REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) River Basin Management Plans
Date: 2012-11-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: groundwater, inland waterway, surface water, territorial waters, water management, water protection, water resources

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 14.11.2012  
COM(2012) 670 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) 

River Basin Management Plans 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

{SWD(2012) 379 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) 

River Basin Management Plans 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Water Framework Directive (WFD1) introduced in 2000 new and ambitious objectives to 
protect and restore aquatic ecosystems as a basis for ensuring the long term sustainable use of 
water  for  people,  business  and  nature.  The  WFD  has  incorporated  into  a  legally  binding 
instrument  the  key  principles  of  integrated  river  basin  management  bringing  together 
economic and ecological perspectives into water management.  

The WFD established a programme and timetable for Member States to set up the River Basin 
Management  Plans  (RBMPs)  by  2009.  The  Plans  should  have  identified  all  actions  to  be 
taken in the river basin district to deliver the objectives of the WFD.  

Implementation of the WFD has been supported since 2001 by an informal co-operative effort 
under  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  (CIS),  led  by  Water  Directors  of  the  Member 
States  and  the  Commission  with  the  participation  of  all  relevant  stakeholders.  The  CIS  has 
delivered guidance documents and a large number of policy papers and is a valuable platform 
for the exchange of experience and best practices. 

This  Commission  implementation  report  is  required  by  WFD  article  18  and  is  based  on  the 
Commission's  assessment  of  the  RBMPs  reported  by  Member  States.  It  is  accompanied  by 
Commission Staff Working Documents that include a detailed assessment of the RBMPs. It is 
one of the basis of the Commission Communication on the 'Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's 
Water Resources'. 

2. 

MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE WFD  

The  key  objective  of  the  WFD  is  to  achieve good  status  for  all  water  bodies  by  2015.  This 
comprises the objectives of good ecological and chemical status for surface waters and good 
quantitative and chemical status for groundwater.  

The main instrument for the implementation of the WFD is the RBMP and the accompanying 
Programme  of  Measures  (PoM).  The  planning  process  starts  with  the  transposition  and  the 
administrative arrangements, followed by the characterisation of the river basin district2, the 
monitoring and the assessment of status, the objective setting, and finally the programme of 
measures  and  their  implementation.  The  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  effectiveness  of 
measures is vital information that links one planning cycle with the next. The programme of 
measures is the tool to respond to the identified pressures, thus enabling the river basin/water 
body to reach good status. 

The strength of the planning process, and the adequacy and reliability of the RBMP depends 
upon good implementation of every intermediate step. If, for example, a significant pressure 
is overlooked during the pressures and impacts analysis, the monitoring will probably not be 
designed to assess it and the programme of measures will not envisage action to address it. 

1 

2 

Directive  2000/60/EC  establishing  a  framework  for  Community  action  in  the  field  of  water  policy; 
supplemented by the Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC) and the Environmental Quality Standards 
Directive (2008/105/EC) 
This includes the pressures and impacts analysis, the economic analysis, the delineation of water bodies 
and the establishment of the typology and reference conditions for surface water bodies, and the basis 
for the ecological status assessment. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 1: Schematic representation of the WFD planning process 

3. 

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

The assessment of the RBMPs is based on the reporting by Member States, consisting of the 
published  plans  and  accompanying  documentation3  and  the  electronic  reporting  through  the 
Water Information System for Europe (WISE)4. The assessment of the plans is a complex task 
that involves dealing with extensive information in 21 languages.  

The Commission assessment will be as accurate as Member States' reporting. It is recognised 
that  reporting  is  a  significant  undertaking  for  Member  States,  in  particular  the  electronic 
reporting in WISE. There are examples of very good quality reporting, but also cases where 
reporting contains gaps or contradictions.  

4. 

STATE OF PLAY OF ADOPTION AND REPORTING OF RBMPS 

23 Member States have adopted and reported all their Plans. 4 Member States (BE, EL, ES 
and PT) have either not adopted Plans or only adopted and reported some plans. In total, the 
Commission  has  received  124  RBMPs  (out  of  expected  174).  75%  of  them  concern 
transboundary river basins5. 

