EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 51 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Italy Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 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 and definitions 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 the second cycle 1.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the 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 the second cycle 2.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 2.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 3.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 3.3 Progress with Commission recommendations

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

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

Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies 14.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 14.2 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 15 Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 15.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP 15.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 15.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change 16.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP 16.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 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 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 Italy (Map A) has a population of 60 million and a total surface area greater than 300 000 km2. A large proportion of the territory is upland or mountainous: in mainland Italy, the Alps spread as an arc across the northernmost part of the country, while the Apennines stretch through the centre of the country. Most of the population lives in lowland areas, which as a result have a high population density. Map A Map of River Basin Districts Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) International River Basin Districts (within European Union and Switzerland) International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) National River Basin Districts (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters Italy has eight River Basin Districts (RBDs) (Table A). The largest, the Padan, is 74 000 km2 and covers almost 1-quarter of the country’s territory. Six RBDs cover mainland Italy, while one each covers Italy’s two large islands, Sardinia and Sicily. The information on areas of the national RBDs including sharing countries is provided in the following table: Table A Overview of Italy‘s River Basin Districts RBD Name Size (km2) Countries sharing RBD ITA Eastern Alps 38 187 AT, CH, SI ITB Padan 70 274 (71 057) CH, FR ITC North Apennines 40 099 (38 131) FR ITD Serchio 16 29 - ITE Central Apennines 37 616 - ITF South Apennines 71 037 - ITG Sardinia 30 265 - ITH Sicily 28 036 - Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE Italy subsequently clarified that there was an error in the reported information (corrected values in brackets) Three Italian RBDs share catchments with other Member States, and two with Switzerland: ·The Eastern Alps RBD shares catchments with Slovenia and small catchments with Austria and Switzerland; ·The Padan RBD shares catchments with Switzerland and a small catchment with France;

·The North Apennines RBD shares catchments with France. Table B provides information for several key shared catchments (note that the data for the Danube refers to Italy’s share of the whole international RBD; for the others, data refers specifically to the catchment).



Table B Transboundary river basins by category and % share in Italy Name international river basin National RBD Countries sharing RBD Coordination category 1 2 4 km² % km² % km² % Danube ITA AL, AT, BA,BG, CH, CZ, DE, HR, HU, IT, MN, ME, MK, PL, RO, RS, SL, SK, UA 565 (613) <0.1 Rhine ITB AT, BE, CH, DE, FR, IT, LI, LU, NL 60 (52) <0.1 Po ITB CH, FR 70 153 (70274) 94.8 Ticino/Lago Maggiore (Sub--basin Po) ITB CH 3 229 (3270) 48.9 (no value) Adda/Lake Como (Sub--basin Po) ITB CH 7 448 (437) 94.0 (no value) (Dora riparia) (Sub basin Po) ITB FR (144) Isonzo/Soca ITA SI 1 133 (1072) 33.3 (31,7) Adige/Etsch ITA CH (67) (10) (12049) (98.9) Roia ITC FR (67) (10) Source: WISE electronic reporting Italy subsequently clarified that there was an error in the reported information (corrected values in brackets) Category 1: International agreement, permanent cooperation body and international RBMP in place. Category 2: International agreement and permanent cooperation body in place. Category 3: International agreement in place. Category 4: No cooperation formalised.



Status of second river basin management plan reporting A total of eight RBMPs of Italy (Eastern Alps, Padan, North Apennines, Serchio, Central Apennines, South Apennines, Sardinia, Sicily) were published between 17 December 2015 and 29 June 2016. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ .



Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMP of Italy are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation Italy has taken steps to strengthen the role of the RBD authorities and improve coordination among regions within each RBD, setting a more clear hierarchy between RBMPs and regional plans. Italy has strengthened international coordination, notably on cross-border catchments with Slovenia and France, although further steps could be taken. The reporting of sub-plans does not appear to be consistent across Italy’s RBDs.

Italy did not adopt and publish the RBMPs in accordance with the timetable in the Water Framework Directive. Several of the national types for Italy in all of the RBDs do not appear to have corresponding intercalibration types. It is unclear how the intercalibration process has been translated to these national types. For the majority of types, type specific reference conditions have not been established for physicochemical or hydromorphological quality elements. The characterisation of groundwater bodies was not complete for some RBDs (as stated in Annex 0). Information on the linkages of groundwaters with surface water and terrestrial ecosystems is missing for several RBDs, although Italy stated that work is underway to improve this. A number of significant pressures were not assessed for surface waters and groundwaters. The reasons for this were unclear from the RBMPs. The North Apennines RBD and Sicily RBD reported to WISE that the definition of significance of pressures was not linked to the potential failure of objectives for surface waters. Similarly, for groundwater the North Apennines RBD and the Serchio RBD reported to WISE that the definition of significance of pressures was not linked to the potential failure of objectives. In addition, the tools for defining significant pressures varied between RBDs and were not adequately described in all RBMPs. Priority Substances and other substances causing the failure of good chemical status were reported for five of the eight RBDs. However the gaps have not been identified to tackle these substances to achieve good status by 2021 (or 2027), indicating the pressures not having been adequately apportioned. Italy reported inventories of emissions for five of the eight RBDs. The number of substances included ranged from 10 to 41. Tier 1 of the methodology was used for several of the substances deemed relevant at RBD level, which does not follow the recommendation of the CIS Guidance Document n°28. The data quality was variable, from uncertain to medium, or was not reported. ·Characterisation of the RBD For the majority of types, type specific reference conditions have not been established for physicochemical or hydromorphological quality elements. The characterisation of groundwater bodies was not complete for some RBDs (as stated in Annex 0). There was an improvement in the assessment of pressures since the first RBMPs, but a number of significant pressures were not assessed for surface waters and groundwaters. In some cases, the reasons for this were unclear from the RBMPs. The Sicily RBD reported to WISE that the definition of significance of pressures was not linked to the potential failure of objectives for surface waters. In addition, the tools for defining significant pressures varied between RBDs and were not adequately described in some RBMPs. Priority Substances and other substances causing the failure of good chemical status were reported for all eight RBDs. However the gaps have not been identified to tackle these substances to achieve good status by 2021 (or 2027). In the RBMPs, Italy reported inventories of emissions for five of the eight RBDs. The number of substances included ranged from 10 to 41. Tier 1 and Tier 2 of the methodology were used for several of the substances deemed relevant at RBD level. The data quality was variable, from uncertain to medium, or was not reported. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status In the six RBDs for which information is available for both the first and second RBMPs, there were significant increases in the number of monitoring sites in all water categories, even if some gaps remain in several RBDs. The required biological quality elements are generally monitored in rivers but not all of them are monitored in lakes, transitional and coastal waters. There are significant gaps in the monitoring of hydromorphological quality elements. All the relevant general physicochemical quality elements were monitored in coastal waters in most RBDs but there are gaps in the monitoring of lakes, rivers and coastal waters in some RBDs.

