EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 40 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Estonia 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) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Table of contents Acronyms and definitions Foreword General Information Status of second river basin management plan reporting Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plans Recommendations Topic 1 Governance and public participation 1.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 1.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 1.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 2 Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with the 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 second RBMPs 3.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 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 second cycle 4.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 4.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 5 Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 5.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with the 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 the 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 the 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 second cycle 8.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 8.3. Progress with Commission recommendations

Topic 9 Programme of measures 9.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 9.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 9.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 10.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with the 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 the 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 second cycle 12.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 12.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology 13.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 13.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 13.3. Progress with Commission recommendations

Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies 14.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 14.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 14.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 15 Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 15.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 15.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 15.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change 16.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 16.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 16.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Acronyms and definitions EQS Directive Environmental Quality Standards Directive FD Floods Directive Km Kilometre km2 Kilometre squared KTM Key Type of Measure PoM Programme of Measures QA/QC Directive Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Annex 0 Water Information System for Europe Member States reported the structured information on the second RBMPs to WISE ( Water Information System for Europe ). Due to the late availability of the reporting guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying what information they were unable to report and the reasons why. This Annex was produced using a template included in the reporting guidance. If Member States reported all the required information, this explanatory note was not necessary.



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





General Information Map A Map of River Basin Districts Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) International River Basin Districts (within European Union) International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) National River Basin Districts (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters The information on areas of the national RBDs including sharing countries is provided in Table A: Table A: Overview of Estonia‘s River Basin Districts RBD Name Size (km2) Coastal water area (km2) Countries sharing RBD EE1 West-Estonian 23478 12949 - EE2 East-Estonian 19047 1552 LV, RU EE3 Koiva 1309 0 LV Source: WISE electronic reporting The share of Estonia in the respective international RBDs is 9.3 % (Gauja/Koiva) and 30.2 % (East-Estonia/Narva). Table B: Transboundary river basins by category and % share in Estonia Name international river basin National RBD Countries sharing RBD Co-ordination category Total 1-4 2 km² % km² % Gauja/Koiva EE3 LV, RU 1309 9.3 1309 9.3 East-Estonia/Narva (including Lake Peipsi/ChudskoeChudskoe, Lake Pihkva/Pskovskoye) EE2 LV, (RU) 17000 30.2 17000 30.2 Source: WISE electronic reporting. Estonia subsequently noted that RU shares RBD EE2. Category 1: International agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMP in place. Category 2: International agreement and permanent co-operation body in place. Category 3: International agreement in place. Category 4: No co-operation formalised.



Status of second river basin management plan reporting All three RBMPs of Estonia (National West-Estonian River Basin Management Plan, National East-Estonian River Basin Management Plan, National Koiva River Basin Management Plan) were published on 7 January 2016. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency (EEA) EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ .

Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plans The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMPs of Estonia are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation ·A broad range of stakeholder groups were actively involved in the preparation of Estonia’s RBMPs, including via advisory groups. ·Estonia has strengthened cooperation with Latvia, including via the preparation of a common “roof report” for one RBMP. ·Characterisation of the RBD ·Improvements to the delineation of groundwater bodies have been made, based on better knowledge and conceptual understanding of groundwater, mapping of pressures and the consideration of water horizons. ·No transitional water body has been delineated and no reason for this was provided in the RBMPs. ·Several of the national types for Estonia in all of the RBDs do not appear to have corresponding intercalibration types: three coastal water body, five lake water body and two river water body types. Type-specific reference conditions have only been established for some relevant biological quality elements and none were established for hydromorphological quality elements. This leads to some weaknesses in the classification of status/potential according to these quality elements. ·Generally, the assessment of pressures on surface waters for the second RBMPs uses more quantitative data and is more specific to water bodies. However, a relatively high proportion of pressures are still identified as “unknown”. ·Inventories of emissions have been established for all RBDs for 35 of the 41 Priority Substances. Tier 1 of the methodology was used for several substances, including for some of the substances relevant at RBD level, which is not in line with the recommendation from the CIS Guidance Document n°28. Tiers 1+2 was used for other substances. The data quality was uncertain or very uncertain. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status ·There were significant increases in the number of surveillance monitoring sites in all three relevant water categories since the first RBMPs. Operational monitoring sites in coastal waters were reported for the first time in the second RBMPs. However, the number of operational monitoring sites in lakes and rivers decreased. ·There are still significant gaps in the quality elements (QE) monitored for surveillance purposes e.g. morphological conditions and biological quality elements in some water categories and RBDs. ·For River Basin Specific Pollutants, more than 85 % of all water bodies were not monitored and more than 90 % were not classified.

·The selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants seems to rely on expert judgment. The Environmental Quality Standards were set in accordance with Technical Guidance Document n. 27. ·The confidence in classification is reported as low for most of the water bodies that were classified in good ecological status/potential. ·The number of assessment methods for biological quality element increased since the first RBMP for all relevant water categories. ·The number of water bodies in less than good ecological status/potential increased for all water categories in all RBDs, except lakes in the East-Estonian RBD. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies ·Between the two RBMPs, there was a large decrease in the proportion of surface water bodies with good chemical status from 99 % to 10 % and a significant increase in the proportion with unknown status from 0 to 88 %. This results from changes in the assessment methodology and from the increase in the number of priority substances monitored. These changes led to a more robust assessment of chemical status compared to the first RBMP, although in a limited proportion of water bodies. ·All territorial waters and almost all coastal water bodies were monitored but only about 20 % of inland water bodies were monitored. The status of the non-monitored was unknown. ·All water bodies classified were associated with medium confidence in the classification. ·In two of the three RBDs, 39 of the 41 Priority Substances were monitored in water. Monitoring was performed for only four substances in the Koiva RBD. All substances identified as discharged were monitored (however not all Priority Substances are included in the inventories, so it is unclear whether all discharged substances were identified). The frequency of monitoring was lower than the recommended minimum frequencies for a large majority of substances. ·Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexabutadiene were monitored in biota for status assessment but only in what seems to be a very limited number of sites in coastal and territorial waters, in two of the three RBDs. The frequency of monitoring met the recommended minimum frequency in a majority of monitoring sites. No biota monitoring was performed in the Koiva RBD. ·Trend monitoring in sediment and/or biota covered several 11 of the 14 required Priority Substances in two of the three RBDs, and the number of water bodies monitored appears to be very limited. The monitoring was performed at the recommended minimum frequency at some but not all sites. No trend monitoring was reported in the Koiva RBD. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical and quantitative status of groundwater bodies ·There are 39 groundwater bodies in Estonia with no monitoring for quantitative status. According to information subsequently provided by Estonia, there is quantitative groundwater monitoring, which was not reported, but not yet covering all groundwater bodies. ·Groundwater dependent ecosystems and groundwater associated surface waters have now been considered in the assessment. ·Not all groundwater bodies at risk are covered by operational monitoring and not all substances causing risk are covered. ·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential ·The methodology for heavily modified water bodies designation includes criteria for assessing substantial changes in character, general criteria for the assessment of significant adverse effects and provides general information on the assessment of better environmental options (“other means”). However, information has not been found on the outcomes of the assessment of significant adverse effects and of better environmental options for all individual heavily modified water bodies. ·For the second RBMPs, a method for defining good ecological potential has been developed at national level. This has been defined mostly in terms of hydromorphology with biology being used to a limited extent. In the first RBMPs good ecological potential was not defined. ·Environmental objectives and exemptions

·Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies have been reported in all RBDs as well as for chemical and quantitative status of groundwater. Information is also provided on when the objectives will be achieved. ·WFD exemptions have not been applied and justified for groundwater chemical status although not all groundwater bodies are in good status in 2015. ·There is still a lack of clear criteria for the application of "technical feasibility", "disproportionate costs" and "natural conditions". ·Programme of Measures ·With regard to the PoM, significant progress has been made, particularly in reducing uncertainties, reporting costs of measures, and in identifying the gap to good status. Cost-Effectiveness analysis has been introduced to aid in the selection of measures. ·For surface waters, KTMs were reported as operational for all significant pressures causing failure of objectives, and for most significant pressures in groundwater. Specific measures were reported to be operational under each of these KTMs. KTMs to address River Basin Specific Pollutants causing a risk of failure in surface water are needed in the East-Estonian RBD and Koiva RBDs. ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity ·Water abstraction pressures are not reported as relevant for Estonia, with only one RBD (East-Estonian) having 5 % of groundwater bodies in bad quantitative status. ·The Water Exploitation Index+ is not calculated, but water quantity data have been reported. ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture ·There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. At the time of PoM drafting a specific so-called second phase of the pressure analysis and risk assessment had been carried out. During this additional pressure analysis, mapped pressure sources were associated with the status of the water body and the quality elements causing the less-than-good status. ·Agricultural measures are mostly mandatory and their level of ambition appears limited. ·General binding rules in line with Article 11(3)(h) WFD to control diffuse pollution are applied in all basins. ·Mandatory safeguard zones are established around protection areas that are used or intended to be used for drinking water. ·Financing of measures is secured in all basins. ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture ·In the context of this topic, Estonia reported only generic measures in relation to the Priority Substances and other pollutants causing failure, and most of them were of an information-gathering nature. ·Many of the surface water bodies suffering pressures from urban wastewater discharges are predicted to achieve good status only by 2027, mostly as a result of phosphorus. The level of compliance and timing to reach compliance are not addressed in detail within the RBMPs, although a separate action plan is said to outline the cost of measures and the deadlines as regards improvements to urban waste water treatment. ·Measures related to hydromorphology ·Several hydromorphological measures are clearly reported to address significant hydromorphological pressures in the second cycle, while in the first RBMPs, no hydromorphological measures at all had been identified by the time of adoption of the RBMPs.

·Ecological flows have been derived for all relevant water bodies in all RBDs but they have been partially implemented, with relevant work still ongoing. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies ·In relation to Article 9, environmental and resource costs are not fully covered. ·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) ·Additional individual objectives for protected Birds and Habitat Areas have not been set. ·Adaptation to drought and climate change ·Climate change was considered in all RBDs, on the basis of the Common Implementation Strategy guidance document on how to adapt to climate change. No Drought Management Plans were developed.

Recommendations ·Estonia should include clear information in national RBMPs on international coordination efforts in order to increase transparency. ·Estonia should continue to improve international cooperation, including coordinated assessments of the technical aspects of the WFD such as ensuring a harmonized approach for status assessment and a coordinated PoM in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. ·Estonia needs to delineate adequately transitional water bodies or provide a clear explanation for their non-existence. ·Work on the identification of pressures and their apportionment among sectors needs to continue, as several of them are reported as unknown. This is necessary so that adequate measures can be put in place. ·Reference conditions need to be established for all relevant Quality Elements for all surface waters. ·Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances need to be completed. ·Estonia should further improve monitoring of surface water to ensure meeting WFD requirements, as there are still significant gaps and there has been a decrease in the number of operational monitoring sites in lakes and rivers. Monitoring should cover all relevant quality elements in all water categories both in surveillance and operational monitoring. Monitoring frequencies should be in line with the minimum recommended frequency, especially for surveillance monitoring, unless adequately justified. ·Estonia should have a clear and transparent method for the selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and provide clear information on how their status is determined. Estonia should develop, for all River Basin Specific Pollutants, Environmental Quality Standards that meet the minimum requirements for the protection of freshwater and marine ecosystems from possible adverse effects, as well as of human health. ·Estonia should continue and step up efforts to assess the status of all water bodies. Monitoring should be performed in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage (including in biota), to reach sufficient confidence in the assessment for all water bodies, if necessary in combination with robust extrapolation/grouping methods. If a different matrix or reduced frequencies are used, the corresponding explanations should be provided, as required by the Directive. ·Trend monitoring should be further improved to ensure that all the relevant substances specified in Directive 2008/105/EC are monitored in a way that provides sufficient spatial coverage and temporal resolution, in all RBDs. ·Estonia needs to continue working towards a cleared status assessment and improved level of confidence for groundwater bodies through better operational monitoring.

·The review of the assessment of groundwater status needs to be completed. ·Efforts need to be continued to fully meet all the requirements of Article 4(3) in a transparent way. Significant adverse effects on the use or the wider environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options need to be defined and specified. This will ensure transparency in the process of designation and objective setting. ·If water bodies are failing to achieve the WFD environmental objectives, exemptions need to be justified. Estonia did not apply WFD exemptions for the chemical status of groundwater bodies although not all groundwater bodies are in good status, but applied exemptions according to the Groundwater Directive. The understanding of the different nature of exemptions according to the WFD and Groundwater Directive needs to be improved and exemptions properly applied. ·Estonia should continue to improve transparency and uncertainty in the justification of exemptions by developing and applying clear criteria for technical feasibility, disproportionate costs and natural conditions for the application of Article 4(4). These need to be clearly distinguishable from the criteria and justifications for the application of Article 4(5) exemptions. ·A thorough assessment of proposed new modifications should be ensured in line with the requirements of the WFD and as further specified by the Judgment of the Court in case C-461/13. The RMBPs should clarify whether impacts of proposed new projects were assessed. In case of expected deterioration or non-achievement of good status/potential ensure that the project can only be authorised in case the specific conditions as outlined in WFD Article 4(7) are fulfilled. All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) for individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project phase as possible which will allow for improved transparency. ·In the third RBMPs, Estonia should clearly state to what extent, in terms of area covered and pollution risk mitigated, basic measures (minimum requirements to be complied with) or supplementary measures (designed to be implemented in addition to basic measures) will contribute to achieving the WFD objectives and identify sources of funding (e.g. CAP Pillar 1, RDP), as appropriate, to facilitate successful implementation of these measures. Explicit links in the RBMPs between the WFD and supporting programmes and instruments (e.g. ND, RDP etc.) need to be ensured and both nitrogen and phosphorus shall be included in the general binding rules. ·Estonia should take a more ambitious approach to tackling non-agricultural pollution by identifying substance-specific measures that go beyond information-gathering actions, and by assessing the effectiveness of planned measures and applying supplementary measures where necessary to achieve the objectives. ·Estonia should continue its efforts to establish ecological flows for all relevant water bodies, and ensure its implementation as soon as possible. ·Estonia should continue prioritising the use of green infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements in water quality, flood protection, habitat conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. ·Cost recovery should be applied for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies. Any exemption should be justified using Article 9(4). Estonia should also present in a transparent manner how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. The water-pricing policy should be set out in a transparent fashion and a clear overview of estimated investments and investment needs should be provided. ·There seems to be little or no progress on the assessment on the water requirements of Birds and Habitat Directives Protected Areas in order to achieve favourable conservation status. Further work is needed to address this issue.



Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 1.1.1Administrative arrangements – river basin districts Estonia prepared three River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs), one for each of its River Basin Districts (RBDs): West-Estonian, East-Estonian and Koiva. Two of Estonia's RBDs are part of international RBDs: East-Estonian is part of an international RBD shared with Latvia and Russia (including Lakes Peipsi/Chudkoe and Pihkva/Pskovskoye, shared with Russia); Koiva is part of an international RBD shared with Latvia. 1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities Estonia reports three competent authorities: The Ministry of Environment, the Environmental Board and the Environment Agency. The Ministry of Environment’s main roles are: enforcement of regulations; economic analysis; preparation of the RBMP and PoM; public participation, and; coordination of implementation. The main role of the Estonian Environmental Board is the implementation of measures. The Estonian Environment Agency is responsible for the monitoring and assessment of groundwater and surface water, pressure and impact analysis and reporting to the Commission. This represents a change from the previous cycle: the 2012 Commission Staff Working Document for the first cycle reports the Ministry of the Environment as the competent authority for all of Estonia's RBDs.

