COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: Slovenia 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: Slovenia, 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) 55 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: Slovenia Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL  on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans  {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 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 ........................................................... 8 

Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plans ... 9 

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

Topic 1

  Governance and public participation ....................................................................... 21 

  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
1.1
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 21 

1.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 23 

1.3

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

Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District............................................................. 25 

  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
2.1
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 25 

2.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 36 

2.3

  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 36 

Topic 3
bodies 

Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  ecological  status  in  surface  water 
................................................................................................................................ 38 

3.1
  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
RBMPs.................................................................................................................................... 38 

3.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs ................... 54 

3.2

  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 55 

Topic 4
bodies 

Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  chemical  status  in  surface  water 
................................................................................................................................ 59 

  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
4.1
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 59 

4.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 72 

4.3

  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 73 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Topic 5

bodies 

Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 
................................................................................................................................ 75 

  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
5.1
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 75 

5.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 79 

5.3

  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 79 

Topic 6

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................... 80 

6.1
  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 80 

6.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 85 

6.3

  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 86 

Topic 7
Designation  of  Heavily  Modified  and  Artificial  Water  Bodies  and  definition  of 
Good Ecological Potential ......................................................................................................... 87 

  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
7.1
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 87 

7.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 89 

7.3

  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 89 

Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions ................................................................ 92 

  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
8.1
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 92 

8.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 97 

8.3

  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 98 

Topic 9

  Programme of measures............................................................................................ 99 

  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
9.1
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 99 

9.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 115 

9.3

  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 116 

Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity .......................................... 117 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
  Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD  requirements  in  the 
10.1
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 117 

10.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 118 

10.3

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 118 

Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture................................................... 119 

11.1
  Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD  requirements  in  the 
second cycle and Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ... 119 

11.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 120 

11.3

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 121 

Topic 12

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture ..................... 122 

12.1
  Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD  requirements  in  the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 122 

12.2

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

12.3

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

Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology ................................................................ 127 

  Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD  requirements  in  the 
13.1
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 127 

13.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 129 

13.3

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 129 

Topic 14

Economic analysis and water pricing policies .................................................... 132 

14.1
  Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD  requirements  in  the 
second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance .................................... 132 

14.2

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 133 

Topic 15
  Considerations  specific to Protected Areas  (identification,  monitoring,  objectives 
and measures) .......................................................................................................................... 136 

15.1
  Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD  requirements  in  the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 136 

15.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 139 

15.3

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 139 

Topic 16

Adaptation to drought and climate change .......................................................... 140 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD  requirements  in  the 
16.1
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 140 

16.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 140 

16.3

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 140 

Appendix A  Topic 9 Programme of Measures: Table 1 ....................................................... 142 

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 RBMPs were due to be adopted by the Member States in December 

2015 and reported to the European Commission in March 2016. 

This  Member  State  Assessment  report  was  drafted  on  the  basis  of  information  that  was 

reported  by  Member  States  through  the  Water  Information  System  for  Europe  (WISE) 
electronic reporting.  

The  Member  State  Reports  reflect  the  situation  as  reported  by  each  Member  State  to  the 
European  Commission  in  2016  or  2017  and  with  reference  to  RBMPs  prepared  earlier.  The 

situation in the Member States may have changed since then. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
General Information 

There are four major European geographic regions that meet in Slovenia: the Alps, the Dinaric 

area, the Pannonian plain and the Mediterranean. In the west, it is bounded by the Adriatic Sea. 

Slovenia  is  divided  into  two  RBDs:  Danube  and  Adriatic.  Slovenia  shares  catchments  with 

Member States and third countries. 

The  information  on  areas  of  the  national  RBDs  including  sharing  countries  is  provided  in 

Table A. 

Table A 

Overview of Slovenia’s RBDs  

RBD 

Name 

Size (km2) 

SIRBD1  Danube 

SIRBD2  Adriatic 

16440 

3941  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Countries 
borders 

sharing 

AT, HR, HU, IT 

HR, IT  

The  share  of  Slovenia  in  the  respective  international  RBDs  (Table  B)  is  2.0%  (Danube)  and 

66.7% (Adriatic).  

Table B 

Transboundary river basins by category and % share in Slovenia 

Name 
internation
al 
river basin 

Danube 

Adriatic 

National RBD 

Countries 
sharing RBD 

Co-ordination category 

1 

2 

km²  %  km²  % 

SIRBD1 

SIRBD2 

AT, HR, HU, IT 

16440  2.0 

HR, IT  

3941  66.7 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

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. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Status of second river basin management plan reporting 

A  total  of  two  RBMPs  of  Slovenia  (Danube,  Adriatic)  were  published  on  28  October  2016. 

Documents  are  available  from  the  European  Environment  Agency  EIONET  Central  Data 
Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/. 

8 

 
 
 
Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River 
Basin Management Plans 

The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMPs of Slovenia are as follows: 

 

Governance and public consultation 

 

Slovenia coordinated the preparation of its RBMP via the international commissions 

for  the  Sava  and  Danube  and  also  via  bilateral  commissions  with  neighbouring 
Member States 

 

Slovenia did not adopt and publish the RBMPs in accordance with the timetable in the 
Water Framework Directive. 

 

Characterisation of the RBD 

 

Both the Danube and Adriatic RBDs are international RBDs. No surface water bodies 
and  only  one  groundwater  body  were  reported  as  being  transboundary.  Although, 

according to the information subsequently provided by Slovenia, transboundary water 
bodies  were  identified  where  relevant  and  when  preparing  a  RBMP,  possible 

transboundary  pressures  were  taken  into  account,  nevertheless,  the  transboundary 
character of water bodies should be made clear in the future.  

 

There  are  still  gaps  in  the  development  of  reference  conditions,  particularly  for 

hydromorphological quality elements, which calls into question the robustness of the 
subsequent classification of ecological status/potential in Slovenia. 

 

 

The Priority Substances  causing failure of good chemical status and the measures to 

tackle these substances to achieve good status by 2021 have been reported.  

Inventories  of  emissions  were  established  in  all  RBDs,  each  including  all  Priority 
Substances.  Tier  1  of  the  methodology  was  implemented  for  all  of  the  substances 

included  in  the  inventories,  while  the  CIS  Guidance  Document  recommends  using 
Tier 1+2. The data quality was not reported. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status  

 

All  required  biological  quality  elements  were  reported  to  be  monitored  for 
surveillance purposes, with the exception of fish in lakes, in the Adriatic RBD and of 

macrophytes  in  some  river  water  bodies  in  the  Danube  RBD,  where  Slovenia 
considers that they are not relevant. 

9 

 
 

Hydromorphological quality elements are reported to not be included in surveillance 

monitoring  in  any  water  category.  However,  the  hydrological  regime  is  included  in 
operational  monitoring in  all three water categories and morphological  conditions  in 

operational monitoring of lakes and rivers but not in coastal waters.  

 

Surveillance monitoring was done at least at the minimum recommended frequency at 

all sites monitored for phytoplankton in coastal waters and lakes. For lakes, this was 
also  the  case  for  the  other  four  biological  quality  elements  used  for  the  surveillance 

monitoring.  All  the  other  biological  quality  elements  in  coastal  waters  and  all 
biological quality elements used in rivers were not sampled for surveillance purposes 

at least at the minimum recommended frequency at any of the sites used. 

 

In terms of operational monitoring the only biological quality element sampled at least 

at  the  minimum  recommended  frequency  at  all  sites  was  phytoplankton  in  coastal 

waters  and  lakes.  All  other  biological  quality  elements  in  all  three  water  categories 
had no sites sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency for operational 
purposes.1 

 

 

 

In coastal waters, there was no surveillance monitoring of oxygenation conditions. 

There was a significant improvement in the level of confidence in the classification of 
ecological status/potential since the first RBMPs.   

Assessment  methods  for  all  the  biological  quality  elements  are  developed,  with  the 
exception of fish in lakes and angiosperms in coastal waters2.  

  Most of the national lake types and some of the national river types are not linked to 
any  intercalibration  type.  Slovenia  reported  that,  for  those  types,  the  assessment 
methods are the same that are used for intercalibrated types.   

 

The  hydromorphological  methods  were  reported  not  to  be  related  to  the  sensitive 
biological  quality  elements.  There  is  still  very  little  monitoring  and  classification  of 

fish and hydromorphological quality elements in rivers and lakes.  

 

The  hydrological  regime  and  morphological  conditions  were  not  used  in  the 

classification  of  any  water  body,  perhaps  indicating  some  weaknesses  in  the 
assessment method for these elements.  

1 Slovenia subsequently clarified that frequency and cycle of monitoring of quality elements may have been 

misreported. 

2 Slovenia subsequently clarified that the extent of the presence of angiosperms in the coastal waters is too small 

for them to be relevant for the classification of ecological status of the whole water bodies. 

10 

 
                                            
 

There  are  gaps  in  the  standards  established  for  general  physicochemical  quality 

elements in rivers and coastal waters and some of those established are not consistent 
with  the  good-moderate  status  boundary  of  the  relevant  sensitive  biological  quality 

elements. 

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

 

 

 

 

All but one waterbodies are classified for chemical status. Territorial waters are also 

classified. 

Between  the  two  RBMPs,  there  was  a  large  decrease  in  the  proportion  of  surface 

water bodies with good chemical status from 95% to 0.6% and a significant increase 

in the proportion failing to achieve good status from 5% to 99%. The principal reason 
for  this  is  the  assessment  of  mercury  in  biota  in  the  second  RBMP.  The  relevant 

environmental quality standard is widely exceeded in monitored water bodies and this 
has been extrapolated to non-monitored water bodies.   

All  territorial  waters,  all  coastal  water  bodies,  and  more  than  80%  of  river  and  lake 
water bodies were monitored. 

Only  18%  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Slovenia  were  classified  with  high  confidence 
and  82%  with  low  confidence.  A  low  level  of  confidence  was  reported  for  water 

bodies assessed based on extrapolation  of mercury data in  biota. However, Slovenia 
clarified that for most of the waterbodies, the assessment for the other substances was 

based on monitoring data, and the confidence in this assessment, for these substances, 
was high. 

 

All  41  Priority  Substances  were  monitored  in  water  for  status  assessment  and  the 
frequency of monitoring met the recommended minimum frequency for surveillance, 

but not for operational monitoring.  

  Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  were  monitored  in  biota  for 
status  assessment,  at  the  recommended  minimum  frequency.  Depending  on  the 

substance,  monitoring  was  performed  at  about  10  to  18%  of  the  sites  monitored  for 
chemical  status.  (This  leads  to  a  low  confidence  in  the  assessment  for  many  water 

bodies – see above). 

 

Slovenia has monitored all required 14 Priority Substances in sediment for long-term 

trend  assessment,  at  the  minimum  recommended  frequency.  Monitoring  was 
performed in about 10 to 20% of the sites monitored for chemical status. 

11 

 
  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 

bodies 

 

All 21 groundwater bodies (100%) are in good quantitative status.  

  A  third  of  the  groundwater  bodies  are  still  not  subject  to  monitoring  of  quantitative 
status,  but  Slovenia  subsequently  clarified  that  the  assessment  of  status  is  based  on 
direct and indirect monitoring, where also hydrological and meteorological parameters 

are considered. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 

  All  groundwater  bodies  are  subject  to  monitoring.  All  substances  causing  risk  of 
deterioration in  chemical status  are subject  to  surveillance monitoring. All  WFD core 

parameters (nitrate, ammonium, electrical conductivity, oxygen and pH) are monitored. 

  The  status  situation  has  improved.  The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good 
chemical status was reduced from four groundwater bodies in the first RBMP to three. 

 

Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 

Ecological Potential 

 

According to information subsequently provided by Slovenia, for the second RBMPs, 
the characteristics of specific heavily modified water bodies were updated according 

to  new  knowledge  and  available  data.  Although  expert  studies  that  consider  the 
designation tests were prepared for all heavily modified water bodies for the purpose 

of the first  RBMPs, the second RBMPs do not  provide specific information on how 
the  significant  adverse  effects  of  restoration  measures  on  the  use  and  the  wider 

environment  (Article  4(3)(a))  have  been  defined.  They  also  do  not  provide 
information  on  whether  the  beneficial  objectives  served  by  the  modifications  of  the 

heavily modified water bodies can be achieved by other means.  

 

According to information provided by Slovenia, significant effects of measures were 

considered  in  terms  of  costs  of  measures  to  achieve  good  status  for  the  second 
RBMPs,  but  further  work  on  this  issue  is  expected  as  part  of  specific  measures 

included in the Programme of Measures (PoM). 

 

In  the  first  RBMPs,  good  ecological  potential  was  only  defined  for  rivers  (using 

benthic invertebrates) but not for lakes and coastal waters. According to information 

subsequently provided by Slovenia, an adapted methodology for ecological potential 
assessment  is  used  in  the  second  RBMP.  The  methodology  uses  relevant  biological 

12 

 
quality elements for the assessment of the ecological potential of heavily modified and 

artificial  water  bodies,  for  example  phytoplankton  was  used  for  lakes/reservoirs. 
However, no specific information could be found in the RBMPs on if and how actual 

values for biological quality elements for ecological potential are estimated.  

  Mitigation  measures  for  defining  good  ecological  potential  were  reported  at  RBD 
level.  However,  no  information  could  be  found  on  the  ecological  changes  that  the 
mitigation measures are designed to achieve. According to information subsequently 

provided  by  Slovenia,  the  detailed  estimation  of  ecological  improvements  will  be 
performed in the context of relevant measures included in the PoM. 

 

Environmental objectives and exemptions 

 

 

 

 

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

groundwater.  Objectives  have  been  reported  for  the  period  2022-2027  but  not  the 
expected progress until 2021. 

Drivers, pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions are reported and justifications 

for exemptions are provided at the water body level. 

Article 4(4) exemptions  are used more widely in surface waters and  groundwater in 

the second cycle than in the first cycle.  

No  exemptions  according  to  Article  4(7)  have  been  reported  in  the  second  RBMPs. 

There  is  no  specific  information  available  in  the  RBMPs  whether  the  effects  of  any 
planned  new  modifications  on  water  body  status/potential  have  been  assessed  and 

whether an Article 4(7) assessment would be required. 

 

Programme of Measures 

 

The  level  of  implementation  of  the  first  PoM  in  both  RBDs  (Danube  and  Adriatic) 

was reported as “some measures completed”, with the obstacles to progress reported 
as lack of finance and lack of measures in both  RBDs. Some costs were reported in 

Annex 0 relating to  economic analysis and cost  recovery for the first cycle, but it is 
not possible to compare these with investment costs for the second cycle.   

 

KTMs  have  been  reported  for  all  significant  pressures  for  groundwater  and  surface 

water  bodies  in  the  Danube  RBD.  KTMs  have  not  been  reported  for  all  significant 
pressures  in  surface  water  in  the  Adriatic  RBD  (no  significant  pressures  were 
identified for groundwater bodies in the Adriatic RBD). 

13 

 
 

National  basic  and  supplementary  measures  have  been  mapped  against  a  limited 

number of predefined KTMs and a significant number of nationally developed KTMs.
The  number  of  KTMs  against  which  national  measures  have  been  mapped  is 

much larger than those reported to be tackling significant pressures. Therefore it is not 
clear if all the national measures are relevant or will be made operational. However, 

Slovenia  subsequently  clarified  that  all  measures  are  relevant  and  will  contribute  to 
achieving environmental objectives. 

Although  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  to  be  of  good  status  due  to 
specific  substances  has  been  reported  for  the  Danube  RBD,  no  KTMs  have  been 

reported to address them, although these may be (though nitrate has been covered by 
more  general  KTMs,  e.g  KTM2  –  “Reduce  nutrient  pollution  from  agriculture  for 

nitrate). 

Indicator values have been reported for most significant pressures for 2015 and 2021, 

but little, if any progress is expected by 2021.  

The  RBMPs  and  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  have  not  been  integrated.  Financial 
commitments are marked “not relevant” and WFD Article 9(4) has not been applied to 

 

 

 

impoundments for flood protection. 

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 

  Water abstraction pressures were reported as not relevant for Slovenia. 

 

 

 

There is  a concession, authorisation  and/or permitting regime to  control abstractions 
of  fresh  surface  water  and  groundwater,  water  impoundment  and  a  register  of 

impoundments and register of water abstractions; but small abstractions are exempted 
from these controls. 

The reporting of quantitative data on water consumption and trends can be improved.  

The RBMPs do not include a water resource allocation and management plan. 

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture 

 

 

There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. 

The contribution of the Nitrate Action Program and the Rural Development program 

to closing the gap is known.  

14 

 
 
 

Basic  measures  under  Article  11(3)(h)  for  the  control  of  diffuse  pollution  are 

implemented  and  cover  the  reduction  of  pesticide,  nitrates  and  microbiological 
pollution. Supplementary measures are also applied. 

 

 

Safeguard zones for the protection of drinking water are established 

The financing of agricultural measures has been secured in both RBDs. 

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 

  Measures  were  reported  for  all  Priority  Substances  and  River  Basin  Specific 

Pollutants causing non-compliance in Slovenia.  

  Measures  were  reported  to  tackle  pollutants  causing  failures  in  groundwater  in  the 

Danube RBD (no pollutant was causing failure of groundwater in the Adriatic RBD). 

 

In  both  RBDs  there  are  several  measures  that  separately  deal  with  wastewater 

treatment  from  agglomerations  larger  or  equal  to  2000  population  equivalent  and 

smaller  than  2000  population  equivalent.  Funding  is  reported  to  be  secured  for 
agglomerations  equal  or  larger  to  2000  population  equivalent,  but  not  for  smaller 

agglomerations. Slovenia however expects that the objectives will be achieved in the 
years 2021 to 2027.  

  Measures related to hydromorphology 

 

Operational  KTMs  are  clearly  reported  to  deal  with  significant  hydromorphological 
pressures  in  both  RBDs.  From  the  information  reported  in  WISE,  no  progress  is 

evident  in  terms  of  closing  the  gap  for  significant  hydromorphological  pressures 
between  2015  and  2021.  This  raises  major  concerns  on  the  level  of  ambition  of  the 

second RBMPs in terms of tackling significant hydromorphological pressures.  

 

According to information subsequently provided by Slovenia, for the implementation 

of  the  basic  and  supplementary  measures  included  in  the  PoM  to  reduce 
hydromorphological pressures in the time period of 2016 – 2021, different phases are 

envisaged.  In  the  first  phase,  prioritisation  of  technical  measures  will  be  performed, 
while in a second phase, priority technical measures will be implemented.  

 

A revision of the most significant water rights is also envisaged as part of two specific 
measures  related  to  achieving  good  ecological  potential  in  large  hydropower  plants 

and  measures  for  reduction  of  negative  impacts  of  river/lake/coastal  waters 
engineering works. 

15 

 
 

Ecological flows have been derived partly, i.e. for some relevant water bodies, in the 

two  RBDs  but  the  work  is  still  on-going.  The  ecological  flows  which  have  been 
derived  so  far  have  been  implemented  only  in  some  relevant  water  bodies.  A  study 

relevant to aligning ecological flows with good status has been completed but further 
action  may  be  needed  in  terms  of  updating  the  current  legislation  on  ecologically 

acceptable flows.   

 

KTM 23 - "Natural water retention measures" is not reported to tackle any significant 

pressures.  However,  according  to  information  subsequently  provided  by  Slovenia, 
natural water retention measures are considered in the Flood Risk Management Plan 

and  are  synergetic  to  RBMP  measures,  for  instance  measures  for  the  reduction  of 
negative impacts of land use in riparian zones, measures for the reduction of negative 

impacts of river/lake/coastal waters engineering works and measures for the reduction 
of negative impacts of drainage systems. 

 

Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

 

A  wide  definition  of  water  services  has  been  used.  The  RBMPs  do  not  provide 

sufficiently  detailed  information  on  the  methodologies  and  approaches  used  for  the 
calculation of environmental and resource costs and cost recovery rates to allow for an 
exact assessment of the progress since the first cycle. 

 

Considerations  specific  to  Protected  Areas  (identification,  monitoring,  objectives 

and measures) 

 

 

The second RBMP provided summarised information on all Surface Drinking Water 

Protected Areas which were designated in the second cycle.  

However, Slovenia did not report any specific monitoring programmes for Protected 
Areas, although this seems to be related to a gap in the information reported to WISE. 

 

Adaptation to drought and climate change 

 

Slovenia  has  not  reported  an  assessment  and  consideration  of  projected  climate 
change  in  the  second  RBMP  and  PoM.  However,  according  to  the  information 

subsequently  provided  by  Slovenia,  the  RBMPs  and  the  PoM  include  data  and 
analyses  that  show  the  impact  of  climate  change,  for  both  surface  and  groundwater 

bodies. 

 

KTM 24 – “adaption to climate change” is not made operational to address any of the 

significant  pressures  and  specific  sub-plans  on  climate  change  aspects  are  not 

16 

 
reported.  However,  according  to  the  information  provided  by  Slovenia,  there  is  one 

measure addressing climate change.  
No drought management plans are established. 

 

17 

 
 
 
Recommendations  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The preparation of the next RBMPs should be carried out in accordance with the WFD 

timetable, to ensure the timely adoption of the third RBMPs. 

Clear  information  should  be  included  in  national  RBMPs  on  international  coordination 
efforts in order to increase transparency.  

Slovenia should further strengthen bilateral cooperation with neighbouring countries and 
continue to improve international cooperation, including coordinated assessments of the 

technical  aspects  of  the  WFD  such  as  ensuring  a  harmonized  approach  for  status 
assessment  and  a  coordinated  PoM  in  order  to  ensure  the  timely  achievement  of  the 

WFD objectives. 

Slovenia  needs  to  continue  to  work  on  reference  conditions,  in  particular  for 

hydromorphological Quality Elements. 

Slovenia needs to complete its review of significant pressures and impacts, in particular 
to  reduce  the  significant  number  of  pressures  currently  reported  as  “anthropogenic 

pressure – unknown”. 

Slovenia  should  continue  to  improve  monitoring  of  surface  waters  by  covering  all 

relevant quality elements in all water categories. 

Slovenia  should  complete  the  development  of  assessment  methods  for  all  relevant 

biological quality elements in all water categories.  

The  assessment  of  hydromorphological  quality  elements  should  be  linked  to  sensitive 
biological  quality  elements,  and  a  hydrological  regime  and  morphological  conditions 

should  be  used  for  the  assessment  of  ecological  status.  Standards  for  general 
physicochemical quality elements should be set so that they are consistent with the good-

moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements and ensure 
a  level  of  protection  which  is  at  least  equivalent  to  that  guaranteed  by  the  repealed 

Freshwater Fish Directive. 

 

Slovenia should progress in the transfer of the results of intercalibration into all national 

types,  and  provide  clear  information  on  how  boundaries  are  set  for  non-intercalibrated 
methods. 

 

Slovenia  should  continue  improving  the  confidence  in  the  assessment  of  status,  in 
particular  by  making  sure  the  spatial  coverage  of  monitoring  in  biota  is  sufficient.  If  a 

18 

 
different matrix is used, the corresponding explanations should be provided, as required 

by the Directive. 

 

 

Slovenia should report information on trend monitoring of pentachlorobenzene as part of 

the third RBMPs, and should carry out trend monitoring in lakes in the Adriatic RBD.  

