COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT European Overview - River Basin Management Plans Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 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: adaptation to climate change, application of EU law, environmental risk prevention, groundwater, international cooperation, surface water, water management, water pollution, watercourse

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.2.2019  SWD(2019) 30 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT European Overview - River Basin Management Plans Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 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) 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) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................... 4 

Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 5 

1.  Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 20 

2.  Main elements of the WFD ................................................................................................. 20 

3.  Approach to the assessment of the River Basin Management Plans ................................... 22 

4.  Overview Of Activities To Ensure Better Implementation ................................................. 24 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

Legal action ................................................................................................................ 24 

Court rulings related to the WFD ............................................................................... 27 

Better national implementation: working with Member States and stakeholders...... 29 

Legal implementation of related Directives adopted in accordance with Article 16 
(EQSs) and 17 (Groundwater) of the WFD ............................................................... 32 

5.  Results of the assessment at EU level and recommendations ............................................. 33 

5.1. 

Governance ................................................................................................................ 33 

5.1.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 33 

5.1.2.  Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 46 

5.1.3.  Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 47 

5.2. 

Characterisation of the River Basin District .............................................................. 48 

5.2.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 48 

5.2.2.  Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 64 

5.2.3.  Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 65 

5.3. 

Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface waters ..... 66 

5.3.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 66 

5.3.2.  Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 99 

5.3.3.  Recommendations .................................................................................................... 102 

5.4. 

Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface waters ..... 103 

5.4.1. 

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 103 

5.4.2.  Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 117 

5.4.3.  Recommendations .................................................................................................... 120 

5.5. 

Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status in groundwater ... 121 

5.5.1. 

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 121 

5.5.2.  Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 129 

5.5.3.  Recommendations .................................................................................................... 130 

5.6. 

Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in groundwater ........ 131 

5.6.1. 

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 131 

5.6.2.  Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 141 

1 

 
 
5.6.3.  Recommendations .................................................................................................... 142 

5.7. 

Designation of HMWBs and AWBs and definition of GEP .................................... 143 

5.7.1. 

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 143 

5.7.2.  Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 157 

5.7.3.  Recommendations .................................................................................................... 158 

5.8. 

Environmental Objectives and Exemptions ............................................................. 159 

5.8.1. 

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 159 

5.8.2.  Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 177 

5.8.3.  Recommendations .................................................................................................... 178 

5.9. 

Programme of measures – general & measures related to other significant pressures180 

5.9.1. 

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 180 

5.9.2.  Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 220 

5.9.3.  Recommendations .................................................................................................... 220 

5.10.  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity ................................................ 221 

5.10.1.  Introduction .............................................................................................................. 221 

5.10.2.  Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 225 

5.10.3.  Recommendations .................................................................................................... 225 

5.11.  Measures related to pollution from agriculture ........................................................ 226 

5.11.1.  Introduction .............................................................................................................. 226 

5.11.2.  Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 232 

5.11.3.  Recommendations .................................................................................................... 233 

5.12.  Measures related to pollution (including nutrients, organic matter and chemicals) 

from sectors other than agriculture .......................................................................... 233 

5.12.1.  Introduction .............................................................................................................. 233 

5.12.2.  Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 237 

5.12.3.  Recommendations .................................................................................................... 238 

5.13.  Measures related to hydro-morphological alterations .............................................. 239 

5.13.1.  Introduction .............................................................................................................. 239 

5.13.2.  Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 244 

5.13.3.  Recommendations .................................................................................................... 245 

5.14. 

Economic analysis and water pricing policies ......................................................... 246 

5.14.1.  Introduction .............................................................................................................. 246 

5.14.2.  Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 251 

5.14.3.  Recommendations .................................................................................................... 252 

5.15. 

Protected Areas ........................................................................................................ 253 

5.15.1.  Introduction .............................................................................................................. 253 

5.15.3.  Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 270 

2 

 
 
5.15.3.  Recommendations .................................................................................................... 270 

5.16.  Adaptation to climate change and drought............................................................... 271 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 271 

5.16.2.  Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 277 

5.16.3.  Recommendations .................................................................................................... 277 

6.  International cooperation under the EU Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for 
the Community action in the field of water policy ............................................................ 279 

6.1. 

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 279 

6.1.1. 

International river basin districts and their coordination mechanisms..................... 279 

6.1.2. Selection of iRBDs for the assessment ........................................................................ 281 

6.2. 

Overview of International Cooperation ................................................................... 282 

6.2.1. 

International coordination mechanisms ................................................................... 282 

6.2.2. 

International coordination on characterisation, monitoring and status assessment . 284 

6.2.3. 

International coordination on exemptions and economic analysis .......................... 290 

6.2.4. 

International coordination on Programme of Measures ........................................... 291 

6.2.5. 

International coordination on Climate change and droughts ................................... 293 

6.3. 

Recommendations for international cooperation under the WFD ........................... 294 

3 

 
 
Acronyms 

AWB 

CIS 

EU 

EQS 

FRMP 

GEP 

GES 

HMWB 

ICPDR 

iRBMP 

iRBD 

km 
km2 

KTM 

MSFD 

PoM 

Artificial water body 

Common Implementation Strategy 

European Union 

Environmental Quality Standard 

Flood Risk Management Plan 

Good Ecological Potential 

Good Ecological Status 

Heavily Modified Water Body 

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube 
River 

International River Basin Management Plan 

International River Basin District 

Kilometre 

Kilometre squared 

Key Type of Measure 

Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

Programme of Measures 

QA/QC Directive 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control Directive 

RBD 

RBMP 

RBSP 

WFD 

WISE 

River Basin District 

River Basin Management Plan 

River Basin Specific Pollutants 

Water Framework Directive 

Water Information System for Europe 

4 

 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

EU  water  policy  has  delivered  significant  improvements  to  water  quality  over  the  past  four 
decades. Thanks to EU water law and the implementation efforts of Member States, supported 

by EU funding, it is increasingly possible to reconcile life in a densely populated continent, 
and  a  growing  economy,  with  a  progressive  improvement  of  water  quality.  There  are  still 

significant pressures on  water quality  and quantity, but an  effective approach to mitigate or 
eliminate these pressures has been chosen. Vigilance in intensification and implementation of 

efforts  will  however  be  needed  throughout  the  EU  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  Water 
Framework Directive (WFD). 

EU  Member  States  reported  their  second  River  Basin  Management  Plans  (RBMPs)  for  the 
period 2015-2021 to  the European Commission under the WFD as of March 2016;  in  some 

cases with significant delays. The Commission's analysis has therefore not covered the most 
delayed RBMPs, which were not adopted and reported on time to be part of this assessment, 
i.e. Greece, Ireland and Lithuania1. 

This assessment of all RBMPs covers more than 111 000 surface water bodies and more than 

13  000  groundwater  bodies.  The  Commission  focused  on  developments  compared  to  its 
analysis of the first RBMPs (covering the period 2009-2015) in the main areas of integrated 

water management. The Commission’s analysis highlights progress and identifies remaining 
challenges. This assessment includes the international river basins. 

Governance 

Appropriate governance of water quality management at the river basin level is  an essential 

precondition for achieving the WFD objectives. For the second RBMPs, many Member States 
have  strengthened  coordination  among  the  responsible  authorities.  They  have  also  made 

considerable efforts to improve public consultation and strengthen the active involvement of 
stakeholders. Information and views provided by stakeholders have led to changes to the draft 

RBMPs  across  the  whole  EU.  The  majority  of  Member  States  have  carried  out  joint 
consultations  of  the  second  RBMPs  with  the  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  (FRMPs)  but 
fewer  have  carried  out  joint  consultations  with  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive 

(MSFD),  or  incorporated  MSFD  objectives  in  their  RBMPs.  International  cooperation  has 
overall further improved in the second cycle. 

1 The Canary Islands in Spain and Gibraltar in the UK have not been part of this assessment either. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Characterisation of river basin districts 

Article 5 of the WFD requires Member States to undertake an analysis of the characteristics of 
each RBD or portion of an international RBD falling within their territory. This analysis had 

to be reviewed by the end of 2013 as the basis for the second RBMPs. Member States had to 
review  the  general  description  of  the  characteristics  of  their  RBDs  within  the  RBMPs,  the 

definition  of  all  relevant  categories  and  types  of  water  bodies  (delineation)  and  the 
identification of the pressures and impacts on water status. For the EU overall, the delineation 

of about 90% of the surface water bodies (by number of water bodies) and around 70% of the 
groundwater bodies (by  area) was unchanged from  the first  to the second RBMPs. Progress 

has been made since the first RBMPs in the establishment of reference conditions, however 
gaps still remain, as in  most Member States,  reference conditions have not been established 

for all water body types (rivers, lakes, transitional and costal) and for all quality elements and 
for  all  quality  elements.  A  few  Member  States  have  established  all  reference  conditions, 

including Austria, Hungary and Poland. The quality elements  whose type-specific reference 
conditions  showed  the most  significant  gaps  for  surface  water  body  types  were  found  to  be 
the hydro-morphological ones, as most Member States established reference conditions only 
for some water categories, and 8 Member States did not establish reference conditions for any 

water category (including Denmark, Finland, France, Croatia, Italy, Latvia and Malta).  

Even if there is better knowledge on the  significant pressures which may put water bodies at 
risk of failing the objectives, significant gaps remain, which will need to be addressed in the 

current  cycle,  particularly  in  defining  thresholds  and  criteria  for  significance  and  impact. 
Further  work  is  also  required  by  Member  States  on  apportioning  pressures  to  sectors  and 

activities to design more targeted measures. 

For the second RBMPs, almost all River Basin Districts (RBDs) have reported inventories for 
at  least  some  Priority  Substances2.  Some  Members  States  have  included  all  Priority 
Substances,  including  Austria,  Cyprus,  Luxembourg,  Latvia  and  Slovenia.  In  many  cases, 

justification was provided for not including the missing Substances in the inventories. In some 
Member States, less than 10 substances have been included in the inventories, this is the case 

for  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Malta,  Sweden  and  Slovakia.  Few  Member  States  have  complete 
inventories for discharges, emissions and losses of such harmful substances. Furthermore, the 

inventories  are  mainly  based  on  point  sources  while  diffuse  source  inputs  are  insufficiently 
addressed.  

Monitoring and assessment of ecological status of surface water bodies 

The WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of 
the status of surface and groundwater to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of 

2 Under the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (Directive 2008/105/EC), Member States are required to 
establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of the substances in Annex I of the Directive. 

6 

 
 
                                                           
water  status  within  each  RBD.  Member  States  have  to  establish  a  surveillance  monitoring 

programme and an operational monitoring programme. They may also need in some cases to 
establish programmes of investigative monitoring. 

In the second RBMPs, for almost all water bodies it has been possible to establish their status, 

reducing much of the uncertainty found in the previous cycle. This is the case even if there 
have  been  some  significant  changes,  both  increases  and  decreases,  in  the  number  of 

monitoring sites and in the proportion of surface water bodies included in monitoring used for 
the  second  RBMPs  compared  to  the  first.  These  changes  partially  relate  to  the  revised 

characterisation of water bodies between the first and second plans. 

There  are  still  significant  gaps  in  the  biological  and  hydro-morphological  quality  elements 

required  to  be  monitored  in  each  water  category.  This  is  particularly  so  for  the  hydro-
morphological  quality  elements,  which  are  not  monitored  at  all  in  the  Czech  Republic  and 

Croatia, only to a limited extent in Bulgaria, Portugal and France, and show significant gaps 
in practically all Member States. Significant gaps also persist in the monitoring of biological 

quality elements.  

Environmental  Quality  Standards  (EQSs)  for  RBSPs  have  not  always  been  derived  in 
accordance  with  the  Technical  Guidance3  developed  under  the  Common  Implementation 
Strategy4.  This  is  the  case  for  the  Czech  Republic,  Finland,  Croatia,  Italy,  Luxembourg, 
Latvia, Malta and Poland, and, to a large extent, Spain. Furthermore, the analytical methods 

used  for  some  RBSPs  did  not  correspond  to  the  requirements  of  the  relevant  Commission 
Directive5.  This  is  particularly  the  case  of  Malta,  for  which  none  of  the  analytical  methods 
were in line with the requirements. 

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  establishes  the  classification  for  ecological  status  (and  ecological 

potential,  for  heavily  modified  water  bodies  and  artificial  water  bodies),  which  is  an 
expression  of  the  quality  of  the  structure  and  functioning  of  aquatic  ecosystems  associated 

with  surface  waters.  The  overall  ecological  status/potential  has  not  improved  since  the  first 
RBMPs. Overall, there is a much better understanding of the situation of water bodies and the 

proportion  of  water  bodies  with  unknown  ecological  status/potential  has  decreased 
significantly since the first cycle. The overall confidence in the classification has improved in 

the second RBMPs compared to the first, mainly due to better designed monitoring networks 
and improved availability and quality of the information for the status assessment methods. 

There has been progress in the development of biological assessment methods since the first 

RBMPs. However some Member States, such as Austria, The Netherlands and Romania, have 
not reported methods sensitive to chemical pollution, although chemical pollution had already 

3 Technical Guidance For Deriving Environmental Quality Standards 
4 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/3eaafe7c-0857-47d4-a896-8022df48d3ba   
5  Directive  laying  down  technical  specifications  for  chemical  analysis  and  monitoring  of  water  status 

(2009/90/EC) for the strictest standards applied 

7 

 
 
                                                           
been reported in the first cycle as having a significant impact in those Member States. Hydro-

morphological  quality  elements  are  not  assessed  in  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark  and  The 
Netherlands,  while  in  many  other  cases  this  concerns  some  hydro-morphological  quality 

elements for some water types, particularly for coastal waters.   

The  ‘one-out  all-out’  principle  is  a  key  principle  that  reflects  the  integrated  approach  on 
which the WFD is based. The overall status is only ‘good’ if all the elements comprised are at 

least considered ‘good’. This ensures that all pressures capable of degrading the water status 
are addressed. All 147 RBDs with reported information except Madeira, in Portugal, indicated 

that the one-out-all-out principle had been applied in the second RBMPs.  

Monitoring and assessment of chemical status of surface water bodies 

The  WFD  objective  of  achieving  good  surface  water  chemical  status  means  that 

concentrations of pollutants cannot exceed the environmental quality standards established in 
the Environmental Quality Standards Directive6. 

Overall,  the  percentage  of  water  bodies  that  are  of  unknown  chemical  status  has  decreased 
significantly since the first RBMPs from 39 % of all surface water bodies to only 16 %. This 

indicates  that  the  monitoring  (spatially,  substances  and  frequency)  and  status  assessment 
methods have improved overall. A limited number of Member states have more than 60% of 

their water bodies in unknown status (Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Portugal). 

Against  a  background  of  little  change  overall  in  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  achieving 
good status and an increase in the proportion failing to achieve good status (most likely due to 

an  increase  in  knowledge),  several  cases  of  improvements  between  the  first  and  second 
RBMPs were reported for particular Priority Substances. 

Grouping  techniques  and  expert  judgement  have  been  widely  used  to  classify  water  bodies. 
Some RBMPs provide information on the approaches used. The use of these may also be at 

least  partly  linked  to  the  reduced  confidence  in  the  assessment  of  status.  The  range  of 
confidence levels varies widely between Member States. This may result from various factors, 

including differences in the methodologies to assess the level of confidence. 

Although  it  is  not  expected  that  all  water  bodies  be  monitored,  the  monitoring  undertaken 
should  be  sufficient  to  obtain  a  reliable  and  robust  assessment  of  the  chemical  status  of  all 

water bodies in the RBD, and should allow Member States to assess the effectiveness of the 
measures  implemented  to  reach  good  status.  The  WFD  also  requires  Member  States  to 

monitor all discharged priority substances. 

6 Directive 2008/105/EC 

8 

 
 
                                                           
Overall the extent of monitoring of Priority Substances across the EU has been very diverse, 

which  tends  to  reflect  differences  in  population  density  and  intensity  of  pressures  between 
Member States but also different strategies for monitoring.  

Generally, the spatial extent of monitoring in water was limited in terms of the proportion of 

water bodies monitored with some variation between water categories. Some Member States 
(Slovenia, Malta and Belgium) however monitored at least some priority substances in more 

than 80% of their surface water bodies. The majority of Member States monitor all of their 
water bodies failing to achieve good status as part of their operational monitoring programmes 

in at least some of their RBDs and most commonly in coastal and transitional waters. 

For status assessment, all Member States monitored Priority Substances in water. Nearly three 

quarters 
and/or 
hexachlorobutadiene  in  biota  in  at  least  some  RBDs  for  status  assessment,  even  if  they 

States  monitored  mercury, 

hexachlorobenzene 

of  Member 

generally (also) monitored in water in the same and other RBDs.  

Relatively few chemical pollutants have individually a large impact on status. These include 
certain metals (cadmium, nickel, lead) and several ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and 
toxic substances, such as mercury7, which is involved in by far the largest number of failures 
to meet good chemical status. As regards measures against mercury pollution, a new Mercury 
Regulation8,  applicable  since  1  January  2018,  seeks  to  limit  further  mercury  use  and 
emissions by, inter alia, regulating trade in mercury and mercury compounds and improving 

the  management  of  mercury  waste.  The  atmospheric  deposition  onto  EU  surface  waters  of 
mercury from non-EU sources – a significant source of pollution - is expected to decrease in 

the  decades  to  come,  following  the  entry  into  force,  since  August  2017,  of  the  Minamata 
Convention  on  Mercury9,  already  ratified  by  over  100  countries,  including  major  global 
players.  

The  majority  of  Member  States  monitored  all  of  the  Priority  Substances  identified  as 

discharged  into  their  RBDs  with  the  exception  of  a  few  Priority  Substances  and  with  some 
variation among RBDs within Member States. Although significant efforts have been made to 

establish  inventories  of  emissions,  few  Member  States  reported  complete  inventories  for  all 
their RBDs, and it is therefore unclear whether all discharged substances have been identified. 

In some cases (eg Cyprus, Slovenia), all substances were included in the inventories, and all 
discharged substances were monitored. 

For trend assessment, around two-thirds of Member States reported that arrangements were in 

place for long-term trend analysis in most, but not all, RBDs. All but two of these monitored 

7 Other ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances causing failure to meet good chemical status 
are pBDEs, tributyltin and certain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, 
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene). 

8 (EU)2017/852 
9 http://www.mercuryconvention.org/ 

9 

 
 
                                                           
sediment and/or biota for this reason. Most Member States monitored the majority of the 14 

substances  though  not  in  all  RBDs  and  not  in  all  water  categories.  Some  Member  States 
(including Hungary, Bulgaria, Czech Republic) did not report any trend monitoring in any of 

their RBDs. 

According  to  Article  4  of  the  Directive  2008/105/EC  Member  States  may  designate  mixing 
zones adjacent to points of discharge. Concentrations of one or more substances may exceed 

the relevant EQS within such mixing zones if they do not affect the compliance of the rest of 
the surface water body with those standards. Just over a quarter of Member States designated 

mixing zones in at least some RBDs, in a small portion of water bodies overall.  

The EQSD allows Member States to take into account the natural background concentrations 

and  bioavailability  for  metals  and  their  compounds  when  assessing  the  monitoring  results 
against  the  EQS.  Most  Member  States  have  used  this  possibility  (sometimes  only  in  some 

RBDs within a Member State).  

Monitoring and assessment of groundwater quantitative status 

The  groundwater  quantitative  monitoring  network  has  to  include  sufficient  representative 

monitoring points to estimate groundwater level in each groundwater body or group of bodies 
taking  into  account  short  and  long-term  variations  in  recharge.  Overall,  groundwater 

quantitative  monitoring  improved  since  the  first  RBMPs  with  increasing  coverage  of 
groundwater  bodies.  Most  Member  States  increased  the  coverage  of  groundwater  bodies  by 

quantitative monitoring or at least kept the coverage at high level (decreases were observed in 
Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Finland,  Romania).  Nevertheless,  a  significant  number  of  groundwater 

bodies (around 65%) are still without quantitative monitoring sites in specific Member States 
and the partially reported grouping of groundwater bodies for monitoring purposes does not 

fully explain the absence of monitoring.  

The definition of quantitative status  is  set  out  in WFD Annex V (2.1.2). Good groundwater 
quantitative status is achieved when the level of groundwater in the groundwater body is such 
that the available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long term annual average rate 

of  abstraction.  The  groundwater  quantitative  status  situation  improved  with  92%  of  the 
groundwater bodies representing 89% of the total groundwater body area being at good status. 

Most of the changes in status are due to the significant re-delineations of groundwater bodies 
improved  status  assessment 
better 

the  groundwater  bodies  at  risk  and 

targeting 

methodologies.  Next  to  the  improvement  of  status,  also  knowledge  improved,  which  is 
expressed  in  the  decreased  share  of  groundwater  bodies  at  unknown  status  (3%  of 

groundwater  bodies  representing  1%  of  the  area)  and  the  increased  confidence  in  the  status 
results which is high or medium for about 48% respectively 22% of the groundwater bodies. 

The WFD requires for the characterisation of RBDs that Member States estimate and identify 

the  impact  of  significant  water  flow  regulation,  including  water  transfer  and  diversion,  on 

10 

 
 
overall  flow  characteristics  and  water  balances.  Water  balance  is  almost  fully  considered  in 

status assessment. Also associated surface water bodies and groundwater dependent terrestrial 
ecosystems are fully considered in almost all Member States where such ecosystems exist and 

where  they  are  related  to  groundwater  quantitative  risk.  This  is  a  significant  improvement 
since the previous RBMPs. 

Monitoring and assessment of groundwater chemical status 

The  surveillance  monitoring  of  chemical  status  of  groundwater  needs  to  be  carried  out  to 
supplement and validate the impact assessment procedure and provide information for use in 

the  assessment  of  long-term  trends,  both  as  a  result  of  changes  in  natural  conditions  and 
through  anthropogenic  activity.  Sufficient  monitoring  sites  should  be  selected  for  bodies 

identified as being at risk and for bodies which cross a Member State border.  

The  definition  of  chemical  status  is  set  out  in  WFD  Annex  V  (2.3.2).  Good  groundwater 
chemical  status  is  achieved  when  there  is  no  saline  intrusion,  monitoring  data  do  not  show 
exceedance  of  relevant  standards  and  groundwater  concentrations  do  not  result  in  status 

failure  of  associated  surface  waters,  nor  in  any  significant  diminution  of  their  ecological  or 
chemical  quality,  nor  in  any  significant  damage  to  terrestrial  ecosystems  which  directly 

depend on the groundwater body. 

Most  groundwater  bodies  have  been  assessed,  and  for  only  very  few  the  chemical  status  is 
unknown. Overall, the confidence in the status results is relatively high. As explained above, 

some  of  the  changes  in  the  chemical  status  of  groundwaters  are  also  due  to  the  reported 
re-delineation  of  a  significant  number  of  groundwater  bodies,  improvements  of  the  status 

assessment  methods  and  changed  threshold  values.  Therefore,  comparison  between  both 
reporting cycles need to be done with caution. 

About 84% of groundwater bodies (representing 74% of the total groundwater body area) in 

good  groundwater  chemical  status.  The  overall  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies 
improved  only  very  little  since  the  first  cycle10.  Also  the  reported  expected  achievement  of 
good  status  for  most  of  the  groundwater  bodies  by  2027  or  beyond  2027  demonstrates  the 

long  time-lag  between  the  implementation  of  measures  and  their  effectiveness  in 
groundwater. 

The  consideration  of  groundwater  associated  aquatic  and  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 

ecosystems  improved  significantly.  In  almost  all  Member  States  such  ecosystems  were 
identified and commonly considered in status assessment if risk was related to them. 

Overall,  groundwater  chemical  monitoring  did  not  improve  since  the  first  RBMPs.  Six 
Member  States  (Slovenia,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Estonia  and  Croatia)  have 

10 About 80% of groundwater bodies, representing 72% in terms of area, were reported to be of good chemical 

status in 2009 

11 

 
 
                                                           
now full coverage of groundwater bodies by surveillance monitoring. On the contrary a few 

Member States (e.g. Spain, the United Kingdom)reduced the coverage of groundwater bodies 
by  surveillance  monitoring  while  some  others  have  still  limited  coverage  of  groundwater 

bodies (e.g. Finland, Sweden, Denmark). A significant number of groundwater bodies is still 
without chemical monitoring sites and the partially reported grouping of groundwater bodies 

for monitoring purposes does not fully justify the absence of monitoring. Not all groundwater 
bodies which were identified at risk of failing good chemical status are subject to operational 

monitoring  and  also  not  all  substances  causing  risk  are  fully  covered.  As  with  surveillance 
monitoring  the  partially  reported  grouping  of  groundwater  bodies  cannot  completely  justify 

the absence of operational monitoring.  

Designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological 
Potential  

According to the WFD Article 4(3)(a) and (b), Member States may designate a water body as 

heavily modified if the changes to the hydro-morphological characteristics of that body which 
would be necessary for achieving GES would have significant adverse effects on the use, and 

the  beneficial  objectives  served  by  modified  characteristics  of  the  water  body  cannot,  for 
reasons  of  technical  feasibility  or  disproportionate  costs,  reasonably  be  achieved  by  other 

means, which are a significantly better environmental option. 

At  EU  level,  the  extent  of  designated  Heavily  Modified  Water  Bodies  (HMWBs)  and 
Artificial Water Bodies (AWBs) has remained similar to the first RBMPs: approximately 13% 

of European surface water bodies are designated as HMWB and 4% as AWB. The extent of 
designation  varies  across  Member  States,  with  some  States  designating  more  than  30%  of 

their water bodies as heavily modified (Hungary, Malta, Germany and the Netherlands), while 
other  States  designate  less  than  5%  of  their  water  bodies  as  heavily  modified  (Finland  and 

Sweden). 

A  methodology  for  designating  HMWB  is  described  for  the  RBMPs  of  all  Member  States, 

with few exceptions such as Croatia, where a consistent description of the method is missing.  

In  some  countries  (e.g.  in  Denmark,  Sweden,  Slovakia),  assessments  to  complete  the 
designation  of  HMWB  and  AWB  are  still  ongoing  and  further  changes  to  the  extent  of 

designation may take place during the second cycle. 

Most  Member  State  methodologies  address  the  definition  of  “substantial  changes  in 
character”  in  order  to  consider  a  water  body  for  designation  as  HMWB  and  report  relevant 

criteria. Descriptions of how to assess significant adverse effects of restoration measures on 
the use or wider environment and how to assess other means which are better environmental 
options  were  assessed  in  detail  in  about  two  thirds  of  the  Member  States,  but  not  done  in 

particular  for  the  Czech  Republic,  Germany  and  Croatia.  Only  few  Member  States  provide 
information  on  specific  criteria  used  to  assess  significant  adverse  effects  of  restoration 

12 

 
 
measures, such as Austria, and the criteria reported are mainly of qualitative nature, similar to 

the first RBMPs. 

The  status  of  HMWB  and  AWB  needs  to  be  assessed  in  terms  of  achieving  at  least  Good 
Ecological Potential (GEP) as this is defined in Annex V of the Directive. This refers to the 

best approximation to the best status which could be achieved, given the hydro-morphological 
characteristics that cannot be changed without significant adverse effects on the specified use 

or the wider environment. As regards the definition of Good Ecological Potential (GEP) some 
improvements  have  been  noted  in  relation  to  the  methodology,  which  will  allow  for  easier 

tracking of progress. In the second RBMPs, GEP is reported as defined (or partly defined) in 
the majority of Member States. Methodological improvements for the establishment of GEP 

are  reported  by  a  number  of  countries,  while  in  some,  new  national  methods  have  been 
developed  since  the  first  cycle.  One  of  the  key  improvements  since  the  first  RBMPs  is  the 

inclusion  of  more  biological  quality  elements  in  the  definition  of  GEP.  In  most  Member 
States,  the  establishment  of  values  of  biological  quality  elements  for  GEP  is  based  on 

assessment  methods  similar to  those used for good ecological  status  (GES) of natural  water 
bodies,  but  often  using  lower  thresholds  to  distinguish  between  classes  of  “good”  and 

“moderate”.  Mitigation  measures  for  defining  GEP  are  reported  in  most  Member  States. 
However, the level of information provided on the ecological changes that the measures are 

designed  to  achieve  remains  very  limited,  indicating  little  progress  in  this  respect  since  the 
first RBMPs. 

Environmental objectives and exemptions 

The exemptions foreseen in Article 411 of the Directive are still used extensively, with around 
half  of  Europe’s  water  bodies  currently  under  an  exemption,  to  a  greater  extent  for  surface 

waters  than  for  groundwaters.  Exemptions  under  Article  4(4)  are  still  used  to  a  significant 
extent in  all Member States. For surface waters, technical  feasibility, natural  conditions  and 

disproportionate  costs  are  used  as  justifications.  For  groundwater  bodies,  mainly  natural 
conditions  and  technical  feasibility  are  used  to  justify  these  exemptions,  with  technical 
feasibility used more often than natural conditions. Article 4(5) exemptions have been applied 
more often in the second cycle than in the first in several Member States.  

The justifications provided in the second RBMPs for exemptions under Article 4(4) and 4(5) 

are  more  detailed  and  more  consistently  reported  on  water  body  level  compared  to  the  first 

11 Article 4(1) defines the WFD general objective to be achieved in all surface and groundwater bodies, i.e. good 
status or potential (for HMWBs) by 2015, and introduces the principle of preventing any further deterioration 
of status. A number of exemptions to the general objectives are possible under certain conditions. Article 4(4) 
allows for an extension of the deadline beyond 2015, Article 4(5) allows for the achievement of less stringent 
objectives, Article 4(6) allows a temporary deterioration in the status of water bodies and Article 4(7) sets out 
conditions  in  which  deterioration  of  status  or  failure  to  achieve  certain  of  the  WFD  objectives  may  be 
permitted  for  new  modifications  to  the  physical  characteristics  of  surface  water  bodies,  and  deterioration 
from high to good status may be possible as a result of new sustainable human development activities. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                           
cycle, when in many cases justifications were very general and it was often unclear when the 

environmental  objectives  were  expected  to  be  reached  (under  Article  4(4)).  However, 
justifications are in many cases still very generic. Technical feasibility under Article 4(4) and 

technical  ‘infeasibility’  in  relation  to  Article  4(5)  needs  to  be  substantially  improved  and 
made  more  transparent  in  most  of  the  RBMPs.  Also,  the  justifications  for  disproportionate 

costs under Article 4(4) and Article 4(5) should be better distinguished. A few Member States 
have  applied  Article  4(6)  exemptions  due  to  prolonged  droughts,  such  as  Spain  and  in  the 

Netherlands. In Portugal a potential use of this exemption is referred to in the RBMPs.  

The application of Article 4(7) has increased in the second RBMPs. It can be concluded that 
more projects are in the pipeline and more cases of Article 4(7) application may occur in the 

future.  Some  progress  has  been  made  in  terms  of  methodologies  to  assess  impacts  on  the 
status  of  water  bodies.  The  assessment  of  cumulative  effects,  though,  remains  a  challenge. 

Information  on  how  to  determine  overriding  public  interest  is  limited  and  it  is  not  clear  to 
which  extent  public  consultations  have  taken  place.  The  newly  developed  CIS  guidance 

document on Article 4(7) of December 2017 provides important clarifications and is expected 
to further improve Article 4(7) related assessments and reporting for the next RBMPs.  

The fact that exemptions are so widely used is an indicator of the significant efforts needed 
from Member States to achieve good status or good potential by 2027. However, and in line 

with  what  is  required  by  that  same  Article,  Member  States  need  to  better  ensure  that  the 
exemptions  applied  for  one  water  body  do  not  permanently  exclude  or  compromise  the 

achievement  of  the  environmental  objectives  in  other  water  bodies  (Article  4(8)),  and 
guarantee at least the level of protection provided for in other EU environmental law (Article 

4(9)).  

PROGRAMMES OF MEASURES (PoMs)  

General 

Whilst  progress  has  been  made  in  implementing  the  first  programmes  of  measures  (PoMs), 
these PoMs have not been fully implemented. A lack of adequate finance is likely to continue 
to present an obstacle also to implementing the second PoMs as no less than 64 % of RBDs 

have yet to secure finance for all relevant sectors. 

Most Member States have made some progress in identifying the gap to good status for each 
significant  pressure,  and  the  level  of  implementation  of  measures  required  to  achieve  good 

status.  This  is  a  significant  improvement  that  will  allow  for  better  identification  and 
prioritisation  of  the  measures.  However,  more  work  is  needed  to  refine  this  for  the  third 

PoMs. 

14 

 
 
 
Not all Member States have reported other significant pressures. It is not clear whether this is 

because  they  are  not  relevant  or  because  they  have  not  assessed  them.  For  those  Member 
States that have identified other pressures, measures are in place to address them, the gap to 

good  status  has  generally  been  identified,  and  indicators  developed  to  identify  the  level  of 
implementation required to achieve good status. 

Measures to tackle main pressures on water bodies 

A. Abstractions and water scarcity 

More  than  7 600  (7%)  of  Europe’s  surface  water  bodies  are  affected  by  significant  water 

abstraction  pressures  and  16%  of  the  area  of  groundwater  bodies  is  affected  by  over-
abstraction. Basic and supplementary measures are in place in most of the RBDs concerned 

with water scarcity. However, progress in reducing pressures is slow.  

Some  Member  States  still  need  progress  in  fulfilling  previous  recommendations  to  improve 

water  scarcity  management  (Spain,  Portugal,  Italy,  Malta,  Sweden,  Slovenia).  However, 
relevant  action in  extending metering, water abstraction controls  and reviewing licenses has 

been  found  in  some  Member  States  (Cyprus,  Hungary,  Malta,  Portugal,  Slovenia,  United 
Kingdom), while in others water abstraction datasets have improved. In most Member States, 

small abstractions  are exempted from  controls  and/or registering, despite  the fact  that  water 
bodies suffering from significant abstraction pressures are not achieving good status. 

B. Pollution from agriculture 

Agriculture  is  a  major  driver  of  failure  of  good  chemical  status  to  EU  groundwater  and 
surface  waters,  mainly  due  to  diffuse  pollution  by  nutrients  (nitrogen  and  phosphorus)  and 

pesticides.  Water  abstraction  for  agriculture  is  the  main  significant  pressure,  among  others, 
causing failure of good quantitative status of groundwater bodies. The biggest  challenges in 

addressing the poor quality of water related to agricultural activities were found in Bulgaria, 
the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, Croatia, Hungary, Poland and the United Kingdom. 

About  half  of  the  Member  States,  which  reported  on  their  RBMPs,  have  carried  out  a  gap 
assessment in relation to agricultural pressures in order to identify the efforts needed to reach 

the WFD targets. 

Basic  measures  under  Article  11(3)(h)12,  to  tackle  diffuse  pollution,  are  reported  for  all 
assessed Member States, but not for all RBDs and not for all diffuse pollutants. Furthermore, 

12 Article 11(3) WFD on basic measures, which are the minimum requirements to be complied with, include in 
Article11(3)(h) the measures for diffuse sources liable to cause pollution, measures to prevent or control the 
input of pollutants. Controls may take the form of a requirement for prior regulation, such as a prohibition on 
the  entry  of  pollutants  into  water,  prior  authorisation  or  registration  based  on  general  binding  rules  where 
such  a  requirement  is  not  otherwise  provided  for  under  Community  legislation.  These  controls  shall  be 
periodically reviewed and, where necessary, updated. 

15 

 
 
 
                                                           
many  of  the  supplementary  measures  in  the  second  cycle  programmes  of  measures  are 

voluntary.  The  voluntary  nature  of  measures  could  be  a  limiting  factor  if  their  uptake  by 
farmers  remains  low.  Most  Member  States  have  defined,  or  are  in  the  process  of  defining, 

specific  zones  including  specific  water  protection  measures  to  avoid  pollution  to  drinking 
water from agriculture. 

Engagement  with  farmers  seems  to  have  increased,  as  most  Member  States  report  having 

consulted with farmers or farmers associations when setting up the programmes of measures. 
However, few Member  States report the provision of advisory support services for farmers 

on measures implementation. 

C. Pollution from other sectors (including nutrients, organic matter and chemicals) 

Basic  measures  to  reduce  pollution  from  non-agricultural  sources,  such  as  an  authorisation 

and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  wastewater  point  source  discharges,  the  operation  of 
registers of wastewater discharges, and the prohibition or limitation of all direct discharges to 
groundwater, and/or other measures to  eliminate /  reduce pollution from priority  substances 

and other substances, are in place in most of the Member States.  

The  number  of  Member  States  identifying  substance-specific  measures  in  their  second 
RBMPs is significantly higher than the number which did so in their first RBMPs, although 

even where Member States have identified such measures, the coverage of substances causing 
failure is not always complete. 

Measures have generally been reported in relation to failure of good status, but not in relation 
to phasing out the emissions of priority hazardous substances in RBDs where failure has not 

been observed. 

D. Hydro-morphological alterations 

The  majority  of  Member  States,  with  few  exceptions  (Croatia,  Malta,  Romania,  French 
overseas  RBDs),  have  reported  operational  Key  Types  of  Measures  (KTMs)  to  address 

significant  hydro-morphological  pressures  (fish  ladders,  removal  of  structures,  etc.).  In  the 
second RBMPs, information on the links between  measures,  hydro-morphological pressures 
and water uses/sectors has substantially improved. In some Member States, such as in Austria 
and Sweden, there will  be small to  medium  progress  in  terms  of closing the gap for hydro-

morphological pressures by 2021, and the main progress is expected between 2021 and 2027. 
In  other  Member  States,  the  information  reported  indicates  that  no  or  very  little  progress  is 

expected in closing the gap for significant hydro-morphological pressures between 2015 and 
2021,  or  this  information  has  not  been  reported,  such  as  in  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic, 

Denmark, Spain, Finland, Luxembourg, Latvia.  

Establishing  ecologically  based  flow  regimes  is  an  important  hydro-morphological  measure 
since  to  have  a  sufficient  ecological  flow  regime  is  a  prerequisite  to  reach  good  ecological 

16 

 
 
 
status  in  rivers  and  it  is crucial  to  maintain  a  flow  throughout  the  river  continuum.  In  most 

Member States, the work on defining and implementing  ecological flows is  still ongoing in 
the second cycle. The ecological flow has been reported as fully defined and implemented in 

Hungary and the Netherlands. 

E. Cross-cutting measures requiring improved implementation  

Economic analysis and water pricing policies 

The WFD promotes the application of sound economic principles13, methods and instruments 
for supporting the achievement of its objectives  in  the EU, including incentive pricing,  cost 

recovery and the application of the polluter pays principle. 

The  ex-ante  conditionality  for  water  under  the  Common  Provisions  Regulation  for  the 

European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  for  the  period  2014-2020  has  facilitated  the 
preparation, timely adoption and reporting of several of the RBMPs. It also incited a number 

of Member States to  address shortcomings in the implementation of the WFD, including by 
upgrading their water pricing policies, thereby improving the quality and legality of relevant 
investments14.   

Despite  these  efforts,  still  more  progress  is  needed  in  implementing  the  changes  to  water 
pricing policies. In particular, the incomplete implementation of the principle of cost recovery 

and  the  limited  use  of  economic  instruments  put  a  strain  on  the  potential  of  promoting 
efficient  water  management  through  this  instrument.  In  many  cases  methodologies  to 

calculate  costs  are  insufficiently  documented  and  essential  information  is  missing.  A 
significant number of Member States has widened the definition of water services to include 

water  use  activities  that  have  a  significant  impact  on  water  bodies,  such  as  for  example 
hydropower generation, navigation and flood protection, or self-abstraction for irrigation and 

industrial purposes. In Latvia, for example, a broad definition of water services has been used, 
and cost recovery rates are presented for all these services.   

In Hungary and Slovakia, for example, pricing policies have been modified to increase cost 
recovery in agriculture. At the same time the application of Article 9.415, which provides the 
possibility not to apply the principle of cost recovery to certain water services, varies across 
Member States, and also across RBDs in the same Member State.  

13 Article 9 WFD 
14 SWD(2017) 127 final 
15 Article 9(4) WFD: Member States shall not be in breach of this Directive if they decide in accordance with 
established  practices  not  to  apply  the  provisions  of  paragraph  1,  second  sentence,  and  for  that  purpose  the 
relevant  provisions  of  paragraph  2,  for  a  given  water-use  activity,  where  this  does  not  compromise  the 
purposes and the achievement of the objectives of this Directive. Member States shall report the reasons for 
not fully applying paragraph 1, second sentence, in the river basin management plans. 

17 

 
 
 
                                                           
Considerable  work  is  reported  by  all  Member  States  calculating  financial  costs  of  water 

services; nevertheless; the transparency of the calculation methods could be further improved. 
Environmental and resource costs are treated more specifically in this second cycle. There are 

evident  efforts  to  calculate  these  costs  and  more  information  is  available  on  methodologies 
and approaches, next to more transparency on whether these costs have been internalized or 

not.  Nevertheless significant  gaps remain and there is  room to improve the transparency on 
how these costs have been dealt with.  Overall, limited changes in the water-pricing policies 

have taken place in order to implement the Article 9 provisions.  

Protected areas 

The 'additional measures in protected areas' refer to those measures needed to achieve more 

stringent  objectives  than  good  status  required  by  Article  4  of  the  WFD.  More  stringent 
objectives are those that have been set out in in relevant EU law under which the individual 

protected areas have been established.  

Reporting of monitoring specifically targeted towards protected areas, including for shellfish, 

is very limited – in certain countries even missing. Especially regarding groundwater (both for 
drinking water, but also for groundwater dependent habitats and species), the gap between the 

actual level of reported and needed monitoring is large. Specific objectives have only been set 
for  a  limited  number  of  protected  areas  and  for  a  considerable  part  of  water  bodies  with  a 

specific  objective,  the  more  stringent  objectives  are  already  met,  meaning  that  no  further 
effort is needed. 

The  evaluation  of  the  Drinking  Water  Directive  (DWD)16  assessed  the  coherence  with  the 
WFD  and  identified  a  missing  link  in  the  DWD  as  regards  protecting  drinking  water 
resources. Therefore, the 2018 proposal for a recast of the DWD is introducing a risk based 

approach  from  abstraction  to  tap,  and  improving  communication  between  Member  States’ 
authorities  and  water  suppliers  to  ensure  there  is  a  full  governance  cycle  for  water.  The 

proposal aims to improve coherence between the two Directives and ensure that the polluter 
pays principle and the precautionary principles both apply. 

For nearly half the protected areas related to the Habitats and Birds Directives, no objectives 
have been set, because the additional needs for improvement are not yet known. Furthermore, 

for  a  significant  part  of  the  water  bodies  related  to  protected  areas,  GES  is  reported  as 
sufficient also to reach the more stringent objectives according to other Directives. Therefore, 

the  need  for  additional  measures  in  protected  areas  can  be  described  only  for  a  very  small 
number of water bodies. The second RBMPs will not bring significant progress in the status 

of  protected  areas,  as  the  additional  needs  for  setting  specific  water  objectives  for  most  of 
them are not  yet known.  This leaves a significant task for the third cycle for most Member 

States to live up to the requirements. 

16 Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption 

18 

 
 
                                                           
Adaptation to droughts and climate change 

Only in  about  half of the Member States droughts  were considered as a relevant  feature for 
water management (e.g. Cyprus, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal).  

The key management measure to mitigate drought impact although not explicitly mentioned 

in  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  is  a  Drought  Management  Plan.  However,  the  Drought 
Management  Plan  has  not  been  adopted  in  all  relevant  RBDs.  A  few  Member  States  have, 

however, progressed in their drought management since the first cycle by developing drought 
indicators  and  extending  the  number  of  RBDs  with  Drought  Management  Plans  (Slovenia, 

United Kingdom). The adoption of elements within the RBMPs that address clearly the key 
elements  for  drought  mitigation  (indicators,  measures,  organisational  set-up)  can  provide  a 

step-wise approach. 

Most Member States (e.g. Bulgaria, Germany, France, Italy, Slovakia) have reported that they 
have used the Common Implementation Guidance number 24 (“River Basin Management in a 
changing climate”), have done a climate proofing of the POMs and have a national Climate 

Change Strategy or Plan. However, the effectiveness of the climate proofing methodologies is 
unclear,  and  in  general,  green  infrastructures  and  water  retention  measures  are  underused. 

Thus, it remains important that technical measures and planned infrastructures duly take into 
account climate change predictions, especially for the occurrence of extreme phenomena and 

changes in river flows.   

International co-operation 

Member States are obliged to coordinate their work under the WFD for each river basin that 
crosses  national  borders  of  EU  countries.  With  non-EU  countries  they  need  to  make 

reasonable efforts to coordinate. A large number of river basins is indeed international in the 
EU, including some very large ones like the basin of the Rhine and the Danube. The degree of 

cooperation differs from basin to basin. Usually, there is an international agreement in place, 
often also an international coordinating body and, in a more limited number of cases, a joint 
RBMP. Only a few international basins in the EU have none of these arrangements.  

Overall, good progress has been made in the international coordination for shared river basins. 
Governance structures have been improved and further formalised, RBMPs have increasingly 

been developed and improved and comparability of findings improved as did compatibility of 
approaches developed in response to pressures. Generally, the stronger the governance of the 

basin  and  the  more  developed  the  RBMP,  the  better  the  results  in  terms  of  achieving  WFD 
objectives. 

19 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

EU  water  policy  has  delivered  significant  improvements  to  water  quality  over  the  past  four 

decades. Thanks to EU water legislation and the implementation efforts of Member States, we 
are  increasingly  able  to  reconcile  life  in  a  densily  populated  continent,  with  growing 

economies,  with  an  improvement  of  water  quality.  There  are  still  significant  pressures  on 
water  quality  and  quantity,  but  an  effective  approach  to  mitigate  or  even  eliminate  these 

  Vigilance  in  implementation,  and  even 
pressures  has  unmistakebly  been  chosen. 
intensification  of  efforts  will  however  been  needed  throughout  the  EU  to  achieve  the 

objectives of the WFD.  

This Commission Staff Working Document is part of the Commission’s fifth implementation 
report17 as required by Article 18 of the WFD and is based on the assessment of the RBMPs 
for the period 2015-2021 reported by Member States. The report describes the results of the 

assessment based on the information reported by Member States. The report also covers the 
requirements of Article 11 of the Groundwater Directive and Article 5 of the EQSs Directive. 

This  document  is  accompanied  by  Staff  Working  Documents  describing  the  results  of  the 
assessment by the Commission of the RBMPs relating to each Member State that reported on 

time and provided its information through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE), 
as well as the international RBMPs. The report on of the European Environment Agency on 

the  State  of  Water  2018  provides  a  detailed  overview  and  analysis  of  actual  progress  in 
quality of Europe’s 80,000 water bodies. 

This document covers 25 EU Member States18. Lithuania, Ireland and Greece are not covered 
due to late reporting to WISE. Spain and the UK are included except for the RBMPs of the 
Canary Islands19 and Gibratar respectively.  

2. 

MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE WFD 

The WFD introduced new and ambitious objectives to protect aquatic ecosystems in a more 

holistic way, considering all uses and users of water, and managing water on the scale of river 
basins.  It  introduced  a  number  of  key  principles  into  the  management  and  protection  of 

aquatic resources: 

(1)  The  integrated  planning  process  at  the  scale  of  river  basins,  from  characterisation  to 

the definition of measures to reach the environmental objectives. 
(2)  A  comprehensive  assessment  of  pressures,  impacts  and  status  of  the  aquatic 

environment, including from the ecological perspective. 

17   Earlier WFD implementation reports are available at :  

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/impl_reports.htm  

18   By  judgment  of  26  December  2018,  the  Paris  Administrative  Court  annulled  the  RBMP  (SDAGE)  of  the 

Seine-Normandy basin for the period 2016-2021. 

19 Spain notified the Commission that the RBMP for La Gomera was endorsed on 17 September 2018, Tenerife, 
La  Palma  on  26  November  2018,  Fuerteventura,  Lanzarote,  El  Hierro  on  26  December  2018,  and  Gran 
Canaria on 21 January 2019. 

20 

 
 
                                                           
 
(3)  The  economic  analysis  of  the  measures  proposed/taken  and  the  use  of  economic 

instruments. 
(4)  The  integrated  water  resources  management  principle  encompassing  targeting 

environmental objectives with water management and related policies objectives. 
(5)  Public participation and active involvement in water management. 

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

good quantitative and good chemical status for groundwater. 

The key tool for the implementation of the WFD is the RBMP and the accompanying POMs. 

The  planning  process  is  a  step-by-step  procedure  in  which  each  step  builds  on  the  previous 
one.  Each  step  is  important,  starting  from  the  transposition  and  the  administrative 

arrangements,  followed  by  the  characterisation  of  the  RBD,  the  monitoring  and  the 
assessment of status, the setting of objectives, the establishment of an appropriate POMs and 

its  implementation  including  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  effectiveness  of  the 
measures supporting the following RBMP cycle. 

The  PoM  is  the  tool  designed  to  enable  the  Member  States  to  respond  appropriately  to  the 
relevant pressures identified at RBD level during the pressures and impacts analysis, with the 

objective  of  enabling  the  river  basin/water  body  to  reach  good  status.  For  example,  if  a 
significant  pressure is  overlooked during the pressures and impacts  analysis, the monitoring 

programme  may  not  be  designed  to  assess  the  pressure,  and  the  POMs  may  not  envisage 
action to address it. 

The  RBMP  is  a  comprehensive  document  describing  the  implementation  of  water 
management and identifying all actions to be taken in the RBD. 

The first RBMPs started in 2009 and ended in 2015. The plans were expected to deliver the 
objectives  of  the  WFD  including  non-deterioration  of  water  status  and  the  achievement  of 

good  status  by  2015.  The  preparatory  process  for  the  plans  has  already  been  subject  to  two 
Commission  implementation  reports20,  in  2007  and  2009.  The  Commission  adopted  its 
assessment  of  the  first  RMBPs  in  2012,  in  the  third  implementation  report  while  a  fourth 
report,  in  2015,  covered  the  implementation  of  the  planned  Programmes  of  Measures  that 
were due in 201221.  

Implementation  of  the  WFD  continues  to  be  supported  by  an  informal  network  of  Member 

States,  EEA/EFTA  countries  and  stakeholders  under 
the  Common 
Implementation  Strategy  (CIS),  led  by  Water  Directors  of  Member  States  and  the 
Commission. The CIS has successfully delivered a large number of guidance documents and 

the  banner  of 

is  now  increasingly  turning  to  promoting  better  implementation  through  exchange  of  best 
practice and discussion of policy developments. 

20 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/water/implrep2007/index_en.htm#first  
21 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/impl_reports.htm#third  

21 

 
 
                                                           
3. 

APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THE RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

The  RBMPs  are  comprehensive  documents  that  cover  many  aspects  of  water  management, 

consisting of hundreds to thousands of pages of information, published in national languages. 
The  assessment  of  the  RBMPs  has  been  a  very  challenging  and  complex  task  that  has 

involved  dealing  with  extensive  information  in  more  than  20  languages.  While  the  RMBPs 
are used as a basis for the Commission’s assessment, and the EEA State of Water report, they 

are primarily key management instruments for Member States. 

In  the  frame  of  the  CIS  of  the  WFD  Member  States  agreed  that  besides  submitting  their 
RBMPs  to  the  Commission  they  would  report  pre-defined  key  information  of  their  RBMPs 
electronically  through  the  WISE;  http://water.europa.eu).  22  WISE  is  a  web-portal  entry  to 
water  related  information  ranging  from  inland  waters  to  marine  that  helps  streamlining 

reporting  under  different  water  related  EU  legislation  and  allows  the  different  European 
bodies to more easily collect and share information as well as public access to water data and 

information  reported  by  Member  States.  WISE  has  been  improved  over  the  last  years  and 
further  investments  are  planned  to  create  an  even  more  user-friendly,  shared  environmental 

system, with amongst others better visualisation capacities. 

The  quality  of  the  Commission  assessments  relies  on  the  quality  of  the  Member  States' 

reports. Incomplete or deficient reporting can lead to wrong and/or incomplete assessments. It 
is  recognised  that  reporting  is  a  big  effort  for  Member  States,  in  particular  the  electronic 

reporting to WISE. There are examples of very good, high quality reporting. However, there 
are also cases where reporting contains gaps or contradictions. 

In  the  context  of  the  preparation  of  its  assessment,  the  Commission  maintained  regular 

informal  contact  with  the  Member  States  to  validate  its  findings  and  to  ensure  that  the 
assessment reflects reality. 