1.1.3River Basin Management Plans – structure and Strategic Environmental Assessments Estonia does not have sub-plans for its RBMPs. Estonia did not report that Strategic Environmental Assessments had been carried out for its RBMPs. 1.1.4Public consultation For all three RBMPs, the public and interested parties were informed by: direct mailing, Internet, invitations to stakeholders, local authorities, media (papers, TV, radio), meetings, printed material and social networking. Documents were available for download and paper copies were available in municipal buildings. Documents were available for the requisite 6 months. There was no international coordination of public participation. For all three RBDs, the following stakeholders were actively involved in the development of the RBMPs: agriculture/farmers, energy/hydropower, fisheries/aquaculture, local/regional authorities, NGOs/nature protection and water supply and sanitation. The mechanisms for active involvement were: the establishment of advisory groups, involvement in drafting and regular exhibitions. For all three RBDs, public consultation had the following impacts: addition of new information, adjustment to specific measures, changes to the selection of measures, commitment to action in the next RBMP cycle and commitment to further research. 1.1.5Integration with the Floods Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive A joint consultation process was carried out for the RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans prepared under the Floods Directive . For West-Estonian and East-Estonian, joint consultation was held with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive . 1.1.6International coordination and cooperation As noted above, East-Estonian is part of an international RBD shared with Latvia and Russia and Koiva is part of international RBD shared with Latvia. For both, Estonia reports that there is an international agreement and a permanent co-operation body in place (designated as category 2). The RBMP for Koiva states that international co-operation with Latvia is based on an agreement between the Estonian and Latvian Ministries of Environment. Areas of cooperation included: characterisation, joint monitoring, pressures/measures assessment, economic analysis and water pricing, and a joint communication strategy and public participation activities. The RBMP for East-Estonian, part of an RBD shared with both Latvia and Russia, does not discuss transboundary cooperation with Latvia. A “roof report” has been prepared for the RBDs shared with Estonia, as Latvia informed: in 2016, Latvian and Estonian experts together produced a background document for the Koiva/Gauja RBD, which among the other things includes measures proposed in both countries. The background document was approved by Estonian and Latvian water directors. Estonia’s co-operation with Russia occurs within the framework of the Joint Committee for Estonian-Russian Transboundary Water Bodies, created in 1997, including two expert groups under the Joint Committee, one for monitoring and assessment and the other for integrated water management. Estonia subsequently clarified that co-operation in the frame of the first expert group includes environmental monitoring and assessment of transboundary water bodies, while the second group’s task is related to issues on transboundary water management and implementation of related measures under RBMPs. The expert groups and the Joint Committee meet at least once per year; their work includes analysis of the implementation of RBMPs. 1.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle The 2012 Commission Staff Working Document for the first cycle reports the Ministry of the Environment as the sole competent authority for all Estonia's RBDs. In the WISE reporting for the second cycle, three bodies are identified: the Ministry of Environment, the Estonian Environment Agency (created in 2013) and the Estonian Environment Board. 1.3Progress with Commission recommendations

·Recommendation: Ensure coherent trans-boundary cooperation in PoMs development (with Latvia). Assessment: The international coordination category for both East-Estonian and Koiva, both shared with Latvia, in the second cycle is the same as that in the first cycle: category 2 (i.e. international agreement and permanent cooperation body in place). Consequently, international Programmes of Measures have not been prepared for these RBDs. The RBMP for Koiva states that international co-operation with Latvia is based on an agreement between the Estonian and Latvian Ministries of Environment. Areas of cooperation included: characterisation, joint monitoring, pressures/measures assessment, economic analysis/water pricing and a joint communication strategy and public participation activities. The RBMP for East-Estonian, part of an RBD shared with both Latvia and Russia, does not discuss transboundary cooperation with Latvia. In 2016, however, Estonian and Latvian officials prepared a “roof report” for the Koiva/Gauja RBD, which among other topics discussed measures in the national RBMPs. Consequently, Estonia has partially implemented the recommendation.



Topic 2 Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1.Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.1.1.Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies Overall, the number of surface water bodies remained largely the same between the first and second RBMPs ( Table 2.1 ). New territorial water bodies were delineated in the West-Estonian and East-Estonian RBDs for the second RBMP. In the second RBMP, 74 % of identified surface water bodies were natural, 20 % were designated as heavily modified and 6 % as artificial water bodies. The situation was fairly similar in the first RBMPs, as shown in Figure 2.1 . The water uses and physical alterations have been reported for each heavily modified water body category. For groundwater bodies, there was a 50 % increase in total number from the first to the second RBMPs, with this increase seen across all RBDs ( Table 2.3 ). Across all three RBDs a total of 13 groundwater bodies were added to the 26 groundwater bodies initially delineated in the first RBMPs. It is explained that the objective of establishing a larger number of smaller bodies of groundwater was to better organise the protection of their chemical and quantitative status. Based on the information found in the RBMPs, groundwater bodies that were not previously delineated according to the boundaries of the RBD are now delineated clearly within the RBDs. In terms of groundwater pressure sources, they have been more thoroughly mapped and identified in the second cycle, making it possible to better delineate groundwater bodies. In addition, new groundwater bodies were delineated in areas where more than 10 m3 per day was abstracted from the aquifer but where a groundwater body had not previously been delineated. The delineation of the groundwater bodies and description of boundaries and hydrogeological conceptual models has been compiled in accordance with the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance n. 26, "Risk Assessment and the Use of Conceptual Models for Groundwater" (2011) . Better knowledge and conceptual understanding of groundwater was achieved in the second RBMPs thanks to the work done in 2012 "Description of the boundaries of groundwater bodies and the development of hydrogeological conceptual models of groundwater bodies", as explained in the RBMPs. In particular, Estonia has considered the hydrostratigraphic position of the water layers, the location in terms of the RBDs, the coastline and the state border. Table 2.1 Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Estonia for the second and first cycles Year RBD Lakes Rivers Coastal waters Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total length of water body (km) Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies 2016 EE1 41 71 358 6,078 14 12,965 2016 EE2 41 1,898 268 5,152 2 1,553 2016 EE3 7 8 19 364 0 0 2016 Total 89 1,978 645 11,594 16 14,518 2010 EE1 41 71 358 6,320 14 12,949 2010 EE2 40 1,885 267 5,413 2 1,552 2010 EE3 8 9 20 374 0 0 2010 Total 89 1,966 645 12,106 16 14,501 Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in Estonia designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first cycles. NB - the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category. Source: WISE electronic reporting

Table 2.2 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies between the second and first cycles. The size distribution largely remained the same between the two cycles. The minimum size criteria reported were 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and 0.5 km2 surface area for lakes. Table 2.2 Size distribution of surface water bodies in Estonia in the second and first cycles Year Lake area (km2) River length (km) Coastal (km2) RBD Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average 2016 EE1 0.2 9.41 1.74 2.62 4.16 3.39 42.3 5,549.09 926.07 2016 EE2 0.02 1,511.55 46.3 0.7 18.21 6.61 596.08 956.77 776.42 2016 EE3 0.12 2.33 1.16 2010 EE1 0.2 9.41 1.74 2.63 4.16 3.4 42.18 5,543.93 924.95 2010 EE2 0.02 1,495.69 47.13 0.58 17.89 5.02 596.19 956.04 776.12 2010 EE3 0.11 2.33 1.15 Source: WISE electronic reporting Table 2.3 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Estonia for the second and first cycles Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 EE1 16 1.4 20,501.46 3,653.55 2016 EE2 20 8.9 11,811.44 2,617.75 2016 EE3 3 172.31 1,309.03 738.8 2016 Total 39 2010 EE1 10 117 20,547.00 6,088.20 2010 EE2 14 25 13,024.00 4,160.93 2010 EE3 2 446 1,334.00 890 2010 Total 26 Source: WISE electronic reporting. Table 2.4 summarises the information reported by Estonia on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles. It shows that the main changes were for groundwater bodies with the aggregation of water bodies and the creation of new ones. Table 2.4 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in Estonia between the second and first cycles Type of water body change for second cycle Groundwater Body Lake Water Body River Water Body Coastal Water Body Aggregation 12 Splitting 8 Aggregation and splitting 13 Change in code 4 Extended area Creation 2 Deletion 26 No change 89 645 16 Total water bodies before deletion 65 89 645 16 Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 39 Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.2.Identification of transboundary water bodies Transboundary river water bodies have been designated for each RBD, transboundary lake water bodies in East-Estonian and Koiva and one transboundary coastal water body in West-Estonian. No transboundary groundwater bodies have been identified. The delineation of transboundary surface water bodies with neighbouring Latvia (Koiva RBD) was one of the objectives of a project (Gauja/Koiva project in the years 2011-2013) that has been mentioned in the RBMP. There is no explicit information in the East-Estonian RBMP about the delineation of transboundary water bodies with Russia. 2.1.3.Typology of surface water bodies The number of surface water body types appears to have decreased overall by about 20 % between the first and second RBMPs ( Table 2.5 ). 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 Estonia in all of the RBDs do not appear to have corresponding intercalibration types: three coastal water body, five lake water body and two river water body types. For the Koiva RBD (shared with Latvia) typologies were adjusted for transboundary surface water bodies under the 2011-2013 project. One of the recommendations of the project was to adjust the typology and the classification of the quality between the two countries. This is on-going work that will continue in the third cycle. For the East-Estonian RBD (shared with Russia) there is no evidence that the typology has been coordinated with Russia. Table 2.5 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Estonia for the first and second cycles