Further  efforts  are  needed  to  develop  a  clear  and  transparent  methodology  for  the 

designation  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies.  Significant  adverse  effects  of  restoration 
measures  on  the  use  or  wider  environment  and  the  lack  of  significantly  better 

environmental options needs to be evaluated based on clear criteria and made transparent 
in the RBMPs. A clear distinction needs to be made between the designation of heavily 

modified  water  bodies  and  the  application  of  exemptions,  particularly  with  regard  to 
significant  adverse  effects  on  use  and  costs  of  measures.  Similarly  the  definition  of 

ecological  potential requires improved transparency for objective setting,  particularly if 
and  how  actual  values  for  biological  quality  elements  are  derived  at  water  body  level 

based on a comprehensive set of mitigation measures. 

 

A significant number of Article 4(4) exemptions are still applied in the second RBMPs, 

which is an issue of concern. Efforts need to be continued to further improve the required 
assessments for the justification of exemptions, expected timeframe for the achievement 

of  the  objectives  and  related  ambition  of  the  PoM  in  order  to  ensure  a  timely 
achievement of the WFD objectives. 

 

Slovenia  needs  to  ensure  a  thorough  assessment  of  any  potential  planned  new 

modifications in line with the requirements of the WFD and as further specified by the 
Judgment of the Court in case C-461/13. The use of exemptions under Article 4(7) needs 

to  be  based  on  a  thorough  assessment  of  all  the  steps  as  requested  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  practicable  steps  are  taken  to  mitigate  the  adverse 
impact  on  the  status/potential  of  the  water  bodies.  Respective  information  on  the 

application of Article 4(7) needs to be reported in the RBMPs. 

All KTMs should be operational and all significant pressures addressed. 

Slovenia  should  make  sure  the  measures  reported  for  individual  substances  causing 
failure  are  sufficient  to  reach  the  WFD  objectives  of  good  status.  Slovenia  should  also 

implement  and  clearly  report  measures  to  suppress  emissions  from  priority  hazardous 
substances. 

 

 

19 

 
  Work  should  continue 

to  ensure 

the 

implementation  of  measures 

to  address 

hydromorphological  pressures,  if  necessary  by  reviewing  permits/concessions  and 
allocating the necessary resources. 

 

Slovenia  should  continue  to  consider  river  restoration  and  prioritise  the  use  of  green 
infrastructure  and/or  natural  water  retention  measures  that  provide  a  range  of 

environmental  (improvements  in  water  quality,  increase  water  infiltration  and  thus 
aquifer  recharge,  flood  protection,  habitat  conservation  etc.),  social  and  economic 

benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. 

 

Slovenia  should  continue  to  apply  cost  recovery  for  water  use  activities  having  a 

significant impact on water bodies or justify any exemptions using Article 9(4). It should 

transparently  present  how  financial,  environmental  and  resource  costs  have  been 
calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. Slovenia 

should  also  transparently  present  the  water-pricing  policy  and  provide  a  transparent 
overview of estimated investments and investment needs. 

 

Slovenia  has  set  objectives  for  the  most  relevant  Protected  Areas  but  it  still  needs  to 
work  on  the  additional  objectives  related  to  the  Habitat  and  Birds  Directives.  Surface 

Freshwater Fish Protected Areas under the repealed Directive have not been reported. 

 

Based on the prevalence of local drought in sub-basins, as one of the effects of climate 

change,  Slovenia  should  consider  preparing  drought  management  plans  where 
appropriate. 

20 

 
 
 
Topic 1

  Governance and public participation 

1.1

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

1.1.1  Administrative arrangements – RBDs 

Slovenia has designated two RBDs, the Danube and the Adriatic. Slovenia prepared an RBMP 
for each of its RBDs. Both are parts of international RBDs – the first part of the Danube River 

Basin and the second shared with Croatia and Italy. 

1.1.2  Administrative arrangements – competent authorities 

Slovenia  lists  one  Competent  Authority,  the  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Spatial  Planning, 
which  is  responsible  for  all  main  roles:  monitoring  and  assessment  of  status  of  groundwater 

and  surface  water,  enforcement  of  regulations,  pressure  and  impact  analysis,  economic 
analysis,  preparation  of  RBMPs  and  PoM,  public  participation,  implementation  of  measures, 

co-ordination of implementation, and reporting to the Commission. 

1.1.3  River  Basin  Management  Plans  –  structure  and  Strategic  Environmental 

Assessment 

Both RBMPs in Slovenia underwent a Strategic Environmental Assessment.  

1.1.4 

Public participation and active involvement of stakeholders 

For  both  RBDs,  the  public  and  interested  parties  were  informed  by:  direct  mailing,  Internet, 

invitations  to  stakeholders,  local  authorities  and  media  (papers,  television  and  radio). 
Documents  were  available  by  direct  mailing  (email)  and  via  download.  Documents  were 

available for the requisite six months.  

The following mechanisms were used for the active involvement of stakeholders: involvement 

in  drafting,  workshops  for  stakeholders  (agriculture,  energy,  and  water  management 
operations)  and  regional  workshops3  for  the  public,  NGOs  and  small  or  large  industrial 
companies.  

3 Slovenia subsequently informed that regional institutions, such as development agencies, higher education 
institutions, local governments and other national bodies such as laboratories and inspectorates also 
participated in these meetings.   

21 

 
 
                                            
Public consultation had the following impacts in both RBDs: adjustment to specific measures, 

changes  to  selection  of  measures,  commitment  to  action  in  the  RBMP  and  commitment  to 
further research. 

1.1.5 

Integration  with  the  Floods  Directive  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive 

Slovenia’s  RBMPs  have  a  measure  for  the  implementation  of  the  Flood  Risk  Management 
Plans,  indicating  a  close  link  between  the  plans.  Moreover,  Slovenia  reported  that  joint 

consultation  was  held  for  the  separate  RBMPs  and  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans.  Further 
information on integration with respect to measures is provided in Chapter 9 of this report. 

Joint consultation was held for the RBMPs and for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive4.  

1.1.6 

International coordination and co-operation 

For  Slovenia's  Danube  RBD  an  international  agreement,  permanent  co-operation  body  and 
international RBMP are all in place (designated as category 1 cooperation). Explicit links have 

been made with national RBMPs within the international RBMP. For Slovenia's Adriatic RBD, 
which has catchments shared with Croatia and Italy, an international agreement and permanent 
co-operation body are in  place (designated as category 2 cooperation).  For both  RBDs, there 

was  international  coordination  of  public  participation.  The  RBMPs  provide  information  on 
bilateral  international  cooperation  and,  for  the  Danube  RBMP,  within  the  Danube  and  Sava 

international IRBDs.  

As noted, co-operation in the Danube is in category 1: Slovenia is a party to the 1994 Danube 

River  Protection  Convention  and  the  2002  Framework  Agreement  on  the  Sava  River  Basin. 
Under  these  agreements,  Slovenia  cooperates  with  other  countries  sharing  RBDs  via  the 

International  Commission  for  the  Protection  of  the  Danube  River  and  the  International  Sava 
River Basin Commission. For further information see the reports on international coordination 

on the Water Framework Directive. 

Slovenia also has a range of bilateral agreements on freshwater management with neighbouring 

Member States, including the following: 

  With  Austria:  Agreement  between  Yugoslavia  and  Austria  Concerning  Water 
Management  Questions  in  respect  of  the  Frontier  Sector  of  the  Mura  River  and  the 

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  

22 

 
                                            
Agreement  between  the  Governments  of  Yugoslavia  and  Austria  concerning  Water 

Management  related  to  the  Drava  River,  and  co-operation  via  Permanent  Commissions 
for these two rivers (in place from the early 1990s). 

  With  Croatia:  Agreement  between  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Croatia  and  the 
Government  of  the  Republic  of  Slovenia  on  the  Settlement  of  Water  Management 

Relations (1996), and co-operation via the Permanent Slovenian – Croatian Commission 
for Water Management.  

  With Hungary: Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the 
Government  of  the  Republic  of  Slovenia  on  the  Issues  of  Water  Management,  and  co-

operation  via 
Management.  

the  Permanent  Slovenian  –  Hungarian  Commission  for  Water 

  With  Italy:  Agreement  on  the  activity  of  Yugoslavian  –  Italian  commission  on  water 
management,  and  co-operation  via  the  Permanent  Slovenian  –  Italian  Commission  for 
Water Management.  

According to information in the second RBMPs: 

 

Slovenia  coordinated  the  preparation  of  the  second  RBMP  for  the  Danube  with  the 

international  Danube  and  Sava  River  RBMPs  with  officials  of  the  international 
commissions  included  as  experts,  ensuring  that  content  is  harmonised.  Moreover,  this 

national RBMP took into account planning documents under international commissions.  

 

 

Cooperation with neighbouring countries was ensured via the international Commissions 

as well as bilateral Commissions and working groups. 

Cooperation included participation in international monitoring networks.  

1.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

In  the  first  cycle,  Slovenia  prepared  a  single  document  that  provided  the  RBMP  for  both  its 

RBDs. In the second cycle Slovenia prepared separate RBMPs for the two RBDs.  

A  minor  change  (at  least  for  the  purposes  of  this  assessment)  is  that  Slovenia's  national 

authority for the WFD is again named the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning (from 
early  2012,  the  authority  was  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Environment,  and  the  last 

reorganisation appears to have restored the original Ministry). 

23 

 
1.3

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 
following: 

  Recommendation: Coordinate the preparation of the next RBMPs with the preparation 
of the international Danube RBMP and the Sava RBMP and ensure that co-operation 

with  the  neighbouring  countries  extends  to  all  shared  catchments.  A  link  should  be 
established to existing international RBMPs and international monitoring networks in 

the RBMPs. The RBMPs should provide information on key issues (e.g. PoM) subject to 
international  co-ordination.  Slovenia  should  enhance  international  cooperation  with 

neighbouring countries, mainly for the river basins in the Adriatic RBD. 

Assessment:  The  first  RBMP  did  not  provide  information  on  international  RBDs  or 

RBMPs, nor describe coordination on RBMPs with other Member States: Slovenia was 
recommended  to  coordinate  the  preparation  of  the  second  RBMPs  with  the 

international  Danube  and  Sava  River  RBMPs, 
to  ensure  co-operation  with 
neighbouring  countries  and  to  provide  links  to  existing  international  RBMPs  and 

monitoring  networks  in  the  RBMPs,  as  well  as  information  on  key  issues  subject  to 
international coordination, such as the PoM.  

This co-operation has taken place, both on a bilateral basis with Slovenia’s neighbours 
and  for  the  international  Danube  and  Sava  RBMPs:  Slovenia’s  Danube  RBMP,  for 

example,  describes  Slovenia’s  cooperation  within  these  two  international  RBDs  and 
bilateral  cooperation  with  Austria,  Croatia  and  Hungary.  In  separate  documents, 
bilateral monitoring networks with neighbouring countries are described5. Slovenia has 
fulfilled this recommendation.  

5   For example, Monitoring in ocenjevanje stanja površinskih in podzemnih voda v Sloveniji, available at: 

http://www.arso.gov.si/vode/poro%C4%8Dila%20in%20publikacije/  

24 

 
 
 
 
                                            
Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District 

2.1

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle  

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

2.1.1  Delineation  of  water  bodies  and  designation  of  heavily  modified  and  artificial 

water bodies 

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

RBMPs (Table 2.1). According to the data reported to WISE, there was one less coastal water 
body, two less lake water bodies and two additional river water bodies in the second RBMPs.6 
The numbers of groundwater bodies remained the same (Table 2.2). 

In  the  second  RBMPs,  85%  of  identified  surface  water  bodies  were  natural  with  12%  being 

designated  as  heavily  modified  and  3%  artificial.  This  was  also  the  situation  in  the  first 
RBMPs (Figure 1). The water uses and physical alterations have been reported for each heavily 

modified water body category.   

Table 2.1 

Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Slovenia for 

the second and first cycles 

Year  RBD 

Rivers 

Numbe
r 
of 
water 
bodies 

Total 
lengt
h  of 
water 
body 
(km) 

Lakes 

Numbe
r 
of 
water 
bodies 

2016  Danube 

112 

2016  Adriatic 

25 

4 103  9 

631 

3 

2016 

Total 

137 

4 734  12 

2010  Danube 

110 

2 226  11 

2010  Adriatic 

25 

393 

3 

2010 

Total 

135 

2 620  14 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Coastal 

Numbe
r 
of 
water 
bodies 

5 

5 

6 

6 

Total 
area 
(km2) 
of 
water 
bodie
s 

85 

85 

404 

404 

Total 
area 
(km2) 
of 
water 
bodie
s 

30 

2 

32 

36 

2 

38 

6 Slovenia subsequently indicated that the number of water bodies in each category has not changed for the 2nd 

RBMP, although this is different from what was reported to WISE.  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                            
Table 2.2 

Number  and  area  of  delineated  groundwater  bodies  in  Slovenia  for  the 

second and first cycles 

Year  RBD 

Numb
er 

Area (km2) 
Minimu
m 

Maximu
m 

Average 

2016  Danube 

18 

97.2 

3357.44 

913.48 

2016  Adriatic 

3 

817.67 

1589.87 

1283.72 

2016  Total 

21 

97.2 

3357.44 

966.37 

2010  Danube 

18 

2010  Adriatic 

3 

2010  Total 

21 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 2.1 

Proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Slovenia  designated  as  artificial, 
heavily  modified  and natural  for  the  second  and  the  first  cycle.  Note  that 

the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water 
category 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The  minimum  size  criteria  reported  for  the  surface  area  for  lakes  was  0.5  km2,  but  the 
minimum size for the catchment area of rivers was not reported to WISE. The RBMPs indicate 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
that the criteria for delineation of rivers was catchment larger than 100 km2. The RBMPs also 
reported  that  smaller  water  bodies  that  were  not  individually  delineated  were  included  as 
tributaries to delineated larger surface water bodies. For rivers with a catchment area between 
10 and 100 km2, and where the water  body status was  significantly  different  from  the larger 
water  bodies  to  which  they  are  connected,  these  smaller  water  bodies  were  also  delineated 

separately.  

Table 2.3 summarises the information provided by Slovenia on how water bodies have evolved 

between the two cycles.  Table 2.4 shows the differences in  size distribution of surface water 
bodies in Slovenia between the first and the second cycles. It is notable that both the minimum 

sizes of rivers and lakes have remained largely the same but the maximum size of rivers has 
increased.  

Table 2.3 

Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in 

Slovenia between the second and the first cycles 

Coast
al 

5 

Type of water body change for the 
second cycle (wiseEvolutionType) 

Groundwat
er  

Rivers  Lakes 

21 

137 

12 

Change 

Aggregation 

splitting 

Aggregation and splitting 

Change in code 

Extended area 

Creation 

Deletion 

Total water bodies before deletion 

Delineated  for 
(after deletion from first cycle) 

the  second  cycle 

21 

21 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

137 

137 

12 

12 

5 

5 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.4 
first cycles 

Year  RBD 

Size  distribution  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Slovenia  in  the  second  and  the 

River length (km) 

Lake area (km2) 

Coastal area (km2) 

Min  Max 

Average  Min  Max  Average  Min  Max 

Average 

2016  Danube  1.38  168.26  37.3 

0.59 

19.93  3.33 

2016  Adriatic  1.9 

84.89 

25.25 

0.3 

0.72 

0.53 

0.7 

34.71 

18.12 

2010  Danube  1.25  85.04 

20.24 

2010  Adriatic  1.93  41.02 

15.73 

0.62 

0.31 

19.93  3.32 

0.75 

0.54 

0.72  342.38  67.34 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

2.1.2 

Identification of transboundary water bodies  

Both the Danube and Adriatic RBDs are international RBDs. No transboundary surface water 
bodies were reported in WISE and one groundwater body was reported in the Danube RBD7.  

2.1.3  Typology of surface water bodies 

There  was  a  slight  decrease  in  the  number  of  types  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs 

(approximately  15%),  mostly  for  river  water  bodies,  whereas  there  was  an  increase  in  the 
number of lake water body types, as shown in Table 2.5. 

Table 2.5 

Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Slovenia for the first 
and the second cycles 

RBD 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Coastal 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

SIRBD1 

SIRBD2 

Total 

52 

21 

73 

39 

13 

52 

2 

0 

2 

7 

2 

9 

0 

2 

2 

0 

3 

3 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Many national types (heavily modified, artificial and natural) have been intercalibrated. In each 

of  the  RBDs  there  are  several  river  and  lake  water  bodies  that  were  reported  not  to  have 
corresponding intercalibration types (7 lake water bodies and 20 river water bodies).8  

7 Slovenia subsequently clarified that transboundary water bodies of surface and groundwater were identified 

where relevant and when preparing a river basin management plan, possible transboundary pressures are also 
taken into account.  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                            
2.1.4  Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies 

Table  2.6  shows  the  percentage  of  surface  water  body  types  in  Slovenia  with  reference 
conditions established for the first and the second cycles, as reported in WISE. Type-specific 

reference conditions have been established for some or all relevant biological quality elements 
for lakes and almost all rivers. Type-specific reference conditions have only been established 

for some physicochemical  quality  elements  for lakes (20%), rivers (98%) and coastal (67%). 
Type-specific  reference  conditions  have  not  been  established  for  hydromorphological  quality 

elements with the exception of 9% of river water body types. The RBMPs, however, report that 
reference conditions have been defined for each surface water type for each relevant biological 

element. 

Table 2.6 

Percentage  of  surface  water  body  types  in  Slovenia  with  reference 
the  biological, 
conditions  established  for  all,  some  and  none  of 

hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements 

Water 
catego
ry 

Water 
types 

Biological 
elements 

quality 

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 

Physicochemical 
quality elements 

All  

Lakes  

Some 

100% 

None 

All  

Rivers  

Some 

57% 

42% 

None 

2% 

All  

67% 

Coastal  

Some 

100% 

9% 

91% 

None 

33% 

100% 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

22% 

78% 

98% 

2% 

67% 

33% 

The  RBMPs  also  describe  how  reference  conditions  were  defined  for  locations  in  which 

natural  conditions  exist.  If  there  were  no  places  with  natural  conditions,  the  reference 
conditions were defined by modelling using historical data or by expert judgment. 

8 Slovenia subsequently clarified that for river and lake water bodies that do not to have corresponding 

intercalibration types, national ecological types were set and corresponding values for biological quality 
elements were set according to intercalibrated methodology. 

29 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                                                                                                          
There is no specific information in the RBMPs or background documents on coordination of 

the type-specific reference conditions with other Member States and third countries. 

2.1.5  Characteristics of groundwater bodies 

The  geological  formation  of  the  aquifer  types  in  which  groundwater  bodies  reside  was 
reported,  along  with  details  of  whether  groundwater  bodies  are  layered  or  not.  Further 

characterisation  work  has  been  reported  since  the  first  RBMPs,  with  the  inclusion  of  the 
assessment of linkages to surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems for both RBDs. 

2.1.6 

Significant pressures on water bodies 

In the second RBMPs, ‘anthropogenic pressure – unknown’ was reported to affect the largest 
proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  (99%)9,  followed  by  ’point  -  urban  waste  water’  (73%) 
(Figure 2). In the first RBMPs, Slovenia only reported pressures at an aggregated level. Overall 

it  appears  there  was  a  large  increase  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs  in  the  reporting  of 
point, diffuse and hydromorphological pressures were reported (Figure 2.3), with a significant 

decrease in the reporting of “No pressures”, from 99% to 0. 

For the second  cycle, it was reported that 13 pressures were not  assessed for surface waters. 
The RBMPs did not provide any information  about why some pressures  were excluded from 

status  assessment.  For  example,  significant  pressures  from  community  wastewater  systems 
were considered as a diffuse pressure, however, based on available data, it was not possible to 

assess  them  with  a  high  level  of  confidence.  In  addition,  the  RBMPs  reported  that  pressures 
from  diffuse  urban  runoff,  abstractions,  wastewater  discharges,  diversion  of  flood  waters, 

abstraction  of  alluvial  deposits  and  “mariculture”  were  considered  a  significant  pressure  but 
data was not available to assess them with a high level of confidence. 

For groundwater bodies, the majority were reported to have “no significant pressures” (86%), 
with  the  only  pressures  reported  to  be  ‘diffuse  –  agricultural’  (14%)  (Figure  2.2).  For 

groundwater,  it  was  reported  that  39  significant  pressures  were  not  assessed,  many  of  which 
were  related  to  surface  water  specific  pressures  such  as  dams  and  hydrological  changes. 

However, there were some pressures that could impact groundwater which were not assessed, 
such as contaminated sites and mining. The RBMPs reported that pressures from mining sites 

were  analysed  for  the  first  cycle  and  significant  pressures  were  identified;  however,  the 

9  Slovenia subsequently clarified that atmospheric deposition is actually thought to be responsible for pollution 

with mercury in 92% of the surface water bodies. However, as it was not possible to determine the 
contribution of atmospheric deposition with precision, this was reported as “anthropogenic pressure – 
unknown”. 

30 

 
                                            
 
 
methodology was not  further developed.  Landfills  and other dumping  areas were reported as 

significant  point  source  pressures  in  the  RBMPs;  however,  there  was  limited  knowledge  on 
loads  and  risks  of  possible  contamination  and  therefore  the  assessment  of  risk  was  not  done 

and  is  planned  for  the  future.  Water  abstractions  for  geothermal  energy,  which  are  generally 
followed by water reinjection, were also reported not to have been assessed because of gaps in 

data. 

Figure 2.2 

The  most  significant  pressures  on  surface  water  bodies  and  groundwater 

bodies in Slovenia for the second cycle 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

31 

 
 
 
Figure 2.3 

Comparison  of  pressures  on  surface  water  bodies  in  Slovenia  in  the  first 

and  the  second  cycles.  Pressures  presented  at  the  aggregated  level.  Note 
there  were  155  identified  surface  water  bodies  for  both  the  second  cycle 

and for the first cycle 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

2.1.7  Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface waters 

For  surface  waters,  a  combination  of  numerical  tools  and  expert  judgement  were  used  for 

defining  significant  pressures  from  point  sources,  diffuse  and  other  significant  pressures. 
Expert judgement was used for defining significant pressures from abstraction and water flow 

pressures. For surface water bodies, significance of pressures was reported as being linked to 
the potential failure of good status, meaning that if a significant pressure is identified, a water 

body is failing, or at risk of failing, good status.  

The RBMPs do not provide any information on changes in the methodology or the criteria for 

the  assessment  of  significance  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs,  but  they  describe  the 
methods  and  thresholds  for  the  second  cycle.  For  point  sources,  significant  pressures  from 

industrial discharges  are defined for rivers  and lakes when:  (1) excessive loading is  assessed 
based on monitoring results;  or (2) the concentration of pollutants exceeds  the values for the 

environmental quality standard in the catchment. 

For diffuse pressures, significant pressures of nutrients from agriculture for rivers and lakes are 

identified when: (1) the quantity of nitrate or phosphorus in the catchment exceeds 23% of the 

32 

 
 
 
quantity  of  nitrate  or  phosphorus  from  the  area  of  Slovenia,  or  (2)  when  the  quantities  are 

smaller, but there is more than 14% of the RBD covered by irrigation systems.  

Significant  hydrological  pressures  due  to  abstractions    were  considered  when  abstraction  of 

water from a water body exceeds: (1) 50% of medium-low flow at the bottom part of a water 
body if the ratio between medium flow and medium-low flow is more than 20; or (2) 50% of 

medium flow at the bottom part of a water body in other cases.  

An example of how the significance of hydromorphological pressures were determined is for 

morphological pressures from transverse barriers, when: (1) the passage of aquatic organisms 
is not ensured; or (2) due to a barrier, an accumulation has been formed on the main flow of a 
water  body  that  is  larger  than  0.5  km2  or  is  more  than  10  km  long.  Significant 
hydromorphological pressures due to river regulation were identified when at least 30% of the 

length of a water body is heavily regulated. 

