivalent data in the first RBMP RBMP Lakes Rivers Coastal first Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants 2 18 2 second Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 1 70 7 Sources: WISE electronic reports. 3.1.2.Ecological Status/potential of surface water The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Cyprus in the second RBMP is illustrated in the Map 3.1. Map 3.1Most recently assessed ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Cyprus. Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) High Good Moderate Poor Bad Unknown River Basin Districts Countries outside the European Union

Figure 3.3 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. The confidence in classification of ecological status/potential has improved between the two RBMPs from medium/low to high for all coastal water bodies, but has decreased for rivers, in spite of using more quality elements in the second cycle. Lakes are classified with low confidence and classification is only based on phytoplankton. Figure 3.4 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in Cyprus in the first RBMP with that in the second RBMP and that expected by 2015. The proportion of surface water bodies in good or better status/potential in the second RBMP was 58 %, compared to 40 % in the first RBMP. The proportion with unknown status/potential significantly decreased from 21 % in the first RBMP to 1 % in the second. Figure 3.3 Confidence in the classification of ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Cyprus based on the most recently assessed status/potential Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.4 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Cyprus for the second RBMP, for the first RBMP and expected in 2015. The number in parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for both cycles. Note the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2009 to 2013. The year of the assessment of status for first RBMP was 2005 to 2009. Source: WISE electronic reports Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological status/potential. The information for Cyprus is shown in Figure 3.5 . Figure 3.5 Expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Cyprus. The number in parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each category Source: WISE electronic reports All water bodies have been classified for the second RBMP, except three artificial or heavily modified lakes. All the coastal waters bodies are in good or better status/potential, while all the natural lakes are in moderate status. For natural rivers, more than 60 % are in good or better status, while only 40 % of the heavily modified rivers are in good or better potential. According to the reporting to WISE, three of five natural lakes are classified based on phytoplankton. For the two remaining natural lakes, the basis for classification is unclear (grouping has only been used for rivers). There was a significant decrease in the number of surface water bodies delineated between the two cycles, from 260 in the first RBMP to 204 in the second. The proportion of surface water bodies in good or better status/potential in the second RBMP was 58 % compared to 40 % in the first. The proportion with unknown status/potential significantly decreased from 21 % in the first RBMP to 1 % in the second. This decrease mirrored the increase in the proportion of good or better status/potential while the proportion at less than good remained nearly the same. Because of the significant change in the delineation of water bodies the comparison between the cycles should be treated with caution. In the Cyprus RBMP there is a comparison of the ecological status/potential of river water bodies (with the exclusion of reservoirs) between the two cycles. The classification is based on length of rivers and indicates that 41 % of the length of river water bodies was good or better in the first RBMP and 54 % in the second. 9 % of river length was of unknown status/potential in the first RBMP and this decreased to zero for the second. No equivalent information was found for lakes and coastal waters. Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element

The majority of river water bodies are in good or better status/potential for phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates, as well as morphological conditions, oxygenation conditions, salinity and nutrient conditions (but the nutrient standards are very high, so it is relatively easy to obtain good status ). In coastal waters, the majority of water bodies are in good or better status for all the biological quality elements. The classification of many quality elements is reported with “unknown status”, “not applicable” or “monitored, but not used” in a large number of water bodies especially in lakes and coastal waters. For the second RBMP Cyprus reported to WISE that no information was available and/or it was impossible to compare current status or potential at the quality element level with status or potential in the first RBMP. Figure 3.6 shows the ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of lakes and rivers. Figure 3.7 compares the classification of biological quality elements in terms of ecological status/potential for the two cycles. It should be noted that this comparison should be treated with some caution as there are differences between the numbers of surface water bodies classified for individual elements between the two cycles. Figure 3.6 Ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of surface waters in Cyprus. Note that water bodies with unknown status/potential, and those that are monitored but not classified or not applicable, are not presented Source: WISE electronic reports. Cyprus subsequently stated that phytoplankton in rivers refers exclusively to impounded rivers (reservoirs) and not to “normal” Cyprus rivers. Figure 3.7 Comparison of ecological status/potential in Cyprus according to classified biological quality elements in rivers and lakes between the two cycles Source: WISE electronic reports 3.8 and Figure 3.9 illustrate the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers and lakes in Cyprus for the second RBMP. Figure 3.8 The classification of the ecological status or potential of rivers and lakes in Cyprus using one, two, three or four types of quality element. Note: The four types are: biological; hydromorphological, general physicochemical and River Basin Specific Pollutants Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.9 The percentage of river and lake water bodies in Cyprus where no biological quality element or no hydromorphological (HYMO) or no general physicochemical (PHYSCHEM) or no river basin specific pollutant (RBSP) has been used in the classification of ecological status or potential Source: WISE electronic reports The classification of the individual quality elements is illustrated in Figure 3.10 .