According to  the WFD,  the deadline for  reporting was March 2016.  Figure 4.1 presents  the 
state  of  play  regarding  the  adoption  of  the  RBMPs23.  25  Member  States  have  adopted  and 
reported the RBMPs for their national parts of the RBDs.  

Lithuania, Ireland, Greece and Gibraltar (UK) as well as Norway24 have adopted their RBMPs 
but  have  not  finished  the  reporting  in  WISE  yet.  In  Spain,  the  seven  plans  for  the  Canary 

22 http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/WFD/WFD_521_2016/Guidance/WFD_ReportingGuidance.pdf  
23 Updated overview at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/participation/map_mc/map.htm 
24Norway  is  implementing  the  WFD  under  a  specific  timetable  agreed  pursuant  to  the  Agreement  on  the 
European Economic Area (EEA). The RBMPs prepared in 2015 represent the first planning cycle following 
the formal entry into force of the Directive in Norway. The RBMPs were adopted by County Councils before 
the end of 2015, and approved by the Central Government on 1 July 2016, and are being implemented for the 
period 2016-2021. 

22 

 
 
                                                           
Islands  have  been  adopted  just  before  the  publication  of  this  document25.  The  reporting  for 
Ireland was completed only some weeks before the adoption of this report. 

 Figure 4.1: State of adoption of the RBMPs. GREEN - RBMPs adopted. RED - Consultation 
has not started or is on-going. YELLOW - Consultation closed, adoption pending.  

Overall geographical scope of the RBMPs 

There  are  177  RBDs  designated  in  the  EU,  of  which  94  are  international.  The  number  of 

RBMPs adopted is 174. The geographical scope of the RBMPs does not correspond exactly to 
the number of RBDs, and a number of different models can be identified: 

-  Most Member States have prepared one RBMP for each RBD exclusively within their 

territory. 

-  Most Member States who have part of an international RBD within their territory have 
produced one RBMP for the national part of the international RBD. In some cases they 

25 Spain notified the Commission that the RBMP for La Gomera was endorsed on 17 September 2018, Tenerife, 
La  Palma  on  26  November  2018,  Fuerteventura,  Lanzarote,  El  Hierro  on  26  December  2018,  and  Gran 
Canaria on 21 January 2019. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
have  also  reported  international  RBMPs  produced  for  the  whole  international  RBD. 

Where such international RBMPs are available, this can be seen as being a successful 
result of the implementation of the WFD.  

-  One  Member  State  has  prepared  one  plan  covering  all  of  their  territory  (but  which 
includes sections on each of the relevant RBDs. In these cases, they have been counted 

as having prepared one RBMP per RBD.  

-  Some Member States have prepared several RBMPs for each RBD and for sub-basins. 
For  instance,  in  Romania  all  of  the  territory  falls  within  the  Danube  RBD  and  is 
covered  by  the  Danube  International  RBMP  (A-level),  as  well  as  by  the  national 

Romanian  Danube  RBMP  (B-level).  In  addition,  and  fully  in  accordance  with  the 
Directive (Article 13.5 WFD), more detailed sub-RBMPs have been prepared for each 

of the 11 sub-basins. For the purpose of this assessment, the Romanian Danube RBMP 
has however been considered as one RBMP. 

4. 

OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES TO ENSURE BETTER IMPLEMENTATION 

The  Commission's  recent  Communication  on  "EU  law:  Better  results  through  better 
implementation"26  ("the  EU  law  Communication")  foresees  that  the  Commission  employs  a 
wide variety of tools at its disposal to ensure better compliance with Union legislation. In the 
frame  of  the  WFD  such  tools  range  from  informal  compliance  promotion  activities  and  a 

focus on working together with Member States on shared implementation challenges (notably 
in the context of the CIS) to more formal legal action (pilots, infringements, court cases). 

1.1.  Legal action 

The Commission has pursued targeted legal action to enforce the WFD since the transposition 
deadline of 2003. 

a)  Brief history and priorities 

Legal action initially focused on two main priorities27: 

Enforcement  of  the  deadlines:  whenever  a  reporting  deadline  lapsed,  the  necessary  legal 
steps were taken against those Member States which failed to respect those deadlines. For the 

WFD itself this concerned the following deadlines: 

-  2003: transposition 

-  2004: RBD delineation, competent authorities and administrative arrangements 

-  2007: adoption of the monitoring programmes 

26 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017XC0119(01)&from=EN.  
27  A  more  detailed  picture  of  enforcement  during  the  initial  stages  can  be  found  in  the  Commission's  3rd 
6.  See: 

Implementation 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/pdf/3rd_report/CWD-2012-379_EN-Vol1.pdf.  

report,  Staff  Working  Document 

final,  Chapter 

(2012) 

379 

24 

 
 
                                                           
-  2009: adoption  of RBMPs (reporting deadline 22.3.2010) 

-  2015: adoption of updated RBMPs (reporting deadline 22.3.2016) 

The  Commission  has  prioritised  these  actions  as  they  represent  key  milestones  for  the 

implementation  of  the  Directive.  For  example,  without  the  adoption  of  RBMPs,  there  is  no 
plan for the effective implementation of the Directive on the ground, as well as the inclusion 

of a POMs to achieve environmental objectives. This has necessitated the Commission going 
to Court in the past (see below section on Court Cases). 

Correct  transposition:  The  Commission  also  pursued  actions  to  address  issues  of  non-

conformity of the national legislation transposing the provisions related to the RBMPs with a 
view  to  ensuring  that  the  national  legal  framework  correctly  reflects  the  different  EU 

requirements  for  the  WFD.  Correct  transposition  has  been  highlighted  as  one  of  the  key 
priorities for enforcement under the Commission's recent Communication referred to above. 

Infringement proceedings for the most part have been closed with the Member States.This is 
not surprising given the fairly advanced stage of the WFD implementation process (update of 

RBMPs).  However, a number of non-conformity cases concerning the WFD are pending. 

The Commission, in view of the fact that correct transposition is considered a key priority for 
enforcement, will continue to stay alert for such issues as they affect the achievement of the 

objectives  of  the  Directive.  It  is,  therefore,  important  that  Member  States  systematically 
communicate to the Commission changes to their national laws in the field governed by this 

Directive (Article 24(2) WFD). 

Non-conformity  cases  are  also  taken  up  in  relation  to  the  related  Directives  adopted  in 

accordance with Article 16 (EQSs) and 17 (Groundwater) of the WFD. 

b)  Bad application cases 

A rather extensive number of so called 'bad application' infringement cases have been opened 
since 2003 in relation to the implementation of the WFD. Such cases have increased as time 

has progressed in the implementation of the Directive. 

Bad application refers to the Commission's assessment that an infringement of EU law is not 

due to  deficiencies in  the legislative framework but  due to  non-respect  by  the authorities of 
that framework.  

In general terms, bad application cases can be classed into three main categories:  

i. 

failure to meet reporting requirements 

In  the  past,  reporting  requirement  cases  have  concerned  the  failure  to  report  administrative 
arrangements (Article 3) or to submit the report on the characterisation of the RBDs (Article 

5)  as  explained  in  the  first  implementation  report.  It  concerns  cases  for  failure  to  report 

25 

 
 
monitoring networks (Article 8) as explained in the second implementation report.. Details in 
relation to these cases can be found in the 3rd implementation report of the Directive.28  

The Commission has continued to follow its strict line in relation to the timely adoption and 
reporting  of  the  updated  RBMPs  (reporting  date:  22.3.2016).  Numerous  enquiries  with 

Member State authorities and, when necessary, infringements were initiated. This has resulted 
in a far quicker uptake than in the previous cycle. Finally, the Commission will ensure timely 

reporting of the progress of delivering POMs under Art 15(3) WFD (by 22.12.2018). This is 
to  ensure  that  Member  States  continue  to  deliver  on  their  proposed  measures  to  achieve 

environmental objectives. 

ii.  Targeted follow-up to the assessment of RBMPs 

In  relation  to  its  first  RBMP  assessment,  the  Commission  has  strived  to  identify  important 

gaps  in  implementation  and  to  highlight  them  to  the  Member  State  concerned,  notably  by 
recommendations.  Such recommendations pertain normally to important issues highlighted in 

a  given  Member  State  (lack  of  measures  to  address  important  pressures  such  as  diffuse 
pollution, issues concerning exemptions, monitoring, HMWB issues, governance). 

These can be followed up with the Member State through bilateral dialogue.  If action is not 

forthcoming then more formal legal action may be warranted. This can involve the opening of 
an  investigation  against  the  Member  State  or,  if  necessary,  recourse  to  an  infringement 

procedure. 

On the basis of the  first  RBMP, 10 investigation procedures were initiated against different 

Member  States  of  which  5  remain  open.    In  one  case,  the  matter  was  taken  forward  to 
infringement.  

The second RBMP assessment will provide an opportunity to take stock of the steps taken by 

the Member States concerned and indeed whether there are other important issues that have 
arisen in the meantime and require follow-up. 

iii.  Cases arising from complaints 

There  are  also  bad  application  cases  arising  pursuant  to  complaints.  Citizens,  non-
governmental organisations, parliamentary questions and petitions can be a reliable source of 

information  in  relation  to  implementation  challenges  that  can  arise  under  complex 
environmental legislation such as the WFD. 

The approach taken to complaints follows the Commission's recent communication on "Better 
Results  through  Better  Application".29  In  general    terms,  the  Commission  aims  to  prioritise 

28  A  more  detailed  picture  of  enforcement  during  the  initial  stages  can  be  found  in  the  Commission's  3rd 
6.  See: 

Implementation 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/pdf/3rd_report/CWD-2012-379_EN-Vol1.pdfv   

report,  Staff  Working  Document 

final,  Chapter 

(2012) 

379 

26 

 
 
                                                           
cases, taking due account of the Framework nature of the Directive and that in many instances 

national authorities are best placed to address the bulk of individual cases which often involve 
technical  in  nature.  It  is  therefore  necessary  to  focus  on  important  issues  that  can  make  a 

difference to overall practice within that Member State. 

Key  complaints  concern  inter  alia  existing  or  future  projects  which  may  impact  on  water 
status (such as the construction of new hydropower facilities and works related to navigation 

which  allegedly  fail  to  give  proper  attention  to  the  impact  on  the  ecological  and  chemical 
status of the water) and existing or future activities which impact water (such as discharges of 

salt resulting from mining activities into fresh water negatively affecting water quality or the 
over-abstraction concerning water dependent protected areas which could have an impact on 

groundwater  quantitative  status,  interpretation  of  key  concepts  such  as  "water  services"). 
These complaints are all assessed individually and, where needed, the Commission enquires 

with the Member State authorities as a preliminary step towards formal enforcement action. In 
this context, it should be highlighted that the overall objective is to ensure better compliance 

with  the  Directive  to  maintain  its  levels  of  ambition  which  also  reflects  the  high  levels  of 
ambition for the environment set in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. 

Complaints sometimes invoke particular deficiencies in the RBMPs, such as that the measures 
proposed  are  not  sufficient  or  that  certain  exemptions  under  Article  4  of  the  WFD  are 

unlawfully invoked by the authorities. Where possible, complaints related to  the RBMPs as 
such are pursued under the on-going assessment of the RBMPs by the Commission.  Further 

information on infringements 

The Commission publishes all infringement decisions undertaken. It also has produced press 
releases  about  the  infringements  and  statistics  for  infringements  in  the  entire  environment 

policy domain.  

1.2.  Court rulings related to the WFD 

The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) has issued several rulings on the basis of 

the  WFD.  Initially,  these  cases  dealt  with  provisions  of  the  WFD  which  may  be  seen  as 
straightforward (such as non-communication of the transposing measures, late reporting, late 

adoption of monitoring programmes and RBMPs). However, in recent years there have been 
numerous  preliminary  rulings  on  key  concepts  of  the  WFD  as  well  as  its  interaction  with 

horizontal environmental measures such as the Environmental Liability Directive and access 
to justice. There have also been a few enforcement cases under the WFD. 

Relevant case law by the ECJ: 

Commission vs. Luxembourg (Case C 32/05,  The  Court  ruled  that  Luxembourg  had 

29   https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/communication-commission-eu-law-better-results-through-better-

application_en  

27 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
ruling of 30.11.2006) 
Non Communication Transposition 

Commission  vs.  Germany  (Ref.  Case  C 
ruling  of  15.12.2005)  –  Non 
67/05, 
Communication Transposition 

Commission vs. Italy (Case C85/07, ruling of 
18.12.2007)  and  vs.  Greece  (Case  C264/07, 
ruling of 31.1.2008) – Bad application - Non-
reporting 

Commission  vs.  Spain  (Case  C-516/07, 
ruling  of  7.5.2009)  –  Administrative 
arrangements 

Commission  vs.  Malta  (Case  C-351/09, 
ruling  of  22.12.2010)  –  Bad  application  -
Monitoring networks 

to 

the 

into 

existing 

transpose, 

or 
to 
the  Directive 

notify 
failed 
to 
the 
transposition,  of 
Commission.    Luxembourg  argued  that 
their 
framework  was 
legal 
sufficient; the Court found that this was not 
the  case.  Luxembourg  has  since  complied 
and the case is closed.30 
The Court ruled that Germany had failed to 
transpose, or to notify such transposition of 
the Directive to the Commission within the 
deadline,  since  the  law  had  not  been 
transposed 
legislation  of  all 
Bundesländer. Germany has since complied 
and the case is closed.31 
For  failing  to  submit  the  reports  required 
under  Article  5  of 
the  Directive,  on 
Characterisation of the RBDs, review of the 
environmental  impacts  of  human  activity 
and  economic  analysis  of  water  use.  Italy 
and  Greece  have  since  complied  and  the 
cases are closed.32 
Spain  had  failed  to  notify  all  competent 
authorities in accordance with Article 3. In 
this  case  the  Court  also  emphasised  the 
importance  of  designating  the  RBDs  in 
hydrological 
accordance 
administrative 
boundaries 
boundaries.  Spain  has  since  complied  and 
the case is closed.33 
For  not  having  established  a  network  for 
monitoring of inland waters, and for failure 
to  submit  a  summary 
the 
Commission. In this ruling, the court found 
that  even  if  the  Maltese  inland  surface 
water  bodies  are  small,  there  is  a  need  to 
ensure monitoring.34 
On  the  failure  to  adopt  and  report  RBMPs 
for all of their respective RBDs.35 

with 
rather 

the 
than 

report 

to 

the 

interpretation  of 

the  WFD 

Commission  vs.  Greece  (Case  C  -297/11, 
ruling  19.4.2012.),  vs.  Belgium  (Case  C-
366/11, ruling 24.5.2012), vs. Portugal (Case 
C-223/11,  ruling  21.6.2012),  and  vs.  Spain 
(case  C-403/11,  ruling  4.10.2012)  –  Non 
reporting 
Case  C-41/10  on  the  Acheloos  in  Greece  -  On 

30 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-32/05.  
31 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-67/05 .. 
32 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=c-85/07 .. 
33 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=c-516/07&td=ALL  
34 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-351/09  
35   (C-297/11) http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-297/11&language=EN;  
(C-366/11) http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-366/11&language=EN;  
(C-223/11) http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-223/11&language=EN;  
(C-403/11) http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-403/11 . 

28 

 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
preliminary ruling was issued on 11.09.2012 

Commission 
(C-525/12, 
vs.  Germany 
judgment  of  11  September  2014)  –  bad 
application 

für  Umwelt  und 
v 
e.V. 
(the  Weser 

Case  C-461/13  Bund 
Naturschutz 
Deutschland 
Bundesrepublik  Deutschland 
case) 
Preliminary ruling of 1 July 2015. 
Case C-529/15 Folk 
Preliminary ruling of 15 July 2015 

Commission  vs.  Poland  (Case  C-648/13, 
judgment of 30 June 2016). 

Case  C-686/15  Vodoopskrba 
d.o.o. v Željka Klafurić.  
Preliminary ruling of 7 December 2016 

i  odvodnja 

Case  C-664/15  Protect  Natur-,  Arten-  und 
Landschaftsschutz  Umweltorganisation  v 
Bezirkshauptmannschaft 
Gmünd. 
Preliminary ruling of 20 December 2017. 

of 

environment, 

the  assessment  of 

2000/60/EC, 
Council  Directive 
85/337/EEC  on  the  assessment  of  the 
effects of certain public and private projects 
of  Directive 
on 
the 
2001/42/EC  on 
the 
effects of certain plans and programmes on 
the  environment  and  of  Council  Directive 
92/43/EEC  on  the  conservation  of  natural 
habitats and of wild fauna and flora.36 
The  judgment  held  that  Germany,  in  the 
circumstances  of  the  case  and  complaints 
made, had not failed to fulfil its obligations 
under  Articles  2(38)  and  9  of  Directive 
2000/60.37 
The  ruling  concerned  the  environmental 
objectives relating to surface waters and the 
concept  of  deterioration  of  the  status  of  a 
body of surface water. 38 

the 

ruling  concerned 

interaction 
the  Environmental  Liability 

The 
between 
Directive and the WFD. 39 
The 
that  Poland  had 
judgment  held 
incorrectly transposed numerous provisions 
of the WFD.40 
The  ruling  concerned  the  recovery  of  the 
costs  of  services  connected  with  water  use 
which 
included  a  variable  component 
related  to  actual  consumption  and  fixed 
component 
that 
independent 
consumption.41 
The  ruling  concerned 
the  relationship 
between the WFD and the access to justice 
provisions under the Aarhus Convention.42 

of 

1.3.  Better  national  implementation:  working  with  Member  States  and 

stakeholders  

Member  States  have  primary  responsibility  for  ensuring  the  correct  implementation  and 
application  of  this  Framework  Directive.  The  Commission  employs  a  number  of  tools  to 

facilitate in this regard. 

a)  The Common Implementation Strategy 

36 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-43/10&language=EN  
37 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-525/12.  
38 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-461/13&td=ALL.  
39 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-529/15  
40 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-648/13  
41 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-686/15.  
42 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-664/15.  

29 

 
 
                                                           
In  this  context,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  Commission  working  jointly  with  the  Member 
States  and  relevant  stakeholders  has  developed  a  CIS43  in  order  to  facilitate  a  common 
understanding and approach which is crucial to the successful and effective implementation of 

the Directive. 

This has played an important role with regard to best practice and thus better implementation 
on  the  ground.  Apart  from  being  a  good  forum  on  diverse  subjects  of  WFD  and  related 

Directives'  implementation,  the  CIS  strategy  has  produced  a  substantial  amount  of  best 
practice  guidance  (approximately  50)  which  should  improve  application  by  Member  State 
authorities.44 This assists with a strategy which is focused on prevention, rather than cure. 

A recent noteworthy example was the substantial guidance produced in relation to Article 4(7) 

which should assist with ensuring better practice in relation to the permitting of projects, thus 
leading to improved compliance on the ground by national authorities.45 

The  CIS  also  acts  a  forum  for  informed  debate  on  various  issues  arising  under  the  WFD 

umbrella  and  carries  out  a  dedicated  work-programme  every  few  years.  Further  details 
concerning its work programme, key events and related documentation can be found online.  

b)  Integration – sectoral efforts 

Effective  implementation  of  water  legislation  cannot  possibly  be  undertaken  without  the 
effective cooperation of key sectors which have major impacts on water bodies throughout the 

Union.  This  need  to  integrate  water  considerations  into  sectoral  policy  areas  at  all  levels 
(including  Commission,  Member  State  authorities  and  relevant  stakeholders)  is  a  major 

challenge.  Examples  of  sectors  which  do  impact  on  water  include  agriculture,  energy 
(hydropower),  navigation  and  chemicals/pollution.  The  Commission  also  factors  in  water 

considerations  into    cohesion  policy  funding.  For  the  2014-2020  funding  period,  ex-ante 
conditionality  was  introduced  to  ensure  a  proper  transposition  and  implementation  of  EU 

water legislation for investments in the water sector. This has proved to be a very useful tool 
in  closing  the  relevant  implementation  gaps  identified  in  the  first  River  Basin  Management 

Plans. It has been a driver for many Member States to implement improvements in areas such 
as pricing policies and to adopt the second generation of River Basin Management Plans.46 

c)  Promoting networks 

The  Commission  has  also  facilitated  the  development  of  networks  composed  of  key 
stakeholders  in  order  to  increase  public  awareness  of  water  issues  and  thus  lead  to  better 

43 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/objectives/implementation_en.htm.   
44 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm   
45https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/e0352ec3-9f3b-4d91-bdbb-

939185be3e89/CIS_Guidance_Article_4_7_FINAL.PDF 

46 SWD (2017)127 

30 

 
 
                                                           
implementation on the ground. Two such examples are the European Innovation Partnership 
(EIP)47 and the Urban Water Agenda48. 

d)  Implementation of horizontal legislation 

EU environmental law also has developed numerous horizontal policies to improve uptake of 
environmental matters within Member States. 

 

 

Environmental  Liability49  -  the  Environmental  Liability  Directive  establishes  a 
framework based on the polluter pays principle to prevent and remedy environmental 
damage. 

Access  to  Justice50  -  notably  the  Aarhus  Regulation  which  concerns  the  uptake  of 
the  Aarhus  Convention  in  the  Union  and  Member  States.  The  Aarhus  Regulation 

addresses the "three pillars" of the Aarhus Convention - access to information, public 
participation  and  access  to  justice  in  environmental  matters  -  where  those  are  of 

relevance  to  EU  institutions  and  bodies  and  lays  down  related  requirements.  Such 
rules  complement  the  existing  public  participation  and  consultation  rules  under  the 

WFD. The Commission has also developed a recent Notice on Access to  Justice in 
Environmental Matters51. 

The implementation of such policies also benefits the implementation of the WFD. This has 

also been reflected in recent case law involving these respective policy areas in the context of 
the WFD. Reference is made to the preliminary rulings in the cases of  Folk (Environmental 

Liability) and Protect Natur (access to justice) - see above section on relevant ECJ case-law. 

e)  Environmental Implementation Review (EIR) 

The Commission has developed the Environmental Implementation Review (EIR) which can 

serve  as  a  useful  poltical  forum  to  support  the  delivery  of  the  objectives  of  existing  EU 
environmental policies and legislation.52 In the water area, the CIS and the EIR complement 
each other. 

f)  Compliance assurance 

The  Commission  has  recently  placed  greater  emphasis  upon  the  notion  of  compliance 
assurance.53 In essence this covers three notions: 

47 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/innovationpartnership/  
48 https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/urban-agenda-eu/urban-water-agenda-2030  
49 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/index.htm.  
50 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/legislation.htm  
51 The WFD is explicitly cited in Annex II  

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2017:275:FULL&from=EN   

52 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/index_en.htm  
53 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/compliance_en.htm.  

31 

 
 
                                                           
 
 

Promote means helping businesses and others to comply;  

  Monitor means using inspections and other checks to collect information about levels 

of compliance and provide solid evidence for enforcement;  

 

Enforce  means  stopping  those  who  disregard  the  rules,  sanctioning  them  and 

obliging them to rectify the damage. 

The  foregoing  notions  can  well  complement  the  CIS  to  achieve  better  implementation  by 

Member  State  authorities  themselves  within  the  field  of  the  WFD.  For  example,  in  the 
Commission  Action  Plan  on  environmental  compliance  and  governance54,  targeted  action  is 
foreseen to produce guidance on how to better ensure compliance in rural areas. This includes 
guidance for farmers and Member State authorities can ensure better practice in relation to EU 

water law in rural areas. This is of importance given the impact of agriculture as a pressure on 
water bodies within the EU. 

1.4.  Legal implementation of related Directives adopted in accordance with 

Article 16 (EQSs) and 17 (Groundwater) of the WFD 

Two closely related Directives have been adopted since 2000, one further specifying the legal 

requirements  in  relation  to  groundwater  status  (Directive  2006/118/EC,  also  known  as  the 
Groundwater Directive) the second regarding the chemical status of surface waters (Directive 

2008/105/EC, also known as the EQSs or Priority Substances Directive).  

The Commission has continued with the process of conformity checks for both Directives. On 

the  Groundwater  Directive  the  first  steps  were  taken  (requests  for  clarification  sent  through 
investigations); there are two open infringement cases and one pilot on non-conformity.  

Both  Directives have been amended (Commission  Directive 2014/80  amending Annex  II of 
the  Groundwater  Directive  2006/118  and  Directive  2013/39/EU  which  amends  the  EQS 
Directive 2008/105). Therefore, the Commission is in the process of checking the conformity 

of  this  amending  legislation.  There  are  presently  a  number  of  non-communication  cases 
concerning Commission Directive 2014/80. 

As implementation of these Directives goes hand in hand with that of the WFD, the variety of 
tools  listed  for  that  Directive  is  equally  applied  here.    To  note,  that  there  are  dedicated 

working groups under the CIS for both Chemicals and Groundwater. 

54http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/pdf/COM_2018_10_F1_COMMUNICATION_FROM_COMMISSION_

TO_INST_EN_V8_P1_959219.pdf  

32 

 
 
 
                                                           
5. 

RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT AT EU LEVEL AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

This  chapter  includes  the  results  of  the  assessment  of  the  second  RBMPs  adopted  and 

reported by Member States. 

1.5.  Governance 

1.5.1. Introduction 

The WFD creates a framework for the integrated management of all aspects of water policy. 

A  robust  framework  and  appropriate  and  effective  multi-level  governance  structures  are 
essential  pre-requisites  for  successful  integrated  river  basin  management.  Some  of  the  key 

aspects of water governance in the context of the implementation of the WFD are to ensure an 
adequate  territorial  approach,  the  clear  identification  of  responsibilities,  coordination  and 

cooperation  across  sectors,  interests  and  borders  as  well  as  ensuring  adequate  human  and 
financial resource are allocated. 

Transparency on this whole process within a clear governance structure will encourage public 
participation  in  both  the  development  and  delivery  of  necessary  measures  to  deliver 

sustainable water management. 

Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the 2nd cycle 

Administrative arrangements – river basin districts 

The  criteria  for  successful  water  governance  structures  are  inter  alia  clear  and  effective 

alignment of objectives and adequate territorial approaches which take the whole catchment 
as the basis for the integrated water management. The Directive defines the RBD as the main 

unit for management of river basins, for which competent authorities that apply the rules of 
the  Directive  need  to  be  identified.  There  is  a  requirement  to  co-ordinate  the  actions 

(nationally  and  internationally)  to  achieve  the  environmental  objectives  established  by  the 
Directive through the planned Programmes of Measures. 

The  designation  of  RBDs  is  thus  one  of  the  core  aspects  of  the  integrated  river  basin 
management  approach  setting  out  the  geographical  extent  for  the  co-ordination  of  water 

resources.  In  most  cases,  the  RBDs  have  been  established  respecting  the  hydrological 
boundaries of the river basins. 

33 

 
 
 
 
Administrative arrangements – competent authorities 

The  clear  identification  of  responsibilities  and  roles  of  authorities  is  a  pre-requisite  for 

successful  water  management.  The  WFD  therefore  requires  the  designation  of  competent 
authorities for its implementation within each river basin district.  

Member States have designated a range of competent authorities for the implementation of the 
WFD55.  Figure  1  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  authorities  that  were  identified.  About 
one-fourth of Member States have a single authority responsible for all WFD roles. In some 
cases,  only  a  single  type  of  authority  is  responsible,  for  example  the  Federal  States  in 

Germany,  but,  for  most  Member  States  a  range  of  authorities  are  responsible  for  different 
tasks. 

Figure 1 

RBMPs   

Competent  authorities  for  the  development  and  implementation  of  the 

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016 

Notes:  *  Ministry  of  Environment  or  Ministry  responsible  for  environmental  protection.  ** 
Regions include other sub-national administrative levels (e.g. provinces) 

In some Member States, specific  RBD Authorities have been established for the purpose of 

the  WFD:  Bulgaria  and  Italy  are  examples.  A  few  Member  States  have  a  national  body 
responsible for water management: in Romania, for example, the National Administration for 

55   Please note that in their RBMP reporting, Member States indicated the names of their competent authorities: 
the categories and the categorisation were created for the purpose of the assessment for this report. It should 
also  be  noted  that  the  Member  States  have  indicated  authorities  responsible  for  key  aspects  of  the 
development and implementation of their RBMPs: these may include authorities additional to those reported 
under Article 3 of the WFD.   

34 

 
 
 
                                                           
Romanian Waters is responsible for almost all WFD roles. Other Member States have adapted 

existing water administrations to ensure better implementation of the WFD.  

Environment agencies and other national bodies are competent authorities in about half of the 
Member States. In some cases, these bodies play a leading role: in Portugal, for example, the 

Environment Agency holds all the main roles related to RBMP and WFD implementation in 
the  mainland  RBDs.  In  other  cases,  national  bodies  have  specific  roles,  as  is  the  case  in 

Poland,  where  the  Chief  Inspector  of  Environmental  Protection  (head  of  the  national 
Environmental  Inspectorate)  has  roles  for  monitoring  and  assessment  of  water  status, 

enforcement of regulations and implementation of measures.  

Regional  authorities  play  a  role  in  about  half  of  Member  States.  This  category  includes  the 

Federal States in Germany and the provinces in the Netherlands. In France, department-level 
authorities are responsible for two RBDs, Corsica and Mayotte.  

In  a  few  Member  States,  municipalities  also  play  a  role:  in  both  Bulgaria  and  Sweden,  for 

example, these are among the bodies responsible for the implementation of measures.  

As noted, the great majority of Member States have more than one competent authority. This 
division between different authorities necessitates that co-ordination is clear and adequate to 

ensure integrated water management. The WFD indeed requires coordination: Member States 
should ensure that all requirements of the Directive are co-ordinated in order to achieve the 

environmental objectives at the level of the RBD.  

Several  Member  States  strengthened  coordination  in  the  second  cycle.  In  Germany,  for 

example,  LAWA  –  the  Working  group  on  water  issues,  which  brings  together  the  Federal 
States  and the Federal  Government,  represented  by the Ministry of Environment  – prepared 

updated guidance in several areas such as surface water monitoring as well as a catalogue of 
measures  for  the  WFD,  Floods  Directive  and  MSFD.  In  Italy,  there  was  a  stronger 

coordination among regions within RBDs, supported by national legislation, including further 
national methodologies to ensure common approaches across the RBDs.  

RBMPs – structure (subplans) 

RBMPs are the main tool for water management of all water bodies within RBDs. Clear plans 
are  important  in  order  to  ensure  overview  and  accountability,  including  policy  integration 

with  relevant  areas  affecting  water  resources  and  water  management  such  as  energy 
production, agriculture, transport and industry.  

Most Member States have prepared RBMPs for each RBD within their territory and in some 

cases there are several river basins in each RBD. The WFD leaves the decision on the use of 
sub-plans to Member States. Sub-plans may offer Member States the opportunity to provide 

35 

 
 
more  details  on  the  issues  and  actions  impacting  at  different  levels  within  the  RBD.  In  the 

second  cycle,  more  than  one-third  of  Member  States  had  sub-plans  for  their  RBMPs. 
Coordination  is  needed  to  ensure  that  the  implementation  of  RBMPs  and  sub-plans  is 

coherent.  

The  WFD  includes  key  requirements  on  how  the  RBMPs  shall  be  the  framework  for 
integrating  different  policies  and  sectors.  The  consideration  of  all  types  of  significant 

anthropogenic pressures is at the core of the WFD with one of the main building blocks being 
'the  review  of  impacts  of  human  activity  on  the  status  of  water'  (Article  5).  All  potential 

policy  sectors  shall  therefore  be  addressed  by  the  RBMPs,  including  those  not  part  of 
traditional water management, for instance the agriculture sector, energy production and the 

transport sector.  

All  discharges  into  surface  waters  shall  be  controlled  in  accordance  with  the  'combined 

approach'  in  the  WFD.  This  reinforces  policy  integration  which  goes  beyond  the 
implementation  of  point  source  control  measures  such  as  the  IPPC/Industrial  Emissions 

Directive, Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, or policies related to diffuse pollution like 
the Nitrates Directive. The combined approach is often necessary in order to reach good status 

and more stringent measures therefore have to be put in place for sources controlled by those 
Directives and any other relevant legislation.  

The  assessment  has  shown  improved  co-ordination  and  policy  coherence  in  Member  States 

due  to  the  implementation  of  the  WFD.    Member  States  can  learn  from  each  other’s 
experience as well as further enhance the inclusion of other sectors in the water management. 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

The  Directive  on  Strategic  Environmental  Assessment56 
integrates  environmental 
considerations  into  plans  and  programmes,  with  the  goal  of  promoting  sustainable 

development.  The  Directive  identifies,  among  the  types  of  plans  and  programmes  to  be 
assessed, those related to water management (Article 3).  

The  assessment  shows  that  the  great  majority  of  Member  States  carried  out  a  Strategic 

Environmental  Assessment  (SEA)  procedure  for  the  RBMPs  in  all  their  RBDs.  In  a  few 
Member States, the SEA screening step did not identify a need for a full update to the  SEA 

carried out in the first cycle. 

56 Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the 
the  environment,  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

effects  of  certain  plans  and  programmes  on 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32001L0042  

36 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Public consultation and the active involvement of stakeholders 

A  key  mechanism  for  sectoral  and  territorial  integration  is  stakeholder  involvement  in  the 

development  of  RBMPs.  Member  States  have  to  ensure  consultation  and  access  to 
background  information  used  for  the  development  of  RBMPs  and  to  encourage  active 

involvement of all interested parties. Drafts of the RBMPs, as well as of other key documents, 
such as the timetable, work programme and overview of significant water management issues 

shall be published and made available for public consultation for at least six months.  

Providing information on the consultation and provision of documents 

RBMPs can communicate to interested parties, including the public, how water management 
will  be  carried  out.  Interested  parties  shall  be  provided  access  to  sufficient  information  to 

enable  them  to  express  their  views  in  a  meaningful  way.  This  is  not  the  case  if  only 
incomplete drafts of RBMPs are made available or background documents which are a part of 

the plan are not made available.  

The requirement to conduct a consultation on draft RBMPs lasting six months was respected 

in  almost  all  Member  States.  Moreover,  the  Member  States  have  undertaken  considerable 
efforts  in  consulting  stakeholders  and  the  public  and  they  have  used  a  variety  of  different 

outreach methods (see  

37 

 
 
 
 
Figure 2 below). On average, Member States used five of the ten information methods listed 

in  the  WFD  Reporting  Guidance.  All  listed  more  than  one  method,  and  one-fourth  of  the 
Member States used either eight or nine methods in at least some of their RBDs.  

38 

 
 
 
 
Figure 2 

Methods used by Member States to inform the public and stakeholders of the 

RBMP consultation  

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016 
The most common outreach methods were the Internet and direct invitations to stakeholders: 

both were used in almost all Member States. Some Member States have set up dedicated web 
portals  on  water  issues  that  provided  information  on  the  consultation:  Austria,  notablyhas 

developed  three  –  one  to  provide  technical  information  for  the  interested  public  (WISA), 
another  to  provide  general  information  to  support  public  involvement  in  the  WFD 

(Wasseraktiv),  and  the  third  to  engage  with  young  people  (Generation  Blue).  Via  a  LIFE+ 
project called WATLIFE, Slovakia developed a web site called  voda je život (water is life), 

providing  information  to  the  public  on  water  issues.  A  small  group  of  Member  States  used 
social networking among the information methods in at least some of their RBDs.  

With  regard  to  the  provision  of  documents,  about  two-thirds  of  the  Member  States  made 

drafts  for  consultation  available  for  download  in  all  their  RBDs  (see  Figure  3).  In  terms  of 
other methods to provide the draft RBMPs, many Member States made paper copies available 

in municipal buildings, exhibitions, direct mailing via email and some by post.  

Some Member States also provided relevant supporting documents during the consultation. In 

the Netherlands, for example, related plans (for example at provincial level) were provided as 
well as fact sheets on the conditions of each water body. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3 

Methods  used  by  Member  States  to  provide  draft  RBMP  documents  for 

consultation  

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016 

Active involvement of stakeholders 

The WFD states that ‘Member States shall encourage the active involvement of all interested 
parties in the implementation of this Directive’57 which goes beyond consultation and implies 
that  stakeholders  are  invited  to  contribute  actively  to  the  process  and  thus  play  a  role  in 
advising the competent authorities58. Active involvement can be fulfilled in various ways, for 
example through advisory councils or ad-hoc meetings.  

Stakeholder  groups  were  actively  involved  in  the  preparation  of  the  RBMPs  in  all  Member 

States assessed. On average, more than seven types of stakeholder groups listed in the WFD 
Reporting Guidance were actively involved (including the category of other) in all or some of 

their RBDs.  

Water  supply  and  sanitation,  agriculture,  local  and  regional  authorities,  non-governmental 

organisations and nature protection groups were actively involved in all or some of the RBDs 
(see  Figure  4)  in  most  of  the  Member  States.  A  few  Member  States  indicated  ‘other’ 

stakeholders,  including:  universities  and  research  centres;  associations  of  municipalities; 
landowners and forest owners; health authorities; and small and medium-sized enterprises. 

57   Water Framework Directive Article 14 
58   European  Commission,  Public  Participation  in  Relation  to  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  Guidance 
Document  No  8  (of  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  for  the  Water  Framework  Directive),  2003. 
Available at: 
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0fc804ff-5fe6-4874-8e0d-de3e47637a63/Guidance%20No%208%20-
%20Public%20participation%20%28WG%202.9%29.pdf   

40 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Figure 4 

Types of stakeholder groups actively involved the preparation of RBMPs  

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016 

Concerning  the  mechanisms  for  active  involvement,  the  majority  of  Member  States 

established advisory groups and involved stakeholders in the drafting (see Figure 5 
Over one-third of Member States identified ‘other’ mechanisms. These include, for example: 

). 

web-based  tools,  as  well  as  social  media,  meetings  or  conferences  and  River  Basin 
Committees.  

Figure 5 
RBMPs  

Mechanisms for the active involvement of stakeholders in the preparation of 

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016 

Several  Member  States  strengthened  the  active  involvement  of  stakeholders  for  the  second 
cycle  of  RBMPs,  for  example  by  ensuring  the  participation  of  stakeholders  in  advisory 

groups.  

41 

 
 
 
 
Impact of the consultation  

The  purpose  of  stakeholder  involvement  is  to  ensure  that  the  best  and  most  cost-effective 

measures  are identified and selected, and that acceptance of the measures are built  in to the 
process.  It  should  therefore  be  highlighted  that  in  all  25  Member  States  assessed,  the 

consultation  of  the  draft  RBMPs  has  had  an  impact  on  the  final  RBMPs  (see  Figure  6

below).  

In  almost  all  Member  States  consultation  led  to  the  addition  of  new  information  in  the 
RBMPs for all or some of their RBDs and to the adjustment of measures, while changes to the 

selection  of  measures  were  made  in  the  majority  of  Member  States.  In  a  high  share  of 
Member  States,  commitments  to  further  work  were  made  as  a  result  of  consultation  (which 

possibly would not be reflected in changes to the second RBMPs), both in terms of action in 
the  next  cycle  and  in  terms  of  further  research.  Finally,  about  one-third  of  Member  States 

made changes to the methodology as a result of consultation and a few made other types of 
changes, for instance addition of new river water bodies, greater coordination of policies and 

finance, integration of RBMPs into territorial contracts, and improved linkages with FRMP. 

Figure 6 

Impacts of the consultation on the final RBMPs  

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016 

Overall, extensive consultation has been one of the major achievements of the WFD and has 

in  general  increased  public  awareness  and  provided  valuable  information  for  the  further 
process.  The  Commission  has  however  received  information  which  indicates  that  some 

stakeholders  still  do  not  have  the  opportunity  to  contribute  actively  to  the  process  and  thus 
play a role in advising the competent authorities in a sufficiently inclusive way.  

42 

 
 
 
 
 
Integration with the Floods Directive and the MSFD 

The framework established by the WFD in order to protect inland surface waters, transitional 

waters,  coastal  waters  and  groundwater  contributes  inter  alia  to  the  protection  of  territorial 
and  marine  waters  (WFD  Article  1)  and  Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures 

including  preventing  and  reducing  pollution  to  the  marine  environment,  in  accordance  with 
the MSFD (MSFD). The first step is for Member States to ensure that the necessary actions 

are taken to coordinate RBMPs with the MSFD objectives. About half of the Member States 
have started to do so by undertaking joint consultation of the RBMPs with the MSFD in all or 

some of their RBDs (see Figure 7 
especially regarding coordination of the objectives59.  

).  However,  there  is  still  a  lack  of  coordination, 

Member  States  shall  also  take  appropriate  steps  to  coordinate  actions  under  the  Floods 
Directive  and  the  WFD,  focusing  on  opportunities  for  improving  efficiency,  information 

exchange and for achieving common synergies and benefits, including coordination of active 
involvement of interested parties, as appropriate. 

The great majority of Member States has carried out a joint consultation of their RBMPs and 

the FRMPs, and a few Member States have also integrated the two plans into a joint plan.  

Figure 7 

Integration of the RBMPs with FRMPs and with the MSFD 

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016 

59  The  adoption  of  the  new  GES  Decision  (2017/848/EU)  brings  closer  the  marine  and  freshwater  policy 
frameworks  together  with  the  identification  of  the  same  elements  to  be  assessed  and  used  the  same 
methodological standards (equivalent threshold values). 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
International coordination and co-operation  

One  of  the  main  elements  introduced  by  the  WFD  was  the  legal  requirement  for 

transboundary  co-operation.  Indeed,  60%  of  EU  territory  is  covered  by  international  river 
basins, and all Member States except Cyprus and Malta share international river basins. 

A river basin covering the territory of more than one Member State shall in accordance with 
the  WFD  be  designated  as  an  international  river  basin  district  (IRBD),  and  Member  States 

concerned shall together ensure coordination with a view of producing a single RBMP. 

In  some  international  river  basins  there  was  extensive  co-operation  even  before  the  WFD, 

such as the Rhine where there was important progress on pollution reduction. Most existing 
international  river  conventions  were  amended  to  fulfil  the  role  of  co-ordination  of  the 

implementation of the WFD. 

International cooperation is taking place in the frame of international agreements, permanent 
co‐ operation  bodies  and  international  RBMPs  and  PoMs.  In  six  international  RBDs  that 
cover  multiple  Member  States,  all  these  elements  are  seen  (designated  as  category  1 

cooperation – see chapter 7 on international cooperation for further information). In total, half 
of  the  Member  States  participate  in  at  least  one  international  river  basin  with  category  1 

coordination. The Danube iRBD, for example, brings together nine Member States as well as 
five third countries (Figure 8 below provides an overview of Member States and international 

RBDs by level of coordination). 

In  other  international  RBDs,  cooperation  includes  international  agreements  combined  with 
permanent  co‐ operation  mechanisms,  though  not  the  preparation  of  common  RBMPs  and 
Programmes of Measures; close to half of the Member States share river basins at this level of 

coordination (designated as category 2). An example are the RBDs shared between Portugal 
and  Spain,  where  cooperation  takes  place  under  the  Albufeira  Agreement,  which  created  a 

conference  of  the  Parties  and  a  commission,  under  which  a  series  of  working  groups  are 
organised. 

A  few  Member  States  have  international  agreements  on  water  management  without 
permanent  co-operation  mechanisms  (category  3).  In  some  of  these  cases,  co-operation  has 

been quite active: for example Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have exchanged information on 
monitoring  and  on  measures  (moreover,  after  the  preparation  of  their  national  RBMPs, 

Estonia  and  Latvia  produced  international  “roof  reports”  summarising  common  challenges 
and actions in a shared RBD).  

44 

 
 
 
 
Figure 8 

Member State participation in international RBDs, by level of coordination  

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016 

Note:  Some  Member  States  participate  in  several  iRBDs  at  different  levels  of  coordination. 
The figure only shows data for the Member States assessed.  

Overall,  international  cooperation  has  significantly  improved  with  the  introduction  of  the 
WFD, and the co-ordination between Member States has continued to improve in the second 

RBMPs. There is still a need though for further strengthening international cooperation both 
within  the  EU  and  with  neighbouring  countries.  Strengthening  can  for  example  be  done 

through increased active exchange, coordination of monitoring, harmonisation of river basin 
specific  pollutants  and  coordination  on  all  aspects  of  WFD  implementation  for  RBDs  in 

general  –  especially  within  category  3  and  4  cooperation  (more  information  provided  in 
chapter 7).   

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle 

This assessment has in general shown progress in the Member States’ implementation of the 

governance requirements of the WFD since the first RBMPs. The assessment though carried 
out has focused on a few key reported indicators and the approach is not directly comparable 

to the assessment of the first RBMPs.   

The  assessment  has  shown  improved  co-ordination  and  policy  coherence  within  many 

Member States due to the implementation of the WFD, as seen in the example of Italy, where 
coordination within RBDs was strengthened. 

The  assessment  has  also  shown  that  most  Member  States  undertook  a  range  of  actions  to 

engage the public and stakeholders  in  the  consultation  process,  in  many  cases  going further 
than in the first cycle. In the second cycle, the most common methods reported were Internet 

45 

 
 
 
and direct  contacts with  stakeholders, while a few Member States used web sites and social 

media to reach the public. In almost all Member States, a broad range of stakeholder groups 
were actively involved, in particular non-governmental organisation/nature protection groups, 

agriculture  and  local  and  regional  authorities,  followed  by  industry  and  water  supply  and 
sanitation. The consultation process has had an impact on water management in all Member 

States,  for  example  via  the  addition  of  new  information  in  the  RBMPs  and  the  selection  of 
measures.   

The  implementation  of  the  WFD  has  strengthened  cooperation  among  Member  States  and 

with third countries on water management in shared river basins, and this process continued in 
the second cycle. Examples include strengthened coordination between Bulgaria and Greece 

and also among Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.  

1.5.2. Conclusions  

In many Member States, several authorities are responsible for implementing different aspects 

of the WFD. This underlines the importance of coordination between government bodies and 
across  administrative  levels.  Member  States  are  becoming  more  aware  of  the  necessity  of 

clarity regarding both cooperation and responsibilities; while many have made progress, there 
is a need to enhance coordination in order to reach the objectives of the Directive.  

Member States have undertaken considerable efforts in consulting stakeholders and the public 
and have used a variety of different outreach methods. Moreover, Member States used a range 

of mechanisms for the active involvement of stakeholders in the development of the RBMPs: 
in the great majority, advisory groups were established  

The extensive consultation undertaken has been one of the major achievements of the  WFD 

and  has  in  general  increased  public  awareness  and  provided  valuable  information  for  the 
further  process.  In  all  25  Member  States  assessed,  consultation  on  the  draft  RBMPs  had  an 

impact, such as the addition of new information and the adjustment of measures.  

International  cooperation  has  significantly  improved  with  the  introduction  of  the  WFD,  and 

co-ordination  between  Member  States  has  continued  to  strengthen  in  the  second  cycle  of 
RBMP. Specific recommendations for international cooperation under the WFD are provided 

in chapter 7. 

Although  the  assessments  conducted  on  the  first  and  second  RBMPs  are  not  directly 

comparable due to different approaches used for the assessment, the general conclusion is that 
the  patterns  of  governance  appear  to  be  largely  similar  with  adjustments  in  responsible 

authorities,  enhanced  involvement  from  stakeholders,  improved  transparency,  improved 
coordination and improved international coordination.  

46 

 
 
1.5.3. Recommendations 

  Member  States  should  continue  to  focus  on  improving  stakeholder  involvement  in 
order to provide them with the opportunity to contribute actively to the process.  

 

regarding 

Clarity 
responsibilities  between  government  bodies  and  across 
administrative levels as well as enhanced coordination should be ensured in order to 

reach the objectives of the WFD.  

 

Institutional  arrangements 

for 

international  cooperation  should  be 

further 

strengthened  regarding  relevant  aspects  of  the  WFD  in  the  iRBDs,  in  particular  in 
those iRBDs where international coordination bodies are not in place.  

 

International  cooperation  should  be  further  strengthened  in  iRBDs  shared  with 

countries  which  are  not  members  of  the  EU,  including  candidate  and  potential 
candidate  countries  [in  support  of  the  alignment  to  the  EU  environmental 
requirements in their process to join the EU]. 

[more  specific  recommendations  for  international  cooperation  under  the  WFD  are 
provided in chapter 7]. 

47 

 
 
1.6.  Characterisation of the River Basin District 

1.6.1. 

Introduction 

Article 5 of the WFD requires Member States to undertake an analysis of the characteristics of 

each  RBD  or  portion  of  an  international  RBD  falling  within  their  territory.  The  first 
characterisation  of  suface  water  and  groundwater  bodies  was  reported  in  March  2005.  This 

included a general description of the characteristics of their RBDs (Annex VII, A.1).  Under 
Article 5(2) the characterisation is required to be reviewed, and updated if necessary by 2013 

and  every  6  years  after  that.  Therefore  meaning  the  characterisation  should  have  been 
reviewed by each Member State between the first and the second RBMPs.  

Characterisation should identify  all relevant  categories and types of water bodies within the 
RBD. For surface waters, specific typologies and reference conditions have to be established. 

This  step  is  an  essential foundation  for  a  robust  classification  systems  and  ecological  status 
assessment.  

Characterisation also involves correctly identifying water bodies at risk of failing objectives. 

The results of the risk assessment inform the monitoring of water bodies and the subsequent 
classification of status. These water bodies are then the subsequent focus for implementation 

of  necessary  measures  for  the  achievement  of  objectives.  It  is  crucial  that  risk  assessment 
methodologies  are  fit  for  purpose,  as  objectives  may  be  missed  or  measures    not  correctly 

targeted. 

For  operational  purposes,  the  WFD  defines  a  water  body  as  a  ‘discrete  and  significant’ 
element of water, which is the scale at which status is assessed.  The size thresholds given in 
Annex II for System A typology (catchments larger than 10 km2 and lakes larger than 50 Ha) 
have been used as a possibility for differentiating water bodies. However this approach should 
not  exclude  smaller  water  bodies  from  the  protection  of  the  Directive.  Member  States  have 

flexibility to  decide not  to  designate very  small water bodies  and can aggregate these small 
water  bodies  into  groups  or  include  them  as  part  of  a  larger  contiguous  water  body  of  the 

same surface water category and of the same type. The optimum size of a water body is the 
size that allows the objectivies of the Directive to be most efficiently achieved. 

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second RBMPs 

Delineation of surface water bodies 

The following table presents  an overview of the  water categories  available in  each Member 

State. Throughout the EU, more than 111 000 surface water bodies have been defined in the 
second RBMPs (compared to around 127 000 in the first RBMPs and 70 000 reported for the 

initial characterisation completed in 2004). Approximately 80% are rivers, 16% lakes, and the 
remaining 4% coastal and transitional waters which is similar to results from the first RBMPs. 

48 

 
 
The average size of water bodies in Member States is variable with average river water body 

lengths  varying  from  2.4  km  in  Denmark  to  close  to  the  EU  average  (13  km)  in  Portugal, 
Croatia, and the UK, and up to an average of 54 km in Bulgaria. Sweden and Finland have the 

highest number of lake water bodies, 7 422 and 4 617, respectively. The EU average area of 
water  bodies  increases  (as  might  be  expected)  from  4.5  km2  for  lakes,  to  19  km2  for 

transitional waters and to 102 km2 for coastal waters. This is similar to the first RBMPs with 
the  exception  of  coastal  waters  for  which  the  previous  EU  average  area  was  644  km2.  The 

largest average coastal water body size in the second RBMPs was reported by Estonia equal 
to 907 km2 (in the first RBMPs, the largest average coastal water body size was reported by 

Spain with 8 700 km2). 

49 

 
 
Table 1: Number of water bodies under each water category in the Member States 

Member State 

Austria (AT) 

Belgium (BE) 

Bulgaria (BG) 

Cyprus (CY) 

River 
water 
bodies 

8065 

527 

873 

174 

Czech Rep (CZ) 

1044 

Germany (DE) 

Denmark (DK) 

Estonia (EE) 

Spain (ES) 

Finland (FI) 

France (FR) 

Croatia (HR) 

8998 

7776 

645 

4390 

1913 

10706 

1484 

Lakes water bodies  Transitional water bodies  

62 

18 

37 

8 

77 

730 

856 

89 

326 

4617 

435 

37 

Not relevant 

6 

28 

None 

Not relevant 

5 

None 

None 

186 

None 

94 

25 

50 

Coastal 
water 
bodies 

Not 
relevant 

2 

17 

22 

Not 
relevant 

75 

119 

16 

220 

276 

179 

26 

Territorial 
water bodies 

Groundwater 
bodies 

1 

14 

2 

138 

80 

169 

21 

174 

1177 

402 

39 

729 

3733 

645 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Hungary (HU) 

963 

115 

Not relevant 

Italy (IT) 

Luxembourg (LU) 

Latvia (LV) 

Malta (MT) 

7493 

110 

203 

3 

The Netherlands (NL) 

246 

4586 

1899 

2891 

Poland (PL) 

Portugal (PT) 

Romania (RO) 

Sweden (SE) 

Slovenia (SI) 

Slovakia (SK) 

347 

None 

259 

2 

451 

1044 

23 

130 

172 

Not relevant 

3 

5 

5 

9 

52 

2 

15092 

7422 

137 

1510 

12 

None 

None 

None 

Not relevant 

Not 
relevant 

561 

8 

Not 
relevant 

5 

9 

9 

10 

66 

4 

653 

5 

Not 
relevant 

561 

1 

19 

1 

185 

1052 

6 

22 (16) 

15 

23 

178 (172) 

151 

143 

3311 

21 

102 

788 

United Kingdom (UK) 

7506 

1068 

190 

Source:  WISE  reporting  2016.  Values  in  brackets  were  subsequently  provided  by  Member  States  and  differ  from  those  reported  in  WISE.