RBD Rivers Lakes Coastal 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 EE1 9 5 3 5 3 5 EE2 9 6 3 7 0 1 EE3 12 5 4 3 3 0 TOTAL 7 8 6 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. 2.1.4.Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Estonia with reference conditions. Type-specific reference conditions have been established for some or all relevant biological quality elements and all physicochemical quality elements. Type-specific reference conditions do not appear to have been established for hydromorphological quality elements in rivers but have been established for 50 % of types in lakes. In the second RBMPs there is no information about the coordination of the identification of type-specific reference conditions with neighbouring countries. It is stated in the RBMPs that coordination of the approaches and methods of the main aspects of water management plans would be an objective to be addressed possibly in future projects (for the third cycle). Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types in Estonia 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 (8) All 100% Some 100% 50% None 50% Rivers (7) All 100% Some 100% 100% None Coastal (6) All 100% 100% Some None 100% Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.5.Characteristics 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, is reported. Further characterisation work has been reported since the first cycle with the inclusion of the assessment of linkages to surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems. 2.1.6.Significant pressures and impacts on water bodies For surface waters, in the second RBMPs, unknown anthropogenic pressure was reported for 71 % of water bodies. The most significant pressures on surface water bodies were reported to be dams, barriers and locks affecting 25 % of water bodies ( Figure 2 .2). In the first RBMPs, Estonia only reported pressures at an aggregated level making it difficult to compare reporting of pressures between the two cycles. There has been an apparent increase in hydromorphological pressures ( Figure 2.3 ) and unknown anthropogenic pressures (or other pressures). For groundwater bodies, “no significant pressure” was reported for 77 % of groundwater bodies. The most significant pressures reported were point - contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites (15 %), diffuse - contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites (13 %), point - waste disposal sites (13 %) and diffuse - discharges not connected to sewerage network (13 %) ( Figure 2.2 ). In the second RBMPs it was reported that nine pressures were not assessed for surface waters, including introduced species and diseases. The criteria for the identification of pressures have been described more specifically in a background document of the second RBMPs. The basis for the distribution of pressures in Estonia was an indicative list of potential pressure sources presented in the Guidance for reporting under the WFD.



Figure 2.2 The 10 most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in Estonia for the second cycle

Source: WISE electronic reporting In the second RBMPs, the most significant impact on surface water bodies was classified as an “unknown impact type” (67 % of water bodies ), followed by altered habitats due to morphological changes (21 %). The situation was similar in groundwater bodies, with 77 % of water bodies with reported impacts classified as unknown . Estonia did not report on impacts in the first RBMPs. In the second RBMPs a relatively high proportion of pressures are still classified as “unknown”. It is explained that in these cases the reason for the poor status is unclear or unknown and the pressure sources for the water body are uncertain. The RBMPs reported that investigative monitoring in the catchment areas with unknown impacts is planned, which will help provide an overview of the water body and the pressures, after which further steps would be taken to improve the status of the water body to good. Figure 2.3 Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Estonia in the first and second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. NB - there were 750 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 754 for the first cycle Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 2.4 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Estonia for the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.7.Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface waters For surface waters, a combination of both expert judgement and numerical tools were used for defining pressures from point sources, diffuse, abstraction and other significant pressures. The significance of pressure sources was determined in the first RBMPs using mostly expert judgment. For the second RBMPs more quantitative data was used such as data from land and water use. In the second RBMPs, the pressures assessment was more precisely presented, by water body, rather than generalised, identifying the pressures on the basis of the boundary of the catchment area and the geographic location of the pressure sources. Significance of pressures is reported to have been defined in terms of thresholds. Pressures have been assessed on the basis of the following categories: point sources, diffuse sources, water abstraction, water flow regulation or morphological alterations, use of surface water bodies and use of coastal water. To determine pressure sources, including significant ones, the risk of not achieving the environmental objectives for water bodies due to various pressure sources was analysed, taking into account the trends affecting pressure sources and the likelihood of the trend development. The probable vulnerability to pressures was classified as: at risk, possibly at risk, and not at risk. The risk was reported to be based on two aspects: 1) whether or not the environmental objectives have been achieved; and 2) identifying the pressures from human activity that caused the failure to achieve the environmental objectives. The mapped pressure sources were then linked to the status of the water body and to quality elements displaying poor status. As a result of the analysis, it was determined whether the effect of the pressure source actually influences the status of the water body. It is stated in the RBMPs that a clear link was established between the status and pressure sources. 2.1.8.Definition and assessment of significant pressures on groundwater For groundwater it was reported that a combination of expert judgement and numerical tools were used to define diffuse and point source pressures, abstractions and artificial recharge. Information about the tools used to define significant pressures on groundwater bodies is provided in the available background document "Programme of measures and actions to reduce pressures that cause risk of damage and poor status of groundwater bodies" (2015). A significant pressure on a groundwater body is defined as a pressure from human activity, which may deteriorate the status of the groundwater body. Conceptual models together with hydrogeological models and expert judgement were used. The significance of pressures is reported to be defined in terms of thresholds. The list of polluting substances that are a risk to groundwater and their thresholds were reported not to have changed since the first RBMPs. The significance of pressures is reported not to be linked to the potential failure of objectives. 2.1.9.Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status