Figure 3.10 Basis of the classification of ecological status/potential in Cyprus. The percentages are in terms of the number of waterbodies in each category. Source: WISE electronic reports Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements More methods for the assessment of biological quality elements have been developed since the first cycle, and now include phytobenthos, macrophytes and phytoplankton in rivers. No assessment methods for fish in rivers, macrophytes, phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates and fish in lakes, and macroalgae and angiosperms in coastal waters were reported to WISE. However, macroalgae and angiosperms are used for classification: the basis of the classification of these elements that have no assessment method is not clear . Reference conditions were reported not to be available for any biological quality elements in any of the lake types. Previously the Cyprus authorities had indicated that reference conditions for lakes types L1, L2 and L5 would be set. Even though this work would possibly not be finished in time for the second RBMP, it would be used as much as possible. Macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish are missing in terms of monitoring, classification and methods. The justification is that many lakes are reservoirs where macrophytes and benthic invertebrates are not applicable due to the large water level fluctuations. However, there are also five natural lakes, where these biological quality elements could potentially be applied . Fish in rivers have not been monitored or classified and there are no assessment methods developed. The justification given previously by Cyprus was that there are no indigenous fish in its freshwaters taking into account historical information on ecology, climate and pressures . The methods are reported to be sensitive to all impacts reported for Cyprus except for saline pollution in lakes and rivers. Intercalibration of biological assessment methods and national classification systems All the four coastal water body types and three river water body types are reported to be linked to an intercalibration type. None of the lake water body types are reported to be linked to an intercalibration type. It is not clear which of the biological quality element methods have been intercalibrated . Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements are reported to be only developed for morphological conditions in rivers: the classification boundaries for this element are reported to be related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. In lakes and coastal waters, no hydromorphological quality elements methods are developed . Assessment methods for general physicochemical quality elements A number of assessment methods for the physicochemical quality element methods in rivers and lakes have been developed: oxygenation, salinity, acidification, nutrient conditions. The classification boundaries for these elements are reported to be related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. The quality element methods missing for rivers and lakes are for transparency and thermal conditions. No methods are reported for coastal waters, for which these elements were not used in the classification. Salinity conditions (expressed by electrical conductivity) is the only physicochemical quality element used for classification in lakes. Standards have been set for nutrients, oxygenation conditions, electrical conductivity and acidification in rivers and lakes. Standards are also reported for coastal waters for all relevant physicochemical quality elements except for transparency, this is in spite of no assessment methods being reported for these elements in coastal waters. All standards in all water categories are said to be related to the good-moderate classification boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality element except for thermal conditions in coastal waters.