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
There are five landlocked Member States (Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg and 
Slovakia) for which transitional and coastal waters are not  relevant.  Six other Member States 

(Cyprus,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Sweden  and  Slovenia)  with  a  coastline  have  not 
designated  any  transitional  waters  though  coastal  water  bodies  have  been  identified.  Some 

justifications  for  this  were  provided  in  the  RBMPs.  Sweden  had  defined  transitional  water 
bodies in the first RBMPs, but these were redefined as coastal water bodies because it was not 

possible to distinguish them from the nearby coastal waters. Malta had not included any rivers, 
lakes or transitional water bodies in its first RBMP but has done so for the second RBMP.  

Some Member States have re-delineated surface water bodies for the second RBMPs. Overall, 
about 90% of surface water bodies are unchanged from the first to the second RBMPs. About 
10% were reported to be deleted, markedly modified (split or aggregated) or newly created60. 
At  a  Member  State  level,  the  vast  majority  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Denmark  and  Croatia 

were  deleted  and  created  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs.  There  was  also  a  significant 
amount  of  splitting  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Bulgaria,  Cyprus  and  Luxemburg.  Very  little 

explanation  of  the  consequences  of  these  changes  for  the  comparability  of  status  between 
cycles  was  found  in  the  RBMPs.  Poland  was  the  only  Member  State  to  report  no  changes  to 
surface water bodies.61  

Generally Member States have included information on size thresholds that they have used to 
delineate river and lake  water bodies. The following table presents  the  minimum  size criteria 

used by Member States to delineate river and lake water bodies. A large majority have used the 
size thresholds in  typology System  A of WFD Annex  II (catchments  larger than 10 km2  and 

lakes larger than 50 Ha). Some Member States have explicitly included smaller water bodies if 
they are protected under other legislation or if they are ecologically important in the basin.  In 

Finland  and  Latvia,  the  minimum  catchment  size  for  rivers  was  100km2  which  was 
significantly  higher  than  the  other  Member  States.  However,  both  countries  reported  that 

smaller  rivers  have  also  been  considered  if  they  were  particularly  relevant  for  water 
management or if delineation was needed to achieve specific environmental quality objectives 
in protected areas. 

60 EEA (2018). European Waters – Assessment of status and pressures 2018,EEA Report No 7/2018, ISSN 1977-

8449. 

61 Further information available for the different Member States at:  

https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_Evolution_Compare/SWB_Evolutio
n_Country?:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&:showShareOptions=true&:display_count=no&:showVizHom
e=no  

52 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Table 2: Minimum size criteria used by Member States to delineate river and lake water 
bodies  

Rivers  

Lakes 

Catchment > 10 km2 

Area > 50 Ha 

Member 
State 
Austria 
(AT) 
Belgium 
(BE) 

Catchment > 10 km2 (Meuse and Scheldt) 
BEMEUSE_RW is <10 km2 

Catchment > 10 km2 

Catchment > 10 km2 

Catchment > 10 km2 

Bulgaria 
(BG) 
Cyprus 
(CY) 
Czech  Rep 
(CZ) 
Germany 
(DE) 
Denmark 
(DK) 
Estonia (EE)  Catchment > 10 km2 
Spain (ES) 

Catchment > 10 km2 

No information 

Catchment > 10 km2 (Balearic Islands are 
> 5 km2) 

Catchment > 10 km2 

Catchment > 10 km2 

Catchment > 10 km2 
No information 

Finland (FI)  Catchment > 100 km2 
France (FR)  Catchment > 10 km2 
Catchment > 10 km2 
Croatia 
(HR) 
Hungary 
(HU) 
Italy (IT) 
Luxembourg 
(LU) 
Latvia (LV)  Catchment > 100 km2 
Malta (MT)  No information 
The 
Netherlands 
(NL) 
Poland (PL)  Catchment > 10 km2 
Catchment > 10 km2 
Portugal 
(PT) 
Romania 
(RO) 
Sweden 
(SE) 
Slovenia 
(SI) 
Slovakia 
(SK) 
United 

Catchment > 10 km2 

Catchment > 10 km2 

Catchment > 10 km2 

Catchment > 10 km2 

No information 

53 

Area  >  50  Ha  (Meuse  and 
Scheldt)  BEMEUSE_RW  is 
<50 Ha 
Area > 50 Ha 

No information 

Area > 50 Ha 

Area > 50 Ha 

Area < 5 Ha 

Area > 50 Ha 
Area  >  5  Ha 
(Western 
Cantabrian, Guadiana, Segura 
all > 50 Ha) 
Area > 50 Ha 
Area > 50 Ha 
Area > 50 Ha 

Area > 50 Ha 

Area > 50 Ha 
Area > 50 Ha 

Area > 50 Ha 
No information 
Area > 50 Ha 

Area > 50 Ha 
Area >5 Ha 

Area > 50 Ha 

Area > 100 Ha 

Area > 50 Ha 

No information 

Area > 50 Ha 

 
 
Kingdom 
(UK) 
Source: WISE reporting 2016; Note: The reported minimum size criteria were reported at the 
RBD level and have been summarised at Member State level in this table. 

Typology for surface water bodies 

As  part  of  the  characterisation,  Member  States  have  defined  surface  water  body  types 
(typology)  for  each  surface  water  category  (i.e.  rivers,  lakes,  transitional  waters  or  coastal 

waters) in each RBD, and have delineated surface and groundwater bodies in accordance with 
the  methodology  specified  in  Annex  II  of  the  WFD.  This  also  includes  the  identification  of 

HMWBs  and  AWBs,  which  is  addressed  in  chapter  6.7.  For  each  surface  water  body  type, 
type-specific reference conditions should have been established representing the values for that 

surface water body type at high ecological status. 

The  division  of  a  surface  water  category  into  types  is  based  on  abiotic  descriptors  such  as 

altitude, geology, size, etc. using System A or B (Annex II of WFD). The ecological relevance 
of  the  different  theoretical  types  has  to  be  demonstrated  by  cross-checking  against  biological 

data such as benthic invertebrates groups and/or species composition. Not all water categories 
occur in every RBD. Many Member States have still not validated their water body typology 

against  biological  data,  or  it  is  unclear  if  biological  validation  has  taken  place  based  on  the 
information in the RBMPs.  

The following table presents an overview of the number of types reported per water category 

and Member State. All water categories have types that have been developed in each Member 
State.  The  typologies  between  the  first  and  the  second  RBMPs  remained  largely  the  same, 

however  some  individual  Member  States  did  have  significant  changes  and  these  can  be 
examined in the respective Member State reports.  

Table 3: Overview of the number of types reported per water category and Member State 

River water bodies  Lakes 
water 
bodies 
14 

49 

Transitional water bodies  Coastal 

Member State 

Austria (AT) 

Belgium (BE) 
Bulgaria (BG) 
Cyprus (CY) 
Czech Rep (CZ) 

Germany (DE) 
Denmark (DK) 
Estonia (EE) 

41 
20 (15) 
4 
35 

39 
5 
7 

Not relevant 

3 
5 
None 
Not relevant 

6 
10 (6) 
3 
16 

2 

16 
12 (11)  None 
None 
8 

54 

water 
bodies 
Not 
relevant 
2 
9 
4 
Not 
relevant 
10 
19 
6 

 
 
 
water 
bodies 
29 
14 
48 
5 
Not 
relevant 
39 
Not 
relevant 
4 
4 
3 
3 
10 
4 (2) 
27 
3 
Not 
relevant 
19 

Transitional water bodies  Coastal 

Member State 

Spain (ES) 
Finland (FI) 
France (FR) 
Croatia (HR) 
Hungary (HU) 

River water bodies  Lakes 
water 
bodies 
36 
15 
34 
15 (6) 
8 

48 
19 
145 
28 
15 

Italy (IT) 
Luxembourg (LU) 

364 
6 

29 

18 
None 
16 
4 
Not relevant 

40 
Not relevant 

6 
Latvia (LV) 
Malta (MT) 
1 
The Netherlands (NL)  12 
25 
Poland (PL) 
23 
Portugal (PT) 
56 (19) 
Romania (RO) 
52 
Sweden (SE) 
52 
Slovenia (SI) 
42 
Slovakia (SK) 

9 
1 
18 
13 
2 
14 (9) 
77 
9 
Not 
relevant 
United Kingdom (UK)  57 
36 
Source:  WISE  reporting  2016.  Note:  Not  relevant  means  there  are  no  water  bodies  in  this 
category.  Values  in  brackets  were  subsequently  provided  by  Member  States  and  differ  from 
those reported in WISE. 

1 
1 
1 
4 
5 
2 
None 
None 
Not relevant 

10 

Member States were asked to report if there is no corresponding EU intercalibration common 
type  for  their  national  types.  At  EU  level,  the  majority  of  national  types  for  natural  surface 

water bodies have been intercalibrated.. However, there were often several national types that 
had not been intercalibrated.  

Reference conditions  

Member  States  are  required  to  identify  the  ecological  status  of  water  bodies  by  comparing 
current  status  with  near  natural  or  reference  conditions.  The  establishment  of  reference 
conditions is a basic pre-requisite so as to allow a relative comparison of the ecological status at 
one certain moment. Reference conditions have to be established for each of the surface water 

types.  They  represent  the  values  for  that  surface  water  body  type  at  high  ecological  status. 
According to  WFD Annex  II reference conditions  can be established using different  methods 

(without specific ranking): 

 

Spatially  based  reference  conditions  using  data  from  monitoring  sites  if  sufficiently 
undisturbed or minimally disturbed sites are available. 

  When  adequate  numbers  of  representative  reference  sites  are  not  available  in  a 

region/type,  predictive  modelling,  using  the  data  available  within  a  region/type  or 

55 

 
 
 
 
borrowing  data  from  other  similar  regions/types,  can  be  used  in  model  construction 
and calibration. 

 

A combination of the above approaches. 

  Where it is not possible to use these methods, reference conditions can be established 

using expert judgement. 

Establishing reference conditions for many quality elements may involve using more than one 

of the methods described.  

The establishment of reference conditions and the establishment of ecological class boundaries 

(i.e. boundary between high and good) are closely interconnected. Considerations assumed and 
methodologies for the establishment of reference conditions are crucial for the judgement of the 

risk that individual water bodies will fail to reach the overall objective of good water status.  

The  figure  below  shows  by  water  category  for  all  Member  states  whether  type-specific 
reference  conditions  have  been  developed  for  all,  some  and  none  of  the  biological, 
physicochemical  and  hydro-morphological  quality  elements  for  all  surface  water  body  type. 
The proportion of Member States who established reference conditions for all types and for all 

quality elements (i.e. biological, hydro-morphological or physicochemical) is, for the different 
water categories, 16% for rivers and lakes, 4% for transitional water bodies and 8% for coastal 

water  bodies.  A  few  Member  States  have  established  all  reference  conditions  for  all  water 
categories, including Austria, Hungary and Poland. Only a small proportion  of Member States 

have  no  type  specific  reference  conditions  at  all  for  rivers  (8%)  and  for  transitional  waters 
(4%), and 16% of Member States have no reference conditions for lakes. A large proportion of 

Member states have partly established reference conditions, which means they established them 
for all types of a water category but not for each quality element (partly - all types), or only for 

some  types  (partly  -  some  types).  It  is  the  case  for  76%  of    rivers,  64%  of  lakes,  48%  of 
transitional waters and 72% of coastal water bodies. 

Table 4 shows the percentage of surface water body types in the EU with reference conditions 
established for all, some and none of the biological, hydro-morphological and physicochemical 
quality  elements.  It  clearly  highlights  that  the  quality  elements  with  the  least  type  specific 

reference conditions established are hydro-morphological quality elements, with 68% of types 
having none established. In most of the cases, Member States established reference conditions 

for  some  water  types,  but  8  Member  States  didn’t  establish  reference  conditions  for  hydro-
morphological  quality  elements  for  any  type  (including  Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Croatia, 

Italy,  Latvia,  Malta  and  Slovakia).  Regarding  the  other  quality  elements,  77%  and  76%  of 
biological  quality  elements  and  physicochemical  quality  elements  (respectively)  have  type-
specific reference conditions established for all or some types.  

56 

 
 
Overall  the  situation  is  similar  to  the  first  RBMPs  with  little  improvement  shown  at  the  EU 
level. Some Member States have shown improvements and this information can be obtained in 

the individual Member State reports.  

Figure 2 Type-specific reference conditions for each surface water type by water category 

Source: WISE reporting 2016; 

Notes:  Yes  =  when  reference  conditions  have  been  established  for  all  types  for  each 
quality element (i.e. biological, hydro-morphological or physicochemical) 
Partly  (all  types)  =  when  reference  conditions  have  been  established  for  all  types  but 
not for each quality element (i.e. biological, hydro-morphological or physicochemical) 
Partly (some types) = when reference  conditions have been established for some types 
but  not 
(i.e.  biological,  hydro-morphological  or 
physicochemical) 
No = when reference conditions have not been established 
Not relevant = water category not delineated  

for  each  quality  element 

The situation may be different between RBDs but the data is summarised at a national level. 

Table  4:  Percentage  of  surface  water  body  types  in  the  EU  with  reference  conditions 

established  for  all,  some  and  none  of  the  biological,  hydro-morphological  and 
physicochemical quality elements.  

Water 

Biological 

quality 

Hydro-morphological 

Physicochemical  quality 

types 

All  

Some 

None 

elements  

quality elements 

elements 

37% 

40% 

23% 

12% 

22% 

68% 

33% 

41% 

26% 

Source: WISE reporting 2016. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Delineation and further characterisation of groundwater bodies 

Approximately  13 380  groundwater  bodies  have  been  delineated  in  the  EU  with  the  highest 

number being reported by Finland (3 773) and the lowest by Luxembourg (6). The average size 
of groundwater bodies in the EU is around 320 km2 with the smallest by far on average being in 
Finland  (2.6  km2),  and  the  largest  in  Latvia  (3 460  km2).  Around  70%  of  the  groundwater 
bodies  (by  area)  have  not  changed  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs,  while  29%  of  those 
from the first RBMPs have been deleted and replaced by new ones62. 

In the assessment of the first RBMPs, it was recommended that the delineation of groundwater 

bodies should be better harmonised and that related guidance documents should be improved. 
The  CIS  Guidance  Document  no.  26  on  the  “Risk  Assessment  and  the  Use  of  Conceptual 

Models  for  Groundwater”  provided  more  guidance  on  the  refinement  of  water  body 
delineation.  Since  the  first  RBMPs,  most  Member  States  have  further  characterised  their 

groundwater bodies by providing information on their geological formation and whether they 
are layered or not.  In addition,  the majority of Member States have provided an inventory of 

associated  surface  systems,  including  terrestrial  ecosystems  and  bodies  of  surface  water  with 
which the groundwater body is dynamically linked.  

Pressures and impacts on surface and groundwater bodies 

The  WFD  requires  identification  of  significant  pressures  from  point  sources  of  pollution, 
diffuse sources of pollution,  modifications of flow regimes through  abstractions  or regulation 

and  morphological  alterations,  as  well  as  any  other  pressures.  ‘Significant’  is  interpreted  as 
meaning  that  the  pressure  contributes  to  an  impact  that  may  result  in  the  failing  of 

environmental objectives. 

For  the  second  RBMPs,  Member  States  have  reported  on  significance  of  pressures  at  a 

disaggregated  level,  i.e.  for  different  types  of  pressure-driver  combinations,  which  helped  to 
better identify the link between pressures, sectoral drivers and measures. The identification of 

significant pressures can involve different approaches: numerical tools (e.g. modelling); expert 
judgement  or  a  combination  of  both  tools.  The  magnitude  of  the  pressure  is  compared  with 
thresholds or criteria, relevant to the water body type to assess its significance. Figure 3 shows 

the types of tools reported to be used to assess the significance of the main types of pressures. 
For most pressure types, most Member States use a combination of numerical tools and expert 

judgement (see Figure 3).  

In addition, the criteria used to define significance of pressures have been further developed by 

some Member States. The significance of pressures has been defined using thresholds for 61% 
of surface water bodies and 68% of groundwater bodies. The significance of pressures has also 
been linked to the failure of environmental objectives for 82% of surface water bodies and 80% 

62 EEA (2018). European Waters – Assessment of status and pressures 2018,EEA Report No 7/2018, ISSN 1977-

8449. 

58 

 
 
                                                           
of groundwater bodies. Whilst there have been  advancements since the first RBMPs, there is 
room  for  improvement  and  the  criteria  could  be  made  more  explicit  in  the  RBMPs  and 

supporting documents. 

Member  States  also  reported  which  significant  pressures  were  not  assessed,  however  it  was 

often  unclear  from  the  RBMPs  and  supporting  documents  what  the  rationale  for  excluding 
these pressures were. Moreover, no justification has been provided to discard certain pressures 

that had been reported in the first RBMPs. 

The  EEA  State  of  Water  Report  2018  provides  a  wide  overview  of  the  identification  of 

significant  pressures  and  impacts  at  EU  level.  As  shown  in  Figure  4,  the  main  significant 
pressures  affecting  surface  water  bodies  are  hydro-morphological  pressures  (40%  of  surface 
water bodies affected), diffuse source pollution (38%) and point source pollution (18%)63. Most 
countries report diffuse sources of pollution as being a pressure for groundwater (24 out of 25 

Member States), while 20 Member states report point sources as a pressure. The main pressures 
affecting groundwater bodies are : diffuse pollution from agriculture which is identified as the 
major  pressure  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status  affecting  20%  of  groundwater  bodies 

(by  area),  and  water  abstraction  and  change  in  groundwater  level  with  over-abstraction 
affecting  16%  of  the  total  groundwater  area.  In  particular,  water  abstraction  for  public  water 

supply,  agriculture  and  industry  is  the  main  significant  pressures  causing  failure  of  good 
quantitative status. 

Pressures and impacts should be apportioned to the responsible drivers, sectors and activities to 
give a clear picture of the most important sources for a given impact so that specific measures 

can be set within their POMs to address particular pressures. The main drivers for point source 
pollution pressures were urban wastewater, followed by industrial plants and storm overflows. 

For  diffuse  source  pollution,  the  main  driver  was  agriculture,  followed  by  atmospheric 
deposition and discharges not connected to sewerage plants64. 

63 EEA (2018). European Waters – Assessment of status and pressures 2018,EEA Report No 7/2018, ISSN 1977-

8449. 

64 EEA (2018). European Waters – Assessment of status and pressures 2018,EEA Report No 7/2018, ISSN 1977-

8449. 

59 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 3 The types of tools reported to be used to assess the significance of the main types 
of pressures in surface water and groundwater 

Source: WISE reporting 2016 

The  main  impacts  on  surface  water  bodies  are  nutrient  enrichment,  chemical  pollution  and 
altered habitats due to morphological changes, reflecting the key pressures65. It is highlighted 
that  a  higher  proportion  of  transitional  and  coastal  water  bodies  are  affected  by  pollution 

pressures compared with rivers and lakes.  

Unknown  impacts  of  anthropogenic  origin  were  also  reported  for  a  large  proportion  of  water 
bodies in several Member States, which would indicate that the pressures and impacts have not 

65 EEA (2018). European Waters – Assessment of status and pressures 2018,EEA Report No 7/2018, ISSN 1977-

8449. 

60 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
been  fully  apportioned  to  activities  or  sectors.  Also  in  the  case  of  hydro-morphological 
pressures,  many  Member  States  have  not  clearly  apportioned  these  to  specific  sectors, 

according to the WISE reporting (see further information in chapter 6.13). 

Figure  4  Proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  affected  by  main  pressures  and  sources  of 

pressures 

Notes: Proportion of water bodies with specific pressures; for example, point sources affect 18 
%  of  water  bodies,  and  the  main  point  source  pressure  is  discharges  from  urban  waste  water 

treatment plants, which affect 12 % of all surface water bodies. A water body may be affected 
by more than one pressure; therefore, the sum of percentages is greater than 100 %. IED plants 

are industrial emissions covered by the Industrial Emissions Directive (EC, 2018e).  

Source: EEA (2018). European Waters – Assessment of status and pressures 2018, EEA Report 
No 7/2018, ISSN 1977-8449.  

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Establishment  and  use  of  inventories  of  discharges,  emissions  and  losses  of  chemical 
substances 

Article 5 of the EQSD (2008/105/EC) requires Member States to establish, on the basis of the 
information collected in accordance with Articles 5 and 8 of the WFD and other available data 

such  as  that  collected  under  Regulation  (EC)  No  166/2006,  an  inventory  of  emissions, 
discharges  and  losses  of  all  Priority  Substances  and  the  8  other  pollutants  listed  in  Part  A  of 

Annex  I  EQSD  for  each  RBD,  or  part  thereof,  lying  within  their  territory.  These  inventories 
should  allow  Member  States  to  further  target  measures  to  tackle  pollution  from  priority 

substances.  It  should  also  inform  the  review  of  the  monitoring  networks,  and  allow  the 
assessment of progress made in reducing (resp. suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses 

for priority substances (resp. priority hazardous substances). 

The transposition deadline for the EQSD was July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMPs. 
This  meant  an  inventory  precisely  according  to  Article  5  of  the  EQSD  did  not  have  to  be 

established  by  the  time  of  submission  of  the  first  RBMPs.  However,  the  obligations  for 
gathering data under Articles 5 and 8 of the WFD were effectively in place by the end of 2006, 

as the list of substances was already known and emissions data on some substances have been 
gathered.  In  35%  of  the  RBMPs  assessed  for  the  first  cycle,  no  clear  information  was  found 

relating to inventories.  

The CIS Guidance Document No. 28 “Technical Guidance on the Preparation of an Inventory 
of  Emissions,  Discharges  and  Losses  of  Priority  and  Priority  Hazardous  Substances”66 
published in 2012 addresses the preparation of the inventories at national RBD scale. 

For  the  second  RBMPs,  each  Member  State  reported  for  the  first  time  which  Priority 

Substances had been included in an inventory of discharges, emissions and losses and all RBDs 
reported an inventory for at least some Priority Substances. Only a few countries have complete 

inventories,  including  Austria,  Cyprus,  Luxembourg,  Latvia  and  Slovenia.  For  the  remaining 
Member States, the inventories are not complete. In some cases, justification for not including 

the  missing  Substances  in  the  inventory  was  provided  but  not  always.  Some  Member  States 
included  less  than  10  substances  in  their  inventories,  it  is  particularly  the  case  for  Bulgaria, 

Croatia, Malta, Sweden and Slovakia. 

The  CIS  Guidance  Document  no.  28  recommends  a  two-step  approach  for  compiling 

inventories.  In  the  first  step,  substances  considered  to  be  less  important  are  subject  to  only  a 
basic  estimation  of  significant  inputs,  whereas  for  the  remaining  substances,  a  more  in-depth 
analysis  should  be  performed.  Two-thirds  of  the  Member  States  reported  that  the  two-step 
approach was applied, very few reported that it was not used and the remaining Member States 

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

62 

 
 
 
                                                           
used  this  approach  for  some,  but  not  all  Priority  Substances.  Analysis  of  inputs  of  Priority 
Substances was almost entirely based on assessment of point sources with diffuse source inputs 

not being given due consideration.  

As required by Article 5 of the EQS Directive, the Commission will assess progress in reducing 

(respectively suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses of priority substances (respectively 
priority  hazardous  substances).  This  will  be  done  after  Member  States  have  reported  their 

second inventories as part of their third RBMPs. 

Main changes in implementation and compliance since first RBMPs 

Overall  at  an  EU  level  about  90%  of  surface  water  bodies  remained  unchanged  in  terms  of 
delineation  since  the  first  RBMPs.  However,  in  certain  Member  States,  it  can  be  seen  that  a 

large proportion of surface water bodies did change (splitting, creation and deletion) since the 
first RBMPs. Around 70% of the groundwater bodies (by area) had not changed. Since the first 

RBMPs most Member States have further characterised their groundwater bodies by providing 
information on their geological formation and whether they are layered or not. In addition, the 
majority of Member States have provided an inventory of associated surface systems, including 

terrestrial  ecosystems  and  bodies  of  surface  water  with  which  the  groundwater  body  is 
dynamically linked. 

Overall since the first RBMPs there have been no significant improvements in the development 

of typologies and reference conditions for surface waters. In particular many gaps in terms of 
type-specific reference conditions still remain. 

For most pressure types, most Member States use a combination of numerical tools and expert 

judgement to identify significant pressures. This is similar to the first RBMPs, although many 
Member States have shown improvements in the methodologies for individual pressure types. 

In addition, the criteria used to define significance of pressures have been further developed by 
some Member States. The significance of pressures has been defined using thresholds for 61% 

of surface waters and 68% of groundwaters. The significance of pressures has also been linked 
to  the  failure  of  environmental  objectives  for  82%  of  surface  water  bodies  and  80%  of 
groundwater bodies.  

As to changes in reporting of inventories, the transposition deadline was July 2010, meaning an 

inventory precisely according to Article 5 of the EQSD did not have to  be established by the 
time  of  submission  of  the  first  RBMPs.  Therefore,  35%  of  the  first  RBMPs  assessed  had  no 

clear information relating to inventories. For the second RBMPs, each Member State reported 
which  Priority  Substances  had  been  included  in  an  inventory  of  discharges,  emissions  and 
losses for each RBD, however only a few countries have complete inventories. 

63 

 
 
1.6.2.  Conclusions 

Overall at an EU level about 90% of surface water bodies have remained unchanged in terms of 
delineation  since  the  first  RBMPs  although  in  certain  Member  States,  a  large  proportion  of 

surface water bodies did change since the first RBMPs. Around 70% of the groundwater bodies 
(by  area)  have  not  changed.    Nevertheless,  little  explanation  of  the  consequences  of  these 

changes for the comparability of status between cycles was found in the RBMPs. 

Reference  conditions  have  not  been  established  for  all  water  body  types  in  a  number  of 

Member States for all water categories. The situation is similar to the first  RBMPs with little 
improvement shown at the EU level. Hydro-morphological quality elements were found to be 

the  quality  elements  whose  type-specific  reference  conditions  show  the most  significant  gaps 
for surface water body types.  

The identification of significant pressures by Member States involves different approaches such 

as  numerical  tools  (e.g.  modelling),  expert  judgment  or  a  combination  of  both.  For  most 
pressure  types,  most  Member  States  use  a  combination  of  numerical  tools  and  expert 

judgement. The criteria used to define significance of pressures have been further developed by 
some Member States since the first  RBMPs. However, there remain significant gaps that will 

need  to  be  addressed  in  the  current  cycle,  particularly  in  defining  thresholds;  in  addition,  the 
criteria used could be made more explicit in the RBMPs or in supportive documents. Member 

States  reported  which  significant  pressures  were  not  assessed,  however  it  was  often  unclear 
from  the  RBMPs  and  supporting  documents  what  the  rationale  for  excluding  these  pressures 

were. Further work is required by Member States on the  apportionment of pressures to sectors 
and activites to better inform the targeting of measures. For the second RBMPs, Member States 

have  reported  on  significance  of  pressures  at  a  disaggregated  level,  i.e.  for  different  types  of 
pressure-driver  combinations,  which  helped  to  better  identify  the  link  between  pressures, 

sectoral  drivers  and  measures.  However,  unknown  impacts  of  anthropogenic  origin  and 
pressures  of  unknown  drivers  (especially  hydro-morphological  pressures)  were  reported  for  a 

large  proportion  of  water  bodies  in  some  Member  States,  which  would  indicate  that  the 
pressures and impacts have not been fully apportioned to activities or sectors. 

For  the  second  RBMPs,  each  Member  State  reported  which  Priority  Substances  had  been 
included  in  an  inventory  of  discharges,  emissions  and  losses,  however  only  a  few  countries 

have  complete  inventories,  with  the  reasons  for  incomplete  inventories  generally  not  being 
reported. Two-thirds of the  Member States  reported that the two-step approach for compiling 

inventories,  as  recommended  in  the  CIS  Guidance  Document  no.  28,  was  applied  although 
analysis of inputs of Priority Substances. However, it was almost entirely based on assessment 

of point sources with diffuse source inputs not being given due consideration. 

64 

 
 
 
 
1.6.3. Recommendations 

  Member States should address the existing gaps in the definition of reference conditions 
for surface waters. Reference conditions should be established for all water body types 

and  for  all  relevant  quality  elements,  in  order  to  improve  the  reliability  of  status 
assessment.  A  particular  effort  has  to  be  done  for  hydro-morphological  quality 

elements. 

 

Improvements are  further needed in  the evaluation  of significance of pressures and in 

the apportionment of those pressures to sectors and activities, in order to better inform 
the  targeting  of  measures.  In  particular,  all  pressures  should  be  assessed  with 

methodologies that enable a reliable quantitative assessment. 

  Member States should complete their inventories of discharges, emissions and losses of 
Priority  Substances  from  point  and  diffuse  sources,  in  order  to  cover  all  Priority 

Substances,  and  provide  clear  information  on  the  reasons  for  not  including  certain 
substances when that is the case. 

65 

 
 
1.7.  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface 

waters 

1.7.1. 

Introduction 

The main objectives of the WFD include the achievement of GES/potential by 2015. Member 
States  had  to  establish  surface  water  monitoring  networks  to  provide  a  coherent  and 

comprehensive overview of ecological (and chemical) status within each river basin that allows 
for the classification of water bodies into five classes consistent with the normative definitions 

given in Annex V of the WFD. The quality elements used for the classification of ecological 
status  comprise  biological  elements,  hydro-morphological  elements  supporting  the  biological 

elements; general physicochemical elements and RBSPs supporting the biological elements.  

The  WFD  specifies  the  types  and  objectives  of  monitoring  to  be  undertaken,  including 

surveillance  monitoring  which  should  be  carried  out  in  sufficient  surface  water  bodies  to 
provide  an  assessment  of  the  overall  ecological  status/potential  within  each  catchment  or 

subcatchments within the river basin district. Surveillance monitoring should be able to detect 
the impact of all potential anthropogenic pressures and natural long-term changes. This requires 

a range of different quality elements to be monitored. Operational monitoring should. establish 
the  status  of  those  bodies  identified  as  being  at  risk  of  failing  to  meet  their  environmental 

objectives, and. assess any changes in the status of such bodies resulting from the programmes 
of measures. Operational monitoring generally focuses on the quality elements most sensitive 

to the specific pressures and impacts on water bodies. 

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  provides  guideline  monitoring  frequencies  for  the  different  quality 
elements.  In  any  case,  frequencies  should  be  chosen  so  as  to  achieve  an  acceptable  level  of 

confidence  and  precision  in  the  results  of  monitoring,  and  in  the  subsequent  assessment  and 
classification  of  ecological  status/potential  of  water  bodies.  Estimates  of  the  confidence  and 

precision attained by the monitoring system used should be stated in the RBMPs. The level of 
confidence  and  precision  achieved  in  the  classification  of  water  bodies  should  enable  the 

measures needed to achieve WFD objectives to be effectively targeted. 

Before the implementation of the WFD many Member States had developed their own systems 

for  monitoring  and  assessing  the  quality  of  water  bodies.  However,  these  were  generally 
developed for specific stressors or types of impact, such as organic pollution and acidification. 

Considerable  efforts  have  subsequently  been  made  by  Member  States  to  develop  assessment 
methods  for  the  biological  quality  elements,  and  the  supporting  hydro-morphological  and 

physicochemical  quality  elements  that  meet  the  requirements  of  the  WFD.  This  includes  the 
establishment  of  type‐ specific  reference  conditions  for  all  water  body  types  for  all  relevant 
quality  elements:  this  aspect  has  been  assessed  in  this  document  in  the  chapter  on 
characterisation. 

66 

 
 
The WFD provides for a process to ensure the comparability between the biological monitoring 
results  of  Member  States  and  their  monitoring  system  classifications.  These  are  compared 

through an intercalibration network comprised of monitoring sites in each Member State and in 
each  ecoregion  of  the  Union.  Member  States  should  apply  the  results  of  the  intercalibration 

exercise to their national classification systems, in order to set the boundaries between high and 
good status and between good and moderate status for all their national types. There have been 

three  phases  of  the  intercalibration  exercise,  each  resulting  in  a  Commission  Decision.  It  is 
expected that the results of the first two exercises would have been used in the development of 

the second RBMPs, while the results of the third exercise should be used in the next river basin 
planning cycle. 

According to the one-out-all-out principle, that the status of a water body should be classified 
according  to  the  biological  quality  element  with  the  lowest  status  class  and  the  status  class 

should be downgraded to moderate if the worst biological quality element is good and one or 
more  of  the  supporting  quality  elements  are  less  than  good.  When  combining  with  the 

supporting  quality  elements,  an  aggregated  level  can  be  used  for  the  supporting  quality 
elements  belonging  to  the  same  impact  (e.g.  phosphorus,  nitrogen,  Secchi  depth),  based  on 

averaging the class for single quality elements within each impact category, before applying the 
one-out-all-out principle. 

Monitoring of ecological status/potential in surface waters 

Monitoring programmes 

Table 3.1 gives the number of monitoring programmes reported by Member States for each of 
their  relevant  water  categories.  Monitoring  programmes  may  include  more  than  one  water 

category and hence the numbers in the surface water column are not necessarily the sum of the 
programmes for each water category. Territorial waters are not a water body category under the 

WFD. However, it should be noted that under Article 2(1) of the WFD,  territorial  waters are 
included for the assessment and reporting of chemical status. 

Table 3.1: Number of surface water monitoring programmes reported by Member States. 

Note: NR = water category not relevant to land-locked Member State.  

Member 
State 
AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 

Lakes 

Number of monitoring programmes 
Coastal 
Surface 
waters 
waters 
NR 
8 
2 
26 
4 
36 
2 
6 
NR 
2 
7 
10 

2 
3 
11 
2 
2 
10 

Rivers 

6 
19 
18 
2 
2 
10 

Transitional 
waters 
NR 
2 
3 

Territorial 
waters 
NR 
2 

NR 
4 

NR 

67 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
Member 
State 
DK 
EE 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 
EU 25 

Lakes 

3 
4 
56 
8 
20 
1 
4 
31 

Number of monitoring programmes 
Coastal 
Surface 
waters 
waters 
1 
4 
4 
3 
33 
185 
6 
21 
20 
51 
1 
1 
NR 
11 
30 
85 
NR 
13 
2 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
5 
11 
8 
18 
1 
4 
12 
15 
2 
4 
NR 
6 
10 
27 
152 
551 

2 
1 
1 
11 
14 
3 
15 
4 

8 
216 

Rivers 

Transitional 
waters 

Territorial 
waters 

5 
5 
159 
7 
26 
1 
7 
48 
13 
2 
1 
1 
11 
17 
4 
14 
4 
6 
12 
400 

41 

16 
1 
NR 
19 
NR 
2 
1 
1 
6 
9 
1 

NR 
9 
115 

2 

NR 

NR 

1 
5 
2 
NR 

12 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

In  total  551  monitoring  programmes  were  reported  by  EU  Member  States  including  12  for 

territorial  waters  reported  by  5  Member  States.  There  are  many  differences  in  how  Member 
States  have  designed  and  reported  their  monitoring  programmes.  There  are  examples  where 

there  are  separate  programmes  for  surveillance  and  operational  purposes  and/or  separate 
programmes for  each relevant  water  category. Several  Member State-specific gaps have been 

identified  in  the  reported  programmes,  especially  the  lack  of  operational  or  surveillance 
monitoring programmes for lakes, transitional or coastal waters in some Member States. 

Some Member States also reported monitoring programmes that are not explicitly related to the 

WFD  (e.g.  Bathing  Water  Directive  and  Nitrates  Directive  programmes  for  surface  waters). 
Some  programmes  were  also  time  limited  and  in  one  Member  State  it  appears  that  no 

monitoring programmes are planned for the duration of the second cycle. 

68 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
Monitoring sites  

a) 

Second RBMPs 

Tables 3.2 and 3.3 present the number of surveillance and operational monitoring sites reported 

by  Member  States  in  the  second  RBMPs.  It  is  apparent  that  Member  States  have  interpreted 
differently  what  is  meant  in  the  reporting  guidance  by  ecological  monitoring  and  chemical 

monitoring:  i.e.  are  river  basin  specific  pollutants  included  in  chemical  monitoring  and/or  in 
ecological  monitoring.  Also  no  explicit  differentiation  had  been  made  between  chemical  and 

ecological monitoring in the data reported for the first RBMPs. For these reasons the data in the 
tables  below  make  no  allowance  for  whether  sites  are  used  for  chemical  or  ecological 

monitoring. 

Table 3.2: Number of sites used for surveillance monitoring for the second RBMPs.   

Memb
er 
State 
AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 
EU 
(25) 

CW 

LW 

RW 

TeW 

TW 

NR 
6 
14 
20 
NR 
75 
 781 
128 
543 
93 
133 
49 
NR 
304 
 NR 

5 
10 

118 

1144 
2 
 NR 
677 

32 
1 
5 
 6 
8 
162 
818 
360 
156 
1126 
201 
6 
27 
166 

25 

80 
322 
116 
22 
3379 
4 

463 

76 
122 
492 
 52 
85 
306 
790 
315 
2 355 
481 
1 699 
40 
118 
1 647 
5 
33 

69 
338 
334 
1234 
5 512 
25 
875 
2 634 

NR 
1 

NR 

10 

NR 

NR 

16 
1 
NR 

NR 
3 
28 

NR 
43 

299 

79 
81 
NR 
40 
NR 

11 

114 

NR 
513 

4 102 

7 485 

19 637 

28 

1 211 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

69 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Notes  for  table:  CW:  coastal  waters;  LW:  lakes;  RW:  rivers;  TeW:  territorial  waters;  TW: 
transitional  waters.  NR  =  water  category  not  relevant  to  land-locked  Member  States.  No 

allowance  has  been  made  as  to  whether  the  sites  are  for  ecological  or  chemical  monitoring. 
This is because this makes the data more comparable with the data from the first RBMPs.  

Table 3.3 

Table:  Number  of  sites  used  for  operational  monitoring  for  the  second 

RBMPs.  

Memb
er 
State 
AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 
EU 
(25) 

CW 

LW 

RW 

TeW 

TW 

NR 
6 
6 
4 
NR 
98 
781 
34 
293 
227 
47 
29 
NR 
439 
NR 
20 
5 
10 
10 

28 
714 
6 
NR 
325 

89 
14 

62 
716 
262 
7 
71 
627 
222 
14 
102 
170 

218 

465 
373 
32 
72 
1524 
14 

448 

2 025 
664 
285 
 34 
997 
13 106 
12 464 
72 
2 312 
591 
3 085 
135 
1 078 
1 494 
218 
186 

344 
1 813 
495 
422 
4 030 
248 
277 
21 316 

NR 
2 

NR 

NR 

NR 

3 
7 
1 
NR 

NR 
10 
15 

NR 
15 

77 

51 
23 
NR 
428 
NR 
8 

14 
9 
3 
8 

NR 
462 

3 082 

5 502 

67 691 

13 

1 123 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Note for table: CW: coastal waters; LW: lakes; RW: rivers; TeW: territorial waters; TW: 
transitional waters. NR = water category not relevant to land-locked Member States. No 
allowance has been made as to whether the sites are for ecological or chemical monitoring. 

This is because this makes the data more comparable with the data from the first RBMPs. 

70 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
At  the  EU  level  (25  Member  States  assessed  for  this  report),  more  sites  were  used  for  the 
monitoring of rivers than for the other water categories with  more being  used for operational 

purposes (67 691) than for surveillance (19 637). The reverse was the case for lakes (7 485 for 
surveillance monitoring and 5 502 for operational), while similar numbers were used for both 

purposes in transitional and coastal waters.  

b)  Changes since the first RBMPs 

Table 3.4 summarises  the changes in  the numbers of surveillance and operational  monitoring 

sites between the first and second RBMPs. The assessment is made at the Member State level 
and summarises the changes in terms of small, medium and large differences in numbers. 

Table 3.4 

Number of Member States with changes in the numbers of surveillance and 

operational monitoring sites between the first and second RBMPs. 

Surveillance 

Operational 

CW  LW  RW  TW  CW  LW  RW  TW 

Large increase (>50%) 

Medium  increase  (10%  to 

50%) 

Small increase (up to 10%) 

No change 

Small decrease (up to 10%) 

Medium  decrease  (10%  to 
50%) 

Large decrease (>50%) 

8 

2 

1 

0 

0 

4 

4 

6 

5 

2 

2 

1 

1 

5 

5 

2 

4 

0 

4 

8 

1 

4 

1 

0 

0 

0 

3 

5 

6 

2 

0 

0 

2 

5 

2 

6 

8 

0 

2 

0 

2 

7 

6 

5 

4 

0 

0 

6 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

4 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Note  to  Table:  CW:  coastal  waters;  LW:  lakes;  RW:  rivers;  TW:  transitional  waters.  No 

allowance  has  been  made  as  to  whether  the  sites  are  for  ecological  or  chemical  monitoring. 
The cells show the number of Member States where there have been increases, decreases or no 

changes  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs.  Only  the  RBDs  with  reported  information  for 
both cycles were used in the analysis.  

Only for one Member State was there no change between the first and second RBMPs, in the 

case of surveillance monitoring of lakes. In many Member States there were large increases or 

71 

 
 
  
  
 
decreases in the numbers of sites used for either purpose in all water categories. For example, 
for six Member States there was at least a 50 % increase in lake surveillance sites and in  five 

others at least a 50 % decrease.  

Member  State’s  RBMPs  were  examined  to  look  for  the  reasons  behind  these  changes.  For 

instance,  in  one  Member  State,  the  reasons  for  the  changes  included  the  abolishment  of  a 
number  of  measuring  stations  that  were  deemed  to  be  not  necessary  (e.g.  stations  used  to 

determine  reference  conditions),  some  stations  have  been  changed  for  reasons  of  safety  (safe 
access) or for a more rational planning of the network.  In general, it would have been expected 

there would be changes because of filling of methodological and monitoring gaps identified in 
the  first  RBMPs.  For  example,  some  Member  States  have  adopted  a  series  of  national 

methodological  and  guidance  documents  on  different  topics  of  water  management  since  the 
first RBMPs, to ensure a common approach across the RBDs. In other Member States, changes 

to the monitoring programme were due to the experience gained during the first planning cycle 
and also reflect the Commission’s recommendations on the first RBMPs. For instance, in one 

Member State, the river network was expanded to cover rivers with non-permanent flow and to 
ensure  the  monitoring  in  water  bodies  that  were  identified  as  not  being  in  good  status  in  the 

first RBMP.  

The number of monitoring sites may also have changed because of the new delineation of water 
bodies (e.g. by merging old water bodies or creating new water bodies). In some cases, there 

was  an  extension  of  the  monitoring  network  in  order  to  increase  representativeness  or  a 
reduction of the network due to a risk-based approach determining the extent of the monitoring.  

Further  details  on  changes  to  the monitoring  programmes  are  given  in  the  Member  State-
specific reports. Monitoring of quality elements excluding RBSPs 

The  WFD  requires  that  parameters  indicative  of  all  biological  quality  elements,  all  hydro-
morphological  quality  elements,  all  general  physicochemical  quality  elements,  those  priority 

list pollutants (described in Chapter 6.4) which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin 
and  those  other  pollutants  discharged  in  significant  quantities  in  the  river  basin  or  sub-basin 

(described  here  as  river  basin  specific  pollutants)  are  monitored  in  water  bodies  included  in 
surveillance monitoring.  

For  operational  monitoring,  Member  States  are  required  to  monitor  for  those  biological  and 

hydro-morphological  quality  elements  which  are  most  sensitive  to  the  pressures  to  which  the 
water bodies are subjected (Annex V, 1.3.2 Selection of quality elements). 

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

one year during the six-year period covered by a RBMP. For phytoplankton this should be done 
twice during the monitoring year and for the other biological quality elements once during the 

year. As a guideline, operational monitoring should take place at intervals not exceeding once 

72 

 
 
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 used if they are justified on the basis 

of technical knowledge and expert judgement. 
Figure 3.1 shows, at the EU level, the average proportion of sites used for the operational and 

surveillance monitoring of biological quality elements in each water category where at least the 
minimum  recommended  frequency  is  applied.  There  are  only  two  cases  where  biological 

quality  elements  are  monitored  at  least  at  the  minimum  recommended  frequency  at  all 
monitoring  sites  at  which  they  are  monitored:  these  are  for  macroalgae  and  angiosperms  in 

transitional  waters  for  surveillance  purposes.  The  monitoring  of  fish  in  rivers  and  lakes  for 
operational  purposes  had  the  smallest  proportion  on  sites  that  were  sampled  with  at  least  the 

minimum recommended frequency: 38 % and 41 % of sites, respectively. 

Figure 3.1   Average  proportions  of  sites  meeting  the  minimum  recommended 

frequency for the monitoring of biological quality elements in different water categories. 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

73 

 
 
 
Note: Average calculated from the proportion of sites meeting the recommended frequencies in 

each Member  State that reported the element.  The numbers  in  parenthesis  are the number of 
Member States reporting the quality element to be monitored for surveillance and operational 

purposes, respectively.  

Annex V of the WFD indicates which quality elements are expected to  be monitored in  each 
water category: a full range of quality elements is required so that the effects of all pressures 

and impacts can be detected.  

There are still significant gaps in the quality elements monitored in each water category. This is 
particularly so for the hydro-morphological quality elements but there are still significant gaps 

also  in  the  monitoring  of  biological  quality  elements.  For  example,  more  than  half  of  the 
Member States with coastal waters that have reported do not monitor morphological conditions, 

and  half  of  the  Member  States  with  coastal  waters  do  not  monitor  tidal  regime.  In  terms  of 
biological  quality  elements,  approximately  a  quarter  of  the  the  Member  States  with  coastal 

waters do not monitor angiosperms and macroalgae in coastal waters. 

Table  3.5  summarises  at  the  aggregated  level  the  percentage  of  water  bodies  included  in 

surveillance monitoring where all required quality elements are monitored. 

Table 3.5: Number of water bodies included in surveillance monitoring and percentages 
where all required quality elements are monitored. 

Water bodies included in surveillance monitoring 
Numb
er  

  with  all 

all  

% 
required 
biological 
quality elements 

%  with 
required  hydro-
morphological 
quality elements 

all 

%  with 
general 
physicochemical 
quality elements 

C
W 
L
W 
R
W 
T
W 

EU 
(17) 
EU 
(20) 
EU 
(23) 
EU 
(11) 

1081 

23% 

4991 

7% 

12739 

33% 

8% 

2% 

10% 

337 

10% 
Source: WISE electronic reports. 

11% 

35% 

33% 

34% 

53% 

Note:  The  number  in  brackets  next  to  EU  is  the  number  of  Member  States  with  reported 
information. The analysis includes water bodies where ecological monitoring is reported to be 
undertaken for surveillance purposes.  

74 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
It  is  clear  from  Table  3.5  that  nowhere  near  all  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance 
monitoring  are  monitored  for  all  required  quality  elements.  The  hydro-morphological  quality 

elements have the lowest proportion (2 % to 11 %) of water bodies where all required elements 
are  included,  followed  by  the  biological  quality  elements  (7  %  to  33  %)  and  general 

physicochemical quality elements (33 % to 53 %).  

Table 3.6 further summarises this issue by presenting the number of Member States where all 

and none of the required biological, hydro-morphological and physiochemical quality elements 
are  monitored  in  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  monitoring.  Very  few  Member  States 

monitor all required hydro-morphological quality elements in all water bodies, and a significant 
number monitor none.  

Table 3.6: 

Number  of  Member  States  where  all  or  no  water  bodies  included  in 

surveillance  monitoring  are  monitored  for  all  required  biological,  hydro-morphological 
and general physicochemical quality elements. 

Category  Biological 

Hydro-

General 

Number 

of 

quality elements 

morphological 
quality elements 

physicochemical 
quality elements 

Member  States 
included  in  the 

All  None 

All 

None 

All  None 

CW 

LW 

RW 

TW 

3 

1 

1 

0 

6 

9 

2 

6 

2 

1 

1 

0 

11 

11 

13 

8 

2 

4 

5 

0 

6 

9 

6 

4 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

analysis 

17 

20 

23 

11 

Note:  The  analysis  includes  water  bodies  where  ecological  monitoring  is  reported  to  be 

undertaken for surveillance purposes.  

Monitoring of RBSPs 

Member  States  were  asked  to  report  the  chemical  substances  monitored  at  each  site.  The 
reporting  did  not  explicitly  differentiate  between  Priority  Substances,  RBSPs  and  “other” 
substances.  According  to  the  reporting  guidance,  chemical  substances  monitored  in  surface 

water that were not Priority Substances should be RBSPs. It is clear that some Member States 
may have misreported which chemical substances should be considered as RBSPs. Substances 

reported  as  “other  chemical  substances”  were  not  included  in  this  analysis  because  their 
inclusion  would  make  the  assessment  unreliable  for  some  Member  States  as  many  “other 

chemical  substances”  are,  on  close  examination,  the  same  substance  with  slightly  different 
inappropriate  (e.g. 
reporting  formats  (e.g.  use  of  underscore  or  hyphen)  or  were 

phytoplankton). 

75 

 
 
  
  
All of the 25 Member States assessed reported that RBSPs were monitored in water in at least 
one  water  category.  At  the  EU  level  402  different  RBSPs  were  reported  to  be  monitored  in 

water, 173 in sediment and 81 in biota. 

The  RBSPs  monitored  by  most  Member  States  in  water,  sediment  and  biota  are  shown  in 

Figure 3.2. Metals such as chromium, copper and zinc are monitored by most Member States in 
all three matrices. Water is monitored by most Member States followed by sediment and biota. 

Figure 3.2:   The  RBSPs  monitored  by  most  Member  States  in  water,  sediment  and 

biota. 

Data  from  25  Member  States  for  water,  13 

Member States for sediment and 12 Member 
to 
States 

for  biota.  Sediment  equates 

sediment  (unspecified),  suspended  sediment 
or  settled  sediment.  Biota  equates  to  biota 
(unspecified),  fish  or  biota  other  than  fish. 

Substances  reported  as  “other  chemical 
the 
substances”  were 

excluded 

from 

analysis.   Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Annex V, section 1.3.4 of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the 

different quality elements: once every three months is recommended for “other pollutants” in 
water, which are taken here to equate to RBSPs. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out 

for  each  monitoring  site  for  a  period  of  one  year  during  the  six-year  period  covered  by  a 
RBMP. For RBSPs this should be done four times for the  year when surveillance monitoring 

was undertaken, and for operational monitoring four times a year for each year of the cycle. 

Figure 3.3 shows that a significant proportion of the substances monitored in water at  the EU 
level are not monitored at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all the sites where 

they  are  monitored.  For  around  20  %  and  35  %  of  the  substances  monitored  for  surveillance 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
and operational monitoring, respectively, there are no sites where they are sampled at least at 
the minimum frequency.  

Annex  V,  section  1.3.4  of  the  WFD  does  not  explicitly  define  the  matrices  to  which  the 
minimum  recommended  frequency  of  monitoring  of  RBSPs  (“Other  Pollutants”)  applies. 

Required monitoring frequencies are specified for Priority Substances in biota and sediment in 
Article  3(2)(c)  of  the  EQS  Directive67:  this  is  once  per  year  for  operational  and  surveillance 
monitoring  purposes.  For  consistency,  this  required  frequency  of  once  per  year  has  been 
applied to the monitoring of RBSPs in biota/sediment.  

