EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 49 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Latvia Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans

{COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 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 Plan(s) Recommendations Topic 1 Governance and public participation 1.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 1.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 2 Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 2.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second plans 3.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first plans 3.3 Progress with Commission recommendations

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

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

Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies 14.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance 14.2 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 15 Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 15.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 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 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 RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Water Information System for Europe Annex 0 Member States reported the structured information on the second RBMPs to WISE ( Water Information System for Europe ). Due to the late availability of the reporting guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying what information they were unable to report and the reasons why. This Annex was produced using a template included in the reporting guidance. If Member States reported all the required information, this explanatory note was not necessary.



Foreword The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) requires in its Article 18 that each Member State reports its River Basin Management Plan(s) (RBMPs) to the European Commission. The second plans 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 3 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 river basin districts including sharing countries is provided in Table A: Table A: Overview of Latvia‘s River Basin Districts RBD Name Size (km2) Countries sharing RBD LVDUBA Daugava 27398 BY, LT, RU LVGUBA Gauja 13436 EE LVLUBA Lielupe 9258 LT LVVUBA Venta 16749 LT Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE The share of Latvia in the respective international RBDs is 32.7 % (Daugava), 90.7 % (Gauja/Koiva ), 49.7 % (Lielupe) and 55.7 % (Venta). Table B: Transboundary river basins by category and percentage share in Latvia Name international river basin National RBD Countries sharing RBD Co-ordination category 3 km² % Daugava LVDUBA BY, LT, RU 27398 32.7 Gauja/Koiva LVGUBA EE 13436 90.7 Lielupe LVLUBA LT 9258 49.7 Narva (including Lake Peipsi/ Chudkoe, Lake Pihkva/ Pskovskoye) LVDUBA EE, RU 3100 (3549) 5.5 Venta LVVUBA LT 16749 55.7 Source: WISE electronic reporting. Latvia subsequently corrected some data and provided the value in brackets for LVDUBA RBD. 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 A total of four RBMPs of Latvia (Duagava, Gauja, Lielupe, and Venta) were published on 22 December 2015. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency (EEA) EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ .



Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) The main strengths and shortcomings of the second plans of Latvia are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation Latvia strengthened cooperation with neighbouring Estonia and Lithuania for the second plans. As to its non-European Union neighbouring countries, little progress was made in enhancing cooperation. Latvia carried out joint consultation for the River Basin Management Plans and Flood Risk Management Plans and actively involved stakeholders in the development of the River Basin Management Plans, including via advisory groups. ·Characterisation of the RBD Type specific reference conditions have been established, at least partially, for most biological quality elements and for all relevant physicochemical quality elements for river and lake types. However, type-specific reference conditions are reported not to have been established for any water body for relevant hydromorphological quality elements. The assessment of significance of pressures improved since the first cycle for surface waters, as it now includes pollution loads and correlates them with water quality indicators, linking the values of pollutant loads with good water quality. However, there is a high proportion of pressures reported for surface waters which were reported as “unknown”, particularly for coastal and transitional water bodies. For groundwaters, expert judgment was used for defining significant pressures from point and diffuse sources, abstraction and artificial recharge. Significance of pressure was reported as not being linked to the potential failure of objectives. Measures to tackle Priority Substances causing failure of chemical status were reported and appear to be sufficient to achieve good status by 2027 in all RBDs. All RBDs have established inventories of emissions including all 41 Priority Substances. Tier 1 of the methodology was implemented for substances deemed not relevant at RBD level. For substances identified as relevant at RBD level, a combination of Tier 1 (point source information) and Tier 2 (riverine load) was implemented, in accordance with the CIS Guidance Document nº28 . The data quality was assessed as uncertain or not reported. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status There was a large increase in the number of operational monitoring sites in transitional waters, due to the delineation of new transitional waters in two of the three RBDs. No surveillance monitoring sites were reported in any of the RBDs for coastal waters and transitional waters, as was already the case in the first plans.

There are significant gaps in the quality elements monitored in the different water categories. Not all the lake and river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring were monitored for all required biological, hydromorphological or physicochemical quality elements. In particular, no hydromorphological quality elements were used in the operational monitoring of coastal and transitional waters. Monitoring was reported for 12 chemical substances that are not Priority Substances. These were generally assumed to be River Basin Specific Pollutants. However, Latvia subsequently clarified that only two substances (copper and zinc) are considered as River Basins Specific Pollutants, even if 10 others were also monitored. All of these substances were monitored in water and some of them also in biota and settled sediment. Environmental Quality Standards have been set for copper and zinc in rivers and lakes, but not according to the Technical Guidance n. 27. The analytical methods for both substances are in line with Article 4(1) of the Directive on technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status . More methods for the assessment of the biological quality elements, including the establishment of reference conditions and definition of class boundaries, have been developed for all types in all the water categories since the first plans. However, some gaps still remain. None of reported physicochemical standards is consistent with the good-moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. Methods for the assessment of the hydromorphological quality elements are developed for all the relevant quality elements in rivers and lakes but missing in transitional and coastal waters. The class boundaries are not related to the sensitive biological quality elements in all water categories. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies Between the first and second plans, there was an increase in the proportion of surface water bodies with good chemical status from 6 to 11 % but also an increase in the proportion failing to achieve good status from 0 to 5 %. This results mainly from the reduction in unknown status from 94 to 85 %, which is still a very high proportion. Most of the classified water bodies are associated to a high or medium level of confidence. Between the first and second plans, there was a significant increase in the number of priority substances monitored, and biota and sediment monitoring has been implemented for status and trend assessment. The proportion of coastal and transitional water bodies monitored (60 % and 100 % respectively) is higher than for lakes and rivers (5 % and 24 % respectively). No territorial waters have been monitored or assessed for chemical status. Monitoring is reported in water for 38 Priority Substances, including all substances identified as discharged, but in a limited number of sites each. For some substances, monitoring frequencies met the recommended minimum frequencies for surveillance monitoring but not for operational monitoring. For others, the frequencies did not meet the recommended minimum frequency for surveillance nor for operational monitoring. Hexachlorobenzene, mercury and hexabutadiene were monitored in biota for status assessment in all water categories, but in what appears to be a very limited number of sites. The sampling frequencies did not meet the recommended minimum frequency. A total of 14 substances were monitored for trend assessment, in sediment and/or biota, generally at frequencies in line with the recommended minimum frequencies. The spatial coverage appears to be very limited. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies The number of monitoring sites increased significantly but still some groundwater bodies are not monitored. The confidence in the quantitative status assessment is only medium. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies The monitoring situation improved as compared to the first cycle, but the coverage of groundwater bodies by surveillance monitoring is still not complete. All groundwater bodies are assessed as being at good chemical status.

·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential The national methodology for heavily modified water body designation has not been modified since the first RBMPs. The assessment of significant adverse effects is still done on a case-by-case basis using expert judgement and without specific criteria. The national methodology also provides general (theoretical) descriptions of the assessment of “other means” to achieve the beneficial objectives served by heavily modified water bodies. However, information is not reported on the details of the outcome of the designation tests of significant adverse effects on the use and better environmental options for individual water bodies. Concerning good ecological potential, there is no significant change since the first RBMPs either, however further monitoring data has been gathered to support the process of developing the good ecological potential methodology. Although good ecological potential is now reported as defined, work is still ongoing and the methodology is still provisional. The only biological quality element for which biological values have been derived so far to define ecological potential is benthic invertebrates. Mitigation measures have not been identified yet for defining good ecological potential.