All biological quality elements used for surveillance monitoring were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites. However, for operational monitoring this is the case for only two of the seven biological quality elements used. At least 289 different River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored in Italy. However, there are issues relating to the reporting of this information to WISE and it is unclear what the exact number is. Biological quality element methods have been developed, for the second RBMPs, for all relevant biological quality elements in all water categories, with the exceptions of fish in transitional waters and phytobenthos in lakes. The classification boundaries for all hydromorphological quality elements and physicochemical quality elements in all water categories were not related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. Environmental Quality Standards were reported for at least 110 River Basin Specific Pollutants, including 27 substances in sediment and 89 in water. However, not all Standards have been derived in accordance with the Technical Guidance no. 27. There was an increase in the proportion of surface water bodies at good or better ecological status/potential, from 25 % in the first RBMPs to 42 % in the second. At the same time, there was a significant reduction in the proportion of surface water bodies with unknown status/potential, from 56 % to 18 %. The confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential has improved due to increased monitoring and assessment of biological quality elements. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies Approximately two thirds of all lake monitoring sites have been used for monitoring chemical status and just under half of river and transitional water monitoring sites are used. Of the coastal monitoring sites, 41 % were monitored for chemical status. Over two thirds of transitional water bodies were monitored for chemical status. Territorial waters are not monitored and assessed for chemical status under the WFD. Italy mentioned that their status has been assessed under the MSFD, but it is unclear whether this assessment was based on the same criteria as the ones required for the WFD. 59 % of water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status were reported to be monitored as part of the operational programme in Italy as a whole. A quarter of river water bodies, around a third of coastal water bodies and a less than half of lake water bodies were monitored for chemical status. For status assessment, monitoring was reported for more than 3241 Priority Substances at a site level across the RBDs. A higher proportion (up to 100 %) of coastal and transitional waters was monitored for more than 10 Priority Substances than for lakes and rivers (up to 70 %). Monitoring frequencies in water meet the minimum recommended frequency in the Directive at some sites but not in others. Italy has indicated that reduces frequencies are justified according to the European and national legislation however no detailed explanation was provided. Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were monitored in biota for status assessment in four RBDs. Monitoring frequencies in biota meet the recommended minimum frequency of the Directive in each site monitored. For trend assessment, arrangements are reported to be in place in two RBDs but not in three RBDs. Italy monitors up to 10 of the 14 Priority Substances for trend assessment in sediment and/or biota in four of the eight RBDs. Each of the 10 substances is monitored at some monitoring sites in coastal and transitional waters across all RBDs monitored. Almost all sites for trend assessment were monitored at a frequency of at least once every three years which meets the minimum requirements of the Directive. In five of the eight RBDs in Italy, almost all of the Priority Substances discharged into the RBDs are monitored. For the remainder, while inventories have been produced and submitted to the Commission through Reportnet, they have not all been reported in the RBMPs and therefore in performing the current assessment it was not always possible to identify which substances are discharged into the RBDs and compare with the list of monitored priority substances. For Italy in general, between the two cycles there was a large increase in the proportion of surface water bodies with good chemical status from 18 % to 72 % and an increase in the proportion with poor status from 4.8 % to 8.5 %. The proportion with unknown status has reduced significantly from 78 % to 20 %. 25 % of surface water bodies in Italy were classified for chemical status with high confidence, 29 % with medium confidence and 46 % with low confidence. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies Overall, half of all groundwater bodies are not monitored for quantitative status. Yet, there are considerable differences in the monitoring coverage of quantitative status of groundwater bodies at river basin district level (coverage ranging between 18 and 96 %). Approximately 25 % of all groundwater bodies have no clear status with differences amongst the different river basin districts. Relevant environmental objectives for surface waters and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have only partially been considered in all river basin districts but measures are included in the river basin management plans to improve the knowledge base.

·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies Around 50 % of groundwater bodies are not subject to surveillance monitoring, with considerable variations between RBDs. Not all groundwater bodies at risk were subject to operational monitoring and not all substances causing risk were monitored. Threshold values are not established for all substances causing risk in all RBDs. The number of groundwater bodies with unclear status has declined (from 263 to 183 groundwater bodies) although a significant proportion of groundwater bodies have no clear status and the confidence in status results is low or unknown (with range variations among districts and regions). The number of groundwater bodies failing good chemical status and the related groundwater body area has increased (from 23 % to 25 % in terms of number of groundwater bodies). However, the number of groundwater bodies taken into consideration differs from first and second cycle reporting. Groundwater dependent ecosystems were considered in status assessment where they were related to risk. Groundwater associated surface waters were not considered in status assessment in some river basin districts where they were related to risk. ·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential Progress has been made since the first RBMPs in developing the methodology for designating heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies. A common national methodology has been in place since 2013. In some RBDs, however, implementation of the methodology for heavily modified water body designation remains ongoing and the designations are preliminary. According to information provided by Italy, the evaluation of significant adverse effects and better environmental options for designation of heavily modified water bodies is currently being carried out. A national methodology for good ecological potential has not been included in the second RBMPs. According to information provided by Italy, a national methodology for good ecological potential has been developed and approved with a Decree of 2016.



Environmental objectives and exemptions Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies were reported in all RBDs as well as for chemical and quantitative status of groundwater bodies. Information is also provided on when it is expected that the objectives will be achieved. Drivers, pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions are reported. Also impacts leading to exemptions are reported. Overall the number of exemptions under Article 4(4) has significantly increased in all RBDs. The RBMP for the Padan RBD, which was assessed in more detail, provided a list of water bodies and the indication of when they were expected to reach good status. For some water bodies expected to reach good status in 2021 or 2027 also Article 4(5) was applied, which requires detailed assessments as Article 4(5) allows for lower objectives than good status. The level of information provided behind the justification of exemptions varies a) depending on the reason, and b) depending on the different RBDs. Italy did not report the application of exemptions under Article 4(7) in the second RBMPs. However, from the information reported and assessed it appears that the impacts on the status of planned new modifications have not been assessed in full detail and the requirements set out by Article 4(7) have not been fully followed. ·Programme of Measures Progress has been made by identifying significant pressures and defining KTMs in all RBDs except Sicily, and carrying out gap analyses in four of the eight RBDs. The level of implementation of the measures set in the first RBMPs has been limited to full application of only some measures. Notably the governance aspects are reported as an obstacle in seven RBDs in the second cycle. A new law, adopted in December 2015, reformed the institutional structure of the river basin authorities in order to address these problems. No clear overall financial commitment has been secured for the implementation of the second Programme of Measures for all of the RBDs.

New legislation or regulations to implement the Programme of Measures in the first RBMPs was reported necessary and was reported as already being adopted in the Eastern Alps, Northern Appenines and Serchio RBDs and in progress in the Padan, Central Apennines and Southern Apennines RBDs. There was no information for the Sicily RBD. For surface water, KTMs were reported for all significant pressure types causing failure of objectives reported in all RBD. For groundwater, KTMs were reported for all significant pressure types causing failure of objectives in the Eastern Alps, Padan, Serchio, Northern Appennines, Southern Appennines, Sicily and Sardinia RBDs. KTMs have been mapped against River Basin Specific Pollutants and substances, respectively in surface water and groundwater, for two RBDs only (the Eastern Alps, and Central Appennines) Similarly, KTMs have been mapped against priority substances in surface water for three RBDs only (the Eastern Alps, Central Appennines and Southern Appennines), whilst the number of water bodies failing objectives due to priority substances in surface water has been reported for the same RBDs plus Sardinia. A large number of national basic and supplementary measures have been mapped against a wide range of KTMs. Many of the measures apply in all RBDs. In terms of indicators of the gaps to be filled by Key Types of Measure and indicators for the scale and progress with implementation of measures until 2027, significant progress has been made in four of the eight RBDs, the Eastern Alps, Central Apennines, Southern Apennines and Sardinia. No progress has been made in the other four RBDs. The RBMPs and Floods Directive and Flood Risk Management Plans have been coordinated in all RBDs. ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity Water abstraction pressures were reported as relevant for several river basin districts. The Water Exploitation Index + is calculated in all river basin districts, showing water stress for instance in Padan, North Apennines, and Sicily. Data were reported for the uses of water consumption but are in general based on estimates, surveys, assimilated from statistics, or from other undefined or not described methods. There is a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime in place to control surface and groundwater abstractions and water impoundment in all river basin districts. Nearly all river basin management plans include a water resource allocation and management plan. Italy has put in place a national policy framework to extend metering to irrigation; implementation on the ground has recently started, according to the information provided by Italy. Funding sources and budgets for specific measures are not outlined in all the RBMPs, and the overview figures for addressing abstraction control and concessional appear to be relatively low. ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. A gap assessment for pressure reductions for nutrients was reported only in the Southern Apennines RBD. Safeguard measures for drinking water have been established.

Financing of measures is secured in all RBDs except the North Apennines RBD where financing has not been reported as secured. It is not clear from the assessed RBMP what part mandatory or voluntary measures will play in achieving the WFD objectives, although some regions do state this. ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture A large range of KTMs relevant to non-agricultural sources of pressures causing failure of WFD objectives were reported for Italy. However, for several of the RBDs, these were not linked in WISE to specific substances causing failure. A register of wastewater discharges was available in seven out of eight RBDs for surface and groundwater. No such register was reported in the Sicily RBD. Information available in the RBMPs reviewed showed that the measures described there were generally not explicitly linked to individual substances causing failure. Measures are planned to better control discharges from urban wastewater treatment plants, some RBMP but not all contain an assessment of the anticipated impact of the measures. ·Measures related to hydromorphology In the first RBMPs, few water bodies were reported as being subject to significant hydromorphological pressures. In the second RBMPs, as the effect of a more rigorous analysis of pressures, the share of surface water bodies reported as affected by significant hydromorphological pressures has significantly increased. In general, the significant hydromorphological pressures are assigned to specific sectors with few exceptions. Operational KTMs to tackle significant hydromorphological pressures were reported for all RBDs. In six out of eight RBDs, ecological flows have not yet been derived. However, in the majority of RBDs, there are plans to do so before the third RBMPs. According to information subsequently provided by Italy, new Directives for calculating the ecological flow have been approved in the end of 2017 in the continental RBDs, which will entail the transition from minimum vital flows to eflows, in accordance with the CIS Guidance number 31. This should be reflected in the third RBMPs. Natural water retention measures are clearly planned in some RBDs and the RBMPs of further RBDs may include references to green infrastructure and natural water retention measures. There is also evidence that priority is given to the use of natural water retention measures and green infrastructure measures in the planning process, at least in some RBDs. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies RBDs have applied the provisions of Ministerial Decree 39/2015 and have carried out an analysis of services and uses that exert significant pressures on water resources; this implies that services and uses taken into consideration in each RBD may differ. It is not clearly explained in some RBMPs if the cost recovery rates per water service are disaggregated to contributions from different water users. A methodology for calculation of environmental and resource costs is given at national level. ·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) Objectives have generally been developed for Protected Areas on a site by site basis rather than using a broad generic approach. For some most of the protected nature areas, the additional measures required to meet specific objectives are not known. The monitoring of protected areas show some gaps. Some of these gaps may appear due to errors in the WISE reporting.