In two of the three RBDs, 13-45 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing to meet good chemical status. The pollutants putting groundwater bodies at risk of failing good chemical status have been reported. In two of the three RBDs 19-25 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing to meet good quantitative status. 2.1.10.Quantification of gap to be filled and apportionment of pressures The Priority Substances and other substances causing failure of good chemical status have been reported. Measures to tackle these substances to achieve good status by 2021 have been reported and the indicator gap is reported to be zero (i.e. good status to be reached) for all substances. 2.1.11.Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards 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 (or suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for priority substances. Estonia reported that 35 of the 41 Priority Substances and groups of Priority Substances were included in the inventories for each RBD. The Priority Substances and groups of priority substances not included in any of the inventories were: tetrachloroethylene, the group of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene, cyclodiene pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, isodrin), and DDT (total DDT and DDT-p,p’). The two-step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 has been followed for all substances considered in the inventories. Tier 1 of the methodology was implemented for most of the substances included in the inventories (including some substances deemed relevant at RBD level). For a limited number of substances a combination of Tier 1 (point source information) and Tier 2 (riverine load) was implemented. The data quality was assessed as uncertain or very uncertain. The reasons for the inventory not being complete for all Priority Substances and pollutants are presented in the Annex 2 of the RBMPs. It was reported that the information on substances not included was insufficient during the reference period (2008-2010). The following reasons were listed: 1) no information on the quantities of substances, both in terms of imports and usage; 2) no information on the content of hazardous substances in products; 3) insufficient monitoring data (due to the high cost of analyses and results below the limit of detection); 4) unclear effects on the aquatic biota; 5) information obtained about hazardous substances from the environmental permits during the reference period was limited. 2.2.Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle Overall the number of surface water bodies remained the same between the first and second RBMPs. For groundwater bodies there was a 50 % increase in total number between the first and second RBMPs. In the second cycle, 74 % of identified surface water bodies were natural with 20 % being designated as heavily modified and 6 % as artificial water bodies. This is similar to the first cycle. The number of surface water body types appears to have decreased overall by about 20 % between the first and second RBMPs. In the first RBMPs, Estonia only reported pressures at an aggregated level and therefore it is difficult to compare reporting of pressures between the two cycles. Since the first RBMPs there has been an apparent increase in hydromorphological pressures and unknown anthropogenic pressures (or other pressures) for surface water bodies. 2.3.Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first PoM requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle. ·Recommendation: Focus in the second RBMP on better linking pressures to impacts and measures, including by source apportionment, and provide a clear assessment of how many of the pressures (and their sources) have to be reduced to achieve the WFD goals. ·Recommendation: Describe clearly in the second RBMPs how status will be derived for non- monitored water bodies and to restrict and streamline the use of expert judgement. Assessment: In the first RBMPs, Estonia only reported pressures at an aggregated level, which makes it difficult to compare reporting of pressures between the first and second RBMPs. There has been an apparent increase in hydromorphological pressures and unknown anthropogenic pressures (or other pressures). In the second RBMPs a relatively high proportion of pressures are still classified as “unknown”. It is explained that in these cases the reason for the poor status is unclear or unknown and the pressure sources for the water body are uncertain. The RBMPs reported that investigative monitoring in the catchment areas with unknown impacts is planned, which will help provide an overview of the water body and the pressures, after which further steps would be taken to improve the status of the water body to good. The relatively high proportion of pressures that were classed as “unknown” and the fact that further monitoring data is reported to be required, indicates that further improvement should be made in defining pressures and impacts and linking them together. For both surface waters and groundwater bodies, the significance of pressures is reported to be defined in terms of thresholds but not to be linked to the potential failure of objectives. However, the RBMPs show that there is a link to status in the assessment of significance for both surface water and groundwater. The RBMPs also show that the methods for determining significance for the second RBMPs are based on more quantitative tools compared with the first RBMPs. For groundwater, conceptual models together with hydrogeological models and expert judgement were used.

Several of the national types for Estonia in all of the RBDs do not appear to have corresponding intercalibration types; three coastal water body, five lake water body and two river water body types. Partial progress has been made on this recommendation. ·Recommendation: Finalise the setting of all reference conditions for the purpose of the second RBMP; any gap (i.e. lake diatoms) should be explained in the second RBMPs. Assessment: Type-specific reference conditions have been established for some or all relevant biological quality elements and all physicochemical quality elements. Type-specific reference conditions do not appear to have been established for hydromorphological quality elements in rivers but have been established for 50 % of types in lakes. Therefore there still appears to be some gaps in the setting of all reference conditions. ·Recommendation: Improve the assessment of hydromorphological significant pressures taking into account all significant alterations, e.g. drainage, infrastructure, barriers etc. Assessment: Significant hydromorphological pressures have been taken into account in the reporting of significant pressures and account for 24 % in total. However, there are some specific categories that have been excluded from the assessment, including: Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore – Navigation, Dams, barriers and locks – Navigation, Hydrological alteration – Transport, Hydrological alteration – Aquaculture, and Hydromorphological alteration - Physical loss of whole or part of the water body. No reasons for these exclusions are provided in the RBMPs. Generally the assessment of pressures on surface waters for the second RBMP uses more quantitative data and is specific to water bodies. The recommendation has partially been fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Cover diffuse sources in the inventory of pollution sources elaborated in the second RBMPs to the highest extent possible (e.g. agricultural sources of cadmium, pesticides; storm water run-off, etc.). Assessment: Estonia reported that 35 of the 41 Priority Substances and groups of Priority Substances were included in the inventories for each RBD. The reasons for the inventory not being complete for all Priority Substances and pollutants are presented in the Annex 2 of the RBMPs. It was reported that the information on substances not included was insufficient during the reference period (2008-2010). The inventory itself is not available in the main reports of the RBMPs (probably because of the large file size), instead it is available on the website of the Ministry of the Environment. For many substances, only point sources have been considered when establishing the inventory, while diffuse sources were not considered. This recommendation has not been fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Estonia needs to complete the identification of sources of chemical pollution, to enable effective measures to be put in place to reduce chemical pollution for Priority Substances, and other pollutants, and then progressively reduce and phase-out priority hazardous substances where relevant. Assessment: As regards the completion of the inventories of emissions, and the sources taken into account, see recommendation above. While not all substances are included in the inventories, and not all sources were taken into account, the Priority Substances and other substances identified as causing failure of good chemical status have been reported, as well as measures to tackle these substances to achieve good status by 2021. The indicator gap is reported to be zero (i.e. good status will be reached by 2021) for all substances. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1.Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second RBMPs 3.1.1. Monitoring of ecological status/potential Monitoring programmes

Article 8(1) of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. Separate operational and surveillance monitoring programmes were reported for each RBD, though the operational programme for the Koiva RBD was reported not to be relevant to any water category. The operational programme in the West Estonian RBD did not include lakes even though such water bodies were delineated in this RBD. Monitoring sites Table 3.1 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMPs and Table 3.2 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes from the first to the second RBMPs. Table 3.2 shows that there are many more monitoring sites included in the surveillance monitoring programme than in the operational monitoring programme for rivers and lakes. Table 3.1 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in Estonia. Monitoring Purpose Lakes Rivers Coastal Territorial OPE - Operational monitoring 7 72 34 0 SUR - Surveillance monitoring 360 315 128 10 Total sites irrespective of purpose 367 387 162 10 Source: WISE electronic reporting



Table 3.2 Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Estonia for the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported for the first plans, the data for the second RBMPs does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring Rivers Lakes Coastal Territorial Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv Op. Surv. Op. Second RBMP EE_1 182 50 102 0 121 24 0 5 EE_2 129 22 231 7 7 10 0 5 EE_3 4 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 Total by type of site 315 72 360 7 128 34 10 0 Total number of monitoring sites 387 367 162 10 First RBMP EE_1 101 26 36 2 47 0 0 0 EE_2 84 56 65 26 8 0 0 0 EE_3 4 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 Total by type of site 189 83 109 28 55 0 0 0 Total number of monitoring sites 272 137 55 0 Source: Member States electronic reports to WISE. Overall in Estonia there were significant increases in the number of surveillance monitoring sites in coastal waters (55 to 128 sites), lakes (109 to 360 sites) and rivers (189 to 315 sites) from the first to the second RBMPs. 10 monitoring sites were also reported for territorial waters for the second RBMPs. In contrast there were decreases in the number of operational monitoring sites in lakes (28 to 7 sites) and rivers (83 to 72 sites). There were no operational monitoring sites in coastal waters in the first plans but in the second plans 34 sites were reported. No operational monitoring sites were reported in lakes in the Western Estonian and Koiva RBDs, and in rivers in the Koiva RBD, in spite of significant pressures on the water bodies in these categories and RBDs having been reported, and some water bodies being at less than good status/potential. Figure 3.1 shows the percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Estonia for the first RBMPs and second RBMPs. Figure 3.1 Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Estonia for the first RBMPs (2010) and second RBMPs (2016). Note no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring. Source: WISE electronic reporting Overall in Estonia the number of delineated coastal, lakes and river water bodies remained the same between the two plans, though there were small increases (one water body) and equivalent decreases in the numbers delineated in some RBDs and water categories. All coastal water bodies were included in surveillance monitoring for both plans. A smaller proportion of lakes and a larger proportion of rivers were included in surveillance monitoring for the second RBMPs compared to the first. For the first plan no coastal water bodies were included in operational monitoring, while for the second plan 31 % were included. However, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of lake water bodies (15 % to 3 %) and river water bodies (11 % to 5 %) included in operational monitoring for the second RBMP compared to the first.

Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring in Estonia. For coastal water bodies (there are none at high status) all water bodies in each class are monitored. Figure 3.2 Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring in Estonia. Note: Standard colours and class descriptors for ecological status based on WFD Annex V, Article 1(4)2(I) used for illustration purposes. Source: WISE electronic reporting A differentiated presentation between ecological status and potential and including all types of quality element can be viewed here - https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement_Status_Compare/SWB_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false&:showVizHome=no In two RBDs (West-Estonian and Koiva) no lakes in less than good ecological status/potential were included in operational monitoring, and in the Koiva RBD none of the three river water bodies in less than good status/potential were included in operational monitoring. Water bodies with a poor or bad status in the last two years were selected for monitoring. Water bodies for which required measures are known or being already implemented to achieve the necessary status were excluded, according to information in the RBMPs . This would indicate that there is no control of the efficiency of measures, and no follow up of the gradual improvement towards good status . Most lake water bodies in each class are monitored. For rivers, all water bodies in bad status are monitored, as well as 72 % in poor status, whereas 50 % or less river water bodies in moderate, good or high status are monitored. Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) Table 3.3 shows the quality elements used for the monitoring of lakes and rivers for the second RBMPs; no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. For the first RBMPs all relevant quality elements (biological, general physicochemical and hydromorphological) were being monitored in rivers but for lakes and coastal waters some quality elements were missing (phytobenthos in some lake types; morphological conditions and tidal regime in coastal waters). For the second RBMPs macroalgae and angiosperms are not monitored in coastal waters though phytobenthos (normally associated with rivers and lakes) are reported to be monitored . Morphological conditions are not monitored and all required general physicochemical quality elements are monitored in coastal waters. All relevant biological and general physicochemical quality elements are reported to be monitored in lakes but morphological conditions are not monitored. All relevant biological and general physicochemical quality elements are reported to be monitored in most rivers but morphological conditions are not monitored at all in any of them. In addition, macrophytes are not monitored in two of the three RBDs with rivers. The proportion of river water bodies monitored for the different biological quality elements is low (20-30 %), while it is much higher in lakes and coastal waters (50-100 %). Table 3.3 Quality elements monitored for the second RBMPs in Estonia (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). Note: quality elements may be used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring Biological quality elements Phytoplankton Macrophytes Phytobenthos Angiosperms Macroalgae Benthic invertebrates Fish Other species Lakes Yes Yes Yes (Yes) Yes Yes Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Coastal Yes Yes No (Yes) No (Yes) Yes Hydromorphological quality elements Hydrological or tidal regime Continuity conditions Morphological conditions Lakes Yes No (Yes) Rivers Yes No (Yes) No (Yes) Coastal Yes No General physicochemical quality elements Transparency conditions Thermal conditions Oxygenation conditions Salinity conditions Acidification status Nitrogen conditions Phosphorus Conditions Silicate Other determinand for nutrient conditions Lakes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No (Yes) Rivers Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No (Yes) Coastal Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Source: WISE electronic reporting Estonia subsequently noted that additional monitoring should have been reported. The missing quality elements are shown in brackets. In the surveillance monitoring programme for coastal waters, there are no water bodies where all the required biological quality elements are included. However, for rivers and lakes, the situation seems better with 65-70 % of the water bodies monitored for all the required biological quality elements. None of the water bodies included in surveillance monitoring in any category or RBD was monitored for all the required hydromorphological quality elements. 63 % of lake water bodies included in surveillance monitoring were monitored for all required physicochemical quality elements, but this is not the case for any of river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring.

For operational monitoring, three biological quality elements were used in coastal waters: phytoplankton, phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates, while phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates and fish were used in lakes. The predominantly used biological quality element in rivers was benthic invertebrates, followed by phytobenthos and fish. The frequency of monitoring was not in line with the minimum recommended frequencies for almost all monitored water bodies for the different biological quality elements in rivers and coastal waters. This was better for lakes, where 20-30 % of the monitored water bodies had at least the minimum recommended frequencies for the different biological quality elements. River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored Estonia did not report at the generic quality element level whether River Basin Specific Pollutants are monitored; however, information was reported at the site level on which specific chemical substances are monitored. Member States were not asked explicitly to report in their electronic reports to WISE which specific River Basin Specific Pollutants had been identified or which ones are specifically monitored. The information on which ones are monitored in surface waters was obtained from the reported monitored chemical substances that are not Priority Substances: it is assumed that these are River Basin Specific Pollutants. On this basis 117 River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored in Estonia as a whole: 18 substances in fish, 52 in settled sediment and 116 in water. They were monitored in coastal, lake, river and also territorial waters ( Table 3.4 ). However, more than 90 % of all water bodies are not assessed for River Basin Specific Pollutants, and more than 85 % are not monitored for these substances. Environmental quality standards are developed only for water, and not for sediment or biota. It is unclear how other monitored River Basin Specific pollutants are assessed in the absence of Environmental Quality Standards. 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 Estonia. Note the data from both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and also not all Member State reported information at the site level meaning that there were no equivalent data for the first RBMPs RBMP Lakes Rivers Coastal Territorial second Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 94 140 47 0 first Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants ND ND ND ND Sources: WISE electronic reporting ND = no data The analytical methods used were reported to comply with the requirements of Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/90/EC for all substances monitored for which there are environmental quality standards. Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements: once every three months is recommended for “other pollutants” which are taken here to equate to river basin specific pollutants. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a RBMP i.e. six years. For river basin specific pollutants this should be done four times for the surveillance year, and for operational monitoring four times a year for each year of the cycle. Of the 109 River Basin Specific Pollutants included in surveillance monitoring, two were monitored at least at the recommended minimum frequency at all sites where they were monitored, while for 85 pollutants no sites were monitored at least at the minimum recommended frequency. Of the 46 River Basin Specific Pollutants included in operational monitoring, none were monitored at least at the recommended minimum frequency at all sites where they were monitored, and for 37 pollutants none of the monitoring sites were. 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. Of the 18 River Basin Specific Pollutants monitored in fish, none were sampled at least at the recommended frequency at all sites where they were monitored, and for one substance it was at none of the sites. Of the 52 River Basin Specific Pollutants monitored in settled sediment, two were sampled at least at the required frequency at all sites where they were monitored, while for 49 substance it was at none of the sites. Transboundary surface water body monitoring No monitoring sites were reported to be associated with international monitoring networks. Use of monitoring results for classification For coastal waters, the classification of all biological quality elements was based on monitoring results, and the number of classified water bodies was the same as the number directly monitored. For the general physicochemical quality elements, the number of water bodies classified based on monitoring was also the same as those directly monitored. However, only three of these quality elements (transparency, phosphorus and nitrogen) were classified, while also oxygen, salinity, pH and silicate were monitored, but not classified. The hydromorphological quality elements were not classified in coastal waters, but hydrological and tidal regimes were monitored for some water bodies. River Basin Specific Pollutants were not classified, even though some were monitored in coastal waters. For lakes and rivers, the situation was different, with many mismatches between the number of water bodies classified reported to be based on monitoring and the number directly monitored. These mismatches mainly show more classified water bodies based on monitoring than those directly monitored for almost all the biological and hydromorphological quality elements. This is especially apparent for macrophytes and continuity in rivers, and for morphology in lakes. The RBMPs indicate that classification has sometimes been based on older monitoring data, which may explain these mismatches. Conversely, some biological quality elements have been directly monitored but not classified, such as phytobenthos and fish in lakes and phytoplankton in rivers. The same applies to some general physicochemical quality elements, such as oxygen in lakes, and to hydrology in lakes. The RBMPs indicate that this monitoring is done to provide a better basis for developing classification methods, which are missing for those quality elements. For the general physicochemical quality elements nitrogen and phosphorus, a large proportion (~60%) of the river water bodies is classified based on expert judgement. Finally, for River Basin Specific Pollutants, 2 % of lake and 10 % of river water bodies were classified based on monitoring results. 3.1.2.Ecological Status/potential of surface water