Of  the  173  different  chemical  substances  (assumed  to  be  RBSPs)  monitored  at  the  EU  (13 
Member States) level in sediment, 13 % were sampled at least at the required frequency at all 

of  the  sites  where  they  were  monitored  and  34  %  at  none  of  the  sites.  Of  the  81  different 
chemical substances (assumed to be RBSPs) monitored in biota, 29 % (in 12 Member States) 

were sampled at  least  at  the required frequency  at  all of the sites where they were monitored 
and 4 % at none of the sites. 

Figure 3.3:   Proportion  of  RBSPs  where  different  proportions  of  sites  are  sampled  at 

least  at  the  WFD  recommended  minimum  monitoring  frequency  for  surveillance  and 
operational purposes. 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Note:  Numbers  in  brackets  are  the  sums  of  the  number  of  river  basin  specific  pollutants 
monitored  in  the  25  Member  States  that  reported  information.  Substances  reported  as  other 

chemical substances were not included in the analysis because their inclusion would skew the 
results  as  many  are  the  same  substance  with  slightly  different  reporting  formats  (e.g. 

underscore or hyphen) or were inappropriate (e.g. phytoplankton).  

67 Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on EQSs 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 

77 

 
 
 
                                                           
Surveillance and operational monitoring of surface water bodies  

Annex  V.1.3.1  of  the  WFD  indicates  that  ‘surveillance  monitoring  shall  be  carried  out  of 

sufficient  surface  water  bodies  to  provide  an  assessment  of  the  overall  surface  water  status 
within each catchment or sub-catchments within the river basin district’. To that end, it might 

be expected that surveillance monitoring includes water bodies covering the range of statuses 
within the RBD and Member State. It is not expected that all water bodies will be included in 

surveillance  monitoring.  Representative  monitoring  sites  should  be  selected  to  provide  an 
overall picture of the status of water bodies in the basin. 

Table 3.7 

Comparison  of  proportion  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  and 

operational monitoring between the first and second RBMPs. 

Surveillance  

Operational 

CW  LW  RW  TW 

CW  LW  RW  TW 

Large increase (>50%) 

0 

2 

0 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

Medium  increase  (10%  to 
50%) 

Small increase (up to 10%) 

No change 

Small decrease (up to 10%) 

Medium  decrease  (10%  to 

50%) 

Large decrease (>50%) 

5 

2 

3 

4 

3 

2 

4 

6 

0 

4 

3 

3 

3 

9 

0 

12 

0 

0 

4 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

7 

5 

2 

2 

2 

0 

4 

3 

2 

5 

6 

0 

9 

7 

0 

7 

0 

0 

4 

1 

4 

1 

3 

0 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Note: CW: coastal waters; LW: lakes; RW: rivers; TW: transitional waters. No allowance has 

been made as to  whether the sites are for ecological  or chemical  monitoring.  The cells show 
the  number  of  Member  States  where  there  have  been  increases,  decreases  or  no  changes 

between the first and second RBMPs. Only the RBDs with reported information for both cycles 
were used in the analysis.  

In the EU (24 Member States reporting information) a larger proportion of surface water bodies 
were included in operational monitoring than in surveillance monitoring for the first and second 

RBMPs. There was an increase in the proportion included in both surveillance and operational 
between the first and second RBMPs. 

78 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Some  Member  States  reported  an  increase  in  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  used  for 
surveillance monitoring in all their water categories, while some reported a decrease also in all 

water categories. 

Only  very  few  Member  States  showed  a  decrease  in  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  used  for 

operational monitoring in all four water categories. In contrast, in several Member States, there 
were increases in the proportion of water bodies included in operational monitoring. 

Assessment and classification of ecological status for surface waters  

Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies 

Overall, around 40 % of the surface water bodies are in good or better ecological status, while 
60 % did not achieve good status (EEA 201868) (Figure 3.4). Lakes and coastal waters are in 
better status than rivers and transitional waters. The ecological status of natural water bodies is 

generally better than the ecological potential of heavily modified and AWBs. 

68 European Environment Agency (2018) European waters – assessment of status and pressures 2018. EEA Report 

No 7/2018  - https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water  

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 3.4:   Ecological  status/potential  of  rivers,  lakes,  transitional  and  coastal  waters 
for the second RBMPs  

Change in ecological status/potential between the first and second RBMPs 

The overall ecological status/potential has not improved since the first RBMPs (Figure 3.5). In 
fact,  the  results  show  a  slight  reduction  in  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  in  good  or  better 

ecological status or potential for all the water body categories. Nonetheless, around 20 % (16 
000  surface  water  bodies)  have  improved  in  ecological  status/potential  class  since  the  first 
RBMPs, generally by one class but sometimes by 2-3 classes (EEA 2018)69. 

69 European Environment Agency (2018) European waters – assessment of status and pressures 2018. EEA Report 

No 7/2018  - https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water 

80 

 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 3.5:   Ecological  Status  or  potential  of  all  surface  waters,  rivers, 
transitional and coastal waters in the two RBMPs 

lakes, 

Confidence in ecological status assessment 

Member  States  were  asked  to  report  the  confidence  on  their  ecological  status  or  potential 

classification. The criteria used by Member States to assess confidence vary considerably, but 
in general low confidence may equate to no monitoring data; medium confidence to supporting 
quality element data and/or limited data on one biological quality element; and high confidence 

to good data for at least one biological quality element and the most relevant supporting quality 
element. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Overall, the proportion of water bodies with unknown ecological status has decreased from 16 
% to 4 %, and the confidence in the classification has improved from one third of water bodies 

with high or medium confidence in the first RBMPs to 58 % of the water bodies in the second 
RBMPs (EEA 201870). 

Classification of ecological status at the quality element level 

a)  Second RBMPs 

Although  a  large  proportion  of  water  bodies  is  not  classified  for  each  single  quality  element 
(grey bars in Figure 3.6), more than two-thirds of all water bodies are classified with  at least 
one biological quality element (EEA 201871). The most frequently classified biological quality 
elements  are:  for  rivers,  benthic  invertebrates,  phytobenthos/other  aquatic  flora/macrophytes 

and fish;  for lakes, phytoplankton;  and for transitional  and coastal waters, phytoplankton  and 
benthic invertebrates.  

The ecological status for individual quality elements is much better than the overall ecological 
status classification. For rivers, for example, 50-70 % of the classified water bodies have high 

or good status for several biological quality elements, while the overall ecological status is only 
high or good for less than 40 % of the river water bodies. For the general physicochemical and 

hydro-morphological quality elements, more than two-thirds of the water bodies have at least 
GES. 

70 European Environment Agency (2018) European waters – assessment of status and pressures 2018. EEA Report 

No 7/2018  - https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water. 

71 European Environment Agency (2018) European waters – assessment of status and pressures 2018. EEA Report 

No 7/2018  - https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water. 

82 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 3.6 
rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters 

Ecological status/potential of biological quality and supporting elements in 

83 

 
 
 
 
b)  Changes since the first RBMPs 

It is difficult to make general comparisons of the ecological status/potential of surface waters 
between the first  and second RBMPs because of, for example, re-delineation of water bodies 

and  changes  in  monitoring  programmes  and  assessment  methods  between  the  cycles. 
Recognising  this  difficulty,  Member  States  were  asked  to  report  information  on  changes  in 

ecological  status/potential between the cycles for each water body and quality  element,  if the 
information was available. 

Figure 3.7 summarises the information  reported  by Member States at  an  aggregated level  for 

biological quality elements for each water category. For 81 % of surface water bodies there was 
no available information, or status or potential was unknown for the first RBMPs. Information 

was reported on changed status or no change in status for 31 % of coastal water, 8 % of lake, 20 
% of river and 16 % of transitional water bodies. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.7  Aggregated  information  of  the  changes  between  the  first  and  second  
RBMPs reported for each relevant biological quality elements in each water category. 

Coastal waters

Lakes

Rivers

Transiional waters

Changed status

No change in status

No information available

Status or potential was
unknown in 2010

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

% of water bodies 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Note:  The  biological  quality  elements  relevant  to  each  water  category  (as  described  in  the 
WFD) were selected. As Member States had to report all quality elements irrespective of their 

relevance to a category, the non-relevant quality elements were removed before analysis: e.g. 
macroalgae  in  rivers.  These  were  reported  as  "no  information".  In  terms  of  “other  aquatic 

flora”, it was included for a Member State where changes in status had also been reported, as 
more  Member  States  classified  the  component  elements  rather  than  using  the  generic  “other 

aquatic flora”. % of water bodies equates to the sum of water bodies that had been reported for 
each water category. For example if four biological quality elements had been reported for 100 

water bodies, there were 400 water bodies summed in the calculation. 

A  total  of  7  %  of  surface  water  bodies  were  reported  to  have  a  change  in  status/potential  in 
terms of the biological quality elements between the first and second RBMPs. Member States 

were also asked to report the comparability and consistency of any changes in status between 
the two cycles, again  at  the quality  element  and  water body level.  Figure 3.8 summarises the 

reported information at the EU level. According to this information, 37 % of the improvements 
and 34 % of the deterioration in the status/potential of the biological quality elements in surface 

water bodies were reported to be consistent (as percentages of the water bodies for which there 
was information on changed status/potential, which was 7 % of the total).  Improvements and 

deteriorations  of  status/potential  that  were  reported  to  be  inconsistent  are  due  to  changes  to 
assessment methods, changes to monitoring, or both. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.8:   Consistency  of  changes  in  ecological  status/potential  of  the  biological 
quality elements since the first RBMP in each water category. 

Coastal waters
Deterioration (464)
Improvement (437)

Lakes
Deterioration (1537)
Improvement (1348)

Rivers
Deterioration (11930)
Improvement(16257)

Transitional waters
Deterioration (112)
Improvement (105)

Consistent change

Inconsistent due to
changes to assessment
methods

Inconsistent due to
changes to monitoring

Inconsistent due to
changes to monitoring
and assessment methods

No information or
unknown

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

% of changes in BQEs 

Note: The biological quality elements analysed were those relevant to each water category.  

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Assessment methods for the biological quality elements 

Each Member State is required to develop methods to assess ecological status for all biological 

quality elements. Assessment methods for the supporting quality elements must be linked to the 
biological  quality  elements,  according  to  the  normative  definitions  given  in  Annex  V  of  the 

WFD. Methods should be developed for the full range of quality elements to allow detection of 
all pressures  on surface  water bodies and together provide a holistic picture of the ecological 

status of the aquatic environment.  

In  most  Member  States,  WFD-consistent  assessment  methods  for  the  classification  of 
ecological  status  were  not  fully  developed  for  all  biological  quality  elements  in  time  for  the 
first  RBMPs.  The  most  common  biological  methods  developed  were  phytoplankton 

(chlorophyll a) in lakes and benthic fauna in rivers. The biological quality elements that were 
least  developed  in  rivers  were  phytoplankton  and  macrophytes,  and  in  lakes  phytobenthos, 

benthic  invertebrates  and  fish.  Assessment  methods  showed  the  most  gaps  for  transitional 
waters  (all  biological  quality  elements)  and  for  coastal  waters,  where  particularly  assessment 

methods for macroalgae and angiosperms were fully developed only in a few Member States. 

86 

 
 
 
In  the  second  RBMPs,  all  Member  States  reported  methods  for  nutrient  pollution,  organic 
pollution  and  altered  habitats  due  to  morphological  changes.  However,  almost  half  of  the 

Member States that reported chemical pollution as a significant impact do not have a biological 
assessment method that is sensitive to chemical pollution.  

Table 3.8 summarises which biological quality elements are used to assess significant impacts. 
It  is  clear  that  a  range  of  elements  is  used  to  assess  the  various  impacts.  Fish  and  benthic 

invertebrates  are  the  most  commonly  used  to  assess  hydro-morphological  changes  and 
phytoplankton, macrophytes and phytobenthos for nutrient pollution. 

Table 3.8 

Number of Member States that reported biological assessment  methods in 

relation to significant impacts. 

Significant impact type 

Quality 

Biological 

Element 

Phytoplankton 

Other aquatic flora 

Macroalgae 

Angiosperms 

Macrophytes 

Phytobenthos 

Benthic invertebrates 

Fish 

Other species 

1 

2 

25 

10 

2 

7 

4 

9 

17 

25 

12 

5 

13 

11 

23 

23 

18 

18 

1 

3 

7 

5 

2 

7 

6 

12 

10 

4 

8 

1 

4 

3 

7 

7 

7 

7 

5 

7 

1 

4 

2 

9 

11 

12 

8 

6 

8 

5 

3 

8 

5 

11 

13 

7 

10 

1 

6 

5 

8 

3 

1 

7 

9 

14 

14 

7 

18 

20 

8 

24 

23 

Key:  

Nutrient 

1 

pollution 

Organic 

2 

pollution 

Chemical 

3 

pollution 

5  Acidification 

6  Elevated temperature 

Altered  habitats  due 

to  hydrological 

7 

changes 

4  Saline pollution 

8 

Altered  habitats  due  to  morphological 
change 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Intercalibration of biological quality element methods  

To  ensure  comparable  definitions  of  GES  across  Europe,  Member  States  are  also  required  to 

intercalibrate the GES class boundaries of their methods, for each biological quality element in 

87 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
each  water  category,  with  other  Member  States  having  common  types  of  water  bodies. 
Intercalibration  is  a  distinct  obligation  at  EU  level  in  addition  to  the  obligation  to  develop 

national ecological status methods, i.e. the lack of success of intercalibration does not exempt 
Member States from the obligation of developing assessment methods for all biological quality 

elements. 

After  completion  of  the  intercalibration  exercise,  it  is  the  obligation  of  Member  States  to 

translate the results of the intercalibration exercise into their national classification systems, in 
order  to  set  the  boundaries  between  high  and  good  status  and  between  good  and  moderate 

status  for  their  national  types.  Ideally,  the  class  boundaries  for  the  national  types  that  differ 
from  the  intercalibrated  types  should  be  set  in  a  way  that  ensures  a  level  of  anthropogenic 

disturbance  comparable  to  that  used  for  the  same  biological  quality  element  for  the 
intercalibrated types. For some types that are either very specific (e.g. volcanic lakes), very rare 

(e.g. some large lake type that occurs only once within some Member States), or even unique in 
Europe, it may not be possible to translate the intercalibration results to that type. In such cases, 

an explanation should be given for each type about why this is not possible. 

Table 3.9 
equivalent intercalibration type. 

Percentage  of  surface  water  bodies  that  were  reported  to  have  no 

CW  LW 

RW  TW 

AT 

39% 

BE  50%  22% 

1% 

8% 

BG  41%  97% 

65%  100% 

100%  6% 

54% 

39% 

DE  57%  52% 

DK  70%  51% 

4% 

35%  90% 

47%  69% 

37%  45% 

20% 

FR 

51%  89% 

30%  21% 

HR 

HU 

100%  53% 

46% 

5% 

CY 

CZ 

EE 

ES 

FI 

CW  LW 

RW 

TW 

3% 

74% 

16% 

38% 

3% 

4% 

100% 

100%  100%  100% 

17% 

37% 

58%  100%  33% 

IT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

67% 

67% 

100% 

14% 

50% 

67% 

22% 

13% 

19% 

9% 

7% 

40%  75% 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK  44%  67% 

56%  37% 

16% 

RO  75%  59% 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Notes for table: CW: coastal waters; LW: lakes; RW: rivers; TW: transitional waters.  

In  most  Member  States  and  for  most  water  categories,  there  are  significant  proportions  of 
national water bodies that are of types that do not have a common intercalibration type (Table 

3.9). It is, therefore, very important that the results of the intercalibration exercise are correctly 

88 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
translated  to  national  types  without  an  equivalent  intercalibration  type  if  a  comparable 
assessment  of  ecological  status/potential  within  Member  States  and  across  the  EU  is  to  be 

obtained. However, there was little relevant information on this issue in the examined RBMPs.  

In several RBMPs there was no information on specific methods, but a general statement that 

the results of the intercalibration must be translated so that the national types obtain the same 
level of protection as the intercalibrated types.  

Assessment of hydro-morphological quality elements  

The  values  of  the  hydro-morphological  quality  elements  must  be  taken  into  account  when 

assigning water bodies to the high ecological status class and the maximum ecological potential 
class (i.e. when deciding between high ecological status or maximum ecological potential and 

GES/potential).  For  the  other  status/potential  classes,  the  hydro-morphological  elements  are 
required to have “conditions consistent with the achievement of the values specified72 for the 
biological quality elements.” 

The  ranges  and  levels  (standards)  established  for  the  hydro-morphological  quality  elements 

must support the achievement of the values required for the biological quality elements at high 
status or maximum potential, as relevant. Since the values for the biological quality elements at 

high  status  will  be  type-specific,  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  ranges  and  levels 
established for the hydro-morphological quality elements should also be type-specific. Several 

types may share the same ranges or levels for some or all of the hydro-morphological quality 
elements. 

The assessment of the second RBMPs showed that standards have been set for some supporting 

hydro-morphological  quality  elements  in  some  Member  States  and  also  that  hydro-
morphological  standards  were  less  well  developed  than  those  for  general  physico-chemical 

quality elements such as nutrients. 

Hydrological/tidal regime was not assessed in terms of ecological status/potential in all of the 

RBDs  where  the  water  category  is  relevant  (Figure  3.9).  This  was  also  the  case  for 
morphological conditions and river continuity. The water category where they were assessed in 

the smallest proportion of relevant RBDs was coastal waters. Also the classification boundaries 
of  these  elements  were  related  to  the  class  boundaries  for  the  sensitive  biological  quality 

elements in only 36 % of RBDs for hydrological/tidal regime, 42 % for river continuity and 47 
% for morphological conditions. 

72 WFD, Annex V Tables 1.2.1 - 1.2.5 

89 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 3.9:   Proportion  of  RBDs  where  hydro-morphological  quality  elements  are 
assessed in terms of ecological  status/potential and where their classification boundaries 

are related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Note: The numbers of RBDs where the water category is relevant are given in parentheses next 

to  the  water  category.  The  relevance  of  the  classification  to  the  sensitive  biological  quality 
elements is reported only once for each QE and is therefore not water category specific.  

Assessment of general physicochemical quality elements  

The  ranges  and  levels  established  for  the  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  must 
support  the  achievement  of  the  values  required  for  the  biological  quality  elements  at  good 

status or good potential, as relevant. Since the values for the biological quality elements at good 
status will be type-specific, it is reasonable to assume that the ranges and levels established for 

the general physicochemical quality elements should also be type-specific. 

Several  types  may  share  the  same  ranges  or  levels  for  some  or  all  of  the  general 
physicochemical quality elements. If the monitoring results for the biological quality elements, 

the general physicochemical quality elements and RBSPs in a water body meet the conditions 
required  for  GES/potential,  the  overall  ecological  status/potential  of  the  water  body  will  be 

good. However, if one or more of the general physicochemical quality elements or river basin 
specific  pollutants  do  not  meet  the  conditions  required  for  GES/potential  but  the  biological 

quality elements do, the overall ecological status/potential will be moderate. 

The assessment of the second RBMPs showed that standards have been set by some Member 

States  for  some  supporting  general  physicochemical  quality  elements.  However,  most  of  the 
general  physicochemical  standards  related  to  nutrients  and  organic  matter  are,  in  most  cases, 

90 

 
 
 
 
not  clearly  linked  to  the  good/moderate  class  boundaries  for  the  sensitive  biological  quality 
elements.  

Figure 3.10 shows the proportion of RBDs where the general physicochemical quality elements 
are reported to be assessed in terms of ecological status/potential. Also shown is the proportion 

of  RBDs  where  the  classification  boundaries  of  these  elements  are  related  to  the  class 
boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. 

Figure 3.10:   Proportion  of  RBDs  where  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  are 

assessed in terms of ecological  status/potential and where their classification boundaries 
are related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Note: The numbers of RBDs where the water category is relevant are given in parentheses next 

to  the  water  category.  The  relevance  of  the  classification  to  the  sensitive  biological  quality 
elements  is  reported  only  once  for  each  quality  element  and  is  therefore  not  water  category 

specific.  

Oxygenation and nutrient conditions are assessed in terms of ecological status/potential in most 
RBDs  in  most  water  categories.  The  classification  boundaries  of  these  elements  are  also 

reported to be related to the classification of sensitive biological quality elements in the most 
RBDs. However, there are gaps for the other general physicochemical quality elements, as they 

are not assessed in relation to ecological status/potential in over half of the RBDs (e.g. thermal 
conditions in all water categories). 

91 

 
 
 
 
Overall, 20 Member States (112 RBDs) reported standards for acidification, 23 Member States 
(137 RBDs) for nutrient conditions, 22 Member States (129 RBDs) for oxygenation conditions, 

17 Member States (77 RBDs) for salinity conditions, 14 Member States (60 RBDs) for thermal 
conditions and 17 Member States (84 RBDs) for transparency conditions. Most standards at the 

RBD level  (1599) were  reported for nutrient  conditions.  Figure 3.11 shows the percentage of 
these  that  are  consistent  with  the  good-moderate  status  boundary  of  the  relevant  sensitive 

biological quality element. A large proportion (~80%) of the standards in each type of general 
physicochemical quality elements are consistent with the good-moderate status boundary of the 

relevant sensitive biological quality elements. 

Figure 3.11  Percentage  of  reported  general  physicochemical  standards  that  are 

consistent  with  the  good-moderate  status  boundary  of  the  relevant  sensitive  biological 
quality elements. 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Note: The numbers in the brackets are the number of standards reported at the RBD level. Note 

that  where  the  same  standard  is  reported  for  more  than  one  RBD  in  a  Member  State  it  is 
counted more than once.  

Selection of RBSPs and use of EQSs 

Information  on  how  RBSPs  were  selected  is  available  in  the  RBMPs  of  two-thirds  of  the  25 

Member States assessed. Several Member States reported that this selection was based on some 
or all of the following: the inventories of emissions, information on the use of substances, the 

results  of  monitoring,  or  an  analysis  of  pressures  and  impacts.  In  some  cases,  the  Member 

92 

 
 
 
States mentioned the RBSP selection took into account the list from Annex VIII of the WFD or 
other EU legislation such as the repealed Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EC).  

The  obligation  to  identify  RBSPs  and  set  EQSs  for  them  was  not  equally  observed  in  the 
second  RBMPs,  with  some  Member  States  identifying  many  more  than  others,  and  some 

standards being much less stringent than others for the same substances. This has implications 
for the comparability of conclusions drawn regarding ecological status/potential. 

The  WFD  (Annex  V,  section  1.2.6)  establishes  the  principles  to  be  applied  by  the  Member 

States to develop EQSs for Specific Pollutants that are ‘discharged in significant quantities into 
the body of water’. These are also known as RBSPs. Compliance with EQSs for RBSPs forms 

part of the assessment of ecological status/potential. EQSs are, therefore, key tools in assessing 
and classifying ecological status and can therefore affect the overall ecological status/potential 

classification of a water body. In addition, EQSs will be used to set discharge permits to water 
bodies, so that chemical emissions do not lead to EQSs exceedances within the receiving water. 

Technical  Guidance  (the  2011  Technical  Guidance  Document  n.  2773)  has  been  developed  to 
support the derivation of EQSs for priority substances and for RBSPs that need to be regulated 

by Member States according to the provisions of the WFD. The guidance focuses on the steps 
required to derive EQSs that comply with the requirements of Annex V of the WFD.  

Tables 3.10 to 3.12 show the standards reported by Member States for RBSPs in water, biota 

and  sediment.  Standards  were  reported  for  229  different  RBSPs  in  water  at  the  EU  level. 
Standards  for  metals  (zinc,  chromium  and  arsenic)  in  water  are  reported  by  20  of  the  24 

Member States that have reported information on this issue. Standards for organic substances 
such as toluene and xylene are reported by several Member States. 

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

WFD%2027%20EC%202011.pdf 

93 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table  3.10  Top-ten  substances  for  which  most  Member  States  have  reported  EQSs  for 
RBSPs in water 

River Basin Specific Pollutant code 

Number 

of 

Member States 

CAS_7440-66-6 - Zinc and its compounds 

CAS_7440-47-3 - Chromium and its compounds 

CAS_7440-38-2 - Arsenic and its compounds 

CAS_7440-50-8 - Copper and its compounds 

CAS_108-88-3 - Toluene 

CAS_1330-20-7 - Xylene 

CAS_25057-89-0 - Bentazone 

CAS_7782-49-2 - Selenium and its compounds 

CAS_100-41-4 - Ethylbenzene 

CAS_94-74-6 - MCPA 

20 

20 

20 

19 

13 

10 

10 

9 

9 

9 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 
Note: 24 Member States reported information on standards  in  water. Substances reported as 

“Other chemical parameter" were excluded from the analysis.  
EQSs were reported by three Member States for nine RBSPs in biota (Table 3.11). 

Table 3.11   RBSPs for which Member States have reported EQSs in biota 

River Basin Specific Pollutant code 

CAS_1333-82-0 - Cr(VI)O3 

CAS_143-50-0 - Chlordecone (Kepone) 
CAS_1763-23-1 - Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 
and its derivatives 

CAS_7440-38-2 - Arsenic and its compounds 

CAS_7440-47-3 - Chromium and its compounds 

CAS_7440-50-8 - Copper and its compounds 

CAS_7440-66-6 - Zinc and its compounds 

CAS_7782-49-2 - Selenium and its compounds 
EEA_33-58-9  -  Dioxins  and  dioxin-like  compounds  (7 
PCDDs + 10 PCDFs + 12 PCB-DLs) 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Matrix 
Biota 
fish 
Biota 
fish 

Biota 
Biota 
fish 
Biota 
fish 
Biota 
fish 
Biota 
fish 
Biota 
fish 

Biota 

Note: Substances reported as “Other chemical parameter" were excluded from the analysis.  

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EQSs were reported by six Member States for 36 RBSPs in sediment (Table 3.11). Standards 
for  zinc,  copper  and  chromium  in  sediment  were  reported  by  four  Member  States.  Standards 

were also reported for different polychlorinated biphenyl congeners by several Member States. 

Table 3.12   RBSPs for which most Member States have reported EQSs for sediment 

River Basin Specific Pollutant code 

Number 

of 

Member States 

CAS_7440-66-6 - Zinc and its compounds 

CAS_7440-50-8 - Copper and its compounds 

CAS_7440-47-3 - Chromium and its compounds 

CAS_7012-37-5 - PCB 28 (2,4,4’-trichlorobiphenyl) 

CAS_35693-99-3 

- 

PCB 

52 

(2,2’,5,5’-

tetrachlorobiphenyl) 

CAS_7440-38-2 - Arsenic and its compounds 

CAS_37680-73-2 
pentachlorobiphenyl) 

- 

PCB 

101 

(2,2’,4,5,5’-

CAS_35065-29-3 

-  PCB 

180 

(2,2’,3,4,4’,5,5’-

heptachlorobiphenyl) 

CAS_31508-00-6 

- 

PCB 

118 

(2,3’,4,4’,5-

pentachlorobiphenyl) 

EEA_33-56-7 

-  Total  PAHs 

(Benzo(a)pyrene, 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene, 
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene) 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene, 

CAS_1333-82-0 - Cr(VI)O3 

CAS_35065-28-2 
hexachlorobiphenyl) 

- 

CAS_35065-27-1 
hexachlorobiphenyl) 

- 

PCB 

138 

(2,2’,3,4,4’,5’-

PCB 

153 

(2,2’,4,4’,5,5’-

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

4 

4 

4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Note:  Sediment  (unspecified),  settled  sediment  and/or  suspended  sediment  are  included.  The 
table shows the RBSPs reported by two or more Member States. Substances reported as “Other 

chemical parameter" were excluded from the analysis.  

A  total  of  64  %  of  the  EQSs  at  the  EU  level  were  derived  in  accordance  with  Technical 
Guidance Document n. 27 (Table 3.13).  

95 

 
 
 
 
Up to 73 % of the derived standards for RBSPs in water, biota and sediment at the EU level had 
analytical methods that meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the 

Commission  Directive  laying  down  technical  specifications  for  chemical  analysis  and 
monitoring of water status (2009/90/EC)74 for the strictest standard applied (Table 3.13). Of the 
remaining 167 EQSs 89 % have analytical methods which are in line with Article 4(2) of the 
same Directive (Table 3.14). 

Table 3.13:   Number  of  standards  for  RBSPs  for  which  the  analytical  method  used 
meets  the  minimum  performance  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  4(1)  of  the  Commission 

Directive  laying  down  technical  specifications  for  chemical  analysis  and  monitoring  of 
water status (2009/90/EC) for the strictest standard applied. 

Member 
State 

Matrix 

Yes  No  Not 

reported 

   Member 
State 

Matrix 

Yes  No  Not 

reported 

AT 

BE 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 

DE 
DK 
DK 
EE 
ES 

ES 

ES 
FI 
FI 

11 

76 

Water 

21 

Sediment 
Water 
Water 
Water 
Water 
Sediment 
- 
suspended 
sediment 
Water 
Biota 
Water 
Water 
Biota 
fish 
Sediment 
- 
settled 
sediment 
Water 
Sediment 
Water 

- 

9 
114  5 
24 
24 
6 
57 

13 

2 
9 
14 
6 

12 

100  30 
1 
11 

2 

FR 

FR 
   HR 
   HU 
IT 
IT 
   LU 

   LV 
   MT 
   NL 
PL 
PT 

- 

1 

Biota 
fish 
10 
Water 
6 
Water 
1 
Water 
Sediment  27 
83 
Water 
24 
Water 

Water 
Sediment 
Water 
Water 
Water 

2 

107 
25 
29 

9 
1 
3 
3 
40 
13 

5 

   RO 

Water 

10 

1 

SE 
SI 
SK 
   UK 

Water 
Water 
Water 
Water 

23 
29 
31 
29 

5 
1 

17 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Note: Substances reported as “Other chemical parameter" were excluded from the analysis.  

74 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:201:0036:0038:EN:PDF 

96 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
                                                           
Table 3.14:   Number of standards for RBSPs where the analytical method corresponds 
to  the  requirements  laid  down  in  Article  4(2)  of  the  Commission  Directive  laying  down 

technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status (2009/90/EC) 
for the strictest standard applied. 

Member 

Member 

State 

Matrix 

Yes  No 

State 

Matrix 

Yes  No 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

ES 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

Water 

Water 

Water 

3 

2 

26 

13 

Sediment 

6 

-  settled 
sediment 

Water 

Water 

Water 

Water 

Water 

52 

2 

9 

1 

3 

IT 

IT 

   LU 

   MT 

   RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

   UK 

Sediment  3 

Water 

Water 

40 

13 

Sediment 

5 

Water 

Water 

Water 

Water 

Water 

1 

3 

1 

17 

2 

31 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Note: Substances reported as “Other chemical parameter" were excluded from the analysis.  

The  European  Environment  Agency’s  201875  assessment  of  status  and  pressures  of  European 
waters  indicates  that  5  %  of  surface  water  bodies  did  not  achieve  GES/potential  owing  to 

RBSPs. Another 40 % were reported as in good or high ecological status/potential for RBSPs, 
while the status of RBSPs was unknown in a significant proportion of surface water bodies (55 

%). About 150 RBSPs were reported as causing failure to achieve GES/potential in at least one 
water body. Those most frequently reported as causing failure were the metals zinc, with 1 503 

waterbodies failing to achieve GES, and copper (845). As individual substances, most RBSPs 
caused fewer than 100 waterbodies to fail GES. 

Use of monitoring results for classification 

Member States were asked to report the classification results in terms of each of the biological 
quality elements monitored in each water body. Status in terms of a particular biological quality 

element in a monitored water body might also be extrapolated to non-monitored water bodies in 
the same group. Not all biological quality elements are appropriate or will be monitored for all 

water categories and some are considered to be not applicable in some water body types.  

75 European Environment Agency (2018) European waters – assessment of status and pressures 2018. EEA Report 

No 7/2018  - https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water. 

97 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                           
In cases where the number of monitored water bodies is greater than the  number of classified 
water  bodies  for  any  particular  quality  element  there  may  be  a  lack  of  confidence  in  the 

monitoring results, and only the monitoring results/assessments with high and perhaps medium 
confidence are used in classification. Where the number of monitored water bodies is the same 

as the number of classified water bodies for any particular quality element the classification is 
based  on  monitored  water  bodies.  There  may  also  be  examples  of  where  the  number  of 

monitored  water  bodies  is  less  than  the  number  of  classified  water  bodies  for  any  particular 
quality element. This indicates that there has been extrapolation of status from monitored water 

bodies to non-monitored water bodies, through grouping or expert judgment. 

Figure  3.12  summarises  the  means  of  classification  of  the  different  types  of  quality  elements 

and river basin  specific pollutants in the different  water categories. The results of monitoring 
are  predominantly  used  for  the  classification  of  the  biological  and  general  physicochemical 

quality  elements.  Expert judgement  plays  a significant  role in  the classification of the hydro-
morphological quality elements and river basin specific pollutants in some Member States and 
water categories. Grouping is not used to a great extent, except for the biological and general 

physicochemical  quality  elements  in  rivers,  for  which  around  a  fifth  of  water  bodies  are 
classified by this means.  

Figure 3.12:   Means  of  classification  of  biological,  hydro-morphological  and  general 
physicochemical quality elements, and of river basin specific pollutants in the four water 

categories. 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Note: “>50% MS”: at least 50% of water bodies classified by this means in the Member State. 
“All Member States”: all water bodies classified by this means in the Member State.  

In many cases, Member States have reported more water bodies to be classified at the quality 
element  level  using  the  results  of  monitoring  than  are  directly  monitored  for  the  quality 

element.  This  was  the  case  for  the  biological  quality  elements  in  surface  water  bodies 
(approximately  two-thirds  of  the  24  Member  States  which  reported  on  this  issue),  for  the 

hydro-morphological  quality  elements  (one  third  of  21  Member  States)  and  for  the  general 
physicochemical quality elements (approximately half of 23 Member States). This may be due 

to reporting errors, in that the monitoring data have not been completely reported or there has 
been an under-reporting or misreporting of the water bodies classified by grouping.  

Overall classification of ecological status  

According to the one-out-all-out principle, that the status of a water body should be classified 

according  to  the  biological  quality  element  with  the  lowest  status  class  and  the  status  class 
should be downgraded to moderate if the worst biological quality element is good and one or 
more  of  the  supporting  quality  elements  are  less  than  good.  When  combining  with  the 

supporting  quality  elements,  an  aggregated  level  can  be  used  for  the  supporting  quality 
elements  related  to  the  same  impact  (e.g.  phosphorus,  nitrogen,  Secchi  depth),  based  on 

averaging the class for single quality elements within each impact category, before applying the 
one-out-all-out principle. 

The  one-out-all-out  principle  is  at  the  heart  of  an  integrated  river  basin  management  that 

addresses all pressures and impacts on aquatic environment. It ensures that the negative impact 
of  the  most  dominant  pressure  on  the  most  sensitive  quality  element  is  not  averaged  out  and 

obscured  by  minor  impacts  of  less  severe  pressures  or  by  less  sensitive  quality  elements 
responding to the same pressure. 

Only the Madeira RBD, in Portugal (out of 147), reported that the one-out-all-out principle had 

not been applied. 

1.7.2.  Conclusions  

In spite of the progress  done since the first  RBMPs, there are several  gaps in  the reported 
monitoring programmes in terms of some water categories in a few Member States not being 

monitored for surveillance and/or operational purposes. 

There is no clear pattern in terms of increases and decreases in the numbers of sites used for 
surveillance and operational monitoring for the second RBMPs compared to the first. There 
are examples where there have been over 50% increases in numbers, and others where there 
have been over 50 % decreases. This is also the case in terms of increases and decreases in 

99 

 
 
the proportion of surface water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring 
between the first and second RBMPs.  

The changes in monitoring sites and monitored water bodies are partially related to the re-
delineation of water bodies for the second RBMPs. Monitoring programmes may have also 

been  revised  using  the  experience  from  the  first  RBMPs,  taking  into  account  national 
legislation  related  to  the  implementation  of  the  WFD,  or  in  response  to  Commission 

recommendations based on the first RBMPs.   

Almost  all  the  biological  quality  elements  are  not  monitored  at  the  WFD  minimum 
recommended frequency at all of the sites at which they are monitored. 

There are still significant gaps in the quality elements required to be monitored in each water 

category. This is particularly so for the hydro-morphological quality elements, which are not 
monitored  at  all  in  the  Czech  Republic  and  Croatia,  only  to  a  limited  extent  in  Bulgaria, 

Portugal  and France, and show significant  gaps in  practically all Member States, but  there 
are also still significant gaps in the monitoring of biological quality elements. Only 8 %, 25 
% and 34 % of surface water bodies included in surveillance monitoring are monitored for 

all required hydro-morphological, biological and general physicochemical quality elements, 
respectively. 

A total of 402 different RBSPs were reported to be monitored in water; 173 in sediment and 

81  in  biota.  A  significant  proportion  of  the  substances  are  not  monitored  at  least  at  the 
minimum recommended frequency at all the sites where they are monitored.  

EQSs were reported for 229 different RBSPs in water, 9 in biota and 36 in sediment. Of these 

standards, 64 % were derived in accordance with Technical Guidance n. 27. This is not the case 
for the Czech Republic, Finland, Croatia, Italy, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta and Poland, and to 

a  large  extent  also  Spain.    Concerning  the  analytical  methods,    73%  of  the  standards  had 
analytical  methods  that  consistent  with  Article  4(1)  and  24  %  with  Article  4(2)  of  the 

Commission  Directive  laying  down  technical  specifications  for  chemical  analysis  and 
monitoring  of  water  status  (2009/90/EC)  for  the  strictest  standards  applied.  About  5  %  of 
surface water bodies did not achieve GES/potential due to RBSPs. For Malta, however, none of 

the analytical methods were in line with the requirements. 

Overall,  around  40  %  of  the  surface  water  bodies  are  in  good  or  better  ecological  status. 
Lakes  and  coastal  waters  are  in  better  status  than  rivers  and  transitional  waters.  The 

ecological status of natural water bodies is generally better than the ecological potential of 
heavily modified and AWBs. 

The overall ecological status/potential has not improved since the first RBMPs. In fact, the 

results show a slight reduction in the proportion of water bodies in good or better ecological 

100 

 
 
status  or  potential  for  all  the  water  body  categories.  Nonetheless,  around  20  %  of  surface 
water  bodies  have  improved  in  ecological  status/potential  class  since  the  first  RBMPs, 

generally by one class but sometimes by 2-3 classes. 

Overall, the proportion of water bodies with unknown ecological status has decreased from 

16 % to 4 %, and the confidence in the classification has improved from one third of water 
bodies with high or medium confidence in the first RBMPs to 58 % in the second. 

A total of 7 % of surface water bodies were reported to have a change in status/potential in 

terms of the biological quality elements between the first and second RBMPs. About a third 
of those changes were reported to be consistent, while the others were reported to be due to 

changes to assessment methods, changes to monitoring or both. 

All  Member  States  reported  biological  assessment  methods  for  nutrient  pollution,  organic 
pollution  and  altered  habitats  due  to  morphological  changes.  However,  Austria,  The 

Netherlands  and  Romania  reported  chemical  pollution  as  a  significant  impact  but  do  not 
have a biological assessment method that is sensitive to chemical pollution. 

In  most  Member  States  and  for  most  water  categories,  there  are  significant  proportions  of 
national  water  bodies  that  are  of  types  that  do  not  have  an  equivalent  common 

intercalibration  type.  It  is,  therefore,  very  important  that  the  results  of  the  intercalibration 
exercise are correctly translated to national types without an equivalent intercalibration type. 

If  not,  a  comparable  assessment  of  ecological  status/potential  within  a  Member  State  and 
across the EU may not be obtained. 

The  hydro-morphological  quality  elements  are  not  assessed  in  terms  of  ecological 

status/potential in many RBDs in the Czech Republic, Denmark and The Netherlands, while 
in  many  other  cases  this  concerns  some  hydro-morphological  quality  elements  for  some 

water  types,  particularly  for  coastal  waters.  Furthermore,  in  more  than  half  of  RBDs  the 
classification boundaries of these elements were not related to the class boundaries for the 

sensitive biological quality elements. 

Oxygenation  and  nutrient  conditions  are  assessed  in  terms  of  ecological  status/potential  in 

most RBDs in most water categories. The classification boundaries of these quality elements 
are also reported to be related to the classification of sensitive biological quality elements in 

most  RBDs.  However,  there  are  gaps  for  the  other  general  physicochemical  quality 
elements, as they are not assessed in relation to ecological status/potential in over half of the 

RBDs  (e.g.  thermal  conditions  in  all  water  categories).  A  large  proportion  (~80  %)  of  the 
standards  for  the  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  are  consistent  with  the  good-
moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. 

101 

 
 
The results of monitoring are predominantly used for the classification of the biological and 
general physicochemical quality elements. Expert judgement plays a significant role in the 

classification  of  the  hydro-morphological  quality  elements  and  RBSPs  in  some  Member 
States and water categories. Grouping is not used to a great extent, except for the biological 

and  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  in  rivers,  for  which  around  a  fifth  of  water 
bodies are classified by this means.  

146  of  the  147  RBDs  reported  that  the  one-out-all-out  principle  had  been  applied  in  the 
second RBMPs. 

1.7.3.  Recommendations 

  Members  States  should  continue  to  strengthen  the  monitoring  of  surface  waters  by 
covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories in adequate frequencies, in 
order to increase the level of confidence in the assessment of water body status. 

  Member States should complete the development of assessment methods for ecological 
status for all relevant quality elements in all water body categories, and ensure that the 
methods correspond to WFD requirements and are intercalibrated. 

  Member States should have clear and transparent methods for the selection of RBSPs, 
and  ensure  that  the  corresponding  EQSs  meet  the  minimum  requirements  for  the 
protection of freshwater and marine ecosystems  from possible adverse effects, as well 
as for human health. 

102 

 
 
1.8.  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  chemical  status  in  surface 

waters  

1.8.1. Introduction 

Good  chemical  status  of  surface  waters  means  the  chemical  status  required  to  meet  the 
environmental objectives for surface waters established in Article 4(1)(a) of the WFD. It is the 

chemical  status  achieved  by  a  body  of  surface  water  in  which  concentrations  of  priority 
substances  do  not  exceed  the  EQSs  established  in  Annex  I  of  Directive  2008/105/EC  (as 

amended).  Action  to  achieve  compliance  with  the  EQSs  may  reduce  the  costs  of  treating 
surface  waters  used  for  drinking  water  production,  and  should  reduce  the  risks  to  organisms 

living in these waters and other animals and humans that eat them. 

Decision 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2001 

established the initial list of 33 priority substances, selected among those identified as posing a 
significant  risk  to  or  via  the  aquatic  environment  at  EU-level.  Directive  2008/105/EC  (also 

called  the  EQSs  Directive)  then  set  quality  standards  for  these  substances  and  eight  other 
pollutants  previously  regulated  by  Directive  76/464/EEC.  In  addition  to  reaching  good 

chemical status for all priority substances and the eight other pollutants, Member States are also 
required to assess long-term trends for some of these substances and to establish an inventory 

of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  all  substances  identified  in  the  Directive,  for  each 
national river basin district.  

Directive  2013/39/EU  (amending  the  EQSs  Directive)  identified  a  further  twelve  priority 

substances,  set  EQSs  for  them,  and  updated  the  EQSs  for  seven  of  the  existing  priority 
substances in line with the latest scientific and technical knowledge  concerning the properties 

of  the  substances.  Good  status  should  be  reached  by  2021  for  the  seven  substances  with 
updated standards, and by 2027 for the twelve new substances. 

Quality  Assurance/  Quality  Control  Directive  2009/90/EC  (QA/QC  Directive)  on  the  quality 
and  comparability  of  chemical  monitoring  provides  the  minimum  performance  criteria  to 

ensure  the  quality  of  the  analytical  results  and  specifies  the  approach  to  dealing  with 
measurements lower than the level of quantification. The requirements of this Directive should 

be fully reflected in the second RBMPs. 

103 

 
 
 
 
Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle 

Chemical monitoring sites and water bodies monitored for Priority Substances 

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

overview  of  water  status  within  each  RBD.  The  results  of  monitoring  play  a  key  role  in 
determining whether water bodies are in good chemical status or at risk of failing to meet their 

environmental  objectives,  what  measures  need  to  be  included  in  the  RBMP  in  order  to  reach 
good  status,  and  whether  the  implemented  measures  are  leading  to  the  expected  outcome. 

Precise  and  reliable  monitoring  results  are  therefore  a  prerequisite  for  sound  planning  of 
investments in the POMs.  

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 the chemical status of 

all  water  bodies  in  the  RBD.  Insufficient  monitoring  leads  to  a  low  confidence  in  the 
classification  of  water  bodies,  and  as  a  result  the  sometimes  expensive  measures  required  to 

achieve  objectives  may  be  incorrectly  targeted,  and  objectives  such  as  restoration  of  water 
bodies to good status may not be achieved. 

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  presents  the  objectives  of  the  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring 

programmes and the modalities for monitoring (selection of sites, substances and frequencies). 
Surveillance  monitoring  aims  at  validating  the  pressure  and  impact  assessment,  at  improving 

the  design  of  future  monitoring  programmes  and  at  assessing  long  term  changes  in  natural 
conditions  including  those  resulting  from  widespread  anthropogenic  activity.  Member  States 

are also required to undertake operational monitoring to assess the status of water bodies at risk 
of  not  reaching  good  status,  and  to  assess  the  changes  in  the  status  of  such  water  bodies 

resulting  from  the  implementation  of  measures.  In  addition,  investigative  monitoring  can  be 
undertaken  where  the  reason  for  any  exceedances  is  unknown  or  to  establish  the  causes  of 

water  bodies  failing  to  achieve  the  environmental  objectives  in  the  absence  of  operational 
monitoring.  Figures  1  and  2  show  the  proportion  of  sites  and  the  proportion  of  water  bodies 
where  priority  substances  are  monitored.  Both  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  are 

covered,  and  no  distinction  is  made  in  these  figures  between  sites  used  for  trend  assessment, 
status assessment or both. Monitoring of protected areas in not included in the numbers given 

below. Direct comparisons cannot be reliably made with the first RBMPs because of changes to 
the reporting requirements to WISE. A wide variety of changes to monitoring programmes for 

chemical status were reported by Member States including both increases and decreases in the 
numbers  of  monitoring  sites  used  and  water  bodies  monitored  and  a  redistribution  of  sites 

between  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  programmes  and  between  water  categories. 
Several  Member  States  reported  extensions  of  monitoring  programmes  into  previously 

unmonitored water categories.  

104 

 
 
Overall the extent of monitoring of Priority Substances  across the EU has been very diverse, 
ranging from 1 to 98 % of surface water bodies being monitored for Priority Substances, with 

an  average  of  about  one-third.  Only  few  Member  States  monitor  more  than  50  %  of  their 
surface water bodies for Priority Substances (Figure 1). Just under half of the Member States 

have chemical monitoring sites which account for greater than 50 % of their total monitoring 
sites with proportions ranging from 10 to 80 % of the total monitoring sites (Figure 2).  

The majority of Member States monitor all of their water bodies failing to achieve good status 
as  part  of  their  operational  monitoring  programmes  in  at  least  some  of  their  RBDs  and  most 

commonly in coastal and transitional waters. 

105 

 
 
Figure 1: Proportion of the total surface water bodies that 
are monitored for Priority Substances 

Figure 2: Proportion of the total monitoring sites that are 
chemical monitoring sites  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Monitoring of Priority Substances discharged  

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

during  the  period  covered  by  a  RBMP  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.  

The completeness of inventories of emissions of Priority Substances is discussed in Chapter 5.2 
of this report, according to which only very few Member States completed their inventories of 

emissions  of  all  Priority  Substances.  The  majority  of  Member  States  monitored  all  of  the 
Priority  Substances  identified  as  discharged  into  their  RBDs  with  the  exception  of  a  few 

Priority  Substances  and  with  some  variation  among  RBDs  within  Member  States.  As 
mentioned  above,  it  is  however  unclear  whether  all  substances  discharged  in  the  RBDs  have 

been properly identified in all cases. 

Monitoring  of  chemical  substances  in  water,  sediment  and  biota,  for  status  assessment 
and trend assessment. 

Status assessment 

EQSs  for  each  Priority  Substance  in  water,  and  biota  where  appropriate,  are  set  in  the  EQSs 

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

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

All Member States monitored Priority Substances in water for status assessment. In almost all 
Member  States,  the  majority  of  Priority  Substances  were  monitored  but  with  some  variation 

among RBDs within Member States and among water categories. Some RBDs within Member 
States  were  monitored  for  significantly  fewer  Priority  Substances  and  in  some  of  those  cases 

Member States indicated intentions to enhance monitoring in the second cycle for reporting in 
the  third  RBMPs.  Most  Member  States  monitored  less  than  30%  of  their  water  bodies  with 

some variation between water categories. This sometimes led to some water bodies not being 
classified, or being classified with a low confidence in the assessment. Territorial waters were 
monitored  in  a  few  Member  States  with  a  coastline.  Coastal  and  transitional  water  bodies 
tended to be monitored in a greater proportion than lakes and rivers; though many more water 

bodies were delineated in these latter categories.  

107 

 
 
Nearly  three  quarters  of  Member  States  monitored  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and/or 
hexachlorobutadiene  in  biota  in  at  least  some  RBDs  for  status  assessment,  even  if  they 

generally  (also)  monitored  in  water  in  the  same  and  other  RBDs.  In  a  few  cases,  these 
substances were assessed in water against alternative standards rather than the “direct toxicity” 

water standards in the Directive. In general, the spatial extent of biota monitoring in terms of 
the  proportion  of  monitoring  sites  was  very  limited,  and  it  did  not  always  cover  all  water 

categories. 

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 EQSs Directive. Member States can 
choose to monitor less frequently for any matrix, provided they can justify greater intervals on 

the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. 

Monitoring frequencies in water at the site level  varied widely within RBDs in most member 
States  with  some  sites  meeting  the  recommended  minimum  frequencies  in  the  Directive  and 

some not. The recommended minimum frequencies for surveillance monitoring were met more 
often than those for operational monitoring. In some cases, the reasons for reduced frequencies 

were  justified  in  the  RBMP.  In  some  Member  States,  less  frequent  monitoring  occurred  in 
individual  RBDs  and  in  some  of  these  cases  Member  States  indicated  intentions  to  enhance 

monitoring  in  the  second  cycle.  Monitoring  frequencies  in  biota  were  consistent  with  the 
recommended  minimum  frequency  in  the  Directive  for  just  over  three  quarters  of  Member 

States though not in all RBDs. In some cases, reduced frequencies were justified in the RBMP. 

Trend assessment 

Article 3.3 of the EQSs Directive (version in force in 2009) requires Member States to monitor 

14  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. 

Around  two-thirds  of  Member  States  reported  monitoring  in  sediment  and/or  biota  for  trend 
assessment.  A  few  Member  States  reported  trend  assessment  in  alternative  matrices  - 

suspended  sediment  or  water.  In  most  cases,  the  majority  of  the  fourteen  substances  were 
monitored though not in all RBDs and not in all water categories. Generally the proportion of 

sites  monitored  appeared  to  be  very  limited.  The  recommended  minimum  frequency  of 
monitoring  was  met  in  almost  all  Member  States  that  monitored  for  trends.  Where  reduced 

frequencies were reported, these were justified in very few cases.  

108 

 
 
 
 
Performance of analytical methods used 

For the majority of Priority Substances, the analytical methods meet the minimum performance 
criteria  laid  down  in  Article  4(1)  of  Directive  2009/90/EC,  in  the  majority  of  Member  States 

and  RBDs.  For  the  remaining  substances,  the  analytical  methods  complied  with  the 
requirements  laid  down  in  Article  4(2)  of  Directive  2009/90/EC  in  all  Member  States  and 

RBDs with very few exceptions. 

Assessment and classification of chemical status for surface waters 

Chemical status of surface water bodies by category 

Figure 3 shows the comparison of chemical status of surface water bodies between the first and 
second  RBMPs  by  water  category.76  At  the  European  level,  the  proportion  of  surface  water 
bodies  at  good  status  has  remained  largely  the  same  since  the  first  cycle.  There  were  slight 

improvements  in  chemical  status  for  rivers,  transitional  and  coastal  water  bodies,  but  not  for 
lake water bodies. These apparent changes need to be treated with some caution due to the fact 

that some Member States have re-delineated some of their water bodies for the second RBMPs, 
including  splitting,  aggregation,  creation  and  deletion  of  surface  water  bodies  (see  further 

details in Chapter 5.2 on Characterisation).  