·Adaptation to drought and climate change Climate change was considered in all RBDs and the Common Implementation Strategy guidance document on how to adapt to climate change was used in most of them. Drought management plans were reported for Italy for the Eastern Alps, Padan, North Apennines, Serchio, Central Apennines and Sardinia RBDs. According to the information provided by Italy, "Permanent Observatories on water uses" at district level have been set up in 2016 in the country, whose role has not been specified. No such plan was reported for the Sicily RBD in spite of the relevance of drought acknowledged in the 2012 Topic report.

Recommendations ·The preparation of the next RBMPs should be carried out in accordance with the WFD timetable, to ensure the third RBMPs are adopted timely. ·Italy should include clear information in national RBMPs on international coordination efforts in order to increase transparency. ·Italy should continue to improve international cooperation, including coordinated assessments of the technical aspects of the Water Framework Directive such as ensuring a harmonized approach for status assessment and a coordinated Programme of Measures in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. ·Italy has made good progress in the delineation of water bodies and in the definition of significant pressures. However, further work is still needed to harmonise different regional approaches, in particular for the definition of the significance of pressures. ·Italy should continue to improve monitoring of surface waters by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories. Hydromorphological quality elements should be monitored at a sufficient number of sites for a reliable assessment of status/potential. The monitoring of physicochemical quality elements should also be strengthened to fill the remaining gaps. ·Italy should continue the efforts for improving the method for the selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and ensure that Environmental Quality Standards meet the minimum requirements for the protection of freshwater and marine ecosystems from possible adverse effects, as well as of human health. ·Italy should complete a comprehensive gap assessment for diffuse pollutant loads from agriculture (nutrients, agri-chemicals, sediment, organic matter) across all waters in all RBDs and link it directly to mitigation measures in the third RBMPs (as per WFD Article 11(3)(h)), to facilitate the achievement of WFD objectives. ·Italy should base the classification of water bodies on complete assessment methods, including all biological quality elements. The classification boundaries of hydromorphological quality elements should be related to the classification boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements, and all the relevant physicochemical quality elements should be used in the assessment of ecological status/potential. ·The monitoring for status assessment should continue to be improved to reach sufficient confidence and spatial coverage for all the Priority Substances (including territorial waters whose status should be also be reported in the RBMPs) and the proportion of unknown status further reduced. ·Trend monitoring should be performed in all RBDs, for all substances, in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage. ·The high percentage of groundwater bodies in unknown status (especially in some RBDs) prevents effective planning and comparability with other Member States. Italy should implement methods for the quantitative and chemical status assessment of groundwater bodies. · Additional efforts are needed to take into account quantitative aspects for groundwater during monitoring and assessment phases, especially in some RBD ·Efforts need to be continued for the designation of heavily modified water bodies by implementing a WFD compliant methodology in all RBDs. All the requirements of Article 4(3) need to be complied with, including the assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or the wider environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process. Ecological potential needs to be defined and applied in all RBDs. ·Progress needs to be continued to further reduce uncertainties regarding the timeframe for the achievement of the WFD objectives. The significant number and increase of the application of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions is an issue of concern. Italy needs to take all possible measures in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. The application of exemptions needs to be reviewed in a more transparent manner and the reasons for the exemptions and detailed results of the related assessments need to be clearly demonstrated in the RBMPs, in particular in relation to technical infeasibility and disproportionate costs. The individual logic, related justifications and criteria for Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions need to be clearly distinguished.

·Italy needs to ensure WFD compliance in relation to the application and reporting of Article 4(7). An ex-ante evaluation of the expected effects of a proposed new project on water body status / potential at quality element level is required in line with the requirements of the WFD and as further specified by the Judgment of the Court in case C-461/13. In case deterioration / non-achievement of good status/potential can be expected, the project can only be authorised in case all the requirements of Article 4(7) are met. ·Clear links between pressures identified and measures to be taken should be established for all RBDs. ·Italy should provide cost-effectiveness analysis and improve information on cost of measures for the Sicily RBD. ·Meaningful information regarding the scope and the timing of the measures should be clearly shown in the Programme of Measures so the approach to achieving the objectives is clear and the ambition in the Programme of Measures is more transparent. In addition, the RBMPs should provide information on a systematic prioritisation of measures. ·Gap analyses should be comprehensive and gap indicators linked to the status of water bodies. ·Italy should ensure that information on funding sources of the Programme of Measures is more clearly described in the third RBMPs. ·Italy should continue reinforcing metering for all abstractions, and reviewing abstraction permits systems. It should ensure that action is taken to address illegal abstractions especially in RBDs with relevant water scarcity problems (e.g. Sicily). ·Italy should continue to review and develop the strategy for the delivery of WFD objectives, in cooperation with the farming community and Italian CAP delivery authorities, to ensure the third RBMP is technically feasible and that all relevant policies and instruments (e.g. RDP, CAP Pillar 1, Nitrates Directive etc.) contribute significantly to RBMPs. ·In the third RBMPs, it should be stated clearly for all RBDs 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, RDP), as appropriate. ·Italy should ensure that KTMs are reported for all significant pressures causing failure of objectives, in all RBDs. In particular, all Priority Substances and River Specific Pollutants identified as causing failure should be associated with KTMs, to clearly show whether the measures are sufficient to reach the objectives of the WFD (both the objectives of reaching good status, but also the objective to suppress emissions for priority hazardous substances). ·Italy should continue their efforts to tackle urban waste water discharges, and make sure that the measures planned are sufficient to meet the WFD objectives (as well as the UWWTD) in all RBDs. ·Italy should ensure that the necessary measures to tackle hydromorphological pressures are included in the Programmes of Measure and properly implemented in all RBDs. Furthermore, Italy needs to complete the transition from the minimum vital flows to ecological flows. ·Italy should apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies or justify any exemptions using Article 9(4) and ensure a harmonised implementation across the RBDs. It should continue to present transparently how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. Italy should also transparently present the water-pricing policy and provide a transparent overview of estimated investments and investment needs. ·Additional measures to reach additional objectives for Protected Areas have been identified and included within the PoM. Italy should further work to include all Protected Areas where measures have not been identified yet. ·Italy should ensure that a drought management plan is adopted also for the Sicily RBD, especially in light of the fact that abstraction is identified as a significant pressure on groundwater bodies.



Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle Only three of Italy's eight RBMPs were published in December 2015 as per the schedule required under the WFD. The RBMPs for the North Apennines, Central Apennines and South Apennines RBDs were published on this date. The RBMPs for the Eastern Alps, Padan, Sericho and Sardinia RBDs were published in March 2016, and the RBMP for Sicily RBD was published in June 2016.