Standards for physicochemical quality elements have the same range of values for all water categories and all types. It is not clear how these have been. The nutrient standards for total phosphorus are higher than the saturation level for nutrient sensitive biological quality elements (0.1 mg/l), but they are still indicated to support good status for these biological quality elements. Subsequently Cyprus indicated that in both rivers and lakes, transparency and thermal conditions are monitored as complementary quality elements only and they are not used for classification. In most of the natural lakes of Cyprus the thermal conditions have been monitored since 1988 on a monthly basis. This monitoring is continuing and was improved, especially in the last few years by increasing the frequency to weekly. Transparency is not monitored due to technical difficulties. It was found practically impossible to take accurate turbidity measurements in the shallow lakes (usual water depth up to 30-50cm) with muddy bottom. Acidification is not assessed as there is no standard (but pH is regularly monitored as a complementary parameter). In rivers, thermal conditions and transparency (turbidity) are monitored on a monthly basis since the first WFD monitoring cycle. Data reported to WISE, including the standards for nutrient conditions, was found to be incorrect. Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of Environmental Quality Standards There is no information on how the River Basin Specific Pollutants were selected and how they are used in the overall classification of ecological status (although the one-out, all-out principle was reported to be applied) . River Basin Specific Pollutants are monitored in less than 40% of the river water bodies, and only in one of eight lake water bodies and five of 22 coastal water bodies, but are classified in almost all the rivers using also grouping and expert judgement. River Basin Specific Pollutants are not classified in any lake or coastal water body. Environmental Quality Standards for six different metals are reported for water. All six were reported to be used in lakes and rivers (although Cyprus subsequently stated only three were applicable in rivers and six in impounded rivers), and four in coastal waters. Only annual average Environmental Quality Standards are listed. The standards have been derived in accordance with the 2011 Technical Guidance Document No 27. The analytical methods are in line with Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/90/EC for all substances. No environmental quality standards were reported for Heptachlor and Heptachlor epoxide, although they are reported to be monitored as River Basin Specific Pollutants. It is not clear how exceedances are identified for these substances. Overall classification of ecological status (one-out, all-out principle) The one-out-all-out principle is reported to have been used. 3.2.Main changes in implementation and compliance since first RBMP There was an increase in the number of monitoring sites used for the surveillance and operational monitoring of coastal waters between the two cycles. There has also been an increase in the number of coastal water bodies included in surveillance monitoring between the two cycles: one water body was operationally monitored in both cycles. More biological quality element assessment methods have been developed since the first RBMP and now include river phytobenthos, macrophytes and phytoplankton. Also supporting quality element methods have been developed for morphological conditions in rivers, and a number of physicochemical quality element methods in rivers and lakes: oxygenation, salinity, acidification, nitrogen and phosphorus conditions. The proportion of surface water bodies in good or better status/potential in the second RBMP was 58 %, compared to 40 % for the first RBMP. The proportion with unknown status/potential significantly decreased, from 21 % in the first RBMP to 1 % in the second. The confidence in classification changed between the two cycles: For coastal waters, the confidence has improved from medium/low to high for all water bodies, while for rivers the confidence has been reduced from 85 % to 60 % in high/medium. For lakes, the confidence has also been reduced to low for 100 % of the natural lakes (all the classified lakes) . 3.3.Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the firstRBMP and firstProgramme of Measures requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Present in the second RBMPs improved identification of pressures from chemical pollutants on the basis of the inventory of Priority Substances emissions (established since June 2013). Assessment: There is no information on how the River Basin Specific Pollutants were selected. six River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored in water in Cyprus: all six were monitored in rivers and lakes, and three in coastal waters. Environmental Quality Standards for six different metals are reported for water. All six are used in lakes and rivers (the Cyprus Authorities subsequently stated that only three were applied in rivers), and four in coastal waters. Only Annual Average Environmental Quality Standards are listed. The technical guidance has been used to set the Environmental Quality Standard values. The analytical methods are in line with Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/90/EC for all substances. The recommendation has been partially fulfilled. Cyprus subsequently indicated that for the preparation of the second RBMP a special investigation was carried out to identify additional River Basin Specific Pollutants. The investigation was based on the type of pressures identified as result of the review of the pressures and impact conducted for the preparation of the second RBMP and the results of the monitoring programme. An additional 11 River Basin Specific Pollutants (all non-metals) will be used for the classification of the status for the preparation of the third RBMP.

·Recommendation: Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle. ·Recommendation: Provide a more detailed analysis of pressures and impacts, as well as an improved risk assessment based on the improvement of the monitoring network. The RBMPs should be explicit about the impacts related to each significant pressure and provide quantitative figures on the scale of the pressures that need to be reduced, to reach WFD objectives. Assessment: For coastal waters, the confidence has improved from medium/low to high for all water bodies, while for rivers the confidence has been reduced from 85% to 60% in high/medium. For lakes, the confidence has also been reduced to low for 100% of the natural lakes (all the classified lakes). The recommendation has been partially fulfilled (for coastal water bodies). ·Recommendation: The classification of ecological status and potential should be further developed and completed. Assessment: More biological quality element methods have been developed, in line with this recommendation, in terms of now including river phytobenthos, macrophytes and phytoplankton. Also supporting quality element methods have been developed for morphological conditions in rivers, and a number of physicochemical quality element methods in rivers and lakes: oxygenation, salinity, acidification, nitrogen and phosphorus conditions. All the four coastal water types and three river types are linked to an intercalibration type. The majority of river water bodies are in good or better status for phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates, as well as morphological conditions, oxygenation conditions, salinity and nutrient conditions (but the nutrient standards are very high, so it is relatively easy to obtain good status). For coastal waters, the confidence in classification improved from medium/low to high for all water bodies. The number of water bodies with unknown ecological status/potential was reduced from 51 to three. The recommendation has been mostly fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Efforts should be made to improve the quality of monitoring. Assessment: Cyprus only reported monitoring sites in coastal waters for surveillance and operational purposes in the second RBMP. No quality element was reported to be monitored and only chemical substances (River Basin Specific Pollutants and Priority Substances) were associated with monitoring sites. This lack of data in the second RBMP is believed to be a reporting error. Therefore there is not enough information on progress regarding this recommendation.