3 

4 

5 

See 
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/implementation_documents_1/submitted_
rbmps 
See  http://water.europa.eu  and 
maps/wfd  
Norway is implementing the Water Framework Directive as part of the European Economic Area Agreement, with 
specific timetable agreed therein. Therefore, Norway has adopted 9 pilot RBMP. 

in  particular  http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/interactive/water-live-

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
In  Belgium,  the  Flemish  Region,  the  Brussels-Capital  Region  and  the  Federal  Government 
(responsible  for  coastal  waters)  have  adopted  plans;  the  plans  for  the  Walloon  Region  are 
awaited.  In  Spain,  the  RBMPs  of  Tinto  Odiel  y  Piedras,  Guadalete  y  Barbate  and  Cuencas 
Mediterraneas Andaluzas have been approved but not reported and only the plan for the river 
basin  district  of  Catalonia  has  been  adopted  and  reported.  In  Portugal  and  Greece  no  plans 
have yet been adopted or reported.6  

Figure  27:  State  of  adoption  of  the  RBMPs:  GREEN  -  adopted.  RED  –  Not  adopted  or 
partially adopted. 

The delays in adopting first cycle RBMPs in some Member States has consequences for the 
second  implementation  cycle  both  within  the  Member  States  concerned  and  for  other 
countries they share catchments with.  

5. 

COMMISSION FINDINGS: KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1.  Will the objective of good status in 2015 be reached? 

The WFD objective of good status is necessary to ensure long term availability of sufficient 
water of good quality. Achieving good status for all waters will allow aquatic ecosystems to 
recover and to deliver the ecosystem services that are necessary to support life and economic 
activity that depend on water. 

6 

7 

EN 

The Court has ruled against Belgium, Greece and Portugal for not having adopted and reported the plans. A 
judgement on Spain is pending.  The cases are: Greece - C-297/11,  Belgium - C-366/11,  Portugal - C-223/11  
Updated overview at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/participation/map_mc/map.htm  

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The assessment of the RBMPs indicates that progress towards the objective is expected, but 
good status will not be reached in 2015 for a significant proportion of water bodies. Several 
reasons  are  behind  this.  The  assessment  of  the  RBMPs  by  the  Commission8  identifies  the 
main  obstacles  encountered  in  each  Member  State  and  stresses  that  hydromorphological 
pressures, pollution and overabstraction remain the main pressures on the water environment. 

No of 
MS 

No of water 
bodies 

% Water bodies 
in good status or 
potential 2009 

% Water bodies 
in good status or 
potential 2015 

Progress 
2009-
2015 in 
% 

Unknown 
status in 
2009 in 
%9 

2110 

82684 

43 

53 

10 

15 

Information unclear to establish the 2009 baseline11 

24 

5197 

24 

5197 

85 

68 

92 

77 

7 

9 

40 

6 

3 

Ecological 
status of 
surface waters 

Chemical 
status of 
surface waters 

Quantitative 
status of 
groundwater12 

Chemical 
status of 
groundwater12 

Source: Information reported by Member States, 2012 

The  information  provided  in  the  RBMPs  on  chemical  status  for  surface  waters  is  not 
sufficiently  clear  to  establish  a  baseline  for  2009.  The  chemical  quality  of  water  bodies  has 
significantly  improved  in  the  last  30  years,  but  the  situation  as  regards  these  priority 
substances  introduced  by  the  WFD  is  below  the  objectives.  A  large  proportion  of  surface 
water bodies are reported with unknown chemical status. In addition, the first RBMPs show 
different  degrees  of  implementation  of  the  Directive  2008/105/EC  setting  Environmental 
Quality  Standards  and  this  makes  the  chemical  status  assessment  in  the  Member  States 
difficult to compare. 

The WFD recognises that the achievement of good status might take more time in some water 
bodies. For this reason, it allows Member States to rely on an exemption on the basis of the 
natural conditions of the water body, and to extend the deadline up to 2027 or beyond13.  