1.1.1Administrative arrangements – river basin districts Italy designated eight RBDs. Of these, Italy reported that the Eastern Alps RBD and Padan RBD and the Northern Apennines are part of international RBDs. Italy shares catchments in the Eastern Alps RBD with Austria, Switzerland and Slovenia. Italy shares catchments in the Padan RBD with France and Switzerland. In addition, Italy shares a small catchment in the Northern Apennines RBD with France: the Roja or Roya River. This, however, is not acknowledged in Italy’s reporting. In late 2015, Italy has approved the Governance reform (Law 221/2015) establishing seven RBDs Among its provisions, this law incorporated the small Serchio RBD, into the North Apennines RBD. Consequently, Italy now has seven RBDs (this change occurred in 2017, when a 2016 decree by the Ministry of Environment was published on the Official Journal n. 27 February second, 2017). Italy has informed that Art. 64 details the new delimitation of the boundaries of each River Basin District with identification of the river basins which are part of the new RBDs. 1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities Italy has identified (in the second cycle when the River Basin District Authorities’ reform had not been completed) competent Authorities at national, river catchment and regional levels. At national level, the Ministry of Environment has main roles for the coordination of implementation and reporting to the European Commission, and a secondary role for the implementation of measures. The national Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA) has a main role for WISE reporting to the European Commission. Italy lists seven river basin authorities. It can be noted that only two of these correspond to RBDs (Padan and Serchio): the five others were authorities for major rivers within their RBDs, and (as noted in the 2012 assessment), were provisional authorities for their respective RBDs. These authorities had main roles for pressure and impact analysis, economic analysis, preparation of RBMPs and Programme of Measures, public participation, implementation of measures and reporting to the European Commission. Italy lists 19 regions and two autonomous provinces (Bolzano and Trento) as authorities. The regions and autonomous provinces are in accordance with the WISE reporting responsible for monitoring and assessment of groundwater and surface water, pressure and impact analysis, economic analysis, enforcement of regulations, preparation of RBMPs and Programme of Measures, public participation, implementation of measures, and reporting to the European Commission. Two regions – Sardinia and Sicily – are also RBD authorities. 1.1.3River Basin Management plans – structure and Strategic Environmental Assessment Italy's RBMPs have sub-plans. For Padan RBD, the sub-plans cover: agriculture, chemical industry, chemical pollution, hydropower, nutrient enrichment, urban planning, water scarcity and droughts and water balances. For the Northern Apennines RBD, sub-plans cover climate change, rural planning and water scarcity and droughts. The Water Protection Plan (Piano di Tutela delle Acque) for the region of Liguria is also listed as a sub-plan. For the Central Apennines RBD, sub-plans cover agriculture, the chemical industry, chemical pollution, coastal erosion, hydropower, nutrient enrichment, rural planning, transport, urban planning and water scarcity and droughts. Sub-plans (water protection plans, water balance plans, rural development plans) are part of each RBMP. For example the review of Programme of Measures shows many measures are shared with Italy’s Rural Development Programmes (RDPs). This appears to be the case across the whole country. Italy reported to WISE that Strategic Environmental Assessments were carried out for five of Italy's eight RBMPs. 1.1.4Public consultation The mechanisms to inform the public and interested parties varied across Italy’s eight RBDs. In all of Italy's RBDs, the public and interested parties were informed by direct mailing and internet. Invitations to stakeholders were made in all RBDs but the Eastern Alps RBD. The public and interested parties were informed by meetings in all RBDs except Sardinia. Local authorities provided information in five RBDs; media (such as papers, television or radio) were used in three RBDs (Serchio, Central Apennines and South Apennines); printed material in two (Padan and Central Apennines); and social networks (for example, Twitter, Facebook) in one RBD (North). Documents were available for download in all RBDs; in addition, direct mailing (via email) was carried out in four RBDs (Padan, the Central Apennines, Sardinia and Sicily), paper copies were available at local authorities in municipal buildings in two RBDs (South Apennines and Sardinia), paper copies were distributed at exhibitions in the Central Apennines RBD, and were available at the RBD authority in the Eastern Alps. Across all of Italy’s RBDs, documents were available for the requisite six months. The stakeholder groups actively involved in the development of the RBMPs as well as the mechanisms for their involvement also varied across the RBDs. The stakeholder groups actively involved in the development of the RBMPs were as follows: agriculture/farmers, energy/hydropower, industry, local/regional authorities and water supply and sanitation (in all RBDs); NGOs/nature protection (in all RBDs but Sicily); consumer groups (in all RBDs but Padan, the North Apennines and Serchio); universities and research centres (in the Eastern Alps, Padan, Central Apennines and South Apennines RBDs); fisheries/aquaculture (in Eastern Alps, Padan and Sardinia RBDs only); and navigations/ports (in Eastern Alps, Padan and Sardinia RBDs only). Professional associations were actively involved in the Padan and Sardinia RBDs, while expert associations were reported for the Central Apennines RBD. The Sardinia RBD also reported that scientific associations were actively involved. The Eastern Alps RBD reported that the consorzi di bonifica (bodies in charge of irrigation) were actively involved, and the Central Apennines RBD cites "territorial contracts" ("contratti territoriali") that bring together interest groups. The South Apennines RBD also reports as stakeholder groups the national Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities and Tourism, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, and the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forest Policies. The mechanisms for active involvement of stakeholders were: establishment of advisory groups in three RBDs (Eastern Alps, Padan and Central Apennines involvement of drafting in three RBDs (Eastern Alps, Padan and Sardinia); regular exhibitions in three RBDs (Eastern Alps, Central Apennines and South Apennines); and formation of alliances in three RBDs (Padan, South Apennines and Sicily). In addition, the Eastern Alps RBD refers to coordination with the consultation on the Water Protection Plan under preparation in the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region and also to a SWOT analysis as other forms of outreach. In the North Apennines RBD, updated information on the plan was sent to stakeholders, which were directly involved in conferences on the presentation of the plan. The Serchio RBD refers to meetings. In the Central Apennines RBD, a web instrument was activated after each regional meeting with interest groups. For Sardinia RBD, there were direct invitations and the establishment of a public relations office. For Sicily RBD, a blog was reported as a mechanism for ongoing stakeholder involvement.

For all of Italy's RBMPs, public consultation led to the addition of new information. Public consultation led to adjustments to specific measures in five RBMPs (Eastern Alps, Padan, Serchio, Central Apennines and the South Apennines RBDs). There were changes to the selection of measures in five RBMPs (Eastern Alps, Padan, South Apennines, Sardinia and Sicily). In four RBMPs, there was a commitment to further research (Eastern Alps, Padan, Sardinia and Sicily). In four RBMPs, there was a commitment to action in the next RBMP cycle (Padan, North Apennines, Serchio and South Apennines). In the Central Apennines RBD, a further impact was the integration of the RBMP into territorial contracts underway. 1.1.5Integration with the Floods Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Italy has reported to WISE that one of its eight RBMPs (North Apennines) is integrated with the relevant Floods Directive Flood Risk Management Plan into a single plan. In seven of eight RBDs, there was joint consultation of the RBMP and Flood Risk Management Plan (no information was found for Sicily RBD). For two RBDs (the Eastern Alps and Padan), reporting on integration with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive refers to the Programme of Measures of the RBMPs, suggesting that measures were coordinated. Nonetheless, none of Italy's RBMPs organised joint consultation with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 1.1.6International coordination Italy has reported that the two international RBDs, Eastern Alps and Padan, have an international agreement and a permanent cooperation body in place (designated as category 2 cooperation). As indicated in the 2012 Commission Staff Working Document, the Eastern Alps RBD shares the Isonzo/Soča catchment with Slovenia, but also a section of the Etsch catchment (a tributary of the Adige river basin in Italy) is found in Switzerland and Italy has a small catchment that is part of the Danube International RBD (part of the Drava River basin and Slizza river basin). For the Padan RBD, Italy shares several catchments with Switzerland, a small catchment is found in France and Italy also has a small territory that is part of the Rhine International RBD; and cooperation varies across these catchments. A small catchment in the Northern Apennines RBD is shared with France. Italy does not participate in any international river basin agreements, though Italy has bilateral agreements on water management with Slovenia and Switzerland. The 1975 Treaty of Osimo between Italy and Yugoslavia set up what is now the Italian-Slovenian Commission for Water Management. The Treaty, in place before the WFD, now provides the forum for cooperation between Italy and Slovenia on the WFD and Floods Directive, according to the RBMP for the Eastern Alps RBD. The Commission meets regularly (generally twice a year) to discuss implementation of the two Directives and of cooperation activities for water management. Its work covers the Isonzo/Soča catchment as well as smaller shared catchments. Among its activities, the Commission and expert groups working under it exchanged information about the development of the second RBMPs, cooperated on monitoring and developed transboundary projects to support implementation of the WFD and Flood Directive. The agreement between Switzerland and Italy concerning the protection of Italian-Swiss waters against pollution was concluded on 20 April 1972. With this agreement, the Swiss Federal Council and the Italian Government decided to work together to protect Italian-Swiss surface and groundwater from pollution. No international commissions are in place between Italy and France for management of shared catchments. Nonetheless, for the Padan RBMP, as part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment, institutional representatives of France and of Swiss cantons have been consulted with regard to the cross-border portions of the RBD. In addition, a small share of the Northern Apennines RBD is shared with France, the Roya/Roja River catchment (for further information see the reports on international coordination on the Water Framework Directive). 1.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle Since the adoption of the first RBMPs, the District Basin Authorities have undertaken actions to improve coordination among authorities within their District (see section 1.3 for further details). Moreover, Italy has strengthened international coordination, for example in the Isonzo/Soča River basin shared with Slovenia. 1.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first Programmes of Measures requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Improve coordination between regions and RBD authorities and improve reporting to make it more integrated at RBD level (it is essential to clarify the respective roles of the Regions and RBD authorities and give further detail on the integration and coordination of regions, RBD and the national level for reporting). ·Methods… [should be] effectively coordinated between the regions at the level of the RBD in order to achieve water management at the river basin level instead of management according to administrative boundaries. Assessment: Italy reported to WISE that both RBD authorities and Italy’s regions (plus the two autonomous provinces of Bolzano and Trento) have main roles for pressure and impact analysis, economic analysis, preparation of RBMPs and Programme of Measures, public participation, implementation of measures and reporting to the European Commission. Consequently, there was a need in the second cycle to ensure coordination between these two levels. National reforms in the institutional structure to establish permanent RBD authorities are expected to further strengthen coordination between regions and RBD authorities (this is described under the following recommendation). In conclusion, in the period of the preparation of the second RBMPs, Italy took important steps to implement the Commission’s recommendation. The implementation of this recommendation was partially fulfilled.