The  proportion  of  water  bodies  of  unknown  chemical  status  has  decreased  significantly  from 
39% to 16 % which indicates that there have been improvements in monitoring and assessment 

methodologies. The reduction of water bodies with unknown status was seen for all water body 
categories, but in particular transitional water bodies. The proportion of water bodies classified 

as failing to achieve good chemical status has increased however from 25 % to 46 % overall; 
this  occurred  for  all  water  categories  and  it  seems  to  result  mainly  from  the  increased 

knowledge gained during the first cycle. 

Territorial waters are not a water body category under WFD. However, Article 2.1 of the WFD 

indicates  that  chemical  status  applies  to  territorial  waters  as  well.  For  the  second  RBMP, 
Member  States  were  able  to  report  any  relevant  information  for  the  part  of  territorial  waters 

which  extend  beyond  coastal  waters.  Territorial  waters  are  therefore  relevant  to  this  question 
for  all  twenty  Member  States  with  a  coastline  (of  which  seven  only  reported  to  monitor  and 

classify  territorial  waters).  The  unknown  chemical  status  of  territorial  waters  has  decreased 
from 86 % to 39 %. 

76 Changes by Member State are available in the WISE WFD Database: 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/water-assessments/chemical-status-of-surface-water-bodies  

109 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Figure 3: Comparison of chemical status of surface water bodies between the first and 
second RBMPs by water body category 

Source: WISE electronic reports; figure available online at: 
https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_SWB_Status_Compa
re/SWB_ChemicalStatus_Category?:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&:showShareOptions=t
rue&:display_count=no&:showVizHome=no 

Note: The term (*) means all Member States and surface water categories. Under Article 2(1) 
of  the  WFD,  territorial  waters  are  included  for  the  assessment  and  reporting  of  chemical 
status. 

At  the  Member  State  level  there  have  been  some  more  significant  changes  in  the  chemical 

status between RBMPs. A few Member States have changed from having most of their surface 
water bodies at good chemical status to failing to achieve good status. Once again, this seemed 

to  reflect  changes  in  the  monitoring  programmes  and  assessment  methodologies.  Some  other 
Member  States  have  actually  increased  the  numbers  of  surface  water  bodies  with  unknown 

status since the first cycle.  

As highlighted by the EEA (2018), some variation in the chemical status among Member States 

is to be expected due to differences in population densities, present and past industrial activities 
and  geography.  However,  such  large  differences  are  better  explained  by  the  methods  used  to 

assess chemical status. While some extrapolated failure of a standard in monitored water bodies 
(most commonly for mercury in biota) to all water bodies, others only reported failure where it 

was  confirmed.  A  few  Member  States  applied  the  revised,  stricter  2013  EQSs  while  most 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
countries used the 2008 standards. More details on the approaches adopted by Member States 
are provided in Table 3.1 of the EEA report (2018).  

Priority Substances causing failure of good chemical status 

Member States were expected to report exceedances for individual substances on the basis of 
the more stringent 2013 EQSs when they existed The most frequently reported “top 15” priority 

substances  found  in  surface  water  bodies  are  shown  in  Table  1.  Mercury  and  brominated 
diphenylethers are responsible for failure to achieve good chemical status in the highest number 

of water bodies. 

Table 1: Priority substances where failure to achieve good chemical status occurs in over 
100 water bodies (out of a total of 111062 surface water bodies)  
Priority substance  

Type / use of 
chemical 

Number of 
water 
bodies not 
achieving 
good 
chemical 
status 

Number of 
Member 
States with 
water bodies 
not achieving 
good 
chemical 
status for the 
listed 
substance 

% 
contributed 
by one 
Member 
State if that 
dominates 
(% of WBs 
not 
achieving 
good 
chemical 
status) 

Mercury * 
Brominated diphenylethers *+ 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene + 
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene * + 
Benzo(a)pyrene *+ 
Fluoranthene + 
Cadmium  
Tributyltin * 
Nickel+ 
Lead+ 
Benzo(b)fluor-anthene+ 
Benzo(k)fluor-anthene *+ 
Isoproturon 
4-nonylphenol 
Anthracene+ 
Hexachlorocyclohexane 
DEHP 

Metal 
Flame 
retardant 
PAH 

PAH 
PAH 
Metal 
Biocide 
Metal 
Metal 
PAH 

Pesticide 
Surfactant 
PAH 
Pesticide 
Plasticiser 

45973 
23331 

3091 

1630 
1390 
1014 
663 
654 
462 
460 

199 
188 
123 
120 
102 

24 
8 

15 

12 
14 
20 
15 
20 
19 
10 

8 
10 
11 
11 
11 

50% 
99% 

47% 

65% 
40% 
-- 
-- 
-- 
-- 
41%  

45%  
52%  
59%  
-- 
-- 

Note * shows where substance is an ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority 
Substances (uPBT) and + denotes a more stringent 2013 Environmental Quality Standard. 
Source: EEA (2018). 

111 

 
 
The impact of ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances on the 
classification of chemical status 

According  to  Article  8(a)  of  the  EQSs  Directive,  eight  priority  substances  and  groups  of 
priority  substances  are  behaving  like  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic 

substances.  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  ubiquitous  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  Priority  Substances  (uPBTs)  are  also 

shown in  Table 3  and it can be seen that  all of them  are in  the top  10.  Figure 4 displays the 
chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies,  with  and  without  uPBTs.  There  is  a  significant 

difference with only 3 % of surface water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status when 
uPBTs are excluded. This indicates a very significant impact of uPBTs. Some Member States 
are more affected by the uPBTs than others77. However, the true extent of the impact of uPBTs 
is  more  than  likely  masked  by  the  different  approaches  Member  States  have  taken  to 

accounting  for  the  pressures  leading  to  impacts  from  these  substances  and  to  the  use  of 
extrapolation  of  monitoring  results  from  monitored  to  unmonitored  water  bodies.  This  is 

commonly  the  case  for  mercury  where  exceedance  of  the  environmental  quality  standard  in 
biota  extrapolated  to  similar  water  bodies  leads  to  widespread  occurrence  of  failure  to  meet 

good status.  

Figure 4: Chemical status of surface water bodies, with and without and uPBTs 

77    For details see WISE WFD Database:  

https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_SWB_SWPrioritySubstanceWithout
UPBT/Country?:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&:showShareOptions=true&:display_count=no&:showViz
Home=no  

112 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Progress made in tackling individual substances 
The EEA report (2018)78 provides a more detailed overview of which Priority Substances are 
being tackled at  the Member State level. Against a background of little change  overall in  the 

proportion  of  water  bodies  achieving  good  status  and  an  increase  in  the  proportion  failing  to 
achieve good status, several cases of improvements between the first and second RBMPs were 

reported for particular Priority Substances. For example, 943 water bodies improved in status 
during  the  first  RBMP  cycle  due  to  cadmium,  nickel  and  lead  meeting  their  EQSs.  For 

pesticides  (isoproturon,  endosulfan,  chlorpyrifos,  diuron,  DDT,  total  DDT,  cyclodiene, 
trifluralin,  atrazine,  alachlor),  571  water  bodies  improved  from  failing  to  achieve  good 

chemical status in the first RBMP as a result of these substances meeting the relevant standards. 
A  further  621  water  bodies  are  still  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  in  the  second 

RBMPs due to these substances failing their standards. 

Dealing with measurements lower than the limit of quantification 

Article  5  of  Directive  2009/90/EC  on  QA/QC  specifies  a  method  for  dealing  with 

measurements lower than the limit of quantification. Almost all Member States reported the use 
of methods consistent with these requirements. 

Expected date for achievement of good chemical status 

For surface water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status by 2015, Member States were 

requested to report the date by which good chemical status would be achieved. Member States 
were  also  asked  to  report  water  bodies  achieving  good  status  in  2015  and  those  where  less 

stringent objectives (exemption under Article 4(5)) have already been achieved.  

As previously mentioned, good status should be reached by 2021 for substances with revised, 

more  stringent  2013  standards,  and  by  2027  for  the  new  priority  substances.  Member  States 
may  also  apply  exemptions  under  WFD  article  4(4)  to  explain  the  extension  of  deadlines, 

provided they can prove that the necessary conditions are fulfilled. 

51% of surface water bodies have already achieved good chemical status in 2015 and 20% have 
achieved  the  less  stringent  objectives  set  by  Member  States  under  article  4(5)  of  the  WFD. 
About  2  %  of  water  bodies  are  expected  to  achieve  good  status  by  2021  and  23  %  by  2027 
(Figure 5). For only less than 1 % the target will be achieved beyond 2027. For about 4 % of 

surface water bodies the date of achievement is unknown. 

78 EEA (2018). European Waters – Assessment of status and pressures 2018,EEA Report No 7/2018, ISSN 1977-

8449. 

113 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 5: Expected date for achievement of good chemical status of surface water bodies 
by water category.  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Methodologies to assess the status of non-monitored water bodies 

Figure  6  shows  the  number  of  Member  States  where  monitoring,  grouping  and  expert 
judgement is used either predominantly or entirely as the means of classification for each water 

category  relevant  for  surface  water  chemical  status.  'Monitoring'  indicates  that  there  is 
monitoring  data  available  for  the  water  body  and  this  is  used  as  the  basis  for  classification. 
‘Grouping’  indicates  that  there  is  no  monitoring  data  available  from  the  water  body  and 

therefore  monitoring  from  other  similar  water  bodies  was  used  as  a  basis  for  classification. 
Assessing water bodies by grouping without any monitoring data can increase the uncertainty 

but it may be justified in areas where several water bodies are of the same type and are subject 
to the same level of pressures and hence can be assumed to present the same chemical status. 

'Expert  judgement'  means  there  is  some,  none  or  insufficiently  reliable  monitoring  data 
available in this surface water body, no other similar water bodies were used and the status is 

mainly based on expert judgement.  

Monitoring  is  used  as  the  basis  of  classification  most  commonly  in  transitional,  coastal  and 
territorial  waters  (Figure 9). There are  generally  fewer water bodies in  these water categories 

than in surface freshwaters. Expert judgement is used more commonly in lakes and rivers (in 
approximately one-third of Member States). Member States appear to have generally reported 

as  expert  judgment  the  extrapolation  of  exceedances  found  for  mercury  in  monitored  water 
bodies to all unmonitored water bodies within a Member State. This extrapolation was carried 

out  in  a  few  Member  States.  The  use  of  grouping  as  the  means  of  classification  occurs  least 
frequently  but  is  more  common  in  surface  fresh  waters  than  in  transitional,  coastal  and 

territorial waters.  

114 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6: Means of classification of surface water chemical status in the relevant water 
categories  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Notes to Figure: “>50% MS”: Predominantly used: at least 50% of water bodies classified by 
this means in the Member States. “All Member States”: Exclusively used: all water bodies 
classified by this means in the Member State. 

Overall, grouping techniques and expert judgement are widely used for the classification. Some 
RBMPs  provide  information  on  the  approaches  used  but  in  some  cases  greater  transparency 

would be beneficial. The grouping techniques and expert judgement also need to utilise sound 
monitoring results. 

Confidence in classification of chemical status 

The WFD stipulates that estimates of the confidence and precision attained by the monitoring 
system used shall be stated in the RBMP. Member States were requested to report the level of 

confidence  according  to  4  categories  (low,  medium,  high  and  no  information).  In  the  first 
RBMPs, confidence in the chemical status assessment was not explicitly reported.  

Figure  7  shows  the  surface  water  chemical  status  assessment  confidence  for  the  second 

RBMPs.  At  EU  level,  only  15  %  of  the  chemical  status  classifications  were  assigned  high 
confidence,  25  %  of  medium,  41  %  of  low  confidence  and  19  %  had  no  information  on  the 

level of confidence. (No information on the level of confidence was generally associated with 
water  bodies  with  unknown  chemical  status.)  The  range  of  confidence  levels  varies  widely 

between  the  Member  States.  High  confidence  was  generally  associated  with  classifications 
based  on  reliable  monitoring  results  and  low  confidence  with  those  based  on  few  or  no 

monitoring  results  but  on,  for  example,  the  extrapolation  of  results  from  monitored  water 
bodies or expert judgment.  

115 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7: Confidence in the assessment of surface water chemical status  

Use of mixing zones 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Directive 2008/105/EC also allows Member States to establish mixing zones, where the EQSs 
Directive may be exceeded provided that the rest of the surface water body complies with those 

standards.  These  areas  must  be  clearly  identified  in  the  RBMPs.  Mixing  zones  were  not 
commonly  defined  in  the  second  RBMPs  with  only  just  over  a  quarter  of  Member  States 

defining them in at least some RBDs, representing a small portion of water bodies overall. 

Use of background concentrations and bioavailability for metals 

Directive  2008/105/EU  stipulates  that  Member  States  may,  when  assessing  the  monitoring 

results against the EQS, take into account the natural background concentrations for metals and 
their compounds and the bioavailability of metals.  

In the second RBMPs, most Member States have considered natural background concentrations 

when assessing monitoring results against the EQS, however this was not the case in all RBDs 
in these Member States.  

Most Member States have considered bioavailability when assessing monitoring results against 
the EQS, however this was not the case in all RBDs in these Member States.  

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle  

Changes in surveillance and operational monitoring  

A  wide  variety  of  changes  to  monitoring  programmes  for  chemical  status  were  reported  by 

Member States including both increases and decreases in the numbers of monitoring sites used 
and water bodies monitored and a redistribution of sites between surveillance and operational 

116 

 
 
 
 
monitoring  programmes  and  between  water  categories.  Several  Member  States  reported 
extensions of monitoring programmes into previously unmonitored water categories. 

Changes in monitoring of Priority Substances  

Monitoring of Priority Substances in the first RBMPs was very diverse with few Member Sates 
monitoring  all  substances.79  In  the  second  RBMPs,  all  Member  States  monitored  Priority 
Substances in water for status assessment. In almost all Member States, the majority of Priority 
Substances were monitored but  with  some variation  among  RBDs  within Member States and 

among water categories. 

Since the first RBMPs, biota standards have been used in the assessment of chemical status and 
trend  monitoring  was  performed  in  sediment  and  biota  to  a  greater  extent.  For  status 

assessment, nearly three quarters of Member States monitored mercury, hexachlorobenzene and 
hexachlorobutadiene  in  biota  compared  to  just  a  few  Member  States  in  the  first  RBMPs.  For 

trend assessment, a similar proportion of Member States reported monitoring of at least some 
of  the  14  Priority  Substances  in  sediment  and/or  biota  which  is  a  considerable  improvement 

from the proportion using these matrices in the first RBMPs.  

Changes in status  

At  the  European  level,  the  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  at  good  status  has  remained 

largely  the  same  since  the  first  cycle;  though  small  increases  were  observed  in  rivers, 
transitional, coastal and territorial water categories. However, as a result of significant efforts 

invested  by  Member  States  in  improving  the  understanding  of  pressures  and  monitoring  and 
assessment methodologies, the number of water bodies of unknown status has decreased from 

39 % to 16 %. The number of water bodies classified as failing to achieve good chemical status 
has  increased  from  25  %  to  46  %  overall,  which  seems  to  be  largely  due  to  the  increase  in 

knowledge. 

Confidence in the classification of chemical status was reported explicitly for the first time in 
the  second  RBMP;  15  %  of  classified  water  bodies  were  assigned  high  and  25  %  medium 

confidence. This is related to the extent to which monitoring, grouping  and expert judgement 
(and extrapolation) is used as the basis for classification. While the classifications of chemical 

status reported in the first RBMPs were based largely on limited monitoring programmes, those 
reported  in  the  second  RBMPs  are  based  on  improved  monitoring  programmes  and  more 

systematic use of grouping and expert judgement.  

1.8.2. Conclusions  

Overall,  the  percentage  of  water  bodies  that  are  of  unknown  chemical  status  has  decreased 

significantly since the first RBMPs from 39 % of all surface water bodies to only 16 %. This 

79  See  2012  Commission  Staff  Working  Document 
framework/pdf/3rd_report/CWD-2012-379_EN-Vol2.pdf  

:  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-

117 

 
 
                                                           
indicates  that  the  monitoring  (spatially,  substances  and  frequency)  and  status  assessment 
methods  have improved  overall. A limited number of Member states have more than 60% of 

their water bodies in unknown status (Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Portugal).  

Against a background of little change overall in the proportion of water bodies achieving good 

status  and  an  increase  in  the  proportion  failing  to  achieve  good  status  (most  likely  due  to  an 
increase  in  knowledge),  several  cases  of  improvements  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs 

were reported for particular Priority Substances. 

Only 3 % of surface water bodies are failing to achieve good chemical status when ubiquitous 
persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  Priority  Substances  (uPBTs)  are  excluded  from  the 

assessment  of  chemical  status  (compared  to  46%  when  all  substances  are  considered).  This 
indicates a significant impact of uPBTs. In particular, mercury and brominated diphenylethers 

are  responsible  for  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  in  the  highest  number  of  water 
bodies. 

A relatively high proportion of surface water bodies were reported to be failing to achieve good 
status for the second RBMPs – 46 % overall. However, looking at the target for the expected 

date of achieving good status, less than 1 % extends beyond 2027 and most water bodies are 
expected  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  by  2027,  though  more  stringent  standards  and 

additional  substances  are  required  to  be  monitored  for  the  third  RBMP.  For  about  4  %  of 
surface water bodies, the date of achievement is unknown. 

Grouping  techniques  and  expert  judgement  have  been  widely  used  to  classify  water  bodies. 

Some  RBMPs  provide  information  on  the  approaches  used  but  in  some  cases  greater 
transparency  would  be  beneficial.  The  use  of  these  may  also  be  at  least  partly  linked  to  the 

reduced confidence in the assessment of status : at EU level, only 15 % of the chemical status 
classifications were assigned high confidence, 25 % medium, 41 % low confidence and 19 % 

had  no  information  on  the  level  of  confidence.  The  range  of  confidence  levels  varies  widely 
between Member States. 

Although it is not expected that all water bodies be monitored, overall the extent of monitoring 
of Priority Substances across the EU has been very diverse, ranging from 1 to 98 % of surface 

water bodies being monitored for Priority Substances and an average of  about  one third. The 
majority of Member States monitor all of their water bodies failing to  achieve good status  as 

part  of  their  operational  monitoring  programmes  in  at  least  some  of  their  RBDs  and  most 
commonly in coastal and transitional waters. 

For  efficient  monitoring  programmes  the  information  on  pressures  and  emissions  is  very 
important. Significant efforts have been made to establish inventories of emissions (see Chapter 
5.2),  although  few  Member  States  reported  complete  inventories  for  all  their  RBDs,  and  it  is 

therefore  unclear  whether  all  discharged  substances  have  been  identified.  The  majority  of 

118 

 
 
Member  States  monitored  all  of  the  Priority  Substances  identified  as  discharged  into  their 
RBDs with the exception of a few Priority Substances and with some variation among RBDs 

within Member States. For status assessment, all Member States monitored Priority Substances 
in water. In almost all Member States, the majority of Priority Substances were monitored but 

with  some  variation  among  RBDs  within  Member  States  and  among  water  categories. 
Generally  the  spatial  extent  of  monitoring  in  water  was  limited  in  terms  of  the  proportion  of 

water bodies monitored with some variation between water categories. Territorial waters were 
monitored in a few Member States with a coastline. Monitoring frequencies in water at the site 

level  varied  widely  within  RBDs  in  most  member  States  with  some  sites  meeting  the 
recommended minimum frequencies in the Directive and some not.  

Nearly  three  quarters  of  Member  States  monitored  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 
hexachlorobutadiene in biota for status assessment. In general, the spatial extent of monitoring 

in terms of the proportion of monitoring sites was very limited. Monitoring frequencies in biota 
were  consistent  with  the  recommended  minimum  frequencies  in  the  Directive  for  just  over 

three  quarters  of  Member  States  though  not  in  all  RBDs.  Explanations  for  the  reduced 
frequencies were sometimes provided in the RBMPs. 

For trend assessment, around two-thirds of Member States reported to WISE that arrangements 

were  in  place  for  long-term  trend  analysis  in  most,  but  not  all,  RBDs.  All  but  two  of  these 
monitored sediment and/or biota for this reason. Most Member States monitored the majority of 

the 14 substances though not in all RBDs and not in all water categories. In almost all cases the 
spatial extent of monitoring was very limited in terms of the proportion of sites monitored. The 

recommended minimum frequency of monitoring was met in almost all Member States. Where 
reduced frequencies were reported, these were justified in very few cases. 

For the majority of Priority Substances, the analytical methods meet the minimum performance 
criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the QA/QC Directive, in the majority of Member States and 

RBDs.  For  the  remaining  substances,  the  analytical  methods  complied  with  the  requirements 
laid down in Article 4(2) in all Member States and RBDs with very few exceptions. 

Article 5 of the QA/QC Directive specifies a method for dealing with measurements lower than 

the  limit  of  quantification.  Almost  all  Member  States  reported  the  use  of  methods  consistent 
with these requirements. 

Member  States  did  not  often  use  the  option  of  deriving  mixing  zones  in  the  second  RBMPs 
with only just over a quarter of Member States defining them in at least some RBDs, in a small 

portion of water bodies overall. 

Most  Member  States  have  used  the  possibility  offered  by  the  Directive  to  consider  natural 
background  concentrations  and  bioavailability  when  assessing  monitoring  results  against  the 

119 

 
 
EQS.  However  this  was  not  the  case  in  all  RBDs  in  these  Member  States  (in  some  RBDs 
because metals were not causing exceedances). 

1.8.3. Recommendations 

  Member States should continue improving the confidence in the assessment of status for 
all  water  categories  (including  territorial  waters),  and  further  reduce  the  proportion  in 

unknown status.  In particular, monitoring should be performed in  a way  that provides 
sufficient  temporal  resolution  and  spatial  coverage  to  classify  all  water  bodies  (in 

combination if necessary with robust grouping /extrapolation methods). All discharged 
Priority  Substances  should  be  monitored,  and  all  Priority  Substances  should  be 

considered in the assessment of status, in the relevant matrix. If reduced frequencies or 
a  different  matrix/EQS  are  used,  they  should  be  explained,  as  required  by  the 

Directives. 

  Trend monitoring in sediment and/or biota should be performed or further improved to 
ensure that all the relevant substances specified in Directive 2008/105/EC are monitored 

in  a  way  that  provides  sufficient  temporal  resolution  and  spatial  coverage  and  fully 
reflects the concern that these substances may be accumulating in the environment. 

120 

 
 
1.9.  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  quantitative  status  in 

groundwater 

1.9.1. Introduction 

Monitoring 

Article  8  of  the  WFD  requires  the  establishment  of  programmes  for  the  monitoring  of 

groundwater quantitative status. The directive sets out the requirements for these programmes 
in Annex V 2.2 and Annex II 2.3.  

WFD groundwater monitoring is primarily focussed on the groundwater body as a management 
unit, but it also supports the overall management of the RBD. The principal purpose of WFD 

quantitative monitoring is to facilitate quantitative status assessment to determine whether the 
relevant  Article  4  environmental  objectives  for  groundwater  bodies  are  met.  Moreover,  the 

monitoring results must be used:  

- 

- 

- 

- 

to  supplement  and  validate  the  Article  5  characterisation  and  risk  assessment  procedure 
with respect to risks of failing to achieve good groundwater quantitative status, 

to demonstrate compliance with the objectives for drinking water protected area and other 
protected area objectives,  

to assist in designing the programmes of measures necessary to achieve the environmental 
objectives and in evaluating their effectiveness, and  

to estimate the direction and rate of flow in  groundwater bodies that cross Member State 
boundaries. 

The  groundwater  quantitative  monitoring  network  shall  include  sufficient  representative 
monitoring  points  and  monitoring  shall  be  carried  out  with  a  sufficient  frequency  of 

observations. Such monitoring design is particularly necessary to estimate the balance between 
groundwater abstraction and recharge in each groundwater body or group of bodies, taking into 

account short and long-term variations in recharge. It is  also necessary so that the impacts of 
anthropogenically induced level changes or of alterations of groundwater flow on groundwater 

associated aquatic and dependent terrestrial ecosystems as well as on saline or other intrusion 
can be assessed. 

Although  the  WFD  identifies  groundwater  level  as  the  metric  for  determining  quantitative 
status,  in  practice  the  requirements  of  status  assessment  and  the  specific  characteristics  of 

groundwater  bodies  mean  that  additional  supporting  information  will  be  required  to  assess 
quantitative status. Common Implementation Strategy Guidance document No. 15 recommends 
considering  spring  flows,  flow  characteristics  and/or  stage  levels  of  surface  water  courses 
during drought periods or stage levels in significant groundwater dependent wetlands and lakes 

for  the  purposes  of  quantitative  groundwater  status  assessment,  too.  Moreover,  to  adequately 

121 

 
 
assess the quantitative status also information on abstractions, recharge, ecological flow needs 
of ecosystems and changes of intrusion parameters would be needed. 

Classification 

The  definition  of  groundwater  quantitative  status  is  set  out  in  Annex  V  2.1  of  the  WFD  and 
discussed in Common Implementation Strategy Guidance document No. 18. Good quantitative 

status is met when the available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long term annual 
average rate of abstraction, when the groundwater levels are not subject to such anthropogenic 

alterations which would result in failure to achieve the environmental objectives for associated 
surface  waters  or  any  significant  diminution  of  their  status  or  any  significant  damage  to 

groundwater  dependent 
terrestrial  ecosystems.  Moreover, 
anthropogenic flow alterations or level changes do not cause any saline or other intrusion. 

in  good  quantitative  status 

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle 

Monitoring of quantitative status in groundwater 

The  coverage  of  groundwater  bodies  by  quantitative  monitoring  is  in  most  of  the  Member 
States generally high, but with a significant number of groundwater bodies without quantitative 

monitoring in specific Member States (see figure 1). In total 4 600 of the 13 376 groundwater 
bodies  are  subject  to  quantitative  monitoring.  Eleven  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium, 

Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Spain,  Hungary,  Luxembourg,  Latvia,  Netherlands, 
Poland) monitor more than 80% of their groundwater bodies, and of these, two monitor all their 

groundwater bodies (Cyprus, the Netherlands).  

Figure 1: Percentage of groundwater bodies with quantitative monitoring (bars) and average 
number of monitoring sites per monitored groundwater. 

Source: WISE reporting 2016 

Note: * grouping has been applied, at least partially, in Austria, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, 
Finland, Malta, Spain and Sweden.  Austria confirmed that there is surveillance monitoring for 
groundwater, but the reported information is shown in this figure. 

122 

 
 
 
Consistency with the quantitative monitoring requirement of the WFD needs to be assessed in a 

differentiated  way  because  the  WFD  allows  grouping  groundwater  bodies  -  inter  alia  for  the 
purpose  of  monitoring  -  and  therefore  not  each  groundwater  body  which  is  subject  to  such 

grouping  is  in  need  of  a  separate  monitoring  network.  Some  Member  States  reported  that 
groundwater  bodies  had  been  grouped  for  the  purpose  of  monitoring  (see  figure  1)  (Austria, 

Croatia,  Denmark,  Germany,  Finland,  Malta,  Spain  and  Sweden)  but  for  the  majority  of 
Member  States  with  unmonitored  groundwater  bodies  there  is  no  such  information  about 

grouping and hence there is a clear gap and inconsistency with the monitoring requirements of 
the  WFD.  Even  in  cases  where  grouping  has  been  reported,  this  often  does  not  allow 

determining  whether  grouping  covers  all  groundwater  bodies  without  monitoring  or  only  a 
subset. 

In average on the EU level, each monitored groundwater body is monitored in 2.7 monitoring 

sites. Figure 1 shows the number of monitoring sites per monitored groundwater body in each 
Member State. The number of sites varies between 1.1 sites in Finland up to 40.7 sites in the 

Netherlands.  Of  course,  the  number  of  monitoring  sites  per  groundwater  body  is  highly 
influenced  by  its  size  and  is  not  an  adequate  measure  of  comparison.  In  addition  to  that,  the 

density  of  sites  is  influenced  by  the  variability  of  characteristics  and  pressures  within 
groundwater  bodies  and  the  intensity  and  type  of  groundwater  use,  leading  to  significant 

variations  even  within  Member  States.  Furthermore,  as  mentioned  previously,  it  should  be 
considered that some Member States group their groundwater bodies for monitoring purposes 

and therefore did not establish monitoring sites in each groundwater body. 

Assessment and classification of quantitative status for groundwater 

About 92% of groundwater bodies in the EU (12 299 of the 13 367 groundwater bodies) are in 

good quantitative status. Around 5% (693 groundwater bodies) are failing good status and 3% 
(385  groundwater  bodies)  have  unknown  status.  Considering  the  area  of  groundwater  bodies, 

about  89%  (3.9  million  km²)  of  the  total  area  of  groundwater  bodies  (4.3  million  km²)  is  in 
good  quantitative  status,  around  9  %  of  the  total  area  has  failed  to  achieve  good  quantitative 

status,  while  around  1  %  of  the  groundwater  body  area  (about  59 000  km²)  has  unknown 
status.80 

Member  States  that  have  reported  all  groundwater  bodies  in  good  quantitative  stauts  are 
Asutria,  Luxembourg,  Latvia,  The  Netherlands,  Romania  and  Slovenia.  The  main  reason  for 

failing  good  quantitative  status  is  attributed  to  the  ‘water  balance  /  lowering  of  water  table’. 
Around 61% of the  groundwater body  area failing  good quantitative status (544  groundwater 

80   The  total  area  of  GWBs  in  Europe  is  4.34  million  km².  While  this  figure  might  seem  extremely  large  (the 
whole EU surface is about 4,3 km²), it is correct as the different layers of delineated and reported groundwater 
bodies have been considered for calculating the total. 

123 

 
 
 
                                                           
bodies  in  the  other  19  Member  States)  is  affected  by  this  reason.  Further  reasons  for  failing 
good  status  are  the  diminution  of  associated  surface  water  bodies  (22%  of  the  failing 

groundwater  body  area;  217  groundwater  bodies  in  Germany,  Spain,  Finland,  France,  Italy, 
UK), damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (17% of the groundwater body 

area in  poor status; 100  groundwater bodies in  Bulgaria, Germany,  France, Hungary, Poland, 
UK)  and  saline  or  other  intrusions  (8%  of  the  groundwater  body  area  in  poor  status;  104 

groundwater bodies in  Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus,  Germany, Spain,  Finland, France, Croatia, 
Italy, Poland, UK). 

The overall confidence in the assessment of groundwater quantitative status is relatively high, 
with  high  confidence  being  reported  for  48%  of  the  groundwater  body  area  and  medium 

confidence for about  23%.  Low  confidence in  status  assessment was reported for 22% of the 
area and unknown confidence or no information for about 7% (about 276 000 km²). As it can 

be  seen  in  Figure  4,  there  is  quite  a  difference  when  comparing  the  level  of  confidence  for 
groundwater bodies or for the related groundwater body area. The range of confidence varies 

widely between the Member States.  

As stated above, approximately 9% of the total  groundwater body area is not achieving  good 

quantitative status. Looking at the expected date of finally achieving good quantitative status, 
only about 40% of the groundwater body area which is currently at poor status is expected to 

achieve  good  status  at  the  end  of  the  second  cycle  planning  period  in  2021.  About  38%  is 
expected to achieve good status by 2027. For 8% the target will only be achieved beyond 2027. 
For  about  7%  of  the  groundwater  body  area  which  is  currently  at  poor  status,  the  date  of 

achievement  is  either  unknown  and  for  7%  less  stringent  objectives  have  already  been 
achieved.   

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  1  Outlook  on  the  area  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  to  achieve  good  quantitative 
status in future RBMPs  

Groundwater quantitative status 
Expected achievement of good status 

Total  groundwater  body 
area 

Good status 2015 

stringent  objectives 

Less 
achieved 
2016--2021 

already 

2022--2027 

Beyond 2027 

Unknown 

in  million 
km² 
3.86 

in % 

89 % 

0.03 

0.18 

0.17 

0.04 

0.03 

1 % 

4 % 

4 % 

1 % 

1 % 

7% 

40% 

38% 

8% 

7% 

Groundwater  body 
area  failing  good 
status 

Source: EEA SoW 2016. The table shows preliminary results based on the WISE reporting of 
data from 25 Member States (EU28 except Greece, Ireland and Lithuania). 

Groundwater bodies at risk: About 13% of the total groundwater body area is assigned at risk 
of failing good quantitative status objectives at the end of the second cycle planning period in 

the  year  2021.  This  percentage  is  slightly  higher  than  the  area  currently  failing  good  status 
(9%).  About  87%  of  the  total  groundwater  body  area  is  not  at  risk  and  supposed  to  achieve 

good status at the end of the second cycle planning period. 

The main  reason for risk is  linked with  water balance (931  groundwater bodies)  followed by 

adverse  effects  to  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  (305  groundwater  bodies), 
associated aquatic ecosystems (236) and saline or other intrusion (154). For 1 011 groundwater 

bodies uses or functions of groundwater are affected and for 449 groundwater bodies associated 
aquatic and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems. 

Brief summary of methodology 

The  assessment  of  groundwater  quantitative  status  needs  to  consider  the  degree  of 
direct/indirect  groundwater  abstractions  and  of  anthropogenically  induced  alterations  of 

groundwater levels and flow directions in comparison with the available groundwater resource. 
The  evaluation  of  consistency  for  the  ‘water  balance’  of  a  groundwater  body  as  a  whole  is 

based on an assessment of whether the available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the 
long-term annual average rate of abstraction. Furthermore, it needs to be checked whether the 
environmental  objectives  of  associated  surface  water  bodies  and  groundwater  dependent 
terrestrial ecosystems are met and whether there is no saline or other intrusion. 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
Elements  considered:  All  Member  States  reported  on  the  considered  elements  in  the 
quantitative  status  assessment.  Water  balance  was  considered  by  all  Member  States  and  for 

most of the RBDs.  Further elements  like diminution  of the status  of  associated surface water 
bodies and damage to groundwater body dependent terrestrial ecosystems were reported to be 
considered  by  many  of  the  Member  States81,  even  if  no  such  ecosystem  is  related  to  any 
groundwater quantitative risk. The remaining Member States did not consider the ecosystems 

in status assessment but there is no risk related. Finally, also saline and other intrusions have 
been frequently taken into consideration in status assessment. 

The  needs  of  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  have  been  taken  into  account  in 
status assessment by the majority of Member States (but not Czech Republic, Denmark, France, 

Latvia, Romania, Sweden and Slovakia),  and the majority of the RBDs (e.g. not in all RBDs in 
Italy). 16 Member States reported its consideration in 86 RBDs (60% of all 143 RBDs), even in 

6  RBDs  where  no  such  ecosystems  exist.  But  in  33  RBDs  (23%)  of  10  Member  States  the 
needs  have  not  been  taken  into  account  although  such  ecosystems  exist.  In  25  RBDs  of  9 

Member  States,  no  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  exist  and  thus,  their  needs 
have not been considered.  

For  98  RBDs  (69%)  in  most  Member  States,  the  term  ‘available  groundwater  resource’  has 
been applied in accordance with the definition laid down in WFD Article 2(27)82. For 21 RBDs 
of  6  Member  States,  this  was  considered  partly  (Spain,  Italy,  Latvia,  Romania,  Sweden, 

Slovakia)  and  for  the  remaining  24  RBD,  this  definition  was  not  applied  (Czech  Republic, 
Denmark, France, Luxembourg).  

In  assessing  water  balance,  101  (70%)  RBDs  (7 311  groundwater  bodies  in  the  majority  of 
Member  States  previously  mentioned)  reported  having  compared  the  annual  average 

groundwater  abstractions  against  the  available  groundwater  resource  for  every  groundwater 
body and in 11 (8%) RBDs (853 groundwater bodies) of 5 Member States the comparison for a 

subset of groundwater bodies has been calculated (Spain,  Italy, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia). 
For 30 (21%) RBDs in 7 Member States (5 123 groundwater bodies), the failure of achieving 

good status was established by considering sustained long-term decline in water levels caused 
by  long-term  groundwater  abstraction,  based  on  reliable  information  on  groundwater  levels 

across the groundwater body.  

81  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Germany,  Estonia,  Spain,  Finland,  Croatia,  Hungary,  Italy,  Malta, 

Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, UK 

82 Austria, in some RBDs of Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Croatia, UK, Hungary, Malta, 

Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and UK 

126 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table  2  Assessment  of  water  balance  within  the  assessment  of  groundwater  quantitative 
status 

Method 

Comparison  of  the  annual  average  groundwater 
abstractions  against  the  available  groundwater 
resource  in  the  groundwater  body  for  every 
groundwater body 
Comparison  of  the  annual  average  groundwater 
abstractions  against  the  available  groundwater 
resource  in  the  groundwater  body  for  a  subset  of 
groundwater bodies 
Consideration of the sustained long-term decline in 
water  levels  caused  by  long-term  groundwater 
abstraction,  based  on  reliable  information  on 
groundwater levels across the groundwater body 

No  consideration  of  water  balance  in  status 
assessment 

Membe
r States 

River 
Basin 
Districts 

Groundwat
er bodies 

18 

101 
(70%) 

7311 

5 

7 

1 

11 (8%) 

853 

30 (21%) 

5123 

1 

90 

Note: Some Member States applied different approaches for different RBDs. 

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle 

In  most  of  the  Member  States,  groundwater  quantitative  monitoring  improved  since  the  first 
RBMPs83.  In  many  Member  States,  the  coverage  of  groundwater  bodies  by  quantitative 
monitoring  increased  (including  Belgium,  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Denamark,  France, 
Hungary,  Italy,  Poland,  Portugal,  Sweden,  Slovenia)  and  in  five  Member  States  the  coverage 

more  or  less  remained  the  same,  commonly  at  high  level  (Austria,  Cyprus,  Croatia,    Malta, 
Netherlands).  Some  Member  States  reduced  the  percentage  of  groundwater  bodies  with 

quantitative  monitoring  but  they  did  not  report  reasons  for  that  (Bulgaria,  Estonia  –with 
reporting data gaps-, Finland, Romania). In two Member States the reduction could be a result 

of the re-delineation of groundwater bodies (Bulgaria, Romania).  

Overall,  the  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in  the  EU  improved.  The  groundwater 
body  area  achieving  good  quantitative  status  increased  by  5%  from  84%  to  89%  of  the  total 

groundwater body area  and the area failing  good status  decreased  from  13% to  9%. Also the 
knowledge  on  groundwater  quantitative  status  has  substantially  increased  as  the  area  at 

unknown status decreased from 3% to around 1 % of the total groundwater body area, located 
in four Member States. In parallel to the knowledge, also the level of confidence in the status 

results increased. Now around 70 % of quantitative status results have been reported of high or 
medium confidence. 

83  Austria,  Belgium,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Denmark,  Spain,  France,  Hungary,  Italy,  Luxembourg, 

Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia, UK 

127 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 2: Groundwater quantitative status by area in the first and second RBMPs 

Note: The numbers in parenthesis show total area (in million km2) of groundwater bodies. 
Source: EEA SoW 2018. Data from 25 Member States (except Greece, Ireland and Lithuania) 

Very  often,  changes  in  the  status  results  were  reported  as  a  result  of  the  re-delineation  of 
groundwater bodies and the improvement of the status assessment methodologies, which is also 

reflected  in  the  increased  level  of  confidence  in  the  status  assessment.  To  a  lesser  extent, 
changes of the pressure situation and the effectiveness of measures were mentioned as reasons 

for changes in status results. 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
Changes in elements considered in status assessment: 

The consideration of the water balance in quantitative status assessment increased significantly. 

Compared to the first RBMPs, where only half of the Plans reported about this consideration, 
now  almost  80%  of  the  second  RBMPs  reported  having  considered  the  balance  between 

recharge  and  abstraction  for  every  groundwater  body  (70%)  or  for  a  subset  of  groundwater 
bodies (8%). Only 1 of 143 RBMPs did not consider water balance in the status assessment. 

Also  the  consideration  of  ecosystems  in  the  quantitative  status  assessment  increased 
significantly.  In  the  first  RBMPs,  their  consideration  was  quite  limited,  but  in  the  2nd  cycle, 
most Member States reported having considered the ecosystems in status assessment, even if no 

such ecosystem is related to any groundwater quantitative risk. The remaining Member States 
did  not  consider  ecosystems  in  quantitative  status  assessment  (Czech  Republic,  Denmark, 

France, Latvia, Romania, Sweden and Slovakia). 

1.9.2. Conclusions  

Overall,  groundwater  quantitative  monitoring  improved  since  the  first  cycle  RBMPs  with 

increasing  coverage  of  groundwater  bodies.  Most  Member  States  increased  the  coverage  of 
groundwater  bodies  by  quantitative  monitoring  or  at  least  kept  the  coverage  at  high  level 

(decreases were observed in Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Romania). Nevertheless, a significant 
number of groundwater bodies is still without quantitative monitoring sites in specific Member 

States and the partially reported grouping of groundwater bodies for monitoring purposes does 
not  fully  explain  the  absence  of  monitoring.  Therefore,  there  is  still  inconsistency  with  the 

WFD requirement on groundwater quantitative monitoring. 

The  groundwater  quantitative  status  situation  improved  with  92%  of  the  groundwater  bodies 

representing 89% of the total groundwater body area being at good status. Most of the changes 
in  status  are  owing  to  the  partially  significant  re-delineations  of  groundwater  bodies  and  the 

improvements of the status assessment methodologies. 

In  parallel  to  the  improvement  of  status  also  knowledge  improved  which  is  expressed  in  the 
decreased  share  of  groundwater  bodies  at  unknown  status  (3%  of  groundwater  bodies 

representing 1% of the area) and the increased confidence in the status results which is high or 
medium for about 48% respectively 22% of the groundwater bodies. 

Water balance is almost fully considered in status assessment and also associated surface water 
bodies  and  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  are  fully  considered  in  almost  all 

Member  States  where  such  ecosystems  exist  and  where  they  are  related  to  groundwater 
quantitative risk.This is a significant improvement since the previous RBMP. 

129 

 
 
1.9.3. Recommendations 

  While there have been important improvements, many Member States need to continue 
toward  completing 

improving  quantitative  monitoring  programmes,  and  work 

quantitative status assessment for all groundwater bodies. 

 

In  some  Member  States  additional  efforts  are  required  for  harmonisation  of  status 
assessment methodologies (across regions and RBDs).  

  Grouping  methodologies  for  monitoring  purposes  are  not  always  clear  and  should  be 

better described in RBMPs.  

130 

 
 
1.10. Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  chemical  status 

in 

groundwater 

1.10.1. 

Introduction 

In  this  area,  the  requirements  of  the  WFD  are  complemented  by  those  of  the  Groundwater 
Directive (GW). The two Directives work in conjunction and, in addition, together with other 
EU legislation, such as the Drinking Water Directive and the Nitrates Directive.84 

Monitoring 

Article  8  of  the  WFD  requires  the  establishment  of  programmes  for  the  monitoring  of 

groundwater chemical status. The directive sets out the requirements for these programmes in 
Annex V 2.4 and Annex II 2.3.  

WFD  groundwater  chemical  monitoring  is  primarily  focused  on  the  groundwater  body  as  a 

management  unit,  but  it  also  supports  the  overall  management  of  the  RBD.  The  principal 
purpose of WFD chemical monitoring is to facilitate chemical status assessment to determine 

whether  the  relevant  Article  4  environmental  objectives  for  groundwater  bodies  are  met. 
Moreover,  the  monitoring  results  must  be  used  to  supplement  and  validate  the  Article  5 
characterisation and risk assessment procedure with respect to risks of failing to achieve good 

groundwater chemical status, to demonstrate compliance with the objectives for drinking water 
protected area (DWPA) and other protected area objectives, to provide information on natural 

and  anthropogenically  induced  long-term  trends  in  pollutants  concentrations  and  to  assist  in 
designing the programmes of measures and in evaluating their effectiveness. 

Monitoring of groundwater chemical status consists of surveillance and operational monitoring, 

as defined in WFD Annex V 2.4. The Directive specifies that surveillance monitoring shall be 
carried out for groundwater bodies at risk or which cross a boundary between Member States. 

However,  to  adequately  supplement  and  validate  the  Annex  II  risk  assessment  procedure, 
additional surveillance monitoring is also needed for groundwater bodies, or groups of bodies, 
not  identified  as  being  at  risk  (see  CIS  Technical  Report  3  on  Groundwater  monitoring85). 
Surveillance monitoring must include the core parameters defined in Annex V (oxygen content, 

pH value, conductivity,  nitrate and ammonium), and the selection of additional parameters to 
be  monitored  should  enable  the  detection  of  all  potential  impacts  of  all  pressures  on 

groundwater  bodies,  and  of  all  long-term  natural  and  anthropogenically  induced  changes  in 
pollutants concentrations (trends). If entire groundwater bodies or certain parameters indicating 

impacts  of  anthropogenic  pressures  are  not  included  in  surveillance  monitoring,  then  this 
omission could lead to the non-detection of significant pressures, the incorrect classification of 

84   The analysis in this chapter also responds to the requirement of Article 11 of the Groundwater Directive. 
85   https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/729b38fe-4141-48e8-b808-

04c3ecc91975/Groundwater%20monitoring%20Report.pdf  

131 

 
 
                                                           
water status  and inappropriate targeting of measures. This  is  particularly important  where the 
pressures and impacts assessment may not have been adequate enough to identify all potential 

pressures  and  impacts  in  the  RBD,  including  perhaps  because  of  a  lack  of  information  or  of 
methods or because of unexpected anthropogenic activities within the RBD. 

Operational monitoring is to be performed in the periods between surveillance monitoring. In 
contrast to surveillance monitoring, operational  monitoring is highly  focused on assessing the 

specific identified risks to the achievement of the directive’s objectives. It is needed to establish 
the  status  for  all  groundwater  bodies  identified  at  risk,  and  to  establish  the  presence  of  any 

significant  long-term  anthropogenically  induced  upward  trend  in  the  concentration  of  any 
pollutant. 

Classification 

The  definition  of  groundwater  chemical  status  is  set  out  in  Annex  V  2.3  of  the  WFD.  The 

procedure of assessing status is further specified in Article 4 and Annex III of the Groundwater 
Directive 2006/118/EC  (GWD). Good chemical  status  is  met when the chemical  composition 
of the groundwater body does not  indicate saline or other intrusion, does not  exceed relevant 

standards,  does  not  result  in  failure  to  achieve  the  environmental  objectives  for  associated 
surface  waters  or  any  significant  diminution  of  their  status  or  any  significant  damage  to 

groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems and does not impair the ability of a groundwater 
body  to  support  human  uses  such  as  drinking  water  abstraction.  For  groundwater  bodies 

identified as Drinking Water Protected Areas, the requirements of WFD Article 7 must be met 
as well, in order for a groundwater body to be in good chemical status. 

Regarding  the  provision  of  not  exceeding  relevant  standards,  the  GWD  provides  EU-wide 

groundwater  quality  standards  for  nitrates  and  pesticides  (individual  and  total)  and  requests 
Member  States  to  establish  further  national  groundwater  quality  standards  (referred  to  as 

‘threshold  values’)  for  all  substances  causing  risk  of  failing  to  meet  good  chemical  status 
objectives  at  the  most  appropriate  level  (e.g.  Member  State,  RBD,  groundwater  body).  The 

establishment  of  threshold  values  shall  consider  the  indicative  minimum  list  of  substances 
given in Annex II part B of the GWD86, the natural occurrence and variability of substances in 
groundwater  (natural  background  levels),  the  needs  of  the  receptors  of  the  groundwater 
(including where groundwater is or is planned to be used as drinking water), pollutant pathways 

and  interactions  with  different  environmental  compartments  such  as  associated  aquatic 
ecosystems or dependent terrestrial ecosystems.  

86  Arsenic,  Cadmium,  Lead,  Mercury,  Ammonium,  Chloride,  Sulphate,  Nitrites,  Phosphorus  (total)/Phosphates, 

Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, Conductivity. 

132 

 
 
 
                                                           
Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle 

Monitoring of chemical status in groundwater 

Surveillance monitoring 

The  coverage  of  groundwater  bodies  by  surveillance  monitoring  is  in  many  Member  States 

high,  but  a  significant  number  of  groundwater  bodies  is  not  covered  by  such  monitoring  in 
specific  Member  States  (see  figure  1).  In  total  5 050  of  the  13 376  groundwater  bodies  are 

subject  to  surveillance  monitoring  and  8 326  are  not.  Fourteen  Member  States  monitor  more 
than  80%  of  their  groundwater  bodies,  whereby  6  Member  States  Croatia,  Estonia, 

Luxembourg,  Malta,  the  Netherlands  and  Slovenia)  cover  all  their  groundwater  bodies. 
Coverage is very low in Finland, Sweden and Denmark while two Member States reduced the 

coverage (the United Kingdom and Spain). As mentioned, Finland and Sweden host more than 
half (7 084) of the in total 13 376 groundwater bodies in the EU. 

Figure  1:  Percentage  of  groundwater  bodies  with  surveillance  monitoring  (bars)  and 
average number of surveillance monitoring sites per monitored groundwater. 

Source: WISE reporting 2016. 

Note: * grouping has been applied, at least partially, in Austria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, 
Germany, Spain and Sweden. 

As with quantitative monitoring, consistency with the chemical monitoring requirement of the 
WFD  needs  to  be  assessed  in  a  differentiated  way  because  the  WFD  allows  grouping  of 

groundwater bodies, inter alia for the purpose of monitoring. Therefore, not each groundwater 
body  which  is  subject  to  such  grouping  is  in  need  of  a  separate  monitoring  network.  Almost 

one  third  of  the  Member  States  reported  that  groundwater  bodies  had  been  grouped  for  the 
purpose  of  monitoring  but  for  the  majority  of  Member  States  with  unmonitored  groundwater 

bodies,  there  is  no  information  reported  on  grouping  and  hence  there  is  a  clear  gap  and 
potential inconsistency with the requirements of the WFD. Even in cases where grouping has 

been reported, this often does not allow determining whether grouping covers all groundwater 
bodies without monitoring or only a subset. 

133 

 
 
 
According to WISE, the surveillance monitoring of the core parameters defined in Annex V of 
the  WFD  (oxygen  content,  pH  value,  conductivity,  nitrate  and  ammonium)  reported  is  rather 
poor.  All  parameters  are  monitored  in  17  Member  States87  and,  in  42  RBDs,  at  least  4 
parameters  were  considered.  No  WFD  core  parameter  was  monitored  in  21  RBDs  located  in 

eight Member States. The core parameters most often considered were nitrate (115 RBDs) and 
electrical conductivity (101 RBDs), while the least considered were ammonium and dissolved 
oxygen (71 RBDs)88. 

Figure 2: Percentage of RBDs where a number of WFD core parameters were monitored. 

Source: WISE reporting 2016. 

Groundwater bodies at risk of failing environmental objectives  

In total 3 222 (24%) groundwater bodies representing about 31% of the total groundwater body 
area  are  assessed  as  being  at  risk  of  failing  good  chemical  status  objectives.  This  is  slightly 

higher than the area of 25% which is covered by the 2 021 groundwater bodies currently failing 
to  achieve  good  chemical  status  objectives  (see  Figure  4).  For  1 431  groundwater  bodies  the 

risk is due to nitrate, which is by far the most frequent reason causing risk. The second most 
frequent  reasons  causing  risk  are  pesticides  followed  by  chloride,  sulphate,  lead,  ammonium, 

nickel and arsenic. These substances are causing risk in at least 10 Member States. 

Operational monitoring 

All groundwater bodies at risk should be subject to operational monitoring for those substances 

which are causing the risk. Overall, 3 222 groundwater bodies are at risk and 2 922 are covered 
by  operational  monitoring.  About  half  of  the  Member  States  implemented  operational 
monitoring  in  at  least  the  same  number  of  groundwater  bodies  at  risk,  whereas  12  Member 
States  monitor  fewer  groundwater  bodies  than  those  being  at  risk.  As  mentioned  for 

surveillance  monitoring,  only  seven  Member  States  reported  on  grouping  of  groundwater 
bodies for monitoring purposes. For the majority of the groundwater bodies without operational 

monitoring, there is no such explanation and hence there is  a  gap and inconsistency with  the 
requirements of the WFD. 

87  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  Germany,  Estonia,  Croatia,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Malta,  the  Netherlands, 

Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia and Slovakia. 

88   Several  Member  States  consequently  clarified  that  while  core  parameters  are  monitored  they  have  not  been 

reported.  

134 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure  3:  Percentage  of  groundwater  bodies  with  operational  monitoring  (bars)  and 
percentage of groundwater bodies at chemical risk. 

Source: WISE reporting 2016. 