2.1.8  Definition and assessment of significant pressures on groundwater 

A  combination  of  expert  judgement  and  numerical  tools  were  used  for  defining  significant 
pressures  on  groundwater  from  point  sources  and  artificial  recharge.  For  diffuse  and 
abstraction pressures, numerical tools were used.  

For groundwater bodies, the significance of pressures was reported to be linked to the potential 
failure of objectives and is defined in terms of thresholds, but further details were not provided 

in the RBMPs. 

The RBMPs do not provide any information on changes in the methodology or the criteria for 

the assessment of significance for the second RBMPs, but did describe the methods. Quantities 
of nitrogen and phosphorus from point sources were considered in discharges of wastewaters 

into  the  ground  from  industry,  landfills,  community  wastewater  treatment  plants  and  roads. 
The calculated data from monitoring (or data from literature) was taken and integrated into the 

overall mathematical model used to calculate nutrients on a groundwater body level. 

Diffuse pollution of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) was modelled using data on land use 

and  use  of  nutrients  in  agriculture.  The  model  for  calculation  of  diffuse  pollution  from 
pesticides has not been updated for the second cycle.  

A  preliminary  assessment  of  25  areas  of  ecosystems  that  are  dependent  on  groundwater  was 
undertaken  and  showed  that  these  pressures  are  mainly  local  pressures  and  therefore  require 

more detailed analysis. 

33 

 
2.1.9 

Significant impacts on water bodies  

In  the  second  RBMPs,  the  most  significant  impact  on  surface  water  bodies  is  chemical 
pollution  (affecting  99%  of  surface  water  bodies),  followed  by  organic  pollution  (73%)  and 

nutrient pollution (72%) (Figure 2.4). For groundwater “no significant impacts” were reported 
for  86%  of  groundwater  bodies,  followed  by  nutrient  pollution  (14%)  (Figure  2.4).  Slovenia 

did not report on impacts in the first RBMPs. 

Figure 2.4 

Significant impacts  on surface water and groundwater bodies in Slovenia 

for the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

34 

 
 
 
2.1.10  Quantification of the gap and apportionment of pressures  

The  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status  and  the  measures  to  tackle 
these substances to achieve good status by 2021 has been reported. The indicator of the gap to 

achieve good chemical status by 2021 was reported. However, for mercury and its compounds 
the reported indicator shows no reduction of the gap in 2021, which could indicate that the link 

between measures and pressures is not sufficiently strong in this instance. 

2.1.11  Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 

In the Danube RBD, 17% of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing to meet 
good chemical status. For the Adriatic RBD, no groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk 

of  failing  good  chemical  status.  For  the  groundwater  bodies  at  risk  of  failing  good  chemical 
status, the pollutants causing this risk have been reported. It was reported that no groundwater 

bodies in either RBD are at risk of failing to meet good quantitative status. 

2.1.12  Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances 

Article  5  of  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  (EQS  Directive)10  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 of the EQS Directive for 

each  RBD,  or  part  thereof,  lying  within  their  territory.  This  inventory  should  allow  Member 
States  to  further  target  measures  to  tackle  pollution  from  priority  substances.  It  should  also 

inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in 
reducing (or suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for priority substances. 

Slovenia reported inventories for each RBD. All priority substances were included in each of 
the inventories,. 

The two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 
was not  reported to  have been used (except  for  two substances in  both  RBDs). Tier 1 of the 

methodology was implemented for all of the substances included in the inventories. The data 
quality was not reported. 

The  Adriatic  RBMP  provides  a  list  of  substances  and  information  from  an  inventory  of 
emissions, discharges, and losses of chemical substances for the period 2009-2012. It was also 

10 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 
European Parliament and of the Council http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02008L0105-20130913  

35 

 
                                            
reported that available data in an inventory was used to perform a trend analysis for 19 Priority 

Substances and 29 specified certain other pollutants.  

2.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Overall  the  number  and  characterisation  of  water  bodies  remained  largely  the  same  between 
the first and second RBMPs.  

There  was  a  slight  decrease  in  the  number  of  types  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs 
(approximately  15%),  mostly  for  river  water  bodies,  whereas  there  was  an  increase  in  the 
number of lake water bodies types. 

In the first cycle, Slovenia reported pressures at  an aggregated level. Overall it appears there 
was a large increase from the first to the second RBMPs in the reporting of point, diffuse and 

hydromorphological  pressures,  while  the  reporting  of  “No  pressures”  dropped  from  99%  to 
none.  

2.3

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 

following: 

  Recommendation:  Determine  (as  a priority) which stretches between 10  and 100 km2 
deserve  delineation  as  water  bodies  (to  ensure  that  significant  impacts  are  not  being 
overlooked). 

Assessment:  In  the  first  RBMPs,  small  rivers  with  a  catchment  area  between  10  and 
100 km2  were  not  delineated  as  stand-alone  surface  waters  bodies.  In  the  second 
RBMPs a minimum size was not reported for the catchment area of rivers. The RBMPs 
indicate  that  the  criteria  for  delineation  of  rivers  was  catchment  larger  than  100  km2. 
The  RBMPs  also  reported  that  smaller  water  bodies  that  were  not  individually 
delineated  were  included  as  tributaries  to  delineated  larger  surface  water  bodies.  For 
rivers  with  a  catchment  area  between  10  and  100  km2,  and  where  the  status  was 
significantly different from the larger water bodies to which they are connected, these 

smaller  water  bodies  were  also  delineated  separately.    Significant  impacts  on  smaller 
river water bodies are therefore addressed. 

This recommendation can be considered as fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Review the pressures and impacts analysis and status assessment in 
the second RBMPs and ensure that the measures are based on the updated  pressures 
and impacts analysis and status assessment of water bodies. 

36 

 
 
Assessment:  The  RBMPs  do  not  provide  information  on  any  changes  in  the 

methodology or the criteria for the assessment of significance of pressures and impacts. 
For  both  surface  water  and  groundwater  bodies,  the  significance  of  pressures  was 

reported  to  be  linked  to  the  potential  failure  of  objectives  and  is  defined  in  terms  of 
thresholds.  Since  the  first  cycle,  it  appears  that  there  has  been  progress  in  the 

identification of pressures, as there is a large increase in the reporting of point, diffuse 
and hydromorphological pressures.  In addition  there  was a significant  decrease in  the 

reporting of “No pressures”, from 99% to 0.  

Significant pressures have been reported and measures mapped against most of these. 

For  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status,  measures  to  tackle 
these  substances  to  achieve  good  status  by  2021  have  been  reported.  However,  for 

mercury  and  its  compounds  the  reported  indicator  shows  no  reduction  of  the  gap  in 
2021,  which  could  indicate  that  the  link  between  measures  and  pressures  is  not 

sufficiently strong in this instance. 

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

37 

 
 
Topic 3

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  ecological 
status in surface water bodies 

3.1

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second RBMPs 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

3.1.1  Monitoring of ecological status/potential 

Monitoring programmes 

Article  8.1  of  the  WFD  requires  Member  States  to  establish  monitoring  programmes  for  the 
assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and 

comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD.  

Slovenia reported 10 monitoring programmes. Monitoring programmes were reported for each 

RBD  with  separate  ones  for  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  covering  all  water 
categories in the RBD. 

Monitoring sites 

Table  3.1  compares  the  number  of  monitoring  sites  used  for  surveillance  and  operational 
purposes  between  the  first  and  the  second  RBMPs,  and  Table  3.2  gives  the  number  of  sites 

used for different purposes for the second RBMPs. 

Overall in Slovenia there was a decrease in the number of surveillance sites and an increase in 

the  number  of  operational  sites  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs:  more  sites  are  used  for 
operational monitoring than for surveillance monitoring. There are two fewer surveillance sites 

in coastal waters and 23 fewer in rivers for the second RBMPs compared to the first. In lakes 
there were two fewer in the Danube RBD and two more in the Adriatic RBD. 

In contrast to surveillance monitoring, there was a 20% increase in the number of operational 
monitoring sites in Slovenia from the first to second RBMPs. Most sites are in rivers and hence 
the largest increase was in river sites though there was an increase by one site in coastal waters 
and a decrease by one in lakes11 . 

11 Slovenia subsequently explained that the increase in the number of operational monitoring sites in the 2nd 
RBMPs was due to reporting monitoring stations for hydrology in WISE which were all determined as 
operational, but in the first RBMPs some were operational and some surveillance 

38 

 
 
 
                                            
Table 3.1 

Number  of  sites  used  for  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  in 

Slovenia  for  the  second  and  first  RBMPs.  Note  that  for  reasons  of 
comparability with data reported in the first RBMP, the second RBMP data 

does  not  take  into  account  whether  sites  are  used  for  ecological  and/or 
chemical monitoring 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Coastal 

Territorial 

Surv.  Op 

Surv. 

Op  Surv. 

Op  Surv. 

Op 

second RBMP  

Danube 

Adriatic 

Total by type of site 

19 

6 

25 

Total 
number 
monitoring sites 

of 

260 

first RBMP 

Danube 

Adriatic 

Total by type of site 

36 

12 

48 

Total 
number 
monitoring sites 

of 

248 

Sources: WISE electronic reporting 

208 

40 

248 

172 

28 

200 

2 

2 

4 

15 

4 

0 

4 

19 

11 

3 

14 

12 

3 

15 

2 

2 

8 

4 

4 

9 

6 

6 

5 

5 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

Table 3.2 

Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different 
purposes in Slovenia 

Monitoring Purpose 

Rivers 

Lakes 

OPE - Operational monitoring  248 

SUR 
- 
monitoring 

Total  sites 
purpose 

Surveillance 

irrespective  of 

25 

260 

14 

4 

15 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Coastal 

Territori
al 

6 

2 

8 

1 

1 

1 

Monitored quality elements (except for River Basin Specific Pollutants) 

Table 3.3 illustrates the  quality elements used  for the monitoring of lakes,  rivers  and coastal 
waters for the second RBMPs: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. 

39 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Table 3.3 

Quality  elements  monitored  for  the  second  RBMP  in  Slovenia  (excluding 

River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants).  Note;  quality  element  may  be  used  for 
surveillance and/or operational monitoring 

Biological quality elements 

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

s
e
t
y
h
p
o
r
c
a
  M
n

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

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

c
i
h
t
n
e
B

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

a
r
o
l
f

c
i
t
a
u
q
a

r
e
h
t
O

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

r
e
h
t
O

Hydro  morphological 
quality elements 

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

l
a
d
i
t

e
m
i
g
e
r

r
o

y
t
i
u
n
i
t
n
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

c
i
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
M

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

l
a

Lakes 

Rivers 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

No  No 

No  No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Coastal 

Yes 

Yes 

No  Yes  No  No 

   Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

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 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Coastal 

Yes 

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

l
a
m
r
e
h
T

n
o
i
t
a
n
e
g
y
x
O

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

y
t
i
n
i
l
a
S

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

s
u
t
a
t
s

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

n
e
g
o
r
t
i

N

s
u
r
o
h
p
s
o
h
P

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
C

t
n
e
i
r
t
u
n

r
o
f

t
n
a
n
i
m
r
e
t
e
d

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

r
e
h
t
O

e
t
a
c
i
l
i
S

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

There  have  been  some  changes  in  the  monitored  quality  elements  between  the  two  RBMPs. 
Fish were reported not to be monitored in lakes for the first RBMPs but were reported for the 

second  RBMPs.  Angiosperms  are  not  monitored  in  coastal  waters  for  the  second  RBMPs. 
Morphological conditions were not monitored in coastal waters in for both the first and second 

RBMPs. Morphological  conditions  were not  monitored in  lakes for the first  RBMP but  were 
for the second RBMPs. River continuity was not reported as being monitored in both the first 

and second RBMPs. Oxygenation conditions were monitored in coastal waters for the second 
RBMPs but not used for status assessment. 

All required biological quality elements are reported to be monitored in water bodies subject to 
surveillance monitoring in coastal waters, and in lakes and rivers in one of the two RBDs. Fish 

40 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
are not included in any of the lakes in the Adriatic RBD and macrophytes12 are not monitored 
in some river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring in the Danube RBD. 

Hydromorphological  quality  elements  are  reported  to  not  be  included  in  surveillance 

monitoring  in  any  water  category.  However  hydrological  regime  is  included  in  operational 
monitoring  in  all  three  water  categories  and  morphological  conditions  in  operational 

monitoring of lakes and rivers but not in coastal waters. 

All  required  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  are  monitored  in  rivers  and  lakes 

included  in  surveillance  monitoring.  In  coastal  waters  oxygenation  conditions  are  not 
monitored in water bodies included in surveillance monitoring. 

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  provides  guidance  on  the  frequency  of  monitoring  of  the  different 
biological quality elements. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring 

site  for  a  period  of  one  year  during  the  period  covered  by  a  RBMP  i.e.  six  years.  For 
phytoplankton, this equates to twice during the monitoring year and the other biological quality 

elements  once  during  the  year.  As  a  guideline,  operational  monitoring  should  take  place  at 
intervals  not  exceeding  once  every  six months for phytoplankton  and once  every  three  years 
during  the  six  year  cycle  for  the  other  biological  quality  elements.  Greater  intervals  may  be 

justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. 

Monitoring  was  done  at  least  at  the  minimum  recommended  frequency  for  all  monitored 

quality elements. 

Monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants 

Slovenia reported 36 different River Basin Specific Pollutants to be monitored only in water. 
River Basin  Specific Pollutants were reported to  be monitored at  five sites in  coastal waters, 

eight sites in lakes, 151 sites in rivers and one site in territorial waters. 

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  provides  guidance  on  the  frequency  of  monitoring  of  the  different 

quality elements: once every three months is recommended for river basin specific pollutants. 
Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year 

during  the  period  covered  by  a  river  basin  management  plan  i.e.  six  years.  For  river  basin 
specific pollutants this would equate to for times for the surveillance year, and for operational 

monitoring four times a year for each year of the cycle. 

12 Slovenia subsequently stated that macrophytes are not monitored in some river water bodies in the Adriatic and 

Danube RBDs since they are not relevant 

41 

 
                                            
Of  the  22  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  of  coastal 

waters, 12 were sampled at least at the recommended minimum frequency at all sites, and nine 
pollutants  were  sampled  at  lower  frequency  than  the  recommended  minimum  at  all  sites.  Of 

the  36  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  of  rivers  12  were 
sampled at  least  at  the  minimum frequency  at  all sites and three substances were sampled at 

lower  frequency  than  the  recommended  minimum  at  all  sites.  No  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutant was reported to be monitored in lakes for either surveillance or operational purposes. 

In terms of operational monitoring River Basin Specific Pollutants were sampled at least at the 
minimum recommended frequency at almost all sites13. 

Table 3.4 shows the number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants in the first 
and second RBMPs. 

Table 3.4 

Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants reported in 
the  second  RBMPs  and  non-priority  specific  pollutants  and/or  other 

national pollutants reported in first RBMPs in Slovenia. Note the data from 
both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used 

RBMP 

second  

Sites  used  to  monitor  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants 

151 

first  

Sites  used  to  monitor  non-priority  specific 
pollutants and/or other national pollutants 

131 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Surveillance monitoring of surface water bodies  

Rivers  Lakes  Coastal  Territorial 

8 

5 

5 

3 

1 

0 

Overall  in  Slovenia  the  same  proportion  (20%)  of  surface  water  bodies  were  included  in 

surveillance monitoring for the first and second RBMPs, though there were two fewer coastal 
water bodies and two more lake water bodies in the second RBMPs. 

In  contrast  there  was  an  increase  from  88%  to  99%  of  surface  water  bodies  included  in 
operational monitoring from the first to the second RBMPs, largely due to a 13% increase in 

13 Slovenia subsequently stated that frequency and cycle of monitoring of chemical substances may have been 

misreported. 

42 

 
 
                                            
the number of river water bodies included though there was also one more in coastal water and 
one fewer in lakes14.  

Figure  3.1  shows  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  subject  to  surveillance  and  operational 

monitoring.  Figure  3.2  shows  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  subject  to  surveillance 
monitoring. 

Figure 3.1 

Percentage  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  and  operational 
monitoring  in  Slovenia  for  the  first  RBMP  and  second  RBMP.  Note  no 

differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or 
chemical monitoring 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

14 Slovenia  subsequently stated that the reason for increase of surface water bodies included in operational 

monitoring is that in the 2nd RBMPs monitoring stations for hydrology were all determined as operational, but 
in the first RBMPs some were operational and some surveillance. 

43 

 
 
                                            
Figure 3.2 

Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that is 

included in surveillance monitoring in Slovenia  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Operational monitoring of surface water bodies 

Most relevant biological quality elements are included in the operational  monitoring of lakes 
though fish is included in only one  water body. Phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates were 

the predominantly used biological quality element in rivers though macrophytes and fish were 
used to a lesser extent. Phytoplankton, macroalgae and benthic invertebrates were equally used 

in coastal waters. 

Transboundary surface water body monitoring 

Slovenia did not report any monitoring sites that are part of international networks. 

Slovenia subsequently indicated that bilateral monitoring is done with neighbouring countries 

and  that  Slovenia  is  involved  in  transnational  monitoring  networks  according  to  the  Danube 
and Barcelona Conventions. 

3.1.2 Ecological Status/potential of surface water  

The  ecological  status/potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Slovenia  for  the  second  RBMPs  is 
illustrated in Map 1. This is based on the most recent assessment of status. 

44 

 
 
Map 3.1 

Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Slovenia 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 electronic reporting  

The ecological status/potential is good or better in most of the natural lakes and rivers, and in 

all coastal water bodies. There are very few unknowns (five artificial or heavily modified water 
bodies).  The  confidence  in  lake  assessment  is  mostly  high  or  medium,  which  is  a  major 

improvement since the first RBMP. 

Figure  3.3  compares  the  ecological  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Slovenia  for  the  first 

RBMPs with that for the second (based on the most recent assessment of status/potential) and 
that expected by 2015. 

45 

 
 
Figure 3.3 

Ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Slovenia  for  the 

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

the period of the assessment of status for the  second RBMPs was 2009 to 
2015.  The  year  of  the  assessment  of  status  for  the  first  RBMPs  is  not 

known  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

The  total  number  of  surface  water  bodies  remained  the  same  between  the  first  and  second 
RBMPs though there were small differences within  the water categories  e.g.  135 river water 

bodies for the first RBMP, 137 for the second. The proportion of surface water bodies at less 
than good status/potential (38%) was the same for the first and second RBMPs. There was an 

increase  in  the  proportion  at  good  or  better  status/potential  from  52%  to  58%  which  was 
mirrored by a decrease in the proportion with unknown status from 10% to 3% from the first to 
the second RBMPs. 

There is a small improvement in the proportion of lakes in good or better status/potential from 
55% to 60% from the first to the second RBMPs.  

Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological 
status/potential. The information for Slovenia is shown in Figure 3.4. Further improvement is 

only expected in 2022-2027. 

46 

 
  
Figure 3.4 

Expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential of surface 

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Confidence in ecological status assessment 

Figure 3.5 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. 

There  was  a  significant  improvement  in  the  confidence  in  the  classification  of  ecological 

status/potential from the first to the second RBMPs. For example, 3% of surface water bodies 
were  classified  with  high  confidence  for  the  first  RBMPs  but  this  increased  to  54%  for  the 

second. 

Figure 3.5 

Confidence in the classification of ecological status or potential of surface 

water  bodies 
status/potential  

in  Slovenia  based  on 

the  most  recently  assessed 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Classification of ecological status at the quality element level 

Figure 3.6 shows the percentage of water bodies in terms of the biological quality element used 

for classification. 

47 

 
 
 
 
Figure  3.7  compares  the  classification  of  biological  quality  elements  in  terms  of  ecological 

status/potential for the first and second RBMPs. It should be noted that this comparison should 
be  treated  with  some  caution  as  there  are  differences  between  the  numbers  of  surface  water 

bodies classified for individual elements from the first to the second RBMPs. 

Figure  3.9  illustrates  the  basis  of  the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  of  surface 

waters in Slovenia for the second RBMPs.  

Figure 3.6 

Ecological  status/potential  of  the  biological  quality  elements  used  in  the 

classification  of  surface  waters  in  Slovenia.  Note  that  water  bodies  with 
unknown  status/potential  and  Territorial  Waters,  and  those  that  are 

monitored but not classified or not applicable, are not presented 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

48 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.7 
Comparison  of  ecological  status/potential  in  Slovenia  according  to 
classified biological quality elements in surface waters between the first and second RBMPs  

 Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 3.8 

The classification of the ecological status or potential of surface waters in 

Slovenia using 1, 2, 3 or 4 types of quality element. Note: The four  types 
are:  biological;  hydromorphological,  general  physicochemical  and  River 
Basin Specific Pollutants. Types for territorial waters were not reported. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Most  rivers  are  classified  with  “other  aquatic  flora”  and  benthic  invertebrates,  as  well  as 

nutrients and oxygenation conditions. Most of the lakes are classified with phytoplankton and 
some  for  “other  aquatic  flora”  and  benthic  invertebrates,  as  well  as  nutrients,  transparency, 

oxygen,  and  acidification.  Coastal  waters  are  classified  with  phytoplankton,  macroalgae  and 

49 

 
 
 
benthic invertebrates and nutrients. Most of the classified quality elements are in good or better 

status. 

Fish and hydromorphological quality elements have not been classified in lakes. Many quality 

elements  are  classified  in  quite  few  water  bodies,  e.g.  fish  in  rivers,  and  several  others  are 
missing:  angiosperms  in  coastal  waters,  hydromorphological  quality  elements  in  all  water 

categories,  (although  a  few  are  monitored),  some  physicochemical  quality  elements,  e.g. 
transparency  and  oxygenation  in  coastal  waters.  Physicochemical  quality  elements  are  not 

classified in artificial and heavily modified lakes.  

There  are  also  a  few  quality  elements  with  changes  in  status/potential  from  the  first  to  the 

second RBMPs, with slightly more changing to a better class than to a worse class. A few of 
these  changes  are  consistent,  but  most  are  due  to  changes  in  monitoring  and  assessment 

systems. 

Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements 

An  assessment  method  for  macroalgae  in  coastal  waters  has  been  developed,  in  line  with 
recommendations  arising  from  the  assessment  of  the  first  RBMPs.  There  are  still  some 
biological  quality  element  methods  missing:  fish15  in  lakes  and  angiosperms16  in  coastal 
waters. All the other biological quality elements are developed. 

The sensitivity of several of the biological quality element methods to different impacts have 

been reported with logical combinations of biological quality elements and impacts. 

Intercalibration of biological assessment methods 

Most  of  the  national  lake  types  and  some  of  the  national  river  types  are  not  linked  to  any 
intercalibration  type.  Slovenia  reported  that,  for  those  types,  the  assessment  methods  are  the 

same that are used for intercalibrated types. 

15 Slovenia subsequently stated that type specific methods for classification of fish in rivers are being developed 
since 2010. In the 2nd RBMPs, four of the alpine river water bodies were classified and more were monitored 
to get the data for developing methods for other types. A method for classification of fish in lakes has been 
adapted from the Italian Lake Fish Index in 2017. 