·Recommendation: The transition of the RBD authorities from a provisional to a permanent system should be completed and it should be ensured that these cover the entire area of the relevant RBD. Assessment: Italy’s reporting to WISE indicates that the provisional system was still in place through the preparation of the RBMPs. For example, Italy reported the Tevere (Tiber) Basin Authority for the Central Apennines RBD: the Tevere Authority was the provisional authority for this RBD. Two “bridge laws” – Law 13 of 2009 and Legislative Decree 219/2010 – assigned to the existing basin authorities (such as the Tiber Basin Authority) a coordination role for the implementation of the WFD on the territory defined by Legislative Decree 152/2006 [i.e. within the RBDs]. Therefore, during the second cycle, the river basin authorities were coordinating the Regions belonging to the RBDs. Nonetheless, at the time of the preparation of the second RBMPs, the provisional system continued, though with a stronger legal basis. In December 2015, however, Law 221/2015 reformed the institutional structure of the basin authorities, establishing permanent authorities for each RBD (the Law also introduced some changes in RBD boundaries). A subsequent Ministerial Decree in October 2016 and a Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers provided the implementing legislation for the changes set out in Law 221/2015, thus establishing the permanent RBD authorities. The Commission’s recommendation has therefore been fulfilled (however, the fulfilment of this recommendation occurred after the publication of the second RBMPs). Recommendation: Many measures in the Programmes of Measures originate from other existing plans and no clear link between measures and status assessment is made. Assessment: This recommendation addresses several points (see chapter 9 for further assessment). In the first RBMPs, many measures derived from other plans, in particular the regional water protection plans (Piani di tutela delle acque) . A review of the second RBMPs for Padan RBD and for the South Apennines RBD show that both refer frequently to information in and work under the regional Water Protection Plans (Piani di tutela delle acque). In the RBMP of the South Apennines RBD there is a chapter that lists all the regional programming documents (and their modifications) that are relevant for the governance of water resources as established by the WFD. Among these, the Water Protection Plans are indicated as being very important (they are closely linked/very relevant - "strettamente correlati"). Similarly, the RBMP for the Padan RBD refers to the regional Water Protection Plans as the main reference documents for the preparation of the RBMP and notes that the content of such regional plans and the RBMP overlaps in some instances. This RBMP states that the principle of vertical subsidiarity should be respected when implementing such plans. In order to increase the level of coordination between these two planning documents on 23 December 2013, the regions in the Padan RBD signed the document ‘Guiding Act for the preparation of the Water Protection Plans’ and the regional planning documents in coordination with the RBMP with the Management Plan of the river Po. At the time of preparation of the RBMP, the regional Water Protection Plans were being updated in both the Padan RBD and the South Apennines RBD, although with different time frames depending on the regions. It particular, for the Padan RBD, Liguria and the Province of Trento updated their Water Protection Plans in parallel with the preparation of the RBMP, while the other regions started the review of their plans only after the adoption of the RBMP. Here, again, arises the problem regarding the coordination of the work of the different regions. As noted above, Italy passed Law 221/2015 in December 2015. In addition to the provisions noted above for RBD authorities, this law also addressed the links between RBMPs and Water Protection Plans. This law establishes a clearer hierarchy, indicating that the RBDs are the competent authorities and that regions have competence for the Water Protection Plans, which are sectoral plans that have to be drafted in coherence with the RBMP: the RBMPs are the overarching plans with respect to regional Water Protection Plans. To this end, each RBD Authority now has to release a formal opinion on the Water Protection Plans, for the regions in its territory. Consequently, Italy has partially fulfilled this recommendation.



Topic 2Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.1.1Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies Overall, there was an increase in the number of water bodies between the first and second RBMPs ( Table 2.1 ). There was a similar increase in lake water bodies and coastal water bodies of 16 % and 15 %, respectively. The most significant increase was for groundwater bodies of 24 % ( Table 2.2 ). Sicily RBD did not report any groundwater bodies in the first RBMP and there were 82 in the second RBMP. For river water bodies however there was an overall decrease of about 2 % and a decrease of 4 % for transitional water bodies. Eight territorial water bodies were reported in the second RBMP and there were none in the first RBMP. The RBD with the most significant change in the number of water bodies was the South Apennines RBD with an average increase of 41 %. There was also a significant increase in the number of lake water bodies specifically in Sardinia RBD from 1 to 32 lake water bodies . In the second RBMP, 78 % of identified surface water bodies were natural with 15 % being designated as heavily modified and 8 % as artificial water bodies. In the first RBMP, the situation was similar but the proportion of heavily modified water bodies (10 %) was slightly less overall ( Figure 2.1 ). The RBMP for the Northern Apennines RBD noted that the technical criteria for the identification of artificial water bodies and heavily modified water bodies were published in November 2013 (Ministerial Decree n. 156 of 17 Nov. 2013) and entered into force in January 2014. The changes to water bodies have taken place at regional level within the RBDs, which may also account for the differences between RBMPs. The RBMP for the North Apennines RBD notes that the Emilia-Romagna region updated its list of water bodies, in particular with regard to artificial water bodies, while the Tuscany region divided a couple of coastal water bodies based on monitoring results. In addition, several water bodies at regional boundaries were united. The RBMP for the Southern Apennines RBD noted that 2009 national legislation (D. Lgs 30/2009) included steps for the identification of groundwater bodies which was likely to have been implemented for the second RBMPs. Table 2.1 Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Italy for the second and first RBMPs Year RBD Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total length of water body (km) Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies 2016 ITA 40 49 1 812 14 053 49 667 24 1 517 2016 ITB 106 963 2 034 23 569 13 226 2 286 2016 ITC 33 14 1 297 13 139 11 55 51 1 917 2016 ITD 2 8 51 574 1 1 1 6 2016 ITE 36 362 493 6 975 6 15 25 1 279 2016 ITF 66 122 824 10 907 17 175 176 3 501 2016 ITG 32 93 726 7 560 57 116 217 6 216 2016 ITH 32 48 256 4 273 18 19 65 2 290 2016 Total 347 1 658 7 493 81 050 172 1 272 561 17 012 2010 ITA 40 49 1 853 14 428 49 664 24 1 519 2010 ITB 116 1 906 2 356 14 226 2 255 2010 ITC 33 14 1 304 13 865 11 55 48 1 902 2010 ITD 2 8 51 578 1 1 1 6 2010 ITE 38 362 501 7 112 6 15 22 1 173 2010 ITF 38 83 1 018 12 171 110 2 709 2010 ITG 1 (32) 0 755 57 78 217 6 212 2010 ITH 32 48 256 4 217 31 24 65 5 154 2010 Total 300 7 644 181 1 234 489 18 930

