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
Date: 2019-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Latvia, adaptation to climate change, application of EU law, environmental risk prevention, flood, risk management, water, water management, water pollution, watercourse

EN 

  EN 

   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} - 
 
 
Table of contents 
Acronyms and definitions ............................................................................................................. 5 

Foreword...................................................................................................................................... 6 

General Information .................................................................................................................... 7 

Status of second river basin management plan reporting ........................................................... 9 

Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s)
.................................................................................................................................................... 10 

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 18 

Topic 1

  Governance and public participation ....................................................................... 22 

1.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 22 

1.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 24 

1.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 24 

Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District............................................................. 26 

2.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 26 

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 41 

2.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 41 

Topic 3
bodies 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water 

 ................................................................................................................................... 45 

3.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
plans   ...................................................................................................................................... 45 

3.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first plans ............................. 66 

3.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 67 

Topic 4

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................... 70 

4.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 70 

4.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 84 

4.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 85 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 5

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater 

bodies 

 ................................................................................................................................... 89 

5.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 89 

5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 94 

5.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 95 

Topic 6

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................... 96 

6.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle  96 

6.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 100 

6.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 100 

Topic 7
  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 
Ecological Potential................................................................................................................. 102 

7.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle for designation ............................................................................................................. 102 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 104 

7.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 105 

Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions .............................................................. 107 

8.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 107 

8.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 111 

8.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 112 

Topic 9

  Programme of measures.......................................................................................... 114 

9.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 114 

9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 123 

9.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 124 

Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity .......................................... 125 

2 

 
 
 
10.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 125 

10.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 125 

10.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 126 

Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture................................................... 127 

11.1  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 127 

11.2  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 127 

11.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 132 

Topic 12

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture ..................... 134 

12.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 134 

12.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 137 

12.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 138 

Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology ................................................................ 141 

13.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 141 

13.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 143 

13.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 143 

Topic 14

Economic analysis and water pricing policies .................................................... 146 

14.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance .................................... 146 

14.2 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 147 

  Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives 

Topic 15
and measures) .......................................................................................................................... 150 

15.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 150 

15.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 154 

15.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 154 

Topic 16

Adaptation to drought and climate change .......................................................... 156 

3 

 
 
 
 
16.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 156 

16.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 156 

16.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 156 

4 

 
 
Acronyms and definitions 

EQS Directive 

Environmental Quality Standards Directive 

FD 

Km 

km2 

KTM 

PoM 

RBD 

RBMP 

WFD 

WISE 

Annex 0 

Floods Directive 

Kilometre 

Kilometre squared 

Key Type of Measure 

Programme of Measures 

River Basin District 

River Basin Management Plan 

Water Framework Directive 

Water Information System for Europe 

Member States reported the structured information on the 
second  RBMPs  to  WISE  (Water  Information  System  for 
Europe).  Due  to  the  late  availability  of  the  reporting 
guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an 
Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying 
what  information  they  were  unable  to  report  and  the 
reasons  why.  This  Annex  was  produced  using  a template 
included  in  the  reporting  guidance.  If  Member  States 
reported all the required information, this explanatory note 
was not necessary. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

7 

LVVUBALVLUBALVLVGUBALVDUBARUBYRULT1100EE1EE2LT3400LT2300EE1EE3EE1LT4500050100kmGulfofRigaBalticSea 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The information on areas of the national river basin districts including sharing countries is 

provided in Table A: 

RBD 

Name 

Table A: Overview of Latvia‘s River Basin Districts  
Size (km2) 
27398 
13436 
9258 
16749 
Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE 

LVDUBA  Daugava 
LVGUBA  Gauja 
LVLUBA  Lielupe 
LVVUBA  Venta 

Countries sharing RBD 
BY, LT, RU 
EE  
LT  
LT 

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 

Daugava 

Gauja/Koiva  
Lielupe  

National 
RBD 

Countries 
sharing 
RBD 

LVDUBA 

BY, LT, 
RU 
LVGUBA  EE 
LVLUBA  LT 

Narva (including Lake Peipsi/ Chudkoe, Lake Pihkva/ Pskovskoye)   LVDUBA  EE, RU 

Co-ordination 
category 
3 

km² 

% 

27398 

32.7 

90.7 
49.7 

5.5 

13436 
9258 
3100 
(3549) 
16749 

Venta  
55.7 
Source: WISE electronic reporting. Latvia subsequently corrected some data and provided the value in brackets 
for LVDUBA RBD. 

LVVUBA  LT 

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. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
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/. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
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 

10 

 
 
 
implemented, in accordance with the CIS Guidance Document nº281. 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 status2. 

  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. 

1   CIS Guidance N° 28 - Preparation of Priority Substances Emissions Inventory  
   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm    
2   Commission  Directive  2009/90/EC  of  31  July  2009  laying  down,  pursuant  to  Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  technical  specifications  for  chemical  analysis  and  monitoring  of 
water status, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32009L0090  

11 

 
 
 
                                                      
 

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.  

12 

 
 
 
  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. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 

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.  

14 

 
 
 
 

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 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 

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 
the  nature  of 
significant  misconception 
hydromorphological measures. Examples include for instance to define the "reduction of 

indicate  a 

regarding 

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. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

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. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
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 

18 

 
 
 
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. 

19 

 
 
 
 

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. 

20 

 
 
 
 

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. 

21 

 
 
 
 
Topic 1

  Governance and public participation 

1.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

1.1.1 Administrative arrangements – river basin districts 

Latvia has designated four river basin  districts (RBDs):  Daugava, Gauja,  Lielupe  and Venta, 
which are all part of international RBDs. 

1.1.2 Administrative 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. 

1.1.3 River  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.  

1.1.4 Public 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.  

22 

 
 
 
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. 

1.1.5 Integration  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  Directive3;  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 
Directive4.  However,  each  plan  contains  a  reference  to  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive and states that measures are compatible with its objectives. 

1.1.6 International 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 Estonia5. 

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 

3   Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks entered into force on 26 November 

2007, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060  

4   Directive  2008/56/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  June  2008  establishing  a 
framework  for  community  action  in  the  field  of  marine  environmental  policy  (Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056  

5   Latvia informed that although formal river basin commissions have not been established between Latvia and 
Estonia or between Latvia and Lithuania, the more general international agreements on co-operation for river 
basin  management  concluded  among  the  three  Baltic  States  envisage  that  information  exchange  and  other 
forms of cooperation are carried out via expert groups that meet regularly.  

23 

 
 
 
                                                      
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. 

1.2  Main 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.  

1.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  coherent  transboundary  cooperation  in  Programme  of 

Measures development (with Estonia and Lithuania) 

24 

 
 
 
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.     

25 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District 

2.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle  

2.1.1 Delineation 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 
2016  LVGUBA 
2016  LVLUBA 
2016  LVVUBA 
2016  Total 

2010  LVDUBA 
2010  LVGUBA 
2010  LVLUBA 
2010  LVVUBA 
2010  Total 

64 
46 
32 
61 
203 

65 
46 
32 
61 
204 

2 980 
1 799 
1 512 
2 040 
8 331 

2 770 
1 655 
1 428 
1 899 
7 751 

181 
35 
13 
30 
259 

181 
35 
13 
30 
259 

518 
83 
48 
159 
807 

511 
81 
48 
185 
825 

1 
1 
1 

3 

1 

321 
254 
360 

935 

934 

1 

934 

1 
1 
3 
5 

1 

5 
6 

176 
54 
1 119 
1 349 

176 

1 107 
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. 

26 

 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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.  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
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).6  

6   Latvia subsequently highlighted that there are 16 groundwater bodies and that the number, size and boundaries 
have not changed since the first RBMPs. 22 groundwater bodies were reported to WISE but Latvia stated that 
this may be due to some groundwaters bodies being in more than one RBD and some double counting.  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
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 
2016  LVDUBA 
2016  LVGUBA 
2016  LVLUBA 
2016  LVVUBA 

2010  LVDUBA 
2010  LVGUBA 
2010  LVLUBA 
2010  LVVUBA 

Minimum  Maximum  Average  Minimum  Maximum  Average  Minimum  Maximum  Average  Minimum  Maximum  Average 
320.73 

118.41 

320.73 

320.73 

46.57 

81.71 

2.86 

0.24 

5.05 

1.7 

3.66 

3.33 

3.6 

1.6 

3.69 

5.02 

99.82 

179.92 

94.3 

113.57 

87.66 

157.51 

95.34 

39.11 

47.24 

33.45 

42.61 

35.97 

44.61 

31.13 

0.17 

0.38 

0.56 

0.34 

0.47 

0.56 

0.38 

39.68 

23.76 

38.32 

78.74 

39.01 

23.43 

40.54 

2.36 

3.67 

5.3 

2.82 

2.32 

3.71 

6.16 

176.15 

54.22 

205.77 

176.15 

176.15 

54.22 

54.22 

462.81 

372.97 

254.02 

360.25 

254.02 

254.02 

360.25 

360.25 

934.26 

934.26 

934.26 

175.81 

175.81 

175.81 

103.46 

450.19 

221.47 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016  

29 

 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
2016  LVGUBA 
2016  LVLUBA 
2016  LVVUBA 
2016  Total 

2010  LVDUBA 
2010  LVGUBA 
2010  LVLUBA 
2010  LVVUBA 
2010  Total 

6 

5 

3 

8 

22 (16) 

6 

5 

3 

8 

16 

229.63 

98.31 

2,505.54 

357.63 

327 

327 

3,492.00 

1,530.00 

8,607.54 

7,412.72 

6,343.89 

4,789.88 

10,166.00 

10,166.00 

10,166.00 

10,166.00 

4,550.70 

3,502.04 

3,785.42 

2,505.07 

5,827.00 

5,405.80 

6,854.33 

4,356.25 

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. 7   

Type of water body change for 
second cycle (wiseEvolutionType)  Groundwater  Rivers 

Lakes  

Transitional  Coastal 

change 

changeCode 

deletion 

noChange 

splitting 

Total water bodies before deletion 
Delineated for second cycle (after 
deletion from first cycle) 

10 

0 

0 

12 

0 

16 

22 (16) 

176 

27 

1 

0 

0 

204 
(259) 
203 

255 

4 

0 

0 

0 

259 

259 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

1 

3 

2 

0 

0 

3 

0 

5 

6 

   Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016. Values in brackets subsequently provided by Latvia which are 
different to the numbers reported to WISE.  

7   Latvia  subsequently  highlighted  that  there  are  16  groundwater  bodies  identified  both  in  the  first  and  
second  RBMPs,  but  4  of  these  16  groundwater  bodies  are  located  in  more  than  one  RBD.  There  is  one 
transitional water body located in more than one RBD. 

30 

 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                      
2.1.2 Identification 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)8. 

2.1.3 Typology 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 cycles9.  

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 

8   Latvia subsequently explained that there are in fact 11 transboundary groundwater bodies in all 4 RBDs, 
but  some  of  them  are  divided  between  different  RBDs  and  were  therefore  counted  twice  in  the  WISE 
reporting.   

9   Latvia subsequently clarified that the river typology itself was not revised, but correspondence of the river 
water  bodies  to  the  initially  identified  types  has  (i.e.  it  has  been  checked  whether  river  water  bodies 
correspond to the types, which had been determined in the first RBMPs). 

31 

 
 
 
                                                      
lake water body types10 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.  

10   Latvia subsequently stated that there are six such lake water bodies in DUBA, 2 in GUBA and LUBA and 

1 in LUBA. 

32 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
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 

LVGUBA 

LVLUBA 

LVVUBA 

4 

5 

4 

4 

4 

5 

4 

6 

8 

7 

5 

6 

8 

7 

5 

6 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

4 

0 

1 

1 

3 

TOTAL 

4 
Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016. Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some 

1 

6 

5 

9 

9 

1 

4 

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 
Estonia11.  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.  

2.1.4 Establishment 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 

11   Latvia subsequently highlighted that surface water body types were coordinated also with Lithuania during 

bilateral expert meetings and discussions. 

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
relevant  hydromorphological  quality  elements.  This  may  lead  to  some  weaknesses  in  the 
classification of status/potential according to the hydromorphological quality elements12. 

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 

Hydromorphological 

Physicochemical 

elements 

quality elements 

quality elements 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional 

waters 

Coastal 

All  

Some 

None 

All  

Some 

None 

All  

Some 

None 

All  

Some 

None 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016  

2.1.5 Characteristics 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. 

2.1.6 Significant 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 %) 

12   Latvia  subsequently  stated  that  there  is  a  national  methodology  developed  that  states  that  high  quality  is 
equal  to  reference  conditions  and  therefore,  hydromorphological  reference  conditions  have  been  defined, 
but were not reported and described in the second RBMPs. 

34 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                      
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 waters13.  

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”14. 

13   Latvia subsequently highlighted that the reporting guidance was followed and that some of these pressures 

were not assessed “because they were not deemed to be important in the RBD”. 

14   Latvia subsequently stated that the reporting to WISE was not correct, for example in Daugava RBMP 3 
pressures were reported for coastal water bodies: For groundwater bodies, “no significant pressures” was 
reported  most  frequently:  approximately  75  %  of  water  bodies.  The  most  significant  pressures  for 
groundwater  were  “point  -  contaminated  sites  or  abandoned  industrial  sites”,  “diffuse  –  agricultural”, 
“anthropogenic pressure – other”, and “groundwater – recharges”; each affecting about 5 % of water bodies  
(Figure 2.2). It was not reported what significant pressures were not assessed for groundwaters. 

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
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 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
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 

2.1.7 Definition 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.  

37 

 
 
 
 
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. 

2.1.8 Definition 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.  

2.1.9 Significant 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).  

38 

 
 
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.  

Significant impact on surface water bodies 

Nutrient pollution

47 

Unknown impact type

Altered habitats due to morphological
changes (includes connectivity)

No significant impact

Chemical pollution

Altered habitats due to hydrological
changes

4 

3 

26 

26 

24 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.10  Quantification 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 Measures15. 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 

failure  of  good  ecological  status/potential  have  been  reported.  “Urban 
causing 
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.  

2.1.11  Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances 
Article  5  of  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  (EQS  Directive)16  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). 

15   Latvia subsequently explained the reasons for these inconsistencies in these specific cases. 
16  Directive  2008/105/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  December  2008  on 
environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council 
Directives  82/176/EEC,  83/513/EEC,  84/156/EEC,  84/491/EEC,  86/280/EEC  and  amending  Directive 
2000/60/EC  of 
the  Council  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02008L0105-20130913  

the  European  Parliament  and  of 

40 

 
 
                                                      
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°2817  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. 

2.2  Main 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  %)18.  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”.  

2.3  Progress 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 

17   CIS  Guidance  N° 

Substances  Emissions 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm    

Preparation 

Priority 

28 

of 

- 

Inventory 

18   Latvia subsequently stated that there was an increase in coastal water bodies in Lielupe RBD (100 %, due 

to reporting needs). 

41 

 
 
                                                      
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  types19    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.   

19   Latvia subsequently stated that there are six such lake water bodies in DUBA, 2 in GUBA and LUBA and 

1 in LUBA. 

42 

 
 
                                                      
  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” category20.  

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 

20   Latvia subsequently highlighted that “Diffuse pressure – Other” is pollution caused by flooding. 

43 

 
 
                                                      
however, it is unknown what the category “diffuse other” relates to, and whether it 

could be agriculture. Therefore, these recommendations have been partially fulfilled. 

44 

 
 
 
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 

3.1.1 Monitoring 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.  

45 

 
 
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 plans21.  

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. 

21   In the second plan, there were 14 monitoring stations (all for operational purposes) reported in transitional 
waters  in  the  Latvian  GIS  files,  while  eight  operational  sites  in  transitional  waters  were  reported  in  the 
XML files. Two operational monitoring sites had been reported for transitional waters in the first RBMPs. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 3.1 

Number 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 RBMP22 
LV_DUBA 

LV_GUBA 

LV_LUBA 

LV_VUBA 

Total by type of site 
Total number of 
monitoring sites 
First RBMP 

LV_DUBA 

LV_GUBA 

LV_LUBA 

LV_VUBA 

Total by type of site 
Total number of 
monitoring sites 

8 

7 

6 

12 

33 

11 

10 

8 

9 

38 

62 

39 

31 

54 

13 

156 

6 

2 

4 

28 

8 

26 

186 

25 

218 

0 

227 

265 

8 

3 

2 

3 

8 

58 

36 

31 

57 

19 

156 

10 

2 

3 

3 

7 

31 

9 

27 

182 

32 

223 

10 

2 

4 

16 

20 

1 

3 

4 

0 

20 

5 

9 

14 

220 

255 

12 

20 

Sources: Member States electronic reporting to WISE. 

22   Latvia subsequently indicated that the number of monitoring sites for the Daugava and Venta RBDs for the 
second RBMP are incorrect. In the Daugava RBD there are nine surveillance and 63 operational sites for 
rivers, and 12 surveillance and 155 operational sites for lakes. In the Venta RBD, there are 52 operational 
sites for rivers and 28 operational sites for lakes. 

47 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Table 3.2  

Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different 
purposes for the second plan in Latvia.23 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 

OPE - Operational monitoring 

SUR - Surveillance monitoring 

Total sites irrespective of purpose 

29 

218 

25 

11 

186 

33 

227 
Source: WISE electronic reporting  

265 

8 

8 

20 

20 

Figure 3.1 

Percentage  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. 

23   Latvia subsequently indicated that the number of reported sites for investigative monitoring should be 30 
and  10  for  lakes  and  rivers,  respectively;  for  operational  monitoring  219  and  185;  and  for  surveillance 
monitoring 24 and 34, respectively. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
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 transparency24.  

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 
monitored25.  

24  Latvia  subsequently 

indicated 

the  only  general 
physicochemical  parameters  used  for  ecological  status  assessment  in  lakes.  Transparency  is  not  used  in 
classification of darkwater lakes (high concentrations of  humic substances) and hence is not monitored in 
these lakes. 

that  nutrient  conditions  and 

transparency  are 

25   Latvia  subsequently  indicated  that  nutrient  conditions  and  oxygenation  conditions  are  the  only  physico-

chemical parameters used for ecological status assessment in rivers. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 3.2 

Proportion 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/S
WB_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner

=false&:showVizHome=no 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
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 monitoring26) 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 

26 Latvia subsequently stated that benthic invertebrate is used for 100 % of rivers water bodies in operational 

monitoring. This might be a reporting error.  

51 

 
 
                                                      
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). 

52 

 
 
 
 
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 

n
o
t
k
n
a
l
p
o
t
y
h
P

s
e
t
y
h
p
o
r
c
a
M

s
o
h
t
n
e
b
o
t
y
h
P

c
i
h
t
n
e
B

s
e
t
a
r
b
e
t
r
e
v
n
i

h
s
i
F

s

m
r
e
p
s
o
i
g
n
A

e
a
g
l
a
o
r
c
a
M

Rivers 

Lakes 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

Yes  Yes  No  Yes  No 

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

r
e
h
t
O

c
i
t
a
u
q
a

r
e
h
t
O

a
r
o
l
f

No 

No 

Transitional  Yes 

Coastal 

Yes 

Yes  No  No  No  No 

Yes 

No  No  No 

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 

r
o
l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
r
d
y
H

e
m
i
g
e
r

l
a
d
i
t

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

y
t
i
u
n
i
t
n
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
M

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

General physicochemical quality elements 

y
c
n
e
r
a
p
s
n
a
r
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

l
a
m
r
e
h
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

No 

No 

Yes 

n
o
i
t
a
n
e
g
y
x
O

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

y
t
i
n
i
l
a
S

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

No 

No 

Yes 

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
d
i
c
A

s
u
t
a
t
s

No 

No 

Yes 

n
e
g
o
r
t
i

N

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

s
u
r
o
h
p
s
o
h
P

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
C

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

r
e
h
t
O

r
o
f
d
n
a
n
i
m
r
e
t
e
d

t
n
e
i
r
t
u
n

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

No 

No 

No 

e
t
a
c
i
l
i
S

No 

No 

Yes 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

No 
Source: WISE electronic reporting. Latvia subsequently stated that thermal conditions, salinity conditions, 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

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 

53 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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.  

RBM
P 
secon
d  

first 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific 
Pollutants 
Sites used to monitor non-priority specific 
pollutants and/or other national pollutants 

33 (a)27 

59 (a)28 

0 

0 

3 (b) 

0 

4 (b) 

0 

Sources: WISE electronic reporting 

 (a) reported at the quality element level (b) copper and zinc in biota only 

27   Latvia subsequently stated that 36 lakes are monitored. 
28   Latvia subsequently stated that 64 rivers are monitored. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
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 
phytoplankton29.  