·Environmental objectives and exemptions Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies have been reported in all RBDs. The same applies to chemical and quantitative status of groundwater, although unknowns remain. Justifications for exemptions have been provided at water body level. Exemptions are applied to a significant number of water bodies because of uncertainty about the reasons for the problems. Drivers, pressures and impacts leading to exemptions are reported, mainly for groundwater. Pressures responsible for Priority Substances pollution leading to failure to achieve good chemical status have been reported for surface water. Contradictory information is available on the use of exemptions under Article 4(4), between the plans, WISE reporting and reported background documents. Also, the justifications used have significantly changed since the first plans. ·Programme of Measures Progress has been made in the priority area of expanding and improving wastewater treatment systems. Other measures have been delayed due to a number of factors including governance, lack of finance and lack of mechanisms. These issues will need to be addressed for the second Programmes of Measures to be effective. No information was provided on the cost of measures or the potential European Union funding. A financial commitment for the implementation of measures was only reported for two sectors. New legislation or regulations to implement the first Programmes of Measures was reported as being necessary and already adopted for all RBDs. Most of the significant pressures causing a failure of objectives are covered by KTMs. No information has been provided on the River Basin Specific Pollutants causing failure nor on the KTMs in place to address those failures. Gap analyses are presented for most significant pressures in all RBDs, with quantitative pressure indicators and measure indicators with values for 2015, 2021 and 2027. For most pressures the gaps are expected to be closed by 2021 and only for a small number of pressures, notably some priority pollutants and contaminated sites, by 2027. Financial commitments for the implementation of Programmes of Measures in the flood protection areas are in place, and Article 9(4) of the WFD has been applied to impoundments for flood protection. There has been no co-ordination with the Floods Directive in any other aspect. ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity Water abstraction pressure has not been reported as relevant for Latvia, and no information has been provided on water consumptions and trends.

Measures under Article 11(3)(c) to promote efficient and sustainable water use were implemented in the previous cycle. ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. Management objectives for nutrient pollution and a gap assessment for nutrients has been undertaken in all RBDs. Quantitative management objectives in terms of nitrogen load reductions have not been identified. Safeguard zones have been established for abstractions. Implementation of basic measures Article 11(3)(h) for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at source is ensured in all RBDs where the same rules apply across the whole RBD. Supplementary measures for reducing pollution from agriculture are reported. Financing of agricultural measures is not secured in all basins. ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture Latvia has made progress on implementing measures to reduce pollution from urban waste water treatment plants. Latvia has identified KTMs in all RBDs to tackle some non-agricultural sources of pollution, but not all Priority Substances are covered individually, and as noted (in part) above, no KTMs have been reported for River Basin Specific Pollutants or Groundwater Pollutants. There is no information on the expected effectiveness of the measures identified, and the availability of funding for some of the measures is not yet clear. ·Measures related to hydromorphology ·Significant hydromorphological pressures and operational KTMs to address these are reported for all RBDs. The set of specific measures, however, also includes activities which may indicate a significant misconception regarding the nature of hydromorphological measures. Examples include for instance to define the "reduction of the impact of the beaver dams" or "deepening of the riverbed and construction of an infrastructure for water flow" as measures for river continuity. Other examples are for instance "cleaning the river" or "carrying coastal strengthening works" which seem to be relevant for flood protection activities, rather than hydromorphological restoration measures. In addition, there is no authorisation or permitting regime reported to control physical modifications in any of the RBDs (basic measures under Article 11(3)(i)). ·Indicators on the gap to be filled for significant hydromorphological pressures are only reported for 2015. The missing values for 2021 and 2027 do not allow any conclusions on the level of ambition in closing this gap. ·Ecological flows have not been derived for the relevant water bodies in any of the RBDs but there are plans to do it during the second cycle. National supplementary measures foresee gathering and assessing information on current status, evaluating the necessary amendments in the existing regulations on flows, and setting new standards for ecological flows definition in order to achieve WFD objectives. According to information subsequently provided by Latvia, these activities are foreseen as objectives of an ongoing research project, which aims at elaborating a methodology for the assessment of ecological flows by 2019.



·Economic analysis and water pricing policies ·Environmental and Resource Costs have been considered. Environmental costs have been described for all water services reported. A broad definition of water services has been used.

However, it is unclear how environmental costs have been calculated. ·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) A generic characterisation has been used for all Habitats Directive and Birds Directive Protected Areas indicating that an individual assessment of the status has not been performed. Latvia subsequently clarified that these Protected Areas has been performed and reported to the Commission by the Nature Conservation Agency, using relevant criteria, and the results included in the RBMPs. The reported monitoring activities are very limited as they are only reported for two Protected Areas designated under the Nitrates Directive. However, monitoring is performed by other competent authorities for Bathing Waters and Habitats Directives.



Recommendations ·Latvia should include clear information in national plans on international coordination efforts, in order to increase transparency. ·Latvia needs to 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 coordinated Programmes of Measures, in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. ·Although the inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances include all required substances, only point sources are considered. Latvia should take into account also diffuse sources in the next inventories. ·Latvia should continue the work on the delineation of water bodies, in particular for the small catchment areas, so as to ensure a correct assessment of pressures and the identification of appropriate measures. ·Further work is necessary on the analysis and identification of pressures, in particular for coastal and transitional waters. ·In the third RBMPs, Latvia should identify sources of funding, as appropriate, to facilitate implementation of measures to contribute to achieving the WFD objectives. ·Latvia should continue to improve monitoring of surface waters by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories. Surveillance monitoring should be put in place for coastal and transitional waters. ·Latvia should have a clear and transparent method for the selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants, using the available relevant information on emissions. River Basin Specific Pollutants should be more widely monitored and included in the classification of all water body types, on the basis of 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. ·Latvia should complete the development of assessment methods for all biological quality elements. Methods for the assessment of the hydromorphological quality elements should be developed for transitional and coastal waters. The classification boundaries of hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements should be related to the classification boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. ·Latvia should continue and step up efforts to reduce the proportion of water bodies with unknown status. Monitoring should be performed in a way that ensures sufficient spatial coverage and temporal resolution to reach good confidence in the assessment, if necessary in combination with robust grouping methods. Latvia should also develop the missing analytical methods and, if reduced frequencies are used, provide appropriate justifications. ·Trend monitoring should be further improved, to ensure it provides sufficient spatial coverage. ·Groundwater trend assessments and reversals should be carried out in the next RBMP cycle. ·The process of designating heavily modified water bodies is still largely based on expert judgement and limited progress was made compared to the first RBMPs. Further efforts are needed for the designation of heavily modified water bodies, which needs to comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). Criteria need to be developed for the assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or the wider environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options, which need to be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process. A comprehensive methodology needs to be developed and applied for the definition of ecological potential. ·More solid assessments on the reasons for failing the WFD objectives are necessary, in order to reduce uncertainty and to establish more thorough, transparent and improved justifications of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions.

·No Article 4(7) exemptions were applied in Latvia as there were no relevant large-scale physical modifications planned. Therefore Article 4 (7) exemptions were not reported. For potential future application of Article 4(7), Latvia needs to ensure a thorough assessment of possible new modifications in line with the requirements of the WFD and as further specified by the Judgment of the European Court of Justice in case C-461/13. ·Latvia should provide information on the cost of measures and the potential European Union funding, and secure the necessary financial commitments for the implementation of measures. ·Adequate co-ordination of the RBMPs with the Floods Directive and Flood Risk Management Plans should be ensured. ·Latvia should identify KTMs in all RBDs for the Priority Substances, River Basin Specific Pollutants and Groundwater pollutants causing failure of chemical status. ·Latvia should continue to gather data to understand farmer compliance with existing requirements (e.g. slurry storage, nutrient planning, pesticides application) to help determine if additional or different measures will be needed in the third RBMPs. ·Latvia should continue to provide information on what will be achieved regarding the eutrophication problem of the Baltic Sea through measures under the Nitrates Directive and set values for nutrient concentrations in water and the required reductions for each RBD. ·Latvia should make better use of monitoring data and inventories of emissions, including as regards the atmospheric deposition of pollutants, to identify appropriate measures to tackle pollution from non-agricultural sources. ·Latvia should improve its assessment of the likely effectiveness of measures against non-agricultural sources of pollution, so that it can better identify the need for supplementary measures. ·Latvia should define and implement hydromorphological measures in all RBDs, in particular for restoration, and a system of authorisation or permitting to ensure appropriate control of physical alterations. Ecological flows need to be derived and implemented. ·Latvia should apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies or justify any exemptions using Article 9(4). Latvia should also continue to transparently present how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. The water-pricing policy needs to be transparently presented and an overview of estimated investments and investment needs should be included in the RBMPs. ·Latvia should continue its work to identify all Protected Areas needing additional measures. Furthermore, better confidence on the assessment of Natura 2000 sites needs to be ensured by improving the monitoring programmes and continuing the work on specific requirements established in the Nature Management Plans.

Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.1.1Administrative arrangements – river basin districts Latvia has designated four river basin districts (RBDs): Daugava, Gauja, Lielupe and Venta, which are all part of international RBDs. 1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities Latvia reports three Competent Authorities, all at national level. ·The Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Centre has main roles for: monitoring and assessment of groundwater and surface water, economic analysis, pressure and impact analysis, preparation of the plans and Programme of Measures and implementation of measures; and it has a supporting role for public participation. ·The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development’s main roles are: the enforcement of regulations, public participation, implementation of measures and coordination of measures; and it has supporting roles in the monitoring of surface water and groundwater, pressure and impact analysis, preparation of the plans and Programmes of Measures and reporting to the European Commission. ·The Latvian Institute of Aquatic Ecology’s main role is the monitoring of surface waters; and supporting roles in the assessment of status of surface waters, pressure and impact analysis, and reporting to the European Commission.

1.1.3River Basin Management plans – structure (sub-plans, Strategic Environmental Assessment) Latvia did not prepare sub-plans for its RBMPs. All four plans in Latvia underwent a strategic environmental assessment. 1.1.4Public participation and active involvement of stakeholders The public and interested parties were informed through the internet, invitations to stakeholders and meetings. Documents were available for download for the requisite six months. The following stakeholder groups were actively involved in the development of the plans: energy/hydropower, local/regional authorities, NGOs/nature protection and public authorities responsible for public and environmental health, amelioration systems of national interest and planning of investments. The establishment of advisory groups was used for the active involvement of stakeholders. The public consultation had the following impacts on the plans: addition of new information, adjustment to specific measures, changes to the methodology used and commitments to action in the next cycle. 1.1.5Integration with other European Union legislation, the Floods Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Latvia’s plans provide information on coordination with the Flood Risk Management Plans prepared under the Floods Directive ; moreover, joint consultation of the two types of plans was carried out. Latvia did not carry out joint consultations for the RBMPs and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive . However, each plan contains a reference to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and states that measures are compatible with its objectives. 1.1.6International coordination All four RBDs in Latvia are part of international RBDs, and Latvia reported to WISE that an international agreement on water management without permanent co-operation mechanisms is in place for all RBDs (designated as Category 3 cooperation). However, the Commission’s assessment of the previous plans stated that coordination was in Category 2 (international agreement and permanent body in place) for some catchments shared with Estonia . No agreement was in place with Latvia's two non-Member State country neighbours, Belarus and Russia. Coordination with Estonia is carried out on the basis of an agreement between the Ministries of Environment of the two Member States. Key cooperation activities mentioned in the agreement cover: water quality typology and classification; monitoring; and exchange of information. Estonia’s Koiva plan mentions additional areas of cooperation: characterisation, hydromorphology, pressures/measures assessment, economic analysis/water pricing and joint communication strategy and public participation activities. Nonetheless, the information sources consulted did not mention cooperation on Programme of Measures development. Latvia has also established an agreement with Lithuania at the level of Ministries of Environment. Areas of cooperation include: characterisation of water bodies; monitoring and coordination of Programmes of Measures. Latvia informed that “roof reports” have been prepared for the RBDs shared with neighbouring Member States. In 2016 (and thus after the publication of Latvia’s plans), Latvian and Estonian experts together produced a background document for the Gauja/Koiva river basin district which, among other things, includes measures proposed in both countries. The background document was approved by Estonian and Latvian water Directors. This background document was reported to WISE as a “roof report” during the WISE reporting. In 2016 Latvian and Lithuanian experts produced similar background documents for Venta, Lielupe and Daugava RBDs, which were not formally approved due to the delayed adoption of the plans in Lithuania. Latvia informed that negotiations with Russia and with Belarus on co-operation for river basin management have been on hold since 2003, and some progress has been seen in 2017 and 2018. 1.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle In terms of competent authorities, there is a minor change: in addition to the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development and the Latvian Environment Geology and Meteorology Centre (indicated as competent authorities in the first plans), the Latvian Institute of Aquatic Ecology is also reported as a competent authority in the second plans. It does not appear, however, that this represents a significant change, since the Institute is included in an organisation diagram provided in the first plans. 1.3Progress with Commission recommendations ·Recommendation: Ensure coherent transboundary cooperation in Programme of Measures development (with Estonia and Lithuania)

Assessment: Coordination with Estonia is carried out on the basis of an agreement between the Ministries of Environment of the two Member States. Cooperation activities do not seem to include Programmes of Measures. Latvia has also established an agreement with Lithuania at the level of the Ministries of Environment, including for coordination of Programmes of Measures. This recommendation was therefore partially fulfilled. It is noted, however, that there have been further improvements after the adoption of the plans. ·Recommendation: Further effort is needed to ensure effective co-ordination with neighbouring countries on all relevant aspects of the WFD, both with other EU member states as well as with non-EU countries. Assessment: The agreement between the Ministries of Environment of Latvia and Estonia covers the areas of water quality typology and classification, monitoring exchange of information. The agreement with Lithuania covers characterisation of water bodies, monitoring and coordination of Programmes of Measures. No intergovernmental agreements were in place with Belarus or Russia, and regular meetings with these countries did not take place. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled.



Topic 2Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.1.1Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies Table 2.1 shows the number of delineated surface water bodies at RBD level in Latvia for the second and first cycles. There has been a reduction in the number of river water bodies in one RBD (Daugava -2 %) and the others have remained the same. There has been a reduction in the number of coastal water bodies in one RBD (Venta -40 %), and a small decrease in Lielupe RBD (<1 %). More transitional water bodies were delineated for the second cycle (three compared to one). For the reporting purposes the single transitional water body was divided in three parts that are attributed to the three main rivers located in the southern part of Riga Gulf (Lielupe, Daugava and Gauja). The numbers of lake water bodies were reported to be the same. Table 2.1 Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Latvia for the second and first cycles. Year RBD RW LW TW CW Number of water bodies Total length of water body (km) Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies 2016 LVDUBA 64 2 980 181 518 1 321 2016 LVGUBA 46 1 799 35 83 1 254 1 176 2016 LVLUBA 32 1 512 13 48 1 360 1 54 2016 LVVUBA 61 2 040 30 159 3 1 119 2016 Total 203 8 331 259 807 3 935 5 1 349 2010 LVDUBA 65 2 770 181 511 1 934 2010 LVGUBA 46 1 655 35 81 1 176 2010 LVLUBA 32 1 428 13 48 2010 LVVUBA 61 1 899 30 185 5 1 107 2010 Total 204 7 751 259 825 1 934 6 1 283 Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016. Whilst the numbers have not changed significantly overall, the boundaries of water bodies have been clarified. For example, the RBMP for Daugava RBD reported only the surface area of the lake for 10 lake water bodies. Later the lake catchment area was added for these lake water bodies. In addition, water body names were updated, the length of water bodies changed and some of the attribute information was clarified. The RBMPs have described that the main reasons for the changes is better knowledge since the first RBMPs and the revision of water body types. The consequences of the changes were not reported in the RBMPs. In 2016, 93 % of identified surface water bodies were natural with 7 % being designated as heavily modified (and none as artificial). There were no changes in the numbers of heavily modified water bodies between the first and second cycles (Figure 2.1). The heavily modified water bodies had reported water uses of: hydropower, agriculture-land drainage and transport-navigation/ports. Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in Latvia designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first cycles. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category. Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016