16 Slovenia subsequently stated that in Slovenian coastal waters there is only one meadow of Posidonia oceanica. 
Its length is only 1 km and is therefore not considered sufficiently large for the assessment of the ecological 
status of the whole water body. Nevertheless, the meadow of Posidonia oceanica is designated as Natura 2000 
area and is monitored and assessed (and managed) as such 

50 

 
                                            
Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements 

Methods  for  the  hydromorphological  quality  element  methods  have  been  developed  for  all 
quality  elements  in  rivers,  thus  partly  addressing  a  recommendation  arising  from  the  first 

RBMPs.  Hydromorphological  methods  were  reported  not  to  be  related  to  the  sensitive 
biological  quality  elements.  There is  still very little monitoring and  classification of fish  and 

hydro morphological quality elements in rivers and lakes.  

Classification methods for physicochemical quality elements  

Physicochemical  standards  are  only  established  for  oxygenation  conditions  and  nutrients  in 
rivers  which  were  reported  to  be  consistent  with  the  good-moderate  status  boundary  of  the 

relevant  sensitive  biological  quality  elements.  There  are  standards  for  transparency, 
oxygenation conditions, acidification status and nutrients in lakes: only the nutrient standards 

were reported to be consistent with the good-moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive 
biological  quality  elements.  The  only  physicochemical  quality  element  standards  established 

for  coastal  waters  are  for  nutrients  which  were  reported  to  be  consistent  with  the  good-
moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. In conclusion, 
there are gaps in the standards established for physicochemical quality elements in rivers and 

coastal waters and some of those established are not consistent with the good-moderate status 
boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. 

The  nutrient  standards  for  coastal  waters  are  given  as  35  micrograms  nitrogen  per  litre  for 
nitrate,  13  micrograms  phosphorus  per  litre  for  total  phosphorus  and  4.6  micrograms 

phosphorus  per  litre  for  orthophosphate,  defined  as  the  geometric  mean  of  the  values  of 
nutrients  measured at  different  depths.  Methods for transparency  and oxygenation conditions 

are missing in coastal waters. 

Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of Environmental Quality Standards 

There  is  no  information  in  the  RMPs  on  how  the  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  have  been 
selected.  Slovenia  subsequently  stated  that  the  methodology  is  available  in  a  document 
published in the Ministry’s website. 

Environmental quality standards for water have been set for 33 River Basin Specific Pollutants, 
both metals and many organic substances, but the 2011 Technical Guidance Document No 2717 
has not been used for 31 of the substances. The values of the  environmental quality standard 

17https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0cc3581b-5f65-4b6f-91c6-433a1e947838/TGD-EQS%20CIS-

WFD%2027%20EC%202011.pdf 

51 

 
                                            
are  the  same  for  coastal  waters  and  for  freshwater.  However  there  is  an  on-going  national 

process to improve this.  

The  analytical  methods  used  for  31  substances  meet  the  minimum  performance  criteria  laid 

down in Article 4.1 of the Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive (2009/90/EC) for the 
strictest standard applied. For the other two substances the analytical methods comply with the 

requirements laid down in Article 4.2 of the Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive for 
the strictest standard applied. 

Use of monitoring results for classification 

The classification of the individual quality elements is illustrated in Figure 3.9. 

Generally  the  results  of  monitoring  are  used  in  the  classification  of  the  ecological 
status/potential  of  the  various  quality  elements.  There  are  also  examples  of  grouping  (e.g. 

benthic invertebrates in  rivers)  and expert judgement (e.g. River  Basin  Specific Pollutants in 
lakes) being used. Often more water bodies were monitored for particular quality elements than 

were  subsequently  used  in  their  classification.  Not  all  quality  elements  were  used  in  the 
classification:  angiosperms  were  neither  monitored  nor  classified  in  coastal  waters.  More 
physicochemical quality elements were monitored than used in the classification (just nutrient 

conditions)  perhaps  indicating  a  lack  of  assessment  methods  (e.g.  environmental  quality 
standards) for some elements in coastal waters. 

In  lakes,  the  classification  of  "aquatic  flora"  was  reported  rather  than  the  two  component 
elements  which  have  been  reported  as  being  monitored.  Fish  in  lakes  are  not  used  in  the 

classification  though  they  are  monitored  again  indicating  some  potential  weaknesses  in  the 
assessment methods. A greater number of physicochemical quality elements were used in the 

classification  of lakes  compared to  coastal waters. River Basin  Specific Pollutants  have been 
used in the classification of coastal waters, lakes and rivers. 

Other  aquatic  flora  were  again  reported  for  the  classification  of  rivers  even  though  the 
component  quality  elements  are  monitored:  it  is  therefore  not  clear  which  of  the  two 

component elements have been used in the classification in each case. Fewer river water bodies 
were  monitored  for  fish  than  the  other  biological  quality  elements  and  even  fewer  were 

subsequently classified, again perhaps indicating some weaknesses in the assessment method.  

52 

 
Figure 3.9 

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

percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Hydrological regime and morphological conditions were not used in the classification of any 

water body perhaps indicating some weaknesses in the assessment method for these elements. 
River  continuity  was  used  in  the  classification  of  water  bodies  based  on  monitoring  results 

even though it was not reported to be monitored. 

Only  two  types  of  physicochemical  quality  elements  (oxygenation  and  nutrient  conditions) 
were  used  in  the  classification  of  lakes  even  though  three  other  types  were  extensively 

monitored. 

Overall classification of ecological status  

Figure  3.10  illustrates  the  basis  of  the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  of  surface 
water bodies in Slovenia for the second RBMPs. 

53 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3.10 

The  percentage  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Slovenia  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  

The one-out, all-out principle has been used in both RBDs, but the details on combination rules 

applied for the biological quality elements versus the supporting quality elements are not clear. 

3.2  Main  changes  in  implementation  and  compliance  since  the  first 

RBMPs 

The confidence in classification of ecological status has improved significantly from the  first 

RBMPs when only 3% of surface water bodies were classified in high or medium confidence 
to  the  second  RBMPs  when  all  the  lakes,  85%  of  the  rivers  and  67%  of  the  coastal  water 

bodies  are  classified  with  high  or  medium  confidence.  The  number  of  water  bodies  with 
unknown  status/potential  has  also  decreased  from  15  to  5  water  bodies  from  the  first  to  the 

second RBMPs. 

The time for achieving the objective has been postponed from 2015 to 2022-2027 for around 

30% of the surface water bodies. 

Overall there was a decrease in the number of surveillance sites and an increase in the number 

of  operational  sites  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs:  more  sites  are  used  for  operational 
monitoring than for surveillance monitoring. There are two fewer surveillance sites in coastal 

54 

 
 
waters and 23 fewer in rivers for the second RBMPs compared to the first. In lakes there were 

two fewer in the Danube RBD and two more in the Adriatic RBD. 

In contrast to surveillance monitoring, there was a 20% increase in the number of operational 

monitoring sites from the first to second RBMPs. Most sites are in rivers and hence the largest 
increase  was  in  river  sites  though  there  was  an  increase  by  one  site  in  coastal  waters  and  a 

decrease by one in lakes. 

There have been some changes in the monitored quality elements from the first to the second 

RBMPs. Fish were reported not to be monitored in lakes for the first RBMP but were reported 
for  the  second  RBMP.  Angiosperms  are  not  monitored  in  coastal  waters  for  the  second 

RBMPs.  Morphological  conditions  were  not  monitored  in  coastal  waters  in  for  both  the  first 
and second RBMPs. Morphological conditions were not monitored in lakes for the first RBMP 

but  were for the second  RBMP. River continuity was not  reported as being monitored in  the 
first and second RBMPs. Oxygenation conditions were not reported to be monitored in coastal 
waters for the second RBMP18. 

There  was  an  increase  from  88%  to  99%  of  surface  water  bodies  included  in  operational 
monitoring from the first to the second RBMPs, largely due to a 13% increase in the number of 

river water bodies included though there was also one more in coastal water and one fewer in 
lakes. 

3.2

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first PoM requested action 

on the following: 

  Recommendation:  The  assessment  methods  for  the  classification  of  ecological  status 
are not  fully developed for  all biological quality elements  in  all water categories. All 
assessment methods for the status assessments should be developed. 

Assessment:  Assessment  methods  for  macroalgae  in  coastal  waters  have  been 
developed. However, an assessment method  for fish in lakes is missing. All the other 

biological quality elements are developed. 

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Include  the  standards  related  to  the  repealed  Freshwater  Fish 

Directive in the ecological status parameters in the second RBMPs. 

18

 This may be a reporting error as Slovenia stated that this quality element is monitored in coastal waters 

55 

 
 
                                            
Assessment:  Standards  for  some  of  the  physicochemical  quality  elements  relevant  to 

the repealed Freshwater Fish Directive have been reported for river and lakes. 

Standards  were  reported  for  Oxygen  saturation  (%),  pH  and  Total  Phosphorous  in 

lakes. The standard for oxygen saturation was expressed as annual average % saturation 
whereas  the  Directive  specifies  a  standard  as  mg/l  O2.  The  reported  pH  standard  is 

expressed  as  an  annual  average  whereas  in  Freshwater  Fish  Directive  it  is  a  95%ile. 
The standards cannot therefore be compared. The standards for oxygen saturation and 

pH were reported not to be related to the sensitive biological quality element. The total 
phosphorus standards in lakes seem to be compliant with the Directive and are related 

to the sensitive biological quality element. 

Three relevant standards were reported for rivers, total phosphorus, nitrates and 5-day 

biochemical oxygen demand. The biochemical oxygen demand standard is expressed as 
a 90%ile whereas the Directive is a 95%ile. The values for Total Phosphorus standard 

seem  to  be  compliant  with  the  repealed  Directive.  All  standards  were  reported  to  be 
related to the sensitive biological quality element. 

No standards were reported for river and lakes for the other relevant physicochemical 

quality  elements:  temperature,  suspended  solids,  nitrates,  non-ionised  ammonia,  and 
total ammonium.   

Fish were reported to be monitored in two lake water bodies and 26 river water bodies. 
two river water bodies were classified as high ecological status, two as good ecological 

status and the remaining 133 classified water bodies as unknown status/potential. It is 
not  known  whether  any  of  the  lakes  or  rivers  was  formally  designated  as  Freshwater 

Fish  waters  under  the  repealed  Directive.  However,  no  surface  water  bodies  were 
reported to be associated with Freshwater Fish Protected Areas. 

Based on Slovenia’s electronic reporting to WISE, and given that a full comparison of 
the level of protection guaranteed by the former Freshwater Fish Directive and the one 

guaranteed by the standards being used for the WFD was not reported by Slovenia, this 
recommendation cannot be considered as having been fulfilled 

  Recommendation: Include the monitoring of fish in the monitoring of ecological status 

in the second RBMPs. 

Assessment:  In the first  RBMP, surveillance monitoring of fish in  lakes was missing. 
Fish were reported to be monitored in the Danube RBD for the second RBMP but not 

56 

 
in  the  other  RBD  (Adriatic).  In  addition  macrophytes  are  not  monitored  in  all  river 
water bodies included in surveillance monitoring and angiosperms19 are reported not to 
be  monitored  in  coastal  waters  at  all.  Therefore  there  has  been  some  progress  with 

regards to monitoring of fish but there are still gaps in the required monitoring. 

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation: The national EQSs for specific pollutants in transitional and coastal 
waters  have  been  set  at  the  same  level  as  those  for  freshwaters,  which  may  not  be 

appropriate in the light of the latest technical guidance. Reference should be made to the 
latest version of the Technical Guidance Document on the Derivation of Environmental 

Quality Standards published under the Common Implementation Strategy for the WFD 

Assessment: Slovenia reported EQS for 33 River Basin Specific Pollutants in water in 

rivers,  lakes,  transitional  and  coastal  waters.  Slovenia  did  not  report  any  transitional 
water  bodies  for  the  second  RBMPs.  The  type  and  values  of  the  standards  were  the 

same for each water category. None of the standards have been derived in accordance 
with  the  2011  Technical  Guidance  Document  No  27.  However  there  is  an  on-going 

national process to improve this. 

This recommendation has not been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Complete the development of hydro morphological methods for the 
status assessment of water bodies and definition of reference conditions and apply them 

through  the  implementation  of  robust  monitoring  programmes  (start  monitoring 
hydromorphological  parameters  in  lakes  and  coastal  waters).  An  adequate  WFD 

compliant assessment and monitoring framework is a necessary pre-requisite to design 
effective Programmes of Measures and ultimately to achieve the WFD objectives. 

Assessment: Methods for the assessment of hydromorphological quality element have 
been developed for all quality elements in rivers. Hydromorphological quality elements 

are  not  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  in  any  water  category.  However 
hydrological regime is included in operational monitoring in all three water categories 

and morphological  conditions in operational monitoring of lakes and rivers but not in 
coastal waters. Hydrological regime and morphological conditions were not used in the 

classification of any water body perhaps indicating some weaknesses in the assessment 
method  for  these  elements.  River  continuity  was  used  in  the  classification  of  water 

19 Slovenia subsequently indicated that the one Posidonia oceanica meadow in Slovenia is designated as Natura 

2000 area and is monitored and assessed (and managed) as such 

57 

 
                                            
bodies based on monitoring results even though it was not reported to be monitored. It 

appears that whilst monitoring of some but not all hydromorphological quality elements 
is undertaken for the second RBMPs, there are still weaknesses in using the results of 

monitoring  to  assess  and  classify  the  status/potential  of  water  bodies  using  these 
elements. 

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

58 

 
 
 
Topic 4

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

4.1

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle  

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

4.1.1  Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters 

Monitoring sites and monitored 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  impact  assessment  procedure,  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  activity.  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 PoM. 

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

Figure  4.1  summarises  the  proportion  of  sites  used  for  the  monitoring  of  chemical  status  in 
lakes  and  rivers  for  the  second  RBMP.  Sites  used  for  monitoring  of  ecological  status  are 

provided  for  comparison.  In  this  figure,  no  distinction  is  made  between  sites  used  for 
surveillance  and/or  operational  purposes.  More  detailed  information  can  be  found  on  the 
website of the European Environment Agency20. 

There are relatively few lake and coastal water monitoring sites overall (15 and 8 respectively, 

reflecting the small number of water bodies in these water body categories) but 67%, 88% and 
100%  of  these  sites  are  used  for  monitoring  of  chemical  status.  Of  the  260  river  monitoring 

sites,  around  half  are  monitored  for  chemical  status.  There  is  also  one  monitoring  site  in 
territorial waters. 

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

59 

 
 
 
                                            
 
Figure 4.1 

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

comparison, ecological status, in Slovenia. 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 
and rivers for the second RBMPs. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used for 

surveillance  and/or  operational  purposes.  Also  given  is  the  proportion  of  water  bodies 
monitored for any purpose and, for comparison, those for ecological status. 

All  five  coastal  water  bodies  and  the  territorial  waters  were  reported  to  be  monitored  for 
chemical status. The majority of the 12 lakes (83%) and the 137 river water bodies (82%) are 

monitored for chemical status. 

60 

 
 
 
Figure 4.2 

Proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category  which  are  monitored, 

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

number of water bodies in that category  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

With regard to water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status, 83% of these water bodies 

were reported to be monitored as part of the operational monitoring programme in Slovenia as 
a whole.  

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, frequency and numbers 
of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of status. According to 

the  EQS  Directive 
in  2009),  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 
hexachlorobutadiene  have  to  be  monitored  in  biota  for  status  assessment,  unless  Member 

(version 

force 

in 

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

61 

 
 
 
 
Spatial coverage 

56%  of  lake  water  bodies  in  the  Danube  RBD  were  monitored  for  more  than  ten  Priority 
Substances  and  this  was  the  case  for  33%  of  lake  water  bodies  in  the  Adriatic  RBD.  The 

remainder of the lake water bodies in  the Adriatic RBD were not  monitored for any Priority 
Substances,  whereas  the  remainder  of  the  lake  water  bodies  in  the  Danube  RBD  were 

monitored for three, four or six to ten Priority Substances. In the Adriatic RBD, 80% of coastal 
water bodies were monitored for more than 10 priority substances whereas the remainder were 

not monitored for any Priority Substances. The number of substances monitored in river water 
bodies in both RBDs varied considerably from 0 to more than 10. 

Where monitored, up to 41 Priority Substances were reported to be monitored in water at the 
monitoring site level in water bodies across Slovenia.  

Slovenia has  reported monitoring of the required three Priority Substances in  biota for status 
assessment in river and lake water bodies in the Danube RBD and in coastal and river water 

bodies in the Adriatic RBD. 

The highest number of sites monitored for biota in Slovenia as a whole is 26 for mercury. The 
for  both  hexachlorobenzene  and 
lowest  number  of 

sites  monitored  was  16, 

hexachlorobutadiene. 

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 RBMP 

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  large  range  of  monitoring  frequencies  are  reported  in  WISE,  for  biota  and  water.  These 
frequencies are sometimes below the recommended minimum frequencies from the WFD.  

However Slovenia subsequently clarified that Priority Substances were monitored in water 12 
times per year once per cycle. While this meets the requirements for surveillance monitoring, it 

does not meet the requirements for operational monitoring (12 times per year; every year in the 
monitoring cycle). Slovenia also  clarified that monitoring of the three required substances in 

biota for status assessment is undertaken once per year, in accordance with the Directive. Only 
drinking  water  abstraction  points  (identified  as  protected  areas)  were  monitored  with  lower 

62 

 
frequencies (according to the WFD, the monitoring  frequency for these points depend on the 
size of the community served)21. 

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  substances22  that  tend  to  accumulate  in  sediment  and/or  biota,  for  the  purpose  of 
long-term  trend  assessment.  Monitoring  should  take  place  at  least  once  every  three  years, 

unless technical knowledge and expert judgment justify another interval.  

Spatial coverage 

Slovenia has monitored all 14 of the required Priority Substances in lake and river water bodies 
in  the  Danube  RBD  and  coastal  and  river  water  bodies  in  the  Adriatic  RBD,  apart  from 

pentachlorobenzene.  This  was  reported  as  not  monitored  in  coastal  waters    in  the  Adriatic 
RBD. Slovenia subsequently informed that monitoring for pentachlorobenzene commenced in 

2014 (in the Adriatic RBD) which was outside the assessment period (2009 to 2013) reported 
in the second RBMP.  

The greatest number of  sites monitored for sediment in  Slovenia is  33 for lead, mercury and 

cadmium. Slovenia subsequently mentioned that sediment monitoring of lakes sediments in the 
Adriatic  RBD  is  not  undertaken  because  no  emissions  of  Priority  Substances  exist  in  any  of 
these three reservoirs and, for this reason, no sediment monitoring is undertaken23.  

Frequencies 

While monitoring frequencies reported in WISE are sometimes lower than the recommended 
minimum  frequencies, Slovenia subsequently clarified that the sampling frequency is  at  least 

once every year which is above the recommended minimum frequency in the Directive.  

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 

21  Slovenia subsequently clarified that no emission of priority substances was identified in these water bodies. 

However it is unclear how far diffuse pollutions were taken into account, as the information reported in WISE 
shows that only point source emissions were considered in the inventories of emissions. 
22Anthracene, brominated diphenylether, cadmium, C10-13 chloroalkanes, DEHP, fluoranthene, 

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

23 As mentioned above, it is not clear whether diffuse pollutions were taken into account when making this 

assessment, as they are not considered in the inventories of emissions. 

63 

 
                                            
 
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.  

All  Priority Substances  are monitored in  each of the two RBDs, which of course include the 

substances identified as discharged in the inventories.  

Performances of analytical methods used  

For 34 Priority Substances in the Danube RBD and for 35 Priority Substances in the Adriatic 
RBD,  the  analytical  methods  used  meet  the  minimum  performance  criteria  laid  down  in 

Article 4(1)  of  the  Technical  specifications  for  chemical  analysis  and  monitoring  of  water 
status24 for the strictest standard applied. For the remaining substances reported, the analytical 
methods  complied  with  the  requirements  laid  down  in  Article  4(2)  of  the  Technical 
specifications  for  chemical  analysis  and  monitoring  of  water  status  based  on  best  available 

techniques. 

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

quantification is as specified in Article 5 of the Technical specifications for chemical analysis 
and monitoring of water status. 

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. In case of  grouping 
this may be 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.  

24 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/?qid=1524565750309&uri=CELEX:32009L0090  

64 

 
                                            
 
In Slovenia as a whole, the chemical assessments were carried out in the period from 2009 to 

2013 for 84% of water bodies (with no specific years reported) and for almost all the remaining 
water bodies assessed, the period was from 2009 to 2014 (with no specific years reported). 

The chemical status of surface water bodies in Slovenia for the second RBMP is illustrated in 
Map  4.1.  This  is  based  on  the  most  recent  assessment  of  status.  Overall,  between  the  two 

cycles there was a large decrease in the proportion of surface water bodies with good chemical 
status  from  95% to  0.6% and a significant  increase in  the proportion failing to  achieve  good 

status  from  5%  to  99%.  This  general  pattern  occurred  across  both  RBDs  and  all 
Natural/Heavily Modified/Artificial water body categories. This results from the monitoring in 

biota  of  the  three  relevant  substances,  and  the  extrapolation  of  these  data  to  non-  monitored 
waterbodies.  

The chemical status of surface waters in Slovenia for the first and second RBMPs is given in 
Table 4.1.  

65 

 
Map 4.1 

Chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Slovenia  based  on  the  most 

recently assessed status of the surface water bodies  

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4.1 

Chemical status of surface water bodies in Slovenia for the second and first 
RBMPs. Note: the number in parenthesis next to the water category is the 
number of water bodies. Note: Chemical status assessment is based on the 
new,  more  stringent  Environmental  Quality  Standards  from  Directive 
2013/39/EU. Some Member States did not implement the Directive (version 
in force in 2009) in the first RBMPs as the transposition deadline was in 
July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMPs 

Good 

Failing to achieve good  Unknown 

Number  % 

Number  % 

Number  % 

Category 

Second RBMP 

Rivers (137) 

1 

0.70% 

136 

Lakes (12) 

Coastal (5) 

Territorial (1) 

12 

4 

1 

Total (155) 

1 

0.6% 

153 

99% 

100% 

80% 

100% 

98.7% 

First RBMP 

Rivers (135) 

Lakes (14) 

Coastal (6) 

133 

14 

Total (155) 

147 

95% 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

99.00% 

2 

1.00% 

100.00% 

5 

7 

83.00% 

5% 

1 

1 

1 

1 

20% 

0.6% 

17% 

1% 

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

Most of the classifications are given a low level of confidence. Confidence in the classification 
of chemical status for the first RBMPs was not reported. 

Overall 18% of surface water bodies in Slovenia were classified for chemical status with high 
confidence and 82%  with  low confidence. For lakes and rivers only between 15 and 17% of 

surface  water  bodies  were  classified  with  high  confidence  and  the  remainder  with  low 
confidence.  However,  all  coastal  and  territorial  water  bodies  were  classified  with  high 

confidence. Slovenia informed that the reason for low level of confidence was that many water 
bodies were assessed based on extrapolation of mercury in biota, which is the main reason for 

not  achieving  good  chemical  status  for  all  surface  water  bodies  in  Slovenia.  However,  for 
Priority Substances in water where monitoring has been undertaken, the level of confidence is 

high for most of the water bodies. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.3 

Confidence in the classification of chemical status of surface water bodies 
in Slovenia based on the most recently assessed status/potential  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 4.4 compares the chemical status of surface water bodies in Slovenia for the first RBMP 
with  that  for  the  second  RBMP  (based  on  the  most  recent  assessment  of  status)  and  that 

expected by 2015. Figure 4.4 reflects the changes in status described above and illustrates that 
these changes were expected. 