The  deadline  for  the  achievement  of  good  status  can  also  be  extended  if  inter  alia,  it  is 
technically infeasible or disproportionately costly to restore the water body to good status by 
201514.  Where  exemptions  are  applied,  the  WFD  requires  Member  States  to  justify  and 
explain  the  reasons  in  the  RBMPs.  This  means  explaining  on  what  basis  the  evaluations  of 

8 
9 
10 

11 

12 
13 
14 

See accompanying Commission Staff Working papers 
ES, PT and EL not included because of the lack of RMBPs 
Ecological  status:  countries  that  have  not  reported  RBMPs,  or  not  reported  exemptions  or  have  high 
unknown status, are not included.   
Chemical status: More than 40% of the surface water bodies are reported as "unknown chemical status" 
and for the rest of WB the assessment is not comparable.  
Numbers do not include FI and SE which have a very large number of small WB in good status 
Article 4.4(c) 
Article 4.4, 4.5, and 4.7 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
natural  conditions,  disproportionate  costs  and/or  technical  infeasibility  have  been  made  and 
how  to  move  towards  the  objective  of  good  status.  This  justification  is  key  for  the 
transparency and accountability of decision making. 

All  too  often,  in  the  RBMPs,  exemptions  are  used  to  justify  existing  water  uses  and 
management practices showing no plan to achieve WFD objectives. 

Recommendations to Member States: 

– 

– 

Assess the obstacles that have hindered the implementation in the first cycle and take 
action to overcome them in the second cycle; 

Step up ambition in taking measures to achieve good status. In case of uncertainties 
about effectiveness, take no-regret measures. 

5.2.  Monitoring and assessment: robust knowledge to take informed decisions 

 Robust monitoring and methods for a comprehensive assessment of the status of water bodies 
are  essential  elements  for  sound  water  management.  The  cost  of  monitoring  is  much  lower 
than the cost of inappropriate decisions. 

The  WFD  provides  for  adaptive  monitoring  programmes  that  can  be  used  to  prioritise 
monitoring where it is most needed. Smart monitoring programmes should be an integral part 
of  building  the  evidence  base  for  the  design  and  implementation  of  measures.  In  many 
monitoring  programmes  it  is  unclear  if  and  how  the  information  on  characterisation  and 
pressures is used in the further development of RBMPs.  

A  clear  gap  in  monitoring  emerges  from  the  information  reported  to  the  Commission.  This 
shows that around 15% of surface water bodies in the EU are in unknown ecological status 
and 40% in unknown chemical status. In some Member States ecological and chemical water 
status is unknown for more than 50% of the water bodies. A determined effort is required. 

Ecological status as defined by the WFD is an expression of the quality of the structure and 
functioning of aquatic ecosystems. The WFD intercalibration exercise has compared Member 
States' methods for assessing ecological status to ensure that they are consistent with the WFD 
definitions ensuring comparability of results across Member States. This has promoted a large 
exchange of information that has allowed countries with less experience in the assessment of 
ecological status to benefit from others' knowledge. 

Despite considerable progress, some countries show important gaps in the development and 
application of assessment methods. Frequently, the intercalibration exercise has been taken as 
a scientific exercise not used for water management. Gaps are significant for transitional and 
coastal  waters  and  for  biological  assessment  methods  sensitive  to  hydromorphological 
pressures,  which  are  the  most  important  pressures  preventing  water  bodies  from  achieving 
good ecological status. 

The assessment of chemical status presents a large proportion of water bodies with unknown 
status.  Chemical  monitoring  is  insufficient  in  many  Member  States,  where  not  all  priority 
substances  are  monitored  or  the  number  of  water  bodies  where  monitoring  takes  place  is 
limited. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
Recommendations to Member States: 

– 

Improve and expand monitoring and assessment tools to ensure a statistically robust 
and comprehensive picture of the status of the aquatic environment for the purpose 
of further planning. 

5.3. 

Legal framework and governance  

A  robust  legal  framework  and  appropriate  governance  structures  are  essential  pre-requisites 
for successful integrated river basin management. 

The  WFD  introduced  a  new  focus  for  water  management  by  putting  the  protection  of  the 
aquatic  environment  and  ecological  targets  at  the  heart  of  an  integrated  water  management 
approach at the river basin scale. To this end, an adaptation of existing legal frameworks and 
water management administration was expected.  

Although  progress  has  been  significant,  this  has  not  taken  place  in  most  Member  States, 
where there is a continuation of the status quo. The WFD environmental objectives appear to 
have been included as additional goals but not really integrated into policy decisions.  