Table 2.2 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in Latvia between the second and first cycles. The minimum catchment area in the second cycle was reported to be 100 km2 for rivers and 0.5 km2 for lakes (surface area). There does not appear to be any change in the minimum size of lakes with the minimum size reported as 0.5km2 (50 ha) in both the first and second cycles. There also doesn’t appear to be a significant change in the size or length of other water body types. The RBMPs reported that a river water body with a smaller catchment area or a lake with a smaller surface area may be delineated as a water body if necessary for the achievement of environmental quality objectives, or to achieve specific environmental quality objectives in protected areas. Aggregation of small water bodies was reported to have been applied when it was considered to be necessary. The number of groundwater bodies was reported to be the same between the first and the second cycle (Table 2.3). For groundwater bodies the minimum size has decreased from 327 km2 in 2010 to 98 km2 in 2016 (Table 2.3). Table 2.2 Size distribution of surface water bodies in Latvia in the second and first cycles River length (km) Lake area (km2) Coastal (km2) Transitional (km2) Year RBD Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average 2016 LVDUBA 5.05 118.41 46.57 0.24 81.71 2.86 320.73 320.73 320.73 2016 LVGUBA 1.7 99.82 39.11 0.17 39.68 2.36 176.15 176.15 176.15 254.02 254.02 254.02 2016 LVLUBA 3.66 179.92 47.24 0.38 23.76 3.67 54.22 54.22 54.22 360.25 360.25 360.25 2016 LVVUBA 3.33 94.3 33.45 0.56 38.32 5.3 205.77 462.81 372.97 2010 LVDUBA 3.6 113.57 42.61 0.34 78.74 2.82 934.26 934.26 934.26 2010 LVGUBA 1.6 87.66 35.97 0.47 39.01 2.32 175.81 175.81 175.81 2010 LVLUBA 3.69 157.51 44.61 0.56 23.43 3.71 2010 LVVUBA 5.02 95.34 31.13 0.38 40.54 6.16 103.46 450.19 221.47 Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016 Table 2.3 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Latvia for the second and first cycles. Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 LVDUBA 6 229.63 8,607.54 4,550.70 2016 LVGUBA 5 98.31 7,412.72 3,502.04 2016 LVLUBA 3 2,505.54 6,343.89 3,785.42 2016 LVVUBA 8 357.63 4,789.88 2,505.07 2016 Total 22 (16) 2010 LVDUBA 6 327 10,166.00 5,827.00 2010 LVGUBA 5 327 10,166.00 5,405.80 2010 LVLUBA 3 3,492.00 10,166.00 6,854.33 2010 LVVUBA 8 1,530.00 10,166.00 4,356.25 2010 Total 16 Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016 Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by Latvia on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles. The water body types with the most changes were river and lake water bodies but the information regarding the changes in the table is only partially completed. Table 2.4 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in Latvia between the second and first cycles. Type of water body change for second cycle (wiseEvolutionType) Groundwater Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal change 10 176 255 0 2 changeCode 0 27 4 0 0 deletion 0 1 0 0 0 noChange 12 0 0 0 3 splitting 0 0 0 3 0 Total water bodies before deletion 16 204 259 1 6 Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 22 (16) (259) 203 259 3 5

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016. Values in brackets subsequently provided by Latvia which are different to the numbers reported to WISE. 2.1.2Identification of transboundary water bodies Transboundary river water bodies have been identified in all international RBDs. The RBMPs show evidence that the delineation of transboundary water bodies has been coordinated with Estonia for the Gauja/Koiva international RBD. 16 transboundary groundwater bodies have been identified in total across all international RBDs (i.e. all four RBDs) . 2.1.3Typology of surface water bodies Table 2.5 shows the number of types at RBD level and the number of types overall. In general, the number of types of surface water body has remained largely constant between the first and second RBMP, with only an increase of one type for rivers. The RBMPs reported that river water body types were refined between the first and the second RBMP cycles . The typology is based on national regulations that cover characterisation of surface water body types, classification, and quality criteria. Surface waters are divided into types based on abiotic descriptors (below). There is no evidence that they have been made biologically relevant. ·For river water bodies: size of catchment area and mean water slope; ·For lake water bodies: depth, water hardness, color (indicator of the presence of humic substances); ·For transitional water bodies: salinity, depth, exposure to wave activity, and substrate; ·For coastal water bodies: salinity, depth, exposure to wave activity, water exchange period, water overturn (mixing) (full or partial), bottom substrate; Member States were asked to report “Not applicable” if there was no corresponding intercalibration type for a particular national type. Most national types (heavily modified, artificial and natural) have been intercalibrated. However, in each of the RBDs there are two lake water body types and one transitional water body (belonging to three RBDs) that are reported not to have a corresponding intercalibration type. According to the reported information, the typology has been coordinated with Estonia and Lithuania. In an RBMP background document, an attempt was made to harmonise national typologies with regard to cross-border water bodies during the Koiva/ Gauja project. It was highlighted that further work is needed to verify the consistency of typologies outside the transboundary area.



Table 2.5 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Latvia for the first and second cycles. RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 LVDUBA 4 4 8 8 1 1 0 0 LVGUBA 5 5 7 7 0 1 1 1 LVLUBA 4 4 5 5 0 1 0 1 LVVUBA 4 6 6 6 0 0 4 3 TOTAL 5 6 9 9 1 1 4 4 Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016. Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs.

For the typology of rivers, six river types have been defined in Latvia and seven types in Estonia. Countries have generally used the “size of catchment” factor, while Estonia has also used “geology”. However, in Latvia this factor has not been applied as majority of rivers are calcareous. Instead, Latvia has used “mean water slope” as an additional factor for grouping rivers in types. For the lake water bodies, 10 lake types are defined in lakes in Latvia and eight lake types in Estonia . The factor “size of surface area” has been implemented partly in Estonia by distinguishing large lakes as a separate type (large lake water bodies). Latvia does not differentiate lakes according to this type as all lakes are smaller than 100km2 and uses water color as an indicator of presence of humic substances in lake water. While all Estonian lakes have mean depths less than 15m, the mean depth of Latvian lakes varies between 2‐9m. Differentiation on depth has therefore been introduced. A “geology” factor, described by conductivity values, is used by both countries and the threshold value for defining soft lake is the same in both countries. 2.1.4Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Latvia with reference conditions established for the first and second cycles. Type specific reference conditions have been established, at least partially, for the most part of biological quality elements and for all relevant physicochemical quality elements for river and lake types. Type-specific reference conditions are reported to have not been established for any water body for relevant hydromorphological quality elements. This may lead to some weaknesses in the classification of status/potential according to the hydromorphological quality elements . The RBMPs reported that physicochemical quality elements were coordinated for total nitrogen, total phosphorus and biological oxygen demand. Reference conditions for hydromorphological quality elements were not coordinated. Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types in Latvia with reference conditions established for all, some, and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Water category Water types Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Physicochemical quality elements Lakes All Some 100 % 100 % None 100 % Rivers All Some 100 % 100 % None 100 % Transitional waters All Some 100 % 100 % None 100 % Coastal All Some 100 % 100 % None 100 % Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016 2.1.5Characteristics of groundwater bodies The geological formation of the aquifer types in which groundwater bodies reside and details of whether groundwater bodies are layered have been reported. Further characterisation work has been reported since the first cycle with the inclusion of the assessment of linkages with surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems for all RBDs. 2.1.6Significant pressures on water bodies In 2016, “anthropogenic pressure – unknown” were reported to affect the largest proportion (27 %) of surface water bodies, followed by “point sources from urban wastewater” (22 %) and “physical alteration of channel and dams, barriers and locks” (15 %) (Figure 2.2). In the first cycle, Latvia only reported pressures at an aggregated level with approximately 74 % of surface water bodies reported as having no pressures. Overall there was a large decrease in the number of occasions were “no pressures” were reported between the first and second RBMP cycles (approximately a 70 % reduction), with an increase in the reporting of diffuse, point and physical and hydrological pressures (Figure 2.4). For the second RBMP cycle it was reported that 20 significant pressures were not assessed for surface waters . In addition, there appears to be a high proportion of the pressures reported that were not very specific (e.g. “unknown”) particularly for coastal and transitional water bodies. For coastal water bodies, the only pressure reported was “anthropogenic pressure – unknown” and some of the main pressures reported for transitional water bodies were “anthropogenic pressure – unknown” and “anthropogenic pressure – other” .