Source: WISE electronic reporting Table 2.2 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Italy for the second and first RBMPs Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 ITA 118 1.2 7,818.02 427.34 2016 ITB 167 4.12 5,703.06 503.83 2016 ITC 222 0.22 3,144.61 133.86 2016 ITD 11 15.8 358.38 103.7 2016 ITE 128 3.95 1,355.23 209.41 2016 ITF 210 2.08 3,843.00 216.96 2016 ITG 114 2.89 3,234.28 169.42 2016 ITH 82 0.94 1,083.45 147.39 2016 Total 1,052 2010 ITA 123 0.9 7,822.00 310.56 2010 ITB 141 4 9,192.22 574.09 2010 ITC 186 0.15 3,208.80 134.98 2010 ITD 11 43.63 3,208.80 444.5 2010 ITE 133 3.95 3,208.80 260.38 2010 ITF 139 2.35 1,461.00 135.75 2010 ITG 114 2010 ITH 2010 Total 847 Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in Italy designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first RBMPs. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category Source: WISE electronic reporting The RBMP emphasises that the main changes were made in the number of groundwater bodies. Better monitoring data appears to have been a key factor for many of the changes. No changes were reported for the Basilicata, Calabria and Lazio Regions, but updates are seen for the Campania, Molise and Puglia Regions. For Puglia, for example, the number of groundwater bodies increased from 10 to 29. For the Abruzzo Region in the South Apennines RBD, for example, further knowledge about hydrogeology and better monitoring data were the main factors. The RBMP for the South Apennines RBD also states that several groundwater bodies lie at the boundary between the Central Apennines RBD and the South Apennines RBD, and further coordination is needed to assign them definitively to one or the other RBD. It can be noted that further updates to the characterisation of water bodies and in particular groundwater bodies were underway or may occur. The RBMPs do not describe how the changes to water bodies might have led to differences in the analysis of pressures, status or measures. Table 2.3 shows the size distribution of surface water bodies in Italy in the second and first RBMPs (note that missing values are denoted by -9 999.00). It can be seen that the minimum and maximum sizes of rivers and lakes have decreased and the maximum size of coastal water bodies has also decreased. Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by Italy on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles.



Table 2.3 Size distribution of surface water bodies in Italy in the second and first RBMPs Year RBD River length (km2) Lake area (km2) Transitional (km2) Coastal (km2) Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average 2016 ITA 0.06 97.31 7.76 0.04 7.17 1.22 0.01 134.66 13.61 0.8 365.73 63.22 2016 ITB 0.14 108.64 11.59 0 277.05 9.09 0.4 118 17.35 137.29 148.27 142.78 2016 ITC 0.46 59.59 10.13 0 2.85 0.44 0 16.23 4.98 1.1 214.74 37.59 2016 ITD 2.06 41.67 11.25 1.05 6.82 3.94 0.88 0.88 0.88 5.54 5.54 5.54 2016 ITE 1.94 59 14.15 0.02 121.62 10.06 0.48 4.05 2.54 9.97 190.83 51.17 2016 ITF 0.17 201.5 13.24 0 15.64 1.84 0.07 65.23 10.27 1.45 99.92 19.89 2016 ITG 0.25 59.3 10.41 0.03 21.87 2.89 0.1 20.23 2.04 0.11 355.6 28.65 2016 ITH 2.35 48.66 16.69 0.11 6.92 1.48 0.01 14.91 1.07 6.83 110.87 35.22 2010 ITA 0.06 97.25 7.79 0.04 7.18 1.22 0.01 134.77 13.56 0.81 366.11 63.3 2010 ITB -9 999 109.74 1.24 -9 999 362.74 -72.45 0.4 117.72 16.17 106.77 148.43 127.6 2010 ITC 0.4 85.72 10.63 0 2.85 0.43 0 16.23 4.98 2.64 424.14 39.62 2010 ITD 2.06 41.66 11.34 1.05 6.82 3.93 0.88 0.88 0.88 5.6 5.6 5.6 2010 ITE 1.24 59.02 14.19 0.02 121.71 9.52 0.49 4.06 2.55 10 191.01 53.31 2010 ITF -9 999 202.37 -2 692.50 0.01 12.37 2.19 0.08 65.68 14.22 1.88 101.29 24.62 2010 ITG -9 999 59.29 -400.62 0.29 0.29 0.29 0 20.21 1.38 0.11 355.32 28.63 2010 ITH 1.99 49.16 16.47 0.11 6.95 1.49 0.01 14.93 0.78 8.79 303.52 79.3 Source: WISE electronic reporting Table 2.4 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in Italy between the second and first RBMPs Type of water body change for second RBMP Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Territorial Groundwater Aggregation 18 1 26 Splitting 368 2 5 5 36 Change 210 26 8 11 104 Aggregation and splitting 275 12 Change in code 3165 151 130 314 292 Extended Area 28 Reduced Area 21 Creation 607 29 10 136 8 238 Deletion 767 17 39 87 48 No change 2850 138 19 95 295 Total water bodies before deletion 8260 364 211 648 8 1100 Delineated for second RBMP (after deletion from first RBMP ) 7493 347 172 561 8 1052 Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.2Identification of transboundary water bodies Transboundary river water bodies have been identified in three RBDs (the Eastern Alps, Padan and the North Apennines) and transboundary lake water bodies have been identified in Padan. Eight transboundary groundwater bodies have been identified in the Eastern Alps District but not in other RBDs. 2.1.3Typology of surface water bodies

The number of water body types per RBD and water body category remained largely the same between the first and second RBMPs, with only a slight increase ( Table 2.5 ). No information was found in the RBMPs assessed about whether the typology was made biologically relevant. Table 2.5 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Italy for the first and second cycles RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Territorial 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 ITA 88 84 8 8 10 10 4 4 1 ITB 90 88 13 12 6 6 2 1 1 ITC 63 71 7 7 7 7 7 9 1 ITD 5 7 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 ITE 64 67 7 11 4 4 6 8 1 ITF 107 112 5 13 7 14 10 25 1 ITG 12 10 6 6 10 10 5 5 1 ITH 15 12 4 4 1 6 5 5 1 TOTAL 373 364 24 29 27 40 22 39 1 Source: WISE electronic reporting

Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs Member States were asked to report “Not applicable” if there is no corresponding intercalibration type for national types. Many national types (heavily modified, artificial and natural) have been intercalibrated. Several of the national types for Italy in all of the RBDs do not appear to have corresponding intercalibration types . 2.1.4Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Italy with reference conditions established. Type specific reference conditions have been established for all relevant biological quality elements and none have been established for physicochemical quality elements or hydromorphological quality elements , . The only exceptions were for six transitional water body types in Sicily RBD, where all reference conditions have been established for physicochemical quality elements and only some established for relevant biological quality elements. Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types in Italy 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 (29) All 97 % Some None 3 % 100 % 100 % Rivers (364) All 100 % Some None 100 % 100 % Coastal (39) All 100 % Some None 100 % 100 % Transitional (40) All 85 % 15 % Some 15 % None 100 % 85 % Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.5Characteristics of groundwater bodies The geological formation of the aquifer types in which groundwater bodies reside, along with details of whether groundwater bodies are layered or not, are generally reported. There are some geological formations were no information was reported about whether it was layered or not. Further characterisation work has been reported since the first RBMP with the inclusion of the assessment of linkages to surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems. The further characterisation of groundwater bodies was not complete: for some RBDs this information was reported as an Annex 0 for the South Apennines RBD, Sardinia RBD and Sicily RBD and only for some water bodies in the Central Apennines RBD . 2.1.6Significant pressures on water bodies In the second RBMP, the significant pressures reported to affect the most surface water bodies were Diffuse - Agricultural (37 %), and then Point - Urban waste water (20 %) ( Figure 2.2 ). “No significant pressures” was reported for 26 % of surface water bodies overall. In the first RBMP, Italy reported on significant pressures as aggregated pressures making direct comparison with data from the second cycle difficult. There appears to be a significant decrease in the number of water bodies with “No significant pressures” reported, with an increase in the reporting of all other categories of significant pressures (diffuse, point, abstractions and flow and physical changes) (Figure 2.3). This is an indication that there have been improvements made in the definition of significant pressures and changes between cycles.