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. 

29 In WISE some lake water bodies were reported to be classified for fish and for phytobenthos (4 and 3 water 
bodies  respectively),  but  this  might  be  a  reporting  error  as  Latvia  subsequently  stated  that  fish  and 
phytobenthos were not used in the classification of lakes.  

55 

 
 
                                                      
3.1.2 Ecological 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.  

56 

 
 
 
Map 3.1 

 Ecological 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 
Union 

the  European 

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_St
atus_Compare/SWB_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:disp
lay_count=no&:showAppBanner=false&:showVizHome=no 

57 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
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 

58 

 
 
 
  
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 
phytoplankton30,  macrophytes  and  nutrient  conditions 
lakes,  for  macrophytes, 
hydromorphological  and  physicochemical  quality  elements  in  rivers  and  for  benthic 

in 

invertebrates in transitional and coastal waters.  

30 Latvia subsequently stated that 31 % of lakes were classified in good or better status for phytoplankton.   

59 

 
 
 
                                                      
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. 

60 

 
 
 
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  

61 

 
 
 
 
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  

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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.  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.10 

Basis  of  the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  in  Latvia.  The 

percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

64 

 
 
 
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 

65 

 
 
conditions  in  rivers31;  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. 2732, 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. 

3.2  Main 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.  

31   Latvia considers these elements as not applicable for Latvian rivers 
32   https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0cc3581b-5f65-4b6f-91c6-433a1e947838/TGD-EQS%20CIS-

WFD%2027%20EC%202011.pdf 

66 

 
 
                                                      
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. 

3.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendations:  

  Develop  missing  assessment  methods  for  ecological  status  assessment  and 
reduce unknown chemical  status. In the first RBMPs the applied ecological 

67 

 
 
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 waters33.  

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 

33 Latvia subsequently stated that angiosperms are not relevant for coastal and transitional waters.  

68 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
and nutrients in rivers, for Secchi-disk depth and nutrients in lakes, and for dissolved 
nutrients in transitional and coastal waters34.  

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. 

34  Latvia  subsequently stated that physicochemical standards  were  mostly unchanged since the first  RBMPs, 
except  for  slow-running  rivers  in  the  Lielupe  and  Venta  RBDs,  for  which  the  new  standards  were  set  in 
coordination with Lithuania.   

69 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
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  

4.1.1 Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters 

Monitoring sites and water bodies used for monitoring of chemical status  

Member States have to implement surveillance and operational monitoring programmes in 

accordance with the requirements of the WFD and of the EQS Directive, for the assessment 
of ecological status/potential and chemical status.  

Surveillance  monitoring  programmes  should  allow  Member  States  to  supplement  and 
validate  the  assessment  of  pressures  and  impacts,  to  efficiently  and  effectively  review  the 

design  of  their  monitoring  programmes  and  to  assess  the  long-term  changes  in  natural 
conditions  and  those  resulting  from  widespread  anthropogenic  activities.  For  operational 

purposes, monitoring is required to establish the status of waterbodies identified as being at 
risk of failing to meet their environmental objectives and to assess any changes in the status 
of such waterbodies resulting from the programmes of measures. 

Section  3.1.1  of  this  report  summarises  the  characteristics  of  the  surveillance  and 
operational monitoring programmes in Latvia for the second plans. 

Figure 4.1 summarises the proportion of sites used for the monitoring of chemical status in 
lakes,  rivers,  coastal  and  transitional  waters  for  the  second  plans.  According  to  the  WFD, 
chemical status should be monitored and assessed up to 12 nautical miles from the coast, but 
territorial  waters  have  not  been  monitored  nor  assessed  by  Latvia.  In  this  figure,  no 

distinction is made between sites used for surveillance and/or operational purposes.  

Between  6  and  38  %  of  monitoring  sites  are  monitored  for  chemical  status  in  Latvia, 

depending on the water category, whereas all sites are monitored for ecological status. More 
detailed information can be found on the website of the European Environment Agency35. 

35   https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water 

70 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.1 

Proportion  of  sites  used  for  monitoring  of  chemical  status  and,  for 

comparison, ecological status, in Latvia. The number in parenthesis next to 
the  category  is  the  total  number  of  monitoring  sites  irrespective  of  their 

purpose.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure  4.2  summarises  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  monitored  for  chemical  status  in 
lakes,  rivers,  coastal  and  transitional  waters  for  the  second  plans.  In  this  figure,  no 

distinction  is  made  between  sites  used  for  surveillance  and/or  operational  purposes.  The 
proportion  of  water  bodies  monitored  for  any  purpose  and  those  monitored  for  ecological 

status  are  also  shown.  It  shows  that  less  than  a  quarter  of  lake  and  river  water  bodies  are 
monitored for chemical status, the proportion being higher for coastal water bodies and all 
transitional water bodies being monitored. 

A significant proportion of water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status in the four 
RBDs in  Latvia are monitored for chemical status, although the Daugava is the only RBD 

where all water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status are reported to be monitored. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.2 

Proportion of total water bodies in each category monitored, monitored for 

chemical  status  and,  for  comparison,  monitored  for  ecological  status,  in 
Latvia. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number 

of water bodies in that category.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Long-term  trend  monitoring  and  monitoring  of  Priority  Substances  in  water,  sediment 
and biota for status assessment 

Monitoring for status assessment 

Requirements 

Article  8(1)  of  the  WFD  requires  Member  States  to  establish  monitoring  programmes  in 
order  to  provide  inter  alia  a  coherent  and  comprehensive  overview  of  water  status  within 

each  RBD.  The  amount  of  monitoring  undertaken  in  terms  of  priority  substances,  the 
frequency  and  the  numbers  of  sites  should  be  sufficient  to  obtain  a  reliable  and  robust 

assessment of status. According to the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009), mercury, 
hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  have  to  be  monitored  in  biota  for  status 

assessment, unless Member States derived a standard for another matrix which is at least as 
protective as the biota standard. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Spatial coverage 

Latvia  reported  to  have  monitored  38  Priority  Substances,  to  variable  extents  (monitoring 
frequencies are reported for 38 Priority Substances at site level)  with the majority of these 

substances being monitored in water. 

Spatial coverage for status assessment seems sparse, with only a few sites being monitored 

for each of the substances listed. Monitoring for hexachlorobenzene is carried out in water 
and in biota for status assessment, in 11 sites in biota and 13 in water. The environmental 

quality standards applied in water are the standards from the Directive, in its version in force 
in 2009. Monitoring for mercury and hexachlorobutadiene is carried out in biota, in 14 and 

11 sites respectively. 

Frequencies 

The  WFD  indicates  that,  for  the  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  of  Priority 
Substances  in  water,  the  frequency  of  monitoring  should  be  at  least  monthly  for  one  year 

during the six-year cycle and at least monthly every year, respectively. Monitoring in biota 
for  status  assessment  should  take  place  at  least  once  every  year  according  to  the  EQS 
Directive. In all cases, greater intervals can be applied by Member States if justified on the 

basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. 

A number of Priority Substances are reported to have been monitored monthly in water (in 

2014) with  a decision for further monitoring to  be made. Other substances are reported to 
have been monitored quarterly, which does not meet the recommended minimum frequency. 

Monitoring in biota is taking place only once every three years. It could not be determined 
whether  Latvia  justified  these  reduced  frequencies  on  the  basis  of  expert  judgment  or 

technical knowledge. 

Monitoring for long-term trend assessment 

Requirements 

Article  3.3  of  the  EQS  Directive  (version  in  force  in  2009)  requires  Member  States  to 
monitor  14  priority  substances36  that  tend  to  accumulate  in  sediment  and/or  biota,  for  the 
purpose of long-term trend assessment.  

36   Anthracene,  brominated  diphenylether,  cadmium,  C10-13  chloroalkanes,  DEHP, 

fluoranthene, 
hexachlorobenzene,  hexabutadiene,  hexachlorocyclohexane,  lead,  mercury,  pentachlorobenzene,  PAH, 
Tributyltin. 

73 

 
 
                                                      
Spatial coverage 

In all four RBDs, Latvia reports to have monitored all 14 Priority Substances required by the 
EQS  Directive  for  monitoring  long-term  trends  in  sediments  and/or  biota.  Monitoring  of 

sediment and/or biota covers relatively few monitoring sites and rarely more than ten water 
bodies, hence spatial coverage appears to be very limited. 

Frequencies 

Monitoring  should  take  place  at  least  once  every  three  years,  unless  technical  knowledge 

and  expert  judgment  justify  a  larger  interval.  Where  monitored,  reported  frequencies  are 
generally in line with the recommended minimum frequencies. 

Monitoring of Priority Substances that are discharged in each RBD  

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  states,  in  Section  1.3.1  (Design  of  surveillance  monitoring),  that 
“Surveillance  monitoring  shall  be  carried  out  for  each  monitoring  site  for  a  period  of  one 

year during the period covered by a river basin management plan for [inter alia]: priority list 
pollutants which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin.” Section 1.3.2 (Design of 
operational monitoring) of the Directive states that “In order to assess the magnitude of the 

pressure to which bodies of surface water are subject Member States shall monitor for those 
quality  elements  which  are  indicative  of  the  pressures  to  which  the  body  or  bodies  are 

subject.  In  order  to  assess  the  impact  of  these  pressures,  Member  States  shall  monitor  as 
relevant  [inter  alia]:  all  priority  substances  discharged,  and  other  pollutants  discharged  in 

significant quantities.” 

Member  States  are  therefore  required  to  monitor  all  Priority  Substances  which  are 

discharged into the river basin or sub-basin. 

Latvia reports that four Priority Substances are discharged in each of the four RBDs (lead, 

mercury, nickel and cadmium). All these substances are monitored in all RBDs, although in 
what appears to be a limited number of sites, and not in all water categories. In total, Latvia 

monitors  38  substances.  The  emissions  of  the  three  substances  which  are  not  monitored 
(tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and trichloroethylene) were analysed on the basis 

of imported and manufactured amounts and were found to be 0.  

Performance of analytical methods used  

In  Latvia,  for  30  Priority  Substances  the  analytical  methods  used  meet  the  minimum 
performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the Directive on technical specifications for 

74 

 
 
chemical analysis and monitoring of water status for the strictest standard applied. For the 

remaining substances reported, the analytical methods complied with the requirements laid 
down in Article 4(2) of that Directive (i.e. best available techniques not entailing excessive 

costs were used).  

The  method  for  dealing  with  measurements  of  Priority  Substances  lower  than  the  limit  of 

quantification  is  as  specified  in  Article  5  of  the  Directive  on  technical  specifications  for 
chemical analysis and monitoring of water status for all four RBDs. 

4.1.2 Chemical Status of surface water bodies 

Member States are required to report the year on which the assessment of chemical status is 
based.  This  may  be  the  year  that  the  surface  water  body  was  monitored  or,  in  case  of 

grouping the year in which monitoring took place in the surface water bodies within a group 
that are used to extrapolate results to non-monitored surface water bodies within the same 

group. For Latvia, the exact date of the assessment was unspecified, although over 50 % of 
the monitoring of Priority Substances was reported to have been undertaken in 2014.  

The chemical status of surface water bodies in Latvia for the second plan is illustrated on the 

map below. 

75 

 
 
Map 4.1 

Chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Latvia.  Note:  Standard 

colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1(4)(3).  

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

The chemical status of lakes, rivers, transitional and coastal waters in Latvia for the first and 
second plans is given in Table 4.1.  

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4.1 

Chemical status  of surface water bodies in Latvia for the second  and first 
plans.  Note:  the  number  in  parenthesis  next  to  the  water  category  is  the 
number of water bodies. Note: Chemical status assessment is based on the 

standards  laid  down  in  EQS  Directive  (version  in  force  on  13  January 
2009).  Some  Member  States  did  not  implement  the  Directive  in  the  first 

plans as the transposition deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of 
the first RBMPs. 

Category 

Second RBMP 
Latvia 

Latvia 

Latvia 

Latvia 

Latvia 

First RBMP 
Latvia 

Latvia 

Latvia 

Latvia 

Latvia 

Lakes (259) 

Rivers (203) 

Transitional (3) 

Coastal (5) 

Total (470) 

Lakes (259) 

Rivers (204) 

Transitional (1) 

Coastal (6) 

Total (470) 

Good 

Failing to achieve good 

Unknown 

Number 

% 

Number 

% 

Number 

% 

10 

40 

4 % 

20 % 

5 

9 

3 

5 

50 

10 % 

22 

2 % 

4 % 

100 % 

100 % 

5 % 

22 

1 

6 

29 

11 % 

100 % 

100 % 

6 % 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

244 

154 

94 % 

76 % 

398 

85 % 

259 

182 

100 % 

89 % 

441 

94 % 

Overall the number of surface water bodies remained the same between the first and second 

RBMPs.  Since  the  first  plans,  there  was  an  increase  in  the  proportion  of  surface  water 
bodies  with  good  chemical  status,  from  6  to  10  %,  but  also  an  increase  in  the  proportion 

failing to achieve good status, from 0 to 5 %. The proportion with unknown status decreased 
from 94 to 85 %. The largest increases in the proportion of water bodies with good status 

occurred  for  the  RBDs  Venta  (from  14  to  20  %)  and  Gauja  (from  6  to  12  %).  For  those 
failing to achieve good status, the largest increases occurred for RBDs Lielupe (from 0 to 13 
%)  and  Venta  (from  0  to  6  %).  In  terms  of  natural/heavily  modified  water  body 
categorisation, the largest  increase in  the proportion of water bodies with  good status  was 

for  heavily  modified  water  bodies  (from  13  to  39  %)  and  this  was  also  the  case  for  the 
largest decrease with unknown status (from 87 to 55 %). 

RBDs Lielupe and Venta reported that the status of coastal water bodies not monitored for 
chemical status has been derived or extrapolated from monitoring available for comparable 
water  bodies,  although  no  details  of  the  approach  were  found  in  the  RBMPs.  For  the 

77 

 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
remaining two RBDs, and for inland water bodies in the Lielupe and Venta RBDs, surface 

water bodies not monitored for chemical status are reported as having unknown status.  

Latvia  stated  that  “Unknown  chemical  status  was  attributed  to  water  bodies  where  no 

monitoring  of  priority  substances  has  been  performed.  As  in  most  cases  concentrations  of 
the  monitored  priority  substances  are  not  quantifiable,  it  is  not  reasonable  to  monitor  all 

priority  substances  in  all  water  bodies.  Therefore  water  bodies,  where  priority  substances 
monitoring is carried out, are chosen on the basis of risk based approach.” No information is 

available on how this risk based approach was carried out. The use of a risk based approach 
to select the monitored waterbodies should, in theory, allow the status of the non-monitored 

waterbodies to determined, albeit with a lower level of confidence. 

Figure 4.3 shows the confidence in the classification of chemical status for the second plans. 

Overall,  all  water  bodies  in  good  status  were  classified  with  medium  confidence.  A 
significant  number  of  water  bodies  are  currently  in  unknown  status.  Confidence  in  the 

classification of chemical status for the first plans was not reported. 

78 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.3 

Confidence in the classification of chemical status of surface water bodies 

in Latvia based on the most recently assessed status/potential.   

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 4.4 compares the chemical status of surface water bodies in Latvia for the first plans 
with  that  for  the  second  plans  and  that  expected  by  2015.  11  %  of  water  bodies  were 

classified as being in good status in the second plans, with 85 % of water bodies remaining 
at unknown status. This compares with 95 % predicted in good status for 2015.  

The  assessment  of  chemical  status  for  the  second  plans  was  expected  to  be  based  on  the 
standards  laid  down  in  the  EQS  Directive  (version  in  force  on  13  January  2009).  Some 

Member States did not fully implement the Directive in the first plans, as the transposition 
deadline was in July 2010, after their adoption. 

More information on the chemical status in each RBD and water category can be found on 
the website of the European Environment Agency37. 

37   https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water  

79 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                      
Figure 4.4 

Chemical status of surface water bodies in Latvia for the second RBMPs, 

for  the  first  RBMPs  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in  parenthesis  is 
the number of surface water bodies for each cycle. Note: the period of the 

assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2007 to 2015. The year of 
the assessment of status for first RBMPs is not known. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good chemical 
status.  The  information  for  Latvia  is  shown  in  Figure  4.5.  The  high  expectation  of  good 

status  in  2015  (95  %  of  water  bodies)  could  not  be  validated  by  the  information  in  the 
second plans, as the status of a significant number of water bodies remained unknown. 

Directive  2013/39/EU  amended  the  EQS  Directive.  In  particular,  it  set  more  stringent 
environmental  quality  standards  for  seven  substances38.  Member  States  were  required  to 
indicate  if  the  new  standards  caused  the  status  of  the  surface  water  bodies  to  appear  to 

deteriorate. This was the case for 8 % of surface water bodies for Benzo(a)pyrene in Latvia, 
for 3 % for nickel and for 1.8 % for lead. Good chemical status should be reached by 2021 

in  relation  to  the  revised  environmental  quality  standards,  unless  Member  States  apply 
exemptions under Article 4(4) of the WFD or less stringent objectives under Article 4(5). 

38   Anthracene,  Brominated  diphenylether,  Fluoranthene,  Lead  and  its  compounds,  Naphthalene,  Nickel  and 

its compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 

80 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.5 

Expected date of achievement of good chemical of surface water bodies in 

Latvia.  The number in parenthesis is  the number of water bodies in each 
category 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Good chemical status of surface water bodies is expected to be achieved by the end of the 

third planning cycle in all four Latvian RBDs. 

Priority Substances causing the failure of good chemical status 

Member  States  were  expected  to  report  exceedances  based  on  the  revised,  more  stringent 

Environmental Quality Standards from Directive 2013/39/EU. 

The substances causing the greatest proportion of surface water bodies to fail good chemical 

status  were  mercury  and  its  compounds,  brominated  diphenylethers,  nickel  and  its 
compounds and cadmium and its compounds. 

The top substances in terms of the proportion of water bodies failing because of it are shown 

in Figure 4.6.  

In addition, for surface water bodies in Latvia the largest proportion of exceedances were for 

the  annual  average  environmental  quality  standard  for  mercury  (36  %),  brominated 
diphenylethers  (23  %),  nickel  (21  %)  and  cadmium  (13  %).  Latvia  indicated  that  the 

environmental  quality  standards  for  mercury  and  brominated  diphenylethers  were  also 
exceeded  in  biota.  Only  one  substance  (tributyltin-cation)  was  identified  as  exceeding  its 

81 

 
 
 
Maximum Allowable Concentration environmental quality standard in a lake water body in 

the Lielupe RBD. 

Figure 4.6 

The top Priority Substances causing failure to achieve good chemical status 

in  surface  water  bodies  in  Latvia  (note  that  only  seven  substances  were 
reported to be causing failure). 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

No Priority Substances are reported to have improved from failing to achieve good status to 

good chemical status since the first plans. 

Ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances 

According  to  Article  8(a)  of  the  EQS  Directive,  eight  priority  substances  and  groups  of 

priority  substances  behave 
toxic 
substances39. These substances are generally expected to cause widespread exceedances and 
their  emissions  can  be  challenging  to  tackle  (e.g.  due  to  long-range  atmospheric  transport 

like  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and 

and  deposition).  In  order  to  show  the  progress  made  in  tackling  other  priority  substances, 
Member  States  have  the  possibility  to  present  the  information  related  to  chemical  status 

separately for these substances.  

Ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  substances  have  a  strong  influence  on 

overall  chemical  status.  This  is  the  case  in  particular  for  mercury  and  its  compounds, 

39   Brominated  diphenylether,  Mercury  and  its  compounds,  Polyaromatic  hydrocarbons  (PAH),  Tributyltin,  

PFOS, dioxins, hexabromocyclodecane and heptachlor 

82 

 
 
 
                                                      
brominated diphenylethers, tributyltin-cation and total benzo(g,h,i)-perylene + indeno(1,2,3-

cd)-pyrene, based on the environmental quality standards in the 2008 Directive. 

Priority  Substances  used  in  the  assessment  of  chemical  status  compared  to  those 
monitored 

Latvia reported that in all four RBDs, 38 of the 41 Priority Substances were both monitored 

and  used  for  the  assessment  of  chemical  status.  The  remaining  three  Priority  Substances 
(carbon  tetrachloride,  trichloroethylene  and  tetrachloroethylene)  were  not  monitored  nor 

used in the assessment. 