Topic 4 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 4.1.Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 4.1.1.Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for monitoring of chemical status Member States have to implement surveillance and operational monitoring programmes in accordance with the requirements of the WFD EQS Directive, for the assessment of ecological status/potential and chemical status. Surveillance monitoring programmes should allow Member States to supplement and validate the impact assessment procedure, to efficiently and effectively review the design of their monitoring programmes, and to assess the long-term changes in natural conditions and those resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity. For operational purposes, monitoring is required to establish the status of waterbodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their environmental objectives, and to assess any changes in the status of such waterbodies resulting from the programme of measures. Section 3.1.1. of this report summarises the characteristics of the surveillance and operational monitoring programmes in Cyprus in the second RBMP. Figure 4.1 summarises the proportion of sites used for the monitoring of chemical status in lakes, rivers and coastal waters (territorial waters are not delineated or monitored for chemical status in Cyprus) as reported in the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used for surveillance and/or operational purposes. More detailed information can be found on the website of the European Environment Agency .

For rivers and lakes, around half of all monitoring sites are used for monitoring chemical status (all sites are used for monitoring ecological status). Cyprus subsequently informed that eight monitoring sites (33 %) are monitored for chemical status in coastal waters (no information for coastal waters could be found in WISE). Figure 4.2 summarises the proportion of water bodies monitored for chemical status in lakes, rivers and coastal waters as reported in the second RBMP. In this figure no distinction is made between sites used for surveillance and/or operational purposes. Also given is the proportion of water bodies monitored for any purpose and, for comparative purposes, those for ecological status. Figure 4.2 shows that 26 % of 174 river water bodies and 38 % of eight lakes are monitored for chemical status. No information was available in WISE for coastal waters. Cyrus subsequently informed that seven coastal water bodies (about 29 %) are monitored for chemical status. Figure 4.1 Proportion of sites used for monitoring of chemical status and, for comparison, ecological status, in Cyprus. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of monitoring sites irrespective of their purpose. The figure is based on the information found in WISE. Source: WISE electronic reporting Cyprus informed that eight (33 %) monitoring sites are monitored for chemical status and 22 (98%) for ecological status in coastal waters Figure 4.2 Proportion of total water bodies in each category monitored, monitored for chemical status and, for comparison, monitored for ecological status, in Cyprus. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of water bodies in that category. The figure is based on the information found in WISE Source: WISE electronic reporting Cyrus informed that seven (32 %) coastal water bodies are monitored for chemical status and 15 (68 %) for ecological status 86 % of river water bodies that are failing to achieve good chemical status are subject to operational monitoring in Cyprus. No lakes or coastal water bodies are classified as failing to achieve good status. Long-term trend monitoring and monitoring of Priority substances in water, sediment and biota for status assessment Monitoring for status assessment Requirements Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes in order to provide inter alia a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of priority substances, frequency and numbers of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of status. According to the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009), mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene have to be monitored in biota for status assessment, unless Member States derived a standard for another matrix, which is at least as protective as the biota standard. Spatial Coverage 39 Priority Substances and groups of Priority Substances are monitored in water for status assessment at 26, 38 and 32 % of river, lake and coastal water bodies represented by a total of 46, three and eight chemical monitoring sites respectively. The RBMP states that for rivers, the Priority Substances monitored have been selected on the basis of a specific 2012 study regarding the preparation of an inventory of emissions, discharge and losses of priority and priority hazardous substances. According to WISE, mercury and hexachlorobenzene, but not hexachlorobutadiene, were monitored in biota in coastal waters for status assessment. Cyprus subsequently clarified that hexachlorobutadiene was actually also monitored in biota in coastal waters for status assessment. The following substances were also monitored in biota: DDT-p,p’, hexachlorocyclohexane, lead, mercury and cadmium. The number of sites monitored for biota in Cyprus as a whole was two for each of the Priority Substances monitored. Cyprus informed that there was no monitoring of biota in surface freshwaters as no suitable biota species has yet been identified. Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene are reported to be monitored in water in freshwaters (although there is no further information available as to whether the standards used are as least as protective as the biota standard). Frequencies