Figure 2.2 The most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in Italy for the second RBMP Source: WISE electronic reporting



Figure 2.3 Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Italy in the first and second RBMPs. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note there were 8581 identified surface water bodies for the second RBMP and 8641 for the first RBMP Source: WISE electronic reporting. In 2016, the significant pressures reported to affect the most groundwater bodies were Diffuse - Agricultural (30 %), and then Abstraction or flow diversion - Other (19 %). “No significant pressures” were reported for 25 % of groundwater bodies. For 2016, a total of 49 significant pressures were not assessed for surface waters. The numbers varied in each RBD ranging from 1 (Sardinia RBD) to 39 (the South Apennines RBD) pressures. A total of 52 significant pressures were not assessed for groundwaters. The numbers varied in each RBD ranging from 7 to 50 pressures. Whilst many of the pressures were not relevant to groundwater some were, such as Groundwater - Recharges and Groundwater - Alteration of water level or volume were. In some cases the RBMPs do not describe why certain pressures have not been assessed. The RBMP for the Northern Apennines RBD indicates that for the second RBMPs, the list of pressures set out in the Commission's WFD Reporting Guidance 2016 was used across the whole RBD, based on agreements with the regions. This implies an update to the list of pressures used previously - however, the RBMP does not set out the changes. 2.1.7Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater For surface waters the tools used to define significant pressures varied between RBDs. Generally, a combination of both expert judgement and numerical tools were used for defining point and diffuse source pressures and pressures from water flow for surface water. In some instances just numerical tools were used, for example in the Northern Apennines and Sardinia RBDs they were used for point and diffuse pressures on surface water. For surface water bodies significance of pressures was reported to be defined in terms of thresholds and generally linked to the potential failure of objectives for all RBDs. Two RBDs (the Northern Apennines and Sicily) reported to WISE that the definition of significance of pressures was not linked to the potential failure of objectives. The RBMP for the Northern Apennines RBD notes that the assessment of significance in the first RBMP was carried out without indicators and without threshold values defined for significance: both elements were introduced for the second RBMP. The RBMP notes that the new system was agreed with the regions in the RBD but in practice was undertaken by the regions in a partial manner, using data available and thresholds for significance that were "not necessarily homogenous"; however, preliminary results in the draft RBMP were closely reviewed and verified, in particular in terms of threshold values. The RBMP for the Southern Apennines RBD notes that the methodology has been "refined" for the second RBMPs. The RBMP describes a step-process using indicators for different types of pressures, alongside estimates of the importance of different pressures on water status; the results were then refined by analysis of "test" areas and by expert judgement. For groundwaters, the tools used to define significant pressures varied between RBDs. Generally, a combination of both expert judgement and numerical tools were used for defining point and diffuse source pressures and pressures from water flow. However there were some differences for example, only numerical tools were used in the North Apennines RBD and Serchio RBDs. Pressures from artificial recharge were only assessed in Sicily RBD using numerical tools. For groundwater, significance of pressures was reported to be defined in terms of thresholds and generally linked to the potential failure of objectives for all RBDs. The RBMPs assessed do not describe specific tools used for the assessment of significance of different pressures for surface waters or groundwaters. 2.1.8Significant impacts on water bodies In the second RBMP, the most significant impacts on surface water bodies were organic pollution, chemical pollution and nutrient pollution which were reported to affect 25-26 % of surface water bodies ( Figure 2.4 ). Figure 2.4 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Italy for the second RBMP. Percentages of numbers of water bodies Source: WISE electronic reporting For groundwaters, the most significant impacts were classified as chemical pollution (34 %), nutrient pollution (29 %), and abstraction exceeding available groundwater resource (lowering water table) (26 %) ( Figure 2.4 ). Italy did not report on impacts in the first RBMPs. 2.1.9Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status

Across the RBDs the proportion of groundwater bodies reported to be at risk of failing to meet good chemical status ranged from 24 to 64 %. The pollutants causing groundwater bodies to be at risk from failing good chemical status were reported. Groundwater bodies reported to be at risk of failing to meet good quantitative status, ranged from 6 to 46 %. 2.1.10Quantification of the gap and apportionment of pressures The Priority Substances and other substances causing the failure of good chemical status were reported for all eight RBDs. The measures to tackle these substances to achieve good status by 2021 (or 2027) were only reported for 3 of the RBDs. 2.1.11Inventories 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). Italy reported inventories of emissions for five of the eight RBDs . For three of the RBDs there were 41 substances or groups of substances (Padan, the Central Apennines and Sardinia), for the Eastern Alps RBD there were 29, and for the Serchio RBD 10. The two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 has been followed for almost all substances considered in the inventories. Tier 1 (point source information) and Tier 2 (riverine load) of the methodology was implemented for many of the substances included in the inventories, including for some of the substances deemed relevant at RBD level. The data quality was assessed as uncertain, medium or was not reported. 2.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle Overall, there was an increase in the number of water bodies between the first and second RBMP. There was a similar increase in lake water bodies and coastal water bodies of 16 % and 15 % respectively. The most significant increase was for groundwater bodies of 32 %. Furthermore, the Sicily RBD did not report any groundwater bodies in the first RBMP while there were 82 reported in the second RBMP. For river water bodies however there was an overall decrease of about 2 % and a decrease of 4 % for transitional water bodies. Eight territorial water bodies were reported in the second RBMP and there were none in the first RBMP. The technical criteria for the identification of artificial water bodies and heavily modified water bodies changed since the first RBMP and there were slightly more heavily modified water bodies (15 %) in the second RBMP. In the first RBMP, Italy reported on significant pressures as aggregated pressures making direct comparison with data from the second RBMP difficult. There appears to have been a considerable decrease in the number of water bodies with “No significant pressures” reported, with an increase in the reporting of all categories of significant pressures (diffuse, point, abstractions and flow and physical changes). This provides an indication that there was an improvement in the definition of significant pressures. 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 these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle. Assessment: In the first RBMP, Italy’s regions appeared to take different approaches to characterisation. In some cases characterisation was not completed and it did not take on board intercalibration work. Notably, groundwater bodies were not designated in Sicily. In the second cycle, groundwater bodies were delineated in all RBDs including Sicily, which shows that this part of the recommendation has been fulfilled. Italy subsequently clarified how the intercalibration process has been translated to national types. There have been improvements on the definition of significant pressures, although there are still regional approaches to characterisation used particularly for the definition of the significance of pressures. Therefore, this recommendation has been partially fulfilled.



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

3.1.1Monitoring of ecological status/potential Monitoring programmes 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. Italy reported 134 different monitoring programmes covering all four surface water categories and groundwater. Monitoring methods for ecological status have been updated to fully implement national legislation (Ministerial Decree 56/2009, which covers monitoring and classification of water bodies, and Ministerial Decree 260/2010, on technical criteria for the classification of surface water bodies). Monitoring programmes in place in the first RBMPs followed more limited national approaches and were not aligned with the WFD requirements: for example, appropriate biological assessment methods were essentially not in place in any RBD. The introduction of the two Ministerial Decrees mentioned above greatly improved the monitoring of ecological status/potential in Italy in line with WFD requirements, even if the second RBMPs do not describe explicitly the changes since the first plans. Monitoring sites Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes between the first and second RBMPs, and Table 3.2 shows the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMPs.

Table 3.1 Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Italy for the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported for the first RBMPs, the data for the second RBMPs does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op second RBMP IT_A 679 241 50 10 211 52 IT_B 389 618 75 92 48 18 IT_C 66 159 5 8 13 1 201 IT_D 13 8 1 1 1 1 IT_E 184 111 12 20 6 22 14 IT_F 278 277 23 16 34 15 264 129 IT_G 38 80 0 23 140 17 24 Total by type of site 1 647 1 494 166 170 40 428 304 439 Total number of monitoring sites 3101 329 453 673 first RBMP IT_A 298 470 14 10 93 32 48 IT_B 365 259 38 45 33 12 IT_C 217 149 7 13 2 9 20 189 IT_D 32 5 2 2 2 1 IT_E 115 68 9 16 14 IT_F 111 277 0 0 Total by type of site 1 138 1 228 70 86 4 135 53 263 Total number of monitoring sites 2 288 176 139 316 Sources: Member States electronic reporting to WISE.

Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in Italy Monitoring Purpose Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal BWD - Recreational or bathing water - WFD Annex IV.1.iii 24 CHE - Chemical status 1 918 250 243 381 DWD - Drinking water - WFD Annex IV.1.i 48 18 ECO - Ecological status 2 875 301 406 537 HAB - Protection of habitats or species depending on water - WFD Annex IV.1.v 81 10 33 INV - Investigative monitoring 141 3 96 13 MSF - Marine Strategy Framework Directive monitoring network 39 NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 381 11 74 38 OPE - Operational monitoring 1 494 170 428 439 QUA - Quantitative status 42 REF - Reference network monitoring site 53 SHE - Shellfish designated waters - WFD Annex IV.1.ii 5 54 23 SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring 1 528 182 111 269 SUR - Surveillance monitoring 1 647 166 40 304 TRE - Chemical trend assessment 26 102 39 UWW - Nutrient sensitive area under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 75 6 64 35 Total sites irrespective of purpose 4 038 387 506 934 Source: WISE electronic reporting In seven of the eight RBDs, information was reported on the sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring. The Sicily RBD only reported whether sites were for ecological or chemical status purposes. All eight RBDs have identified all four categories of surface waters. There are significant gaps in some of the RBDs in terms of surveillance monitoring, with none being undertaken in five of the seven RBDs (not including Sicily, as explained above) for transitional waters, three of the seven RBDs for coastal waters and one of the seven RBDs for lakes. At the national level 37 % of the total sites reported were used for surveillance and 43 % for operational monitoring. Operational monitoring was not reported for transitional waters in the Central Apennines RBD, but surveillance monitoring was in place. Information is only available for seven RBDs (Eastern Alps, Padan, North Apennines, Serchio, Central Apennines, South Apennines and Sardinia) on the monitoring sites reported in the first RBMPs. Overall in these six RBDs there were significant increases in the number of sites in each water category from the first to the second RBMPs. There was a 45 % increase in river surveillance sites though there was a decrease in numbers in the North Apennines and Serchio RBDs. The decreases in site numbers for these two RBDs affected all water categories. Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants)