Application of alternative environmental quality standards for water, biota and sediment  

According  to  the  EQS  Directive,  Member  States  may  opt  to  apply  environmental  quality 

standards for another matrix than the one specified in the Directive for a given substance. If 
they  do  so,  they  have  to  ensure  the  environmental  quality  standard  they  set  in  the  other 

matrix (or matrices) offers at least the same level of protection as the standard established in 
the Directive. 

All four RBDs in  Latvia reported having used the biota standards from the EQS Directive 

for mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene, and the water standards from the 
Directive for hexachlorobenzene. An additional standard was derived for  mercury in  biota 

(higher than the one from the Directive). Latvia also applied the biota standards in force in 
September 2013 for the brominated diphenylethers. Latvia used the standards for Cadmium 

for the higher class of hardness, and derived an additional biota standard for this substance. 
No information could be found on how the additional biota standards (mercury, cadmium) 

have been set. 

For the other priority substances monitored, Latvia applied the standards in water from the 

EQS Directive version which was in force in 2009.  

Use of mixing zones  

Article  4  of  the  EQS  Directive  provides  Member  States  with  the  option  of  designating 

mixing  zones  adjacent  to  points  of  discharge  in  surface  waters.  Concentrations  of  priority 
substances  may  exceed  the  relevant  environmental  quality  standards  within  such  mixing 

zones  if  they  do  not  affect  the  compliance  with  those  standards  in  the  rest  of  the  surface 
water body. Member States that designate mixing zones are required to include within their 

plans a description of the approaches and methodologies applied to define such zones, and a 
description of the measures taken to reduce the extent of the mixing zones in the future. 

83 

 
 
Mixing  zones  have  been  designated  in  Latvia  for  one  RBD,  Venta,  but  not  for  the  other 

three RBDs. The methodology for the designation of Mixing Zones is reported to follow the 
tiered approach as laid down in  the  'Technical  Background  Document on  Identification of 

Mixing Zones'. Links to documents are provided but no information could be found on the 
measures taken to reduce the extent of mixing zones. 

Background Concentrations and Bioavailability 

The  EQS  Directive  stipulates  that  Member  States  have  the  possibility,  when  assessing  the 
monitoring results against the environmental quality standards, to take into account: 

 (a)  natural  background  concentrations  for  metals  and  their  compounds,  if  they 
prevent compliance with the environmental quality standards, and 

(b) hardness, pH or other water quality parameters that affect the bioavailability of 
metals. 

Natural  background  concentrations  for  metals  and  their  compounds  and  water  quality 
parameters  are  not  reported  to  have  been  taken  into  consideration  in  any  of  the  RBDs  in 
Latvia.  

4.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

There appears to be an increase in monitoring sites and surface water bodies monitored for 

operational purposes since the first plans (28 more sites and eight more water bodies). For 
surveillance monitoring, the number of sites has decreased by 36 and the number of water 

bodies  has  decreased  by  14.  In  general,  the  monitoring  and  assessment  of  Priority 
Substances  in  Latvia  has  been  modified  during  the  first  cycle  with  the  introduction  of 

monitoring  of  Priority  Substances  in  water,  biota  and  sediments  for  both  status  and  trend 
assessment. 

Up  until  2014,  monitoring  of  Priority  Substances  in  water  was  limited  in  Latvia.  In  the 
period  2006-2012,  13  Priority  Substances  or  groups  of  substances  were  monitored  in  the 

river and lake water bodies of the Daugava RBD (out of 41  substances as set by the EQS 
Directive).  Starting  from  2014,  the  number  of  monitored  substances  has  increased 
significantly, to  reach 38, and some monitoring  in  biota was performed.  The frequency of 

monitoring has also increased since 2014, towards the recommended minimum frequency of 
the  EQS  Directive:  a  number  of  Priority  Substances  are  reported  to  have  been  monitored 

monthly (in 2014) for status assessment, with a decision for further monitoring to be made 
later. Other substances are reported to have been monitored quarterly, which does not meet 

84 

 
 
the  recommended  minimum  frequency  for  operational  monitoring.  For  trend  assessment, 

where substances are monitored, frequencies generally meet the recommended frequency. 

Monitoring  of  Priority  Substances  in  sediments  was  started  in  2013  and  therefore  the 

available  data  are  not  currently  sufficient  to  assess  trends  or  changes  in  concentrations  of 
priority and hazardous substances in sediments. 

The  number  of  surface  water  bodies  remained  the  same  between  the  first  and  the  second 
plans. Since the first plans, there was an increase in the proportion of surface water bodies 

with good chemical status, from 6 to 10 % but also an increase in the proportion failing to 
achieve good status, from 0 to 5 %. The proportion with unknown status has decreased from 

94 to 85 %. There is therefore still a high proportion of water bodies in unknown status. 

No Priority Substances are reported to have improved from failing to achieve good status to 

good chemical status since the first RBMP. 

4.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  Develop  missing  assessment  methods  for  ecological  status 

assessment and reduce unknown chemical status. 

Assessment: For what concerns the assessment of chemical status, there has been a 
reduction in the number of water bodies with unknown status but the percentage is 

still high at 85 % (94 % in the first plans). This recommendation has therefore been 
partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: The significant shortcomings in the monitoring system, (absence 
of many biological, hydromorphological, physico-chemical quality elements) need to 

be  addressed.  An  adequate  monitoring  network  is  a  necessary  investment  for 
efficient water management.  

Assessment:  The  monitoring  network  has  significantly  improved  since  the  first 

plans,  with  an  increase  in  the  number  of  sites  and  water  bodies  monitored,  the 
monitoring of more Priority Substances, and the introduction of monitoring in biota 

and sediment. 

A  total  of  38  Priority  Substances  are  monitored  to  variable  extents  in  Latvia 

(monitoring frequencies are reported for 38 Priority Substances at site level) with the 

85 

 
 
majority of these substances being monitored in  water. All  substances identified as 

discharged are monitored.  

Spatial  coverage  for  status  assessment  appears  to  be  still  limited,  with  only  a  few 

sites being monitored for each of the Priority Substances listed and only 5 % of lake 
waterbodies  and  a  quarter  of  river  water  bodies  monitored.  This  results  in  a 

significant  proportion of water bodies in  unknown status.  Territorial waters are  not 
reported to be monitored for Priority Substances. 

Hexachlorobenzene, mercury and hexachlorobutadiene have been monitored in biota 
for  status  assessment,  which  represents  an  improvement  compared  to  the  previous 

plans,  although  this  monitoring  is  performed  in  what  seems  to  be  a  very  limited 
number of sites.  

Monitoring  frequencies  have  increased  but  are  not  always  in  line  with  the 
recommended  minimum  frequencies.  It  could  not  be  determined  whether  Latvia 

justified  the  lower  frequencies  on  the  basis  of  expert  judgment  or  technical 
knowledge. 

In water bodies in  all four RBDs,  Latvia reports to  have monitored in  biota and/or 

sediment  all  14  Priority  Substances  required  by  the  EQS  Directive  for  monitoring 
long-term  trends.  Spatial  coverage  appears  to  be  very  limited.  Where  monitored, 

frequencies generally meet the recommended minimum frequencies. 

The chemical status of 85 % of water bodies remain unknown. 

Progress has been made with this recommendation and it is still partially fulfilled.  

  Recommendation:  There  is  a  large  degree  of  unknown  status,  mostly  for  chemical 
status. Latvia needs to  improve the  knowledge base, to  make sure measures are in 

place to  achieve progressive improvement  of  water status  during the second cycle. 
The assessment of chemical status should be based on all the substances listed in the 

EQSD, and on the EQS listed in that Directive, unless equivalently protective EQS 
are derived.  

Assessment:  As  regards  unknown  status,  please  see  the  previous  recommendation. 
Latvia  reported  that  in  all  four  RBDs  38  of  the  41  Priority  Substances  were 

monitored  and  taken  into  account  in  the  assessment  of  status  (although  they  are 
monitored  in  only  a  few  sites  each).  For  these  38  Priority  Substances  the 

86 

 
 
environment quality standards used are those laid down in Part A of Annex I of the 

EQS Directive. Additional standards in biota were set for mercury and cadmium but 
no information was found on how these standards were derived.  

Three  Priority  Substances 
and 
tetrachloroethylene)  were  not  monitored,  and  therefore  the  environment  quality 

trichloroethylene 

tetrachloride, 

(carbon 

standards were not applied for these substances.  

Progress has been made on this recommendation, and it has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be 
monitored  in  biota  for  comparison  with  the  biota  standards  in  the  EQSD,  unless 

water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection are derived. Trend monitoring 
in  sediment  or  biota  for  several  substances  as  specified  in  Directive  2008/105/EC 

Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMP.  

Assessment:  These  three  substances  have  been  monitored  in  biota  for  status 
assessment, in what appears to be a very limited number of sites. Latvia applied the 

biota  standards  from  the  EQS  Directive  for  these  three  substances,  and  derived  an 
additional biota standard for mercury. However,  no information  could  be found on 
how  this  standard  was  derived.  Monitoring  frequencies  were  lower  than  the 

recommended  minimum  frequencies,  but  no  explanation  could  be  found  for  these 
reduced frequencies. 

In  water  bodies  in  all  four  RBDs,  Latvia  reports  to  have  monitored  in  sediment 
and/or  biota  all  14  of  the  Priority  Substances  required  by  the  EQS  Directive  for 

monitoring  long-term  trends.  Spatial  coverage  is  sparse  (rarely  more  than  ten 
waterbodies).  Where  monitored,  frequencies  generally  meet  the  recommended 

frequency. 

There has therefore been good progress in implementing this recommendation. It is 

partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation  :  Include  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene 

biota data in the second RBMP 

Assessment:  Monitoring  data  in  biota  have  been  taken  into  account  for  status 
assessment for these three substances in the second plans. This recommendation has 

87 

 
 
been fulfilled. See previous recommendation for more information on this issue (in 

particular limitations regarding the spatial coverage and monitoring frequencies). 

  Recommendation : Provide information on which substances are being monitored in 

biota and/or sediments for the purpose of trend assessment 

Assessment: This recommendation has been fulfilled. See previous recommendation 
for more information on this issue. 

  Recommendation:  Consider  the  atmospheric  deposition  and  diffuse  sources  of 
chemical  pollutants  in  determining  where  to  monitor,  to  improve  knowledge  on 

which to base the identification of measures.  

Assessment:  With  the  information  available,  it  was  not  possible  to  assess  whether 
Latvia  considered  atmospheric  deposition  and  diffuse  sources  when  determining 

where  to  monitor  Priority  Substances.  Latvia  stated  that  information  from  the 
Programme  for  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  of  the  Long  range  Transmission  of  Air 

Pollutants  (set  under  the  Convention  on  Long-range  Transboundary  Air  Pollution) 
has  been  used  for  the  assessment  of  pressures,  but  not  in  the  development  of 
measures. 

88 

 
 
  
 
 
Topic 5

  Monitoring, 

assessment 
quantitative status of groundwater bodies 

and 

classification 

of 

5.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

5.1.1 Monitoring of quantitative status in groundwater 
The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Latvia  is  2240,  which  is  the  same  as  the  first 
cycle (Table 2.3). However, the RBMPs indicated that there were significant differences in 
the  boundaries  that  had  been  updated  based  on  improved  knowledge  from  the  quality  and 

quantity  monitoring  data.  The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  and  the  total  groundwater 
body area have not changed. 

For groundwater bodies, the minimum size has decreased from 327 km2 to 98 km2 in 2016 
(Table 2.3). Three groundwater bodies are not subject to monitoring for quantitative status 

(Table 5.1). This means that approximately 14 % of groundwater bodies are not monitored. 
The investigations of the RBMP and background documents did not find any indication that 

grouping was applied, and there were no clear explanations provided for not monitoring all 
groundwater bodies. 

The  number  of  monitoring  sites  for  quantitative  status  is  listed  in  Table  5.2  and  shows  a 
significant  increase  from  120  in  the  first  RBMP  to  292  in  the  second  RBMP41.  5  of  16 
groundwater  bodies  are  identified  as  drinking  water  protected  areas,  allocated  in  all  four 
RBDs. 

40   Latvia subsequently clarified  that there  were 16 groundwater bodies  in the first RBMP, and 22 had been 
reported because of double calculation of groundwater bodies that are located in more than one river basin 
district. All data reported to WISE is based on 22 groundwater bodies having been delineated in the first 
RBMP.  

41   Latvia subsequently clarified that the reported information is not correct and monitoring sites have actually 

increased.  

89 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 5.1 

Number of groundwater bodies in Latvia directly monitored and the 
purpose of monitoring 

Monitoring Purpose 

Total 
ground-
water 
bodies 
directly 
monitored 
5 
5 
2 
8 (7) 

CHE - 
Chemic
al status 

OPE - 
Operational 
monitoring 

QUA - 
Quantitative 
status 

SOE - 
EIONET 
State of 
Environmen
t monitoring 

SUR – 
Surveillanc
e 
monitoring 

RBD 
LVDUBA 
LVGUBA 
LVLUBA 
LVVUBA 
Source: WISE electronic reporting.  The numbers in brackets were subsequently provided by Latvia and do not 
match the data reported to WISE. 

5 
5 
2 
7 

0 
0 
0 
0 

5 
5 
2 
7 

3 
0 
0 
1 

5 
5 
2 
7 

NID - 
Nutrient 
sensitive 
area under 
the Nitrates 
Directive - 
WFD Annex 
(IV)(1)(iv) 
4 
2 
2 
2 

Table 5.2 

Proportion of groundwater bodies in Latvia monitored for quantitative 
status 

RBD 
LVDUBA 
LVGUBA 
LVLUBA 
LVVUBA 
Source: WISE electronic reporting. The numbers in brackets were subsequently provided by Latvia and do not 

% of total groundwater bodies 
monitored for quantitative status 
83.33 % (80 %) 
100.00 % 
66.67 % (100 %) 
87.50 % (100 %) 

No. of groundwater 
bodies with quantitative 
monitoring 
5 (4 
5 (3) 
2  
7 (6) 

Total No. 
groundwater 
bodies 
6 (5) 
5 (3) 
3 (2) 
8 (6) 

match the data reported to WISE.  

Table 5.3 

Number of groundwater monitoring sites in Latvia and their purpose  

Monitoring Purpose 

RBD 

Total 
ground-
water 
monitor-
in sites 

OPE - 
Operationa
l 
monitoring 
24 

QUA - 
Quantitative 
status 
108 
31 
73 (75) 
80 

SOE - 
EIONET 
State of 
Environme
nt 
monitoring 

SUR - 
Surveillanc
e 
monitoring 
101 
46 
80 
80 

LVDUBA 
LVGUBA 
LVLUBA 
LVVUBA 
Source: WISE electronic reporting. The numbers in brackets were subsequently provided by Latvia and do not 

117 
46 
80 
88 

2 

NID - 
Nutrient 
sensitive 
area under 
the Nitrates 
Directive - 
WFD Annex 
IV.1.iv 
33 
18 
46 
4 

CHE - 
Chemical 
status 
74 
42 
63 
59 (60) 

match the data reported to WISE. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.1.2 Assessment and classification of quantitative status for groundwater 

There is no groundwater body at risk of failing good quantitative status.  Map 5.1 displays 

the  most  recently  assessed  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies.  It  shows  that  all  
groundwater  bodies  (100  %)  were  of  good  quantitative  status  (Figure  5.1)  and  they  had 

already  been  in  good  status  in  the  first  RBMP.  Figure  5.2  shows  the  confidence  in  status 
classifications, and illustrates that all groundwater bodies have medium confidence in status 

classification. All  groundwater bodies had, and still have, a clear status, in the first and in 
the second RBMP. The expected date of achievement of quantitative and chemical status in 

Latvia was 2015 as shown in Figure 5.3. 

For  all  RBDs,  the  water  balance  was  assessed  by  a  comparison  of  annual  average 

groundwater abstraction against the “available groundwater resource” for every groundwater 
body.  In  all  RBDs  the  criterion  of  “available  groundwater  resource”  has  been  partially 

applied  in  accordance  with  WFD  Article  2(27).  From  all  environmental  objectives,  only 
water balance has been considered in status assessment in 2 out of 442. 

There is no groundwater body at risk of failing good quantitative status.  

42   Latvia subsequently clarified that water balance has been considered in all river basin districts.  

91 

 
 
                                                      
Map 5.1 

Map of the most recently assessed quantitative status of groundwater  

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4. 
Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

92 

 
 
 
  
 
 
Figure 5.1  Quantitative status of groundwater bodies in Latvia for the second plan, for 

the  first  plan  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in  parenthesis  is  the 
number  of  groundwater  bodies  for  both  cycles.  Note  the  period  of  the 
assessment of status for the second plan was 2014. The year of the assessment of 
status for first plan is not known. 

 Source:  WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 5.2  Confidence  in  the  classification  of  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 

bodies in Latvia based on the most recent assessment of status.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5.3  Expected  date  of  achievement  of  good  quantitative  and  good  chemical 

status  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Latvia.  22  groundwater  bodies  delineated 
for second plan.43 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

5.1.3 Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

In 19 of 22 groundwater bodies, associated surface waters have been reported. These are not 
related to risk and they have not been considered in status assessment in all RBDs. 

In  19  of  22  groundwater  bodies,  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  have  been 
reported44.  

These are not related to  risk and they have not been considered in status assessment in all 
RBDs. The needs of these ecosystems have been considered in status assessment in three of 

four RBDs. 

5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

All  groundwater bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP. 

43   Latvia subsequently clarified that the figure should refer to the 16 existing groundwater bodies. 
44  Latvia  subsequently  provided  the  following  information:  the  link  of  groundwater  bodies  to  terrestrial 
ecosystems is reported to be present in all  four river basin districts. The link with terrestrial ecosystems is 
not present in 2 of 16 groundwater bodies- GWB “A” (distributed in two RBDs: Venta and Lielupe) and 
GWB  “P”  (Gauja  RBD).  The  link  is  not  reported  as  the  groundwater  bodies  are  located  at  great  depths 
which prevents connection to surface ecosystems. The needs of these ecosystems have been considered in 
the status assessment in 3 of 4 RBDs.  

94 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
Changes  or  updates  regarding  monitoring  and  assessment  of  groundwater  bodies  are 

described in the RBMPs, and it was stated the assessment methodology was uniform in all 
RBDs  and  did  not  change  since  the  first  cycle.  The  situation  in  monitoring  has  improved 

significantly  but  shows  drawbacks  as  well.  The  number  of  monitoring  sites  increased 
significantly but  the number of  groundwater bodies with  monitoring decreased from  21 to 
1945.  

The RBMP and background documents assessed did not indicate explicit reasons as to why 

not all groundwater bodies are monitored. 

5.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and Programme of Measures 
requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation: “The significant shortcomings in the monitoring system, (absence 
of many biological, hydromorphological, physico-chemical quality elements) need to 
be  addressed.  An  adequate  monitoring  network  is  a  necessary  investment  for 

efficient water management”.   

Assessment:  the  monitoring  has  improved,  but  not  all  groundwater  bodies  are 
monitored. In this sense and based on the reported information, the recommendation 

is considered partially fulfilled. 

45   Latvia subsequently clarified that 3 of the 16 groundwater bodies are not monitored (whether for quality for 
quantity  or  both).  Still,  these  groundwater  bodies  have  similar  hydrogeological  condition  and  pressures 
with other groundwater bodies, and thus the aggregation principle was used. 

95 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
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 

6.1.1 Monitoring of chemical status in groundwater 
The total number of groundwater bodies in Latvia is 22 (Table 2.3)46. Neither the number of 
groundwater bodies nor the total groundwater body area changed. In total three groundwater 
(14 %) bodies were not subject to surveillance monitoring. 

The  number  of  monitoring  sites  for  quantitative  status  is  listed  in  Table  5.1  and  shows  a 
significant  increase  from  120  in  the  first  RBMP  to  292  in  the  second  RBMP.47  5  of  22 
groundwater  bodies  are  identified  as  drinking  water  protected  areas  assigned  to  all  four 
RBDs. No groundwater bodies are reported to be at risk of failing to meet chemical status. 