Figure 4.4 

Chemical status of surface water bodies in Slovenia for the second RBMP, 
for the first RBMP and expected in 2015. The number in the parenthesis is 
the number of surface water bodies for both cycles. Note the period of the 
assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2009 to 2013. The year of 
the assessment of status for the first RBMP is 2006-2008. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

68 

 
 
 
 
 
The large difference in the assessment of status between the two RBMPs results in particular 

from  the  use  of  biota  monitoring  data,  then  extrapolated  to  water  bodies  in  which  this  biota 
monitoring hasn’t been undertaken. 
Directive  2013/39/EU  amended  the  EQS  Directive25.  In  particular,  it  sets  more  stringent 
environmental quality standards for seven substances26. Slovenia reported that chemical status 
has not deteriorated in any of water body due to the more stringent standards. 

Good  chemical  status  should  be  reached  by  2021  in  relation  to  the  revised  environmental 
quality  standards,  unless  Member  States  apply  exemptions  under  WFD  Article  4(4)  or  less 

stringent objectives under WFD Article 4(5). 

Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good chemical 
status. The information for Slovenia is shown in Figure 4.5. All water bodies are expected to 

achieve good chemical status by 2027; which seems like an ambitious expectation based on the 
current status assessment. 

Figure 4.5 

Expected date of achievement of good chemical of surface water bodies in 
Slovenia. The number in the parenthesis is the number of water bodies in 
each category 

25   Please note that following Directive 2013/39/EU, which amended the Environmental Quality Standards 

Directive, introduced a less stringent annual average EQS for naphthalene in transitional waters and in coastal 
waters. This less stringent environmental quality standard should be taken into account for the determination 
of surface water chemical status by the 2015 deadline laid down in Article 4 of the WFD.  

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

compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 

69 

 
 
 
 
                                            
Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Priority substances causing failure of good chemical status 

Slovenia  reported  exceedances  based  on  the  more  stringent  standards  from  Directive 
2013/39/EC. 

The substance causing the greatest proportion of water bodies to fail good chemical status was 
mercury  in  biota  (for  97%  of  surface  water  bodies  failing  good  status).  This  is  clearly 

illustrated in Figure 4.6.  

Overall for surface water bodies in Slovenia, the largest proportion of exceedances was for the 

annual  average  environmental  quality  standard  for  mercury  in  biota  (97%).  There  were  no 
exceedances for maximum allowable concentration  environmental quality standards  alone.  In 

terms  of  exceedance  of  both  types  of  standard,  the  largest  proportion  was  for  the  tributyltin-
cation (3%). 

Figure 4.6 

Priority  Substances  causing  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  in 
surface water bodies in Slovenia27 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

27 Slovenia subsequently clarified that tributyltin-cation is causing failure to achieve good chemical status in 99% 

of coastal water bodies in Slovenia.  

70 

 
 
 
                                            
Ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances 

According  to  article  8(a)  of  the  EQS  Directive28,  eight  priority  substances  and  groups  of 
priority  substances  are  behaving  like  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic 
substances29.  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 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.  

The assessment of chemical status for the surface waters in Slovenia is driven primarily by the 
exceedance of the biota environmental quality standard for mercury in water bodies where this 

is  monitoring  and  other  water  bodies  to  which  this  classification  has  been  extrapolated. 
toxic  Priority  Substance. 
Mercury 

is  a  ubiquitous  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and 

Consequently,  the  influence  of  these  substances  on  the  failure  of  good  chemical  status  in 
Slovenia is significant.   

This is illustrated in the 2018 State of Water report of the European Environment Agency30. 

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

Where  monitoring  of  Priority  Substances  was  undertaken  in  Slovenia,  all  41  Priority 
Substances were reported to be used in the assessment of chemical status and were monitored. 

Slovenia further clarified that exceedances for the substances monitored in biota were assessed 
based  on  extrapolation  for  most  of  the  water  bodies;  however  this  was  not  the  case  for 

substances monitored in water, for which monitoring was performed in  most of water bodies 
(monitoring was performed in water in 87% of water bodies in the Danube RBD and in 68% of 

water bodies in Adriatic RBD). 

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 

28 Amended by Directive 2013/39/EU 
29 Brominated diphenylether, Mercury and its compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), Tributyltin,  PFOS, 

dioxins, hexabromocyclodecane and heptachlor 

30https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water (p40-41 of the report). Also available in a more 

interactive format at :  

https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_SWB_Chemical_Status_Maps/SWB_F
ailing_Good_Chemical_Status_RBD?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&:dis
play_count=no&:showVizHome=no 

71 

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

directive. 

Slovenia have applied all the environmental quality standards laid down in Part A of Annex I 
of the EQS Directive for assessment of the chemical status.  

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 standard within such mixing zones  if they do 

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

Mixing zones have not been designated in Slovenia. 

Background Concentrations and Bioavailability 

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

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

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

Slovenia  clarified  that  for  the  second  RBMP,  nickel  and  lead  did  not  exceed  the  quality 

standards  in  any  of  the  water  bodies  and  so  the  use  of  bioavailability  was  not  necessary. 
Slovenia  however  reported  that  a  methodology  exists  in  Slovenia  to  take  into  account 

bioavailability  when  assessing  compliance  with  metals.  Slovenia  also  reported  in  WISE  that 
natural  background  concentrations  for  metals  and  their  compounds  are  not  taken  into 

consideration  (Slovenia  clarified  that  this  results  from  the  absence  of  exceedance  for  these 
substances; otherwise, in accordance with Slovene regulation, the natural background could be 

taken into account for mercury and cadmium). 

4.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Between the two  cycles  for Slovenia overall, there was a large decrease  in  the proportion of 
surface water bodies with good chemical status from 95% to 0.6% and a significant increase in 
the proportion failing to achieve  good status  from  5% to  99%. This  general  pattern occurred 

72 

 
across both RBDs and all Natural/Heavily Modified/Artificial water body categories. The main 

difference may be due to the presence of mercury in biota as Slovenia states that the chemical 
status of surface water bodies between the first RBMP and second RBMP in the Adriatic RBD, 

without  taking  mercury  in  biota  into  consideration,  would  be  the  same  for  both  cycles  and 
would  actually  be  slightly  better  for  the  Danube  RBD.  Furthermore  in  the  both  RBMPs  it  is 

stated that mercury is  being transmitted over large distances through atmospheric deposition, 
and in Europe it is generally present in biota in surface waters in concentrations that exceed the 

relevant environmental quality standard for mercury. 

The  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status  for  the  first  cycle  were  not 

systematically  reported,  making  comparison  with  the  data  from  second  cycle  difficult. 
However, it shows that for the first cycle mercury and tributyltin were identified as the Priority 

Substances  causing  environmental  quality  standards  exceedances  but  for  only  very  small 
percentages of water bodies failing good status. 

In  Slovenia,  a  single  Priority  Substance  (tributyltin-cation)  was  reported  to  have  improved 
from  failing to  achieve good status  to  good chemical  status  since the  first RBMP in just one 
river water body in the Danube RBD31. 

4.3

 Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 

following: 

  Recommendation:  Complete the development of methods for the status assessment of 
water  bodies  and  definition  of  reference  conditions  and  apply  them  through  the 
(start  monitoring 
implementation 

robust  monitoring 

programmes 

of 

hydromorphological parameters in lakes and transitional and coastal waters and fish 
in  lakes).  An  adequate  WFD  compliant  assessment  and  monitoring  framework  is  a 

necessary  pre-requisite  to  design  effective  PoMs  and  ultimately  to  achieve  the  WFD 
objectives. 

Assessment:  With  respect  to  the  assessment  of  chemical  status  in  surface  waters, 

Slovenia  has  applied  the  required  analytical  methods  and  environmental  quality 
standards  in  each  of  the  required  matrices  for  all  relevant  Priority  Substances. 

Monitoring has been undertaken in a very significant proportion of water bodies; at the  

31 Slovenia subsequently clarified that two Priority Substances (tributyltin-cation and mercury) were reported to 
have improved from failing to achieve good to good chemical status since the first RBMP in two river water 
bodies in the Danube RBD 

73 

 
 
 
                                            
recommended  minimum  frequencies  with  the  exception  of  operational  monitoring  in 

water which is not undertaken 12 times per year in every year in the monitoring cycle. 
No  explanation  could  be  found  for  these  reduced  frequencies.  Monitoring  of  Priority 

Substances is not undertaken in all surface water bodies but an assessment of chemical 
status in all surface water bodies has been made by expert judgement or extrapolation. 

The  confidence  in  the  assessment  of  status  is  low  in  a  very  significant  proportion  of 
water bodies, based on extrapolation of biota monitoring data. Very significant progress 

has been made. This recommendation is almost fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  The  biota  standards 

for  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 
hexachlorobutadiene  in  the  EQSD  should  be  applied  for  the  chemical  status 

assessment, unless water EQS providing an equivalent level of protection are derived; 
the plan does not appear to indicate which EQSs were used. Biota EQS should also be 

considered for the other substances where analysis in water is problematic. The trend 
monitoring  in  sediment  or  biota  specified  for  several  substances  in  Directive 

2008/105/EC Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMP.  

Assessment: Slovenia reports that all standards in the EQS Directive have been applied 

and  that  no  alternative  or  additional  standards  have  been  derived.  Slovenia  has 
monitored the required three Priority Substances in biota in all water categories, for the 

purpose of status assessment. The sampling frequency is at least once every year, which 
is  the  recommended  minimum  frequency.  The  highest  number  of  sites  monitored  for 

biota  in  Slovenia  as  a  whole  is  26  for  mercury.  The  lowest  number  of  sites  is  16  for 
hexachlorobenzene and the same number for hexachlorobutadiene.  

For  long-term  trend  assessment,  Slovenia  has  monitored  all  required  14  Priority 
Substances in all water categories in both RBDs, apart from pentachlorobenzene, which 

was  not  monitored  at  a  coastal  water  body  site  in  this  RBD.  Slovenia  subsequently 
informed that monitoring for pentachlorobenzene commenced in 2014 (in the Adriatic 

RBD) which was outside the assessment period (2009 to 2013) reported in the second 
RBMP.  The  sampling  frequency  is  at  least  once  every  three  years  which  meets  the 
recommended frequency in the Directive. This recommendation is almost fulfilled. 

74 

 
 
 
 
  Monitoring, 

Topic 5
quantitative status of groundwater bodies 

assessment 

and 

classification 

of 

5.1

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

5.1.1  Monitoring of quantitative status in groundwater 

The total number of groundwater bodies in Slovenia is 21 (Table 2.4), of which seven are not 

subject to monitoring for quantitative status (Table 4.1). This means that 33% of groundwater 
bodies  are  not  monitored32.  The  review  of  RBMPs  and  background  documents  found  no 
indication that grouping was applied in either RBD.  

The number of groundwater bodies and the total groundwater body area did not change from 

the first RBMP. 

The number of monitored groundwater bodies increased from 13 in the first cycle to 14 in the 

second RBMP. The number of monitoring sites for quantitative status is listed in Table 4.2 and 
shows a significant increase by 18% from 115 in the first cycle to 136 in the second RBMP. 
The number of monitoring sites and their purpose is listed in Table 4.3. 

All  21  groundwater  bodies  have  been  reported  as  associated  with  Drinking  Water  Protected 
Areas. In all the cases groundwater bodies overlap with more than one Protected Area which 

are designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas. 

Table 4.1 

Number of water bodies in Slovenia directly monitored and the purpose of 

monitoring 

RBD 

Total 
bodies 
monitored 

groundwater 
directly 

Monitoring Purpose 

OPE 
Operational 
monitoring 

- 

QUA 
Quantitative 
status 

– 

SUR 
Surveillance 
monitoring 

- 

SIRBD1  18 

SIRBD2  3 

12 

2 

11 

3 

18 

3 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

32   Slovenia subsequently clarified that direct and indirect (based on regional modelling) monitoring is used for 
status assessment wherein both, hydrological and meteorological parameters are considered. References to 
monitoring in this report refer to direct monitoring.  

75 

 
 
 
 
                                            
Table 4.2 

Proportion  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Slovenia  monitored  for  quantitative 

status 

RBD 

SIRBD1 

SIRBD2 

of 

groundwater 
No 
bodies with quantitative 
monitoring 

Total 
groundwater 
bodies 

No. 

% of total groundwater 
bodies  monitored  for 
quantitative status 

11 

3 

18 

3 

61.11% 

100.00% 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Table 4.3 

Number of groundwater monitoring sites in Slovenia and their purpose  

RBD 

Total 
groundwate
r monitoring 
sites 

Monitoring Purpose 

OPE 
Operational 
monitoring 

- 

QUA 
Quantitative 
status 

- 

SUR 
Surveillance 
monitoring 

- 

SIRBD
1 

SIRBD
2 

287 

25 

135 

11 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

127 

9 

160 

16 

5.1.2  Assessment and classification of quantitative status for groundwater 

Map 5.1 displays the most recently assessed quantitative status of groundwater bodies.  

It shows that all 21 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  that  all 

groundwater bodies have medium or high confidence in status classification. All groundwater 
bodies had and still have a clear status, in the first and in the second RBMP.  

For both RBDss, water balance was assessed by a comparison of annual average groundwater 
abstraction against the ‘available groundwater resource’ for every groundwater body.  In both 

RBDs, the criterion of ‘available groundwater resource’ has been fully applied in accordance 
with  WFD  Article  2(27)  and  all  environmental  objectives  have  been  considered  in  status 

assessment. 

Figure  5.2  shows  the  confidence  in  status  classifications,  with  all  the  unknown  status 
classifications at low confidence.  

76 

 
 
 
Map 5.1 

The most recently assessed quantitative status of groundwater bodies based 

on status of the groundwater water bodies 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4. 

77 

 
 
 
Figure 5.1 

Quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Slovenia  for  the  second 

RBMP,  for  the  first  RBMP  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 RBMP was 2008 to 2013. 
The year of the assessment of status for first RBMP was 2006-2008. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 5.2 

Confidence  in  the  classification  of  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 
bodies in Slovenia based on the most recent assessment of status  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

78 

 
 
 
5.1.3  Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

All  groundwater  bodies  are  associated  with  surface  waters  and  there  is  no  related  risk. 

Groundwater  associated  surface  waters  have  been  considered  in  status  assessment  in  both 
RBDs. 

In  the  Danube  RBD,  nine  groundwater  bodies  are  linked  with  groundwater  dependent 
terrestrial  ecosystems.  There  is  no  related  risk  and  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 

ecosystems have been considered in status assessment; also the needs of terrestrial ecosystems 
have been considered in status assessment in both RBDs. 

5.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  quantitative  status  of  all  21  groundwater  bodies  remained  unchanged  since  the  first 
RBMP. 

Changes and/or updates were not explicitly described in the second RBMP on the key aspects 
(e.g. assessment methodologies). 

The monitoring situation improved as the number of sites increased by 18% from 115 to 136. 

5.3

Progress with Commission recommendations 

There  were  no  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  PoM  for  this 
topic. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  chemical 

Topic 6
status of groundwater bodies 

6.1

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

6.1.1  Monitoring of chemical status in groundwater 

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Slovenia  is  21  (Table  4)  and  all  (100%) 

groundwater  bodies  are  subject  to  surveillance  monitoring  (Table  7).  Altogether  three 
groundwater bodies (14%) are at risk and 14 are subject to operational monitoring. 

The number of groundwater bodies and the total groundwater body area did not change since 
the first RBMP.  

All groundwater bodies were subject to surveillance monitoring in the first RBMP and they are 
still covered by surveillance monitoring in the second RBMP. The number of monitoring sites 

is  listed  in  Table  14  and  shows  an  increase  from  104  in  the  first  cycle  to  176  in  the  second 
RBMP. The number of operational monitoring sites increased since the first RBMP from 29 to 
146. 

All  substances  causing  risk  of  deterioration  in  chemical  status  are  subject  to  surveillance 
monitoring. All WFD core parameters (nitrate, ammonium, electrical conductivity, oxygen and 

pH) are monitored. 

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 18 of 21 groundwater bodies (86%) were of good chemical status, 

and  the  remaining  three  groundwater  bodies  (14%)  are  failing  good  status.  In  terms  of  area, 
this  means  that  about  5%  are  failing  good  chemical  status.  Figure  6.2  shows  that  the 

confidence in  status  classification is  medium and high. All  groundwater bodies had, and still 
have, a clear status, in the first and in the second RBMP.  

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  chemical  status  decreased  from  four 
(19%) in  the  first  RBMP to  three (14%)  groundwater bodies in  the second (Figure 6.1). The 

expected date of achievement of good chemical status in Slovenia is shown in Figure 6.3. 

80 

 
 
Map 6.1 

Map  of  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Slovenia  based  on  the 

most recently assessed status of the groundwater water bodies 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

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

81 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.1 

Chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Slovenia  as  reported  in  the 

second  RBMP,  the  first  RBMP  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in the 
parenthesis  is  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  in  each  cycle.  Note  the 

period  of  the  assessment  of  status  as  reported  in  the  second  RBMP  was 
2009 to 2013. The year of the assessment of status as reported in the first 

RBMP is not known 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Figure 6.2 

Confidence in the classification of chemical status of groundwater  bodies 

in Slovenia based on the most recent assessment of status  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

82 

 
 
 
Figure 6.3 

Expected  date  of  achievement  of  good  quantitative  and  good  chemical 

status of groundwater bodies in Slovenia. 21 groundwater bodies delineated 
as reported in the second RBMPs 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The reasons for the failure of good chemical status of groundwater bodies are shown in Figure 
6.4.  For  all  three  groundwater  bodies,  the  general  assessment  of  the  chemical  status  for  the 

groundwater  body  as  a  whole  was  failed.  This  assessment  considers  the  significant 
environmental risk from pollutants across a groundwater body and a significant impairment of 

the ability to support human uses. Figure 6.5 shows the pollutants causing failure of status. 

The calculation of the extent of exceedance of a groundwater quality standard or a groundwater 

threshold value is in both RBDs based on the number of monitoring sites in the groundwater 
body.  

In  both  RBDs,  groundwater  threshold  values  have  been  established  for  all  pollutants  or 
indicators of pollution causing a risk of failure of good chemical status. Further assessment of 
the  Danube  RBMP  found  that  only  some  but  not  all  Groundwater  Directive33  Annex  II 
substances had been considered, but there was no explanation for this. The threshold values are 

the  same  as  for  drinking  water  or  more  stringent.  Natural  background  levels  have  not  been 
considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values. 34 

33 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  

34 Slovenia subsequently clarified that all substances of Annex II of the Groundwater Directive have been 

considered in setting threshold values but only for volatile halogenated hydrocarbons which causes risk, a 

83 

 
 
                                            
A trend and trend reversal methodology is available and assessments have been performed in 

both RBDs. 

Figure 6.4  Reasons  for  failing  good  chemical  status  in  Slovenia  for  the  most  recent 

assessment of status  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Figure 6.5 

Top  groundwater  pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status  in 

Slovenia 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

threshold value had been set. As this substance is not of natural origin, natural background values have not 
been considered. 

84 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                          
6.1.3  Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

All  groundwater  bodies  are  associated  with  surface  waters  and  there  is  no  related  risk. 

Groundwater  associated  surface  waters  have  been  considered  in  status  assessment  in  both 
RBDs. Figure 6.6 shows the percentage of groundwater bodies at risk of failing good chemical 

status and good quantitative status. 

In  the  Danube  RBD,  nine  groundwater  bodies  are  linked  with  groundwater  dependent 

terrestrial  ecosystems.  There  is  no  related  risk  and  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 
ecosystems have been considered in status assessment. 

Groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems 
have  not  been  considered  in  threshold  value  establishment  in  those  RBDs  where  such 

ecosystems exist; however, there is no related risk. 

Figure 6.6 

Percentage  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Slovenia  at  risk  of  failing  good 

chemical  status  and  good  quantitative  status  as  reported  in  the    second 
RBMPs 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

6.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Changes and/or updates were not explicitly described in the second RBMP on the key aspects 
(e.g. assessment methodologies). 

The  chemical  monitoring  situation  improved.  The  number  of  surveillance  monitoring  sites 
increased from 104 to 176 and operational monitoring sites from 29 to 146. The methodologies 

85 

 
 
used  were  the  same  as  in  previous  reporting  period.  The  status  situation  also  improved;  the 

number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  reduced  from  four 
groundwater bodies in the first RBMP to three groundwater bodies in the second RBMP. 

6.3

Progress with Commission recommendations 

There  were  no  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  PoM  for  this 

topic. 

86 

 
 
 
Topic 7

 Designation  of  Heavily  Modified  and  Artificial  Water 
Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 

7.1

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle  

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

7.1.1  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies 

The  WFD  requires  a  review  of  designation  every  six  years.  In  Slovenia,  the  designation  of 

HMWB was updated in 2011 and minor changes have been reported in the designation of river 
and lake heavily modified water bodies (Figure 7.1). In the Danube RBD, the number of lake 

heavily  modified  water  bodies  reduced  from  seven  to  five  and  the  number  of  river  heavily 
modified  water  bodies  increased  from  six  to  eight.  Based  on  new  data  and  development  of 

knowledge, the characteristics of specific heavily modified water bodies were updated and the 
category  of  specific  heavily  modified  water  bodies  was  changed.  No  changes  took  place  for 

artificial water bodies. 

Figure 7.1 

Proportion of total water bodies in each category in Slovenia that has been 
designated as heavily modified or artificial  

Source:WISE electronic reporting  

Several  of  the  designated  heavily  modified  water  bodies  are  reservoirs.  17  water  bodies  are 
reservoirs which were originally rivers; eight of these are designated as river heavily modified 

87 

 
 
 
water  bodies  and  nine  are  designated  as  lake  heavily  modified  water  bodies.  According  to 
Common  Implementation  Strategy  guidance35  on  this  issue,  though,  if  reservoirs  were 
originally rivers, it is recommended to designate them as river heavily modified water bodies. 

The  main  water  use  for  which  river  water  bodies  are  designated  as  heavily  modified  water 
bodies  is  hydropower.  The  main  water  uses  of  lake  water  bodies  designated  as  heavily 

modified  water  bodies  are  flood  protection  and  irrigation.  The  two  coastal  heavily  modified 
water bodies are designated due to transport and wider environment. 

The  main  physical  alterations  of  river  and  lake  heavily  modified  water  bodies  are 
land 
weirs/dams/reservoirs.  Coastal  heavily  modified  water  bodies  are  affected  by 

reclamation/coastal modifications/ports. 

The  RBMPs  do  not  provide  specific  information  on  how  the  significant  adverse  effects  of 

restoration measures on the use or the wider environment (Article 4(3)(a)) have been defined. 
They also do not provide specific information on whether the beneficial objectives served by 

the modifications of the heavily modified water bodies can be achieved by other means. The 
Slovenian authorities have informed that expert studies that consider the designation tests were 
prepared for all heavily modified water bodies for the purpose of the first RBMPs. Significant 

effects of restoration measures on use or wider environment were addressed in workshops with 
relevant  stakeholders.  For  the  purpose  of  the  second  RBMPs,  significant  effects  of  measures 

were  considered  again  in  terms  of  costs  of  measures  to  achieve  good  ecological  status  (not 
potential)  on  heavily  modified  and  artificial  water  bodies.  Further  work  on  this  issue  is 

expected  as  part  of  specific  measures  included  in  the  PoM,  e.g.  in  terms  of  analysis  of 
measures related to  achieving  good ecological potential in large hydropower, and assessment 

of  measures  for  the  reduction  of  negative  impacts  of  river/lake/coastal  waters  engineering 
works.  