The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Estonia for the second RBMPs is illustrated in Map 3.1 . All water bodies have been classified, except one heavily modified river in the East-Estonian RBD. The proportion of water bodies reported to be in good or better ecological status or potential is 60 % for rivers, 67 % for lakes and 13 % for coastal waters. The overall distribution of ecological status/potential classes for all water categories combined are given for each RBD in Map 3.1 . The proportion of water bodies in good or better status is almost the same (60 %) in the two large RBDs (West-Estonian and East-Estonian), while it is higher (75 %) in the smaller Koiva RBD. Map 3.1 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Estonia High Good Moderate Poor Bad Unknown River Basin Districts Countries outside the European Union Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). A differentiated presentation of this data between ecological status and potential and including all types of quality element can be viewed here - https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement_Status_Compare/SWB_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false&:showVizHome=no Figure 3.3 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. Figure 3.3 Confidence in the classification of ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Estonia based on the most recently assessed status/potential Source: WISE electronic reporting The confidence in classification of ecological status is given as high or medium for most lakes and coastal waters water bodies, but low for a larger proportion of river water bodies (62 %). It should be noted that the confidence in classification is reported as low for most of the water bodies classified to be in good ecological status or potential, while the confidence is reported as high for most of the water bodies classified to be in moderate or poor ecological status or potential (Figure 3.3). Information in the RBMPs indicated that the confidence of the status assessment is based on the quality of the data and the length of the period covered by the data, the spatial representativeness of the monitoring program and the variability of the results of the assessment of the different quality elements. The actual criteria used to assess confidence as described in the RBMPs. No information has been found in the RBMPs concerning plans to improve the level of confidence and precision in the classification of ecological status. This is a problem, in particular for water bodies in good status, where the large majority has been assessed with low confidence (40 % of all surface water bodies in Estonia). There is a risk that the proportion of water bodies in good ecological status is overestimated because of the low confidence in the classification of most of those water bodies. Figure 3.4 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies for the first plans with that for the second RBMPs and that expected by 2015. A higher proportion of water bodies were classified as good in the first plans. Figure 3.4 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Estonia for the second RBMPs, for the first RBMPs and expected in 2015. The number in parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for each cycle. Note the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2006 to 2013. The year of the assessment of status for first plans is not known

Source: WISE electronic reporting Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological status/potential. The information for Estonia is shown in Figure 3.5 . Figure 3.5 Expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Estonia. The number in the parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each category Source: WISE electronic reporting Most of the water bodies in Estonia (63 %) were expected to achieve good ecological status or potential by 2015, while the proportion reported to be in good status or potential in the second plans is 59 % based on data before 2013 ( Figure 3.4 ). The expectations are different for lakes than for rivers with 70 % of the lakes expected to achieve good status or potential by 2015, but only 62 % of the rivers. Less than 20 % of coastal water bodies were expected to achieve good status by 2015. The remaining water bodies are expected to achieve good status or potential by 2021 or 2027 ( Figure 3.5 ). No water bodies were reporting as having less stringent objectives already achieved. Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element Figure 3.6 shows the ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of lakes and rivers in Estonia. In rivers, only nutrients are monitored and classified in a high proportion of water bodies, and are reported to be in good or better ecological status for the majority of classified water bodies. The macrophytes, phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates are also in good or better status in the majority of classified water bodies, but the proportion of classified water bodies is less than half of the total number of water bodies. The classification of rivers in good ecological status has low confidence for most of the water bodies, which is probably related to the low confidence criteria, but also with underlying problems with the nutrients classification methods. A high proportion of water bodies are monitored and classified for many biological and general physicochemical quality elements in lakes (phytoplankton, macrophytes and benthic invertebrates, nutrients) and coastal waters (all required biological quality elements, transparency and nutrients). The confidence in classification is high for most of the water bodies in these water categories. In coastal waters, all the biological quality elements except phytoplankton are in good or better ecological status in the majority of the classified water bodies. In lakes, all the classified biological quality elements and nutrients are in good or better ecological status for the majority of the classified water bodies. Four biological quality elements were used in the classification of 15 of the 16 coastal water bodies: phytoplankton gave the “worst” status/potential classification with 60 % of classified water bodies being in less than good status/potential. Three biological quality elements were used in the classification of lakes with macrophytes having the largest proportion (42 %) of classified water bodies in less than good status. For rivers, the ecological status/potential in terms of the four different biological quality elements shows good or even high status for most water bodies classified for these elements, except for fish, which shows less than good status/potential for most (65 %) of the water bodies classified ( Figure 3.6 ). Figure 3.6 Ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of lakes and rivers in Estonia. Note that water bodies with unknown status/potential have been excluded from the figure Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.7 compares the classification of biological quality elements in terms of ecological status/potential for the two cycles. It should be noted that this comparison should be treated with caution as there are differences between the numbers of surface water bodies classified for individual elements from the first to the second RBMPs. This presents a mixed picture, with phytoplankton and macrophytes showing an increased number of surface water bodies at high or good status compared to the first RBMPs and phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates and fish showing a reduced number. Figure 3.7 Comparison of ecological status/potential in Estonia according to classified biological quality elements in rivers and lakes from the first to the second RBMPs. Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 show the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers and lakes in Estonia for the second RBMPs. Figure 3.9 shows that a significant number of lake and coastal water bodies were classified using hydromorphological elements. Biological quality elements were used for classification in the greatest proportion of river water bodies, while River Basin Specific Pollutants were generally not used in the classification.

Figure 3.8 The classification of the ecological status or potential of rivers and lakes in Estonia using one, two, three or four types of quality element. Note: The four types are: biological; hydromorphological, general physicochemical and River Basin Specific Pollutants. Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.9 The percentage of river and lake water bodies in Estonia where no biological quality element or no hydromorphological (HYMO) or no general physicochemical (PHYSCHEM) or no RBSP (River Basin Specific Pollutant) has been used in the classification of ecological status or potential Source: WISE electronic reporting The basis of the classification of the individual quality elements (by monitoring, grouping or expert judgement) is illustrated in Figure 3.10 . Figure 3.10 Basis of the classification of ecological status/potential in Estonia. The percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category. Source: WISE electronic reporting Grouping is not listed as a method for classifying quality elements in any of the RBDs. In summary, the ecological status for many quality elements is reported as unknown, not applicable or monitored but not used in a large number of water bodies (especially in rivers). In rivers, only nutrients are monitored and classified in a high proportion of water bodies, and are reported to be in good or better ecological status for the majority of classified water bodies. The macrophytes, phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates are also in good or better status in the majority of classified water bodies, but the proportion of classified water bodies is less than half of the total number of water bodies. The classification of rivers in good ecological status has low confidence for most of the water bodies, which is probably related to the low confidence criteria, but also with underlying problems with the nutrients classification methods. A high proportion of water bodies are monitored and classified for many biological and general physicochemical quality elements in lakes (phytoplankton, macrophytes and benthic invertebrates, nutrients) and coastal waters (all required biological quality elements, transparency and nutrients). The confidence in classification is high for most of the water bodies in these water categories. In coastal waters, all the biological quality elements except phytoplankton are in good or better ecological status in the majority of the classified water bodies. In lakes, all the classified biological quality elements and the nutrients are in good or high ecological status/potential for the majority of the classified water bodies. The ecological status/potential reported for the different biological quality elements shows good or high status for most of the water bodies classified for these elements, except fish in rivers, which shows moderate or worse status for most of the water bodies classified for fish ( Figure 3.6 ). Assessment methods for the biological quality elements The methods reported for the biological quality elements covers almost all the gaps remaining from the first RBMPs: macrophytes in rivers, phytobenthos and fish in lakes, and macroalgae and angiosperms in coastal waters. However, there are still a few remaining gaps. These are: ·Rivers: The reference conditions of fish in large rivers (Narva River) are not described and there is no indicator of status assessment. The indicator of the large river phytoplankton is reported to be under development. For macrophytes, there is a method, but the class boundaries are currently not intercalibrated. Reference conditions for benthic invertebrates may require corrections for some types. ·Lakes: For fish, the development of an indicator for small lake fish is reported to be underway, the development of indicators reflecting the fish status of the very large lakes Võrtsjärv and Lake Peipus will begin in the near future. The indicator for phytoplankton in the Lake Võrtsjärv needs to be corrected and the indicator for littoral benthic invertebrates of the Peipus shore has been developed, but not yet implemented. ·Coastal waters: Class boundaries for indicators for phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates and phytobenthos methods in the Gulf of Riga are not intercalibrated.