The  coverage  of  groundwater  bodies  by  monitoring  is  not  complete  because  surveillance 
monitoring is not implemented in all groundwater bodies. The assessment of the RBMP and 

background  documents  found  no  indication  that  grouping  of  groundwater  bodies  for 
monitoring and assessment of chemical status was applied2. 

The number of  groundwater bodies with  surveillance monitoring increased from 14 in  the 
first RBMP to 191 in the second RBMP. The number of monitoring sites is listed in  Table 
5.3  and  shows  an  increase  from  175  in  the  first  RBMP  to  307  in  the  second  RBMP.  The 

number  of  operational  monitoring  sites  has  been  increased  significantly  since  the  first 
RBMP,  from  0  to  26  (in  four  groundwater  bodies),  although  no  groundwater  body  was 

reported to be at risk. 

Except ammonium, all other WFD core parameters (nitrate, electrical conductivity, oxygen 
and pH) are monitored in all RBDs.48 

6.1.2 Assessment and classification of chemical status in groundwater 

Map  6.1  and  Figure  6.1  display  the  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  for  the  most 
recently  assessed  status.  It  shows  that  all  groundwater  bodies  (100  %)  were  of  good 

46   Latvia  subsequently  clarified,  that  the  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  is  in  fact  16  and  not  22. This 
was  due  to  double  counting  of  groundwater  bodies.  This  number  is  therefore  incorrect,  but  without 
knowledge of where the double counting took place, it cannot be rectified. 

47   Latvia  subsequently  informed  that  the  number  of  monitored  groundwater  bodies  has  no  changed  and  the 

grouping was applied but it was, not well described in the RBMP. 

48   Latvia subsequently clarified, that in fact also ammonium was monitored (reporting error) 

96 

 
 
                                                      
chemical  status.  Figure  6.2  shows  medium  confidence  in  status  classifications.  All 

groundwater bodies had, and still have, a clear status, in the first and in the second RBMP.  

There are no groundwater bodies with poor status, neither in the first nor second cycle. The 

extent  of  exceedance  of  a  groundwater  quality  standard  or  a  groundwater  threshold  value 
was  not  calculated  as  there  are  no  such  exceedances:  no  monitoring  site  exceeds  any 

groundwater quality standard or threshold value for any pollutant.  

Groundwater  threshold  values  have  been  established  in  all  RBDs.  Although  there  are  no 
groundwater bodies at risk, and therefore no pollutant or indicator of pollution causing a risk 

of failure of good chemical status, Latvia reported a long list of substances causing risk of 
failure49. 

The  assessment  of  the  RBMP  and  background  documents  found  that,  for  all  Groundwater 
Directive50    Annex  II  substances,  threshold  values  have  been  established.  In  all  RBDs 
natural  background  levels  have  been  considered  in  the  groundwater  threshold  value 

establishment.  

A  trend  methodology  is  available  and  assessments  have  been  performed  in  all  RBDs.  A 

trend reversal methodology is available in half of the RBDs. 

49   Latvia subsequently clarified that the areas of groundwater bodies affected by significant pressures are less 
than 20 % of the total area of groundwater bodies. Thus, the status of groundwater bodies is still considered 
as good, even if there are some areas of concern for which these threshold values have been established. 
50  Directive  2006/118/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  December  2006  on  the 

protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006L0118-20140711 

97 

 
 
                                                      
 
Map 6.1  Map  of  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Latvia  based  on  the  most 

recently assessed status of the groundwater water bodies. 

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.  

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.1  Chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Latvia  for  the  second  plan,  for 

the first plan, and expected in 2015. The number in the parenthesis is the 
number  of  groundwater  bodies  for  both  cycles.  Note  the  period  of  the 

assessment  of  status  for  the  second  plan  was  2014.  The  year  of  the 
assessment of status for first plan is not known,  

Source: WISE electronic reporting. 

Figure 6.2  Confidence  in  the  classification  of  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies 

in Latvia based on the most recent assessment of status.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
6.1.3 Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/  or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

In 19 of 22 groundwater bodies, groundwater associated surface waters have been reported. 

They are not related to risk as there are no groundwater bodies at risk. They have not been 
considered in status assessment.  

In  19  of  22  groundwater  bodies  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  have  been 
reported. They are not related to risk as there are no groundwater bodies at risk. In three of 

the four RBDs groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have been considered in status 
assessment51.  

6.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The assessment of the RBMP and background documents identified that there are summary 

chapters  in  each  RBMP  but  that  these  are  without  information  on  groundwater  issues. 
Changes  or  updates  regarding  monitoring  and  assessment  of  groundwater  bodies  are 

described  in  Chapter  4.6  of  the  RBMP.  Accordingly,  the  assessment  methodology  did  not 
change and the only changes are concerning the number of monitoring sites. 

All groundwater bodies remain unchanged since the first RBMP. 

The  monitoring  situation  improved,  but  there  are  still  three  groundwater  bodies  without 
surveillance monitoring. Indications of grouping for monitoring could not be found. Latvia 

however clarified that grouping was in fact used.  

The  status  situation  remains  good,  as  all  groundwater  bodies  are  still  of  good  chemical 
status.  

6.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  The significant shortcomings in the monitoring system, (absence 
of many biological, hydromorphological, 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-

51   Latvia subsequently clarified that groundwater bodies are linked with terrestrial ecosystems in all 4 RBDs. 
The link with terrestrial ecosystems is not present in 2 of 16 groundwater bodies (Groundwater body “A” 
situated in the two RBDs Venta and Lielupe and groundwater body “P” in the Gauja RBDs). The reason for 
this that the groundwater bodies are located at great depth.  

100 

 
 
                                                      
2014  was  approved.  To  report  on  the  monitoring  system  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements 

Assessment: Coverage of surveillance monitoring improved from 14 of 16 to 19 of 

22 groundwater bodies. The recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: 

  A  groundwater  operational  monitoring  based  on  WFD 
requirements  should  be  established.  Groundwater  trend  assessments  and  reversals 

should be carried out in the second RBMP cycle. 

Assessment:  The  recommendation  regarding  monitoring  is  no  longer  relevant. 
Operational  monitoring  has  been  established  in  four  groundwater  bodies  of  two 

RBDs and there are no groundwater bodies at risk.  

Trend  assessments  have  been  performed  in  all  RBDs  and  a  methodology  has  been 
established. A methodology for  assessing trend reversals  was  established in  two of 

four RBDs. The recommendation regarding trend assessment is partially fulfilled. 

101 

 
 
 
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  

7.1.1 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies 

Heavily  modified  water  body  are  designated  into  the  categories  “rivers”  and  “lakes”.  No 

artificial  water  bodies  are  designated.  No  changes  have  taken  place  in  the  number  or 
percentage of designated heavily modified water bodies since the first RBMP (see Chapter 

2). 

There are three reservoirs that are designated as a heavily modified water body in one of the 

RBDs (Daugava RBD). One reservoir was originally a lake and is designated as a heavily 
modified lake water body. Three reservoirs (there are two reservoirs in one of the HMWBs) 

were originally rivers and are designated as heavily modified river water bodies. 

The main water uses for which river water bodies are designated as heavily modified water 
body are agricultural land drainage and transport (navigation ports). Lake heavily modified 

water  bodies  are  designated  mainly  due  to  agricultural  land  drainage.  The  main  physical 
land  drainage, 
alterations  of  heavily  modified  river  and 

lake  water  bodies  are 

weirs/dams/reservoirs and locks. 

The  national  methodology  for  heavily  modified  water  body  designation  has  not  been 

modified since the first planning cycle, as reference is made to a methodological document 
of  2007  addressing  all  water  categories.  The  methodology  includes  criteria  for  defining 

“substantial changes in character” due to physical modifications. 

The assessment of significant adverse effects is performed at water body level on a case-by-
case  basis  without  specific  criteria  for  the  different  uses.  The  basis  of  the  assessment  is 
expert judgement. General guidance is given in the national methodology. 

The national methodology also provides general (theoretical) descriptions of the assessment 
of “other means” to achieve the beneficial objectives served by the heavily modified water 
body (for different water uses). 

102 

 
 
 
Figure 7.1 

Proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category  in  Latvia  that  has  been 

designated as heavily modified or artificial  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016 

7.1.2 Definition  of  Good  Ecological  Potential  for  Heavily  Modified  and  Artificial 

Water Bodies 

Good ecological potential is reported as defined in all four RBDs but the approach used for 
good ecological potential definition is not specified in the WISE reporting. Good ecological 

potential is also reported to have been defined in terms of biology in all four RBDs, but the 
only  biological  quality  element  for  which  biological  values  have  been  derived  in  order  to 

define moderate ecological potential and good ecological potential is benthic invertebrates. 
The  good  ecological  potential  is  set  according  to  the  reference  (natural)  conditions  of  the 

most appropriate type of water body, for example for lake water bodies. The thresholds for 
the biological quality element of benthic invertebrates are set at ~ 15 % less than for natural 

water bodies. 

Good ecological potential has not been defined at water body level, or for groups of heavily 

modified  water  body/artificial  water  body,  but  another  approach  has  been  used.  Latvia 
reported  that  the  good  ecological  potential  definition  is  still  on-going.  The  criteria  which 

have  been  used  to  assess  ecological  potential  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  do  not 
correspond to any of the approaches listed in the WISE reporting (Common Implementation 

Strategy  guidance  approach,  Prague  approach  or  hybrid  approach).  Available  data  have 
allowed a preliminary estimation of the necessary shift of the heavily modified water body 

103 

 
 
 
class boundaries for benthic invertebrates (compared to ecological status) to be made. These 

modified class boundaries formed a basis for heavily modified water body classification in 
the  second  RBMPs.  The  approach  for  good  ecological  potential  definition  is  subject  to 

further improvements and will be revised in the next planning cycle. 

Biological quality element assessment methods sensitive to hydrological and morphological 

changes  are  reported  for  rivers,  lakes  and  transitional  waters.  For  rivers,  methods  used  to 
assess fish and benthic invertebrates are reported as “sensitive to altered habitats due to both 

hydrological and morphological changes”. For lakes and coastal water bodies, only methods 
for  benthic  invertebrates  are  reported  as  “sensitive  to  altered  habitats  due  to  both 

hydrological  and  morphological  changes”.  For  coastal  waters,  there  are  also  methods  to 
assess phytoplankton which are only sensitive to hydrological changes. 

No  mitigation  measures  have  been  identified  to  define  good  ecological  potential,  and  no 

information was found on a list (library) of mitigation measures used for defining moderate 
ecological potential/good ecological potential. 

A  comparison  between  good  ecological  potential  and  good  ecological  status  has  not  been 
carried  out  in  any  of  the  RBDs.  Although  good  ecological  potential  has  been  preliminary 

derived  by  modification  of  good  ecological  status  class  boundaries,  a  full  comparison  of 
good ecological status and good ecological potential has not been performed in the frame of 

the  second  RBMPs.  The  main  reason  for  this  is  that  to  make  a  full  comparison,  fully 
to 
developed 

classification  methods 

intercalibrated 

sensitive 

that 

and 

are 

hydromorphological  modifications  are  necessary  prerequisites.  Most  existing  classification 
methods in  Latvia were still undergoing intercalibration process at the time of adoption of 

the second RBMPs. 

Further  needs  for  improvement  in  the  river  basin  management  planning  include 
investigations  on  heavily  modified  water  body  mitigation  measures  and  overall 
improvements in the methodology for good ecological potential definition. 

7.2   Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

There is no change in the number of designated heavily modified water body since the first 
RBMPs, but it is noted that in 2015 a study was performed with the aim of gathering and 

analysing data and other information and developing methodologies to assess the impacts of 
point  source,  diffuse  pollution  and  hydromorphological  alterations  on  Latvian  waters.  The 

104 

 
 
results of this study have not been used to update the lists of heavily modified water bodies, 

or the Programme of Measures for the second RBMPs. However, they will be used in the 
new planning period 2016-2021. 

On  good  ecological  potential  definition,  there  is  no  significant  change  since  the  first 
planning  cycle.  Although  good  ecological  potential  is  now  reported  as  defined,  the 

methodology is still provisional and needs to be revised within the second planning cycle. In 
comparison to the first RBMPs, further monitoring data has been gathered to further support 

the process of developing the good ecological potential methodology. 

7.3   Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  The  process  of  designating  heavily  modified  water  bodies  and 
classifying  status  are  currently  largely  based  on  expert  judgement,  and  more 
monitoring is needed for a thorough assessment. The designation of heavily modified 

water bodies should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment 
of  significant  adverse  effects  on  their  use  or  the  environment  and  the  lack  of 

significantly  better  environmental  options  should  be  specifically  mentioned  in  the 
RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process. 

Assessment: The national methodology for heavily modified water body designation 
has  not  been  modified  since  the  first  planning  cycle,  but  the  original  methodology 

includes  criteria  for  defining  “substantial  changes  in  character”  due  to  physical 
modifications. Concerning the assessment of significant adverse effects, it is done at 

water  body  level  on  a  case-by-case  basis  without  specific  criteria  for  the  different 
uses. The basis of the assessment is expert judgement. General guidance is given in 

the  national  methodology.  The  national  methodology  also  provides  general 
(theoretical)  descriptions  of  the  assessment  of  “other  means”  to  achieve  the 

beneficial objectives served by the heavily modified water body. 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. 

It  is  noted  that  in  2015  a  study  was  performed  with  the  aim  of  gathering  and 
analysing  data  and  other  information  and  developing  methodologies  to  assess  the 
impacts  of  point  source,  diffuse  pollution  and  hydromorphological  alterations  on 

Latvian  waters.  As  the  results  of  this  study  came  in  very  late  in  the  RBMPs 
development process, the results of this study have not been used to update the lists 

105 

 
 
of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  and  the  Programme  of  Measures  for  the  second 

RBMPs, but they will be used in the new planning period 2016-2021. 

Concerning  good  ecological  potential,  there  is  no  significant  change  since  the  first 

planning cycle. Although good  ecological  potential is  now reported  as  defined, the 
methodology is still provisional and needs to be revised within the second planning 

cycle. In comparison to the first RBMPs, further monitoring data has been gathered 
to  further  support  the  process  of  developing  the  good  ecological  potential 

methodology. 

Therefore, this recommendation has not been fulfilled. 

106 

 
 
 
Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions 

8.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

8.1.1 Environmental objectives 

The  environmental  objectives  are  defined  in  Article  4  of  the  WFD.  The  aim  is  long-term 
sustainable  water  management  based  on  a  high  level  of  protection  of  the  aquatic 

environment.  Article 4(1) defines  the WFD general  objective to  be achieved in  all surface 
and  groundwater  bodies,  i.e.  good  status  by  2015.  Within  that  general  objective,  specific 

environmental  objectives  are  defined  for  heavily  modified  water  bodies  (good  ecological 
potential and good chemical status by 201552), groundwater (good chemical and quantitative 
status  by  2015)  and  for  Protected  Areas  (achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  associated 
Directive by 2015 unless otherwise specified). 

Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies, as well 
as  for  chemical  and  quantitative  status  of  groundwater,  have  been  reported  in  all  RBDs, 

although unknowns remain. 

Assessments of the current status of surface and groundwater bodies in Latvia are provided 

elsewhere  in  this  report:  for  ecological  status/potential  of  surface  waters  (Chapter  3),  for 
chemical status of surface waters (Chapter 4), for quantitative status of groundwater bodies 

(Chapter 5), for chemical status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 6) and for status of surface 
and groundwater bodies associated with Protected Areas (Chapter 15). 

For the second plans, Member States were required to report the date when they expect each 
surface  and  groundwater  body  to  meet  its  environmental  objective.  This  information  is 

summarised in the chapters mentioned above. 

8.1.2 Exemptions 

Where environmental objectives are not yet achieved exemptions can be applied in case the 

respective conditions are met and the required justifications are provided in the plans. Figure 
8.1 summarises the percentage of water bodies expected to be at least in good status in 2015 
and  the  reported  use  of  at  least  one  exemption  in  Latvia  for  the  four  main  sets  of 

environmental objectives. 

52 For priority substances newly introduced by Directive 2013/39/EU, good status should be reached by 2027, 
and  for  the  2008  priority  substances,  for  which  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  were  revised  by 
Directive 2013/39/EU, good status should be reached in 2021. 

107 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 8.1  Water  bodies  in  Latvia  expected  to  be  in  at  least  good  status  in  2015  and 

use of exemptions. 1 = Surface water body ecological status/potential; 2 = 
Surface  water  body  chemical  status;  3  =  Groundwater  body  quantitative 

status; 4 = Groundwater body chemical status.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016. For some water bodies the date for achievement of 

good status is unknown. 

Article  4  of  the  WFD  allows,  under  certain  conditions,  for  different  exemptions  to  the 
objectives:  an  extension  of  deadlines  beyond  2015,  less  stringent  objectives,  a  temporary 

deterioration,  or  deterioration/non-achievement  of  good  status/potential  due  to  new 
modifications. The exemptions under WFD Article 4 include the provisions in Article 4(4) - 

extension  of  deadline,  4(5)  –  less  stringent  objectives,  4(6)  -  temporary  deterioration,  and 
4(7)  -  new  modifications/new  sustainable  human  development  activities.  Article  4(4) 

exemptions  may  be  justified  by  disproportionate  cost,  technical  feasibility  or  natural 
conditions, and those under Article 4(5) by disproportionate cost or technical feasibility. 

Figure 8.2 summarises the percentage of water bodies subject to each type of exemption 
(and reason) in relation to the four types of environmental objectives in Latvia. 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8.2 

Type  of  exemptions  applied  to  surface  water  and  groundwater  bodies  for 

the  second  plans  in  Latvia.  Note:  Ecological  status  and  groundwater 
quantitative  status  exemptions  are  reported  at  the  water  body  level. 

Chemical  exemptions  for  groundwater  are  reported  at  the  level  of  each 
pollutant  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status,  and  for  surface  waters 

for each Priority Substance that is causing failure of good chemical status.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016 

Application of Article 4(4) 

For  the  application  of  Article  4(4)  in  surface  water  bodies,  the  number  of  exemptions  has 

not significantly changed compared to the first plans, except in the Daugava RBD, where it 
decreased. The justifications have changed but contradictory information has been reported. 
In  the  first  plans,  disproportionate  costs  and  technical  feasibility  have  been  used  for 

109 

 
 
 
justification of use of Article 4(4), while in the second plans natural conditions are reported 

to WISE for all RBDs.  

A  detailed  assessment  of  the  Daugava  plan  showed  exemptions  under  Article  4(4)  are 

justified by technical feasibility, in particular uncertainty about the reasons of the problem, 
which  is  applied  in  eight  out  of  nine  cases.  This  is  in  contradiction  with  the  information 

reported to WISE (see above).  

The  Daugava  plan  includes  tables  per  water  body  type  (rivers,  lakes  and  groundwater) 

presenting  summarised  justifications  for  the  application  of  time  extensions  related  to 
technical feasibility. The reasons are provided for each water body. 

The  main  drivers  for  exemption  are  only  reported  to  WISE  in  relation  to  groundwater. 
Urban Development in the main driver in the Daugava and Venta RBDs and industry in the 

Gauja RBD.  

Table  8.1  shows  the  main  significant  pressures  for  Priority  Substances  failing  to  achieve 

good chemical status and for which exemptions have been applied. The main pressures are 
diffuse atmospheric deposition and unknown anthropogenic pressure. 

No exemptions are applied to groundwater in the second plans, as had already been the case 

in the first.  

Table 8.1 

Pressure responsible for Priority Substances in Latvia failing to achieve 

good chemical status and for which exemptions have been applied 

Significant pressure on surface water 
bodies 

Failing Priority 
Substances 
Number 
2 
6 
Source: WISE electronic reporting 2016. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Latvia. 

Article 4(4) - Technical feasibility 
exemptions 
Number 
30 
26 (32) 

2.7 - Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition 
8 - Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown 

The main impacts  related to  exemptions are chemical  pollution in the  Daugava and Gauja 
RBDs. In the Gauja RBD diminution of the quality of associated ecosystem is also reported, 

as well as alterations in the flow directions in the Venta RBD. 

110 

 
 
 
Application of Article 4(5) 

Article 4(5) has not been applied in surface waters in the first plans; in the second plans, it is 
applied in the Daugava RBD for two waterbodies. The justifications are provided on water 

body level and refer to technical feasibility. 

The  main  drivers  for  exemption  are  only  reported  to  WISE  in  relation  to  groundwater. 

Urban Development in the main driver in the Daugava and Venta RBDs and industry in the 
Gauja RBD.  