7.1.2  Definition of good ecological potential for Heavily Modified and Artificial Water 

Bodies 

Good  ecological  potential  was  reported  as  defined  at  water  body  level  in  both  RBDs.  The 
approach  used  for  good  ecological  potential  definition  in  both  RBDs  is  the  Common 

Implementation Strategy Guidance approach.  

Good  ecological  potential  is  also  reported  to  have  been  defined  in  terms  of  biology  in  both 

RBDs.  It  is  also  reported  in  WISE  that  a  comparison  between  good  ecological  potential  and 
good  ecological  status  has  been  made.  The  biological  quality  elements  for  which  biological 

35 https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/f9b057f4-4a91-46a3-b69a-e23b4cada8ef/Guidance%20No%204%20-

%20heavily%20modified%20water%20bodies%20-%20HMWB%20(WG%202.2).pdf  

88 

 
                                            
values  have  been  derived  to  define  maximum  ecological  potential  and  good  ecological 

potential  are  benthic  invertebrates,  other  aquatic  flora,  and  phytoplankton.  However,  the 
RBMPs  do  not  provide  any  further  information  on  if  and  how  actual  values  for  biological 

quality elements are estimated for good ecological potential. 

According  to  information  provided  by  Slovenia,  an  adapted  methodology  for  ecological 

potential  assessment  is  used  compared  to  the  first  RBMPs.  The  methodology  uses  relevant 
biological quality elements for the assessment of the ecological potential of heavily modified 

and artificial water bodies, for example phytoplankton was used for lakes/reservoirs.   

For rivers, methods  for  assessing  fish and benthic invertebrates  were reported as sensitive to 

altered  habitats  due  to  both  hydrological  and  morphological  changes.  For  lakes  and  coastal 
waters, there are methods sensitive to hydromorphology for benthic invertebrates only. 

Mitigation measures for defining good ecological potential have been reported for both RBDs. 
The  RBMPs  however  do  not  provide  any  information  on  the  ecological  changes  that  the 

mitigation  measures  are  designed  to  achieve,  or  how  are  the  ecological  benefits  of  the 
measures  assessed.  Slovenian  authorities  have  informed  that  the  detailed  estimation  of 
ecological improvements will be performed in the context of relevant measures included in the 

PoM. 

7.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  RBMPs  mention  that  the  designation  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  was  updated  in 
2011  but  they  do  not  describe  any  changes  made  to  the  heavily  modified  water  body 

designation  methodology  since  the  first  RBMPs.  The  methodology  for  ecological  potential 
assessment  has  been  adapted  since  the  first  cycle,  according  to  information  provided  by 

Slovenia. 

7.3

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 
following: 

  Recommendation: The designation of HMWBs 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: See next recommendation. 

89 

 
 
  Recommendation:  Develop  objective  criteria  for  second  RBMPs  for  assessing 
"significant adverse effects on the water use" and "better environmental option" in the 
context  of  the  heavily  modified  water  body  designation  process.  Good  Ecological 

Potential  should  be  developed  in  terms  of  biology  and  mitigation  measures  at  water 
body level and reported in the second RBMPs.  

Assessment:  The  second  RBMPs  do  not  provide  specific  information  on  how  the 
significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use or the wider environment 

(Article 4(3)(a)) have been defined. They also do not provide information on whether 
the  beneficial  objectives  served  by  the  modifications  of  the  heavily  modified  water 

bodies can be achieved by other means. The Slovenian authorities have informed that 
expert studies that consider the designation tests were prepared for all heavily modified 

water  bodies  for  the  purpose  of  the  first  RBMPs.  Significant  effects  of  restoration 
measures  on  use  or  wider  environment  were  addressed  in  workshops  with  relevant 

stakeholders.  For  the  purpose  of  the  second  RBMPs,  significant  effects  of  measures 
were considered again in terms of costs of measures to achieve good ecological status 

(not  potential)  on  heavily  modified  and  artificial  water  bodies.  Further  work  on  this 
issue  is  expected  as  part  of  specific  measures  included  in  the  PoM,  e.g.  in  terms  of 

analysis  of  measures  related  to  achieving  good  ecological  potential  in  large 
hydropower,  and  assessment  of  measures  for  the  reduction  of  negative  impacts  of 

river/lake/coastal waters engineering works). 

Therefore, the part of the recommendation on the designation of HMWB has partially 

been fulfilled.  

Concerning good ecological potential, in the first RBMPs, it was only defined for rivers 

(using  benthic  invertebrates)  but  not  for  lakes  and  coastal  waters.  For  the  second 
RBMPs, good ecological potential was reported in WISE as defined at water body level 

also in terms of biology. According to WISE, the biological quality element for which 
biological values have been derived to define maximum and good ecological potential 

are  benthic  invertebrates,  other  aquatic  flora,  and  phytoplankton.  Also  mitigation 
measures for defining good ecological potential were reported at RBD level. However, 
no  information  could  be  found  on  if  and  how  actual  values  for  biological  quality 

elements  for ecological  potential are estimated and no information  could  be found on 
the ecological changes that the mitigation measures are designed to achieve. Slovenian 

authorities have informed that the detailed estimation of ecological improvements will 
be performed in the context of relevant measures included in the PoM. 

90 

 
Therefore,  the  part  of  the  recommendation  on  good  ecological  potential  has  partially 

been fulfilled. 

91 

 
 
 
Topic 8

 Environmental objectives and exemptions 

8.1

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

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 201536), 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 in surface water and quantitative 
and chemical status in groundwater have been reported in both RBDs. 

Assessments of the current status of surface and groundwater bodies in Slovenia are provided 
elsewhere in this report: for ecological status/potential of surface waters (Chapter 3); chemical 

status  of  surface  waters  (Chapter  4);  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  (Chapter  5); 
chemical status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 6); status of surface and groundwater bodies 

associated with Protected Areas (Chapter 15). 

For the second RBMPs, Member States are required to report the date when they expect each 

surface  and  groundwater  body  to  meet  its  environmental  objective.  This  information  is 
summarised  for  Slovenia  elsewhere  in  this  report:  for  ecological  status/potential  of  surface 

waters  (Chapter  3);  chemical  status  of  surface  waters  (Chapter  4);  quantitative  status  of 
groundwater bodies (Chapter 5); chemical status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 6).  

Slovenia did not report any progress towards achieving environmental objectives in the period 
of the second cycle (2016-2021). This leads to a significant number of water bodies which are 
expected to achieve the objectives only in the period 2022-2027, raising the question regarding 

the level of ambition of the second RBMPs. 

36 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. 

92 

 
 
 
                                            
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 explained in the RBMP. Figure 

8.1 summarises the percentage of water bodies expected to be at least in good status in 2015 
and  the  use  of  at  least  one  exemption  in  Slovenia  for  the  four  main  sets  of  environmental 

objectives. 

Figure 8.1 

Water bodies in Slovenia 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  

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, provided a set of conditions is fulfilled. The exemptions under WFD Article 4 

include  the  provisions  in  Article  4(4)  -  extension  of  deadline,  4(5)  -  lower  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 

93 

 
 
feasibility  or  natural  conditions,  and  for  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 objective in  Slovenia.  Table 8.1 shows 
the pressures responsible for exemptions in surface waters and Table 8.2 shows the pressures 

responsible for exemptions in groundwater. 

94 

 
 
 
Figure 8.2 

Type  of  exemptions  applied  to  surface  water  and  groundwater  bodies  for 

the  second  RBMP  in  Slovenia.  Note:  Ecological  status  and  groundwater 
quantitative  status  exemptions  were  reported  at  the  water  body  level. 

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

for each Priority Substances that is causing failure of good chemical status  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

95 

 
 
 
 
Application of Article 4(4) 

Article 4(4) was used more widely in surface water and groundwater in the second cycle than 
in  the first  cycle.  In the  first  cycle, the justification for surface water in  relation  Article 4(4) 

referred  to  technical  feasibility  and  natural  conditions  (reestablishment  of  fauna  and  flora). 
Disproportionate costs were not used as justification for any exemptions and this remains the 

case in the second cycle. For groundwater, the justification refers to natural conditions as in the 
first cycle.  

The  main  pressures  to  surface  water  in  the  Danube  RBD,  for  example,  come  from  a  broad 
range of activities including urbanisation, industry, agriculture and activities causing changes 

in hydromorphology (the pressure responsible for Priority Substances failing to achieve good 
chemical status is ‘anthropogenic pressure – unknown’ (Table 8.1)).  

In the Danube RBD, the main pressure to surface water is point source pollution from urban 

waste water and physical alterations. The main drivers behind these pressures are agriculture, 
hydropower  and  flood  protection  in  both  RBDs  and  also  industry  in  the  Adriatic  RBD.  The 
main  pressure/driver  acting  on  groundwater  in  the  Danube  RBD  is  diffuse  pollution  from 

agriculture (Table 8.2). 

Table 8.1 

Pressure responsible for Priority Substances in Slovenia failing to achieve 
good chemical status in surface water and for which exemptions have been 

applied 

Significant pressure on surface water 
bodies 

Failing 
Priority 
Substances 

Article  4(4) 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 

- 

Article  4(5) 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 

- 

Number 

Number 

Number 

8 - Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown 

2 

155 

0 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 8.2 

Pressure  responsible  for  pollutants  in  Slovenia  failing  to  achieve  good 

chemical  status  in  groundwater  and  for  which  exemptions  have  been 
applied  

Number of exemptions 

Significant 
pressure 
on 
groundwat
er 

Number 
of 
failing 
pollutan
ts 

Article  4(4)  - 
Disproportion
ate cost 

- 

Article 
4(4) 
Natural 
conditio
ns 

- 

Article 
4(4) 
Technic
al 
feasibilit
y 

Article  4(5)  - 
Disproportion
ate cost 

- 

Article 
4(5) 
Technic
al 
feasibilit
y 

- 
2.2 
Diffuse 
- 
Agricultural 

1 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Application of Article 4(5) 

No exemptions according to Article 4(5) have been applied. 

Application of Article 4(6) 

No exemptions according to Article 4(6) were applied. 

Application of Article 4(7) 

No exemptions  according to  Article 4(7) were applied in  the second RBMP, although it was 

applied  in  the  first  RBMP.  No  specific  information  is  provided  in  the  RBMPs  whether  an 
Article 4(7) assessment  was required for any  potential new modifications  or new sustainable 

human development activities. 

Application of Article 6(3) GWD 

No exemptions according to Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive37 were applied. 

8.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Article 4(4) is used more widely in surface waters and groundwaters in the second cycle than 
in  the  first  cycle.  Article  4(7)  was  applied  in  the  first  cycle,  but  is  no  longer  applied  in  the 

second cycle. For Article 4(5) and Article 4(6) no changes have been detected (not applied). 

37 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 

 
 
                                            
 
8.3

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  PoM  reports  requested 
action on the following: 

  Recommendation: Make sure that new hydromorphological modifications, such as new 
hydropower  plants,  comply  with  the  WFD  requirements  for  these  exemptions.  They 

should also be adequately justified and supported by a proper strategic assessment of 
cumulative  effects  and  alternative  solutions  and  include  all  necessary  mitigation 

measures. Exemptions should be adequately justified at water body level.  

Assessment: 4(7) was applied in the first RBMP but not in the second RBMP. There is 

no  information  available  in  the  RBMPs  whether  the  effects  of  any  planned  new 
modifications on water body status/potential have been assessed and whether an Article 

4(7) assessment would be required. Slovenia subsequently informed the Commission of 
the publication of guidelines for assessment of impacts on ecological status due to new 

hydromorphological  modifications,  according  to  which  the  impacts  would  have  to  be 
considered  within  the  preparation  of  the  strategic  impact  assessment  and  the 

environmental impact assessment in the permitting procedure for water rights.  

However,  these  guidelines  have  not  been  assessed  by  the  Commission.  Therefore 

further information is needed to assess whether the recommendation has been fulfilled. 

98 

 
 
 
Topic 9

  Programme of measures  

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the PoM 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  Measure  (KTM)  referred  to  in  this  section  are  groups  of  measures 
identified by Member States in the PoM, which target the same pressure or purpose. The 

individual measures included in the Programme of Measure (being part of the RBMP) are 
grouped  into  Key  Types  of  Measure  for  the  purpose  of  reporting.  The  same  individual 

measure  can  be  part  of  more  than  one  Key  Type  of  Measure  because  it  may  be  multi-
purpose, but also because the Key Types of Measure 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  Types  of  Measure  may  be  one  national  measure  but  it  would  typically  comprise 

more than one national measure. The 25 predefined Key Types of Measure are listed in the 
WFD Reporting Guidance 2016. 

The Key Types of Measure 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 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

9.1.1  General issues 

An indication or whether or not measures have been made operational is when they have been 
reported  as  being  planned  to  tackle  significant  pressures  (Key  Types  of  Measure  level). 

Significant pressures are also reported at the water body level. It would be expected that there 
would be measures planned to tackle all significant pressures. For surface waters, KTMs were 

reported for all significant pressure types reported in the Danube RBD. For the Adriatic RBD, 
KTMs  were  reported  for  only  three  of  the  eight  significant  pressures  identified  as  causing  a 

failure  of  good  status.  For  both  RBDs,  KTMs  were  also  reported  for  a  number  of  chemical 
substances. For groundwater, one significant pressure type (diffuse agricultural) causing failure 
of objectives was reported for the Danube RBD and this is covered by a KTM. No significant 

99 

 
 
 
pressures causing groundwater bodies to fail to be of good status were reported for the Adriatic 

RBD.  

Slovenia has mapped 18 national basic measures against nine predefined KTMs and all of the 

measures are applicable to both RBDs. A further 35 national basic measures have been mapped 
against  23  nationally  developed  KTMs.  28  of  those  measures,  covering  19  KTMs,  apply  in 

both  RBDs.  11  national  supplementary  measures  have  been  mapped  against  six  predefined 
KTMs. No national supplementary measures have been mapped against the nationally defined 

KTMs. 9.4% of the national basic measures, and 26% of the national supplementary measures 
have  been  mapped  against  KTM  6  -  "Improving  hydromorphological  conditions  of  water 

bodies other than longitudinal continuity".  KTM 1 - "Construction or upgrades of wastewater 
treatment  plants"  and  the  national  measure  “Construction  or  upgrades  of  wastewater  sewage 

system”  have  each  had  7.5%  of  national  basic  measures  mapped  against  them.  None  of  the 
basic  measures  have  been  reported38  as  relating  to  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).Links to documents on Article 11(3)(c-k) basic measures have been provided. An inventory 

of national basic measures, which includes some supplementary measures, was also reported.  

For both RBDs, the KTMs reported to be tackling significant pressures are covered by KTMs 

against  which  national  measures  have  been  mapped,  although  the  number  of  KTMs  against 
which national measures have been mapped is much larger than those reported to be tackling 

significant pressures. Therefore it is not clear if all the national measures are relevant or will be 
made operational.39 

KTMs are in place to address a number of substances that have been reported for the Danube 
RBD.  Information  has  been  provided  on  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  to  be  of 

good  status  due  to  nitrate  and  atrazine  in  the  Danube  RBD,  but  no  KTMs  have  been 
specifically reported as addressing these pressures (though nitrate has been covered by KTM2 

–  “Reduce  nutrient  pollution  from  agriculture”).  There  is  no  information  for  the  Adriatic 
RBD.40 

38 Slovenia subsequently clarified that 16 of the basic measures were reported to address the issue of Priority 

Substances. 

39 Slovenia subsequently clarified that all measures are relevant and will contribute to achieving environmental 

objectives. 

40 Slovenia subsequently provided clarification that in the whole territory of Slovenia, measures are in place to 
reduce pollution by nitrates from agricultural sources. For the Adriatic RBD, the load analysis showed the 
presence of agriculture, but taking into account the criteria for assessing significant pressures, they were not 
recognized as significant pressures.  

100 

 
                                            
One  Priority  Substance  (mercury)  has  been  reported  to  cause  failure  of  good  status  in  120 

surface water bodies in the Danube RBD, and two substances (mercury, in 30 water bodies and 
tributyltin in five water bodies) in the Adriatic RBD. These Priority Substances are covered by 

KTM 14 - "Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty".  

Slovenia  reported  quantitative  values  of  indicators  of  the  gap  to  good  status,  as  well  as 

indicators  of  the  level  of  progress  expected  in  the  implementation  of  the  measures  for 
significant pressures (including individual chemical / Priority Substances) on surface water for 

both  RBDs  and  for  groundwater  for  the  Danube  RBD  for  2015  and  2021.  No  significant 
pressures  were  reported  on  groundwater  in  the  Adriatic  RBD.  No  indicator  values  were 

presented for 2027. In most cases, little, if any, improvement is expected in the status of water 
bodies by 2021.  

In the Danube RBD, indicators have been reported for most pressures on surface water bodies, 
with most of the gap indicators as “number of water bodies failing objectives due to specific 

pressures”  or  for  specific  substances  “number  of  water  bodies  failing  Environmental  Quality 
Standard”.  No  improvements  are  predicted  by  2021,  except  for  point  source  pressures  from 
urban waste water. The situation is similar for the Adriatic RBD but a considerable number of 

pressures  are  not  covered  by  gap  analyses.  For  groundwater  in  the  Danube  RBD,  indicators 
were reported for diffuse agricultural pollution but no improvements are expected by 2021. No 

indicators were reported for the pollutants nitrate and atrazine.  

Cost-effectiveness  analysis  is  an  appraisal  technique  that  provides  a  ranking  of  alternative 

measures  on  the  basis  of  their  costs  and  effectiveness,  where  the  most  cost-effective  has  the 
highest ranking. No information was available to identify whether  cost-effectiveness  analysis 

was used as a tool included in the prioritisation Annex VI and Annex VII of the PoM in for the 
first cycle PoM RBMPs. For the second cycle PoM, it has been reported that quantitative cost-

effectiveness  analyses  were  carried  out  in  both  RBDs  to  support  the  selection  of  measures 
proposed  under  the  2015-21  PoM.  Links  to  relevant  documents  are  provided.  Further 

investigation  in  the  RBMPs  and  background  documents  found  that  prioritisation  selection  of 
the measures was based on a cost-effectiveness analysis only for additional for supplementary 

measures with more than one possible alternative for reaching the WFD objectives. These were 
supplementary measures for the reduction of diffuse pollution with nutrients from agriculture 

and for additional supplementary measures for the reduction of hydromorphological pressures. 

A critical factor in the success of the implementation of the PoM is the availability of funding 

to support the investments required. The investment costs for the first cycle PoM (2009-2015) 
were reported for all types of measure in Annex 0 under economic analysis and cost recovery.  

101 

 
Investment requirements for the second cycle have been reported at the Member State level for 

the years 2016-21. The capital investment required for the implementation of Article 11(3)(a) 
requirements  (measures  required  to  implement  Community  legislation  for  the  protection  of 

water) was reported to be €864.4 m with annual operation and maintenance costs of €14.4 m. 
The  capital  investment  required  for  the  implementation  of  measures  required  by  and 

Article 11(3)(b-l),  Article  11(4)  and  Article  11(5)  (all  other  measures)  was  reported  to  be 
€744 m with annual operation and maintenance costs of €157.4 m. Depreciation has not been 

included in any calculations.  

It is  estimated that €271.8 m of  European Union investment funding will be received for the 

second  cycle  PoM.  No  figures  were  reported  for  the  first  cycle  but  the  Urban  Wastewater 
Directive41 is indicated. 

A  clear  financial  commitment  has  been  secured  for  the  implementation  of  the  second  cycle 
PoM  in  both  RBDs.  Commitments  have  been  secured  for  both  RBDs  for  the  agriculture, 

industry,  hydropower,  energy,  aquaculture  and  recreation  sectors.  The  urban,  transport,  and 
flood protection sectors were reported to be not applicable in both RBDs. 

Information on the co-ordination of the WFD with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive42, 
including links to documents, is available for both RBDs although it is noted that the Danube 
RBD is landlocked in Slovenia. Joint consultation on the RBMPs and the Marine Strategy was 

reported for both RBDs, as was co-ordination of the preparation of the RBMPs and PoM with 
the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  in  the  Adriatic  RBD.  It  was  reported  that  no 

assessment  of  the  need  for  additional  measures  had  been  undertaken.  No  information  was 
reported on any of the other relevant issues. National /RBD specific measures that are relevant 

to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the relevant basic measure types are listed for 
both RBDs, but the number of basic measures are all marked zero. 

The RBMPs and Floods Directive43 Flood Risk Management Plans have not been integrated in 
either  RBDs.  However,  in  both  RBDs,  joint  consultation  of  RBMPs  and  Flood  Risk 

Management  Plans  was  carried  out,  the  objectives  and  requirements  of  the  Floods  Directive 
were  considered  in  the  second  RBMPs  and  PoM,  drought  management  and  use  of  Natural 

Water Retention Measures have been included in the PoM, and the design of new and existing 
structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, has been adapted 

41Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatmenthttp://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31991L0271 

42Directive 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 

43Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks entered into force on 26 November 

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

102 

 
                                            
to take account of WFD environmental objectives in both RBDs. Financial commitments are 

marked “not relevant” and WFD Article 9(4) has not been applied to impoundment for flood 
protection.  

9.1.2  Measures related to other significant pressures 

Other  significant  pressures  reported  are  “Anthropogenic  pressures  –  unknown”  in  surface 

water in both RBDs; and “Anthropogenic pressures - historical pollution” in the Danube RBD. 
Gap indicators and indicators of the level of progress with the implementation of the measures 

were  reported for 2015  and 2021 (none for 2027), but  no improvements are  expected during 
this time. No “Other significant pressures” have been reported for groundwater. 

9.1.3  Mapping of national measures to Key Types of Measure 

It  was  expected  that  Member  States  would  be  able  to  report  their  PoM  by  associating  their 

national measures with predefined Key Types of Measure. Key Types of Measure 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  Key  Types  of  Measure,  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 

KTM in Slovenia. Also shown is the number of RBDs for which the KTM has been reported. 
Table  9.2  then  summarises  the  type  of  basic  measures  associated  with  the  national  measures 

mapped against the KTM. 

Table 9.1 

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

Slovenia  

Key Type of Measure 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number 
of  RBDs 
where 
reported 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater 
treatment plants 

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 

4 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
Key Type of Measure 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number 
of  RBDs 
where 
reported 

1 

2 

1 

2 

3 

emissions, discharges and losses of Priority 
Substances 

KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil 
erosion and surface run-off 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of 
pollution from urban areas, transport and built 
infrastructure 

KTM3- Reduce pesticides pollution from 
agriculture. 

KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. 
establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams) 

KTM6 - Improving hydro morphological 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 - Bathing Water Directive 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under 
PoM - Construction or upgrades of collection 
systems and/or wastewater treatment plants 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under 
PoM - Construction or upgrades of drinking water 
supply system 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under 
PoM - Construction or upgrades of wastewater 
sewage system 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under 
PoM - Controls over the abstraction of fresh surface 
water and groundwater and impoundment of fresh 
surface waters including a register of water 
abstractions and a requirement for prior 
authorisation of abstraction and impoundment and 
establishment of ecological 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Controls, 
including a requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or 
augmentation of groundwater bodies. 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Drinking 
Water Directive 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 

2 

1 

1 

1 

5 

1 

1 

3 

1 

4 

2 

1 

1 

2 

104 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key Type of Measure 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number 
of  RBDs 
where 
reported 

Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Environmental Liability Directive 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Habitats 
Directive or Birds Directive 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Major 
Accidents (Seveso) Directive 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Measures to 
control any other significant adverse impact on the status of water, 
and in particular hydro morphological impacts 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Measures to 
reduce the impact of accidental pollution incidents 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Measures for 
the reduction of emissions and discharges 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Measures to 
prevent or control the input of pollutants from diffuse sources liable to 
cause pollution. 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Measures to 
promote efficient and sustainable water use 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Measures to 
reduce the input of pollutants from point and diffuse sources liable to 
cause pollution. 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Measures of 
compensation for reduction of income from agricultural activities 
because of adaptation to the drinking water protection regime 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Plant 
Protection Products Directive 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Protection 
against the harmful effects of water 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Sewage 
Sludge Directive 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Water pricing 
policy measures 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Water 
regulation 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

Total number of Mapped Measures 

53 

11 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9.2 

Type of basic measure mapped to Key Type of Measure in Slovenia  

Key Type of Measure 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants 

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 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 

KTM21  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban 
areas, transport and built infrastructure 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 

KTM5  -  Improving  longitudinal  continuity  (e.g.  establishing  fish  passes, 
demolishing old dams) 

KTM6  -  Improving  hydromorphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other 
than longitudinal continuity 

KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy 
and households 

Basic Measure Type 

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

r
e
t
a
w

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

s
l
o
r
t
n
o
C

r
e
t
a
w

y
r
e
v
o
c
e
r

t
s
o
C

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

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

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

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

5 

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

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

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
u
a

s
r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

e
g
r
a
h
c
e
R

r
e
t
a
W

e
t
s
a
W
n
a
b
r
U

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

5 

1 

4 

2 

7 

5 

2 

1 

4 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM 

1 

2 

4 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

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. 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
‘Cost recovery water services’ = Article 11(3)(b): Measures for the recovery of cost of water services (Article 9). 
‘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. 
‘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. 
‘Recharge augmentation groundwaters’ = Article 11(3)(f): Controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies. 
‘Urban Waste Water’ = Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). 

107 

 
9.1.4 

Pressures  for  which  gaps  to  be  filled  to  achieve  WFD  objectives  and  the  Key 

Types of Measure planned to achieve objectives 

Member  States  are  required  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  cycle  of  PoM  in  both  RBDs  was  reported  as  “some 
measures  completed”,  with  the  obstacles  to  progress  reported  as  lack  of  finance  and  lack  of 

measures  in  both  RBDs.  Significant  pressures  have  been  reported  and  measures  mapped 
against most of these in the Danube RBD (fewer in the Adriatic RBD), and an analysis of the 

gap  to  good  status  has  been  reported  for  2015  and  2021.  New  legislation  or  regulations  to 

108 

 
implement the PoM in the first cycle was reported necessary and in progress for both RBDs44. 
The  RBMPs  did  not  include  a  summary  of  the  main  changes  for  this  topic  so  no  further 
information could be obtained from the RBMPs and background documents. 

9.3

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 

following: 

 

Recommendation:  Ensure  that  the  RBMPs  clearly  identify  the  gap  to  good  status,  and 

that  the  Programme  of  Measures  are  designed  and  implemented  to  close  that  gap 
(making clear how the assessment of the expected effects of supplementary measures has 

been performed). 

Assessment: Gap analyses have been reported for 2015 and 2021, but very few gaps are 

expected to be reduced by 2021, and it was not clear from the data reported to WISE if 
the PoM was designed to close the gaps. This was therefore further examined in RBMPs 

and background documents where it was found that the PoM was designed to close the 
gaps.  This  was  true  for  basic  measures,  which  have  the  aim  to  prevent  further 

deterioration of the environment when new impacts or uses are introduced or to improve 
the  general  status  of  water  bodies,  as  well  as  for  supplementary  measures,  which  are 

designed to close the gaps at those water bodies where it is expected that the WFD goals 
will probably not be achieved just by implementing basic measures. This ambition does 

not  appear  to  be  reflected  in  the  gap  analysis  and  the  lack  of  indicators  for  2027 
(although reporting for 2027 was not obligatory) makes it difficult to further assess this 
recommendation.45 It can therefore be concluded from the information available that this 
recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

44 Slovenia subsequently clarified that all relevant legislation is listed in RBMPs and PoM.  
45 Slovenia subsequently clarified that the PoM, which was adopted with RBMPs, determines measures for the 
period up to 2021. For the preparation of next RBMP the measures will be revised and updated to the period 
up to 2027, if necessary. 

109 

 
 
 
 
                                            
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 pressures were not reported as relevant for Slovenia. The Water Exploitation 
Index+  has  not  been  reported46;  but  water  quantity  data  have  been  reported  to  support  the 
European State of the Environment Report in relation to Water Quantity. On the basis of the  
first RBMPs, the Commission recommended that water demand trends and water availability 

trends should be calculated.  

In  both  the  Danube  and  Adriatic  RBDs,  water  consumption  pressures  have  decreased  in  the 

recent past. The Adriatic RBMP stated that the quantities of water provided as drinking water 
supply to various sectors increased from 16 m cubic metres in 2002 to 22 m cubic metres in 

2005, and then slightly dropped to above 20 m cubic metres in 2012. In the Danube RBD, the 
quantities  of  water  provided  as  drinking  water  supply  to  various  sectors  slightly  decreased 

from 2002 to 2004 to reach 121 m cubic metres, and then increased to 154 m cubic metres in 
2008, and then again decreased to slightly under 140 m cubic metres in 2012. This information 

is based on abstraction data. No other information was found in the RBMPs.  

The RBMPs did not include a water resource allocation and management plan.  

10.1.2  Main uses for water consumption  

No  information  was  reported  for  the  uses  of  water  consumption,  as  water  quantity  pressures 

were not reported as significant. The only relevant water use assessed as trends in the RBMPs 
was drinking water supply, with the data referred to above47.  

10.1.3  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

Regarding  basic  measures  (Article  11(3)(e)),  there  is  a  concession,  authorisation  and/or 

permitting  regime  to  control  abstractions  of  fresh  surface  water  and  groundwater,  water 

46 Slovenia subsequently clarified that the Water Exploitation Index + for Slovenia is calculated on a yearly basis 

at lower than 5% of water available, and does not show any significant trend 
(http://kazalci.arso.gov.si/?data=indicator&ind_id=761).  

47 Slovenia subsequently noted that trends for all water uses were assessed. 

110 

 
                                            
impoundment  and  a  register  of  impoundments  and  register  of  water  abstractions;  and  small 

abstractions are exempted from these controls.  

Measures promoting efficient and sustainable water use (Basic Measure Article 11(3)(c)) were 

implemented  in  the  previous  cycle  and  no  new  measures  and/or  significant  changes  are 
planned for the 2016-2021 period. 

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

significant changes are planned for the next period. 

Complementary measures under KTMs are not reported for addressing abstraction pressures. 

Water reuse is not foreseen as a measure. 

10.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

No  information  was  reported  to  WISE  for  the  uses  of  water  consumption,  or  the  Water 

Exploitation  Index  +.  The  Commission  recommended  that  “Water  demand  trends  and  water 
availability trends should be calculated”. This was not formally reported; however, the RBMPs 

included trend assessment of drinking water supply over the past year, with this consumption 
being the only significant trend reported. 

10.3

  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 

following: 

  Recommendation:  In  the  context  of  water  scarcity  and  droughts,  water  demand  trends 

and water availability trends should be calculated. 

Assessment:  No  data  have  been  reported  for  the  uses  of  water  consumption  and  the 

Water  Exploitation  Index  +.  Therefore,  water  demand  trends  and  water  availability 
trends have not formally been reported; however, the RBMPs include trend assessment 

of  drinking  water  supply  over  the  past  year,  with  this  consumption  being  the  only 
significant trend reported. Therefore, this recommendation has been partially fulfilled48. 

48 Slovenia subsequently clarified that abstractions, other than drinking water supply, were considered as well (all 

together 26 types of water of water uses) – RBMP Chapter 2.3.6. 

111 

 
 
                                            
Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture  

11.1

  Assessment  of 
requirements 
implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 
in 

second  cycle  and  Main  changes 

the 

in 

As in the first cycle the most important pressures regarding surface water quality were related 
to  diffuse  pollution  and  hydromorphological  pressures  (hydrological  and  morphological 

changes). A few surface water bodies indicated high pressure from agriculture due to nitrogen, 
phosphorus and plant protection products  and this did  not change in  the second cycle.  In the 

Danube RBD, agriculture was recognised as a significant pressure at three groundwater bodies 
(14%  of  groundwater  bodies)  and  at  five  lake  water  bodies  (42%)  of  lake  water  bodies 

especially  due  to  nitrogen,  phosphorus,  and  pesticides.  In  the  Adriatic  RBD,  agriculture  was 
recognised  as  a  significant  pressure  in  one  lake  water  body  (8%  of  lake  water  bodies) 

especially  due  to  phosphorus  and  pesticides.  The  estimate  of  pollution  with  pesticides  has  a 
very high level of uncertainty. 

Up  to  eleven  water  bodies  are  failing  to  reach  good  status  because  environmental  quality 
standards for pesticides originating from diffuse agricultural pollution will not be met. For up 

to sixteen surface water bodies and three groundwater bodies it was reported that targets will 
not  be  achieved  by  2021  because  of  pressures  from  agriculture.  The  measures  proposed 

reflected  the  pressures  and  cover  basic  (the  minimum  requirement  to  be  complied  with)  and 
supplementary  measures.  A  number  of  technical  measures  were  selected  to  address  the 
pressures  including  reduction  of  nitrogen  and  pesticide  pollution,  Natural  Water  Retention 

Measures,  measures  to  reduce  sediment  from  soil  and  surface  run  off  and  drinking  water 
measures. The RBMPs rely mainly on mandatory measures.  

Basic  measures  under  Article  11(3)(h)  cover  the  reduction  of  pesticide,  nitrates  and 
microbiological  pollution.  The  implementation  of  basic  measures  Article  11(3)(h)  for  the 

control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at source was used and the same rules applied to 
the whole Member State.  

In relation to drinking water, Slovenia applied Article 11(3)(d) of the WFD. Safeguard zones 
have  been  established  around  1,947sources  of  drinking  water  covering  almost  17%  of  all 

Slovenian territory with clear measures to prevent or limit the inputs of pollutants at the source. 
In both RBMPs, there was information that there have been some regulatory changes related to 

drinking water safeguard zones. Most of them were additions to older regulations. The Adriatic 

112 

 
RBMP  mentions  that,  with  a  change  of  regulation  of  drinking  water  safeguard  zones  for  the 

water body of aquifers of Rižana, three sources of surface waters were protected. The RBMPs 
indicated that drinking water safeguard zones and measures had been enhanced since the first 

RBMPs. The PoM (measure “OPZ1.1a – Vodovarstvena območja”) contains a detailed lists of 
all legal acts that were adopted regarding drinking water safeguard zones together with the year 

of adoption or year of adoption of amendments and supplements and also shows progress made 
regarding this issue. There were still approximately 300 old municipality ordinances in place to 

safeguard  drinking  water  sources.  There  was  also  a  measure  (OPZ1.2b)  in  place  to  reinforce 
and accelerate the acceptance of regulations regarding the designation of safeguard zones for 

drinking  water  sources  on  a  national  level  through  providing  manpower  and  sources  for 
background  documents  that  will  serve  as  a  technical  expert  base  for  changing  current 

regulations. 

There  are  additional  control  measures  on  land  (not  just  in  safeguard  zones  but  in  the  wider 

catchment) to prevent nitrogen, phosphorus or pesticides from entering drinking water sources. 
In  2001,  Slovenia  declared  its  entire  territory  as  a  vulnerable  area  due  to  nitrates  from 
agriculture. Therefore, measures for reducing the pollution of water by nitrogen are regulated 

for all agricultural activities in Slovenia that apply animal manure to the fields (basic measure 
ON3a).  The  Water  Law  also  prohibits  the  use  of  fertilizers  and  phyto-pharmaceutical 

substances  along  all  surface  waters  (basic  measure  ON4a)  in  an  area  15  m  wide  along  river 
banks for rivers and 5 m for other water streams. 

Farmers  and  Farmers'  Unions  have  been  consulted  under  the  public  consultation  process  in 
both RBDs. 

The financing of agricultural measures has been secured in both RBDs.  

11.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  second  RBMPs  indicate  that  drinking  water  safeguard  zones  and  measures  had  been 
enhanced since the first RBMPs. The Programmes of Measures in the plans contain lists of the 

legal  acts  that  were  adopted  regarding  drinking  water  safeguard  zones  and  describes  the 
progress made towards protecting drinking water sources. There is also a measure in place to 

reinforce  and  accelerate  the acceptance of  regulations regarding the designation of safeguard 
zones for drinking water sources on a national level through providing manpower and sources 

for  background  documents  that  will  serve  as  a  technical  expert  base  for  changing  current 
regulations. 

113 

 
11.3

  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 
following: 

 

Recommendation:  Calculate  and  include  transparently  in  the  second  RBMPs  the 
contribution that the Nitrate Action Programme will deliver in closing the nutrient gap to 

WFD good status. 

Assessment:  The  Nitrate  Action  Programme  is  transferred  with  a  Decree  on  the 

protection  of  waters  against  pollution  caused  by  nitrates  from  agricultural  sources  and 
has to be updated at least every four years (Article 21 of the Decree).  The contribution 

of the Nitrate Action Programme (the Decree) is summarized in both RBMPs. An overall 
assessment  of  contribution  of  the  Nitrate  Action  Programme  has  been  performed.    The 

gap assessment for nitrogen in surface waters was performed on national level, while the 
gap assessment for groundwaters was prepared on GWB level. The RBMPs state that the 

contribution of the Nitrate Action Programme is expected to be positive with a high level 
of uncertainty. The recommendation has been fulfilled. 

Recommendation:  Develop  indicators  of  farmers'  compliance  with  the  measures  in  the 
Nitrates  Directive49  (e.g.  farmers'  awareness  of  rules,  uptake  of  measures,  slurry 
storage)  as  this  is  necessary  to  track  progress  on  implementation  of  measures  and  to 
understand the gap to be closed through additional measures. 

Assessment:  The  PoM  provides  information  that  Rural  Development  Programme 
measures  related  to  the  reduction  of  dispersed  pollution  with  nutrients  in  agriculture 

include indicators related to agricultural advisory service that include these issues. This 
recommendation has been fulfilled. 

the  Rural 
Recommendation:  Include  clear 
Development Programme measures so that it is clear how they should contribute to close 

targets/expectations 

in  RBMPs 

for 

 

 

the gap to achieve good status.  

Assessment:  Slovenia  subsequently  clarified  to  the  Commission  that  the  assessment  of 

the  contribution  of  the  Rural  Development  Programme  is  included  in  the  Nitrate 
Directive implementation report. This recommendation has been fulfilled. 

49 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  

114 

 
 
                                            
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  would  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. 

Two KTMs relevant to non-agricultural sources of pressures causing failure of WFD objectives 
have been reported for both Slovenian RBDs KTM14- "Research, improvement of knowledge 

base  reducing  uncertainty"  and  KTM99  -  "Other  key  type  measure  reported  under  PoM  - 
(Administrative)  measures  which  should  help  achieving  the  good  status  or  facilitate  the 

implementation of other measures from the PoM"). Under KTM 99 the two the two types of 
measures  listed  are  “Construction  or  upgrades  of  collection  systems  and/or  wastewater 

treatment plants” and “Measures for the reduction of emissions and discharges”. These KTMs 
did  not  include  those  measures  that  are  more  relevant  to  this  topic  such  as  KTM  15  - 

"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 

KTM  16  -  "Upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial  wastewater  treatment  plants  (including 
farms)". 

The  WFD  specifies  that  the  PoM  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 (see the chapter 9 in this report). Quantitative 
information  on  basic  and  supplementary  measures  used  to  tackle  pollution  from  non-

agricultural sources in Slovenia was provided for the Danube and Adriatic RBD. Quantitative 
information on basic measures to tackle pollution from non-agricultural sources is provided for 

10 measure types for the Danube and Adriatic RBD. Slovenia subsequently reported that basic 
measures to tackle pollution from non-agricultural sources are included in the PoM for both the 
Danube and Adriatic river basins. 

115 

 
Slovenia  provided  more 

targeted 

information  on  basic  measures 

required  under 

Article 11(3)(c-k).  An  authorization  and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  waste  water  point 
source discharges is in place in both RBDs for surface and groundwater and also the register of 

waste water discharges (Basic measures Article 11(3)(g)) is available in both RBDs for surface 
and  groundwater.  In  both  Slovenian  RBDs  all  discharges  require  permits  and  are  subject  to 

registration  (Basic  measure  Article  11(3)(g))  i.e.  there  are  no  thresholds  below  which  waste 
water  discharges  do  not  require  permits.  But  Slovenia  explained  that  the  statement  ”Some 

direct  discharges  to  groundwater  are  authorised  in  accordance  with  Article  11(3)(j)  in  both 
Slovenian  RBDs”  is  incorrect  and  should  be  revised.  Direct  discharges  of  waste  water  into 

groundwater are not allowed. 

Electronic  reporting  shows  that  there  are  measures  in  place  to  eliminate  or  reduce  pollution 

from Priority Substances and other substances in both RBDs. 

12.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle  

In  the  first  RBMP  there  were  substance-specific  measures  in  the  PoM  targeted  to  reduce  or 

phase  out  Priority  Substances  and  non-priority  specific  pollutants  or  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants. In the second RBMP, several substances causing failure were linked to KTMs. 

According to information reported to WISE, measures have been put in place to eliminate or 
reduce  pollution  from  Priority  Substances  and  other  substances  (Basic  measures  Article 

11(3)(k)) in both RBDs and information reported to WISE shows that KTMs have been made 
operational  based  on  pressures  from  specific  Priority  Substances  and  River  Basin  Specific 

Pollutants causing non-compliance. 

The Priority Substances that were causing chemical status to be less than good are identified as 

being  due  to  unknown  anthropogenic  pressures,  and  are  as  follows:  (1)  mercury  and  its 
compounds  for  lake  water  bodies  and  river  water  bodies  in  both  RBDs,  and  also  in  coastal 

water bodies in the Adriatic RBD; (2) tributyltin-cation in coastal water bodies and territorial 
water  bodies  in  the  Adriatic  RBD.  For  each  of  them  there  are  basic  measures  in  place.  For 

mercury and its compounds, the measure is designed to reduce emissions. Measures to reduce 
emissions of tributyltin-cation are included in the Maritime Marine Environment Management 

Plan. 

There  were  seven  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  (glyphosate,  terbuthylazine,  molybdenum 

and  its  compounds,  cobalt  and  its  compounds,  zinc  and  its  compounds,  sulphate  and 
metolachlor) exceeding their environmental quality standards in surface waters in the Danube 

RBD,  and  three  in  the  Adriatic  RBD  (absorbable  organic  halogens,  total  hydrocarbons  - 

116 

 
mineral oils and tributyltin compounds). For all of them, there were KTMs in place to reduce 

pesticides  pollution  from  agriculture  and/or  to  improve  the  knowledge  base  to  eliminate 
uncertainty.  In  the  Danube  RBD,  the  WFD  objectives  regarding  River  Basin  Specific 

Pollutants will  not  be achieved by 2021 by implementing the measures  in  some of the  water 
bodies,  while  in  the  Adriatic  RBD,  the  objectives  regarding  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants 

will be achieved. 

Pollutants causing failure of good chemical status in groundwater are Atrazine and Nitrate in 

the  Danube  RBD.    The  Adriatic  RBD  has  no  groundwater  bodies  that  fail  good  chemical 
status. There are measures in place to deal with nitrates from agriculture and several measures 

that  separately  deal  with  wastewater  treatment  from  agglomerations  larger  or  equal  to  2000 
population  equivalent  and  those  smaller  than  2000  population  equivalent,  as  well  as  several 

other  measures  to  deal  with  herbicides  where  Atrazine  is  included.  All  these  measures  are 
being implemented in both RBDs. 

12.3

  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 
following: 

 

Recommendation: A link between pollutants and specific measures that aims to prevent / 

limit them should be established. 

Assessment: Information reported to WISE indicates that measures to eliminate / reduce 

pollution from Priority Substances and other substances (Basic measures Article 11(3)(k) 
have been applied in all Slovenian RBDs. In the second RBMPs, measures were reported 
for both Priority Substances and River Basin Specific Pollutants causing non-compliance 

in Slovenia as well as for groundwater pollutants.   

The recommendation is fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation: Provide all the information on the level of compliance, and timing to 

reach compliance, by agglomerations, including information on funding, in accordance 
with  the  Urban  Wastewater  Directive50  (Article  15  and  following).  Prioritize  the 
agglomerations  with  more  than  2.000  population  equivalent  in  terms  of  the  WFD 
principles  and  financing  in  the  second  RBMPs,  but  also  assess  the  pressures  due  to 

50 Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31991L0271  

117 

 
                                            
waste  water  from  small  agglomerations  (less  than  2.000  population  equivalent)  in  the 

second RBMPs cycle. 

Assessment:  Measures  to  tackle  urban  point  sources  were  reported  in  both  RBDs  in 

WISE. 

The PoM (in the description of some measures) provided information that the operative 

programme  of  wastewater  collection  and  treatment  for  the  period  2005-2017  defines 
agglomerations  with  2000+  population  equivalent  and  agglomerations  with  less  than 

2000  population  equivalent  and  provides  further  demands  regarding  the  level  of 
treatment for these agglomerations. The RBMPs state that resources for implementation 

of  measures  in  agglomerations  equal  to  or  larger  than  2000  population  equivalent  are 
ensured  by  European  Union  Funds  on  the  basis  of  an  operative  programme  for 

implementation of European Union cohesion policy in the period 2014-2020. European 
Union funds for agglomerations smaller than 2000 population equivalent are not ensured, 

however those that are the cause of failure to achieve WFD objectives are prioritised for 
financing.  The  RBMP  also  states  that  according  to  the  analysis  of  trends  for  achieving 
the  WFD  objectives  and  based  on  data  from  2008  and  2012,  it  is  expected  that  the 

objectives will be achieved in the years 2021 to 2027. 

The recommendation is fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation:  Ensure  the  compliance  of  Article  5  of  the  Urban  Wastewater 
Directive51 for more stringent treatment, especially in big cities. 

Assessment:  Measures  to  tackle  urban  point  sources  were  reported  in  both  RBDs  but 

there were no types of basic measures and no quantification of basic and supplementary 
measures reported for the Adriatic RBD52. Slovenia ensured fulfilment of the obligation 
to implement measures in order to protect the waters of the Black Sea coast, which are 
adversely  affected  by  discharges  from  wastewater  treatment  plants  (Article  9  of  the 

WFD).  This  was  done  with  the  change  of  the  Decree  on  the  emission  of  substances  in 
wastewater  discharged  from  urban  wastewater  treatment  plants  (OG,45/07,  63/09, 

105/10,  98/15).  Slovenia  applied  Article 5(2)  of  the  Urban  Wastewater  Directive  and 
requires  more  stringent  treatment  for  wastewater  treatment  plants  larger  or  equal  to 
10,000  population  equivalent,  while  for  wastewater  treatment  plants  between  2000  and 

51 Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31991L0271  

52 Slovenia subsequently clarified that quantitative information on basic and supplementary measures used to 

tackle pollution is available for the Adriatic RBD, and that this is a reporting error.  

118 

 
                                            
10,000  population  equivalent  more  stringent  requirements  are  obligatory  only  in  those 

nationally defined as sensitive. These obligations are reflected in the operative program 
for wastewater collection and treatment for the period 2005-2017. 

The recommendation is fulfilled. 