Appropriate  coordination  in  decision  making  across  sectors  is  essential.  Decisions  on 
economic  activities  that  do  not  take  into  account  current  and  future  availability  of  water 
resources  can  drive  unsustainable  practices,  such  as  overexploitation  of  resources,  with 
negative  consequences  for  environment,  population  and  other  economic  sectors.  With  the 
adoption  of  the  WFD,  Member  States  are  expected  to  include  in  the  RBMPs  measures 
addressing all water uses and to ensure coherence between RBMPs and other spatial planning 
tools. The WFD also introduced a shift away from the traditional water use-driven approaches 
to  a  more  integrated  approach  that  should  be  reflected  in  a  governance  setting.  This  has 
happened to varying degrees. In some cases the responsibility for WFD implementation has 
been  placed  in  dedicated  units  without  clear  links  to  the  day-to-day  water  management  or 
feedback  at  basin  level.  The  result  creates  overlapping  approaches  and  in  some  cases 
decisions and actions that are not compatible with WFD objectives. 

Cross-border  cooperation  and  coordination  of  implementation  processes  is  also  essential  to 
implement  the  WFD  principle  of  management  at  the  river  basin  scale,  in  particular 
considering that transboundary  river  basins  cover  most  of  the  EU.  With  the  adoption  of  the 
WFD,  international  cooperation  has  been  reinforced  and  improved  significantly.  It  has 
progressed in some cases from an exchange of information to a joint problem diagnosis and 
joint  decisions  on  transboundary  measures.  Joint  river  basin  management  plans  in  large 
transboundary  basins  have  been  prepared  but  efforts  on  coordination  of  measures  need  to 
continue.  

Public and user participation in water management is another key element introduced by the 
WFD. A proactive approach can deliver optimal decisions that are more acceptable and better 
implemented on the ground. Transparency on how the results of the consultation processes are 
considered is important, and there are some good examples in this respect. 

Recommendations to Member States: 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
– 

– 

– 

Continue consolidation of integrated multidisciplinary water management; look for 
that  balance  environmental  protection  and  sustainable  economic 
solutions 
development  in  the  long  term  and,  when  necessary,  adapt  legal  and  administrative 
approaches; 

Coordinate  with  countries  in  shared  river  basins  early  in  the  process  of  RBMP 
preparation, agree and implement transboundary measures;  

Involve stakeholders and authorities from the beginning of the planning process and 
be transparent. 

5.4. 

Integration of quantitative and qualitative aspects in water management 

Sound  water  management  should  integrate  qualitative  and  quantitative  aspects:  the 
achievement  of  the  WFD  objectives  is  only  possible  if  sufficient  quantity  of  clean  water  is 
available for the aquatic ecosystems. To this end, the ecological flow is necessary to support 
the ecological status and ensure water availability for different uses. The relevance of water 
quantity  issues  is  recognised  in  many  river  basins  across  Europe.  RBMPs  have  identified 
measures  addressing  water  scarcity  and  drought  problems  which  are  expected  to  be 
aggravated by the impacts of climate change15. However, shortcomings have been identified 
in  the  RBMPs  in  relation  to  the  quality  and  availability  of  datasets  and  lack  of  coherent 
measures. 

Information on the impacts of climate change is included in a number of RBMPs, but in most 
cases it does not influence the selection of measures and it is planned to be addressed more 
thoroughly in the next RBMP planning cycle. 

 Flood risk management is an inherent part of integrated water management, and as a result 
flood related issues are mentioned in the RBMPs throughout the EU, notably as a reason for 
heavily modifying a water body. The second cycle of RBMP will need to be coordinated with 
the first Flood Risk Management Plans. 

Recommendations to Member States: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

15 

Apply ecological flow regimes to ensure that authorities and users know how much 
water and which flow regime is needed to achieve the objective of good ecological 
status;  

Improve datasets on water quantity, water availability and demand trend projections 
to be able to develop coherent and effective sets of measures; 

Integrate  climate change consideration into the RBMPs; 

Coordinate the preparation and consultation on the Flood Risk Management Plans 
with the second RBMPs to ensure coherence. 

Communication on the Review of the European Water Scarcity and Droughts policy 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
5.5. 

The key role of pre-WFD legislation in attaining WFD objectives 

Before the WFD, EU water policy addressed important pressures on the aquatic environment 
through  the  adoption  of  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  (UWWT)  and  Nitrates 
Directives16.  These  Directives  provide  water  protection  with  respect  to  nutrients  pressures 
associated with agriculture and urban developments and contribute to WFD objectives.  