The sensitivity of the different biological quality element methods to different pressures/impacts are reported and consistent with the reported impacts: Phytoplankton and the benthic aquatic flora (macrophytes, phytobenthos, macroalgae and angiosperms) are sensitive to nutrients. Benthic invertebrates are sensitive to nutrients, organic pollution and hydromorphological impacts. Fish is sensitive to nutrients and hydromorphological impacts. Intercalibration of biological quality element methods Only half of the national types are linked to a common intercalibration type. No explicit information has been provided in the RBMPs or background documents regarding the approach used to translate the results from the common intercalibrated types to all other national types. There are also some mismatches between certain typology factors for the national types and the intercalibration types to which they are linked, such as humic substances and size for rivers and exposure for coastal waters. Biological methods for macrophytes and fish in rivers have not yet been intercalibrated, according to the RBMPs and background documents. Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements Hydrological or tidal regime is not assessed in terms of ecological status/potential in rivers, lakes and coastal waters. The morphological conditions of lakes and coastal waters (but not rivers) are reported to be assessed in terms of ecological status/potential and the classification boundaries are related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. River continuity is assessed in terms of ecological status/potential and the classification boundaries are related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. Hydrological conditions are monitored in some rivers and lakes. According to the RBMPs), the reference conditions for the hydromorphological assessment methods are not properly linked to the sensitive biological quality elements in a number of water bodies assumed to be in reference conditions. Assessment methods for general physicochemical quality elements Nutrient and oxygenation conditions and acidification status are assessed in terms of ecological status/potential in in all three water categories and the classification boundaries are related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. The same applies to transparency conditions in lakes and coastal waters. Thermal condition in all three water categories and salinity in coastal waters are also assessed in terms of ecological status/potential but their classification is not related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. Standards were reported for 9 general physicochemical quality elements in rivers indicative of oxygenation conditions, acidification status and nutrient conditions, 12 in lakes indicative of transparency, oxygenation conditions, acidification status and nutrient conditions and 5 in coastal waters indicative of transparency conditions, acidification status and nutrient conditions. All were reported to be consistent with the good‐moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. The standards for general physicochemical quality elements have the same range of values for all water categories and all types. The nutrient standards for total phosphorus are close to the saturation level for nutrient sensitive biological quality elements (0.1 milligrams per litre) but they are still indicated to support good status for these biological quality elements, based on the reporting in WISE. Based on information provided in the RBMPs, however, the general physicochemical standards are not linked to the Good/Moderate boundary for sensitive biological quality elements. It has been acknowledged that there is a lack of a proper analysis of whether the high/good and good/moderate status class boundaries for total nitrogen and total phosphorus correspond to the same class boundaries for phytobenthos (diatoms) and macrophytes in rivers. This analysis is stated to be possible after the implementation of the new monitoring programme. Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of Environmental Quality Standards River Basin Specific Pollutants have been identified based on those identified in other countries and adapted to local conditions using expert judgement. Substances from the oil shale industry, such as phenols and metals have also been identified as River Basin Specific Pollutants. Environmental Quality Standards were reported for 16 River Basin Specific Pollutants in water only. The environmental quality standards were reported to be derived according to the Technical Guidance Document No 27 and the analytical methods used for all substances meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the QA/QC Directive (2009/90/EC) for the strictest standard applied. There is no information on how the River Basin Specific Pollutants were used in the overall classification of ecological status. The environmental quality standard values are reported to be both annual average and maximum allowable concentrations and are applicable at a national scale. Overall classification of ecological status (one-out, all-out principle) The one-out-all-out principle has been reported to be used for the classification of all water bodies, but there is no detailed information on how this was done, for example when some of the biological or supporting quality elements have unknown status. 3.2.Main changes in implementation and compliance since first RBMPs There are a greater number of biological quality element methods developed than in the first RBMPs for all water categories: macrophytes in rivers, phytobenthos and fish in lakes, macroalgae and angiosperms in coastal waters, many general physicochemical quality elements in rivers, lakes and coastal waters, and one hydromorphological quality element in rivers (continuity) and lakes (morphology). In general ecological status/potential has deteriorated since the first RBMPs in terms of a higher proportion of water bodies in less than good status/potential for the second RBMPs than for the first for all water categories in all RBDs, with the exception of lakes in the East-Estonian RBD, where there is a lower proportion in less than good status/potential now than for the first plan. The confidence in classification of ecological status/potential has deteriorated since the first RBMPs for rivers, showing low confidence in 62 % of the cases in the second RBMPs, in contrast to around 45 % in the first RBMPs.

The proportion of surface water bodies expected to achieve good status/potential after 2015 has increased from 20 % in the first plan to 37 % in the second plan. A few water bodies have changed class for the biological quality elements, with changes observed in both directions. However, for fish in rivers most of the changes are to a worse class, while for benthic invertebrates, most of the changes are to the better. None of the biological quality element changes are reported as being consistent, except one lake in the East-Estonian RBD, where all the biological quality elements show a consistent change. The other changes are reported to be due to changes in assessment systems. Environmental quality standard values are reported for water for 16 River Basin Specific Pollutants for rivers and lakes. Overall in Estonia there were significant increases in the number of surveillance monitoring sites in coastal waters (55 to 128 sites), lakes (109 to 360 sites) and rivers (189 to 315 sites) between the two RBMPs. 10 monitoring sites were also reported for territorial waters for the second RBMPs. In contrast there were decreases in the number of operational monitoring sites in lakes (28 to 7 sites) and rivers (83 to 72 sites). There were no operational monitoring sites in coastal waters in the first plans but in the second plans 34 sites were reported. No operational monitoring sites were reported in lakes in the Western Estonian and Koiva RBDs, and in rivers in the Koiva RBD, in spite of significant pressures on the water bodies in these categories and RBDs having been reported, and some water bodies being at less than good status/potential. For the first RBMPs all relevant quality elements (biological, general physicochemical and hydromorphological) were being monitored in rivers but for lakes and coastal waters some quality elements were missing (phytobenthos in some lake types; morphological conditions and tidal regime in coastal waters). For the second RBMPs macroalgae and angiosperms are not monitored in coastal waters though phytobenthos (normally associated with rivers and lakes) are reported to be monitored . Morphological conditions are not monitored and all required general physicochemical quality elements are monitored in coastal waters. All relevant biological and general physicochemical quality elements are reported to be monitored in lakes but morphological conditions are not monitored. All relevant biological and general physicochemical quality elements are reported to be monitored in most rivers but morphological conditions are not monitored at all in any of them. In addition, macrophytes are not monitored in two of the three RBDs with rivers. Therefore in terms of changes since the first plans it seems that there has been deterioration in the monitoring undertaken with morphological conditions not being monitored in any surface water body, and river continuity not monitored in rivers. There are still gaps in the biological quality elements monitored in coastal waters and macrophytes in rivers in two RBDs. Overall in Estonia a smaller proportion of lakes and a larger proportion of rivers were included in surveillance monitoring for the second RBMPs compared to the first. For the first plan no coastal water bodies were included in operational monitoring, while for the second plan 31 % were included. However, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of lake water bodies (15 % to 3 %) and river water bodies (11 % to 5 %) included in operational monitoring for the second RBMP compared to the first. 3.3.Progress with Commission recommendations ·Recommendation: Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measu