119 

 
 
 
Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology  

13.1

  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

Significant hydromorphological pressures were reported in both RBDs. However, the pressures 

assessment  seems  to  be  not  very  specific.  Especially,  the  uses  and  sectors  related  to  the 
reported significant hydromorphological pressures are not specified according to the uses listed 

in  WISE  but  are  reported  as  related  to  “other”  uses.  Slovenia  subsequently  informed  that 
usually more than one key driver causes hydromorphological pressures and thus the reporting 

option “other” was selected as driver of the hydromorphological pressures. 

Slovenia further clarified that the RBMPs include a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the 

link  between  the  hydromorphological  pressures  and  the  ecological  status,  in  particular  for 
water abstractions, sediment management, reservoirs (dams), drainage systems, land use within 

catchment areas and within riparian zones, morphological alterations, etc. 

Operational  KTMs  to  deal  with  significant  hydro  morphological  pressures  were  reported  in 

both  RBDs. The main  KTM reported as operational  to  tackle hydro morphological pressures 
are  KTM  6  -  "Improving  hydro  morphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than 

longitudinal  continuity",  KTM  99  -  "Other  key  type  measure  reported  under  PoM  - 
(Administrative)  measures  which  should  help  achieving  the  good  status  or  facilitate  the 

implementation of other measures from the PoM" and KTM 14  - "Research, improvement of 
knowledge base reducing uncertainty".  

The  types  of  specific  hydromorphological  measures  planned  include  fish  ladders,  sediment 
management,  setting  of  ecological  flows,  restoration  of  modified  morphological  conditions, 

increasing  the  knowledge  base  as  support  for  administrative  procedures  (water  permits, 
guidelines) and land use restrictions in riparian areas. Overall management objectives in terms 

of restoring river continuity have not been reported as set in WISE, although river continuity is 
part of specific measures addressing large dams, smaller dams, weirs and other barriers.  

In  terms  of  basic  measures,  there  is  an  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  in  place  to 

control  physical  modifications  in  both  RBDs,  which  covers  changes  to  the  riparian  area  of 
water  bodies  according  to  WFD  Article  11(3)(i).  There  is  also  a  register  of  physical 

modifications of water bodies. 

120 

 
Win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  Floods  Directive53, 
drought  management  and  use  of  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  were  reported  to  be 
included in the PoM of both RBDs. The design of new and existing structural measures, such 

as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, is also reported to have been adapted to take 
into  account  WFD  objectives  in  both  RBDs.  However,  KTM  23  -  "Natural  water  retention 

measures" is not reported to tackle any significant pressures. However, Slovenian subsequently 
clarified that natural  water retention  measures are considered in  the Flood Risk  Management 

Plan and are synergetic to RBMP measures such as guidelines for spatial planning, guidelines 
for  water  rights,  measures  for  reduction  of  negative  impacts  of  land  use  in  riparian  zones, 

measures for reduction of negative impacts of river/lake/coastal waters engineering works and 
measures for reduction of negative impacts of drainage systems.  

Ecological  flows  have  been  derived  partly  in  the  two  RBDs,  i.e.  for  some  relevant  water 
bodies,  but  the  work  is  still  on-going.  The  ecological  flows  which  have  been  derived  so  far 

have  been  implemented  only  in  some  relevant  water  bodies.  Slovenia  subsequently  clarified 
that a basic measure is already in place, namely the Decree on the criteria for determining and 
the method of monitoring and reporting ecologically acceptable flow (Official Gazette of the 

Republic  of  Slovenia,  No.  97/09).  The  Decree  sets  out  the  criteria  for  determining  the 
ecologically  acceptable  flow  and  the  method  of monitoring  and  reporting  of  the  ecologically 

acceptable  flow.  This  regulation  applies  to  special  use  of  surface  water  which  may  lead  to  a 
reduction in water flow, a decrease in water level or deterioration in the status of waters.  

There  is  a  specific  measure  that  includes  ecological  flows  in  Natura  2000  areas.  Basic 
measures under Article 11(3), which impose controls on uses impacting the flow regime, are 

included but there is no explicit discussion in the RBMP on whether and how these measures 
can  support  the  implementation  of  ecological  flows.  At  the  same  time,  ecological  flows  are 

addressed  by  a  specific  Decree  No.  97/09  on  “criteria  for  determination  and  on  the  mode  of 
monitoring  and  reporting  of  ecologically  acceptable  flow"  (basic  measure).  This  regulation 

applies to special use of surface water which may lead to a reduction in water flow, a decrease 
in water level or deterioration in the status of waters. 

In terms of the level of ambition in tackling significant hydromorphological pressures, relevant 
indicators on the pressure gap to  be filled and KTM value indicators were reported  for 2015 

and 2021 (but not for 2027). From the information available in WISE, it is concluded that no 
progress will be made in terms of closing the gap for significant hydromorphological pressures 

53 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  

121 

 
                                            
between 2015 and 2021, as the number of water bodies where hydromorphological alterations 

are  preventing  the  achievement  of  objectives  remains  unchanged.  This  raises  important 
concerns  on  the  level  of  ambition  of  the  second  RBMPs  in  terms  of  tackling  significant 

hydromorphological pressures.  

Slovenia  subsequently  informed  that  for  the  implementation  of  the  basic  and  supplementary 

measures included in the PoM to  reduce hydromorphological  pressures in  the time period of 
2016  –  2021  include  measures  to  prevent  deterioration  and  measures  for  achieving  the 

environmental  objectives.  Different  phases  are  envisaged.  In  the  first  phase,  prioritising  of 
technical measures will be performed, while in a second phase, priority technical measures will 

be implemented. 

13.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Slovenia subsequently  clarified that an assessment  of  hydromorphological  improvements due 

to implemented hydromorphological measures from the first RBMP has been included in the 
risk assessment. Implemented technical measures are listed and described in the RBMPs.  

13.3

  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 

following: 

 

Recommendation:  Ensure implementation  of  measures to  address  hydro  morphological 

pressures,  if  necessary  by  reviewing  permits/concessions  and  allocating  the  necessary 
resources.  

Assessment:  Operational  KTMs  are  clearly  reported 
to  deal  with  significant 
hydromorphological  pressures  in  both  RBDs.  Slovenia  subsequently  informed  that  for 

the  implementation  of  the  basic  and  supplementary  measures  included  in  the  PoM  to 
reduce hydromorphological pressures in the time period of 2016 – 2021, different phases 

are  envisaged  starting  with  a  priorisation  of  technical  measures;  in  a  second  phase, 
priority  technical  measures  will  be  implemented.  Concerning  a  review  of  permits  (pre-

WFD  concessions)  where  necessary,  a  revision  of  the  most  significant  water  rights  is 
envisaged as a part of two measures (“detailed analysis of measures related to achieving 

good ecological potential considering energy production in large hydropower plants and 
preparation  of  detailed  guidelines  for  application  of  measures”  and  “measures  for 
reduction of negative impacts of river/lake/coastal waters engineering works”). 

122 

 
Therefore, this recommendation is so far partially fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation:  Ensure  that  the  study  on  aligning  environmental  flows  with  good 
ecological status is completed and used to inform future review of concessions/permits in 

the second RBMP.  

Assessment:  The  "ecologically  acceptable  flow"  was  first  introduced  into  Slovenian 

legislation  in  2002  (Waters  Act)  together  with  a  requirement  that  an  ecologically 
acceptable flow (Qes) is defined in water permits and concession contracts. In 2009, the 
methodology  for  defining  ecologically  acceptable  flow  has  been  decreed.54  The  Qes 
Decree in principle establishes a hydrological regime consistent with the achievement of 

the environmental objectives of the WFD in natural surface water bodies as mentioned in 
Article 4(1), and as defined in the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance No 31 on 
ecological  flows.55  The  Qes  Decree  sets  out  the  criteria  for  determining  ecologically 
acceptable  flow  (Qes)  and  the  method  of  monitoring  it  and  reporting  on  it.  To  verify 

whether the Qes determined in such a way does indeed ensure in practice good surface 
water  body  status  in  accordance  with  the  WFD,  a  project/study  on  the  elements  of  the 

status of water for determining ecologically acceptable flow was finished in the second 
cycle.  However,  no  information  on  the  results  of  the  study  is  available  in  the  second 

RBMPs and, so far, the Qes Decree has not been changed. 

Therefore, although the study on aligning ecological flows with good status is completed, 

further action is pending and the recommendation has not been yet 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,  increase  water  infiltration  and  thus  aquifer  recharge,  flood  protection,  habitat 

conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many cases more cost-
effective than grey infrastructure. 

Assessment: KTM 23 - "Natural water retention measures" is not reported to tackle any 
significant  pressures.  However,  Slovenia  subsequently  clarified  that  natural  water 

retention measures are considered in the Flood Risk Management Plan and are synergetic 
to  RBMP measures such as  guidelines for spatial planning,  guidelines for water rights, 

measures  for  reduction  of  negative  impacts  of  land  use  in  riparian  zones,  measures  for 

54 Decree on Criteria for Determination and on the Mode of Monitoring and Reporting of Ecologically Acceptable 

Flow (OG RS, No. 97/2009) 

55 https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/4063d635-957b-4b6f-bfd4-b51b0acb2570/Guidance%20No%2031%20-

%20Ecological%20flows%20%28final%20version%29.pdf  

123 

 
                                            
reduction  of  negative  impacts  of  river/lake/coastal  waters  engineering  works  and 

measures  for  reduction  of  negative 
recommendation is partially fulfilled.  

impacts  of  drainage  systems.  Thus, 

this 

124 

 
 
 
Topic 14

  Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

14.1

  Assessment  of 
requirements 
in 
implementation and compliance 

the 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 
in 

second  cycle  and  main  changes 

Slovenia  defined  26  water  services  in  the  second  RBMPs.  The  basis  for  this  definition  as  a 
water service is  whether or not  water charges are defined for the service. The water services 

are  aggregated  into  five  sectors:  agriculture,  industry,  energy,  communal  services  and  other 
services (which include construction, trade, tourism etc.).  

The situation regarding cost recovery rates is not entirely clear. For services of drinking water 
supply  and  communal  waste  water  collection  and  treatment,  the  financial  cost  recovery 

calculation have been prepared at RBD level separately for cost recovery of financial costs of 
services (all close to 100%) and cost recovery of financial costs of distribution networks and 

facilities (generally between 70 and 90%). For other sectors, estimates of cost  recovery have 
been made at the state level as follows: industry, energy and other services ca. 50%, communal 

services ca. 50%, agriculture ca. 0.1%.  

There is no description or explanation of whether the cost recovery rates are "adequate" or not. 

Instead, the RBMPs mention the different water charges that exist, i.e. a water right payment, a 
water use fee, and an environmental tax for pollution.  Three types of contribution of users to 

the  recovery  of  costs  are  taken  into  account:  water  use  fees,  building  land  development  fees 
and payments for the implementation of measures for reaching the environmental objectives. 

The environmental and resource costs are stated to be calculated and partially internalised (in 

WISE, they are reported to be significant). Resource costs are estimated as "lost opportunities 
for other uses" and environmental costs according to the "costs principle", with consideration 

of the costs of measures in the PoM for water management, and costs of measures in the PoM 
for marine environmental management. Also, the costs of measures to achieve good ecological 
status are considered.  

The  RBMPs  do  not  provide  sufficiently  detailed  information  on  the  methodologies  and 

approaches  used  for  the  calculation  of  environmental  and  resource  costs  and  cost  recovery 
rates to  allow for  an exact  assessment of the progress  since  the first cycle.  In  the first  cycle, 

cost  recovery  was  not  calculated  for  all  defined  water  services  and  the  estimate  of  financial 
cost  recovery  was  provided  only  for  public  services  of  water  supply  and  collection  and 

125 

 
treatment  of  communal  waste  water.  Cost  recovery  for  other  water  services  was  then  not 

possible to estimate, because of a lack of data.  

The economic analysis is reported to be updated. 

14.2

  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 

following: 

 

Recommendation:  Develop  fully  the  economic  analysis  of  water  use,  including  the 

calculation  of  Environmental  and  Resource  Costs  and  ensure  that  the  water  tariff  and 
the  water  fees  lead  to  adequate  recovery  of  the  costs  of  water  services.  Measures  that 

foster introduction of individual metering, where shared metering is in place, should be 
proposed. 

 

Recommendation:  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, also when they are "self-
services",  for  instance  self-abstraction  for  agriculture.  The  cost  recovery  should  be 

transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs 
shall  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.  

Assessment: Slovenia defined 26 water services in the second RBMPs. The basis for this 

definition  is  whether  or  not  for  the  service  water  charges  were  defined:  either  a  water 
right payment, a water use fee, or an environmental tax for pollution. 

The  water  services  are  aggregated  into  five  sectors:  agriculture,  industry,  energy, 
communal public services and other activities (which include construction, trade, tourism 

etc.). The water services were: 

  Wastewater collection and treatment for households 

  Wastewater collection and treatment for industry 

  Water abstraction for drinking water supply 

  Water abstraction for technological purposes 

  Water  abstraction  for  technological  purposes  for  cooling  thermal  and  nuclear  power 

plants 

  Water abstraction for drink industry 

126 

 
  Water abstraction for swimming pools open to public, natural spas 

  Water abstraction for snowmaking 

  Water abstraction for irrigation in agriculture 

  Water abstraction for irrigation of non-agricultural activities 

  Water abstraction from public water supply services for the drinks industry 

  Water abstraction from public water supply services for technological purposes where 

water is main ingredient 

  Water  abstraction  from  public  water  supply  services  for  swimming  pools  open  to 

public and natural spas 

  Water abstraction from public water supply services for irrigation 

 

 

Electricity production in hydropower plants below 10 MW 

Electricity production in hydropower plants from 10 MW and above 

  Water used for water driven mills, saws and other similar devices 

  Water used for heat production 

  Water abstraction for aquaculture of salmonid fish 

  Water used for cyprinid fish aquaculture 

  Water used for mariculture 

  Water used for commercial pond fishing 

 

 

 

 

Sediment extraction 

The use of water areas for the operation of ports to vessels 

The use of water areas for the operation of anchoring vessels 

The use of water areas for operation of bathing places 

include  only  drinking  water 
However, 
abstraction/treatment/distribution  and  sewage  collection/wastewater  treatment.  All  the  other 

the  water 

to  WISE 

reported 

services 

services are grouped into the "other" water service category. 

For  services  of  drinking  water  supply  and  communal  waste-water  collection  and  treatment, 
additional financial cost recovery calculations were prepared at RBD level for cost recovery of 
financial  costs  of  services  (all  close  to  100%)  and  cost  recovery  of  financial  costs  of 

distribution  networks  and  facilities  (generally  between  70  and  90%).  For  some  sectors 
estimates  of  cost  recovery  were  made  at  state  level  as  follows:  industry,  energy  and  other 

activities ca. 50%, public services ca. 50%, agriculture ca. 0,1%. 

127 

 
 
It was not explained in detail if these are contributions of users to water service costs, or how 

the  cost  recovery  rates  were  calculated.  Hence,  there  seems  to  be  cost  recovery  rates  in  the 
RBMPs per water user, but these are not linked to the water services and not reported. 

There is no description or explanation of whether the cost recovery rates are "adequate" or not. 
Instead, the RBMPs mention the different water charges that exist, i.e. a water right payment, a 

water use fee and an environmental tax for pollution. As evident from the Decree on the water 
fee (OG 103/02 and 122/07), cost recovery for water services is based on volumetric charging 

(cubic  metres),  charging  on  a  base  of  surface  area  (square  metres)  or  charging  on  a  base  of 
availability of water for production of electricity (megawatt hours), depending on the type of 

service. In the calculation of cost recovery, some costs that polluters themselves were paying, 
as well as environmental and resources costs, were also included. 

The environmental and resource costs are stated to be calculated and partially internalised (on 
WISE,  they  are  reported  to  be  significant).  It  is  stated  that  resource  costs  were  estimated  as 

"lost opportunities for other uses" and environmental costs according to the "costs principle", 
with consideration of the costs of measures in the PoM for water management, and the costs of 
measures  in  the  PoM  for  marine  environmental  management.  Also  costs  of  measures  to 

achieve good ecological status were considered.  

The  obligation  of  individual  metering  in  buildings  where  shared  metering  is  in  place  is 

provided for by the Decree on drinking water supply and is, according to national legislation, 
subject of separate legal act.  

The  RBMPs  do  not  provide  sufficiently  detailed  information  on  the  methodologies  and 
approaches  used  for  the  calculation  of  environmental  and  resource  costs  and  cost  recovery 

rates to  allow for  an exact  assessment of the progress  since the first cycle.  In the first  cycle, 
cost  recovery  was  not  calculated  for  all  defined  water  services  and  the  estimate  of  financial 

cost  recovery  was  provided  only  for  public  services  of  water  supply  and  collection  and 
treatment of communal waste water. Cost recovery for other water services was not possible to 

estimate, because of a lack of data. There was, however, some progress in the approaches and 
methodologies used. 

Hence, there has been little progress on the recommendation which is therefore not fulfilled. 

128 

 
 
 
Topic 15
(identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 

  Considerations 

specific 

to 

Protected 

Areas 

15.1

  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

Protected  Areas  of  all  types  have  been  reported  with  the  exception  of  those  related  to  the 
Nitrates  Directive,  which  is  consistent  with  the  Slovenia  implementation  of  the  ‘whole 

territory’ approach under the Nitrates Directive, so reporting of individual areas is not required.  

Table 15.1 

Number of Protected Areas associated with water categories in Slovenia 

Protected Area type 

Number of Protected Areas in 

River
s 

Lakes 

Transitiona
l 

Coastal 

Groundwa
ter 

Abstraction of water intended for 
human consumption under Article 7 

4 

1259 

Recreational waters, including areas 
designated as bathing waters under 
Directive 76/160/EEC56 

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)57 

Protection of habitats or 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 92/43/EEC (Habitats)58 

18 

7 

9 

2 

21 

3 

192 

12 

11 

40 

56 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 

57 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 
58 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 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                            
Protected Area type 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including 
areas designated as vulnerable zones 
under Directive 91/676/EEC 
(Nitrates Directive)59 and areas 
designated as sensitive areas under 
Directive 91/271/EEC (Urban 
Wastewater Treatment Directive)60 

Areas designated for the protection 
of economically significant aquatic 
species 

Number of Protected Areas in 

River
s 

Lakes 

Transitiona
l 

Coastal 

Groundwa
ter 

39 

10 

1 

4 

3 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

An overview of the status assessment of all water bodies within Protected Areas is shown in 

Figure  15.1.  The  vast  majority  of  water  bodies  associated  with  Protected  Areas  have  been 

allocated a status class. It should be noted that Protected Areas may cover many water bodies 

or  parts  of  water  bodies  so  status  of  water  bodies  associated  with  Protected  Areas  is  not 

directly equivalent to the status of the individual Protected Areas. 

59 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 

60 Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31991L0271 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                            
Figure 15.1 

Status  of  water  bodies  associated  with  the  Protected  Areas  reported  for 

Slovenia.  Note:  based  on  status/potential  aggregated  for  all  water  bodies 
associated with all Protected Areas 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

The RBMP stated that additional objectives were set for Drinking Water Protected Areas (both 

ground  and  surface  water),  as  well  as  Protected  Areas  for  Bathing  Waters  and  economically 
important species (fish and shellfish). For the Habitat and Birds Protected Areas, no additional 

objectives  were  set  because  the  requirements  of  water  dependent  interest  features  were  not 
known yet. This was the case for all such Protected Areas and indicates that an assessment of 
requirements by individual Protected Area has not been performed61. 

61 Slovenia subsequently clarified that the assessment of the requirements has been performed, nevertheless, there 

are no specific additional objectives defined at this stage. 

131 

 
 
 
                                            
Slovenia reports no monitoring programmes in relation to types of Protected Areas.62 

No exemptions from Protected Area objectives were applied. 

15.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The number of Protected Areas has decreased for the Birds  and Habitats  Directive Protected 
Areas from around 400 in the first cycle of River Basin Management Plans to approximately 

275 in the second cycle. In the first cycle, Protected Areas related to the repealed Freshwater 
Fish Directive63 and the Nitrates Directives were reported; however, no Protected Areas were 
reported  for  these  Directives  in  the  second  cycle  as  a  whole  territory  approach  was  used  for 

Nitrates Directive designation and the Freshwater Fish Directive had been repealed. 

15.3

  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the  first cycle of River Basin Management Plans 
and PoM requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  Assess  what  additional  measures  are  required  to  achieve  the 
additional  objectives  for  Protected  Areas  (Species  and  Habitats,  Drinking  Water, 
Bathing Water) and include them in the second RBMPs. 

Assessment:  In  the  second  RBMP,  objectives  were  set  for  Drinking  Water  Protected 

Areas  (both  ground  and  surface  water),  as  well  as  for  the  bathing  water  areas  and 
Protected Areas for economically significant species (fish and shellfish). For the Habitats 

and Birds Protected Areas, no additional objectives were set because the requirements of 
water dependent interest features were not known yet, so there was no basis to assess if 

additional measures were needed.  

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled.  

  Recommendation: Slovenia should close the gap in designating Surface Drinking Water 

Protected Areas.  

Assessment: four Surface Drinking Water Protected Areas were designated in the second 
cycle. This recommendation has been fulfilled. 

62 Slovenia subsequently informed that monitoring programmes are in place for Protected Areas, but as these have 

not been explicitly reported to WISE and therefore cannot be described in this assessment.  
63 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2006.264.01.0020.01.ENG  

132 

 
 
                                            
Topic 16

  Adaptation to drought and climate change 

16.1

  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

16.1.1  Climate change 

Climate  change  was  considered  in  the  first  cycle,  but  Slovenia  reported  that  they  have  not 
considered climate change aspects in the second RBMPs and PoM64. KTM 24 – “Adaptation to 
climate  change”  was  not  made  operational  to  address  any  of  the  significant  pressures  and 
specific sub-plans on climate change aspects were not reported. 

16.1.2  Effects and impacts of prolonged droughts, as well as related measures 

According to the 2012 Topic Report on Water Scarcity and Drought in RBMPs65, droughts are 
relevant for Slovenia in local sub-basins. No exemptions have been applied 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 Plans are 

in  place,  despite  the  recommendation  by  the  Commission.  This  situation  is  similar  to  the 
situation reported in the 2012 Report. 

16.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Climate  change  was  considered  in  the  first  cycle  and  according  to  the  updated  information 

from Slovenia it was also considered in the second cycle. 

16.3

  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the 

following: 

64 Slovenia subsequently clarified that RBMP’s and the PoM also take into account the projected climate change. 
The RBMP’s and the PoM include available data and analyses that show the impact of climate change in the 
Republic of Slovenia. The issue is addressed in the chapter dealing with important water management issues 
that address changes in hydrological variables and trends, climate change and a change in the outflow in 
Slovenia, etc. The quantitative status of groundwater was also estimated for forecasting periods, also 
estimating the extrapolation of the trend of groundwater levels and the outflows from groundwater in the 
period 2013-2021. Assessment of changes in the supply of groundwater according to the climate change 
scenarios in the period 2021-2050, etc. 

65 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Assessment%20WSD.pdf  

133 

 
                                            
 

Recommendation:  The  content  and  provisions  of  drought  management  plans  should  be 

taken into account in the RBMPs.  

Assessment: Slovenia has taken into account the projected climate changes in the second 

RBMP and PoM. Moreover, Slovenia identified one measure related to climate change: 
measure OS3.2b8 “Preparation of selection of indicators for the proclamation of different 

levels of strength and thresholds of droughts”. Therefore the recommendation is fulfilled. 

134