Implementation  of  the  Nitrates  Directive  is  relatively  advanced  in  the  old  Member  States 
(EU15), but significantly less in the Member States that joined the EU since 2004 (EU12) and 
enjoy  transitional  periods.  Lack  of  financial  support  and  appropriate  planning  are  the  main 
bottlenecks.  

The  latest  reporting17  under  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  (UWWTD)  Directive  shows 
that waste water collecting systems were in place for 99% of the total polluting load of EU-15 
and for 65% of the total generated load of EU-12. Secondary treatment was in place for 96% 
of  the  load  for  EU-15  and  for  48%  of  the  load  for  EU-12.  More  stringent  treatment  was  in 
place for 89% of the load in EU-15 and for 27% of the generated load in EU-12. Availability 
of  resources  to  cover  investments  remains  a  bottleneck  for  compliance.  Therefore,  cost-
effective innovative technical solutions should be promoted. 

Pollution  from  industrial  emissions  is  regulated  by  the  IPPC  Directive18.  Its  last 
implementation  report  shows  that  although  IPPC  has  prompted  significant  streamlining  of 
industrial environmental legislation in many Member States, too many permits had emission 
limit  values  (ELVs)  that  were  not  in  line  with  Best  Available  Techniques  (BAT)  and 
sufficiently protective of the water environment.  

Recommendations to Member States: 

– 

Reinforce  Nitrates  Directive  action  programmes  and  vulnerable  zone  designation, 
improve  compliance  rates  on  waste  water  treatment  by  establishing  appropriate 
investment plans and ensure compliance of ELVs with BAT. 

5.6. 

Promoting rational use through adequate water pricing 

Transparency  in  the  form  of  adequate  information  on  water  costs  is  the  basis  for  the 
development of water pricing policies that provide adequate incentives for users to use water 
efficiently  in  accordance  with  the  WFD.  However,  little  progress  has  been  made  so  far  in 
implementing transparent pricing policies.  

16 

17 

18 

Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment. OJ L135, 30.5.91 and Council 
Directive  91/676/EEC  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution  caused  by  nitrates  from 
agricultural sources. OJ L375, 31.12.91. 
6th  Commission  summary  on  the  Implementation  of  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive-
Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2011)1561 final (reference years 2007/2008) 
Directive  2008/1/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  January  2008  concerning 
integrated pollution prevention and control Integrated pollution prevention and control Directive OJ L 
24, 29.1.2008, p. 8–29. To be replaced by Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  of  24 November  2010  on  industrial  emissions  (IED)  as  of  7  January  2014.  See 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/stationary/ippc/key_impl.htm. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
An efficient use of water requires measuring the volume of water used. Flat rates, tariffs that 
rely  on  the  irrigated  area  or  shared  bills  among  users  hardly  provide  any  incentive  for 
sustainable  water  use.  In  some  Member  States,  in  some  sectors,  such  as  agriculture  or 
households, metering of water consumption is not fully implemented. 

Recovery  of  financial  costs  of  water  services,  including  capital  costs,  ensures  the  necessary 
long  term  sustainability  of  investments.  Environmental  and  resource  costs  are  also  an 
essential  part  of  the  cost  recovery  to  ensure  that  externalities  generated  by  the  use  and 
disposal  of  water  are  adequately  recovered.  Moreover,  the  cost  of  water  services  should  be 
recovered taking into account the polluter pays principle19. 

There  are  very  few  Member  States  that  have  implemented  a  transparent  recovery  of 
environmental and resource costs. Cost recovery is implemented, to a greater or lesser extent, 
in households and industry. For agriculture, in many areas, water is charged only to a limited 
extent. 

The assessment of the RMBPs shows the poor quality of the assessment of costs and benefits. 
A  strong  improvement  in  this  area  and  the  definition  of  a  shared  methodology  for  the 
calculation  of  costs  (including  environmental  and  resource  costs)  and  benefits  (including 
ecosystem  services)  is  necessary.  Otherwise,  it  will  be  possible  neither  to  ensure  the 
implementation  of  effective  pricing  policies  nor  to  avoid  disproportionate  and  inadequate 
measures.  

Recommendations to Member States: 

– 

– 

Ensure  the  transparency  and  fairness  of  water  pricing  policies  and  base  them  on 
metering; 

Improve cost-benefit assessment to ensure cost-recovery. 