Information on impacts has not been reported to WISE. 

Application of Article 4(6) 

No exemptions according to Article 4(6) have been applied.  

Application of Article 4(7) 

No exemptions according to Article 4(7) have been applied. No plans for hydropower dams 
or inland navigation projects are indicated.  

Application of Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive 

No exemptions according to Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive53 have been applied. 

8.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The plans present information on differences since the first plans. There are changes in the 
assessment results, but according to the plans the methodologies used for the objectives and 

exemptions have not changed. For Article 4(4) in surface waters it seems that the number of 
exemptions has not significantly changed, except in the Daugava RBD where it decreased. 

However, the reported justification has changed. In the first plans disproportionate costs and 
technical  feasibility have been used as justification of the use of Article 4(4), while in the 

second plans natural conditions are reported to WISE, even if technical feasibility is in fact 
listed as the reason for exemptions in the Daugava plan. Article 4(5) has not been applied in 

surface waters in the first plans, while it is applied in the Daugava RBD in the second plan. 
The  use  of  Article  4(5)  is  justified  by  technical  feasibility.  No  exemptions  are  applied  to 

53   Directive  2006/118/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  December  2006  on  the 
and  deterioration  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

protection  of  groundwater 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006L0118-20140711  

against  pollution 

111 

 
 
                                                      
groundwater,  as  was  already  the  case  in  the  first  plans.  Article  4(6)  and  Article  4(7)  have 

also not been used in either cycle. 

8.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  plans  and  first  Programmes  of 

Measures requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation: Exemptions have been applied in this first cycle of RBMPs. While 
the  WFD  does  provide  for  exemptions,  there  are  specific  criteria  that  must  be 
fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to be more 

transparent  and  the  reasons  for  the  exemptions  should  be  clearly  justified  in  the 
plans.  Insufficient  monitoring  contributes  to  shortcomings  in  the  application  of 

exemptions.  The  high  numbers  of  exemptions  applied  in  these  first  RBMPs  are  a 
cause  for  concern.  Latvia  should  take  all  necessary  measures  to  bring  down  the 
number of exemptions for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the 
characterisation  process,  monitoring  networks  and  status  assessment  methods,  as 

well as reducing significantly the degree of uncertainty. 

Assessment:  For  Article  4(4)  in  surface  waters  it  seems  that  the  number  of 
exemptions  has  not  significantly  changed,  except  in  the  Daugava  RBD,  where  it 

decreased. Article 4(5) had not been applied in surface waters in the first plans and it 
is applied in the Daugava RBD in the second plan. The justifications reported in the 

first and second cycle have changed significantly, but there is contradictory reporting 
on  this  issue.    For  technical  feasibility,  detailed  justifications  have  been  developed 

and are reported on water body level. 

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  It  is  unclear  whether  there  are  new  physical  modifications 
planned  in  the  RBDs.  If  this  is  the  case,  the  use  of  exemptions  under  Article  4(7) 

should be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as required by the WFD, 
in  particular  an  assessment  of  whether  the  project  is  of  overriding  public  interest 

and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and the 
absence  of  alternatives  that  would  be  a  better  environmental  option.  Furthermore, 

these  projects  may  only  be  carried  out  when  all  possible  measures  are  taken  to 
mitigate  the  adverse  impact  on  the  status  of  the  water.  All  conditions  for  the 

112 

 
 
application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the 

RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.  

  Recommendation: Ensure that projects having an impact on water bodies (including 

drainage works) assess possible better environmental alternatives. 

  Recommendation:  Assess  any  new  or  maintenance  work  on  the  drainage  of 

agricultural lands against Art 4.7, and execute only compliant projects. 

Assessment  (for  the  recommendations  above):  Article  4(7)  was  not  applied  in  the 

second  plans,  and  was  consequently  not  reported,  therefore  the  fulfilment  of  the 
recommendation cannot be assessed.  

113 

 
 
 
 
Topic 9

  Programme of measures 

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the Programmes of Measures reported 

by Member States; more specific information on measures relating to specific pressures (for 
example arising from agriculture) is provided in subsequent chapters. 

The  Key  types  of  measures  (KTM)  referred  to  in  this  section  are  groups  of  measures 
reported  by  Member  States  in  the  Programmes  of  Measures,  which  target  the  same 
pressure  or  purpose.  The  individual  measures  included  in  the  Programmes  of  Measures 
(being  part  of  the  RBMP)  are  grouped  into  Key  types  of  measures  for  the  purpose  of 
reporting.  The  same  individual  measure  can  be  part  of  more  than  one  Key  Types  of 
Measures because it may be multi-purpose, but  also because the Key types of measures 
are  not  completely  independent  silos.  Key  types  of  measure  have  been  introduced  to 
simplify the reporting of measures and to reduce the very large number of Supplementary 
Measures reported by some Member States (WFD Reporting Guidance 2016).  

A  Key  Type  of  Measure  may  be  one  national  measure  but  it  would  typically  comprise 
more than one national measure. The 25 predefined Key types of measures are listed in 
the WFD Reporting Guidance 2016. 

The Key types of measures should be fully implemented and made operational within the 
RBMP planning period to address specific pressures or chemical substances and achieve 
the environmental objectives. 

9.1   Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

9.1.1 General issues 

An  indication  as  to  whether  or  not  measures  have  been  fully  implemented  and  made 

operational is when they have been reported as being planned to tackle significant pressures 
(at  the  Key  Types  of  Measures  level).  Significant  pressures  are  also  reported  at  the  water 

body level. It would therefore be expected that there would be measures planned in the plans 
to  tackle  all  significant  pressures.  A  comparison  of  pressures  for  which  KTMs  have  been 

made  operational  with  significant  pressures  identified  on  groundwater  and  surface  water 

114 

 
 
  
bodies  showed  that  information  is  similar  for  all  RBDs,  and  on  the  whole,  most  of  the 

significant pressures failing objectives are covered by KTMs.  

For  example,  in  the  Daugava  RBD  all  significant  pressures  for  surface  waters,  with  the 

exception of abstraction  or flow diversion for public water supply,  are covered by  KTMs. 
Significant other pressures include “channel not working”, “flood risk” and “transboundary 

pollution”. For groundwater, in the Daugava RBD the pressures causing failure of objectives 
are  “other  -  point  sources”,  “groundwater  recharge”,  “contaminated  sites”,  “diffuse 

agricultural pollution” and “nitrate”, but KTMs reported only for the last three pressures. 

In the other three RBDs the KTMs correspond to the pressures indicated for groundwater. 

Latvia has mapped 110 (108) national basic measures and 107 (84) national supplementary 
measures to KTMs in all RBDs, across a wide range of KTMs54.  

A total  of 25 % of national  basic measures have been mapped to  KTM21  – “Measures to 
prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure”, 

and 24 % of national supplementary measures have been mapped to KTM14  – “Research, 
improvement  of  knowledge  base  reducing  uncertainty”.  No  national  measures  have  been 
mapped  to  KTMs  16  –  “Upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial  wastewater  treatment 

plants  (including  farms)”,  18  “Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  adverse  impacts  of 
to  counteract 
invasive  alien  species  and 

introduced  diseases”,  or  25  “Measures 

acidification”.  National  measures  have  been  mapped  against  KTM24  –  “Adaptation  to 
climate  change”  in  one  RBD  only  (Venta).  National  measures  have  also  been  mapped 

against  four  additional  KTMs  developed  by  Latvia:  “Evaluation  of  existing  legislation  / 
establishment  of  new  legislation”;  “Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  adverse  impacts  of 

various  economic  activities”;  “Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  or 
anthropogenic  activity  in  protected  areas”;  and  “Reduce  nutrient  pollution  from  other 

sources”. Comparing the basic measures reported with the requirements of Article 11(3) of 
the WFD, no measures for cost recovery of water services (Article 11(3)(b)) or for recharge 

augmentation of groundwater (Article 11(3)(f)) have been reported. 

An  inventory  of  national  measures,  including  supplementary  measures,  identifying  the 

requirements  of  Article  11(3)  that  each  measure  fulfils  is  provided,  together  with  links  to 
further information on Article 11(3)(c-k) basic measures for all RBDs. 

54   Numbers in brackets were subsequently provided by Latvia. 

115 

 
 
                                                      
There is a discrepancy between the KTMs reported to be tackling significant pressures and 

the  KTMs  against  which  national  measures  have  been  mapped.  In  all  RBDs  KTM16  – 
“Upgrades  of  industrial  waste  water  treatment  plants”  has  been  reported  as  being  used  to 

tackle  significant  pressures  but  has  not  had  any  national  measures  mapped  against  it. 
Conversely,  in  all  RBDs  11  KTMs  that  have  had  national  measures  mapped  against  them 

are  not  reported  as  tackling  significant  pressures,  including  the  three  KTMs  which  cover 
water pricing measures. KTM13 – “Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment 

of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.)” has had  national  measures mapped against it in  all 
four RBDs, but measures are only reported as operational in the Venta RBD. As mentioned 

above,  the  Venta  RBD  is  also  the  only  RBD  to  map  national  measures  to  KTM24  – 
“Adaptation to climate change”, but no operational measures are reported. Of the additional 

nationally  developed  KTMs  against  which  national  measures  have  been  mapped,  only 
“Reduce  nutrient  pollution  from  other  sources”  is  reported  to  be  operational.  This  may 

indicate that more measures, not operational in the past, are planned for the next cycles.  

There is no information on the percentage of surface water bodies failing to achieve WFD 
objectives  by  2027  due  to  specific  pressures  (but  the  gap  analyses  indicate  that  all  will 

achieve  WFD  objectives  by  2027).  For  groundwater,  0  to  10  %  are  indicated  against  all 
listed  significant  pressures,  i.e.  point  sources  from  contaminated  sites  or  abandoned 

industrial  sites  (Daugava  and  Gauja  RBDs),  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  and  nitrate 
(Daugava and Lielupe RBDs) and chloride (Venta RBD). 

No information was reported on the number of water bodies where a failure of objectives is 
caused by River Basin Specific Pollutants, nor on the Key types of measures being used to 

address  these  failures  in  either  surface  water  or  groundwater.  However,  in  its  Annex  0 
Latvia  does  comment  that  “improvements  in  defining  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  and 

their corresponding environmental standards” are needed.  The Priority Substances causing 
failure  of  objectives  are  listed  for  all  RBDs,  together  with  the  number  of  water  bodies 

failing.  Mercury,  nickel,  cadmium  and  brominated  diphenylethers  are  reported  to  cause 
failures  of  objectives  in  all  RBDs.  Of  these,  only  mercury  is  addressed  by  KTMs  in  all 

RBDs. No measures are reported for the control of brominated diphenylethers in any of the 
RBDs, the Venta RBD has not reported any measures for nickel or cadmium, and the Gauja 

RBD has not reported measures to control nickel. Lead is also reported as causing a failure 
of  objectives  in  the  Daugava  and  Gauja  RBDs  and  KTMs  are  reported.  KTMs  for  the 

control of lead are also reported in the Lielupe RBD, even though it has not been reported as 
a  priority  substance  causing  a  failure  of  objectives.  The  Lielupe  RBD  has  reported 
Tributyltin-cation,  Benzo(a)pyrene,  and  Total  Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene  +  Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-

116 

 
 
pyrene  as  causing  failures  of  objectives,  but  no  measures  are  in  place  to  address  these 

substances. 

Gap  analyses  are  presented  for  most  significant  pressures  in  all  RBDs,  with  quantitative 

pressure  indicators  and  measure  indicators  and  gap  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.  Some  KTMs 
which  were  mapped  against  national  measures  but  not  reported  to  tackle  significant 

pressures  are  included  in  the  gap  analyses,  suggesting  that  these  were  expected  to  be 
operational  by  2015:  for  example  KTM4  –  “Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical 

pollution  including  sediments,  groundwater,  soil)”,  KTM5  –  “Improving  longitudinal 
continuity  (e.g.  establishing  fish  passes,  demolishing  old  dams)”,  and  KTM7  - 

“Improvement  in  flow  regime  and/or  establishment  of  ecological  flows”  in  the  Daugava 
RBD.  

Cost-effectiveness  analysis  is  an  appraisal  technique  that  provides  a  ranking  of  alternative 
measures on the basis of their cost and effectiveness, where the most cost-effective has the 
highest ranking. In the first Programmes of Measures, cost-effectiveness analysis was used 

for  the  prioritisation  of  supplementary  measures.    In  Annex  0  Latvia  states  that  “the  cost-
to  support  prioritisation  and  selection  of 
effectiveness  analysis  was  carried  out 

supplementary measures for the first Programmes of Measures. It was not repeated for the 
second Programme of Measures, since the measures are largely the same” and therefore no 

information was provided in the second plans.  

A critical factor in the success of the implementation of the Programmes of Measures is the 

availability  of  funding  to  support  the  investments  required.  However,  no  information  has 
been  reported  on  costs  of  measures  or  European  Union  funds  used.  There  is  no  overall 

financial  commitment  for  the  implementation  of  Programme  of  Measures  in  any  of  the 
RBDs.  On  a  sectoral  basis,  commitments  have  been  secured  in  all  RBDs  for  urban,  and 

flood protection, but not for any of the other sectors. Coordination of the preparation of all 
plans  and  Programmes  of  Measures  with  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive55  is 
reported  as  not  having  taken  place  for  any  of  the  required  aspects  in  all  four  RBDs. 
However, KTMs that are relevant to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive are listed for 

all RBDs, with an indication of the type of measure, but not indicating the pressures they are 
addressing. 

55   Directive  2008/56/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  June  2008  establishing  a 
field  of  marine  environmental  policy,  http://eur-

framework 
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056  

for  community  action 

the 

in 

117 

 
 
                                                      
The RBMP and Flood Risk Management Plan have not been integrated into a single plan in 

any of the four RBDs; no joint consultation of RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans, 
nor consideration of the objectives and requirements of the Floods Directive in the second 

RBMPs  and  Programmes  of  Measures,  was  reported  in  any  of  the  RBDs.  This  is  also  the 
case for the inclusion of win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD 

and Floods Directive, drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures, 
and  the  design  of  new  and  existing  structural  measures,  such  as  flood  defences,  storage 

dams  and  tidal  barriers,  to  take  account  of  WFD  Environmental  Objectives.  However, 
financial commitments for the implementation of Programmes of Measures are in place in 

the flood protection areas, and Article 9(4) of the WFD has been applied to impoundments 
for flood protection. 

9.1.2 Measures related to other significant pressures 

Other significant pressures are reported for groundwater and surface water in all four RBDs. 
These  are  unknown  and  other  anthropogenic  pressures  in  all  four  RBDs,  plus  historical 
anthropogenic pressures in the Daugava and Venta RBDs. All are dealt with by one of the 

additional KTMs, that is, to reduce nutrient pollution from unknown sources. Gap indicators 
are the number of water bodies and area to be covered by a measure to achieve an objective. 

The gap values for all are shown for 2015, 2021 and 2027 and all are expected to be zero by 
2021. 

9.1.3 Mapping of national measures to Key Types of Measure 

It was expected that Member States would be able to report their Programme of Measures 
by associating their national measures with predefined KTMs. KTMs are expected to deliver 

the  bulk  of  the  improvements  through  reduction  in  pressures  required  to  achieve  WFD 
Environmental  Objectives.  A  KTM  may  be  one  national  measure  but  it  would  typically 

comprise  more  than  one  national  measure.  Member  States  are  required  to  report  on  the 
national measures associated with the KTMs, and whether the national  measures are basic 

(Article 11(3)(a) or Article 11(3)(b-l)) or supplementary (Article 11(4)).  

Table  9.1  summarises  the  number  of  national  measures  that  have  been  mapped  to  the 

relevant KTMs in Latvia. Also shown is the number of River Basin Districts for which each 
KTM has been reported. Table 9.2 then summarises the type of basic measures associated 

with the national measures mapped against the KTM. 

118 

 
 
 
 
Table 9.1 
Latvia  

Mapping of the types of national measures to Key Types of Measure in 

Key Type of Measure 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants 
KTM10  -  Water  pricing  policy  measures  for  the  implementation  of  the 
recovery of cost of water services from industry 
KTM11  -  Water  pricing  policy  measures  for  the  implementation  of  the 
recovery of cost of water services from agriculture 

KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture 
KTM13  -  Drinking  water  protection  measures  (e.g.  establishment  of 
safeguard zones, buffer zones etc) 

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty 
KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses 
of  Priority  Hazardous  Substances  or  for  the  reduction  of  emissions, 
discharges and losses of Priority Substances 
KTM17  - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-
off 
KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of recreation 
including angling 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 

KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of fishing and 
other exploitation/removal of animal and plants 
KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban 
areas, transport and built infrastructure 

KTM22 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from forestry 

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 

KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 
KTM4  -  Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical  pollution  including 
sediments, groundwater, soil) 
KTM5  -  Improving  longitudinal  continuity  (e.g.  establishing  fish  passes, 
demolishing old dams) 
KTM6  -  Improving  hydromorphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other 
than longitudinal continuity 
KTM7  -  Improvements  in  flow  regime  and/or  establishment  of  ecological 
flows 
KTM8  -  Water  efficiency,  technical  measures  for  irrigation,  industry, 
energy and households 
KTM9  -  Water  pricing  policy  measures  for  the  implementation  of  the 
recovery of cost of water services from households 

KTM99  -  Other  key  type  measure  reported  under  PoM  -  Evaluation  of 
existing legislation/ establishment of new legislation 

KTM99  -  Other  key  type  measure  reported  under  PoM  -  Measures  to 
prevent or control the adverse impacts of various economic activities 

119 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number 
of RBDs 
where 
reported 

3 

2 

2 

1 

1 (0) 

26 

3 (1) 

3 (1) 

3 (2) 

1 

8 (6) 

8 (4) 

4 (2) 

3 (1) 
1 
1 

2 (1) 

2 

9 

1 

1 

6 

14 

6 

25 

6 

1 

8 (7) 

7 (8) 

11 (8) 

3 (2) 

8 (6) 

2 

6 

4 

1 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

1 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
KTM99  -  Other  key  type  measure  reported  under  PoM  -  Measures  to 
prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  or  anthropogenic  activity  in 
protected areas 
KTM99  -  Other  key  type  measure  reported  under  PoM  -  Reduce  nutrient 
pollution from other sources 

17 

1 

4 

4 

3 

Total Mapped Measures  

110 (108) 

107 (84) 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Numbers in brackets were subsequently provided by Latvia. 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9.2 

Type of basic measures mapped to Key Type of Measures in Latvia  

Key Type of Measure 

KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, 
buffer zones etc) 
KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority 
Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of 
Priority Substances 
KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off 
KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of recreation including 
angling 
KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 
KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of fishing and other 
exploitation/removal of animal and plants 
KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, 
transport and built infrastructure 

KTM22 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from forestry 
KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 
KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 
KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than 
longitudinal continuity 
KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and 
households 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM 

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
p
l
a
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
A

r
e
t
a
w
s
l
o
r
t
n
o
C

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

5 

1 

3 

2 

Basic Measure Type 

D
E
I
C
P
P
I

s
e
t
a
r
t
i

N

r
e
h
t
O

e
c
r
u
o
s

t
n
i
o
P

s
e
g
r
a
h
c
s
i
d

e
s
u
r
e
t
a
w

t
n
e
i
c
i
f
f

E

s
d
r
i
B
r
o
s
t
a
t
i
b
a
H

y
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
m
o
r
d
y
H

e
s
u
f
f
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

t
c
e
r
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

r
e
t
a
w
n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
P

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
P
e
c
a
f
r
u
S

s
e
c
n
a
t
s
b
u
S

r
e
t
a
W

e
t
s
a
W
n
a
b
r
U

3 

1 

5 

3 

4 
1 

5 

3 

2 

6 

1 

7 

2 

1 

1 

1 

7 

7 

14 

4 

1 

8 

2 
1 

2 

11 

12 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key 
‘Accidental pollution’ = Article 11(3)(l): Any measures required to prevent significant losses of pollutants from technical installations and to prevent and/or reduce the impact of 
accidental pollution incidents. 
‘Controls water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(e): Controls over the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater and impoundment of fresh surface waters including a register or 
registers of water abstractions and a requirement for prior authorisation of abstraction and impoundment. 
‘Efficient water use’ = Article 11(3)(c): Measures to promote efficient and sustainable water use. 
‘Habitats or Birds’ = Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)  or Birds Directive (2009/147/EC)  
‘Hydromorphology’ = Article 11(3)(i): Measures to control any other significant adverse impact on the status of water, and in particular hydromorphological impacts. 
‘IPPC IED’ = Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC) and the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) . 
‘Nitrates’ = Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC). 
‘Other’ = Other Directives mentioned in Part A of Annex VI of the WFD. 
‘Point source discharges’ = Article 11(3)(g): Requirement for prior regulation of point source discharges liable to cause pollution. 
‘Pollutants diffuse’ = Article 11(3)(h): Measures to prevent or control the input of pollutants from diffuse sources liable to cause pollution. 
‘Pollutants direct groundwater’ = Article 11(3)(j): Prohibition of direct discharge of pollutants into groundwater. 
‘Protection water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(d): Measures for the protection of water abstracted for drinking water (Article 7) including those to reduce the level of purification 
required for the production of drinking water. 
‘Surface Priority Substances’ = Article 11(3)(k): Measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters by Priority Substances and to reduce pollution from other substances that would 
otherwise prevent the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 4. 
‘Urban Waste Water’ = Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). 