On  average,  each  monitored  groundwater  body  is  monitored  by  5.3  surveillance  monitoring 

sites (ranging from 1.1 to 81.6 sites) and by 5.9 operational monitoring sites (ranging from 1.1 
to 14.5 sites). The number of monitoring sites per groundwater body is highly influenced by its 

size and is not an adequate measure of comparison. In addition to that, the density of sites is 
influenced by the variability of characteristics and pressures within groundwater bodies and the 

intensity and type of groundwater use. Furthermore, it should be considered that some Member 
States group their groundwater bodies for monitoring purposes and therefore did not establish 

monitoring  networks  in  each  groundwater  body.  As  operational  monitoring  is  to  be 
implemented  for  groundwater  bodies  at  risk,  comparisons  at  the  Member  State  or  RBD  level 

are not meaningful.  

Confidence and precision of monitoring results 

The  Member  States  had  to  indicate  the  confidence  in  the  status  results  which  is  very  much 

dependant  on  the  level  of  monitoring  and  the  availability  of  sufficient  and  representative 
monitoring  data,  the  applied  status  assessment  methods  and  whether  all  environmental 

objectives had been considered or only some of them. The overall confidence in the assessment 
of groundwater chemical status is relatively high, with high confidence being reported for 59% 

of  the  groundwater  body  area  (3 667  groundwater  bodies)  and  medium  confidence  for  about 
22% (5 292 groundwater bodies). Low confidence in status assessment was reported for 16% of 

the area (1 403 groundwater bodies) and unknown confidence or no information for about 4% 
(3 014  groundwater  bodies).  As  it  can  be  seen  in  Figure  4  there  is  quite  a  difference  when 

comparing the level of confidence for groundwater bodies or for the related groundwater body 
area. The range of confidence levels varies widely between Member States.  

135 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4: Confidence in the results of the groundwater chemical status assessment. 

Source: WISE reporting 2016. 

Assessment and classification of chemical status for groundwater 

In  total  10 867  (81%)  groundwater  bodies  representing  74%  (3.2  million  km²)  of  the  total 

groundwater body area in the EU (total area being about 4.3 million km²) is at good chemical 
status; 2 021 (15%) groundwater bodies covering 25% of the total groundwater body area are 

failing  to  reach  good  chemical  status  (see  Figure  4).  For  489  (4%)  groundwater  bodies 
representing about 1% of the groundwater body area (about 41 000 km²) the chemical status is 

unknown.  At  the  Member  State  level,  the  proportion  varies  widely  from  only  3%  of  the 
groundwater  body  area  reaching  good  chemical  status,  up  to  100%,  where  all  groundwater 

bodies are at good status. 

In total, about 160 different synthetic and naturally occurring substances cause poor chemical 

status  in  EU  Member  States.  One  third  of  these  substances  are  pesticides.  Indicators  like 
turbidity,  pH,  or  water  temperature  were  also  reported.  The  main  pollutant  causing  poor 

chemical  status  in  24 Member States is  nitrate, which affects  1 179 (9%) groundwater bodies 
representing  18%  of  the  total  groundwater  body  area.  The  group  of  pesticides  is  the  second 

most  reported  reason  but  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  and  the  groundwater  body  area 
affected cannot be given precisely, as for some RBDs ‘pesticides’ as such were reported, while 

for others each individual active substance was reported. Further frequently reported substances 
are  ammonium,  sulphate  and  chloride,  nickel,  arsenic  and  electrical  conductivity  which  were 

reported by at least 10 Member States. 

The main reason for failing good status is attributed to ‘general water quality’, which is linked 
to an exceedance of groundwater quality standards or threshold values. In 24 Member States in 

total  1 400  groundwater  bodies  representing  about  19%  of  the  total  groundwater  body  area 
(75%  of  the  area  in  poor  status)  are  affected  by  this  reason.  This  requirement  considers 

significant impairment of human uses and significant environmental risk from pollutants across 
the  whole  groundwater  body.  The  second  most  frequent  reason  for  failing  good  status  is  an 

136 

 
 
 
impairment  of  the  objectives  for  drinking  water  protected  areas,  reported  from  12  Member 
States for 375 groundwater bodies representing about 7% of the total groundwater body area. 

Diminution of associated surface water bodies (223 groundwater bodies, 3% in terms of area), 
damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (92 groundwater bodies, 2% in terms 

of area) and saline or other intrusions (128 groundwater bodies, 1% in terms of area) are less 
significant.  

Expected achievement of good status: Only about 7% of the groundwater body area which is 
at  poor  status  by  the  year  2015  is  expected  to  achieve  good  status  at  the  end  of  the  second 

planning cycle in 2021. About 67% is expected to achieve good status by 2027. For 15%, the 
target will only be achieved after 2027. For about 12% of the groundwater body area which is 

currently at poor status the date of achievement is either unknown or less stringent objectives 
have  already  been  achieved.  This  long  timeframe  needed  for  the  achievement  of  good  status 

reflects the specific properties of many groundwater bodies in reacting very slowly to changes 
in  anthropogenic  pressures  at  the  surface.  Once  measures  are  implemented  it  can  take  many 

years or even decades until their effects show in groundwater.   

Table 1. Outlook for the groundwater bodies (and the represented area) failing to achieve 
good chemical status in future RBMPs 

Groundwater 

chemical 

Groundwater 

Groundwater  body 

Groundwater 

status, 
achievement date 

Good status 2015 

expected 

bodies 

area 

Number 

in % 

in million km² 

in % 

body 
failing 

area 
good 

11 239 

84 % 

3.2 

74 % 

status 

Less 

stringent 

objectives 

already achieved 

2016--2021 

2022--2027 

Beyond 2027 

Unknown 

95 

1 % 

0.07 

2 % 

7 % 

347 

1 254 

321 

121 

3 % 

9 % 

2 % 

1 % 

0.11 

0.73 

0.16 

0.06 

3 % 

7 % 

17 % 

67 % 

4 % 

1 % 

15 % 

5 % 

Source:  Preliminary  results  based  on  WISE  reporting  2016,  including  data  from  25  Member 

States (EU28 except Greece, Ireland and Lithuania). 

Methodology for status assessment 

Groundwater  chemical  status  assessment  needs  to  consider  a  number  of  quality  objectives, 
depending on the identified risk. The evaluation of consistency for the ‘general water quality’ 

of  a  groundwater  body  as  a  whole  is  based  on  a  comparison  of  monitoring  data  with  quality 
standards and threshold values. Member States established different national approaches for the 

extent  of  acceptable  exceedance  of  such  values.  Below  the  defined  extent  of  acceptable 

137 

 
 
 
exceedance,  the  groundwater  body  is  still  in  good  status.  Approaches  include  the  number  of 
monitoring sites (10 Member States) and the affected (weighted) area (12 Member States). No 

Member State calculated the affected groundwater body by volume. Expert judgment or ‘other 
methods’  were  also  reported  by  5  Member  States  without  further  specifying  the  underlying 

criteria. Some Member States applied different methods in their RBDs and in some RBDs this 
calculation was not necessary as no monitoring site exceeded any quality standard or threshold 

value. 

Associated surface water bodies and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems need to be 

considered when posing a risk of not achieving good chemical status in the groundwater body. 
In  total  3 204  groundwater  bodies  of  22  Member  States  are  linked  with  associated  aquatic 

ecosystems.  Diminution  of  the  status  of  associated  surface  water  bodies  was  reported  to  be 
considered  by  17  Member  States,  even  if  no  such  ecosystem  is  related  to  any  groundwater 

chemical  risk. Some Member States did  not  consider the ecosystems  in  status  assessment but 
there is also no risk related and, for a few Member States, where risk is evident, consideration 

of surface waters in chemical status assessment is missing. 

In total 3 226 groundwater bodies of 22 Member States are linked with groundwater dependent 
terrestrial  ecosystems.  Damage  to  groundwater  body  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  was 

reported  to  be  considered  by  15  Member  States,  even  if  no  such  ecosystem  is  related  to  any 
groundwater chemical risk. Several Member States did not consider these ecosystems in status 

assessment but there is also no risk related and, for a few Member States, where risk is evident, 
consideration of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems in chemical status assessment is 

missing. 

Methodology for threshold value establishment 

The establishment of groundwater threshold values needs to consider all substances posing risk, 

all  substances  listed  in  Annex  II  of  the  Groundwater  Directive,  the  natural  chemical 
composition of groundwater (natural background level) and the needs of the relevant receptors 

of the groundwater (e.g. human use, ecosystems). 

In  total,  about  170  substances/indicators  were  reported  as  posing  risk  and  many  of  these  are 

pesticide substances. Up to nine Member States did not establish groundwater threshold values 
for  all  these  substances  causing  risk  within  their  territory.  This  is  often  true  for  pesticide 

substances,  but  for  these  substances,  the  Groundwater  Directive  foresees  a  general  quality 
standard of 0.1µg/l. For all other substances where there is neither a EU-wide quality standard 

(nitrate and pesticides) nor a nationally set threshold value, then the Member State is not able to 
assess the status of a groundwater body at risk in a consistent way. 

Most  Member  States  (22)  considered  natural  background  levels  when  establishing  threshold 
values, while five considered elevated natural substances concentrations at a later stage during 

138 

 
 
status assessment. Four Member States considered natural background levels in a different way 
or they did not report details about the consideration of background levels in the establishment 

of  threshold  values.  In  seven  Member  States,  different  approaches  were  applied  for  their 
different RBDs. 

Trends assessment 

Twenty-two Member States reported that trend assessment has been performed for each RBD 

and  methodologies  are  available,  the  remaining  three  Member  States  performed  trend 
assessment at least partially. Additional trend assessments (required by the Article 5.5 GWD to 

assess the impact of existing plumes of pollution) were reported by three Member States for all 
of their RBDs and by 5  Member States for a subset.  Significant  and sustained upward trends 

were  identified  for  58  pollutants.  For  nitrate,  significant  upward  trends  were  detected  in  19 
Member  States  for  260  groundwater  bodies  representing  about  6%  of  the  total  groundwater 

body area. Other substances with frequent upward trends are chloride, sulphate and pesticides.  

Twenty-one  Member  States  reported  that  a  methodology  for  trend  reversal  assessment  is 

available  for  at  least  a  subset  of  their  RBDs,  four  Member  States  did  not  report  on  trend 
reversal.  Trend  reversals  were  reported  for  68  pollutants  by  10  Member  States,  mainly  for 

nitrates (375 groundwater bodies), ammonium (310), sulphates (291) and chlorides (284). 

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle 

Nineteen Member States reported that they had re-delineated a more or less significant number 

of their groundwater bodies. In total about 19% of the groundwater bodies which were reported 
in the second RBMPs are new and 81% remained unchanged. Several Member States reported 

the  improvement  of  the  chemical  status  assessment  methods,  the  development  of  trend 
assessment methods, changed threshold values and the increased confidence in the assessment 

results by the increased availability of monitoring data. 

Changes in surveillance and operational monitoring: Overall, efforts in surveillance monitoring 
were reduced. Four Member States kept there 100% coverage of groundwater bodies and more 

than  ten  Member  States  increased  the  percentage  of  monitored  groundwater  bodies  but  two 
Member States reduced their monitoring efforts. Grouping of groundwater bodies is applied in 
about  one  third  of  the  Member  States.  However,  in  the  majority  of  Member  States  with 

incomplete coverage of surveillance monitoring, grouping is not applied and consistency with 
the WFD requirement on full coverage of groundwater bodies by surveillance monitoring is not 

described. 

Operational  monitoring  was  reduced  in  some  Member  States  (e.g.  Denmark,  Slovakia, 
Romania,  the  United  Kingdom),  two  Member  States  (Poland,  Luxembourg)  kept  the 

monitoring at the same level as in the first cycle, while more than ten Member States increased 
their  monitoring  efforts.  Changes  in  operational  monitoring  between  reporting  cycles  need  to 

139 

 
 
be  seen  in  close  relationship  with  the  groundwater  bodies  being  identified  at  risk  of  failing 
good chemical status. Overall, in half of the Member States, the number of groundwater bodies 

at risk is higher than the number of groundwater bodies subject to operational monitoring while 
only two Member States (Belgium and Malta) have full coverage of the groundwater bodies. 

The improvement of groundwater chemical  status  is  very minor since the first  cycle RBMPs. 
The number of groundwater bodies achieving good status increased by 1% from 80% to 81% 

which  corresponds  to  an  increase  from  72%  to  74%  in  terms  of  the  represented  total 
groundwater body area. Half of this increase is due to the fact that the area at unknown status 

has  more  than  halved.  This  slight  increase  in  good  status  and  the  reported  expected 
achievement of good status for most of the groundwater bodies by 2027 points to the long time-

lag between the implementation of measures and their effectiveness in groundwater; hence, the 
importance  of  correctly  classifying  groundwater  bodies  status  and  timely  targeting  the 

appropriate measures. 

Figure  5:  Groundwater  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  reported  in  first  and 
second RBMPs in terms of groundwater area  

Note:  Proportion  of  groundwater  area  in  good  and  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status. 
Total groundwater area (EU25) is 4.3 million km².  
Source:  Preliminary  results  based  on  WISE  reporting  2016, including  data  from  25  Member 
States (EU28 except Greece, Ireland and Lithuania). 
Source of figure: EEA SoW report 2018 

Note:  The  total  area  of  GWBs  in  Europe  is  4.34  million  km².  While  this  figure  might  seem 
extremely large (the whole EU surface is about 4,3 km²), it is correct as the different layers of 
delineated and reported groundwater bodies have been considered for calculating the total. 

For many Member States and groundwater bodies the direct comparison between the first and 

the second RBMPs  might  be difficult  due to  changes in  assessment methodologies, increased 
consideration of ecosystems (which was quite low in the first plans), changed threshold values 

and the re-delineation of groundwater bodies. Overall, the confidence in the status results has 
increased. 

140 

 
 
 
 
Compared  to  the  first  cycle  RBMPs  the  consideration  of  groundwater  associated  aquatic  and 
groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  increased  dramatically.  Almost  all  Member 

States reported the existence of such ecosystems and only few Member States did not consider 
them in status assessment although risk is related to them.  

Compared  to  the  first  cycle  RBMPs,  where  available  time  series  were  often  too  short,  trend 
assessment is now commonly applied. In the second RBMPs, even trend reversal assessment is 

widely applied, which usually requires longer time series than trend assessment. 

1.10.2.  Conclusions  

Most  groundwater  bodies  have  been  assessed,  and  for  only  very  few  the  chemical  status  is 

unknown. Overall, the confidence in the status results is relatively high. 

Due  to  the  reported  re-delineation  of  a  significant  number  of  groundwater  bodies, 
improvements  of  the  status  assessment  methods  and  changed  threshold  values,  comparisons 

between both reporting cycles need to be made carefully. 

Overall,  groundwater  chemical  monitoring  did  not  improve  since  the  first  cycle  RBMPs.  In 
contrary,  two  Member  States  reduced  the  coverage  of  groundwater  bodies  by  surveillance 
monitoring.  A  significant  number  of  groundwater  bodies  is  still  without chemical  monitoring 

sites and the  partially reported grouping of groundwater bodies for monitoring purposes does 
not  fully  justify  the  absence  of  monitoring.  Therefore,  there  is  still  an  inconsistency  with  the 

WFD  requirement  on  groundwater  chemical  monitoring.  Following  the  clarification  from  the 
Member  States,  the  monitoring  of  the  WFD  core  parameters  is  partly  implemented  for  the 

United  Kingdom,  Italy,  Belgium,  France,  while  it  is  complete  for  about  seventeen  Member 
States.    One  Member  State  i.e.  Finland  has  very  limited  monitoring  of  the  WFD  core 

parameters. 

Not  all  groundwater  bodies  which  were  identified  at  risk  of  failing  good  chemical  status  are 
subject to operational monitoring and also not all substances causing risk are fully covered. As 

with  surveillance  monitoring  the  partially  reported  grouping  of  groundwater  bodies  cannot 
completely justify the absence of operational monitoring at in total 669 groundwater bodies at 

risk. Therefore, there is evidence of inconsistency with the WFD requirement on groundwater 
chemical monitoring. 

About  74%  of  the  total  groundwater  body  area  is  at  good  groundwater  chemical  status.  The 
overall  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  improved  only  very  little  since  the  first  cycle. 

Also the reported expected achievement of good status for most of the groundwater bodies by 
2027 or beyond 2027 demonstrates the long time-lag between the implementation of measures 

and their effectiveness in groundwater. 

141 

 
 
The  consideration  of  groundwater  associated  aquatic  and  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 
ecosystems  improved  significantly.  In  almost  all  Member  States  such  ecosystems  were 

identified and commonly considered in status assessment if risk was related to them. 

Still,  not  all  Member  States  (e.g.  Spain)  have  established  threshold  values  for  all 

substances/indicators posing a risk of failing good status. 

Trend assessment is now commonly applied in all Member States, in few cases only covering a 
subset of RBDs. 

1.10.3.  Recommendations 

  Operational monitoring must be ensured for all groundwater bodies identified at risk. 

  Monitoring of core parameters must be reported by Member States.  

  Grouping methodologies for monitoring and status assessment is not always clear, and 

thus the absence of monitoring sites cannot be justified.  

  Member States should set threshold values for all substances/indicators posing a risk of 
failing  good  status,  and  should  clearly  describe  how  natural  background  levels  have 
been considered in their establishment. 

  Some Member States still need to develop and apply trend reversal methodologies.  

142 

 
 
1.11. Designation of HMWBs and AWBs and definition of GEP 

1.11.1. 

Introduction 

Designation of HMWBs and AWBs 

The WFD aims to bring all water bodies to GES by 2015. Measures have to be identified and 

implemented  for  impaired  water  bodies  to  improve  their  conditions.  Not  all  water  bodies, 
however,  can  be  brought  to  a  GES  which  refers  to  only  slight  changes  compared  to  natural 

undisturbed  conditions, since  important  water  uses  would  otherwise  be  significantly  affected. 
Many water bodies have been heavily modified in their physical structure to serve various uses 

including  navigation,  flood  protection,  hydropower,  or  agriculture.  In  many  cases,  it  is  not 
viable nor desirable from a socio-economic perspective to abandon such uses and to remove the 

physical modifications which affect the water bodies. Member States can, thus, designate such 
water  bodies  as  HMWBs  or  AWBs  whose  environmental  objective  is  GEP  instead  of  GES, 

according to WFD Article 4(3).  

Some of the key aspects which should be considered in the designation of HMWB are recalled 
below: 

 

HMWB should be water bodies that have undergone significant hydro-morphological 

alterations such that the water body is substantially changed in character (WFD Article 
2(9)). In general, these hydro-morphological alterations should be long-term and non-

reversible, and impact both morphological and hydrological characteristics.  

 

The designation process needs to include a clear understanding of the expected failure 

of good status due to hydro-morphological changes. Therefore, the proper assessment 

of  ecological  status  is  a  prerequisite  for  HMWB  designation.  If  GES  is  achievable, 
designation as HMWB is not justified. 

 

Restoration  measures  to  achieve  GES  need  to  be  identified  (changes  to  the  hydro-

morphological  characteristics  of  the  water  body  which  would  be  necessary  for 
achieving GES). For HMWB to be designated, these restoration measures should have 
significant adverse effects on: (i) the wider environment, (ii) navigation, including port 
facilities, or recreation, (iii) activities for the purpose of which the water is stored, such 

as drinking water supply, power  generation or irrigation, (iv) water  regulation, flood 
protection, land drainage, (v) other equally important sustainable human development 
activities  (WFD  Article  4(3)(a)).  The  reasons  and  criteria  for  judgements  on 

significance should be made clear. 

 

The  beneficial  objectives  served  by  the  modified  characteristics  of  the  water  body 
cannot,  for  reasons  of  technical  feasibility  or  disproportionate  costs,  reasonably  be 

143 

 
 
achieved by other means, which are a significantly better environmental option (WFD 
Article 4(3)(b)). 

 

HMWB  and  AWB  are  a  specific  water  body  category  with  their  own  classification 

scheme  and  objective,  namely  GEP.  While  GES  requires  the  implementation  of 
restoration measures to reach the environmental objectives, reaching GEP requires the 

implementation  of  mitigation  measures  so  as  to  improve  the  overall  environmental 
condition of the water bodies. 

 

HMWB and AWB are not a type of exemption. Exemptions under WFD Articles 4(4), 

4(5), 4(6) and 4(7) may also apply to HMWB and AWB, as they apply to natural water 
bodies.  

 

HMWB  designation  refers  to  existing  modifications.  Any  new  modification  with 

potential  significant  effect  on  the  ecological  status  of  the  water  body  needs  to  be 
handled as a possible exemption through WFD Article 4(7) if the conditions are met. 
Therefore, designation of HMWB in  view of future modifications is  not  in  line with 
the WFD. 

 

The  methodology  and  specific  criteria  for  HMWB  designation  (application  of  all 
relevant  steps  according  to  CIS  HMWB  guidance  number  489)    should  be  clearly 
explained in the RBMPs. 

In  addition,  according  to  WFD  Article  4(3),  the  designations  of  HMWB  and  AWB  and  the 
reasons for them shall be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs and reviewed every six years 

for each new WFD planning cycle. 

The WFD takes a very similar approach to AWBs and HMWBs. AWB must have been created 
by  the  same  specified  uses  listed  in  Article  4(3)(a).  The  CIS  Guidance  document  no.  4 

interprets  an  AWB  "as  a  surface  water  body  which  has  been  created  in  a  location  where  no 
water body existed before and which has not been created by the direct physical  alteration or 

movement  or  realignment  of  an  existing  water  body".  As  in  the  case  of  HMWB,  the 
environmental objective of AWB is GEP. 

According to the assessment of the first RBMPs, the designation of HMWB is one of the key 
elements of the WFD. In the first RBMPs, HMWB were designated to  a significant extent in 

Member States (approximately 12% of surface water bodies with an additional 4% designated 
as AWB), reflecting the amount of modifications that took place historically in Europe. 

89 CIS Guidance Document no.4. Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies. 

Available online: 
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  

144 

 
 
                                                           
 
Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle 

In the second RBMPs, approximately 13% of European surface water bodies are designated as 

HMWB and 4% as AWB. The extent of designation varies across Member States, with some 
States designating more than 30% of their water bodies as heavily modified (such as Hungary, 

Malta, Germany and the Netherlands), while other States designate less than 5% of their water 
bodies as heavily modified (such as Finland and Sweden). The extent of designation of AWB is 

high in the Netherlands (more than 50% of surface water bodies), but in most Member States 
with some exceptions is relatively low between 0% and 10%. 

Figure 1 Designated HMWBs in the EU Member States 

Source: WISE reporting 2016 

145 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2 Designated AWBs in the EU Member States 

Source: WISE reporting 2016 

Main activities and physical alterations due to which HMWB are designated 

Flood protection, land drainage for agriculture and hydropower are the human activities (water 
uses) due to which the highest number of water bodies is designated as HMWB across the EU, 

followed by urban development  (urban use other than drinking water supply)  and storage for 
drinking water and irrigation90.  For a relatively high number of HMWB, the water activity for 
which  they  are  designated  is  either  unknown  or has  been  reported  as  “other”  (i.e.  not  further 
specifying the water use categories in the WISE reporting). 

90 The pre-defined list of water uses for HMWB in WISE is: Agriculture - land drainage; Agriculture - irrigation; 
Energy  -  hydropower;  Energy  –  non-hydropower;  Storage  for  fisheries/aquaculture/fish  farms;  Flood 
protection;  Industry  supply;  Tourism  and  recreation;  Transport  -  navigation  /  ports;  Urban  development  - 
drinking  water  supply;  Urban  development  -  other  use;  Wider  environment  -  nature  protection  and  other 
ecological uses; Other; Unknown. 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 3 Activities for which water bodies are being designated as HMWBs 

Source: WISE reporting 2016 

Weirs/dams/reservoirs  and  channelisation/straightening/bed  stabilisation/bank  reinforcements 
are the main physical alterations affecting the highest number of designated HMWB in the EU. 

Dredging/channel maintenance, land drainage and land reclamation/coastal modifications/ports 
are physical alterations which affect a substantial number of HMWB in certain countries only.91  

91  The  pre-defined  list  of  physical  alterations  of  HMWB  in  WISE  is:  Locks;  Weirs  /  dam  /  reservoir; 
Channelisation / straightening / bed stabilisation / bank reinforcement; Dredging / channel maintenance; Land 
reclamation / coastal modifications / ports; Land drainage; Other 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 4 Types of physical modifications considered in the designation of HMWBs 

Source: WISE reporting 2016. 

Methodologies for designating HMWBs 

A methodology for designating HMWB is described for the RBMPs of all Member States, with 
few exceptions, where a consistent description of the method is until now missing (such as in 

Denmark, Sweden and Slovakia). Nevertheless, the degree to which the reported methodologies 
of  the  Member  States  cover  the  main  aspects  of  HMWB  designation  varies.  The  RBMPs  of 

Member  States  with  a  relevant  recommendation  by  the  European  Commission  for  the  first 
RBMPs  concerning  their  designation  methodologies  were  assessed  in  more  detail  concerning 

these aspects.  

Most Member State methodologies address the definition of “substantial changes in character” 
in order to consider a water body for designation as HMWB and report relevant criteria. Some 
approaches refer to simple presence of certain structures, e.g. presence of dams, dykes or ports, 

while other approaches are more “quantified‘ and connect criteria to specific thresholds, e.g. % 
of river water body impacted, for defining substantial changes in character. 

The  designation  tests  concerning  the  assessment  of  significant  adverse  effects  of  restoration 

measures on the use or wider environment (Article 4(3)(a)) and the assessment of other means 
to  deliver  the  beneficial  objectives  of  the  modifications  (Article  4(3)(b))  are  less  adequately 

covered in the reported Member State methodologies. Relevant descriptions of how to do such 
assessments were only found in about two thirds of the Member States assessed in detail, while 

148 

 
 
 
for one third, no relevant information is provided in the methodologies for designating HMWB. 
Only  few  Member  States  provide  information  on  specific  criteria  used  to  assess  significant 

adverse effects of restoration measures, such as Austria, and the criteria reported are mainly of 
qualitative nature, similar to the first RBMPs. 

Furthermore,  for  the  majority  of  Member  States,  no  information  was  found  reported  in  the 
second  RBMPs  on  the  details  of  the  outcome  of  the  designation  tests  of  significant  adverse 

effects  and  “other  means”  for  individual  water  bodies  (e.g.  in  Czech  Republic,  Germany  and 
Hungary).  The  information  provided  is  in  most  cases  of  general  nature,  applicable  to  the 

national  or  regional  level.  Only  few  Member  States  provide  information  on  specific  criteria 
used  to  assess  significant  adverse  effects  of  restoration  measures  on  the  use  or  wider 

environment. The criteria reported are mainly of qualitative nature, instead of quantified ones. 
This situation is similar to the first RBMPs. 

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle 

The  EU  average  share  of  surface  water  bodies  designated  as  HMWB  and  AWB  is  similar 
between the second and first RBMPs (ca. 12-13% and 4% respectively). Some differences are 

noted  only  in  individual  Member  States,  while  for  the  majority  of  countries,  the  extent  of 
designated  HMWB  and  AWB  has  remained  the  same.  In  some  countries,  the  share  of 

designated HMWB has increased, while in  others,  the share of designated HMWB decreased 
since the first cycle. 

Most countries clearly report that they have reviewed the designation of HMWB and AWB for 
the second planning cycle; this involves an assessment of whether existing HMWB and AWB 

still  fulfil  the  relevant  criteria,  and  whether  water  bodies  formerly  not  designated  should  be 
designated as HMWB or AWB for the new cycle. 

The degree to which the reasons for changes in the extent of designations are explained varies 

in  the  second  RBMPs  between  Member  States.  In  the  RBMPs  of  some  Member  States,  no 
explanations of the changes are provided, even though it is stated that designations have been 

reviewed. Other Member States provide explanations, even though these may not be detailed at 
individual water body level.  

The  main  reasons  for  changes  in  the  extent  of  designating  HMWB  and  AWB  since  the  first 

RBMPs, as reported by Member States, are: 

 

Improved  data  available  from  new 

investigations  and  monitoring 

in  hydro-

morphological and biological terms 

  Updated analysis of hydro-morphological pressures and updated assessment of status 

149 

 
 
  Redelineation of water bodies (for example, changes in  the number of HMWB due to 

the merging of water bodies)  

  Further  knowledge  acquired  on  the  feasibility  of  restoration  actions  or  other  means 
which  may  have  become  available  to  provide  equivalent  benefits  to  those  of  the 
physical modifications of the HMWB 

  Finalisation  of  designations  of  water  bodies  that  were  only  provisionally  identified  as 

HMWB or AWB in the first RBMPs 

  Designations of new HMWB as a result of new developments that have been permitted 

since the first RBMPs 

  De-designations  of  HMWB  into  natural  water  bodies,  because  of  new  assessments 

indicating that the water bodies may achieve GES 

  Changes  in  the  methodology  for  designating  HMWB  (for  example,  further  uses 

considered in the designation may have led to an increase of HMWB)  

For  several  countries,  the  methodologies  for  designating  HMWB  and  AWB  are  the  same  as 

those used for the first RBMPs. However, for certain countries, updates in the methodologies 
used  are  explicitly  reported,  while  in  other  countries,  new  methods  or  guidelines  for 

designation have been published since the first cycle. 

In  some  countries,  assessments  to  complete  the  designation  of  HMWB  and  AWB  are  still 

ongoing  and  further  changes  to  the  extent  of  designation  may  take  place  during  the  second 
cycle. 

Definition of GEP for HMWB and AWB 

Within the WFD implementation, the status of HMWB and AWB needs to be assessed in terms 

of achieving at least GEP as this is defined in Annex V of the Directive. A water body shows a 
GEP when there are slight changes in the values of the relevant biological quality elements as 

compared to the values found at Maximum Ecological Potential (MEP). The MEP is considered 
as  the  reference  conditions  for  HMWB  and  AWB,  and  is  intended  to  describe  the  best 

approximation  to  a  natural  aquatic  ecosystem  that  could  be  achieved  given  the  hydro-
morphological characteristics that cannot be changed without significant adverse effects on the 

specified use or the wider environment. 

The  definition  of  ecological  potential  for  HMWB  and  AWB  has  been  a  subject  of  long 

discussions  between  Member  States  and  the  Commission  in  the  context  of  the  CIS.  Defining 
ecological potential is a challenging and complex subject in the WFD implementation, which 

needs to be defined on the basis of a sound methodological approach in order to set appropriate 
environmental objectives for the numerous HMWBs and AWBs in Europe. 

150 

 
 
An Appendix to CIS Guidance document number 4 is currently in preparation to provide more 
detailed guidelines on the establishment of GEP and MEP for HM and AW bodies. 

Until the second RBMPs, the following two approaches had been put forward and discussed on 
EU level for the definition of GEP. 

• 

Reference-based  approach  (based  on  the  CIS  Guidance  Document  number  4):  This 

approach is based on biological quality elements as illustrated in CIS Guidance number 
492. The MEP for HMWB relates to the values of biological quality elements after all 
mitigation  measures  have  been  implemented  that  do  not  have  a  significant  adverse 
effect on the use. GEP is defined as only slight changes from those values at MEP. GEP 

represents  a  state  in  which  the  ecological  potential  of  a  water  body  is  falling  only 
slightly  short  of  the  maximum  it  could  achieve  without  significant  adverse  effects  on 

the  wider  environment  or  on  the  relevant  water  use  or  uses.  An  assessment  of 
disproportionate costs of the mitigation measures should not be considered (as these are 

considered when applying exemptions). 

• 

Mitigation measures approach (alternative Prague approach): The alternative Prague 
approach93  takes a different route and bases the definition of GEP on the identification 
of mitigation measures. Starting from all measures that do not have a significant adverse 

effect on the water use, those measures are excluded that, in combination, are predicted 
to  deliver  only  slight  ecological  improvement.  GEP  is  then  defined  as  the  biological 

values  that  are  expected  from  implementing  the  remaining  identified  mitigation 
measures.  As  in  the  first  approach,  an  assessment  of  disproportionate  costs  of  the 

mitigation measures should not be considered. A key difference to the first approach is 
that the GEP is derived directly from the mitigation measures, and not indirectly from 

the specification and prediction of biological quality elements at MEP. 

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle 

According to the WISE reporting, GEP has been defined in almost all Member States. In some 
Member  States  though,  it  has  only  been  defined  for  some  but  not  all  RBDs  with  designated 
HMWB or AWB.  In  a few Member States, GEP is  reported as not  defined  yet  in  the second 

RBMPs. In one case, there are currently projects ongoing to develop a GEP methodology. In 
another, a national methodology for GEP has not yet been published.  

92 CIS Guidance Document no.4. Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies. 

Available online:  
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 

93 See Annex II of Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive 2006: Good Practice in 
managing  the  ecological  impacts  of  hydropower  schemes;  Flood  protection  works;  and  works  designed  to 
facilitate navigation under the Water Framework Directive. 30 November 2006. 

151 

 
 
                                                           
 
In  the  second  RBMPs,  about  one  third  of  the  Member  States  define  GEP  on  the  basis  of  the 
reference-based  approach  and  one  fifth  of  the  Member  States  on  the  basis  of  the  mitigation 

measures approach. In several Member States, either a hybrid approach combining elements of 
the two methods in all their RBDs is used or they use different approaches across the regions or 

RBDs  on  their  territory.  In  one  country,  the  approach  used  is  not  specified  as  one  of  the 
approaches listed in WISE; different criteria to assess ecological potential were used, which do 

not correspond to any of these approaches. 

Most  methodologies  of  Member  States  for  defining  GEP  are  established  at  national  level.  In 

terms of the water categories addressed, most reported methodologies describe the definition of 
GEP  for  rivers,  less  methodologies  refer  to  lakes  and  coastal  waters    while  the  category  less 

often addressed by the reported methodologies are transitional waters. In a few Member States, 
the methods for GEP establishment treat reservoirs separately from lakes and rivers.  

With regards to the level at which GEP has been defined, more than half of the Member States 

report to have defined GEP at the water body level (a few of these countries have done so for 
part of their RBDs). Several Member States have defined GEP for groups of HMWB and AWB 

of the same use/physical modification (a few of these countries have used this approach for part 
of their RBDs). A few Member States report to have used another approach (for all or some of 

their RBDs).  

GEP definition in terms of biology 

GEP  is  reported  as  defined  in  terms  of  biology  in  most  Member  States,  which  have  defined 

GEP in the second RBMPs. In some Member States, GEP is reported as not defined in terms of 
biology, but also in the case of a few other countries, no clear information could be found in 

their  RBMPs  on  how  actual  values  for  biological  quality  elements  (BQEs)  are  estimated  for 
GEP.  

The BQEs for which biological values have been derived for MEP and GEP in the majority of 

RBDs are phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates and fish (respectively in 77%, 76% and 60% of 
the RBDs in which GEP is defined in biological terms). Biological values for phytobenthos and 
macrophytes for MEP and GEP have been derived in less RBDs (respectively in 52% and 39% 

of the RBDs). 

Most  Member  States  report  that  the  establishment  of  values  of  BQEs  for  GEP  is  based  on 
assessment methods which are similar to those used for GES of natural water bodies, but often 

using lower thresholds to distinguish between classes of “good” and “moderate”. A comparison 
between GEP and GES has been carried out in half of the Member States, which have defined 
GEP. In another few Member States, such a comparison was done in some but not all of their 
RBDs where GEP is defined, while no such comparison was done in several Member States.  

152 

 
 
It  is  also  noted  that,  according  to  WISE,  for  the  second  RBMPs,  almost  all  Member  States 
(with  few  exceptions)  report  to  have  one  or  more  biological  quality  element  assessment 

methods  in  place,  which  are  sensitive  to  hydrological  and/or  morphological  changes.  Such 
methods  have been reported for various  BQEs in  the different  water categories (rivers, lakes, 

coastal and transitional waters). 

Estimations  of  BQE  values  can  be  based  on  available  data  and  monitoring,  combined  with 

expert judgement. Some countries   report that biological values have only been derived in case 
monitoring data are available; in cases of lack of biological data, ecological potential is defined 

mainly in hydro-morphological terms. 

Figure 5 BQEs for which biological values have been derived for MEP and GEP 

Source: WISE reporting 2016. Note: The total number of RBDs in which GEP is reported as 
defined in biological terms is 93. 

Table 1: Key elements of GEP definition in the second RBMPs of the Member States  

Member State 

Approach 

for  GEP 

definition 

GEP reported as 

defined  in  terms 
of biology 

Level at which GEP is 

defined 

Austria (AT) 

Hybrid approach 

Yes 

At water body level 

Belgium (BE) 

Mitigation 
measures 
approach in four RBDs in 

Walloon 
Reference-based approach 
in  one  RBD  (Brussels 
region) 

Hybrid  approach  in  two 

Yes 

153 

For 

groups 

of 

HMWB/AWB  in  four 
RBDs in Walloon 

At  water  body  level  in 
region  and 
Brussels 

Flanders 

 
 
 
Member State 

Approach 
definition 

for  GEP 

RBDs in Flanders 

GEP reported as 
defined  in  terms 

of biology 

Level at which GEP is 
defined 

Bulgaria (BG) 

Reference-based approach  Yes 

At water body level 

Cyprus (CY) 

Mitigation 
approach 

measures 

No 

At water body level 

Czech Rep (CZ) 

Reference-based approach   Yes  

Another approach 

Germany (DE) 

Reference-based approach 

in three RBDs 
Hybrid  approach  in  seven 

Yes 

RBDs 

Denmark (DK) 

Reference-based approach 

Yes  

(in  three  RBDs; 
for  one  RBD, 

is 

GEP 
defined) 

not 

Estonia (EE) 

Reference-based approach  Yes 

Spain (ES) 

Reference-based approach 
in fourteen RBDs  

Hybrid  approach  in  four 
RBDs 

Partially (in 16 of 

18 RBDs) 

Finland (FI) 

Mitigation 
approach 

measures 

No 

For 
of 
groups 
HMWB/AWB  in  eight 

RBDs 
At  water  body  level  in 

two RBDs 

At water body level 

groups 

For 
HMWB/AWB 

of 

At  water  body  level  in 
for 
twelve  RBDs, 

groups 
HMWB/AWB 

of 
in  six 

RBDs 

At water body level 

France (FR) 

Hybrid approach 

Yes  
(in  11  RBDs;  for 

two  RBDs  with 
designated 

At water body level 

HMWB/AWB, 
GEP 

is 

not 

defined) 

Croatia (HR) 

GEP not defined 

Hungary (HU) 

Mitigation 
approach 

measures 

No 

Italy (IT) 

GEP not defined 

At water body level 

Luxembourg (LU) 

Reference-based approach  Yes 

At water body level 

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Member State 

Approach 
definition 

for  GEP 

GEP reported as 
defined  in  terms 

Latvia (LV) 

Not specified  

Malta (MT) 

Mitigation 
approach 

measures 

The Netherlands (NL)  Hybrid approach 

coastal 
bodies) 

Yes 

Level at which GEP is 
defined 

Another approach 

of biology 

Yes 

Yes 

(only 

for 

water 

At water body level 

At water body level 

For 

groups 

of 

HMWB/AWB  in  four 
RBDs  

Another  approach 
five RBDs  

in 

In practice, depends on 
water  category  (rivers: 
of 
for 
groups 
lakes: 
HMWB/AWB; 

national 

level; 
at 
transitional  and  coastal 

waters:  at  water  body 
level) 

Defined  for  groups  of 

HMWB/AWB 

Another approach 

At water body level 

Poland (PL) 

Reference-based approach  Yes 

Yes 
(in  eight  RBDs; 

Portugal (PT) 

Hybrid approach 

for 
GEP 

two  RBDs, 
not 

is 

Romania (RO) 

Hybrid approach 

Sweden (SE) 

Mitigation 

measures 

approach 

defined) 

Yes 

No 

Slovenia (SI) 

Reference-based approach  Yes 

At water body level 

Slovakia (SK) 

Reference-based approach  Yes 

United Kingdom (UK) 

Mitigation 

measures 

approach 
Wales and Scotland 

in  England, 

No 

Hybrid 
Northern Ireland 

approach 

in 

groups 

For 
HMWB/AWB 

of 

At water body level 

Source: WISE reporting 2016 and additional information from the published RBMPs. 

155 

 
 
Mitigation measures for defining GEP 

Mitigation  measures  for  defining  GEP  are  reported  in  almost  all  Member  States,  where  GEP 

has  been  defined.  Measures  related  to  longitudinal  continuity  and  fauna  migration,  habitat 
restoration and setting of ecological flows are the most commonly reported mitigation measures 

(Figure  6).  No  mitigation  measures  for  defining  GEP  were  reported  for  a  few.  Mitigation 
measures used to define GEP need to be linked to specific ecological improvements in order to 

set  the  environmental  objective  of  HMWB  and  AWB  in  a  way  which  is  consistent  with  the 
WFD. In the majority of the first RBMPs, there was no explanation of the expected ecological 

improvements,  while,  on  some  RBMPs,  there  was  some  general  information  on  ecological 
improvements  but  the  ecological  benefits  of  individual  measures  remained  unclear.  This  has 

not  been  significantly  improved  in  the  second  RBMPs,  as  descriptions  of  the  ecological 
changes that the mitigation measures are designed to achieve were found in the plans of only 

less  than  a  third  of  Member  States  (descriptions  being  mainly  qualitative).  In  the  RBMPs  of 
more  than  half  of  the  Member  States,  no  such  descriptions  have  been  given,  indicating  a 

significant gap in this respect. 

Figure 6 Mitigation measures for defining GEP 

Source: WISE reporting 2016; Note: Percentage calculated with reference to the total number 

of RBDs (119) which reported mitigation measures for defining GEP and MEP. 

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle 

In the first RBMPs, GEP was not defined at all or only in a very limited way in more than a 

third  of  Member  States.  Overall,  progress  is  noted  in  this  respect,  as  in  the  second  RBMPs, 

156 

 
 
 
GEP is reported as defined (or partly defined) in almost all Member States. Although there are 
still gaps in the methods of many Member States and specific CIS guidance on the process for 

establishing GEP is in development, several methodological improvements have been reported. 
Methodological improvements for the establishment of GEP in the second RBMPs are reported 

by a number of countries, and in some countries, new national methods have been developed 
since the first cycle. 

One of the key improvements reported by Member States in the methodological developments 
of GEP definition since the first RBMPs is the inclusion of more biological quality elements in 

the  assessment.  In  the  first  RBMPs,  due  to  the  lack  of  data  and  well-developed  assessment 
methods,  it was  possible to  only include few  BQEs in  the assessment of ecological  potential. 

Since  the  first  cycle,  the  assessment  methods  for  various  BQEs  have  been  reviewed  and 
improved, therefore, the  number of  BQEs to  assess  the classification of ecological  status  and 

potential in different water categories has increased. 

Nevertheless,  the  level  of  information  provided  on  the  ecological  changes  that  the  mitigation 
measures  for  defining  GEP  are  designed  to  achieve  remains  limited,  indicating  a  lack  of 

progress in this respect since the first RBMPs. 

1.11.2.  Conclusions  

For the majority of countries, the extent of designated HMWB and AWB has remained similar 

to the first RBMPs, while some differences (increase or decrease of the number of designated 
HMWB  and  AWB)  are  noted  only  in  individual  Member  States.  In  the  RBMPs  of  some 

Member  States,  no  explanations  of  the  changes  are  provided,  even  though  it  is  stated  that 
designations  have  been  reviewed.  Other  Member  States  provide  explanations,  even  though 

these may not be detailed at individual water body level. 

A methodology for designating HMWB is described for the RBMPs of all Member States, with 

few exceptions. Nevertheless, the degree to which the reported methodologies of the Member 
States cover the main aspects of HMWB designation varies. Most Member State methodologies 

address  the definition of “substantial changes in  character” in  order to  consider a water body 
for designation as HMWB and report relevant criteria. However, descriptions of how to assess 

significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use or wider environment and how to 
assess other means which are better environmental options were only found in about two thirds 

of the Member States assessed in detail. 

For the majority of Member States, no information was found reported in the second RBMPs 
on the details of the outcome of the designation tests of significant adverse effects and “other 
means”  for  individual  water  bodies.  The  information  provided  is  in  most  cases  of  general 
nature,  applicable  to  the  national  or  regional  level.  Only  few  Member  States  provide 

information  on  specific  criteria  used  to  assess  significant  adverse  effects  of  restoration 

157 

 
 
measures  on  the  use  or  wider  environment  and  the  criteria  reported  are  mainly  of  qualitative 
nature, similar to the first RBMPs. 

In the first RBMPs, GEP was not defined at all or only in a very limited way in more than a 
third of Member States. In the second RBMPs, GEP is reported as defined (or partly defined) 

almost all Member States (reported as undefined only in very few Member States).  

Methodological improvements for the establishment of GEP in the second RBMPs are reported 
by a number of countries, while in some countries, new national methods have been developed 

since the first  cycle. One of the key improvements  reported by Member States since the first 
RBMPs is the inclusion of more biological quality elements in the definition of GEP.  

GEP is reported as defined in terms of biology in the majority of Member States, with only on 

fifth  of  countries  reporting  not  to  have  done  so  in  the  second  RBMPs.  The  BQEs  for  which 
biological  values  have  been  derived  for  MEP  and  GEP  in  the  majority  of  RBDs  are 

phytoplankton,  benthic 
the 
establishment of values of BQEs for GEP is based on assessment methods which are similar to 
those  used  for  GES  of  natural  water  bodies,  but  often  using  lower  thresholds  to  distinguish 

invertebrates  and  fish.  Most  Member  States  report 

that 

between classes of “good” and “moderate”. 

Mitigation  measures  for  defining  GEP  are  reported  in  most  Member  States,  where  GEP  has 
been defined. Nevertheless, the level of information provided on the ecological changes that the 

mitigation measures for defining GEP are designed to achieve remains very limited, indicating 
little progress in this respect since the first RBMPs. 

1.11.3.  Recommendations 

  Member States should continue the efforts to further improve the methodologies for the 
designation  of  HMWBs.  Clear  criteria  of  how  to  assess  significant  adverse  effects  of 

restoration  measures  on  the  use  or  wider  environment  and  how  to  assess  other  means 
which are a significantly better environmental option should be developed. Generic and 

qualitative  descriptions  should  be  improved  towards  more  transparent  and  traceable 
quantitative approaches. 

  Member  States  should  further  improve  the  definition  of  GEP  by  including  more 
biological  quality  elements.  The  objective  of  GEP  needs  to  be  clearly  distinguishable 
from the application of exemptions. 

158 

 
 
1.12. Environmental Objectives and Exemptions 

1.12.1. 

Introduction 

The  WFD  defines  environmental  objectives  in  Article  4  and  sets  the  aim  for  long-term 

sustainable water management. Article 4(1) defines the WFD general objectives to be achieved 
in all surface and groundwater bodies, i.e. good status or potential (for HM and AW bodies) by 

2015, and introduces the principle of preventing any further deterioration of status. A number 
of exemptions to the general objectives are possible to be applied if specific conditions are met. 

Article  4(4)  allows  for  an  extension  of  the  deadline  for  achieving  good  status  beyond  2015, 
Article  4(5)  allows  for  the  achievement  of  less  stringent  objectives,  Article  4(6)  allows  a 

temporary  deterioration  in  the  status  of  water  bodies  as  a  result  of  circumstances  of  natural 
cause or force majeure, and Article 4(7) sets out conditions in which deterioration of status or 

failure to achieve certain of the WFD objectives may be permitted for new modifications to the 
physical  characteristics  of  surface  water  bodies,  alterations  to  the  level  of  groundwater,  or 

deterioration  from  high  to  good  status  as  a  result  of  new  sustainable  human  development 
activities.  Furthermore,  Articles  4(8)  and  4(9)  introduce  two  principles  applicable  to  all 

exemptions and designation of heavily modified water bodies: the exemptions applied for one 
water  body  must  not  permanently  exclude  or  compromise  the  achievement  of  the 

environmental objectives in other water bodies, and when exemptions are applied, at least the 
same level of protection provided for by existing EU law must be achieved. 

The WFD provides the general  and legally binding framework on exemptions.  Guidance was 
elaborated  to  facilitate  a  better  common  understanding  on  the  practical  application.  Further 
clarifications  can  be  obtained  in  the  CIS  Guidance  Document  No.  20  on  exemptions94.  Since 
the publication of the second RBMPs, three further supporting documents have been elaborated 

and published, aiming to help and further clarify the application of exemptions. These include 
the  CIS  Guidance  Document  No.  36  further  clarifying  aspects  of  Article  4(7)95,  the  technical 
document clarifying the application of WFD Article 4(4) time extensions in the 2021 RBMPs 
and  practical  considerations  regarding  the  2027  deadline96  and  the  technical  document  on 
natural conditions in relation to WFD exemptions97. 

94 CIS Guidance Document No. 20: Guidance on exemptions to the environmental objectives 

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/2a3ec00a-d0e6-405f-bf66-
60e212555db1/Guidance_documentN%C2%B020_Mars09.pdf  

95 Guidance Document No. 36: Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives according to Article 4(7) 

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/e0352ec3-9f3b-4d91-bdbb-
939185be3e89/CIS_Guidance_Article_4_7_FINAL.PDF  

96  Technical  document  on  Clarification  on  the  application  of  WFD  Article  4(4)  time  extensions  in  the  2021 

RBMPs and practical considerations regarding the 2027 deadline  
https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/f6393a2a-87ba-4cb1-86e8-ff3178a1ac1f  

97 Technical document on Natural Conditions in relation to WFD Exemptions 

159 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 2nd cycle 

According  to  the  EEA  State  of  Water  Report  (2018),  in  2015,  around  40  %  of  surface  water 
bodies were in high or GES/potential and 38 % of surface water bodies were in good chemical 

status.  Concerning  groundwater,  74  %  of  EU  groundwater  bodies  (by  area)  achieved  good 
chemical status by 2015, while around 90 % of groundwater bodies were in good quantitative 

status. 

A  comparison  of  the  first  with  the  second  RBMPs  shows  that  for  groundwater  some 

improvement  of  the  status  (mainly  quantitative)  has  been  achieved  between  the  first  and  the 
second  cycle.  For  surface  waters,  the  assessment  of  the  second  RBMPs  shows  that  there  has 

been  progress  in  the  status  of  single  quality  elements  and  single  pollutants.  For  example,  the 
status  of  some  biological  quality  elements  has  improved  from  the  first  to  the  second  cycle, 

whereas overall status is determined by the quality element(s) in the lowest status class hence 
not necessarily leading to an improvement of the overall status98.  

It should be noted that several changes between the first and the second cycle are outlined in 

many  RBMPs,  such  as  changes  in  water  body  delineation,  changes  in  the  methodologies 
applied, changes in the quality elements considered in the status assessments as well as changes 

in the legal requirements related to priority substances (for priority substances, see chapter 6.4). 
Further,  new  assessment  methods  for  different  quality  elements  have  been  developed  and 

intercalibrated since the first RBMPs, allowing a better assessment of the status of waters. This 
has  resulted  in  a  marked  reduction  of  water  bodies  with  unknown  status,  a  clearly  improved 

confidence in status assessments in the second RBMPs, as well as a better understanding of the 
ecological, chemical and quantitative status, the pressures causing failure to achieve good status 

and the needed measures.  

Due  to  these  developments  –  and  changes  to  water  body  delineation  -  many  Member  States 

have  flagged  that  a  direct  comparison  of  the  status  between  the  first  and  second  cycle  is  not 
fully possible. Further details on the assessment of status of surface water and groundwater are 

given in chapters 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 . 

Expected good status in 2015, 2021, 2027 and beyond 

In  the  second  RBMPs,  Member  States  have  also  indicated  whether  it  is  expected  that  water 

bodies will achieve good (or better) status by the end of 2015. This may differ from the most 
recently assessed status of the water body, due to the fact that the assessment of status will most 

likely  be  based  on  monitoring  data  from  the  period  2010-2014  and  measures  implementation 
was  still  ongoing.  Therefore,  the  monitored  status  communicated  in  the  second  RBMPs  may 

not necessarily reflect the expected status in the year 2015. In addition, for water bodies failing 

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/cea9ffbb-2cf0-4c08-b421-b085893352a0/WD2017-2-2%20-
%20Natural%20Conditions%20-%20Main%20document.pdf  

98 EEA (2018): European waters - Assessment of status and pressures 2018 

160 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                        
 
to  achieve  good  status  (in  2015),  Member  States  have  indicated  in  their  reporting  the  year 
(2021, 2027 or beyond 2027) by when they are expected to achieve the WFD objectives.  