5.7. 

Funding of measures 

Member States' Programmes of Measures contain different instruments (legal, administrative, 
technical,  infrastructure,  training,  etc.),  and  are  potentially  funded  in  different  ways.  Public 
budget  is  expected  to  cover  part  of  the  measures  but  also  private  operators  are  expected  to 
provide funds e.g. through the cost recovery provisions. European funds – Structural cohesion 
or CAP funds - can also contribute to financing some WFD measures.  

The Commission's proposal for a new LIFE regulation 2014-2020 includes the possibility to 
co-finance projects which integrate different EU funds and other financial sources in a single, 
large scale project for the implementation of measures under the WFD. 

19 

The Commission has started infringement procedures against 9 Member States that have implemented a 
narrow interpretation of water services limited to drinking water and water treatment. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  Commission's  proposal  for  2014-2020  cohesion  policy  builds  on  key  elements  of  the 
WFD  proposing  ex-ante  conditionality  for  the  use  of  cohesion  and  structural  funds  in  the 
water  sector.  Cohesion  policy  provides  an  opportunity  for  joining  water  use  management 
needs and implementation of water policy.  

Decisions on funding have to match the priorities set in the RBMPs. Most of the RBMPs do 
not contain precise information on how much it will cost to implement the measures and how 
they  are  going  to  be  financed.  Financing  mechanisms  and  availability  of  funds  are  to  be 
identified  when  selecting  the  measures.  Otherwise,  the  feasibility  of  implementation  is 
uncertain.  

Recommendations to Member States: 

– 

– 

Align  funding  decisions  (including  EU  funds)  to  priorities  and  actions  identified  in 
the RBMPs including the fulfilment of EU water legislation requirements; 

Include in the RBMP and the Programmes of Measures the costs of the measures, the 
responsible authorities and indicate who is bearing the cost. 

5.8. 

Integration with other policies  

Planning  of  land  use,  agriculture,  urban  development,  hydropower,  navigation,  flood 
protection,  all  have  potentially  important  impacts  on  water  resources.  The  RBMP  process 
offers a unique opportunity to interact with these sectors and to develop a framework within 
which these activities should take place in a sustainable way. Implementing the WFD requires 
integration  of  water  policy  objectives  into  the  development  and  planning  of  economic 
activities that rely on water. 

More than 90% of the RBMPs assessed indicate that agriculture is a significant pressure in the 
basin, including diffuse or point source pollution by organic matter, nutrients, pesticides and 
hydromorphological impacts.  

Although a large variety of technical, non-technical measures or economic instruments can be 
found  in  the  programmes  of  measures,  important  elements  are  missing  (scope,  timing,  and 
financing).  In  general,  the  RBMPs  do  not  show  determined  action  to  address  agriculture 
pressures  nor  satisfactory  association  of  farmers  to  the  WFD  process20.  Moreover,  there  are 
not many details on how the opportunities provided by the Rural Development Programmes 
are taken.  

The  Commission  proposals  for  the  CAP  reform21  contain  a  number  of  elements  that  could 
greatly  improve  the  interaction  between  agriculture  and  water  policy.  These  include  the 
addition, subject to conditions, of WFD to cross-compliance, the greening of the first pillar of 
the CAP and a programming system with rural development policy which explicitly identifies 
water  use  efficiency  and  water  management  as  sub-priorities  addressed  through  rural 
development programmes. 

20 

21 

See  on  DG  ENV  website  in  all  EU  languages:  "Guidance  for  administrations  on  making  WFD 
agricultural measures clear and transparent at farm level" and "Handbook on Farm Advisory Systems 
and water protection". 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/index_en.htm  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
WFD  Article  4.7  on  new  projects  and  modifications  to  water  bodies  frames  the  conditions 
under  which  trade-offs  between  water  protection  and  economic  developments  can  be 
established. This Article makes new modifications conditional on specific explanations in the 
RBMP. Out of the 116 plans assessed that refer to exemptions inter alie, only 12 plans refer to 
projects that fall under Article 4.7. While it is clear that there are more projects, planned and 
on-going, likely to cause deterioration of status of water bodies, these are not mentioned in the 
RBMPs.  

The  lack  of  references  to  new  projects  and  programmes  in  most  of  the  RBMP  indicates  a 
missed opportunity for the sustainable development of economic activities under a framework 
of real integrated water management. 