122 

 
 
 
 
9.1.4 Pressures for which gaps to be filled to achieve WFD objectives have been reported 

and the Key types of measure planned to achieve objectives 

Member  States  were  expected  to  report  the  gaps  that  need  to  be  filled  to  achieve  WFD 

Environmental  Objectives  in  terms  of  all  significant  pressures  on  surface  waters  and 
groundwater,  in  terms  of  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status  and  in 

terms  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  ecological  status/potential. 
Member  States  were  asked  to  report  predefined  indicators  of  the  gaps  to  be  filled  or  other 

indicators where relevant. Values for the gap indicators were required for 2015 and 2021, and 
were optional for 2027. 

The  information  reported  in  WISE  on  the  gaps  to  fulfil  to  achieve  good  ecological  status 
include detailed data on the significant pressures on surface and groundwaters that may cause 

failure on the environmental objectives. For chemical  status,  the Member States reported the 
specific chemical substances causing failure. 

This information is reported at the sub-unit level. Sub-units are smaller geographic areas within 
particular  RBDs  identified  by  Member  States.  Not  all  Member  States  have  defined  and 
reported sub-units. 

Member States were required to report which KTMs are to be made operational to reduce the 
gaps to levels compatible with the achievement of WFD environmental objectives. A number 

of  indicators  were  predefined  for  each  KTM.  Values  of  the  indicators  for  the  second  and 
subsequent  planning  cycles  were  also  to  be  reported  to  give  an  indication  of  the  expected 

progress and achievements: the values for 2027 could be optionally reported. This means that 
the value of the indicator will be reduced with time as measures are implemented. A value of 

zero is comparable with 100 % good ecological status or potential or good chemical status.  

This  information  was  reported  at  sub-unit  level,  or  at  RBDs  level  if  sub-units  have  not  been 

reported by the Member State. 

9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  level  of  implementation  of  the  first  Programmes  of  Measures  in  Latvia  was  reported  as 
some measures having been completed in all four RBDs. Obstacles to full implementation of 
the  Programmes  of  Measures  were  reported  to  be  governance,  lack  of  finance  and  lack  of 

mechanisms  for  all  RBDs,  but  also  lack  of  research  on  the  effect  of  measures  leading  to 
prioritisation,  postponement  to  the  next  cycle  and  need  to  prioritise  measures  under  limited 

time and financing.  

123 

 
 
Significant  progress  seems  to  have  been  made  in  the  priority  area  of  expanding  wastewater 

collection systems and improving wastewater treatment levels. In addition, gap analyses have 
been carried out for most significant pressures, with the gaps expected to be closed largely by 

2021, some by 2027. 

New legislation or regulations to implement the Programme of Measures in the first cycle was 

reported as being necessary and already adopted for all RBDs. 

9.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendations:  Establish  a quantitative source apportionment  and a  link between 
pressures/impacts  and  their  sources  for  the  second  RBMP  cycle;  and,  Define  clearly 
gaps for individual pressures and water bodies. 

Assessment:  The  gap  analyses  provides  quantitative  indicators  for  most  of  the 

significant  pressures  and  appropriate  measure  indicators,  including  for  discharges  not 
connected to sewer and nutrient pollution issues. 

Therefore, this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Include  for  the  next  RBMPs  not  only  statements  that  cost-
effectiveness  analysis  has  been  carried  out  and  a  methodology  description,  but  also 
inform on its results and how this assessment has influenced the selection of measures. 

Assessment:  There is no information on cost-effectiveness of measures, therefore, this 

recommendation has not been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Latvia  should  clarify  how  much  of  the  gap  to  the  achievement  of 
WFD  objectives  is  expected  to  be  covered  by  implementation  of  hydromorphological 
measures. 

Assessment: Gap analyses have been provided for most significant pressures, including 

hydromorphological pressures. 

Therefore, this recommendation has been fulfilled. 

124 

 
 
 
 
Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

10.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

10.1.1  Water exploitation and trends  

Water abstraction pressure has been identified as of little relevance for Latvia, where only 1.6 
% of surface water bodies in Daugava RBD and 1.2 % of surface water bodies in Gauja RBD 

face significant abstraction pressures.  

10.1.2  Main uses for water consumption  

No  information  has  been  reported  regarding  water  quantity,  including  water  abstractions  or 
Water  Exploitation  Index  +,  through  reporting  to  the  State  of  the  Environment  data  flow  to 

WISE  has  happened.  Water  scarcity  issues  in  Latvia  are  not  considered  to  be  relevant  at  the 
international  level.  No  information  has  been  reported  for  the  uses  of  water  consumption,  as 

water quantity pressures are not reported as significant.  

10.1.3  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

Measures  under  Article  11(3)(c)  to  promote  efficient  and  sustainable  water  use  have  been 

implemented  in  previous  cycle.  Yet,  no  new  measures  or  significant  changes  are  planned. 
Regarding basic measures under Article 11(3)(e), in Latvia there is a permitting regime and a 

register  exists  for  groundwater  and  surface  water  abstractions.  There  is  a  concession, 
authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  for  surface  and  groundwater  to  control  water 

impoundment and a register of impoundments; however, small abstractions are exempted.  

Measures  for  the  prior  authorisation  of  artificial  recharge  or  augmentation  of  groundwater 
bodies (Article 11(3)(f)) have been implemented in the previous cycle, but no new measures or 

significant changes are planned. 

The  significant  abstraction  pressures  are  to  be  tackled  with  an  operational  KTM.  The  KTM 

reported  for  both  RBDs  affected  is  KTM19  –  “Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  adverse 
impacts of recreation including angling”. Reuse is a measure not foreseen in any of the RBDs. 

10.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Measures under Article 11(3)(c) to promote efficient and sustainable water use and measures 

under  Article  11(3)(f)  for  the  prior  authorisation  of  artificial  recharge  or  augmentation  of 

125 

 
 
groundwater bodies have been implemented since the first cycle. No other significant changes 

were observed regarding the implementation and compliance since the first cycle.  

10.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

There were no recommendations in the previous implementation report. 

126 

 
 
 
 
Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture  

11.1 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

In  the  first  plan  hydromorphological  modifications  due  to  drainage  of  agricultural  lands  and 
diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  sources  are  mentioned  as  a  significant  pressure  related  to 

agriculture and this has not changed for the second cycle.  

In the second cycle diffuse pollution from agriculture sources was also assessed as a significant 

pressure on groundwater in Lielupe RBD. 

11.2 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

As in the first plan the significant agricultural pressures identified in the second RBMP’s are 

hydromorphological modifications due to land drainage and diffuse pollution of surface waters. 
In  addition,  in  the  second  plan  diffuse  pollution  from  agricultural  sources  was  assessed  as  a 

significant  pressure  on  groundwater  in  Lielupe  RBD.  Water  use  for  agriculture  was  not 
indicated as a significant pressure as in the first cycle. Also pressures from slurry storage are 
identified. The link between pressures and measures has been established.  

Overall,  management  objectives  have  been  set  for  nutrient  pollution  in  all  RBDs.  However, 

quantitative  management  objectives  in  terms  of  nitrogen  load  reductions  have  not  been 
identified.  In the second RBMPs the current nutrient load for each river basin was determined, 

but there were no nutrient values or required reduction for each river basin district identified. 
The scheme for reducing nutrient emissions based on Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) Baltic 

Sea Action Plan has been taken into account. 

A gap assessment has been performed for load of nitrogen/phosphorus to be reduced to achieve 
objectives  for  2015.  There  is  also  information  on  the  area  (km2)  of  agricultural  land  where 
measures regarding the reduction of nutrient loads have to be implemented. No information is 
provided  for  pesticides.  A  gap  assessment  related  to  hydromorphology  is  performed,  even  if 

there is no specific link to agriculture.  

Basic (the minimum requirement to be complied with) measures under Article 11(3)(h) for the 

control  of  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  at  source  are  applied  with  different  rules  across 
different parts of the RBDs.  General binding rules to control diffuse pollution from agriculture 
are applied in all basins for nitrates, phosphorus on other pollutants.  

127 

 
 
Latvia is applying under KTM2 – “Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture” the following 

measures: 

 

Implementation of Nitrates Directive56: Preventing groundwater and surface water 
pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (mandatory) 

  Application  of  sewage  sludge  to  agricultural  land  according  to  the  set 

requirements (the time, location, protection zone, etc.) (mandatory) 

  Maintaining “winter green areas” or  "rye  fields" and consideration of a   2 metre 
wide vegetation  buffer zone along the watercourses and water bodies, as well as 

drainage systems (voluntary)  

  Ensure  minimum  vegetation  maintenance  in  autumn  and  winter  -  in  nutrient 
sensitive areas on at least 50 % of the total area of agriculture land (mandatory) 

  Carry  out  crop  fertilisation  planning  at  farms,  where  fertilisers  are  used  on  20 
hectares  and  more.  Professional  and  certified  users  of  plant  protection  products 
must  develop  a  fertilisation  plan  for  each  crop  throughout  the  territory  of  the 

country (mandatory) 

  Keep records of fertilisers (to record and document all purchased or sold); organic 
fertilisers (keeping records for  at  least  three  years when fertilisers are  applied to 

areas greater than 20 hectares); and in fruit and vegetable farms (when applied to 
areas greater than 3 hectares) (mandatory) 

 

In the design of new animal housing, the project shall include the construction of 
manure storage facilities (mandatory) 

  Comply  with  the  the  greening  requirements  (to  ensure  crop  diversification,  to 
create  and/or  maintain  ecologically  important  areas  and  to  preserve  perennial 
grassland) (mandatory) 

56   Council  Directive  91/676/EEC  of  12  December  1991  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
agricultural 

sources 

from 
caused 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31991L0676  

nitrates 

by 

128 

 
 
                                                      
  To distribute and use registered plant protection products in compliance with the 
plant  protection  product  registration  class  and  package  leaflet  in  Latvia 
(mandatory) 

  Before  the  planned  spraying  of  plant  protection  products  from  the  air,  a  permit 

must be obtained from the State Plant Protection Service (mandatory) 

  Follow the requirements regarding storage conditions and use of plant protection 

products (mandatory) 

  Comply with the prohibition of the use of fertilisers and chemical plant protection 
products in protection zones around surface water bodies, as provided by the Law 
on Protected Zone (mandatory) 

  Comply with the requirements for fertiliser application (do not apply fertiliser, i) 
on  frozen,  wet,  or  snowy  soils;  ii)  in  floodplains;  iii)  in  flood  risk  areas;  iv)  in 
protection zones; v) on slopes in Nutrient sensitive areas greater than 10 degrees, 

vi)  100  metres  from  the  water  body/watercourse  line.  ;  Further  manure  and 
fermentation residues after dispersal over the field have to be worked into the soil 

within 24 hours, liquid manure in 12 hours. In the autumn fertilisation of the field 
with liquid manure, and fermentation residues should be used only together with 

plant residues, and incorporated into the soil with a peeling or dipping method)  

For KTM2 measures,  the area of land required to  be covered by the measure is  provided for 

each basin.  

Under KTM 3 to reduce pesticide pollution from agriculture the following measures are being 
applied: 

  Maintaining  “winter  green  areas”  or  "rye  fields"  (voluntary)and  consider  the  2-
metre-wide vegetation buffer zone along the watercourses and water bodies, as well 
as drainage systems (voluntary) 

  Ensure  minimum  vegetation  maintenance  in  autumn  and  winter  -  in  nutrient 
sensitive areas is at least 50 % of the total area of agriculture land (mandatory) 

129 

 
 
  Before the planned spraying of plant protection products from the air, a permit must 

be obtained from the State Plant Protection Service (mandatory) 

  Follow  the  requirements  regarding  storage  conditions  and  use  of  plant  protection 

products (mandatory) 

  Consider  the  prohibition  of  the  use  of  fertilisers  and  chemical  plant  protection 
products  in  strict  protection  regimes  around  surface  water  bodies,  as  provided  by 
the Law on Protected Zone (mandatory) 

  Follow  the  requirements  of  the  Protection  Zone  Law  in  the  protection  zones  of 

surface water bodies (mandatory). 

  Follow  the  set  parameters  of  the  protective  zones  and  the  allowed  and  prohibited 

activities therein. 

Under  KTM12  –  “Advisory  services  for  agriculture”  educational  activities  for  farmers  (in 

cooperation  with  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture,  NGOs,  farmers'  organisations):  organised 
activities  to  explain  the  importance  and  implementation  of  buffer  zones  and  other  agro-

environmental  measures,  encouraging  the  use  of  Rural  Development  Programmes  support 
measures to reduce the adverse impact of agricultural activities on waters (voluntary). 

KTM13 – “Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer 
zones etc.)” measures are also found in all RBDs. These are:  

  A water use permit for the use of water resources issued by the Regional Environmental 
Board should be obtained if there is planned extraction of groundwater or surface water 
greater than 10 cubic metres per day, or where more than 50 people will be supplied, or 

mineral  and thermal waters that are used for economic activity, or if  water extraction 
can have a significant impact on the environment (mandatory). 

  A water use permit for the use of water resources issued by the Regional Environmental 
Board  should  be  followed  for  operation  in  protection  zones,  monitoring  of 
groundwater,  wells,  measurement  of  water  level,  the  location  of  sampling  points, 

maintenance of water pumping equipment and flood protection, and activities for fish 
protection in the areas of surface water protection zones etc. (mandatory). 

130 

 
 
  Treatment of drinking water for substances harmful to human health without impairing 

the quality of drinking water (mandatory). 

  Ensure washing, cleaning and disinfection of water pipe equipment after repair, before 

commissioning and prophylactically twice a year (mandatory). 

  The basic measure "Establishment of safeguard zone around drinking water" is derived 
from  Latvian  legislation  and  is  mandatory.  These  zones  and  measures  have  been 
established since 2004 (20/01/2004 - with amendments on 21/03/2008 and 21/10/2009 - 

Cabinet of ministers regulations 43 "Methodology for establishment of safeguard zone 
around drinking water"). The use of fertilisers and chemical plant protection products 

shall be in compliance with the Law on Protection Zones. In order to protect the aquatic 
environment  and  drinking  water  sources,  plant  protection  products  are  used  in 

compliance  with  the  requirements  specified  in  regulatory  enactments  regarding 
protective zones. In the wider catchment, overall in the agricultural sector, the Cabinet 

of Ministers Regulations No 950 (adopted on 13/12/2011) "Regarding the Use of Plant 
Protection  Products"  has  to  be  followed.  Around  drinking  water  abstraction  points, 

there is a need to follow the protection zones in order to protect the existing resources 
and the renewal of water resources, as well as to reduce the possible negative impact of 

pollution  on  the  quality  of  water  resources  throughout  the  period  of  use  of  water 
abstraction point (not less than 25 years) (mandatory). 

  Water  companies  to  coordinate  with  the  Regional  Health  Inspectorate  drinking  water 
monitoring  and  disinfection  testing  programs,  as  well  as  the  protection  zone  borders 
(mandatory). 

  Perform  regular  monitoring  of  drinking  water  (regular  and  audit  monitoring)  if  more 
than 50 persons are supplied with drinking water or more than 10 cubic metres per day 
is  abstracted,  control  water  quality  compliance  with  drinking  water  quality 

requirements (mandatory). 

  Control  the  drinking  water  safety  requirements  from  the  place  of  abstraction  to  the 

consumer (mandatory) 

 

Inform the population about the safety and quality of drinking water and provide advice 

on the measures to be taken in quality assurance and improvement (mandatory). 

131 

 
 
Soil erosion and pollution of water bodies with sediment caused by agriculture is not identified 

as a significant pressure. KTM17 - “Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface 
runoff” therefore does not concern agriculture.  

Also, KTM23-Natural water retentions measures as a supplementary measure can be found in 
all basins. 

It  is  reported  in  the  RBMP  that  farmers  or  Farmers'  Unions  have  been  consulted  under  the 

public consultation process.  

Financing of agricultural measures is not secured in all basins. Financing comes from national 
general  budget  and  European  Union  sources.  Information  on  investments  for  agricultural 

measures between 2009 and 2015 is not provided. 

11.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  first  Programme  of 
Measures requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  Separate  and  identify  clearly  the  causes  of  eutrophication  for  the 
second RBMP cycle, in order to know which proportion comes from agriculture. Latvia 
should  take  precautionary  measures  even  if  agriculture  is  not  identified  as  the  most 
important pressure. 

  Assessment: Environmental objectives have been set. In the RBMPs it is shown that the 
current nutrient load for each river basin was determined, however, values for nutrient 
concentrations  in  water  were  not  set  and  the  required  reductions  for  each  river  basin 

district  were  not  identified.  The  scheme  for  reducing  nutrient  emissions  based  on 
Helsinki  Commission  Baltic  Sea  Action  Plan  has  been  taken  into  account.  Therefore, 

this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Include as a pressure in the second RBMP the lack of slurry storage 
on small farms and address the issue either through the Nitrates Directive or through 

the  WFD  Programme  of  Measures.  Actions  taken  should  be  reported  clearly  in  the 
second RBMPs. 

Assessment:  In  the  second  RBMP  pressures  from  slurry  storage  are  identified.  The 

recommendation has been partly implemented.  

132 

 
 
  Recommendation: Ensure that the eutrophication status of the Baltic Sea is also taken 
into account in the designation of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs). This is necessary 
under  the  Nitrates  Directive  (ND)  and  will  contribute  towards  achievement  of  WFD 

and MSFD objectives.  

Assessment:  The  eutrophication  problem  of  the  Baltic  Sea  is  included  in  the  RBMP 
however no information is provided regarding what will be achieved through measures 

to implement the Nitrates Directive. Therefore, this recommendation has been partially 
fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Gather  data  to  understand  farmer  compliance  with  existing 
requirements  (e.g.  slurry  storage,  nutrient  planning,  pesticides  application).    This  is 
essential to understand if existing measures will be sufficient (if fully complied with) or 

if  additional  measures  will  be  needed  and  should  be  included  in  the  second  cycle  of 
Programmes of Measures. 

Assessment: The RBMPs provide some information on the results of the assessment of the 
farmer compliance with existing requirements on slurry storage in farms (number of farms 

with  slurry  storage).  The  assessment  of  the  effects  of  potential  diffuse  pollution  sources 
(correct nutrient planning, pesticides application) is not presented; data on non-compliance 

cases  are  not  gathered.  The  farmer  compliance  with  existing  requirements  regarding  the 
implementation  of  measures  to  reduce  the  diffuse  pollution  is  done  on  the  basis  of  the 

water quality data. This recommendation has been partly fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Establish  additional  (supplementary)  measures  to  protect  water 
from agricultural pressures financed through the Rural Development Programmes. 

Assessment: Supplementary measures are applied and European Union funds are used for 

financing. Therefore, this recommendation has been fulfilled. 

133 

 
 
 
 
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 

In  the  context  of  this  topic,  pollution  is  considered  in  terms  of  nutrients,  organic  matter, 

sediment, saline discharges and chemicals (priority substances, river basin specific pollutants, 
groundwater  pollutants  and  other  physico-chemical  parameters)  arising  from  all  sectors  and 

sources  apart  from  agriculture.  Key  types  of  measures  (KTM)  are  groups  of  measures 
identified by Member States in their Programmes of Measures which target the same pressure 

or  purpose.  A  KTM  could  be  one  national  measure  but  would  typically  comprise  more  than 
one national  measure. The same individual measure can also  be part of  more than one KTM 

because it may be multipurpose, but also because the KTMs are not completely independent of 
one another.  