The WFD indicates that, for the surveillance and operational monitoring of Priority Substances in water, the frequency of monitoring should be at least monthly for one year during the RBMP cycle and at least monthly every year, respectively. Monitoring in biota for status assessment should take place at least once every year according to the EQS Directive. In all cases greater intervals can be applied by Member States if justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. Intra-annual monitoring frequencies of twelve times per year are reported in WISE for 39 Priority Substances and groups of Priority Substances in water. According to this source of information, monitoring is undertaken every year in coastal waters and once every four years in river and lake water bodies. The monitoring frequencies are therefore consistent with the recommended minimum frequencies for surveillance monitoring but not for operational monitoring in rivers and lakes. Monitoring of biota for status assessment in coastal water bodies was also reported as being 12 times every year which meets the recommended minimum frequencies of the Directive. Cyprus however subsequently clarified that water monitoring for rivers is carried out five or six times per year over a minimum of two years in the six- year cycle, to reach a number of 10 to 12 samples per cycle. Water monitoring for impounded rivers (water reservoirs) is performed four to six times per year over a minimum of two years in the six-year cycle. However for reservoirs used for domestic water supply (i.e. the majority of reservoirs), the water monitoring frequency is four to six times per year each year in the six- year cycle. Cyprus mentioned that monitoring five or six times during a given year allows to have a monthly monitoring frequency during the period when temporary rivers flow, and during the period of high river flows for perennial rivers. It is not entirely clear whether these monitoring frequencies apply to both operational and surveillance monitoring, or only to surveillance monitoring. Cyprus also clarified that the monitoring frequency in biota is once per year every year. Monitoring for long-term trend assessment Requirements Article 3.6 of Directive 2013/39/EU (amending Article 3.3 of Directive 2008/105/EC) states that “Member States shall arrange for the long-term trend analysis of concentrations of those priority substances listed in Part A of Annex I that tend to accumulate in sediment and/or biota, giving particular consideration to the substances numbered 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 26, 28, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 43 and 44 listed in Part A of Annex I, on the basis of the monitoring of surface water status carried out in accordance with Article 8 of Directive 2000/60/EC. Substances numbered 34, 35, 36, 37, 43 and 44 are new Priority Substances and as such information on trends for them would not be expected to be reported in the second RBMPs. There are therefore 14 Priority Substances for which monitoring for long-term trends is expected. Spatial coverage and frequencies No monitoring for long-term trend assessment was reported. Cyprus subsequently clarified that no Priority Substance was monitored in sediment until 2013. However, since 2013, the 14 substances mentioned above are monitored in river sediments (mainly in impounded rivers/water reservoirs, but also in few natural rivers), and this monitoring will be reported in the third RBMP . Monitoring of Priority Substances that are discharged in each RBD Annex V of the WFD states, in Section 1.3.1 (Design of surveillance monitoring), that “Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a river basin management plan for [inter alia]: priority list pollutants which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin.” Section 1.3.2 (Design of operational monitoring) of the directive states that “In order to assess the magnitude of the pressure to which bodies of surface water are subject Member States shall monitor for those quality elements which are indicative of the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject. In order to assess the impact of these pressures, Member States shall monitor as relevant [inter alia]: all priority substances discharged, and other pollutants discharged in significant quantities.” Member States are therefore required to monitor all Priority Substances which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin. In Cyprus, all 41 Priority Substances and groups of Priority Substances were included in an inventory and 7 are reported to be discharged (trifluralin, chlorpyrifos, lead, mercury, nickel, cadmium and alachlor). 39 of these 41 Priority Substances, including all of those discharged, are monitored; octylphenol and brominated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154) w