Table 3.3 illustrates the quality elements used for the monitoring of lakes and rivers for the second RBMPs: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. Table 3.3 Quality elements monitored for the second RBMPs in Italy (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). Note: quality elements may be used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Phytoplankton Macrophytes Phytobenthos Benthic invertebrates Fish Angiosperms Macroalgae Other aquatic flora Other species Hydrological or tidal regime Continuity conditions Morphological conditions Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Transitional Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Coastal Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes General physicochemical quality elements Transparency conditions Thermal conditions Oxygenation conditions Salinity conditions Acidification status Nitrogen conditions Phosphorus Conditions Silicate Other determinand for nutrient conditions Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Transitional Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Coastal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Source: WISE electronic reporting No biological quality elements were reported to be monitored in coastal and transitional waters in the Serchio RBD. Phytoplankton was monitored in the other seven RBDs and benthic invertebrates in six RBDs. Macroalgae and angiosperms were only monitored in four RBDs with coastal waters. Phytoplankton was reported to be monitored in lakes in all eight RBDs but there were significant gaps in the monitoring of the other relevant biological quality elements. Macrophytes and fish were monitored in lakes in only three RBDs, phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates in two RBDs. Only in the Eastern Alps RBD are all the expected biological quality elements monitored in lakes. The monitoring of the expected biological quality elements in rivers was much more complete than for the other water categories. Fish was the only missing quality element in the Serchio and Sicily RBDs. The biological quality elements monitored in transitional waters in most RBDs were benthic invertebrates (seven RBDs), followed by phytoplankton and macroalgae (four RBDs), angiosperms (two RBDs) and fish (two RBDs). Macrophytes were also reported for transitional waters in four RBDs and phytobenthos in one RBD. In two RBDs none of the coastal water bodies in surveillance monitoring were sampled for all required biological quality elements. The proportions in the other two RBDs in which surveillance monitoring was reported were 6 % and 53 %. None of the lakes included in surveillance monitoring were sampled for all required biological quality elements in five RBDs; in the 6th (Eastern Alps RBD) 22 % were. In one RBD none of the river water bodies were sampled for all required biological quality elements; the proportion sampled for all required biological quality elements in the other six RBDs in which surveillance monitoring was reported ranged from 2 % to 44 %. None of the transitional water bodies included in surveillance monitoring were sampled for all required biological quality elements. There were significant gaps in the monitoring of hydromorphological quality elements. Only two RBDs (the Eastern Alps and Padan RBDs) monitored morphological conditions in coastal waters; tidal regimes were not monitored in any RBD. In transitional waters, the only hydromorphological quality element which was monitored was morphological conditions in three of the eight RBDs (Eastern Alps, Padan and North Apennines RBDs). Hydrological regime was only monitored in lakes in the Padan RBD and morphological conditions only in the Central Apennines RBD. Continuity was also reported for lakes in the Central Apennines RBD. All three required hydromorphological quality elements were monitored in rivers in only one RBD (Sardinia) . In three other RBDs, hydrological regime and morphological conditions were monitored in rivers, and in another RBD continuity was monitored. Only one water body (a river) included in surveillance monitoring was monitored for all required hydromorphological quality elements. Overall, 33 % of the river water bodies 23 % of the lake water bodies and 22 % of the coastal water bodies included in surveillance monitoring were monitored for all required physicochemical quality elements. None of the transitional water bodies was monitored for all required physicochemical quality elements. All the relevant physicochemical quality elements were monitored in coastal waters in most RBDs. The exceptions were transparency conditions, salinity conditions and acidification status in the South Apennines RBD and salinity conditions in the Sicily RBD. There were gaps in the monitoring of physicochemical quality elements in lakes in several RBDs. Oxygenation and nutrient conditions were monitored in lakes in all RBDs. In rivers, nutrient and oxygenation conditions were monitored in all RBDs. However, only two RBDs monitored transparency conditions, six monitored thermal conditions, five monitored salinity conditions and six monitored acidification status. Thermal, oxygenation and nutrient conditions were monitored in transitional waters in all RBDs, transparency was monitored in four RBDs, salinity in six and acidification status in seven. Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the six years period covered by a RBMP. For phytoplankton this should be done twice during the monitoring year and for the other biological quality elements once during the year. As a guideline, operational monitoring should take place at intervals not exceeding once every six months for phytoplankton and once every three years during the six year cycle for the other biological quality elements. Greater intervals may be justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. All biological quality elements used for surveillance monitoring were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites at which they were monitored. Two biological quality elements (macroalgae and angiosperms) used for operational monitoring were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites at which they were monitored. For macrophytes and benthic invertebrates this was done at 96 % of the sites, for phytobenthos at 92 % of the sites and for phytoplankton at 68 % of the sites. River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored River Basin Specific Pollutants were monitored in five of the eight RBDs in coastal waters, lakes, and rivers, but only in four RBDs in transitional waters (the missing RBD is the Central Apennines RBD). River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored in five of the eight RBDs in coastal waters, lakes, and rivers and in four RBDs in transitional waters. A total of 289 River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported by Italy in schema element “chemicalSubstanceCode”. 427 substances were reported in schema element “chemicalSubstanceOther”, which should include all River Basin Specific Pollutants for which a code was not one of the choices available under “chemicalSubstanceCode”. However, there was a significant duplication of substances because there were often slight differences in how the same substance had been reported, for example, misspellings and Chemical Abstracts Service numbers reported without a name. It is, therefore, not clear how many River Basin Specific Pollutants in total have been identified in Italy. This assessment is based on the 289 chemical substances which have been clearly reported. Table 3.4 shows the number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants in Italy in the first and second RBMPs.

Table 3.4 Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants reported in the second RBMPs and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants reported in the first RBMPs in Italy. Note the data from both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used in the first one RBMP Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal first Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants (Data from six RBDs) 367 41 32 60 second Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants – reported at the quality element level (Data from five RBDs) 1256 101 129 134 Sources: WISE electronic reporting A total of 12509 monitoring sites for all purposes were reported for Italy (all eight RBDs). 1620 (13 %) of these sites were monitored for River Basin Specific Pollutants (reported at the generic level by five RBDs). 211 River Basin Specific Pollutants were monitored in coastal waters, 247 in lakes, 273 in rivers and 162 in transitional waters. Five substances were monitored in biota (without further discrimination), 37 in biota other than fish, 65 in sediment, five in settled sediments and 285 in water. The River Basin Specific Pollutants monitored at most sites was arsenic (2098 sites), followed by chromium (2094 sites), terbuthylazine (1294 sites) and copper (1087 sites). There were inconsistencies in the reporting in WISE which complicate this assessment: the number of sites reported to be monitoring each River Basin Specific Pollutant (reported in schema element chemicalSubstance) is greater than the number of sites reported to be monitoring River Basin Specific Pollutants at the generic level (schema element qeCode). The former was based on data from eight RBDs and the latter from five RBDs. As Italy has subsequently acknowledged, there are problems with the reporting of the relevant elements to WISE. Therefore this assessment should be treated with caution. 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. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the six year period covered by a river basin management plan. For river basin specific pollutants this should be done four times for the surveillance year, and for operational monitoring four times a year for each year of the cycle. Of the 236 River Basin Specific Pollutants included in surveillance monitoring, 103 were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites where they were monitored and three substances at none of the sites. Of the 240 substances included in operational monitoring, 51 were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites where they were monitored and 32 substances at none of the sites. Annex V, section 1.3.4 of the WFD does not explicitly define the matrices to which the minimum recommended frequency of monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants (“Other Pollutants”) applies. Recommended monitoring frequencies are specified for Priority Substances in biota and sediment in Article 3(2)c of EQS Directive 2008/105/EC: this is once per year for operational and surveillance monitoring purposes. For consistency this recommended frequency of once per year has been applied to the monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants in biota/sediment. In terms of the frequency of monitoring of River Basin Pollutants in biota and other biological matrices, 3 of the 40 pollutants were monitored at all sites where they were monitored at a frequency of at least once a year. There were no substances for which no sites were sampled at less than the minimum recommended frequency. 13 of the 67 pollutants monitored in sediment or suspended sediment were monitored at leas