KTMs  relevant  to  non-agricultural  sources  of  pressures  causing  failure  of  WFD  objectives 
have been reported for all Latvian RBDs. These KTMs include: 

KTM1 – “Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants” 

KTM4  –  “Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical  pollution  including  sediments, 
groundwater, soil)” 

KTM15  –  "Measures  for  the  phasing-out  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  Priority 
Hazardous  Substances  or  for  the  reduction  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  Priority 

Substances", and 

KTM21  –  “Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas,  transport 

and built infrastructure”. 

The  WFD  specifies  that  Programmes  of  Measures  shall  include,  as  a  minimum,  “basic 
measures” and, where necessary to achieve objectives, “supplementary measures” when basic 
measures are not enough to address specific significant pressures. Quantitative information on 
basic  and  supplementary  measures  used  to  tackle  pollution  from  non-agricultural  sources 
(number  of  measures  per  KTM)  has  been  provided  for  all  Latvian  RBDs,  and  in  relation  to 
basic measures it has been provided for 10 measure types. 
KTM1  is  associated  in  Latvia  with  three  supplementary  measures  –  “1.1.Improving  the 

efficiency  of  sewage  treatment  plants  by  providing  additional  waste  water  treatment  in 
agglomerations  with  population  equivalence  greater  than  2000  which  affects  water  bodies  at 

134 

 
 
risk”;  “1.2. Enhancement  of the operation of centralised sewage collection systems,  ensuring 

the  establishment  of  actual  connections  and  network  expansion  in  agglomerations  with 
population  equivalence  greater  than  2000,  which  affects  water  bodies  at  risk”;  “1.3. 

Improvement  of  the  operation  of  centralised  sewage  collection  systems,  ensuring  the 
establishment of actual connections and network expansion in agglomerations with population 

equivalence greater than 2000”. These measures are planned to be implemented at water body 
level in rivers and lakes. These measures are mandatory to the institutions that are subordinated 

to  the  Ministry  of  Environmental  Protection  and  Regional  Development.  Implementation  of 
these measures is responsibility of Municipalities. 

KTM4  is  associated  with  a  supplementary  measure  “Develop  a  project  and  perform 
remediation of the contaminated site and disposal of the excavated material”. This measure is 

planned to  be implemented at  water body level  in all types of  water bodies. This  measure is 
mandatory to the institutions that are subordinated to the Ministry of Environmental Protection 

and  Regional  Development,  but  its  implementation  depends  on  the  available  financial 
resources.  This  measure  was  included  in  the  first  RBMPs  and  the  source  of  financing  is  not 
clear yet. 

KTM15 is associated with one basic and one supplementary measure in  all RBDs. The basic 
measure is A11.7. “The emission of priority substances or of hazardous substances in surface 

water  cannot  exceed  the  emission  limits  specified  and  set  in  the  permit  for  Category  A  or 
Category  B  polluting  activities”.  Category  A  polluting  activity  covers  large-scale  operations, 

which  are  characterised  by  significant  polluting  activity  and  higher  requirements  for 
environmental aspects, while Category B are relatively smaller in size and have slightly lower 

requirements regarding environmental pollution. Activities requiring polluting activity permits 
are  described  in  the  Law  “On  pollution”  (in  the  case  of  A  category)  and  in  the  Cabinet  of 

Ministers regulations Nr.1082 (B operations, Annex 1).  

The  supplementary  measure  associated  with  KTM15  is  “Pilot  projects  -  mixing  zones 

calculations,  revision  of  water  use  permit  conditions  and,  if  necessary,  development  of  an 
action plan in cooperation with the operator to gradually reduce the mixing zone area” under 

Article 11(4).” This measure is planned to be implemented at water body level in river water 
bodies. This measure is mandatory to the institutions that are subordinated to the Ministry of 

Environmental Protection and Regional Development, but its implementation is dependent on 
the available financial resources.  

KTM21 is associated with 24 basic and four supplementary measures. Some examples of the 
basic measures are as follows:  

135 

 
 
- 

“The  operator  of  a  polluting  activity  must  submit  an  application  to  the  Regional 

Environmental  Board  and  comply  with  the  measures  specified  in  the  permit  and  the 
technologies,  environmentally  friendly 
recommended  guidelines  (best  available 

activities, measures to prevent the risk of accidents, etc.)”.  

- 

“When  issuing  permits  for  polluting  activities,  the  Environmental  State  Service  shall 

take into account the environmental quality objectives set in RBMPs and in accordance 
with the legal acts, and set stricter emission limits for polluting substances in the cases 

when  waste  water  is  discharged  into  a  water  body  that  is  defined  as  a  water  body  at 
risk”.   

- 

“The municipality, in  co-operation with  the Regional  Environmental Board, identifies 
and  assesses  contaminated  and  potentially  contaminated  sites  in  the  respective 

administrative territory.”  

- 

“The  operators,  carrying  out  the  polluting  activities,  prevent  pollution  or  reduce 

emissions, as well as monitor the emissions caused by the polluting activity.”  

- 

- 

- 

“To  carry  out  an  industrial  accident  risk  assessment,  emergency  risk  prevention 
measures  must  be  developed,  their  implementation  controlled  in  the  case  of  an 

accident.”  

“Include risk areas and contaminated areas in spatial plans”.  

“Prior a launching of new wastewater treatment plant and for the maintaining existing 
wastewater  treatment  plant,  apply  for  permission  from  the  Regional  Environmental 

Board,  comply  with  the  requirements  set  out  therein,  and  use  the  best  available 
techniques” 

In addition, there are also measures that foresee collection and appropriate treatment of waste 
water  from  agglomerations.  These  measures  are  planned  to  be  implemented  at  the  national 
level  in  all  types  of  water  bodies.  These  measures  are  mandatory  to  the  institutions  that  are 
subordinated  to  the  Ministry  of  Environmental  Protection  and  Regional  Development  and 

municipalities. These measures were included in the first RBMPs and the source of financing 
is governmental or municipal budget.  

Supplementary  measures  are  as  follows  within  KTM21  include  for  example:  A2.2 
“Improvement  of  rain  sewerage  system  management”.  This  measure  is  planned  to  be 

136 

 
 
implemented  at  water  body  level  and  it  is  voluntary.  Its  implementation  is  depending  on  the 

available financial resources. However, funding sources for financing them are not clear yet. 

Some additional KTMs are reported in  Latvia: “reduce nutrient pollution from other sources; 

evaluation  of  existing  legislation/establishment  of  new  legislation”,  “measures  to  prevent  or 
control  the  input  of  pollution  or  anthropogenic  activity  in  protected  areas;  and  measures  to 

prevent or control the adverse impacts of various economic activities”. These measures foresee 
implementation  of  the  following  actions:  assess  the  qualitative  and  quantitative  status  of 

groundwater in underground water deposits; develop proposals for amendments to the Statutes 
of  Advisory  Councils  for  RBDs;  establish  joint  requirements  for  wastewater  management  in 

decentralised  systems.  Other  reported  KTMs  are  supplementary  measures  and  also  basic 
measures that are mandatory, foreseen for the implementation at national level, in all types of 

water  bodies.  Some  of  the  measures  are  new  measures,  some  are  from  the  first  RBMPs. 
Financing for some of the measures is secured from the state budget (for mandatory measures), 

additional required financing sources are not clear yet. 

Latvia provided more targeted information on basic measures required under Article 11(3)(c to 
k).  The  use  of  an  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  waste  water  point  source 

discharges  (Basic  measures  Article  11(3)(g))  was  reported  for  all  Latvian  RBDs  for  surface 
and groundwater. A register of waste water discharges (Basic measures Article 11(3)(g)) is in 

operation  in  all  Latvian  RBDs  for  surface  water  only.  Small  waste  water  discharges  are 
exempted  from  controls  in  all  Latvian  RBDs.  Some  direct  discharges  to  groundwater  are 

authorised in accordance with Article 11(3)(j) in all Latvian RBDs.  

Latvia  reported  that  there  are  measures  in  place  to  eliminate/reduce  pollution  from  Priority 

Substances and other substances in all Latvian RBDs.  

12.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle  

During drafting of the first RBMP, monitoring data from up to 2008 was used, and according 
to the data, the chemical status of all water bodies was assessed as good. Therefore, there were 

no substance-specific measures in the Programmes of Measures.  In the second RBMP it was 
reported  that  specific  Priority  Substances  are  causing  failure  to  achieve  the  objectives  in  all 
four  RBDs  and  that  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  are  causing  failure  in  two  out  of  four 

RBDs.  

KTMs have been reported for significant pressures from individual Priority Substances causing 

non-compliance  in  all  Latvian  RBDs.  Non-compliance  has  been  reported  in  RBMPs  for 
Brominated  diphenylethers  and  for  mercury  and  its  compounds.  It  is  possible  to  find  in  the 

137 

 
 
RBMPs the water bodies where pressure from Priority Substances was indicated as significant, 

and  then  to  check  what  measures  are  foreseen  in  those  water  bodies,  including  their  link  to 
KTMs.  However,  for  some  priority  substances  (in  particular  Benzo(a)pyrene,  the  sum  of 

Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene and Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene, Cadmium and its compounds, Nickel and 
its compounds), causing failure in some RBDs, no KTMs are indicated. 

In  the  Daugava  RBMP  Priority  Substances  were  assessed  as  significant  pressures  for  water 
bodies D463, D476, D487 (river water bodies), and LVT (a transitional water body), caused by 

waste water discharge from wastewater treatment plants and by the polluted sites in these water 
bodies.  For  water  bodies  with  wastewater  discharges  indicated  as  a  significant  pressure,  the 

following basic measures were planned to be implemented:  

  "Pilot  projects  -  mixing  zone  area  assessment,  revision  of  permit  conditions  and,  if 
necessary,  development  of  an  action  plan  with  the  operator  to  gradually  reduce  the 
mixing zone area." (corresponding to KTM15) 

  "Improvement of the operation of centralised sewage collection systems, ensuring the 
establishment of actual connections and network expansion" (corresponding to KTM1) 

As  far  as  measures  for  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  causing  failure  are  concerned  and 

concerning measures planned for all those pollutants causing failure of good chemical status in 
groundwater, no respective KTMs were reported by Latvia in the second RBMP.57 

12.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  first  Programmes  of 

Measures requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation: It is vital that adequate pollution control measures are included in 
Programme  of  Measures  as  these  can  be  the  most  cost  effective  measures  and  can 
deliver a range of environmental and economic goals.  

Assessment: A number of KTMs to tackle pollution from non-agricultural sources are 

in place in all of the four Latvian RBDs and KTMs have been reported for significant 
pressures from some of the individual Priority Substances reported to be causing non-

compliance in each RBD. 

57   Latvia subsequently clarified that this was a reporting error.  

138 

 
 
                                                      
Latvia states in the background document that, in the second planning cycle, measures 

are only included that will have a guaranteed effect on the improvement of the status of 
the water body. These measures were selected on the basis of the pollution load into the 

water body, the quality assessment, and the costs of the measures. Experience with the 
first planning cycle shows that additional measures need to be sought that have a high 

impact, but require a proportionate amount of funding to implement them.  

Although several measures to tackle pollution have been reported, no information has 

been found on the likely effectiveness of those measures. 

The recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Use  the  inventories  required  by  Article  5  of  the  EQS  Directive  to 

identify measures to tackle sources of pollution. 

Assessment: The Priority  Substances cadmium,  lead, mercury and nickel are reported 

as the results of the inventory required by Article 5 of the EQS Directive. The inventory 
of  emissions  was  established  using  the  2-step  approach  from  the  guidance.  The 

inventory  distinguishes  between  different  sources  of  the  substances  (cross  border  and 
point source pollution).  

It is not clear how far the inventory has been used to identify measures. In answer to a 

related  recommendation  arising  from  the  first  RBMPs,  about  information  on 
atmospheric  deposition  (see  Chapter  4),  Latvia  has  answered  that  it  is  not  using  such 

data in the development of measures. 

Recommendation: Provide complete information on the level of compliance, and timing 

to  reach  compliance,  by  agglomerations  (e.g.  the  6-8  water  bodies  in  the  Daugava 
which  require  further  action  beyond  the  Urban  Wastewater  Treatment  Directive), 

including information on funding, in accordance with Directive 91/271/EEC Article 15 
and following UWWTD). 

Assessment: Measures to tackle urban point sources are reported in all RBDs. Directive 
91/271/EEC requirements are integrated into Latvian legislation and an implementation 

plan  has  been  elaborated  since  the  end  of  2015.  Requirements  are  mostly  funded  by 
European  Union  funds.  National  funding  is  secured  for  the  actions  not  funded  by  the 

European  Union.  The  date  for  achieving  compliance  with  the  Urban  Wastewater 
Treatment  Directive  requirements  is  as  follows:  p.e.>100  000  by  2008;  100 

000>p.e.>10  000  by  2021;  10  000>p.e>2  000  by  2021.  Supplementary  measures  are 

139 

 
 
necessary to reach compliance with the environmental quality standards in some cases 

and  funding  for  these  measures  is  also  foreseen.  The  recommendation  has  been 
fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  in  the  second  RBMPs  cycle  the  extension  and  upgrade  of 

wastewater collection networks as well as increased connection rates. 

Assessment: The extension and upgrade of wastewater  collection networks as well  as 

increased  connection  rates  took  place  in  the  first  RBMP  cycle.  Information  on 
extension  and  upgrade  of  wastewater  collection  networks  as  well  as  increased 

connection rates is summarised in Chapter 8.3 of the RBMP “Summary of the measures 
taken  in  the  previous  planning  period  2009-2015”,  but  it  has  to  be  noted  that  the 
information in the RBMP is based on data from 2013. There was a review58 in 2016 of 
the  implementation  of  the  Urban  Wastewater  Treatment  Directive.  Connection  rates 

were summarised in the annex to that review. The connection rate in 2015 was 94.6 % 
of the population living in agglomerations. The implementation of projects during the 

financial  period  2014-2020  will  ensure  a  connection  rate  of  95.3  %  of  the  population 
living in agglomerations. The recommendation appears to have been largely fulfilled. 

58   available http://varam.gov.lv/lat/publ/petijumi/petijumi_vide/?doc=15514 

140 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology  

13.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

Significant hydromorphological pressures and operational KTMs to address them are reported 
for  all  RBDs.  The  relevant  KTMs  applied  are  KTMs  5  –  “Improving  longitudinal  continuity 

(e.g.  establishing  fish  passes,  demolishing  old  dams)”,  6  –  “Improving  hydromorphological 
conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity” and 7 – “Improvements in flow 

regime and/or establishment of ecological flows”. Specific measures include the restoration of 
bank structures, review of requirements set by hydropower plant management regulations and 

water  use  permits,  preparation  of  new  regulations  and  act  amendments  and  several  other 
measures, whose nature as explicit hydromorphological  restoration measures is  not  clear (for 

example,  defining  the  reduction  of  the  impact  of  beaver  dams  to  address  river  continuity, 
cleaning the river and coastal strengthening works).  

A  systematic  revision  of  permits  to  address  hydromorphological  problems  is  not  foreseen  in 
the Programmes of Measures. 

The  significant  hydromorphological  pressures  are  clearly  assigned  to  specific  sectors, 
especially to agriculture, hydropower and navigation. 

In  terms  of  basic  measures  under  Article  11(3)(i)  of  the  WFD,  there  is  no  authorisation  or 
permitting regime reported to control physical modifications in any of the RBDs. There is also 

no register of physical modifications of water bodies. 

Management  objectives  in  terms  of  river  continuity  have  not  been  set  in  any  of  the  RBDs. 

Nevertheless,  KTM5  –  “Improving  longitudinal  continuity  (e.g.  establishing  fish  passes, 
demolishing old dams)” is reported as operational in all RBDs. 

No information is reported on whether win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives 
of  the  WFD  and  Floods  Directive,  drought  management  and  use  of  Natural  Water  Retention 
Measures are included in the Programme of Measures59.  

KTM23 – “Natural  water retention  measures” is  not  applied. Nevertheless,  the RBD-specific 
supplementary measures include measures such  as environmentally friendly construction and 

59   Latvia subsequently clarified that win-win measures have not been reported as it was not specifically analysed 
whether  the  measures  included  in  the  Programmes  of  Measures  for  the  second  plans  are  win-win  solutions. 
Some of them may, in fact, qualify as win-win.   

141 

 
 
                                                      
reconstruction  of  drainage  systems  in  agriculture  and  forestry  and  construction  of  artificial 

wetlands.  

The Cabinet of Ministers Regulation n. 600 ensures that priority is given to the use of Natural 

Water  Retention  Measures  and  green  infrastructure  measures  in  the  planning  process  when 
projects are implemented with support from the State and/or the European Union. 

The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and 
tidal barriers, is not reported to have been adapted to take into account WFD objectives in any 

of the RBDs. 

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  next  cycle.  No  basic  measures,  under  Article  11(3)  of  the 
WFD,  to  impose  controls  on  uses  impacting  the  flow  regime  are  included  in  the  plans. 

the  national  supplementary  measures  foresee  gathering  and  assessing 
Nevertheless, 
information on current status, evaluating the necessary amendments in the existing regulations 

on flows, and setting new standards for the definition of ecological flows, in order to achieve 
WFD  objectives.  Latvia  subsequently  informed  that  these  activities  are  foreseen  in  the 
framework  of  an  ongoing  project  (ECOFLOW).  During  this  project,  national  legislation  was 

analysed and one of the conclusions was that the definition of ecological flows in the Latvian 
legislation  is  based  on  the  minimum  flow  and  does  not  include  different  components  of  the 

natural  flow regime. A  new conceptual definition of ecological  flows is  needed, with  a  clear 
reference to both flow quantity and dynamics and to their consistency with the environmental 

objectives.  During  the  ECOFLOW  project,  a  methodology  for  the  assessment  of  ecological 
flows  will  be  elaborated  (taking  into  account  requirements  laid  down  in  the  Guidance 

Document n. 31). In total, the project will estimate ecological flows for 6-8 small hydropower 
plants in  three RBDs until 2019, which may be  used as  a model for further ecological  flows 

derivation.  

Values for the indicators on the gap to be filled for significant hydromorphological pressures 

are only reported for 2015, and not for 2021 and 2027. This implies that there is quantification 
of  the  gap  that  needs  be  filled  for  the  achievement  of  WFD  objectives  in  terms  of 

hydromorphological pressures (as of 2015), but the missing values for 2021 and 2027 do not 
allow  any  conclusions  on  the  level  of  ambition  in  closing  this  gap.  Also  for  the  KTMs, 

indicator values are only reported for 2015 but not for 2021 and 2027. 

142 

 
 
13.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  plans  provide  information  on  measures  that  have  not  been  implemented  or  only 

implemented partly since the first plans. Some of the first cycle hydromorphological measures 
have not been implemented, in most cases due to a lack of financing. 

As mentioned above, ecological flows are reported as not having been derived for the relevant 
water bodies in any of the RBDs. In the first plans, specific measures were planned to achieve 

an  ecologically  based  flow  regime  and  there  was  a  Cabinet  Regulation  (No.  736)  which 
required an ecologically based flow regime to be considered. Latvia informed that this Cabinet 

Regulation  is  still  in  force  but  its  definition  of  “ecological  flow”  is  not  fully  compliant  with 
WFD  objectives.  Recommendations  from  the  ongoing  project  ECOFLOW  are  pending  to 

inform changes in this respect.  

13.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  Strengthen    and    significantly    improve    for    the    second    RBMPs 
cycle the handling of  hydromorphological  pressures, from assessment of pressures to 

monitoring,  status  assessment  and  definition  of  measures  including    fish    passes  and 
establishment of ecological flows which guarantee the achievement of  good ecological 
status    (e.g.  hydro  power  plants).  Latvia  should  clarify  how  much  of  the  gap  to  the 

achievement  of  WFD  objectives  is  expected  to  be  covered  by  implementation  of 
hydromorphological measures.  

Assessment: Information is provided on the number of water bodies which are affected 

by  significant  hydromorphological  pressures 
in  all  RBDs.  Whether  or  not 
hydromorphological  pressures  are  better  monitored  and  considered  in  operational 

monitoring programmes  is  discussed in  Chapter  3. Although the reported information 
indicates that KTM5 – “Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, 

demolishing old dams) (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams)” is applied 
in the four RBDs, no specific information is found in the plans about fish passes being 

planned as a specific measure. 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 next cycle. 