Figure 2.2 The most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in Latvia for the second cycle. Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016 Figure 2.3 Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Latvia in the first and second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note there were 470 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 470 for the first cycle.

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016 2.1.7Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface waters For surface waters, numerical tools and expert judgement were used to define significant pressures from point and diffuse sources and water flow pressures. For abstraction pressures, numerical tools were used. The significance of pressures is reported as not being linked to the potential failure of objectives for surface water bodies, nor is it defined in terms of thresholds in the WISE data. However, the RBMPs provide some evidence that there is a link to status, and that thresholds were used. The RBMP stated that the significance of pressures had improved as a result of the assessment now including pollution loads and correlating them with water quality indicators linking the values of pollutant loads to good water quality. It was reported in the RBMPs that the significance of point sources were evaluated by performing multivariate regression analysis to determine which parameters most significantly affect the quality of surface waters. For point source pressures in rivers and lakes there is evidence that thresholds were used to determine the significance of pressures. For example, there are thresholds used for waste water pressures for the following parameters: biological oxygen demand, total nitrogen and total phosphorus. For diffuse pressures the Swedish Mass Balance Model has been used to calculate nutrient loads. The model was updated since the first RBMP, for instance, new coefficients were introduced, and some other changes made to improve modelling results. Again, regression analysis was used to identify the significance of diffuse pollution using available information on land use (arable land and forest land), economic activity, and three chemical parameters (total nitrogen, nitrate and nitrite). For each of these indicators, a threshold was set above which the pressure on the water body was considered to be significant. For abstraction pressures on surface water, it was reported that a statistical database called "Water-2" had been utilised. Examples of when significant pressures were identified for rivers include: ·When permanent changes in mean and/or minimum water flow rates before and after the anthropogenic pressure were greater than 30 %, or; ·When part of the river regulation covered more than 30 % of the water body and/or more than 50 % of the total length of the watercourse. Expert judgement was used for morphological pressures in lakes. No significant pressures due to abstraction from surface waters were identified in both the first and second RBMPs. 2.1.8Definition and assessment of significant pressures on groundwaters For groundwaters expert judgment was used for defining significant pressures from point and diffuse sources, abstraction, and artificial recharge. This is less robust than numerical methods, however, the significance of pressures have been reported to be defined in terms of thresholds but were reported as not being linked to the potential failure of objectives. No groundwater bodies in any of the RBDs were reported to be at risk of failing to meet good chemical or quantitative status in the second RBMP. 2.1.9Significant impacts on water bodies In the second RBMP cycle, the most significant impact on surface water bodies was nutrient pollution (47 % of surface water bodies), followed by 26 % with an unknown impact type from anthropogenic pressures and pressures due to altered habitats due to morphological changes (26 %) ( Figure 2.4 ). Figure 2.4 shows that the only impact reported for groundwater bodies was “unknown” and covered 23 % groundwater bodies. Figure 2.4 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Latvia for the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies. Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016





2.1.10Quantification and apportionment of pressures There are some inconsistencies in the pressures for which measures are planned and the significant pressures reported at the water body level. For example, in Daugava, abstraction or “flow diversion - public water supply” has been reported at the surface water body level but this pressure has not been reported as being tackled in the Programme of Measures. Similarly, in Venta, “anthropogenic pressure - Other (Saline intrusion)” has been reported at the groundwater body level but this pressure has not been reported as being tackled in the Programme of Measures . Measures are dealt with further in Chapter 9 on Programmes of Measures. Four Priority Substances (lead and its compounds, mercury and its compounds, nickel and its compounds, and cadmium and its compounds) are reported to be causing the failure of good chemical status in Latvia. It was reported that there are measures to tackle these substances causing failure, which appear to be sufficient to achieve good status by 2027 in all RBDs. The activities and sectors which are contributing significantly to the different impacts causing failure of good ecological status/potential have been reported. “Urban development”, “agriculture”, and “energy hydro – power” were the most significant sectors for pressures on rivers. However, many of the activities were still reported as “unknown” or “other” (35 %). No information has been found on activities/sectors that are contributing significantly to the different impacts that are causing poor chemical status in groundwater bodies. 2.1.11Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQS Directive) requires Member States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I EQS Directive for each RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States to further target measures to tackle pollution from priority substances. It should also inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in reducing (resp. suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for priority substances (resp. priority hazardous substances). All 41 substances from Annex I of the EQS Directive were included in an inventory for each of the RBDs. 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 substances deemed not relevant at RBD level. For substances identified as relevant at RBD level, a combination of Tier 1 (point source information) and Tier 2 (riverine load) was implemented, in accordance with the Guidance Document. The data quality was assessed as uncertain or it was not reported. 2.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle There has been a reduction in the number of river water bodies in one RBD (Daugava -2 %) and the others have remained the same, and a reduction in the number of coastal water bodies in one RBD (Venta -40 %) . On the other hand, there has been an increase in number of transitional water bodies in two RBDs (Gauja and Lielupe RBD) and a small decrease in the Lielupe RBD (<1 %). In general, the number of surface water body types remained largely the same between the first and second cycles, with only an increase of one type for rivers. It is difficult to compare significant impacts because of these changes and the changes in the delineation of water bodies between the cycles. Overall there was a large decrease in the number of occasions were “No pressures” were reported between first and second RBMPs (approximately a 70 % reduction), with an increase in the reporting of diffuse, point and physical and hydrological pressures. However, more than 21 % of the reported significant impacts on water bodies are classified as an anthropogenic pressure, which was either “unknown” or “other”. 2.3Progress with Commission recommendations ·Recommendation: To update the characterisation process. Assessment: This recommendation related to the need for Latvia to update the characterisation process carried out in 2005, including taking into account developments on intercalibration. It is not possible to determine from the information available in the WISE reported information or in the RBMP to what extent the characterisation process had been updated from 2005. In terms of intercalibration, most national types (heavily modified, artificial and natural) have been intercalibrated. However, there is a single transitional water body (attributed to three RBDs) that is reported as not having a corresponding intercalibration type. In each of the RBDs there are two lake water body types that are reported as not having a corresponding intercalibration type and one transitional water body. There is evidence that the methodologies for the definition of pressures have been updated, in particular for diffuse pressures. This recommendation has been fulfilled but it cannot be determined to what extent. ·Recommendation: To revise the delineation size of water bodies for rivers, lakes and transitional/coastal waters to ensure a proper assessment of pressures and the design of appropriate measures. Assessment: This recommendation was given in relation to delineating smaller catchment (or water body) areas if it is necessary for the achievement of environmental objectives or if this is a water body in the protected area in order to ensure the protection. For the second RBMP, changes were recommended in river typology (but not delineation), lake delineation and groundwater body delineation (not for transitional/coastal waters). The minimum catchment area in the second cycle was reported to be 100 km2 for rivers and 0.5 km2 surface area for lakes. There does not appear to be any change in the minimum size of river catchments, with the minimum size reported as 100 km2 in both cycles. There does not appear to be any significant change in the number of types of river water bodies at RBD level between the two cycles. The RBMPs reported that a river water body with a smaller catchment area or a lake with a smaller surface area may be delineated as a water body if necessary for the achievement of environmental quality objectives or to achieve specific environmental quality objectives in protected areas. Aggregation of small water bodies was reported to have been applied when it was considered to be necessary. On this basis it appears that the recommendation has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: To assess the pressures that are having an impact on the water environment.