The table below summarises this information on EU level, while separate tables are provided 
further below with more detailed information for ecological, chemical and quantitative status at 

Member State level.  

Table 1: Status (ecological, chemical and quantitative) expected to be good (or better) in 
2015 and the proportion expected to be in good status in 2021 and 2027. All surface water 

bodies (by count) and groundwater bodies (weighted by area). 

Ecological 
status/potential 
surface 
of 
water bodies 

Chemical 
status 
of 
surface  water 
bodies 

Chemical 
status 
groundwater 
bodies 

of 

Quantitative 
status 
groundwater 
bodies 

of 

43% 

51% 

74% 

90% 

1% 

21% 

21% 

2% 

2% 

3% 

1% 

4% 

31% 

24% 

17% 

4% 

1% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

4% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

stringent 

Expected 
to 
achieve good (or 
better) by end of 
2015 
Less 
objectives 
already achieved 
Expected 
to 
achieve good (or 
better) by end of 
2021 
Expected 
to 
achieve good (or 
better) by end of 
2027 
to 
Expected 
achieve good (or 
better) 
by 
beyond 2027 
Unknown  when 
objectives  will 
be achieved 

Note: The percentages above have been  calculated on the basis of  the total number of  water 
bodies, including water bodies with unknown current status. 

Overall, the following observations can be made:  

 

43  %  of  all  surface  water  bodies  were  expected  to  be  in  high  or  GES  or  potential  in 

2015.  The  percentage  of  water  bodies  in  high/good  status  or  potential  is  expected  to 
increase to 64 % and 95 % in 2021 and 2027, respectively.  

161 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  For chemical status, 51 % of surface water bodies were expected to be in good status in 
2015; this is expected to increase to 53 % and 77 % in 2021 and 2027, respectively. For 

21  %  of  surface  water  bodies  (mainly  corresponding  to  one  Member  State),  the  less 
stringent objectives set have been already achieved. 

 

74 % of the area of groundwater bodies was expected to be in good chemical status in 

2015; this is expected to increase to 77% and 94% in 2021 and 2027, respectively.  

 

90 % of the area of groundwater bodies was expected to be in good quantitative status 
already  in  2015;  this  is  expected  to  increase  to  94%  and  98  %  in  2021  and  2027, 

respectively.  

  Only a few Member States reported that good status will be achieved after 2027 for a 
significant  share  of  their  water  bodies  or  it  is  unknown  when  objectives  will  be 

achieved. 

  Although the number of water bodies in unknown status has substantially been reduced 
since  the  first  RBMPs,  it  is  noted  that  in  a  few  Member  States,  the  share  of  surface 

water bodies in unknown ecological status or potential is still significant. In the case of 
chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies,  there  is  still  a  high  share  of  water  bodies  in 

unknown status in approximately a quarter of the Member States. In these cases, further 
clarification and information may be needed on how it is possible to indicate expected 

good status in 2015 for water bodies currently in unknown status. 

It  should  be  noted  that  information  is  often  limited  to  judge  whether  the  estimations  on  the 

timelines by several Member Status on reaching good status are realistic or not. 

162 

 
 
Table 2: Ecological status/potential of surface water bodies expected to be good (or better) in 2015 and the proportion expected to be in good 
status/potential in 2021 and 2027 at Member State level (count of water bodies). 

MS  Expected to achieve good (or better) by end 

of 2015 

Less stringent objectives already 
achieved 

2016--
2021 

2022—
2027 

Beyond 
2027 

Unknown when 
objectives will be 
achieved 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 

47% 
27% 
59% 
59% 
21% 
8% 
51% 
63% 
58% 
81% 
46% 
46% 
8% 
45% 
3% 
21% 
63% 
0% 
36% 
53% 
68% 
38% 
62% 
70% 
38% 

2% 

17% 

1% 

51% 
1% 

20% 

59% 

1% 

52% 

7% 

26% 

3% 

13% 
20% 
13% 
5% 
11% 
21% 
17% 
16% 
9% 
20% 
1% 
7% 
22% 
34% 
69% 
11% 
12% 
47% 
22% 
18% 
40% 

2% 

4% 

1% 

53% 
1% 
18% 
28% 
57% 
81% 
28% 
19% 
21% 
10% 
33% 
1% 
33% 
21% 
64% 
10% 

68% 
17% 
22% 
13% 
21% 
38% 
30% 
39% 

163 

8% 
Source: WISE electronic reports. 
Note: The percentages above have been calculated on the basis of the total number of water bodies, including water bodies with unknown current status. 

11% 

3% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3: Chemical status of surface water bodies expected to be good (or better) in 2015 
and the proportion expected to be in good status in 2021 and 2027 at Member State level 

(count of water bodies). 

to  achieve 
Expected 
good (or better) by end 
of 2015 

stringent 
Less 
objectives  already 
achieved 

2016
--
2021 

MS 

AT 
BE  2% 
BG  95% 
CY  97% 
CZ  61% 

DE 
DK  99% 
EE  98% 
ES  92% 
FI 
50% 
FR  82% 
HR  93% 
HU  46% 
76% 
IT 

LU 
LV  95% 
MT  53% 
NL  39% 
PL  96% 
PT  26% 
RO  98% 
SE 
SI 
1% 
SK  98% 
UK  97% 

Beyo
nd 
2027 

2022
--
2027 
100
% 
1% 
3% 
2% 
13%  24% 
100
% 

1% 

2% 
5% 
50% 
17% 
1% 
54% 
7% 
100
% 
5% 

1% 
1% 
1% 

1% 

3% 

1% 
1% 

8% 

when 
Unknown 
objectives  will  be 
achieved 

97% 

5% 

8% 

47% 

6% 

18%  34% 
9% 
1% 
3% 
52%  16% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
99% 
2% 
2% 
Source: WISE electronic reports. 

98% 

1% 

Note: The percentages above have been  calculated on the basis of  the total number of  water 
bodies, including water bodies with unknown current status. 

164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2022--
2027 
1% 

Table 4: Chemical status of groundwater bodies expected to be good (or better) in 2015 and the proportion expected to be in good status in 
2021 and 2027 at Member State level (by area). 
MS  Expected to achieve good (or better) 

Less stringent objectives 
already achieved 

2016--
2021 

Beyond 
2027 

Unknown when objectives 
will be achieved 

1% 

1% 

8% 

62% 

39% 

2% 
2% 

17% 
20% 
20% 

6% 
4% 
44% 
16% 

by end of 2015 
98% 
37% 
55% 
88% 
37% 
62% 
80% 
95% 
68% 
95% 
75% 
98% 
83% 
61% 
21% 
100% 
3% 
31% 
92% 
97% 
87% 
94% 
94% 
83% 
53% 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 
Source: WISE electronic reports. Note: The percentages above have been calculated on the basis of the total number of water bodies, including water 
bodies with unknown current status. 

67% 
2% 
4% 
1% 
13% 
3% 
6% 
17% 
21% 

28% 
67% 
3% 
2% 

15% 
3% 
23% 

6% 
2% 
2% 

2% 
50% 

13% 
26% 

3% 
29% 

19% 

9% 

8% 

2% 

4% 

4% 

3% 

5% 

3% 

3% 

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies expected to be good (or better) in 2015 and the proportion expected to be in good status in 
2021 and 2027 at Member State level (by area). 

MS  Expected to achieve good 

Less stringent objectives 

2016--2021  2022--2027  Beyond 2027  Unknown when objectives will be 

(or better) by end of 2015 

already achieved 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

100% 

71% 

99% 

43% 

95% 

96% 

98% 

94% 

79% 

100% 

90% 

99% 

75% 

81% 

100% 

100% 

20% 

24% 

95% 

98% 

100% 

8% 

4% 

1% 

1% 

2% 

50% 

2% 

2% 

13% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

16% 

10% 

1% 

4% 

1% 

3% 

7% 

2% 

6% 

80% 

76% 

5% 

1% 

166 

achieved 

29% 

6% 

1% 

2% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS  Expected to achieve good 
(or better) by end of 2015 

Less stringent objectives 
already achieved 

2016--2021  2022--2027  Beyond 2027  Unknown when objectives will be 

achieved 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

94% 

100% 

97% 

84% 

6% 

3% 

3% 

4% 

9% 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 
Note: The percentages above have been calculated on the basis of  the total number of  water bodies, including  water bodies with unknown current 
status. 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Application and justification of exemptions 

The  number  of  exemptions  applied  in  the  different  Member  States  varies.  An  accountable 
factor  is  inter  alia  the  fact  that  Member  States  have  different  starting  points  for  achieving 

good  status/potential  because  of  the  different  levels  of  pressures  and  impacts  as  well  as 
different degrees of progress regarding the implementation of measures.  

The following two figures provide an overall picture on the type of exemptions applied at EU 

level to surface and groundwater bodies.  

The  main  reported  type  and  justification  for  exemptions  to  GES/potential  of  surface  water 

bodies are Article 4(4) time-extensions based on technical feasibility. In relation to chemical 
status  of  surface  water  bodies,  the  main  type  of  exemptions  are  Article  4(5)  exemptions 

justified by technical feasibility and leading to less stringent objectives. 

For groundwater, technical feasibility is the  main reason  for Article 4(4) time-extensions to 
the achievement of  good quantitative status.  Natural  conditions  and technical  feasibility are 

the main justifications for Article 4(4) time-extensions to the achievement of good chemical 
groundwater status.  

The following sections describe the reasons behind the different exemptions applied in more 

detail. 

168 

 
 
 
 
Figure 9: Type of exemptions applied to surface water bodies in the 2nd RBMPs.  

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Note:  Ecological  status  exemptions  are  reported  at  the  water  body  level.  Chemical  status 
exemptions  for  surface  waters  are  reported  for  each  Priority  Substances  that  is  causing 
failure of good chemical status. 

169 

 
 
 
 
Figure 10: Type of exemptions applied to groundwater bodies in the second RBMPs.  

Source: WISE electronic reports. 
Note:  Groundwater  quantitative  status  exemptions  are  reported  at  the  water  body  level. 
Chemical  exemptions  for  groundwater  are  reported  at  the  level  of  each  pollutant  causing 
failure of good chemical status. 

170 

 
 
 
 
Use of exemptions under Article 4(4) – Time extensions 

Exemptions  according  to WFD Article 4(4) are  applied in  all Member States in  the second 
feasibility,  natural  conditions  and 
RBMPs.  For  surface  water  bodies, 

technical 

disproportionate costs are used as justifications for applying this type of exemption. The main 
pressures reported causing the application of exemptions under Article 4(4) in surface water 

bodies are hydro-morphological pressures, atmospheric deposition, diffuse source pollution, 
point source pollution and water abstractions.  

The figures below set out the application of Article 4(4) per Member State for ecological and 

chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies.  For  more  than  one  third  of  the  Member  States, 
Article 4(4) exemptions to the achievement of GES/potential are applied for more than 50 % 

of their water bodies. 

For  approximately  one-fifth  of  the  Member  States,  Article  4(4)  exemptions  to  the 

achievement  of  good  chemical  status  are  applied  for  almost  100  %  of  their  surface  water 
bodies.  For  most  of  these  Member  States,  the  main  reasons  that  all  or  almost  all  surface 

waters are exempted from  the achievement of good chemical  status  by  2015 are ubiquitous 
substances. 

Figure 11: Percentage of surface water bodies with Article 4(4) exemptions per Member 

State related to ecological status/potential  

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

171 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 12: Percentage of surface water bodies with Article 4(4) exemptions per Member 
State related to chemical status 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

For  groundwater  bodies,  mainly  natural  conditions  and  technical  feasibility  are  used  as 

justifications for Article 4(4) exemptions, with technical feasibility reported more frequently 
than natural conditions. Disproportionate costs play a less important role. The main pressures 

related to exemptions for chemical status are diffuse and point sources of pollution, while for 
groundwater quantitative status the main pressures are from water abstractions.  

In  general,  the  justification  of  Article  4(4)  exemptions  has  improved  compared  to  the  first 
RBMPs. Exemptions are justified at water body level which was not always the case in the 

first cycle. In addition, the details provided behind each justification have improved in most 
Member States and more detailed relevant studies have been reported.  

Use of exemptions under Article 4(5) - Less stringent objectives 

In the first RBMPs, exemptions under Article 4(5) were rarely used for surface water bodies, 
comprising less than 5% of all exemptions applied.99 The main pressures behind Article 4(5) 
exemptions were diffuse and point pollution.  

The figures 5 and 6 below show the application of Article 4(5) exemptions per Member State 
in  the  second  RBMPs  for  ecological  and  chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies.  In  the 

second RBMPs, Article 4(5) exemptions for ecological status of surface waters were applied 

99  See  European  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  (2012):  European  Overview  (2/2)  Report  from  the 
Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  implementation  of  the  water  Framework 
Directive  

172 

 
 
 
                                                           
in  two-thirds  of  the  Member  States,  and  mainly  due  to  technical  feasibility  and 
disproportionate costs.  

Article 4(5) exemptions for chemical status of surface water were applied in one third of the 

Member States, but mainly in Sweden and Czech Republic (see Figure 6 below). Sweden has 
used  Article  4(5)  in  a  general  way  as  in  the  first  cycle  and  has  reported  less  stringent 

objectives under Article 4(5) for about 23.000 water bodies due to pollution by mercury. The 
most frequent justification for this type of exemption is technical feasibility which was used 

for  approximately  one  fifth  of  the  total  surface  water  bodies.  Similar  to  the  first  RBMPs, 
Sweden  has  reported  less  stringent  objectives  under  Article  4(5)  for  about  23,000  water 

bodies due to pollution by mercury. 

Figure 5: Percentage of surface water bodies with Article 4(5) exemptions per Member 

State related to ecological status/potential 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

173 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6: Percentage of surface water bodies with Article 4(5) exemptions per Member 
State related to chemical status  

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Use of exemptions under Article 4(6) 

Article 4(6) provides the possibility for an exemption for temporary deterioration of the status 

of water bodies in certain circumstances, which are exceptional or could not reasonably have 
been  foreseen.  Such  circumstances  include  natural  causes  or  force  majeure,  in  particular 
extreme floods and prolonged droughts, or the result of circumstances due to accidents which 

could not reasonably have been foreseen. The reason for invoking an exemption under Article 
4(6) is that an extreme event may affect the status of a water body considerably and during a 

significant period of time, so that temporary deterioration may be inevitable (see also chapter 
6.16 on droughts and water scarcity). 

In the second RBMPs, the application of exemptions under Article 4(6) has been reported in 

the  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Hungary  and  Spain.  The  reasons  for  the  application  of  such 
exemptions  are  linked  to  extreme  floods  (Netherlands),  prolonged  droughts  (Netherlands, 
Portugal, Spain100) and accidents (Netherlands, Hungary, Spain).  

Use of exemptions under Article 4(7) 

Under  Article  4(7)  exemptions  can  be  applied  due  to  new  modifications  to  the  physical 
characteristics  of  surface  water  bodies  or  alterations  to  the  level  of  bodies  of  groundwater 

which might lead to deterioration / non-achievement of good status / potential, or for a new 
sustainable  human  development  activity  which  might  lead  to  deterioration  of  surface  water 
bodies  from  high  status  to  good  status.  Non-exhaustive  examples  which  may  cause  such 

100 It should be noted that this exemption is only included in a Spanish RBMP but has not been reported in the 

WISE reporting system. 

174 

 
 
 
                                                           
modifications  or  alterations  include  new  hydropower  plants,  flood  protection  schemes, 
navigation projects or groundwater abstractions. 

Member  States  will  not  be  in  breach  of  the  Directive  if  a  new  modification/alteration/new 

sustainable  human  development  activity  leads  to  deterioration  or  compromising  the 
achievement of good status/potential at water body level, and the conditions as outlined under 
Article 4(7) (a) to  (d)101 are met. The authorisation or licensing process  plays a key role in 
performing  the  related  assessments  and  justifying  the  conditions  as  outlined  under  Article 

4(7). 

Since the first  RBMPs,  important  clarifications  have been provided102 on the way in which 
compliance  with  the  Directive's  environmental  objectives  should  be  interpreted  in  the 
assessment of new developments and lately new guidance103 has been elaborated in the frame 
of the CIS for the WFD. 

In accordance with WFD Article 4(7) and Annex VII A.5, A.7 and B1, which refer to Article 
4(7) exemptions and the need to report them in the RBMP, more than a third of the Member 

States  have  reported  Article  4(7)  in  the  second  RBMPs.  Article  4(7)  has  been  applied  for 
specific projects in about one-fifth of the total RBDs (29 out of 147 RBDs).  

Exemptions  under  Article  4(7)  have  most  commonly  been  applied  in  RBDs  due  to 

impoundments  for  drinking  water  followed  by  flood  protection  schemes  and  hydropower 
plants (see Figure 7).  

According  to  the  information  reported  to  WISE,  Article  4(7)  has  been  applied  in  the 
following Member States: Austria (3 RBDs), Bulgaria (3 RBDs), Germany (2 RBDs), Spain 

(9  RBDs),  France  (2  RBDs),  the  Netherlands  (1  RBDs),  Poland  (3  RBDs),  Portugal 
(3 RBDs), Romania (1 RBD) and the UK (2 RBDs). 

101  a) All practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the body of water; 

b) The reasons for those modifications or alterations are specifically set out and explained in the river basin 
management plan required under Article 13 and the objectives are reviewed every six years; 
c) The reasons for those modifications or alterations are of overriding  public interest and/or the benefits to 
the  environment  and  to  society  of  achieving  the  objectives  set  out  in  paragraph  1  are  outweighed  by  the 
benefits of the new modifications or alterations to human health, to the maintenance of human safety or to 
sustainable development, and 
d) The beneficial objectives served by those modifications or alterations of the water body cannot for reasons 
of technical feasibility or disproportionate cost be achieved by other means, which are a significantly better 
environmental option. 

102 Case C-461/13 Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. versus Bundesrepublik Deutschland: 

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d6146e624bf57c46808158f287ace
d950b.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Pax8Le0?text=&docid=165446&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=ls
t&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=11661  

103 CIS Guidance Document No. 36 - Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives according to Article 4(7): 

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/e0352ec3-9f3b-4d91-bdbb-
939185be3e89/CIS_Guidance_Article_4_7_FINAL.PDF  

175 

 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
The  RBMPs  or  background  documents  provide  descriptions  on  how  the  steps  of  the 
assessment required under Article 4(7) have been applied. It should be noted that in several 

other RBDs, projects that may cause deterioration/non-achievement of good status/potential 
and thus require to meet the conditions as outlined in Article 4(7) are being planned. 

Figure 7: Number of RBDs (RBDs) with projects causing Article 4(7) exemptions.  

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Note: Some projects causing an Article 4(7) exemption may be multi-purpose, e.g. a proposed 
hydropower plant may also serve as a flood protection scheme or as impoundment for water 
supply. For this reason, the same project causing an Article 4(7) exemption in one RBD may 
be captured in more than one bar in the figure above. 

An assessment of the methodologies behind the application of Article 4(7) shows that some 

progress  has  been  made  in  the  second  cycle.  Member  States  have  developed  more  detailed 
approaches and improved methodologies to assess a project’s effect on the status of a water 

body  and  justifications  are  provided  in  more  detail.  The  assessment  of  cumulative  effects 
though  remains  a  challenge.  Information  on  how  to  determine  overriding  public  interest  is 

limited, and it is not clear to which extent public consultations have taken place.  

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle 

Since the first RBMPs, there have been improvements in the approaches and methodologies 

used for the application of exemptions for surface and groundwater bodies. While in the first 
cycle, not all Member States have justified the application of exemptions on water body level, 
this has significantly improved providing now more detailed information on the justifications 

176 

 
 
 
for exemptions. Most progress has been made in the justifications related to disproportionate 
costs.  

Generally,  more  detailed  studies  have  been  elaborated,  although  the  information  provided 

does  not  always  clearly  distinguish  between  the  criteria  applied  for  justifications  under 
Article 4(4) and Article 4(5). Overall, justifications for exemptions are still often provided in 

a generic way. 

As in the first cycle, fewer Member States are applying Article 4(5) exemptions compared to 
Article 4(4) exemptions, but overall the use of Article 4(5) exemptions has increased. Sweden 
is the Member State that applies Article 4(5) most frequently due to mercury pollution.  

A comparison of the first and the second RBMPs shows that for groundwater, improvements 

in  the  status  (mainly  in  quantitative  status)  has  been  achieved  between  the  first  and  the 
second cycle. For surface waters, the situation is less clear and changes to the application of 

exemptions are difficult to track due to changes related to the assessment of status between 
the  first  and  second  RBMPs.  In  several  Member  States,  the  methodology  for  status 

assessment  has  improved,  for  example  through  increasing  the  number  of  quality  elements 
considered. Although this has improved the understanding of status, the improved knowledge 

has  in  some  cases  led  to  a  change  in  water  body  status  despite  the  implementation  of 
measures. Changes in the number of delineated water bodies, i.e. an increase or decrease in 

the number of water bodies, also makes it difficult to assess whether the use of exemptions 
has increased or decreased in an RBD.  

In relation to Article 4(6), the number of RBDs applying this type of exemption has increased 
from five to fourteen between the first and second RBMPs.  

Reported exemptions under Article 4(7), which were applied in the first RBMPs in 12 RBDs, 

have  increased  in  the  second  RBMPs,  now  being  applied  in  29  RBDs.  Based  on  the 
assessment of the RBMPs, it can be concluded that more projects are in the pipeline and more 

cases  of  Article  4(7)  application  may  occur  in  the  future.  From  the  assessment  of  the 
methodologies behind the application of Article 4(7), it appears that some progress has been 
made in terms of methodologies to assess the impacts on the status of a water body.  

1.12.2.  Conclusions 

In the second RBMPs, the status of groundwater across Europe is generally better than that of 

surface  waters.  In  addition,  for  groundwater,  some  improvement  in  the  status  (mainly  in 
terms  of  quantitative  status)  has  been  achieved  between  the  first  and  the  second  cycle.  For 

surface  waters,  the  situation  is  less  clear  and  changes  to  the  application  of  exemptions  are 
more difficult to track e.g. due to improvements related to the assessment of status between 

the  first  and  second  RBMPs.  Improvements  in  monitoring  and  classification  methods  have 

177 

 
 
led  to  a  better  understanding  of  water  boy  status,  but  have  also  changed  the  baseline  for 
comparing status assessments between the first and second cycle. 

Exemptions under Article 4(4) are still applied to a significant extent in all Member States. In 

general,  exemptions  under  this  Article  are  more  often  applied  to  surface  water  than  to 
groundwater for which good status is already achieved to a greater extent. For surface waters, 

technical  feasibility,  natural  conditions  and  disproportionate  costs  are  used  as  justifications 
for  exemptions  under  Article  4(4).  For  groundwater  bodies,  mainly  natural  conditions  and 

technical feasibility are used to justify these exemptions, with technical feasibility used more 
often than natural conditions. 

Article 4(5) exemptions have been applied more often in the second than in the first RBMPs 
in several Member States.  

The justification provided in the second RBMPs for exemptions under Article 4(4) and 4(5) 

are more detailed and more consistently reported on water body level  compared to  the first 
cycle.  However,  justifications  are  still  often  provided  in  a  generic  way  and  the  criteria 

applied, distinguishing between Article 4(4) and 4(5), are not always clear. 

The application of Article 4(7) has increased in the second RBMPs. Based on the assessment 
of the RBMPs, it can be concluded that more projects are in the pipeline and more cases of 

Article 4(7) application may occur in the future. The assessment of the methodologies behind 
the application of Article 4(7) provided evidence that some progress has been made in terms 

of  methodologies  to  assess  impacts  on  the  status  of  water  bodies.  The  assessment  of 
cumulative effects though remains a challenge. Information on how to determine overriding 
public interest  is  limited and it is  not  clear to  which extent public consultations have taken 

place.  Further  improvements  in  relation  to  the  application  of  Article  4(7)  may  be  expected 
due  to  clarifications  provided  on  the  way  in  which  compliance  with  the  Directive's 

environmental objectives should be interpreted in the assessment  of new  developments  and 
new guidance which was elaborated in the frame of the CIS.  

1.12.3.  Recommendations 

  A  significant  number  of  exemptions  from  the WFD  objectives  is  still  applied  in  the 
second  RBMPs.  Member  States  should  raise  the  level  of  ambition  for  the 
implementation  of  the  necessary  measures  to  subsequently  reduce  the  amount  of 

exemptions and to ensure a timely achievement of the WFD objectives. 

  Transparency  in  relation  to  the  justifications  for  the  use  of  exemptions  should  be 
further  improved  in  the  RBMPs,  including  clear  criteria  for  the  decision.  In  case  of 
extending  deadlines  or  lowering  objectives,  the  necessary  remaining  measures  and 
timeline for implementation should be clearly indicated. 

178 

 
 
  Member  States  should  include  in  the  RBMPs  an  inventory  of  projects  under 
development to ensure that the RBMPs present a complete overview of all current and 
planned  developments,  including  particularly  new  hydropower,  navigation,  flood 

protection, drainage and water abstraction projects.  

  Member  States  should  ensure  a  thorough  assessment  of  the  expected  effects  of 
projects  under  development  on  water  body  status/potential  at  quality  element  level 

RBMPs.  For  the  application  of  exemptions  Member  States  are  encouraged  to 
implement the policy recommendations and the best practice guidance that has been 

elaborated under the CIS. 

179 

 
 
 
 
1.13. Programme  of  measures  –  general  &  measures  related  to  other 

significant pressures 

1.13.1. 

Introduction 

The WFD requires  that, within each RBD, a POMs is  established to  address  the significant 

issues identified and to allow the achievement of the objectives established  under Article 4. 
The  Directive  further  specifies  that  the  POMs  shall  include  as  a  minimum  'basic  measures' 

and where necessary to achieve objectives 'supplementary measures'. 

Basic measures as a minimum must comprise: 

  Measures  required  in  order  to  implement  existent  Community  water  legislation  and 
other  environmental  legislation  (set  out  in  Article  10  and  in  Part  A  of  Annex  VI  – 
detailed below). 

  Measures to implement Article 9 (cost recovery). 

  Measures to promote efficient and sustainable water use. 

  Measures to protect drinking water quality and reduce level of treatment required. 

  Measures to control abstraction from surface and groundwater. 

  Measures to control recharging of groundwater. 

  Measures to control point source discharges. 

  Measures to prevent or control inputs of diffuse pollutants. 

  Measures  to  address  any other significant  impacts  on status, in  particular the hydro-

morphological condition. 

  Measures to eliminate or reduce pollution by priority substances. 

  Measures to prevent accidental pollution. 

The legislation referred to in Article 10 and listed in Part A of Annex VI are: 

(i) The Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC). 

(ii) The Birds Directive (79/409/EEC). 

(iii) The Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC) as amended by Directive (98/83/EC). 

(iv) The Major Accidents (Seveso) Directive (96/82/EC). 

180 

 
 
(v) The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC). 

(vi) The Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC). 

(vii) The Urban Waste-water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). 

(viii) The Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/EEC). 

(ix) The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC). 

(x) The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). 

(xi) The Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC). 

Supplementary  measures  are  those  measures  designed  and  implemented  in  addition  to  the 
basic measures, where it is necessary to achieve the environmental objectives of the WFD as 

established  in  Article  4  and  Annex  V.  Supplementary  measures  can  include  additional 
legislative powers, fiscal measures, research, educational campaigns that go beyond the basic 

measures and are deemed necessary for the achievement of objectives. 

According  to  Article  11(5),  additional  measures  may  be  necessary  when  a  water  body  is 

unlikely to  achieve the objectives under Article 4, after the adoption of the measures under 
the first RBMP. 

Measures  should  be  targeted  in  terms  of  their  type  and  extent  to  ensure  that  pressures  are 

addressed and that this will deliver improvements towards achieving good status or potential 
in the individual water bodies. The measures should be designed based on the assessment of 

the actual status of the water body, supplemented with the information from the analysis of 
pressures and impacts affecting the water body. 

Each step of the planning process of the WFD is, therefore, necessary to  ensure the correct 
measures are implemented in the appropriate location. The planning process started with the 

transposition of the Directive into national law and the administrative arrangements, and was 
followed by the characterisation of the RBD (including the pressure and impact analysis, the 

economic analysis, the delineation of water bodies and the establishment of the typology and 
reference conditions for surface water bodies: the basis for the ecological status assessment). 

The  status  assessment  based  on  sufficient  (parameters,  frequency,  etc.)  and  updated 
monitoring  results  is  a  fundamental  element  of  the  planning  process.  Finally,  the 

environmental objectives are set and the POMs to achieve those objectives established. The 
first POMs should have become operational by December 2012 at the latest. There is also a 

need to monitor the effects and effectiveness of the measures in the improvement of the water 
status  and  (as  stated  in  Article  11.5)  where  monitoring  or  other  data  indicate  that  the 

objectives  set  are  unlikely  to  be  achieved.  The  cause  of  the  possible  failure  should  be 

181 

 
 
investigated, relevant permits and authorisations should be reviewed, monitoring programmes 
reviewed and adjusted and amended or additional measures devised to ensure achievement of 

objectives.  Article  11.8  requires  the  POMs  to  be  reviewed  and  updated  by  2015,  with 
measures being made operational three years later. 

This chapter covers general issues concerning the POMs such as implementation of the first 

POMs,  the  application  of  KTMs  to  achieve  objectives,  the  use  of  basic  and  supplementary 
measures,  targeting  of  measures  including  the  assessment  of  the  gap  to  good  status,  and 

finally measures to address other significant pressures. The following chapters in this report 
cover specific measures targeted abstractions and water scarcity, to pollution from agriculture 

and other sources, to hydro-morphological pressures and water pricing policies. 

Reported progress with the implementation of the first POMs 

In their second RBMPs, Member States were asked to report on the status of implementation 

of the first POMs; a summary of this information is shown in Table 1. It should be noted that 
the  reporting  to  WISE  was  not  always  consistent  with  the  reporting  in  the  RBMPs.  All 

planned measures have been completed in only a few RBDs of few Member States, whilst in 
the vast majority (84 %) of RBDs, only some measures have been completed. Member States 

reported that a lack of finance and unexpected planning delays were the main obstacles to the 
implementation  of  the  POMs,  with  a  lack  of  mechanism  for  implementing  measures  (e.g. 

national regulations not yet adopted) and governance issues affecting the implementation of 
measures in at least 50 % of RBDs. Some Member States reported other obstacles such as a 

change of the delineation of water bodies and classification systems, measures that proved to 
be irrelevant, lack of membership, difficulties due to land ownership, land availability, staff 

resources  and  an  acceptance  of  the  measures,  acquisition  of  real  estate,  complex  approval 
procedures  and  coordination  with  participants  and  staff  shortages,  the  need  to  prioritise 

measures  under  the  conditions  of  limited  time  and  financing  and  a  lack  of  research  on  the 
effect  of  the  measures,  land  acquisition  and  a  reduction  in  the  national  budget  due  to  the 

economic  crisis,  and  the  legal  regime  of  the  land  and  tendering  process  for  the  award  of 
contracts (“the contestation of the auctions for works”). 

182 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 1 Status of the implementation of the first POMs  

Status  of  implementation  of  first 
PoM 

Number 
RBDs 

of 

Percentage 
RBDs 

of 

All planned measures started 

Some planned measures started 

Some measures completed 

All measures completed 

No measures started 

10 

1 

119 

11 

0 

7% 

1% 

84% 

8% 

0% 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Table  2  Number  of  obstacles  to  the  implementation  of  measures  identified  in  the  first 

PoM 

Obstacle 

Governance 

Delays 

Lack of finance 

Lack of mechanism 

Lack of measures 

Planned measures not cost effective 

Extreme events 

Number 
RBDs 

of 

Percentage 
RBDs 

of 

71 

102 

112 

88 

31 

26 

14 

50% 

72% 

79% 

62% 

22% 

18% 

10% 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

About  one-quarter  of  the  Member  States  provided  no  information  on  the  costs  of  the  first 

POMs. At EU level, a total investment of at least € 92350 million was reported for the first 
POMs. Ninety two RBDs (65 %) reported having received a contribution from EU funds for 

the  first  POMs,  which  implies  that  EU  funds  were  a  significant  source  of  funding  for 
measures in the first cycle for some RBDs. 

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle 

Overview of the application of KTMs to achieve WFD objectives 

The concept of KTMs was developed in 2012 to  simplify reporting. This  approach was the 
consequence  of  the  large  differences  in  the  level  of  detail  reported  in  2010.  Some  Member 
States reported 10-20 measures whilst others reported hundreds or even thousands. KTMs are 
groups of measures identified by Member States in the PoMs which target the same pressure 

183 

 
 
 
 
or  purpose.  The  individual  measures  included  in  the  PoM  (being  part  of  the  RBMP)  are 
grouped into KTMs for the purpose of reporting. The same individual measure can be part of 

more  than  one  KTM  because  it  may  be  multi-purpose,  but  also  because  the  KTMs  are  not 
completely independent silos. There is certain degree of overlap in the description of KTMs 

to ensure that the Member States can more easily find the way to report their PoMs. KTMs 
are expected to deliver the bulk of the improvements through reduction in pressures required 

to  achieve  WFD  environmental  objectives.  A  KTM  may  be  one  national  measure,  but  it 
would  typically  comprise  more  than  one  national  measure.  The  KTM  should  be  fully 

implemented  and  made  operational  within  the  RBMP  planning  period  to  address  specific 
pressures or chemical substances and to achieve the environmental objectives. 

Figures 1 and 2 show the number of RBDs where significant pressures causing groundwater 

bodies  and  surface  water  bodies  to  fail  to  be  of  good  status  are  addressed  by  operational 
KTMs. 91 RBDs have measures in place to address failures caused by diffuse pollution from 

agriculture  in  groundwater  and  123  RBDs  have  measures  in  place  to  address  the  same 
pressure  causing  failures  of  surface  water  bodies.  128  RBDs  have  operational  measures  in 

place to  address  point source pollution from  urban waste water treatment  plants. Only very 
few  Member  States  reported  operational  measures  in  place  to  address  all  the  significant 

pressures  identified  as  causing  failures  of  objectives.  Approximately  half  of  the  Member 
States  reported  that  the  majority  of  the  significant  pressures  were  being  addressed  by 

operational  measures  in  all  RBDs  with  only  one  or  two  pressures  not  reported  as  being 
addressed.  Figure  3  shows  the  number  of  RBDs  which  have  reported  each  KTM  as 
operational  to  address  at  least  one  significant  pressure.  KTM2  -  Reduce  nutrient  pollution 

from agriculture is reported as operational in the most RBDs to address significant pressures 
in  groundwater, whilst  KTM1  - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants is 

reported as operational to address at least one significant pressure in surface water bodies in 
the most RBDs. 

Member States were asked to report the national basic and supplementary measures mapped 
against the KTMs104 (see Tables 3 and 4 and Figures 4 and 5 below). A total of 12 800 basic 
measures were reported. No single KTM was reported to have been applied in basic measures 

by all the 24 Member States that reported information. Following observations can be made 
on selected KTM:  

-  The  majority  of  Member  States  reported  a  total  of  5 579  basic  measures  mapped 

against KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants.  

-  The majority of Member States have also applied a total of 565 basic measures under 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture.  

104 For each pre-defined or new KTM, Member States were asked to report the unique code of each national or 

RBD specific measure incorporated into the KTM. 

184 

 
 
                                                           
-  The  majority  of  Member  States  have  mapped  a  total  of  285  basic  measures  against 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture.  

-  Two  thirds  of  Member  States  have  mapped  a  total  of  442  basic  measures  against 
KTM6  -  Improving  hydro-morphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than 
longitudinal continuity. 

-  Two  thirds  of  Member  States  have  mapped  a  total  of  408  basic  measures  against 
KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows. 

-  Two thirds of Member States mapped a total of 572 basic measures against KTM8  - 
Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households. 

-  Two thirds of Member States mapped a total of 243 basic measures against KTM13 - 
Drinking  water  protection  measures  (e.g.  establishment  of  safeguard  zones,  buffer 

zones etc). 

-  The majority of Member States mapped a total of 280 basic measures against 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. 

-  The majority of Member States mapped a total of 706 basic measures against KTM21 
- Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and 

built infrastructure. 

- 

1 193 basic measures have been mapped against KTM14 - Research, improvement of 

knowledge base reducing uncertainty by about half of the Member States.  

-  Two  thirds  of  the  Member  States  (reported  at  total  of  1 251  basic  measures  under 

nationally defined KTMs. 

-  Only a few Member States reported basic measures KTM24  - Adaptation to climate 

change and under KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification.  

Some Member States have reported a large number of basic measures across a wide range of 
KTMs, whilst at the other extreme some have reported a small number of measures against a 

limited range of KTMs. Neither of these extremes suggests that the programme of measure 
will be effective in addressing the significant pressures, either because too many measures to 

be implemented have been adopted, or because an insufficient number of measures have been 
adopted. 

All  24 Member States  which reported also  provided information  on the  number of national 

supplementary  measures  mapped  against  KTM.  A  total  of  10 157  supplementary  measures 

185 

 
 
were reported. This is significant progress from the first POMs where little if no information 
on supplementary measures was provided:  

-  All  Member  States  have  mapped  a  total  of  1 442  supplementary  measures  against 
KTM6  -  Improving  hydro-morphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than 

longitudinal  continuity  and  274  supplementary  measures  against  KTM2  -  Reduce 
nutrient pollution from agriculture.  

-  The majority of Member States have mapped a total of 1 602 supplementary measures 
against KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty.  

-  A few Member States reported a total of 16 supplementary measures against KTM11 - 
Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water 
services from agriculture and 13 supplementary measures against KTM25 - Measures 

to counteract acidification.  

As with basic measures, some Member States have reported a large number of supplementary 

measures  across  a  wide  range  of  KTMs  whilst  others  have  reported  a  few  supplementary 
measures against a small range of KTMs.  

 A  comparison  of  the  national  measures  mapped  against  KTMs  versus  the  KTMs  that 

Member  States  had  reported  as  being  operational  for  the  control  of  significant  pressures, 
showed  that  all  national  measures  reported  are  operational  in  only  a  third  of  the  Member 

States. For the other Member States, a number of national measures had been mapped against 
KTMs which were not reported as operational to address significant pressures causing failure.  

186 

 
 
 
 
Figure  1  Main  significant  pressures  on  groundwater  bodies  for  which  KTMs  are 
operational 

i

y
b
d
e
s
s
e
r
d
d
A
s
e
d
o
B
r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
G
n
o
s
e
r
u
s
s
e
r
P
t
n
a
c
i
f
i
n
g
i
S

s

M
T
K

6.2 - Groundwater - Alteration of water level…

6.1 - Groundwater - Recharges
3.7 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Other
3.3 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Industry

3.2 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Public…

3.1 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Agriculture
2.10 - Diffuse - Other
2.8 - Diffuse - Mining
2.7 - Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition

2.6 - Diffuse - Discharges not connected to…
2.5 - Diffuse - Contaminated sites or…

2.4 - Diffuse - Transport
2.3 - Diffuse - Forestry
2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural
2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off
1.9 - Point - Other
1.7 - Point - Mine waters
1.6 - Point - Waste disposal sites

1.5 - Point - Contaminated sites or abandoned…

1.4 - Point - Non IED plants
1.3 - Point - IED plants
1.2 - Point - Storm overflows
1.1 - Point - Urban waste water

0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Number of RBDs 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

187 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  2  Main  significant  pressures  on  surface  water  bodies  for  which  KTMs  are 
operational 

s

i

M
T
K
y
b
d
e
s
s
e
r
d
d
A
s
e
d
o
B
r
e
t
a
W
e
c
a
f
r
u
S
n
o
s
e
r
u
s
s
e
r
P
t
n
a
c
i
f
i
n
g
i
S

4.4 - Hydromorphological…

4.3.5 - Hydrological alteration -…

4.3.3 - Hydrological alteration -…

4.3.1 - Hydrological alteration -…

4.2.8 - Dams, barriers and locks -…

4.2.6 - Dams, barriers and locks -…

4.2.4 - Dams, barriers and locks -…

4.2.2 - Dams, barriers and locks -…

4.1.5 - Physical alteration of…

4.1.3 - Physical alteration of…

4.1.1 - Physical alteration of…

3.6 - Abstraction or flow diversion…

3.4 - Abstraction or flow diversion…

3.2 - Abstraction or flow diversion…

2.10 - Diffuse - Other

2.8 - Diffuse - Mining

2.6 - Diffuse - Discharges not…

2.4 - Diffuse - Transport

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural

1.9 - Point - Other

1.7 - Point - Mine waters

1.5 - Point - Contaminated sites or…

1.3 - Point - IED plants

1.1 - Point - Urban waste water

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140

Number of RBDs 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  3:  Number  of  RBDs  which  have  reported  each  KTM  as  operational  to  address  at  least  one  significant  pressure  in  surface  water  and 
groundwater 

KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of…

KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the…

KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment…

KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing…

M
T
K

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture.

KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts…

KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and…

KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions,…

KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g.…

KTM11 - Water pricing policy measures for the…

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment…

Surface Water

Groundwater

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Number of RBDs 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

189 

 
 
 
 
Table 3 National basic measures mapped against KTMs 

Member State 
AT  BE  BG  CY  CZ  DE  DK  EE  ES 
3,47
1,2
9 
09 

15  8 

6 

3 

3 

3 

0 

FI  FR  HR  HU 

0 

9 

0 

0 

0 

KTM 
KTM
1  
KTM
10  
KTM
11  
KTM
12  
KTM
13  
KTM
14  
KTM
15  
KTM
16  
KTM
17  
KTM
18  
KTM
19  
KTM
2  
KTM
20  
0 
KTM 3 

3 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

7 

2 

1 

1 

1 

24  2 

12  1 

15  4 

0 
18 

2 

2 

1 

7 

13 

7 

7 

1 

1 

2 

9 

2 
9 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

11 

2 

3 

8 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
13 

0 
43 

0 

0 

2 

1 

4 

2 

3 

2 

0 

0 

4 

0 
1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 
0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

6 

8 

33 

558  0 

13 

19 

6 

16 

0 

1 

8 

0 

0 

0 

148  0 

25 
0 
117  0 

4 

2 

1 

0 

3 

5 

2 

3 

1 

0 

0 

2 

0 
0 

7 

12 

14 

7 

19 

39 

17 

2 

6 

10 

2 

10 

1 
39 

3 

3 

3 

0 

2 

0 

5 

2 

2 

0 

2 

2 

0 
7 

190 

IT  LU  LV  MT  NL 
64
9 

13 

0 

0 

2 

27  1 

43  1 

20  0 

58  1 
39
2 
11
5 

0 

0 

30  0 

48  27 

11  0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

9 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

6 

78  48 

14 

0 
0 
72  7 

6 
25 

0 

0 

0 

0 

9 

2 

0 

0 

2 

3 

2 

0 
4 

1 

1 

0 

3 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 
5 

PL  PT  RO  SE  SI  SK  UK 

10
6 

36 

10  0 

0 

0 

8 

0 

61  9 

3 

0 

0 

0 

1 

82  75  0 

30  42  1 

0 

0 

0 
10
4 
17
0 

0 
30

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

35  2 

0 
7 

2 
3 

6 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

5 

0 

0 

0 

3 

4 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 
0 
10  1 

9 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 
0 

7 

3 

0 

5 

4 

10 

7 

3 

4 

10 

1 

9 

1 
15 

 
 
Member State 
AT  BE  BG  CY  CZ  DE  DK  EE  ES 

FI  FR  HR  HU 

IT  LU  LV  MT  NL 

PL  PT  RO  SE  SI  SK  UK 
7 

0 

1 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

0 

0 

0 

9 

0 

0 

0 

0 

21  4 

KTM 
21  
KTM
22  
KTM
23  
KTM
24  
KTM
25  
KTM
3. 
KTM
4  
KTM
5  
KTM
6  
KTM
7  
KTM
8  
KTM
9  
KTM
10 
99  
Source: WISE electronic reports. 

30  10 

24  4 

27  5 

12 

13 

0 

0 

0 

6 

2 

2 

0 

1 

3 

0 

2 

0 

8 

0 

6 

0 

6 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

94 

0 

12 

1 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

18 

12 

45 

57 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

103  0 

246  0 

12 

0 

438  0 

0 

1 

5 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

1 

4 

0 

1 

80  0 

35  0 

0 

0 

89  25 

31  0 

43  3 
18
2 

12 

90  3 
19
8 

4 

28  1 

6 

1 

0 

0 

8 

0 

0 

7 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

4 

1 

14 

0 

9 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 

2 

1 

0 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

10  0 

80  8 

0 

4 

20  9 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

26  15  0 

50  35  1 

24  7 

1 

10  10  0 
39
0 

58  2 

1 

0 

0 

1 

3 

3 

7 

2 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

5 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

3 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

6 

1 

0 

5 

7 

10 

3 

10 

10 

5 

0 

32  0 

35 

16 

32  11 

22 

0 

0 

27 

0 

7 

1 

35 

0 

4 

0 

0 

1 

2 

0 

55 

23 

4 

4 

2 

47 

29 

20 
18
3 

191 

 
 
 
 
Table 4 National supplementary measures mapped against KTMs 

Member State 

KTM 

AT 

BE  BG  CY  CZ  DE  DK  EE  ES 

FI  FR  HR  HU  IT  LU  LV  MT  NL  PL  PT  RO  SE  SI  SK  UK 

KTM1 

6 

KTM10 

KTM11 

KTM12  9 

KTM13  6 

KTM14  3 

KTM15 

KTM16   6 

KTM17  3 

KTM18 

KTM19 

KTM2 

36 

KTM20 

KTM21 

KTM22 

KTM23     

KTM24     

KTM25     

3 

1 

2 

2 

1 

5 

25  18 

3 

4 

3 

1 

2 

2 

5 

3 

7 

2 

3 

1 

5 

3 

1 

8 

6 

7 

2 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

7 

3 

4 

4 

3 

3 

2 

1 

1 

5 

4 

1 

16 

3 

2 

2 

1 

6 

10  38 

65 

77 

10 

10  39 

3 

1 

39 

5 

5 

2 

2 

4 

3 

1,826  6 

10 

4 

6 

1 

1 

95 

7 

1,023 

3 

28 

191 

130 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

7 

3 

1 

4 

2 

3 

1 

1 

5 

3 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

7 

9 

4 

7 

6 

1 

1 

8 

1 

4 

1 

19 

56 

1 

2 

8 

9 

7 

3 

2 

1 

2 

192 

19 

5 

7 

10 

33 

14 

2 

3 

2 

2 

1 

1 

204  2 

26  16 

3 

1 

4 

3 

5 

10 

22 

6 

1 

1 

5 

4 

3 

1 

8 

8 

4 

3 

1 

58 

8 

1 

4 

11 

21 

31 

1 

3 

2 

160  1 

2 

4 

2 

20 

9 

31  113  59 

5 

2 

5 

9 

23 

10 

15 

5 

44 

42  16 

4 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

10  3 

150  1 

1 

17 

26 

2 

3 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

6 

1 

1 

5 

6 

27 

4 

2 

4 

9 

6 

5 

2 

2 

10 

23 

2 

5 

1 

1 

7 

3 

6 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Member State 

KTM 

AT 

BE  BG  CY  CZ  DE  DK  EE  ES 

FI  FR  HR  HU  IT  LU  LV  MT  NL  PL  PT  RO  SE  SI  SK  UK 

KTM3  

KTM4  

KTM5   6 

KTM6   12 

KTM7  

KTM8  

KTM9  

2 

2 

3 

2 

6 

2 

3 

1 

2 

6 

8 

4 

1 

9 

4 

7 

2 

275  6 

3 

3 

436  17  3 

5 

14 

4 

2 

8 

2 

2 

11 

25 

220 

671 

55 

445 

KTM99     

35 

23 

8 

1 

1,140  6 

1 

16  1 

2 

7 

2 

3 

4 

15 

4 

10 

4 

9 

4 

1 

2 

7 

10 

7 

2 

9 

38 

6 

11 

86 

41 

90 

13 

83 

9 

2 

2 

4 

3 

1 

2 

2 

2 

5 

1 

3 

6 

18 

6 

11  2 

12  23  84 

4 

14 

4 

3 

8 

2 

28 

4 

2 

3 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

5 

4 

2 

2 

6 

2 

18  9 

10 

24  17  78 

7 

4 

1 

10 

14 

8 

4 

3 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

193 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
Figure 4 Number of Member States which have mapped basic measures against each KTM 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM

KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the…
KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy…
KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological…
KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other…
KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes,…
KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including…

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture.
KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification
KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change
KTM23 - Natural water retention measures
KTM22 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from forestry

M
T
K

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban…
KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of fishing and…

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture

KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of recreation…
KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive…

KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off

KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment…
KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses…
KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty

KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of…

KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture

KTM11 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the…
KTM10 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the…

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants

0

5

10

15

20

25

Number of Member States  

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

194 

 
 
 
 
Figure 5 Number of Member States which have mapped supplementary measures against each KTM 

KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the…

KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of…

KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes,…

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture.

KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change

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

KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of fishing…

M
T
K

KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of…

KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface…

KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and…

KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of…

KTM11 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the…

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Number of Member States 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

195 

 
 
 
 
 
Notes: List of KTMs 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants 

KTM10  -  Water  pricing  policy  measures  for  the  implementation  of  the  recovery  of  cost  of 
water services from industry 

KTM11  -  Water  pricing  policy  measures  for  the  implementation  of  the  recovery  of  cost  of 
water services from agriculture 

KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture 

KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer 

zones etc) 

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty 

KTM15  -  Measures  for  the  phasing-out  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  Priority 

Hazardous  Substances  or  for  the  reduction  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  Priority 
Substances 

KTM16  -  Upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial  wastewater  treatment  plants  (including 
farms). 

KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off 

KTM18 - Measures to  prevent  or control the  adverse impacts  of invasive alien species and 

introduced diseases 

KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of recreation including angling 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 

KTM20  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  adverse  impacts  of  fishing  and  other 

exploitation/removal of animal and plants 

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

and built infrastructure 

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

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 

KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change 

196 

 
 
KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 

KTM4  -  Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical  pollution  including  sediments, 
groundwater, soil) 

KTM5  -  Improving  longitudinal  continuity  (e.g.  establishing  fish  passes,  demolishing  old 
dams) 

KTM6 - Improving hydro-morphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal 

continuity 

KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows 

KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households 

KTM9  -  Water  pricing  policy  measures  for  the  implementation  of  the  recovery  of  cost  of 

water services from households 

KTM99 - Other KTM reported under PoM 

197 

 
 
 
 
As specified in the introduction to this chapter, Article 11(3) requires that the POMs include 
specified  basic  measures.  Table  5  below  shows  the  types  of  basic  measures  that  have  been 

reported mapped against KTMs in each Member State, and the number of RBDs within that 
Member  State  for  which  the  measures  have  been  reported.    Only  a  quarter  of  the  Member 

States reported that basic measures are in place to meet all the requirements of Article 11(3) 
of the WFD, but not all of these measures apply in all the RBDs. Two Member States have 

only 3 types of the basic measures required by Article 11(3) in place.  

Of the types of basic measures required, half of the Member States who provided information 
have reported that measures are in place for the implementation of the Habitats105 or Birds106 
Directives,  and  to  meet  the  requirements  of  Article  11(3)(f)  on  controls  for  the  artificial 
recharge  or  augmentation  of  groundwater  and  Article  11(3)(b)  for  the  implementation  of 

Article 9 on the cost recovery of water services. 