Therefore, the first part of this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

Indicators on the gap to be filled for significant hydromorphological pressures are only 

reported for 2015, and not for 2021 and 2027. The missing values for 2021 and 2027 do 

143 

 
 
not allow any conclusions on the level of ambition of hydromorphological measures for 

closing the gap. 

Therefore, the second part of this recommendation has not been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Consider  and  prioritise  the  use  of  green  infrastructure  and/or 
natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements 

in  water  quality,  flood  protection,  habitat  conservation  etc.),  social  and  economic 
benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure.  

Assessment: Although the specific KTM23 – “Natural water retention measures” is not 

reported  to  address  significant  pressures,  the  RBD-specific  supplementary  measures 
include  measures  such  as  environmentally  friendly  construction  and  reconstruction  of 

drainage  systems  in  agriculture  and  forestry  and  construction  of  artificial  wetlands. 
Priority is given to the use of natural water retention measures and green infrastructure 
measures in the planning process when projects are implemented with support from the 
State and/or the European Union, as ensured by the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation n. 

600. 

Therefore, some progress is noted in fulfilling this recommendation.  

  Recommendation: Specify for the second RBMPs in more detail the measures related to 
hydromorphological pressures not only for HMWB designation but also for monitoring, 

assessment and definition of measures. Most of the hydromorphological measures are 
non-technical  measures  and  therefore  the  expected  results  are  not  clearly  defined. 

Resulting  from  this  lack  of  specificity,  the  measures  established  for  HMWBs  are  not 
always related to the mitigation of the specific hydromorphological pressure.  

Assessment:  Operational  KTMs  to  address  the  significant  hydromorphological 
pressures are reported for all RBDs, and the relevant  KTMs are KTM5  – “Improving 
longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams)”, KTM6 - 
“Improving  hydromorphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than  longitudinal 

continuity”  and  KTM7  -  “Improvements  in  flow  regime  and/or  establishment  of 
ecological  flows”.  The  specific  measures  in  the  plans  are  the  restoration  of  bank 

structures  and  several  other  measures,  such  as  the  reduction  of  the  impact  of  beaver 
dams,  review  of  requirements  set  by  hydropower  plant  management  regulations  and 

water use permits, preparation of new regulations and act amendments.  Therefore, the 
proposed measures seem to be a mixture of some technical actions and other actions of 

144 

 
 
more preparatory or regulatory nature. Information on the expected results of measures 

is unclear due to the gaps in the reporting of pressure gap indicators. 

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Ensure that the second RBMPs include fish passes as a measure to 

restore HMWBs to reach Good Ecological Potential (GEP).  

Assessment:  No  mitigation  measures  that  are  to  be  taken  to  achieve  good  ecological 

potential are reported. In particular, no specific information is found in the plans about 
fish passes being planned as a specific measure. 

Therefore this recommendation has not been fulfilled. 

145 

 
 
 
 
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 

In  the  first  RBMPs,  Latvia  implemented  in  law  a  "broad"  definition  of  water  services  and 
reported  to  include  these  into  cost  recovery  calculations.  However,  the  assessment  of  the 

first RBMPs  did  not  give  a  definite  answer  on  whether  self-abstraction  (for  different  water 
uses), hydropower, cooling for energy production, storage or impoundments for floods defence 

and navigation services were included into cost recovery calculations. 

In  the  second  cycle,  water  services  in  Latvia  were  defined  as  all  services  which  provide,  for 

households, public institutions or any economic activity:  

  abstraction,  impoundment,  storage,  treatment  and  distribution  of  surface  water  or 

groundwater, and 

  wastewater  collection  and  treatment  facilities  which  subsequently  discharge  into 

surface water. 

Additional  services  where  Article  9(4)  was  applied  are  flood  protection,  irrigation  and 

navigation. The justification according to the RBMPs is very short, stating that these services 
are not included in cost recovery assessment because they are neither typical nor relevant for 

Latvia. 

Cost  recovery  rates  are  presented  for  all  relevant  user  sectors.  Environmental  and  Resource 

Costs have been considered, yet how these calculations/assessments were undertaken was not 
described in the RBMPs. Volumetric charging is in place for some water services, but for some 

not. There is a general mentioning of incentives for efficient water use being in place. There is 
no information in the RBMPs regarding the rate of individual metering and volumetric pricing 
in  households.  The  economic  analysis  is  reported  as  "partially  updated"  for  all  RBDs. 
According  to  the  RBMPs,  the  Polluter  Pays  Principle  is  considered  through  two  economic 

instruments. 

146 

 
 
 
14.2 Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation: (Implementation Report 2012): The cost-recovery should address a 
broad  range  of  water  services,  including  impoundments,  abstraction,  storage, 
treatment and distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of 

waste  water.  Latvia  should  ensure  that  self-abstraction  by  households,  industry  and 
agriculture is defined as water service and is taken into account in the calculation of 

cost  recovery  of  water  services.  The  cost  recovery  should  be  transparently  presented 
for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs should be included in 

the costs recovered. Information should also  be  provided on the incentive function  of 
water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. 

Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be 
provided in the RBMPs. 

Recommendation  (Implementation  Report  2015):  Increase  the  rate  of  individual 

metering and volumetric pricing in households. 

Assessment:  Water  services  are  defined  in  Latvia  according  to  the  definition  of  the 

water  services  in  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  Document  No.  1 
"Economics  and  the  Environment  –  The  Implementation  Challenge  of  the  Water 

Framework  Directive".  Water  services  in  Latvia  are  all  services  which  provide,  for 
households, public institutions or any economic activity: (a) abstraction, impoundment, 

storage, treatment and distribution of surface water or groundwater, and (b) wastewater 
collection  and  treatment  facilities  which  subsequently  discharge  into  surface  water. 

Additional services where Article 9(4) was applied are flood protection, irrigation, and 
navigation. The justification according to the RBMPs is very short – “these services are 

not included in cost recovery assessment because they are not typical and relevant for 
Latvia”. 

Cost  recovery  rates  are  presented  for  all  relevant  user  sectors.  The  calculation  of  the 
contribution  of  different  water  uses  is  presented  in  detail  for  the  centralised  water 

supply  system.  For  industry  and  agriculture  the  presentation  of  the  cost  recovery 
calculations  is  more  general  and  descriptive.  Nevertheless,  a  cost  recovery  rate  in 
percentage is provided for all water services as follows: 

a) Centralised water supply system (79 %). 
b) Individual water abstraction and sewage of households (100 %). 
c) Individual water abstraction (100 %).  

147 

 
 
d) Wastewater discharges of industries (almost  100 %, there might  be not  full 

recovery in some water bodies). 
e) Individual water abstraction and from agricultural waste (100 %).  

f)  Individual  wastewater  discharges  (almost  100  %,  there  might  be  not  full 
recovery in some water bodies). 

g)  Water  use  of  hydro-energy  production  (water  impoundment  using  dams)  - 
cost recovery is in place, but exact level is not possible to set. 

Environmental and Resource Costs have been considered. The assessment of resource 

costs is done according to the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document 
No. 1. There is a sufficient availability of water resources for their use and there are no 

water  use  conflicts  in  Latvia.  Environmental  costs  have  been  described  for  all  water 
services reported. The environmental costs are considered as "significant" for all water 

services  except  "individual  water  abstraction  and  sewage  from  households"  and 
"individual  water  abstraction  and  sewage  from  agriculture".  For  these  two  water 
services,  there  is  no  "internalisation"  of  environmental  costs,  since  they  are  not 

significant. For the remaining water services, the internalisation is reported to "partial". 
Yet, how these calculations/assessments were done is not described in the RBMPs. 

Volumetric  charging  is  in  place  for  centralised  water  supply  and  sewage.  Volumetric 
charging is not in place for individual water abstractions (where the volume abstracted 
does not exceed 10 m3 per day) and wastewater discharges from households (where the 
volume  discharged  does  not  exceed  5  m3  per  day).  Individual  water  abstraction  and 
wastewater  discharges  from  industries  and  individual  water  abstraction  and  sewage 
from  agriculture  pay  a  "Nature  Resource  Tax"  according  to  the  volume  of  used  fresh 

water and discharged water. 

There  is  a  general  mentioning  of  incentives  for  efficient  water  use  being  in  place  - 

according  to  the  information  in  the  RBMPs,  the  efficient  use  of  water  resources  is 
facilitated  by  payments  for  the  actual  consumption  of  water  resources.  However,  the 

RBMPs  state  that  no  studies  have  been  conducted  on  whether  existing  rates  of  the 
"Nature Resource Tax" stimulate the rational use of water resources. 

There  is  no  information  in  the  RBMPs  regarding  the  rate  of  individual  metering  and 
volumetric pricing in households. 

According  to  the  RBMPs,  the  Polluter  Pays  Principle  is  considered  through  two 
instruments: the "Nature Resource Tax" and a compensation scheme for damage to fish 

148 

 
 
 
resources. Regarding the use of the Polluter Pays Principle in the recovery of costs of 

water services it is stated that the implementation of the Polluter Pays Principle should 
ensure  that  the  revenues  from  the  "Nature  Resource  Tax"  are  used  to  mitigate  the 

negative impacts to affected water resources. 

In summary, it can be stated that there has been a significant progress on addressing the 

European Commission´s recommendations from previous implementation reports. 

149 

 
 
 
 
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 

Latvia  has  reported  Protected  Areas  designated  under  all  relevant  Directives  except  the 

Shellfish Waters Directive in the second cycle of River Basin Management Plans (Table 15.1). 
The identification of the Protected Areas seems adequate. However, there is no identification 
of  groundwater  dependant  terrestrial  ecosystems  under  the  Birds  Directive  or  Habitats 
Directive.  This  was  explained  by  the  lack  of  knowledge  of  the  interaction  between 

groundwater and surface water areas in the River Basin Management Plans.  

A good overview of the status (chemical and ecological and for groundwater also quantitative) 

of  water  bodies  associated  with  Protected  Areas  is  reported  (Figure  15.1).  The  status 
assessment  of  all  types  of  Protected  Areas  (with  the  exception  of  Drinking  Water  Protected 

Areas) has been carried out but the confidence in the assessment is low. This indicates that a 
there is a need for a much more focused and comprehensive monitoring effort. 

Table 15.1  Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD of Latvia, for surface and 

groundwater 

Protected Area type 

Abstraction of water intended for human 
consumption under Article 7 
Recreational waters, including areas 
designated as bathing waters under 
Directive 76/160/EEC60 
Protection of species where the 
maintenance or improvement of the status 
of water is an important factor in their 
protection, including relevant Natura 2000 
sites designated under Directive 
79/409/EEC (Birds)61 
Protection of habitats or species where the 
maintenance or improvement of the status 
of water is an important factor in their 

Number of Protected Area Associated with 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transiti
onal 

Coastal 

Groundwater 

1 

13 

8 

13 

20 

210 

2 

2 

5 

6 

127 

40 

60   Directive  2006/7/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  February  2006  concerning  the 

management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0007  

61   Directive  2009/147/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  November  2009  on  the 

conservation of wild birds  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0147  

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Protected Area type 

protection, including relevant Natura 2000 
sites designated under Directive 
92/43/EEC (Habitats)62 
Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas 
designated as vulnerable zones under 
Directive 91/676/EEC63  
Areas designated for the protection of 
economically significant aquatic species 

Other 

Number of Protected Area Associated with 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transiti
onal 

Coastal 

Groundwater 

48 

100 

39 

11 

45 

3 

72 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

62   Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043  

63   Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused 
by nitrates from agricultural sources http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31991L0676  

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Ecological

status/potential

Surface water

chemical status

Groundwater

quantitative status

Groundwater

chemical status

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage of water bodies with Protected Areas 

Failing to achieve good

High

Good

Poor

Bad

Moderate

Unknown

Good

Unknown

Good

Poor

Unknown

Good

Poor

Unknown

Figure 15.1  Status  of water bodies associated with the Protected Areas report for Latvia. 

Note: based on status/potential aggregated for all water bodies associated with 
all Protected Areas. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Latvia  reported  the  number  of  Protected  Areas  (by  types)  where  an  additional  objective  has 

been set and those for which it has not been done.  

For  Drinking  Water  Protected  Areas,  specific  objectives  have  been  set  for  all  groundwater 

areas and for the only surface water body that was a Drinking Water Protected Area. 

For Protected Areas designated under the Birds and Habitats Directives (associated with both 

surface waters), specific objectives have been set to protect dependent habitats and species but 
work  is  still  on-going  to  determine  the  requirements.  This  is  the  case  for  all  areas,  which 

indicates that objectives have not been set based on an individual assessment of the status of 
the water body. 

152 

 
 
 
 
 
Latvia has not used the overlaps between WFD and Protected Area Directives, which indicates 

that good ecological  status is  considered sufficient  to  fulfil the requirements  of the Protected 
Area  Directives.  No  monitoring  sites  of  surface  and  groundwater  associated  with  Protected 
Areas are reported for Protected Areas64. 

The same characterisation has been used for all Habitats Directive and Birds Directive Protect 
Areas indicating that an individual assessment of the status has not been performed65.  

It  is  evident  that  a  large  majority  of  the  status  assessment  of  the  Protected  Areas  in  surface 
water has been done with low confidence, indicating that the necessary data from monitoring is 
missing.  

The exception appears to be for nutrient sensitive areas under the Nitrates Directive  where it 
was reported that there were 101 monitoring sites in groundwater (Table 15.2). All the status 

assessments  for  groundwater  (quantitative  and  qualitative)  have  been  done  with  medium 
confidence, which still requires some data basis from monitoring. 

Further  information  on  the  purpose  of  monitoring  sites  for  surface  water  and  groundwater 
status assessment can be found in Chapters 3 and 4 (ecological and chemical status of surface 

waters) and Chapters 5 and 6 (quantitative and chemical status of groundwaters) of this report. 

The  situation  regarding  safe  guard  zones  for  the  protection  of  drinking  water  differs  very 

across Latvia. In three out of four River Basin Districts, there are safeguard zones and there are 
no plans to change the regulations as a result of the River Basin Management Plans 

64   Latvia subsequently informed the Commission that monitoring related to different Directives is taking  place, 
including  bathing  waters,  Habitats  and  Birds  Directives,  priority  fish  waters  and  drinking  water  protected 
areas. Latvia stated that it appears that, for at least some protected areas, monitoring sites (e.g. bathing waters 
in coastal and transitional waters) would have been reported as operational sites. 

65   Latvia  subsequently  clarified,  that  the  status  assessment  of  the  protected  areas  under  Habitats  Directive  and 
Birds  Directive  has  been  performed  and  reported  to  the  Commission  by  the  Nature  Conservation  Agency, 
using  relevant  criteria  (habitats  and  species  lists,  conservation  status  criteria,  etc.)  for  every  particular 
protected area that has been surveyed. 

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 15.2  Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas in Latvia66. 

Protected Area type 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas designated as 
vulnerable zones under Directive 91/676/EEC and areas 
designated as sensitive areas under Directive 91/271/EEC 

Number of monitoring sites associated with 
Protected Areas in 

Groundwater 
101 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Despite the low confidence on the status assessment, there are no additional measures foreseen 

to  reach  the  specific  objectives  of  the  relevant  types  of  protected  areas  (Birds  Directive, 
Habitats Directive, Drinking water Protected Areas and Bathing Waters8). 

No exemptions have been made for surface water Protected Areas. For groundwater Protected 
Areas,  all  74  nitrate  vulnerable  areas  have  been  exempted  according  to  Article 4(7)  on 

sustainable human development. For Drinking Water Protected Areas on groundwater bodies, 
no exemptions have been applied. 

15.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  number  of  Protected  Areas  has  changed  for  some  types  since  the  first  cycle.  For 
groundwater  Drinking  Water  Protected  Areas  on  groundwater  bodies  there  was  an  increase 

since  the  previous  cycle,  and  for  Bathing  Waters  and  Habitats  Directive  Areas  there  was  a 
decrease.    The  monitoring  activities  were  only  reported67  for  to  Protected  Areas  designated 

under the Nitrates Directive.  

15.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation: Comply with Article 7 and Annex V requirements for the monitoring 

of Drinking Water Protected Areas for the second RBMP. 

Assessment:  The  assessment  has  not  allowed  to  fully  assess  the  progress  on  this 
recommendation,  as  no  data  was  reported  for  monitoring  in  Drinking  Water  Protected 

Areas. 

  Recommendation:  Identify  clearly  the  water  bodies  and  protected  areas  needing 

additional measures and specify the type of measures necessary. 

66   See previous footnotes  on the additional information provided by Latvia 
67   Latvia has informed the Commission that there were some inconsistencies on its reporting on the monitoring 

activities 

154 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Assessment: The identification of Protected Areas seems to be in place, except for Shellfish 

Protected Areas. For all Birds Directive and Habitats Directive Protected Areas related to 
surface  water  it  is  noted  in  the  River  Basin  Management  Plans  that  some  specific  water 

objectives have been set to protect dependent habitats and species but work is still on-going 
to  better  determine  its  needs.  It  would  therefore  appear  that  the  Protected  Areas  needing 

additional  measures  are  not  fully  identified.  As  the  additional  objectives  still  are  not 
determined, it is likely that measures have not been implemented or even planned68. 

Therefore, this recommendation has only been partially fulfilled.  

  Recommendation:  Put  in  place  for  the  second  RBMPs  cycle  measures  that  target  the 

objectives of protected areas and integrate them in the RBMPs. 

Assessment: For the nature Directives it is  noted that work is  still on-going to  determine 
the needs. As such, it is  likely that measures have not been implemented, although it has 
not been possible to verify this. Shellfish Protected Areas have also not been reported and, 
as such, no measures have been identified.  Therefore, this recommendation has not been 

fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  "Integrate in  the second RBMPs as  additional  objectives  the water 
needs  of  water  dependent  protected  habitats  and  species,  including  the  requirements 
established in the Management Plans for NATURA 2000 sites". 

Assessment:  Objectives  have  been  set  for  surface  water  habitats  and  species,  but  not  for 
groundwater dependent habitats or species. Whether the requirements in the NATURA 2000 

management plans have been included cannot be verified at this stage. The status assessments 
have,  in  general,  been  performed  with  low  confidence  associated,  indicating  that  the 

information  about  the  status  from  the  monitoring  programme  is  very  limited.  This 
recommendation has not been fulfilled.  

68   Latvia subsequently highlighted that the basis has been the assessment of Birds and Habitats protected areas 
performed  by  Nature  Conservation  Agency.  Specific  requirements  for  the  surface  waters  have  not  yet  been 
developed, but it is assumed that where the assessment of the protected area shows good conservation status, 
the  quality  of  related  surface  waters  is  sufficient.  They  further  stated  that  for  almost  all  of  the  Birds  and 
Habitats protected areas relevant for the purposes under the Water Framework Directive, conservation status 
has been assessed as good or sufficient, therefore special measures were not considered necessary 

155 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 16

  Adaptation to drought and climate change 

16.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

Climate change was considered in all RBDs, but it is stated that the guidance on how to adapt 
to  climate  change  (Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  Document  No.  24)  was  not 

used.  Climate  change  was  considered  only  when  detecting  climate  change  signals  and  for 
assessing direct and indirect climate pressures. KTM24 – “Adaptation to climate change” is not 

made  operational  to  address  significant  pressures  in  any  of  the  RBDs.  However,  national 
measures  are mapped against KTM24  –  “Adaptation to  climate change”  in  one of the RBDs 

Venta). No specific sub-plans addressing climate change are reported.  

According to the 2012 Topic Report on Water Scarcity and Drought in RBMPs, droughts are 

not relevant for the country in local sub-basins. No exemptions have been applied for Latvia 
following Article 4(6) due to prolonged droughts. 

Even though there is no legal obligation to prepare Drought Management Plans, many Member 
States have prepared them in order to cope with droughts. No Drought Management Plan has 

been developed in Latvia. This situation is similar to 2012 (topic report on the assessment of 
Water  Scarcity  and  Drought  aspects  in  a  selection  of  European  Union  River  Basin 

Management Plans). 

16.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Latvia  has  only  considered  climate  change  in  a  very  limited  way  in  the  first  cycle  and  the 

situation has not changed. For example climate proofing of measures was not done in the first 
or second RBMP cycle.  

16.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

There  were  no  recommendations  in  relation  to  this  topic  in  the  Commission  Implementation 
Reports of 2012 and 2015. 

156