Assessment: In the first cycle, few pressures were identified as significant and, once the monitoring network was in place and results were analysed, it was expected that this may allow for a more robust assessment of the pressures that are having an impact on the water environment. Overall, there was a large decrease in the number of occasions where “no pressures” were reported between the two cycles of RBMPs (approximately a 70 % reduction), with an increase in the reporting of diffuse, point and physical and hydrological pressures. However, 26 % of the reported significant impacts on surface water bodies and 23 % of groundwater bodies are classified as an anthropogenic pressure, which was either “unknown” or “other”. Therefore, this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendations: ·To separate and identify clearly the causes of eutrophication for the second RBMP cycle, in order to identify the proportion that comes from agriculture. ·To define the precautionary measures for the agriculture sector in order to reduce the potential pressure to water; and; ·To report on actions/measures reducing the pressure from small farms. Assessment: These recommendations apply to a number of topics throughout this report. In terms of characterisation, overall there was a large decrease in the number of occasions where “No pressures” were reported between the two cycles, with an increase in the reporting of diffuse pressures. The diffuse pressures have been subcategorised into four categories relating to the source: agricultural, forestry, discharges not connected to sewerage network, and other. More than 50 % of the diffuse pressures reported were in the “other” category . It is not possible to determine if the lack of slurry storage on small farms has been addressed based on the information reported. In the second RBMP, the most significant impact on surface water bodies was reported to be nutrient pollution (47 %). Some progress has been demonstrated in achieving part of the recommendation however, it is unknown what the category “diffuse other” relates to, and whether it could be agriculture. Therefore, these recommendations have been partially fulfilled.

Topic 3Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second plans 3.1.1Monitoring of ecological status/potential Monitoring programmes Two monitoring programmes covering both surface water (all categories) and groundwater were reported for each of the four RBDs for the second plans: one covering 2006 to 2008 and the other 2009 to 2014. Rivers and lakes were included for both periods in all four RBDs. No programme was reported for coastal waters for either programme for the Lielupe RBD even though coastal waters are identified in this RBD. The European Commission’s assessment of Latvia’s first plans indicated that the assessments undertaken for the plans were based on the monitoring programme 2006-2008. It was also stated that in 2010 a new monitoring programme had been approved by the Minister of Environment for 2009-2014. Latvia subsequently indicated that a coastal water body in the Venta RBD also extended for a small part into the neighbouring Lielupe RBD. The monitoring for this water body was undertaken solely in the Venta RBD part of the water body. Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for surveillance and operational monitoring Surveillance sites were reported for the two RBDs with coastal waters and for the one RBD with transitional waters for the first plans. For the second plans, three RBDs identified coastal water bodies and three RBDs transitional water bodies. No surveillance sites were reported in any of the RBDs for coastal and transitional waters. There was a reduction in the number of surveillance sites reported for rivers (13 %) and lakes (22 %) in Latvia since the first plans. In contrast, there was an increase in the numbers of operational monitoring sites in coastal waters in two of the three RBDs with coastal water bodies, while in the other there were no monitoring sites reported. There was a 4-fold increase in the number of operational sites in transitional waters, reflecting the new identification of transitional waters in two of the three RBDs for the second plans . The number of operational sites in lakes decreased slightly since the first plans (2 %) while it increased slightly in rivers (2 %).

There is a larger proportion of water bodies included in operational than in surveillance monitoring for all water categories. For lakes, 83 % and of water bodies are included in operational monitoring and for rivers 87 %, compared to 9 % for lakes and 16 % for rivers in surveillance monitoring. No coastal or transitional water bodies were included in surveillance monitoring. Similar percentages of lakes and rivers were included in operational and surveillance monitoring for the first and second plans. Some transitional and coastal waters were included in surveillance monitoring for the first plans. Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes between the first and second plans and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second plans. Figure 3.1 shows the percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in the first and second plans.

Table 3.1Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Latvia for the second and first plans. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported for the first plan, the data for the second plan does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring. Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Surv. Op. Surv. Op. Surv. Op. Surv. Op. second RBMP LV_DUBA 8 62 13 156 3 LV_GUBA 7 39 6 28 2 4 LV_LUBA 6 31 2 8 3 LV_VUBA 12 54 4 26 16 Total by type of site 33 186 25 218 0 8 0 20 Total number of monitoring sites 227 265 8 20 First RBMP LV_DUBA 11 58 19 156 10 2 LV_GUBA 10 36 3 31 5 1 LV_LUBA 8 31 3 9 LV_VUBA 9 57 7 27 9 3 Total by type of site 38 182 32 223 10 2 14 4 Total number of monitoring sites 220 255 12 20 Sources: Member States electronic reporting to WISE.



Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes for the second plan in Latvia. Note that no differentiation is made between sites used for ecological monitoring and/or chemical monitoring Monitoring Purpose Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal INV - Investigative monitoring 29 11 OPE - Operational monitoring 218 186 8 20 SUR - Surveillance monitoring 25 33 Total sites irrespective of purpose 265 227 8 20 Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.1Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Latvia for the first plan (2010) and second plan (2016). Note no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring. Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of water bodies object of surveillance monitoring. Transitional and coastal water bodies were not included in surveillance monitoring. None of the lake water bodies included in surveillance monitoring was monitored for all required biological quality elements: fish were not monitored in any lake water body. Ten (30 %) of the 33 river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring included all the required biological quality elements. Five of the 24 lake water bodies monitored for surveillance purposes were monitored for all required hydromorphological quality elements, all were monitored for morphological conditions. Of the river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring, 42 % were monitored for all required hydromorphological quality elements all were monitored for morphological conditions. None of the 24 lake water bodies included in surveillance monitoring was monitored for all required physicochemical quality elements, although all were monitored for nutrient conditions and 19 for transparency . None of the 33 rivers included in surveillance monitoring were monitored for all required physicochemical quality elements, although 27 of the 33 river water bodies were monitored for nutrient conditions and oxygenation conditions. No other physicochemical element was monitored .

Figure 3.2Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring in Latvia. 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



Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for ecological status/potential Phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates were the only two biological quality elements to be used for operational monitoring of coastal and transitional waters. No hydromorphological quality elements, and a wide range of physicochemical quality elements, were used in the operational monitoring of coastal and transitional waters. Benthic invertebrates were the biological quality element mostly used for the operational monitoring of rivers (88 % of river water bodies in operational monitoring ) and lakes (91 % of lake water bodies in operational monitoring), though all relevant biological quality element groups were used in some of the lake and river bodies included in operational monitoring. Morphological conditions were included in the operational monitoring of lakes and rivers and continuity was included in the operational monitoring of river water bodies included in operational monitoring. Hydrological regime was included in only 1 % of lake water bodies and in 24 % of river water bodies included in operational monitoring. Generally, the same physicochemical quality elements were used for the operational monitoring of rivers and lakes as were used for surveillance monitoring. All three transitional water bodies and four of the five coastal water bodies at less than good status/potential were included in operational monitoring. Operational monitoring included 84 % of lakes and 88 % of river water bodies at less than good ecological status/potential. Transboundary surface water body monitoring Latvia reported transboundary groundwater, coastal, lake and river water bodies. However, no information on transboundary monitoring was reported to WISE. Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants)

Table 3.3 illustrates the quality elements used for the monitoring of lakes and rivers for the second plan: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. There are significant gaps in the quality elements monitored in the different water categories in Latvia. Macroalgae and angiosperms are not monitored in coastal or transitional waters and fish in transitional waters. No hydromorphological quality elements are reported to be monitored in coastal or transitional waters, while the expected physicochemical quality elements are included. All expected biological quality elements are monitored in rivers and lakes. In the case of rivers this is an improvement from the first plans, when phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates were not monitored. However, the same gaps in the monitoring of biological quality elements found in the first plans for coastal and transitional waters are still present in the second. Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the six-year period covered by a river basin management plan. For phytoplankton this should be done twice during the monitoring year, and once during the year for the other biological quality elements. As a guideline, operational monitoring should take place at intervals not exceeding once every six months for phytoplankton and once every three years during the six-year cycle for the other biological quality elements. Greater intervals may be justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. All biological quality elements included in the surveillance monitoring of lakes and rivers were sampled at the recommended minimum frequency at all sites where they were monitored. Coastal and transitional waters were not included in surveillance monitoring. In contrast, only four of the 12 biological quality elements used in operational monitoring of the four water categories were sampled at least at the recommended minimum frequency at all sites. Three of the other biological quality elements were not sampled at the minimum frequency at any of the sites where they were monitored: phytoplankton in lakes (153 sites), fish in lakes (two sites), and phytobenthos in rivers (only one site).