In  the  context  of  Article  4.7,  development  of  hydropower  deserves  specific  attention. 
Significant  environmental 
to  be  properly  addressed. 
impact  of  hydropower  needs 
Refurbishing  and  expanding  existing  installations  should  be  given  priority  over  new 
developments which should be underpinned by a strategic assessment at the river basin scale, 
selecting optimal locations in terms of energy production and lowest environmental impact22. 

Similarly,  inland  navigation,  although  potentially  a  low  carbon  mode  of  transport,  can  also 
have detrimental effects on the aquatic environment. Extensive guidance has been developed 
in  the  context  of  the  CIS  and  other  processes23  that  should  be  used  to  ensure  that  inland 
navigation is developed in a sustainable way not hampering WFD objectives.  

Inland  pressures  influence  the  status  of  the  marine  environment.  The  measures  taken  under 
the RBMPs will contribute to reaching good environmental status under the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive (MSFD)24. MSFD requires preparing a programme of measures by 2015 
which would benefit from coordination with the RBMPs produced in the 2nd cycle by 2015. 

Recommendations to Member States 

– 

– 

22 

23 

24 

Use  the  RBMP  process  to  provide  a  clear  framework  for  the  development  of 
economic activities that rely on water; 

Improve co-operation with the farming community in the preparation of the PoM to 
ensure  feasibility  and  acceptance;  ensure  that  the  Farm  Advisory  System  plays  a 
proactive  role  and  exploit  the  opportunities  under  the  Rural  Development 
Programmes; 

CIS Policy Paper on WFD and Hydromorphological pressures. Recommendations for better policy 
integration (2006). 
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/thematic_documents/hydromo
rphology/hydromorphology/_EN_1.0_&a=d  
Ibidem; see also Joint Statement on Inland Navigation and Environmental Sustainability in the Danube 
River  Basin  (2007);  PLATINA  project  Good  Practice  Manual  on  Sustainable  Waterway  Planning 
(2011);  Commission's  Guidance  document  on  sustainable  inland  waterway  development  and 
management in the context of EU nature legislation (2012). 
Directive  2008/56/EC  establishing  a  framework  for  community  action  in  the  field  of  marine 
environmental policy, O.J. L174,25.06.2008 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
– 

– 

6. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Balance voluntary actions and mandatory measures in agriculture to provide a solid 
baseline  for  rural  development  programmes  and  cross-compliance  water  related 
requirements; increase reliance on multipurpose natural water retention measures; 

Coordinate  and  include  programmes,  plans  and  projects  affecting  the  water 
environment  (such  as  navigation,  hydropower  or  flood  protection  measures)  in  the 
RBMP. 

CONCLUSIONS 

A  lot  of  effort  has  been  put  into  the  preparation  and  drafting  of  the  RBMPs.  Our 
knowledge  about  the  status  of  EU  waters  and  the  activities  that  influence  them  is 
better  than  ever  before.  However,  the  Commission's  assessment  shows  that  a  more 
determined effort is needed to ensure achievement of WFD objectives in 2015, 2021 
and 2027 cycles. 

There  are  good  examples  of  implementation  of  all  aspects  of  the  WFD.  Therefore, 
Member States lagging behind in the approval and implementation of their RBMPs 
have the chance of learning from others with a view to remedy their delays. 

Implementation  should  ensure  that  water  management  is  based  on  a  better 
understanding  of  the  main  risks  and  pressures  in  a  river  basin  founded  on  proper 
monitoring.  This  will  result  in  cost  effective  interventions  to  ensure  the  long  term 
sustainable supply of water for people, business and nature.  

The Commission will  continue to  seek and promote a fruitful informal  cooperation 
with Member States and stakeholders in the context of the CIS. 

The  Commission  will  also  follow-up  bilaterally  with  the  Member  States  on  the 
implementation  of  the  recommendations  that  it  is  putting  forward  in  this 
implementation report and in accompanying documents, while keeping on enforcing 
WFD obligations as necessary. 

The findings in this report have been used to identify policy proposals put forward in 
the  Commission  Communication  on  the  'Blueprint  to  Safeguard  Europe's  Water 
Resources' and will be further discussed under the CIS. 

EN 

14 

   EN