Table 3.3 Quality elements monitored for the second plans in Latvia (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). Note: quality elements may be used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring. Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Phytoplankton Macrophytes Phytobenthos Benthic invertebrates Fish Angiosperms Macroalgae Other aquatic flora Other species Hydrological or tidal regime Continuity conditions Morphological conditions Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Lakes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Transitional Yes Yes No No No No No No Coastal Yes Yes No No No No 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 Rivers Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No No Lakes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No No Transitional Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Coastal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Source: WISE electronic reporting. Latvia subsequently stated that thermal conditions, salinity conditions, acidification and silicate are monitored in lakes and rivers in rivers. This might be a reporting error. River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored Latvia reported that 12 substances that are not Priority Substances were being monitored. According to the Reporting Guidance for the second plans it was expected that these would be River Basin Specific Pollutants. Of these 12 substances, two were reported to be monitored in coastal waters, eight in lakes, 12 in rivers, and two in transitional waters. Some of the substances were reported as monitored in settled sediment in lakes and rivers for long-term trend assessment only. However, Latvia subsequently stated that copper and zinc are the only two of the 12 substances that should be considered as River Basin Specific Pollutants. Copper and zinc are monitored in water in river and lakes and in biota in coastal and transitional waters, in a small number of sites. The WFD indicates that, for the surveillance and operational monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants, the frequency of monitoring should be at least once every three months for one year during the cycle and at least once every three months every year, respectively (this frequency is to be understood for monitoring in water). Greater intervals can be applied provided they are justified on the basis of expert judgment or technical knowledge. In most of the sites, copper and zinc were monitored in water at least four times during the monitoring years, in line with the recommended frequencies. No information could be found on the reasons for using reduced frequencies at some sites. Minimum monitoring frequencies in biota are specified for the assessment of Priority Substances in Article 3(2)(c) of the EQS Directive: this is once per year for operational and surveillance monitoring purposes, unless greater intervals can be justified on the basis of technical knowledge or expert judgment. It thus seems consistent to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants at the same frequency in biota. Latvia monitored copper and zinc once every year in biota. Table 3.4 shows the number of sites used to monitor substances reported in WISE as River Basin Specific Pollutants in Latvia for the second plans (12 substances). Latvia did not identify any specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants in the first plan. Table 3.4 Number of sites used to monitor substances reported in WISE as River Basin Specific Pollutants in the second plan in Latvia.

RBMP Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal second Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 33 (a) 59 (a) 3 (b) 4 (b) first Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants 0 0 0 0 Sources: WISE electronic reporting (a) reported at the quality element level (b) copper and zinc in biota only Use of monitoring results for classification Only two biological quality elements have been used in the classification of coastal water bodies: phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates, based on monitoring results alone. Hydromorphological quality elements were not used in the classification, but nutrient conditions and transparency were used. Three of the five required biological quality elements were used in the classification of lakes, although the classification was primarily based on benthic invertebrates and phytoplankton . Monitoring results were mostly used in the classification of biological quality elements, though expert judgement was used for some (e.g. fish and phytobenthos). Hydrological regime was used in the classification solely based on expert judgment; morphological conditions were also used, but were solely based on monitoring results. As for coastal waters, transparency and nutrient conditions were the only physicochemical quality elements used in the classification, mainly based on monitoring results. Phytobenthos was not used in the classification of rivers, though the other three required biological quality elements were, with benthic invertebrates being used for the most river water bodies. Monitoring results were predominantly used in the classification, though for a few water bodies grouping was used. Expert judgment was not used. All three hydromorphological quality elements were classified, with expert judgment being used to classify 2/3 and monitoring results 1/3 of classified river water bodies. Oxygenation and nutrient conditions were used to classify rivers, all based on monitoring results. Only benthic invertebrates and phytoplankton were used in the classification of transitional waters, based on monitoring results alone. Transparency and nutrient conditions were the only two physicochemical quality elements used in the classification. All classifications were based on monitoring results. Hydromorphological quality elements were not used in the classification of transitional water bodies. River Basin Specific Pollutants were only classified for lakes and rivers, only based on monitoring results. 3.1.2Ecological Status/potential of surface water All water bodies have been classified. Ecological status/potential is less than good for the vast majority of water bodies in rivers (57-92 %) and lakes (77-90 %) and in all water bodies in transitional and coastal waters in all four RBDs. The proportion of natural water bodies in good or better ecological status in 2015 is much less (21 %) than anticipated in the first plans (almost 90 %). It seems that the achievement of this objective is postponed from 2015 to 2021 or 2027 for the vast majority of water bodies. The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Latvia reported in the second plans is illustrated on the map below. Figure 3.3 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. The confidence is reported as low for all the coastal and transitional water bodies and for 65 % of the lake and 75 % of the river water bodies. Latvia subsequently stated that the assessment of ecological status/potential for the second plan was based to a large extent on data from the first monitoring cycle (2006-2008) because newer data were not available. Monitoring data where classification by different biological quality elements was contradictory were considered as being of lower confidence than data where two or more biological quality elements were classified in the same status.

Map 3.1Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Latvia based on the most recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies. Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) High Good Moderate Poor Bad Unknown River Basin Districts Countries outside the European Union 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 Confidence in the classification of ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Latvia based on the most recently assessed status/potential. Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.4 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Latvia for the second plan, for the first plan 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 plans was 2006 to 2015. The year of the assessment of status for first plans is not known. Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.4 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in Latvia for the first plan with that for the second plan and that expected by 2015. Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological status/potential. The information for Latvia is shown in Figure 3.5 . Figure 3.5 Expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Latvia. The number in parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each category. Source: WISE electronic reporting Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element Good or better status was reported for most of the water bodies classified for phytoplankton , macrophytes and nutrient conditions in lakes, for macrophytes, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements in rivers and for benthic invertebrates in transitional and coastal waters.

River Basin Specific Pollutants are classified in 10-20 % of lake water bodies across the four RBDs (except lakes in Lielupe, where 70 % are classified) and 20-40 % of river water bodies, but are not classified at all in transitional and coastal waters. At the quality element level, only a few water bodies had a change in status/potential for a few quality elements, but there was no general pattern of changes to better or worse status/potential. None of the changes were reported as being consistent, but as being due to changes in monitoring and assessment methods. Figure 3.6 shows the percentage of water bodies in terms of the biological quality element used for classification. Figure 3.7 compares the classification of biological quality elements in terms of ecological status/potential for the first and second plans. It should be noted that this comparison should be treated with caution as there are differences between numbers of surface water bodies classified for individual elements from the first to the second plans. Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 illustrate the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers and lakes in Latvia for the second plan. Figure 3.6 Ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of surface water bodies in Latvia. Note that water bodies with unknown status/potential, and those that are monitored but not classified or not applicable, are not presented. Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.7 Comparison of ecological status/potential in Latvia according to classified biological quality elements in rivers and lakes between the first and second plans. Note that this figure concerns only the water bodies that were assessed for both cycles. Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.8 The classification of the ecological status or potential of rivers and lakes in Latvia using 1, 2, 3 or 4 types of quality element. Note: The 4 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 Latvia where no biological quality element or no hydromorphological (HYMO) or no general physicochemical (PHYSCHEM) or no river basin specific pollutant (RBSP) has been used in the classification of ecological status or potential

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Latvia subsequently stated that the correct percentage of rivers with no RBSP is 64 %. The classification of the individual quality elements is illustrated in Figure 3.10.

Figure 3.10Basis of the classification of ecological status/potential in Latvia. The percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category Source: WISE electronic reporting Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements More methods for the assessment of the biological quality elements, including the establishment of reference conditions and definition of class boundaries, have been developed for all types in all water categories for the second plans for the following biological quality elements: macrophytes, phytobenthos and fish in rivers, macrophytes and benthic invertebrates in lakes, and benthic invertebrates in coastal and transitional waters. There are, however, still some gaps in the methods: phytobenthos and fish in lakes, macroalgae and angiosperms in transitional and coastal waters and fish in transitional waters. According to Latvia the assessment methods for angiosperms are not relevant for transitional and coastal waters in Latvia. The sensitivity of the methods to significant impacts is reported for the different biological quality elements: the method for phytoplankton is sensitive to nutrients and temperature; macrophytes and phytobenthos to nutrients and organic pollution; benthic invertebrates to nutrients, organic pollution, hydrological impact, and morphological impact; and fish to chemical pollution, temperature and hydromorphological impacts. Intercalibration of biological assessment methods and national classification systems Most of the national types are linked to an intercalibration type. In the Annex 0 reported by Latvia an intention for further harmonisation of typology with neighbouring countries is indicated. Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements Methods for the assessment of the hydromorphological quality elements are developed for all the relevant quality elements in rivers and lakes, but are missing in transitional and coastal waters. The class boundaries are not related to the sensitive biological quality elements. Reference conditions have not been established for any of the hydromorphological quality elements in any of the water categories. Assessment methods for general physicochemical quality elements Physicochemical standards have been developed for oxygen and nutrients in rivers, for Secchi depth and nutrients in lakes and for dissolved nutrients and Secchi depth in transitional and coastal waters. However, these are not related to the good-moderate status/potential boundaries of the new methods for nutrient sensitive biological quality elements. Remaining gaps are: temperature, transparency, salinity and acidification conditions in rivers ; temperature, oxygen, salinity and acidification conditions in lakes; and temperature, oxygen, salinity and acidification conditions in transitional and coastal waters. Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of Environmental Quality Standards There is no detailed information in the plans on how River Basin Specific Pollutants have been identified, but it is stated that the identified River Basin Specific Pollutants were the most often discharged substances into surface waters. Environmental Quality Standards have only been set for copper and zinc in rivers and lakes. The standards have not been set according to Technical Guidance n. 27 , but the analytical methods for both substances are in line with Article 4(1) of the Directive on technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status. Further use of the Technical Guidance is planned in the future, according to Latvia's Annex 0. The standards are developed only for water, and not for sediment or biota, while copper and zinc were reported to be monitored in biota for status assessment. Overall classification of ecological status (one-out-all-out principle)

The one-out-all-out principle is reported as having been used in all RBDs, but the details on combination rules applied for the biological quality elements versus the supporting quality elements are not clear. However Latvia subsequently stated that there is a description in the RBMPs of how biological quality elements and supporting elements were used in combination for status assessment. 3.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since first plans More methods for the assessment of the biological quality elements have been developed for the second plans: macrophytes, phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates and fish in rivers, macrophytes, phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates in lakes, and benthic invertebrates in coastal and transitional waters. Physicochemical standards have been developed for oxygen and nutrients in rivers, for Secchi-disk depth and nutrients in lakes and for dissolved nutrients in transitional and coastal waters. Methods for the assessment of hydromorphological quality elements have been developed for all the relevant elements in rivers and lakes. Environmental Quality Standards have been set for two River Basin Specific Pollutants (copper and zinc) in the second plans. River Basin Specific Pollutants were not identified for the first plans, and hence no Environmental Quality Standards had been set or used for the assessment of ecological status. The standards for copper and zinc were not derived in accordance with the Technical Guidance n. 27. The analytical methods used for the two substances meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the Directive on technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status for the strictest standard applied. The confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers and lakes has deteriorated since the first plans, from medium in the first plans to low in the second, for the majority of water bodies, in spite of using more biological quality elements and supporting quality elements for classification in the second plans. The proportion of natural water bodies in good or better ecological status/potential in 2015 is much less (21 %) than anticipated in the first plans (almost 90 %). It seems that the achievement of objectives is postponed from 2015 to 2021 or 2027 for the vast majority of water bodies. Reported ecological status has deteriorated since the first plans, with a higher proportion of water bodies in less than good status/potential in the second plans for rivers and lakes in most of the RBDs. For transitional and coastal waters there is no change, as all of the water bodies were and still are in less than good status/potential. At the quality element level, a few water bodies had a change in status/potential for a few quality elements, but there was no general pattern of better or worse status/potential. None of the changes were reported as consistent, but as being due to changes in monitoring and assessment methods. 3.3Progress with Commission recommendations ·Recommendations: ·Develop missing assessment methods for ecological status assessment and reduce unknown chemical status. In the first RBMPs the applied ecological status assessment methodology is described, however, none of the assessment methods are fully developed. For the second RBMP, it is planned to identify River Basin Specific Pollutants in 2014, on the basis of information on wastewater discharges. It is anticipated that such River Basin Specific Pollutants would be plant nutrients, nitrates, probably also some other specific substances. To report on ecological status assessment methods. The assessment methods have to be fully developed and intercalibrated where appropriate. ·The significant shortcomings in the monitoring system, (absence of many biological, hydromorphological, and physicochemical quality elements) need to be addressed. An adequate monitoring network is a necessary investment for efficient water management. The assessment for the first RBMP was based on the Monitoring programme 2006-2008. In 2010 a new Monitoring programme 2009-2014 was approved. To report on the monitoring system compliance with WFD requirements Assessment: There has been some progress, as some of the gaps in the monitored quality elements identified in the first plan have been filled for the second plan. However, there are still significant gaps in the quality elements monitored in the different water categories in Latvia. Macroalgae and angiosperms are not monitored in coastal or transitional waters and fish are not monitored in transitional waters . No hydromorphological quality elements are reported to be monitored in coastal or transitional waters. All expected biological quality elements are monitored in rivers and lakes. In the case of rivers this is an improvement from the first plans when phytobenthos and fish were not monitored. However, the same gaps in the monitoring of biological quality elements in coastal and transitional waters reported for the first plans were still present in the second. River Basin Specific Pollutants are also now reported to be monitored in all water categories: but only in biota in transitional and coastal waters. More biological quality element assessment methods have been developed for the second plans: for macrophytes, phytobenthos and fish in rivers; macrophytes and benthic invertebrates in lakes; and benthic invertebrates in coastal and transitional waters. Physicochemical quality element standards have been developed for oxygen and nutrients in rivers, for Secchi-disk depth and nutrients in lakes, and for dissolved nutrients in transitional and coastal waters .

Assessments methods for hydromorphological quality elements have also been developed for all the relevant elements in rivers and lakes. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: ·More efforts are needed to address chemical pollution, starting from identification of relevant river basin specific pollutants, to monitoring and application of results for ecological status assessments. ·Identify River Basin Specific Pollutants for the second RBMP and include them in the assessment of ecological status. Assessment: Latvia has identified two River Basin Specific Pollutants in the second plans, on the basis of their emissions. This represents an improvement compared to the first plans, in which no River Basin Specific Pollutant was identified. However, no specific information was available on the methodology used to select these substances. In particular, it would seem unlikely that such a low number of substances would reflect all relevant emissions in Latvia. River Basin Specific Pollutants (copper and zinc) were monitored in all water categories in a limited number of sites (only in biota in coastal and transitional waters). They were only used in the classification of rivers and lakes, as no standard has been derived in biota. Progress has been made on these recommendations, and they are partially fulfilled.



Topic 4Monitoring, as