105   Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and 

flora 

106  Directive  2009/147/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  November  2009  on  the 

conservation of wild birds 

198 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 5 Basic measure types mapped against KTMs in the RBDs of each Member State 

or 

Basic 
Measure 
Type 
Urban  Waste 
Water 
Treatment 
Nitrates 
IPPC IED 
Habitats 
Birds 
Cost 
recovery 
water 
services 
Efficient 
water use 
Protection 
water 
abstraction 
Controls 
water 
abstraction 
Recharge 
augmentation 
groundwaters 
Point  source 
discharges 
Pollutants 
diffuse 
Hydro-
morphology 
Pollutants 
direct 
groundwater 
Surface 

Member State 

AT  BE  BG  CY  CZ  DE  DK  EE  EL  ES 

FI 

FR 

HR  HU 

IE 

IT  LT  LU  LV  MT  NL  PL 

PT 

RO  SE  SI 

SK  UK 

3/3  5/8  4/4  1/1 
3/3  5/8  4/4  1/1 
3/3 

3/4 

4/10 
6/10 
1/10 

2/3 

2/3 

18/25  6/8 
15/25 
6/25 

13/14  2/2  1/1 
11/14  2/2  1/1 
2/2  1/1 
2/14 

1/8  2/4  1/1 

1/1 

3/8  4/4 

1/3 

3/8  3/4  1/1 

12/25 

14/25 

12/14  2/2  1/1 

6/14 

2/2  1/1 

8/8 
7/8 
3/8 

3/8 

7/8 

7/8 

2/2  4/4  1/1 
2/2  4/4  1/1 
4/4  1/1 

4/4  10/10  9/10 
4/4  10/10  8/10 
4/4  10/10  8/10 

1/1  5/5  2/2  2/2  15/15 
1/1  1/5  2/2  2/2  15/15 
2/2  2/2  10/15 
1/1 

4/4  1/1 

4/4  1/10 

8/10 

2/2 

3/15 

2/2 

4/4  10/10  10/10 

2/2 

10/15 

2/2  4/4  1/1 

4/4  10/10  3/10 

1/1  5/5  2/2 

11/15 

3/3  7/8  4/4 

3/3 

9/25 

14/14  2/2  1/1 

7/8 

2/2  4/4 

4/4  10/10  8/10 

5/5  2/2  2/2  14/15 

3/3  6/8  4/4  1/1 

3/3 

15/25 

12/14  2/2  1/1 

7/8 

2/2  4/4 

4/4  10/10  3/10 

1/1  5/5  2/2 

12/15 

2/4 

1/10 

1/25 

1/14 

2/2  1/1 

3/3  3/8  4/4  1/1 

3/3  5/10 

16/25  6/8 

6/14 

2/2  1/1 

3/3  7/8  4/4  1/1 

3/3  3/10 

2/3 

12/25  6/8 

2/14 

2/2  1/1 

3/3  7/8  4/4 

3/3 

3/3  3/8  2/4 
3/3  6/8  3/4  1/1 

3/3 

2/10 

n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n
i

o
N

d
e
t
r
o
p
e
r

a
t
a
d

o
N

16/25 

2/2  1/1 

1/25 
6/25 

2/2  1/1 
10/14  2/2  1/1 

3/8 

7/8 

8/8 

7/8 

5/8 
8/8 

d
e
t
r
o
p
e
r

a
t
a
d

o
N

d
e
t
r
o
p
e
r

a
t
a
d

o
N

2/2 

1/1 

4/4  10/10 

2/2 

11/15 

2/2  4/4  1/1 

4/4  10/10  10/10  1/1  5/5  2/2  1/2  15/15 

2/2  4/4  1/1 

4/4  10/10  10/10  1/1  5/5  2/2  2/2  15/15 

2/2  4/4  1/1 

4/4  10/10  9/10 

1/1  5/5  2/2 

12/15 

2/2  4/4 

4/4  1/1 

4/4  10/10  9/10 
4/4  10/10  8/10 

1/1  5/5 

2/2  13/15 
15/15 

199 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Priority 
Substances 
Accidental 
pollution 

3/3  3/8  2/4 

2/3 

5/25 

12/14  2/2  1/1 

4/8 

2/2  4/4 

4/4  10/10  9/10 

5/5  2/2 

11/15 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Note: The first number is the number of RBDs where the measure is in place. The second number shows the total number of RBDs in the Member State – thus 
for Austria (AT) 3/3 indicates that measures are in place in all 3 RBDs, whereas for Spain  (ES) 18/25 indicates that measures are in place in 18 of the 25 

RBDs. 

200 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Targeting of measures to address the gaps to achieving WFD objectives 

In order for measures to be effectively targeted, an analysis of the gap to good status should 
be carried out, ideally, at a water body level. Member States were asked to report indicators 

of the expected gap to good status for significant pressures for 2015, 2021 and 2027 together 
with indicators of the level of implementation expected in the KTMs to be applied to address 

the gaps.  

From the information reported by the 25 Member States, it is clear that the implementation of 
such  an  analysis  varies  considerably  between  the  Member  States.  Some  Member  States 

provided  quantitative 
level  of  progress  of 
implementation  of  KTMs  expected  in  2015,  2021  and  2027  and  the  progress  towards  good 

indicators  for  all  RBDs  showing 

the 

status that would be achieved for the main significant pressures to groundwater and surface 
waters. In some cases it was anticipated that the level of progress that could be achieved in 

addressing  some  significant  pressures  would  be  limited.  Some  Member  States  provided  a 
strong  analysis  for  some,  but  not  all  of  their  RBDs.  A  number  of  Member  States  only 
provided indicators for 2015 and 2021. In some cases this is because good status is expected 

to  be  achieved  in  all  water  bodies  by  2021,  but  this  is  not  the  case  for  all.  Some  Member 
States provided quantitative indicators for the gap to good status for 2015 and 2021, but only 

provided qualitative information for the level of progress expected in the implementation of 
the  measures.  Four  Member  States  (Germany,  Finland,  Malta  and  UK)  provided  some 

information for some significant pressures for some years for some RBDs.  

A few Member States reported that it was not possible to identify quantitative indicators, for 
example due to the “complex pressure environment not allowing for the disaggregation of the 

pressure-measure relationship”. A few other Member States reported that the information was 
not available.  

It is clear that some Member States have made significant progress in identifying the gap to 

good status and the measures that should be implemented to address this, whilst others still 
have significant work to do. It is also clear that some Member States have not yet developed 
the methodology to achieve this level of analysis and there may be a benefit in ensuring an 

effective sharing of knowledge between and within Member States of how this analysis can 
be achieved. 

201 

 
 
 
 
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Prioritisation of Measures 

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.  A  quantitative  cost  effectiveness  analysis  of  measures  was  reported  as 
having  been  carried  out  in  17  RBDs  (in  only  four  Member  States).  No  cost-effectiveness 

analysis  was  reported  to  have  been  carried  out  in  22  RBDs  (in  five  Member  States).  A 
qualitative cost-effectiveness analysis of measure was reported as having been carried out in 

35 RBDs (in five Member States). A combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis was 
reported  as  having  been  carried  out  in  the  remaining  67  RBDs  for  which  information  was 

reported.  

For the purpose of this assessment, further information was sought on the methodology used 
for the prioritisation of measures for most Member States. In all cases it was not possible to 

easily  identify  from  the  information  provided  by  the  Member  States  the  methods  used  to 
prioritise  measures,  and  how  cost  effectiveness  analysis  fits  into  this.  It  can  therefore  be 
concluded  that  little  progress  appears  to  have  been  made  on  this  aspect  of  implementation 

since the first POMs. 

Costs of planned measures 

For  the  effective  implementation  of  the  second  POMs,  it  is  important  that  the  costs  of  the 
planned  measures  are  clearly  identified.  Member  States  were  therefore  asked  to  report  the 

costs  of  measures  (both  capital  investment  and  annual  operation  and  maintenance  costs)  to 
meet  Article  11.3(a)  requirements  (measures  required  to  implement  Community  legislation 

for  the  protection  of  water)  and  measures  to  meet  the  requirements  of  Articles  11(3)(b-l), 
11(4)  and  11(5)  (all  other  measures).  Information  could  be  reported  either  at  the  Member 

State  level  or  at  the  RBD  level.  Table  6  shows  which  information  was  reported  by  each 
Member State and at what level. 

A third of Member States  reported all the information requested at the Member State level, 
whilst  one  only  reported  the  capital  investment  costs,  another  only  reported  the  capital 

investment  costs  for  measures  under  Articles  11.3(b-l),  11.4  and  11.5  (all  other  measures). 
Another  Member  State  also  only  reported  costs  for  measures  under  Articles  11.3(b-l),  11.4 

and 11.5 (all other measures) but did report both capital investment and annual operation and 
maintenance  costs.  Of  these,  only  one  Member  State  included  depreciation  in  the 

calculations.  

Of those Member States that reported information at an RBD level, only three  provided full 
information  for  all  RBDs.  Two  Member  States  only  provided  capital  investment  costs,  no 

202 

 
 
operation  and  maintenance  costs  were  reported.  Two  Member  States  provided  capital 
investment and operation and maintenance costs for both types of measures for most, but not 

all,  RBDs.  Two  other  Member  States  only  provided  capital  investment  costs  for  measures 
required  by  Articles  11.3(b-l),  11.4  and  11.5.  The  information  provided  by  another  two 

Member  States  varied  widely  between  the  RBDs.  No  information  was  provided  by  one 
Member State because the information was not available in the required format. 

From the information reported, it can be estimated that the total capital investment needed for 
Article 11(3)(a) measures from 2016-2021 will be at least € 56000 million and that € 10200 

million/year will be needed for operation and maintenance costs. The total capital investment 
costs for measures  required by Articles 11(3)(b-l), 11(4) and 11(5) will be at  least  € 59600 

million with € 3850 million/year in operation and maintenance costs.  

Financing of measures 

The  planned  measures  identified  will  not  be  implemented  unless  the  financing  for  these 

measures  has  been  agreed.  Lack  of  finance  was  one  of  the  key  barriers  to  effective 
implementation.  Generally  the  Member  States  are  expected  to  carry  the  costs  of  the  EU 

environmental acquis, although, when eligible, they can call on EU funds for support. 

As several Member States have met their basic needs in terms of water services with the help 

of EU funds, a significant source of support to Member States for the financing of measures 
is  still  EU  funds,  similar  to  the  first  RBMPs.  Two  thirds  of  RBDs  reported  that  they  are 

expecting a contribution from EU funds to the POMs. For instance, in the 2014-2020 period, 
EU cohesion policy invests about 15 billion EUR in the water sector. 

An additional source of funding has been the LIFE+, which has been used for many different 
types of measures. Under its Environmental subprogramme, the development of RBMPs may 

be  identified  as  a  target  for  'Integrated  Projects',  which  has  been  done  for  example  in 
Germany, Malta, Spain and UK. 

Member States were asked to report the sectors for which a clear financial commitment has 
been  secured  for  the  implementation  of  the  PoMs  in  each  of  these  sectors.  Nearly  half  of 
RBDs reported that financing has been secured for measures in all the relevant sectors, but a 

fifth of RBDs (in Belgium, UK, Spain, Italy and Latvia) reported that financing had not been 
secured  for  measures  in  any  sector,  whilst  a  tenth  of  RBDs  reported  that  funding  had  been 

secured for only one sector, although for a few of these RBDs only that specific sector was 
reported as relevant (Figure 6).  

Figure 7 below shows the number of RBDs that have secured funding for each sector. Over 
half  of  the  RBDs  have  reported  securing  financing  for  measures  in  the  agricultural  sector, 

and/or from a governmental source (Parliament, Ministry of Finance etc.). At the other end of 

203 

 
 
the  scale,  only  a  tenth  of  RBDs  report  that  finance  has  been  secured  for  measures  in  the 
energy sector for measures in the transport sector. 

204 

 
 
Table 6: Information reported by Member States on the costs of measures in the second cycle Programme of Measures 

Mem
ber 
State 
AT 

cost 

Level 
information 
reported 
Member State 

RBD/Region 
BE 
BG 
RBD 
CY  Member State 
RBD 
CZ 
DE 
Nothing reported for all RBDs 
DK  Member State 

EE 

RBD 

RBD 
ES 
Member State 
FI 
FR 
RBD 
HR  Member State 

Member 
State/RBD 

HU 

IT 

RBD 

LU 

RBD 

RBDs, 

RBDs, 

Article11.3(a) 
Capital 
investment 
reported 
Yes 
Some 
Some as 0 
Yes 
Yes 
As 0 

No 
Some 
Some as 0 

RBDs, 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Yes 
RBDs, 
Some 
Some as 0, Some 
not reported 
Some 
Some as 0 

RBDs, 

costs 

Article11.3(a) 
Annual 
reported 
Yes 
Some 
Some as 0 
No 
As 0 
As 0 

RBDs, 

RBDs, 

No 
Some 
Some as 0 
Some 
Some as 0 
Yes 
No 
Yes 

Yes 
RBDs, 
Some 
Some as  0, Some 
not reported 

Depreciation 
included 
Article 
investment 
No 

in 
11.3(a) 

Articles  11.3(b-
l),  11.4  and  11.5 
Capital 
investment 
reported 
Yes 

Articles  11.3(b-
l),  11.4  and  11.5 
Annual 
costs 
reported 
Yes 

Depreciation 
included 
in 
Articles  11.3(b-
1),  11.4  and  11.5 
investment 
No 

No 
No 
No 
No 

No 

Yes 

No 
No 
No 
No 

No 

or 

No 
reported 

not 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Yes 
No 
As 0 
No 

No 

RBDs, 

Yes 
Some 
Some as 0 
Yes 
No 
Yes 

Yes 
RBDs, 
Some 
Some as 0, Some 
not reported 

Yes 
RBDs, 
Some 
Some as 0, Some 
not reported 

No 
No 
No 
No 

No 

Yes 

No 
No 
No 
Yes 

No 

or 

No 
reported 

not 

No 

Not reported 

Yes 

No 

Not reported 

205 

 
 
 
Level 
Mem
information 
ber 
reported 
State 
LV 
RBD 
MT  Member State 
RBD 
numbers 
identical) 

(but 

NL 

cost 

all 

PL 
PT 

RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 

RBD 
RBD 
RBD  (but  only  1 
RBD) 
Member State 
Member State 
Member State 
RBD 

Article11.3(a) 
Capital 
investment 
reported 
Yes 
Yes 

costs 

Article11.3(a) 
Annual 
reported 
Yes 
Yes 

in 
11.3(a) 

Depreciation 
included 
Article 
investment 
No 
No 

Articles  11.3(b-
l),  11.4  and  11.5 
Capital 
investment 
reported 
Yes 
Yes 

Articles  11.3(b-
l),  11.4  and  11.5 
Annual 
costs 
reported 
Yes 
Yes 

Depreciation 
included 
in 
Articles  11.3(b-
1),  11.4  and  11.5 
investment 
No 
No 

No 
Some 
Some as 0 
Yes 

No 

RBDs, 

All RBDs 0 
Yes 

Yes 
As 0 
Yes 
Yes 
For most RBDs 

Yes 
As 0 
Yes 
Yes 
For most RBDs 

Yes 

No 
No 

No 
No 
No 
No 
No 

Yes 
Some 
Some as 0 
Yes 

RBDs, 

No 

Yes 
Yes 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
For most RBDs 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
For most RBDs 

Yes 

No 
No 

No 
No 
No 
No 
No 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

206 

 
 
 
 
Figure  6  Number  of  sectors  for  which  each  RBD  has  secured  funding  for  the 
implementation of measures 

s
D
B
R
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Number of sectors from which funding has been secured 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Figure  7  Number  of  RBDs  for  which  funding  is  secured  for  the  implementation  of 

measures in each specific sector 

s
D
B
R
r
e
b
m
u
N

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Sector 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

207 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Co-ordination with MSFD  

Article  13(2)  of  the  MSFD107  requires  integration  between  the  POMs  adopted  under  the 
MSFD and the POMs adopted under the WFD. As the timescales of the two Directives are 

aligned,  it  is  expected  that  joint  consultation  on  the  programmes  will  be  carried  out.    This 
section will discuss whether the preparations of the RBMP and PoM have been co-ordinated 

with  the  implementation  of  the  MSFD,  whether  the  need  for  additional  measures  or  more 
stringent  measures  beyond  those  required  by  the  WFD  in  order  to  contribute  to  the 

achievement of the relevant MSFD objectives in coastal and marine environments have been 
considered  in  the  PoM,  and,  if  so,  what  parameters  those  measures  should  address.  This 

section will also consider the KTMs that have been reported to be relevant to the purposes of 
the MSFD.  

Table 7 shows the number and percentage of RBDs who have reported that the preparation of 

the  RBMPs  and  PoMs  has  been  co-ordinated  with  the  MSFD  and  shows,  that  in  the  vast 
majority of cases this has been carried out.  Table 8 shows that only a third of RBDs reported 
that  the  need  for  additional  measures  or  more  stringent  measures  beyond  those  required  by 

the WFD in order to contribute to the achievement of the relevant MSFD objectives in coastal 
and marine environments have been considered in the PoM. Figure 8 shows the parameters 

for  which  additional  or  more  stringent  measures  are  needed,  and  the  number  of  RBDs  for 
which this applies. 

For  each  measure  reported  in  the  inventory  of  measures,  Member  States  were  asked  to 

indicate  if  it  is  relevant  to  the  MSFD.  7 485  basic  measures  and  5 068  supplementary 
measures  (a  total  of  12 553  measures)  were  reported  to  be  relevant  to  the  MSFD.  Figure  9 

shows  the  number  of  measures  by  KTM  and  Figure  10  shows  the  number  of  measures 
reported by Member State as relevant to the MSFD (note: these are a total of the measures 

reported for each RBD; if national measures apply in more than one RBD they will be double 
counted). 

107 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework 

for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (MSFD)  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056&from=EN 

208 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Table 7: RBDs that have co-ordinated the preparations of the RBMP and PoM with the 
MSFD 

Preparations  of  RBMP  and  PoM  co-ordinated  with 
MSFD 
Yes 
No 
Landlocked country 
Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Number 
RBDs 
100 
17 
21 

Percentage 
RBDs 
72.5% 
12.3% 
15.2% 

Table  8:  RBDs  which  reported  whether  the  need  for  additional  measures  or  more  stringent 
measures beyond those required by the WFD in order to contribute to the achievement of the 

relevant  MSFD  objectives  in  coastal  and  marine  environments  have  been  considered  in  the 
PoM  

Need for additional measures considered 
Yes 
No 
Landlocked country 
Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Number of RBDs  Percentage of RBDs 
41 
82 
18 

29% 
58% 
13% 

Figure  8:  The  parameters  for  which  additional  measures  or  more  stringent  measures  are 
needed beyond those required by the WFD in order to contribute to the achievement of the 

relevant MSFD objectives in coastal and marine environments  

l

a
n
o
i
t
i
d
d
a
h
c
i
h
w

r
o
f

r
e
t
e
m
a
r
a
P

d
e
d
e
e
n
e
r
u
s
a
e
m

None

Others

Litter

Chemicals

Nutrients

0

5

10

15

20

25

Number of RBDs 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Note:  “None”  indicates  that  the  need  for  additional  measures  was  considered  but  the 

conclusion was that no additional measures are needed. 

209 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9: Number of basic and supplementary measures reported as relevant to the MSFD by KTM 

M
T
K

KTM99
KTM25
KTM24
KTM23
KTM22
KTM21
KTM20
KTM9
KTM8
KTM7
KTM6
KTM5
KTM4
KTM3
KTM2
KTM19
KTM18
KTM17
KTM16
KTM15
KTM14
KTM13
KTM12
KTM11
KTM10
KTM1

Supplementary

Basic

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Total number of measures reported relevant to MSFD 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

210 

 
 
 
 
Figure 10: Number of MSFD relevant measures reported by Member State 

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Basic

Supplementary

AT

BG

CZ

DK

ES

FR

HU LU MT

PL

RO

SI

UK

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Co-ordination with the Floods Directive 

The integration and high level co-ordination between the WFD and the Floods Directive108 has 
been  discussed  in  Section  <>  of  this  document  on  Governance.  Article  9(2)  of  the  Floods 

Directive  requires  that  the  development  of  the  first  FRMPs  should  be  carried  out  in  co-
ordination  with  the  review  of  the  WFD  RBMPs.  This  section  investigates  whether  the 

objectives and requirements of the Floods Directive have been considered in the second RBMP 
and PoM, whether specific win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD 

and  Floods  Directive,  drought  management  and  use  of  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures 
(NWRM) have been included in the PoM and whether the design of new and existing structural 

measures,  such  as  flood  defences,  storage  dams  and  tidal  barriers,  have  been  adapted  to  take 
into account WFD environmental objectives.  

Table 9 summarises the results of the analysis carried out on these aspects. A minority of RBDs 

reported that the objectives and requirements of the Floods Directive had not been considered 
in the PoM. The majority of RBDs reported to have included win-win measures in the RBMPs 

in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  Floods  Directive,  drought  management 
and use of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM), with only a few RBDs reporting that 

they  have  not  included  such  win-win  measures  in  the  PoM.  A  similarly  high  proportion  of 

108 Directive  2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of  the  Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment 

and management of flood risks 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060&from=EN 

211 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
RBDs  reported  that  the  design  of  new  and  existing  structural  measures  have  been  adapted  to 
take account of WFD objectives. A few RBDs reported that structural measures had not been 

adapted.  

Table 9: Summary of aspects relating to the integration of the PoMs for the WFD with the 

requirements of the Floods Directive 

Objectives 
Requirements 

and 
of  FD 

Win  Win  measures 

Considered in PoM 

included 

Structural measures adapted 

Number 
RBDs 

Percentage 
RBDs 

Number 
RBDs 

Percentage 
RBDs 

Number 
RBDs 

Percentage 
RBDs 

Yes 

123 

No 

18 

87% 

13% 

125 

16 

89% 

11% 

124 

17 

88% 

12% 

Source: WISE electronic report 

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle 

The assessment of the first RBMPs showed that the measures were often not concrete and the 
expected  achievements  not  always  clear.  In  general,  there  was  limited  understanding  that  the 

PoM are to reflect the result of the analysis of pressures and impacts and the status information 
from the monitoring programmes. Often the definition of the measures was too vague and there 

was little clarity on the scope of the measure. 

Furthermore,  the  financial  commitment,  the  actors  responsible  for  the  implementation,  the 

planned timetable and the expected effects on the improvement of the status were not described 
in the majority of the RBMPs. This lack of detail in the definition of the measures may have led 

to  insufficient  action  to  tackle  the  specific  problems  of  the  water  bodies  and  hindered  the 
achievement of the WFD at local level. 

It is clear from the assessment of the second RBMPs that most Member States have taken some 

steps to improve the link between  the status and measures by providing some information on 
the gap to good status, and the level of implementation of measures that is required to address 

that, for some of the relevant significant pressures. However, only a few Member States could 
be  considered  to  have  reported  this  analysis  thoroughly  and  it  is  clear  that  a  sharing  of 

information on the methodologies used to carry out this analysis between and within Member 
States would assist in improving this aspect of implementation further for the third POMs. 

The  number  of  basic  measures  and  supplementary  measures  reported  has  increased,  although 
the number of measures  reported by some Member States does appear to  be excessive  – it is 

questionable  whether  the  number  of  measures  reported  can  be  properly  implemented.  Only 
very few Member States have reported that all the basic measures required by Article 11(3) are 

212 

 
 
 
in place. In particular measures for the implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directive, for 
controls  of  artificial  recharge  or  augmentation  of  groundwater  and  for  the  cost  recovery  of 

water services are lacking to a great extent. 

The methodologies used by the Member States for the selection and prioritisation of measures 

are still not sufficiently transparent. Member States do not appear to be using quantitative cost 
effectiveness analysis techniques widely to assist them in the selection of measures. 

All Member States have started to implement all or some of the measures planned in the first 

POMs, with  the main obstacles to  progress  being a lack of  finance, and unexpected planning 
delays.  It  is  therefore  important  for  the  effective  implementation  of  the  second  POMs  that 

financing  is  in  place.  Despite  this,  only  46%  of  RBDs  have  reported  that  funding  has  been 
secured  for  the  implementation  of  measures  in  all  relevant  sectors  and  17%  of  RBDs  have 

reported that no financing has been secured for the second POMs. 

Measures related to other significant pressures 

Introduction, key relevant requirements of WFD 

Annex II of the WFD requires Member States to identify “other anthropogenic impacts on the 

status of water bodies, and Article 11(3)(i) requires basic measures to be in place “for any other 
significant adverse impact on the status of water identified under Article 5 and Annex II”. This 

section of the report will provide an overview of the measures included in the second POMs to 
address the other anthropogenic pressures identified, specifically: 

 

Introduced species and diseases 

  Exploitation or removal of animals or plants 

  Litter or fly tipping 

  Anthropogenic pressure - Other 

  Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown  

  Anthropogenic pressure - Historical pollution 

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle 

Figure 8 below shows the number of RBDs where operational measures are reported in place to 
address other significant pressures in groundwater and surface water.  

213 

 
 
 
 
1.  Measures related to other significant pressures in groundwater 

One Member State identified “Introduced species and diseases”, a quarter of the Member States  

“Anthropogenic  pressure  –  Other”,  a  third  of  the  Member  States    “Anthropogenic  Pressure  – 
Unknown”  and  a  few  Member  States    identified  “Anthropogenic  pressure  -  Historical 

pollution” as significant pressures to groundwater.  

One Member State reported the KTM “KTM99 - Other KTM reported under PoM - No KTM 
data  available”  as  being  in  place  to  address  introduced  species  and  diseases.  Other  KTMs 

reported as being in place to address “Anthropogenic pressure – Other” include: 

  KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture,  

  KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty,  

  KTM21  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas, 

transport and built infrastructure,  

  KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification.  

Other, nationally developed KTMs that are reported to address this pressure include “Measures 

to  prevent  or  control  the  adverse  impacts  of  other  human  activities”,  “Environmental 
management of soil extraction sites”, “Other national  measures” and “Measures to prevent or 

limit groundwater contamination”.  

KTMs  reported  as  in  place  to  address  “Anthropogenic  Pressure  –  Unknown”  in  groundwater 

include,  

  KTM13  -  Drinking  water  protection  measures  (e.g.  establishment  of  safeguard  zones, 

buffer zones etc) and, unsurprisingly,  

  KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty.  

The measures in place to address “Anthropogenic pressure - Historical pollution” include: 

  KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture,  

  KTM4  -  Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical  pollution  including  sediments, 

groundwater, soil),  

  KTM13  -  Drinking  water  protection  measures  (e.g.  establishment  of  safeguard  zones, 

buffer zones etc),  

  KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty,  

214 

 
 
 
  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.  

No nationally derived measures were reported to control historical pollution. 

2.  Measures related to other significant pressures in surface waters 

About half of the Member States identified “Introduced species and diseases” as a significant 

pressure  in  surface  waters  and  all  reported  KTMs  to  address  it.  The  KTMs  reported  to  be  in 
place include: 

  KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants,  

  KTM5  -  Improving  longitudinal  continuity  (e.g.  establishing  fish  passes,  demolishing 

old dams),  

  KTM6  -  Improving  hydro-morphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than 

longitudinal continuity,  

  KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty,  

  KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive alien species 

and introduced diseases,  

  KTM21  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas, 

transport and built infrastructure,  

  KTM23 - Natural water retention measures and  

  KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change.  

Other nationally derived KTMs include “Lake restoration”, “Active fish stock/ shellfish stock 

management” and “Active vegetation management”. 

“Exploitation or removal  of animals  or plants” was identified by  a quarter of the Member 

States as a significant pressure to surface waters. Measures in place to address it include: 

  KTM6  -  Improving  hydro-morphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than 

longitudinal continuity,  

  KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty,  

  KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive alien species 

and introduced diseases,  

215 

 
 
  KTM19  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  adverse  impacts  of  recreation  including 

angling,  

  KTM20  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  adverse  impacts  of  fishing  and  other 

exploitation/removal of animal and plants,  

  KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change.  

Other nationally derived KTMs reported include “Measures to  prevent  or control the adverse 
impacts of other human activities” and “Other national measures to preserve and improve the 

structure and functions of aquatic ecosystems”.  

“Litter  or  fly  tipping”  was  reported  as  a  significant  pressure  to  surface  waters  by  a  few 

Member States. KTMs reported to address it include:  

  KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty,  

  KTM19  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  adverse  impacts  of  recreation  including 

angling,  

  KTM21  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas, 

transport and built infrastructure  

The  nationally  derived  KTMs  “Other  measures  at  the  source”  and  “Other  management 
measures” were reported by one Member State. 

About  half  of  the  Member  States  identified  “Anthropogenic  pressure  –  Other”  as  a 

significant  pressure  to  surface  water  bodies  with  operational  measures  in  place  to  address  it, 
and  provided  details  of  the  KTMs.  One  Member  State  also  identified  this  as  a  significant 
pressure  with  operational  measures  in  place,  but  did  not  report  the  KTMs.  A  wide  range  of 

measures in reported to be place to address this pressure including: 

  KTM4  -  Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical  pollution  including  sediments, 

groundwater, soil),  

  KTM6  -  Improving  hydro-morphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than 

longitudinal continuity,  

  KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture,  

  KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty,  

  KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off,  

216 

 
 
  KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive alien species 

and introduced diseases,  

  KTM19  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  adverse  impacts  of  recreation  including 

angling,  

  KTM20  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  adverse  impacts  of  fishing  and  other 

exploitation/removal of animal and plants,  

  KTM21  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas, 

transport and built infrastructure,  

  KTM23 - Natural water retention measures,  

  KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change and  

  KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification.  

Other nationally derived KTMs include “Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of 
other human activities”, “Lake  restoration”,  “Measures to  retain  sediment and nutrient  before 

discharged  to  surface  waters”,  “Reduce  nutrient  pollution  from  other  sources”,  “measure  in 
river  water  bodies  limiting  significant  pressure  on  lake  water  body”  and  “Develop  evidence 

base to support management of marine litter and marine litter strategy”. 

More than two-thirds of the Member States reported KTMs to address the significant pressure 

“Anthropogenic pressure – unknown”. One Member State did not report this as a significant 
pressure  where  operational  measures  are  in  place,  and  two  Member  States  reported  that 

operational  measures  are  in  place,  but  did  not  report  KTMs.  The  KTMs  reported  as  being  in 
place to address this pressure include: 

  KTM6  -  Improving  hydro-morphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than 

longitudinal continuity,  

  KTM8  -  Water  efficiency,  technical  measures  for  irrigation,  industry,  energy  and 

households,  

  KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost 

of water services from households,  

  KTM13  -  Drinking  water  protection  measures  (e.g.  establishment  of  safeguard  zones, 

buffer zones etc),  

  KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty,  

217 

 
 
  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,  

  KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive alien species 

and introduced diseases,  

  KTM19  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  adverse  impacts  of  recreation  including 

angling,  

  KTM20  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  adverse  impacts  of  fishing  and  other 

exploitation/removal of animal and plants, and  

  KTM21  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas, 

transport and built infrastructure.  

Other nationally derived KTMs include “Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of 
other  human  activities”,  “Lake  restoration”,  “Reduce  nutrient  pollution  from  other  sources”, 

“Characterise and quantify hydrological  input of land based contaminants (including litter) to 
coastal  waters from  major sub catchments”,  “Investigate the role transboundary contaminants 

through  hydrographic  pathways  and  the  extent  of  its  contribution  to  marine  contamination”, 
“Carry out investigations to gauge potential contribution of contaminants to our coastal waters 

by atmospheric deposition”, and “Carry out a survey of all direct discharges to sea and identify 
their source with the objective of setting up a plan to curtail/regulate such discharges”, “Risk 
management”, and a “Study on development and application of methodology for assessing the 

ecological status in terms of salinity of water bodies with natural mineral loading”. 

More  than  a  third  of  the  Member  States  identified  “Anthropogenic  pressure  –  Historical 
pollution”  as  a  significant  pressure.  All  reported  that  operational  measures  are  in  place  to 

address  them  and  provided  details  of  the  KTM.  One  Member  State  also  reported  this  as  a 
significant pressure with operational measures in place, but did not give details of the KTMs. 

KTMs reported as in place to address the pressure include: 

  KTM4  -  Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical  pollution  including  sediments, 

groundwater, soil),  

  KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty and  

  KTM21  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas, 

transport and built infrastructure.  

218 

 
 
Other  nationally  derived  KTMs  include  “No  measure  in  this  cycle  -  review  of  less  stringent 
target  in  next  cycle”,  “Reduce  nutrient  pollution  from  other  sources”,  and  “Other  generic 

measures”. 

The  analysis  of  the  gap  to  good  status  and  the  identification  of  indicators  for  the 

implementation of measures is also valid for measures related to other significant pressures, as 
discussed for the other pressures above. 

Figure 8 Number of RBDs with operational KTMs to address other significant pressures 

9 - Anthropogenic pressure - Historical
pollution

8 - Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown

7 - Anthropogenic pressure - Other

5.3 - Litter or fly tipping

5.2 - Exploitation or removal of animals or
plants

5.1 - Introduced species and diseases

e
r
u
s
s
e
r
P
t
n
a
c
i
f
i
n
g
i
S

Surface water

Groundwater

0

20

40

60

80

100

Number of RBDs 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle 

The  approach  taken  to  addressing  other  pressures  was  not  assessed  in  the  first  cycle  and 

therefore it is not possible to make a direct comparison. 

219 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.13.2.  Conclusions 

Progress has been made with the implementation of the first POMs, although a lack of finance 
is  a  significant  obstacle.  27  RBDs  in  five  Member  states  (Belgium,  UK,  Spain,  Italy  and 

Latvia) reported that financing had not been secured for measures in any sector. 

Most Member States have made some progress  in identifying the gap to good status  for each 

significant  pressure,  and  the  level  of  implementation  of  measures  required  to  achieve  good 
status. Four Member States (Germany, Finland, Malta and UK) provided some information for 

a  number  of  significant  pressures  for  some  RBDs  and  few  Member  States  only  provided 
indicators  of  the  expected  gap  to  good  status  for  significant  pressures  for  2015  and  2021. 

However, more work is needed to refine this for the third POMs. 

It  is  clear  that  a  lack  of  finance  is  likely  to  continue  to  present  an  obstacle  to  the 

implementation of the second POMs as 54% of RBDs have yet to secure finance for all relevant 
sectors. 

Not all Member States have reported other significant pressures. It is not clear whether this  is 
because they are not relevant or because they have not assessed them. 

For those Member States that have identified other pressures, measures are in place to address 

them, the gap to good status has generally been identified, and indicators developed to identify 
the level of implementation required to achieve good status. 

1.13.3.  Recommendations 

  Member States should ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify the gap to good status for 
individual pressures and water bodies, and that Programmes of Measures are designed 
and implemented to close that gap. 

  Clear  financial  commitments  should  be  ensured  for  all  RBDs  and  information  on  the 

costs of the measures provided. 

  KTMs  should  be  reported  to  address  significant  Priority  Substances,  RBSPs  and 

abstraction pressures, identified as causing failure of objectives. 

  All KTMs should be operational and measures should cover all the significant pressures 

identified as causing failure of objectives. 

220 

 
 
1.14. Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

1.14.1. 

Introduction 

More  than  7 600  (7%)  of  Europe’s  surface  water  bodies  are  affected  by  significant  water 

abstraction  pressures  and  16%  of  the  area  of  groundwater  bodies  is  affected  by  over-
abstraction,  being  11%  of  the  area  in  worse  than  good  quantitative  status109.  Since  the  first 
RBMPs  were  published,  there  has  been  little  progress  in  improving  status  due  to  reducing 
abstraction pressures; although it is noted that total water abstraction decreased by around 7% 
between  2002  and  2014110.  However,  it  should  also  be  noted  that  significant  abstraction 
pressures are not always metered and are often just estimated, e.g. based on surveys or cropping 

patterns, which can lead to significant degree of uncertainty. 

In the past, water scarcity management in the EU has largely focused on increasing supply  by 
drilling  new  wells,  constructing  dams  and  reservoirs,  applying  desalination  techniques, 

constructing large-scale water-transfer infrastructures, etc.; and there are still RBDs where such 
actions  remain  as  a  major  focus  (as  for  instance  Ebro  RBD  in  Spain).  However,  as  Europe 

cannot endlessly increase water supply, demand measures should be applied including the use 
of economic instruments, water loss controls, water-reuse and recycling, increased efficiency of 
domestic,  agricultural  and  industrial  water  use  combined  with  water  savings111.  Moreover, 
land-use  or  cropping-pattern  changes  should  be  applied,  as  well  as  the  use  of  natural  water 

retention  measures  and  water-saving  campaigns  should  be  supported  by  public  education 
programs.  Water  savings  will  bring  additional  benefits,  for  example  by  reducing  pollution 

discharges, treatment costs and energy consumption. 

The WFD provides a comprehensive framework for the protection and management of water. 

Sound  water  management  requires  joint  management  of  qualitative  and  quantitative  aspects. 
Water quantity can have a strong impact on water quality and therefore on the achievement of 

GES, e.g. by exercising abstraction pressures. Hence, quantitative requirements are implicit in 
the  definition  of  GES  and  explicitly  through  the  inclusion  of  flow  regime  as  a  supporting 

hydro-morphological element. 

In  particular,  good  quantitative  status  is  required  for  groundwater,  where  a  balance  between 
abstraction  and  recharge  must  be  ensured.  Furthermore,  groundwater  levels  should  not  be 

subject to anthropogenic alterations that might have impacts on surface waters and groundwater 
dependent ecosystems. 

109 EEA (2018) European waters – assessment of status and pressures 2018. EEA 2018 State of Water report 
110 https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/use-of-freshwater-resources-2/assessment-2 
111 E.g. supported by Art.46 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
17  December  2013  on  support  for  rural  development  by  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural 
Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 

221 

 
 
                                                           
When developing the WFD RBMPs and associated PoMs, quantitative and qualitative aspects 
should be jointly considered to be coherent and to create synergies where possible. Quantitative 

issues  should,  in  particular,  be  taken  into  account  when  making  operational  the  objective  of 
GES and the objective of no further deterioration of current status (Articles 4(1), 4(5), 4(6) and 

4(7)). In particular, actions to manage and preserve water quantity (e.g. actions to address water 
scarcity) should be considered as measures (basic/supplementary) when developing the RBMP 

and associated PoM. 

Article 11(3)(e) of the  WFD explicitly requires controls  over the abstraction of surface water 

and groundwater and impoundment of fresh surface waters including a register or registers of 
water abstractions and a requirement for prior  authorization of abstraction and impoundment. 

These  permits  have  to  be  periodically  reviewed  and,  where  necessary,  updated.  Furthermore, 
other basic measures to be considered in addressing water abstractions, are those under Article 

11(3)(c) to promote an efficient and sustainable water use and Article 11(3)(f) which refers to 
controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation 

of  groundwater  bodies,  as  well  as  those  on  water  pricing  considered  under  Article  10. 
Supplementary measures (Article 11(4)) can address other related topics, such as water reuse. 

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle 

For the majority of Member States, the reported information to WISE concerning abstractions, 

water  scarcity  and  related  measures  is  coherent  and  there  are  no  doubts  or  unexpected  gaps. 
However, for some Member States, the information reported was unclear for some RBDs (for 

instance  in  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Germany  or  France),  where  water  scarcity/over 
abstraction had not been considered as relevant in the reporting, despite the fact that they have 

RBDs  where  more  than  10%  of  surface  or  groundwater  bodies  are  affected  by  significant 
abstraction pressures.  

Water exploitation and trends 

Water  exploitation  and/or  trends  have  only  been  reported  to  WISE  for  some  RBDs  (e.g.  in 
Cyprus, Spain, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia, UK). However, the data assessment 
by the European Environmental Agency112 allows showing an overview on water consumption, 
as  reflected  on  the  following  four  maps  (January,  April,  July  and  October)  for  the  latest 

available year (2014): 

112 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/explore-interactive-maps/water-exploitation-index-for-river-1  

222 

 
 
                                                           
 
Figure:  Water  Exploitation  Index  +  of  European  RBDs  in  January,  April,  July  and 

October 2014 

The maps show the most severe water consumption pressures for spring and summer mainly in 
the Western and Eastern Mediterranean.  

Main uses for  water consumption 

In many Member States, the most relevant uses for water consumption have not been reported 
to WISE because the pressures from those uses on water quantity have not been considered as 

significant  (some  reported  information  came  from  Belgium,  Spain,  Croatia,  Italy,  Malta  and 
UK). However, the most relevant water uses continue stable compared to the first cycle, mainly 

for energy production in Northern Europe; and abstractions for  agriculture in Southern Europe.  

Water quantity pressures have been reported as significant only in 10 Member States113 and for 
most (all except Belgium and Denmark), information is reported on the most relevant uses for 
water  consumption.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  in  some  Member  States,  although  water 

quantity pressures are not reported as significant (and thus no data on water consumption uses 
are provided), there are significant water abstraction pressures present in one or more of their 

RBDs (e.g. in Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, France). 

Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

Controls  over  the  abstraction  of  surface  water  and  groundwater  and  impoundment  of  fresh 
surface waters including a register or registers of water abstractions and a requirement for prior 

authorization  of  abstraction  and  impoundment  (under  Article  11(3)(e))  are  used  along  all 
Member States, with certain differences regarding the existence of a register or of controls for 
all  abstractions.  Most  Member  States114  apply  exemptions  to  permitting  and/or  register  for 
small  abstractions,  and  though  this  lowers  administrative  burden  it  might  be  inconsistent,  if 
groundwater  bodies  do  not  achieve  good  quantitative  status  due  to  the  accumulation  of  such 

113 Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Spain, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia, UK 
114  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Spain,  Finland,  France,  Croatia,  Hungary,  Italy,  Malta,  the 

Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia, UK 

223 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
minor  abstractions.  The  causal  chain  for  specific  water  bodies  has  not  been  assessed  in  this 
report. 

Water  permits  have  to  be  periodically  reviewed  and,  where  necessary,  updated.  The  granted 
permits  are  in  place  for  very  different  timespans,  ranging  from  short  periods  up  to  very  long 

periods  which  hardly  allow  adapting  abstraction  permits  to  thresholds  required  for  achieving 
the WFD objectives. 

Other basic measures to address water abstractions are in place widely across the EU, such as 

those under Art.11.3 (c) to promote an efficient and sustainable water use and – less extended – 
Article 11(3)(f) controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or 

augmentation  of  groundwater  bodies.  Supplementary  measures  (Article  11(4)),  such  as  e.g. 
water  reuse,  are  in  place  in  many  RBDs,  and  in  particular  in  those  which  suffer  from  water 

scarcity. 

The key technical measures most employed by Member States to tackle significant abstraction 
pressures are KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows 
and  KTM8  -  Water  efficiency,  technical  measures  for  irrigation,  industry,  energy  and 

households. Some further KTM have also been applied in some cases, including KTM9/10/11 - 
Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services 

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

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and 
built  infrastructure,  for  groundwater  related  pressures,  and  KTM24  -  Adaptation  to  climate 

change. 

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle 

According to the reporting on the second RBMPs, for most Member States no major changes 
have occurred regarding measures to address water abstractions and scarcity. However, several 
Member  States  (15  out  of  25  assessed  Member  States115)  are  planning  new  measures  or 
significant  changes  to  basic  measures  related  to  water  abstraction  and  scarcity  (e.g.  basic 

measures under Article 11(3)(c) and 11(3)(f)). 

Some  Member  States  which  previously  had  specific  recommendations  from  the  European 

Commission to improve measures related to water abstraction and scarcity still present major 
gaps  on  implementation  (Spain,  Portugal  and  to  lesser  extent  Sweden)  and  other  still  need 

progress in those previous recommendations (Italy, Malta, Slovenia). 

-  Some Member States have taken measures to improve controls on abstractions, which 

can reflect good practice (Cyprus, Hungary, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, UK).  

115  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Croatia,  Hungary,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Malta, 

Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia 

224 

 
 
                                                           
1.14.2.  Conclusions 

More  than  7 600  (7%)  of  Europe’s  surface  water  bodies  are  affected  by  significant  water 
abstraction  pressures  and  16%  of  the  area  of  groundwater  bodies  is  affected  by  over-

abstraction. 

Basic  and  supplementary  measures  are  in  place  in  most  of  the  RBDs  concerned  with  water 

scarcity. However, progress in reducing pressures is slow. 

More  progress  is  needed  especially  in  those  Member  States  in  which  small  abstractions  are 
exempted from  controls  and/or register, but  water bodies are suffering from  significant  water 

abstraction  pressures  and  therefore  do  not  achieve  good  status  (e.g.  Estonia,  Spain,  France, 
Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal, UK). 

Some  Member  States  still  need  to  make  progress  in  fulfilling  previous  recommendations  to 

improve water scarcity management (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Malta, Sweden, Slovenia). 

However, relevant action in extending metering, water abstraction controls and review licenses 

can be observed in some countries, while water abstraction datasets have improved in others. 

1.14.3.  Recommendations 

•  Member  States  should  progress  in  reducing  existing  significant  water  abstraction 
pressures,  and  in  truly  acting  in  river  basin  districts  concerned  with  water  scarcity 
issues.  

•  Groundwater  bodies  with  over-abstraction  problems  are  often  well  identified.  Thus, 
action needs to be focused on implementing the required measures to revert trends and 
achieve good quantitative status.   

•  Relevant action is required in extending metering, water abstraction controls and review 
of  licenses  and  water  abstraction  registers.  Small  abstractions  exempted  from 

control/registers should be reviewed in areas with significant abstraction pressures.   

•  Member  States  are  encouraged  to  monitor  water  consumptions/abstractions  per  sector 
and assess trends over the WFD cycles, as quantitative and qualitative aspects should be 

the  status  assessment  and  establishment  of  measures. 
jointly  considered 
Recommended  and  endorsed  indicators  such  as  Water  Exploitation  Index+  should  be 

in 

further applied in water scarce basins.   

225 

 
 
 
 
1.15. Measures related to pollution from agriculture 

1.15.1. 

Introduction 

Key relevant requirements of WFD 

As  set  out  in  chapter  6.9  above,  in  accordance  with  the  environmental  objectives  laid  out  in 
WFD  Article  4  and  based  on  a  risk  assessment  and  the  status  assessment  supported  by  the 

monitoring  programmes,  Member  States  are  required  to  implement  necessary  measures  to 
prevent  the  deterioration  of  water  bodies  and  to  achieve  good  water  status  in  surface  and 

groundwater. These measures should be listed in the POMs (WFD Article 11).  

The POMs must include basic measures and supplementary measures addressing the identified 
pressures.  Basic  measures  relevant  for  the  agricultural  sector  include  those  set  out  in  WFD 
Article  10  (IPPC  Directive,116  Nitrates  Directive117)  and  in  Annex  VI  including  the  Habitats 
Directive118 and Plant Protection Products Directive119. WFD Articles 16 and 17 further affect 
the agricultural sector by requiring the establishment of a list of priority substances that pose a 
risk to the aquatic environment, including those in relation to fertiliser and pesticide application 
in the agricultural sector.  

The assessment of the first RBMPs showed that basic measures alone, mostly likely, may not 

lead  to  sufficient  improvements  in  water  body  status  in  all  cases;  supplementary  measures 
(according to WFD Annex VI, Part B) may be needed to target the significant pressures which 

the agricultural sector poses on the water environment and to achieve the objectives set out in 
Article 4. 

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle 

Main pressures 

According to the EEA report “European waters -- Assessment of status and pressures” (2018), 
agriculture is the main driver for failure of good chemical status to EU groundwater, causing 

diffuse  pollution  by  nitrates  and  pesticides.  Agricultural  production  is  also  a  major  source  of 
diffuse  pollution  into  surface  water,  mostly  associated  with  excessive  emissions  of  nutrients 

116 Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated 

pollution prevention and control 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32008L0001  

117  Council  Directive  91/676/EEC  of  12  December  1991  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution 

caused by nitrates from agricultural sources 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31991L0676 

118 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of  natural  habitats and of  wild  fauna and 

flora 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FRF/TXT/?uri=celex:31992L0043  

119 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning 
the  placing  of  plant  protection  products  on  the  market  and  repealing  Council  Directives  79/117/EEC  and 
91/414/EEC 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/frn/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R1107  

226 

 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
and  chemicals  such  as  pesticides.  Water  abstraction  for  agriculture  is  amongst  the  main 
significant pressures causing failure of good quantitative status of groundwater bodies120. 

Based  on  the  assessment  of  the  first  RBMPs,  the  Commission  recommended  to  almost  all 
Member  States  to  assess  actions  needed  to  close  the  gap  between  the  current  status  and  the 

achievement  of  good  status  in  terms  of  load  reductions  for  nutrients  and  pesticides.  This 
recommendation was followed by half of the Member States, which reported their RBMPs, as 

shown in table 1 below. The remaining Member States are still lacking a gap assessment and it 
remains unclear how the selection and location of measures will contribute to closing the gap.  

Those  Member  States  or  RBMPs,  which  have  performed  a  gap  assessment,  either  based 

themselves on the loads to be reduced or the areas to be covered by agricultural measures. For 
those Member States which carried out gap assessments, nitrogen is addressed in all cases and 

phosphorus by two-thirds of them. Pesticides are addressed in the gap assessment by only a few 
Member States.  

Table 1 

Gap assessment in terms of load reductions for nutrients and pesticides 

Member State  Information on gap assessment in the second RBMPs 

Cyprus 

Czech 
Republic 

Germany 

including  an 
A  gap  assessment 
evaluation/prediction of how effective the measures are/will be at reducing 
the pressures to the level needed for achieving good status. 

for  nitrogen  was  performed 

A gap assessment exists for pesticides, nitrogen and phosphorus. . 

A  gap  assessment  for  the  reduction  in  the  number  of  applications  of 
pesticides is only provided for a few RBDs. A gap assessment on the load 
of nitrogen/phosphorus to be reduced to achieve objectives was done in all 
RBDs.    

Spain 

A  gap  assessment  has  been  performed  for  water  quantity  (abstraction 
pressures) and nitrates pollution.   

Croatia 

A gap assessment has been performed for diffuse nutrient pollution. 

Hungary 

Italy 

Latvia 

A  gap  assessment  for  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  was  performed  and  is 
reported.  

A gap assessment can only be found for nutrients in a few RBDs  

A gap assessment has been performed on the load of nitrogen/phosphorus 
to be reduced to achieve objectives for 2015. There is also information on 
the area (km2) of agricultural land required to be covered by measures to 
tackle nutrient pollution to achieve WFD objectives.  

Netherlands 

A  gap  assessment  has  been  performed  for  diffuse  nutrient  pollution, 
physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore from agriculture and 
dams, barriers and locks serving the purpose of irrigation in all basins. 

120 ”European waters -- Assessment of status and pressures 2018 

227 

 
 
                                                           
Poland  

The gap assessment addresses diffuse chemical pollution and nitrates. 

Romania 

Sweden 

A gap assessment for nutrients and pesticides was performed and the areas 
that need to be covered by measures are indicated. 

A gap assessment was carried out for the load of nitrogen/phosphorus to be 
reduced  and  for  reduction  in  the  number  of  applications  of  pesticides  to 
achieve objectives.  

Source: Second RBMPs. 

Types of measures applied in the second cycle programmes of measures 

According to the assessment of the second RBMPs, all programmes of measures contain basic 

and supplementary measures. To tackle diffuse pollution, the WFD requires the implementation 
of  basic  measures  under  Article  11(3)(h)  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollutants  from 

agriculture at source. Such basic measures are reported for all assessed Member States, but not 
for  all  RBDs  and  not  for  all  diffuse  pollutants  (sediments,  phosphorus,  pesticides,  nitrates, 

microbiological/bacteriological and other pollutants).  

Member  States  are  also  required  to  state  whether  general  binding  rules  are  in  place  for  the 
control of diffuse pollution from agriculture. Furthermore, Member States are required to report 

whether these rules apply across the whole RBD, only in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) or if 
there different rules apply for different parts of the RBD, linked to where pressures have been 

identified. The figure below gives an overview of the application of binding rules in the RBDs 
at EU level. Overall, general binding rules are in place in 140 RBDs. In only three RBDs are 

binding rules not  applied. In most RBDs (73), the same binding rules apply across the whole 
RBD. 

Figure 13: Application of general binding rules in RBDs for the control of diffuse pollution 
from agriculture  

Application of binding rules in RBDs 

No general binding rules.

Yes, but rules apply only in Nitrate
Vulnerable Zones.

Yes, but there are differentiated rules for
different parts of the RBDs.

Yes, same rules apply across the whole RBD.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Source: WISE electronic reporting. 

228 

 
 
 
If general binding rules are applied, Member States are required to provide information on the 
particular  issues  covered  (sediments,  phosphorus  pesticides,  organic  pollution,  nitrates, 

microbiological/bacteriological and other pollutants).  

Figure 14: Number of RBDs and issues covered in the general binding rules 

Number of RBDs and issues covered in the general 
binding rules 

Sediments
Phosphorus
Pesticides
Organic pollution
Nitrates
Microbiological/bacteriological pollution
Other pollutants

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Source: WISE electronic reporting. 

According  to  Figure  2  above,  general  binding  rules  for  nitrates  are  applied  in  all  except  five 

RBDs. General binding rules for all other pollutants are less often applied.  

The  figures  below  show  the  number  of  Member  States  which  report  national  basic  and 
supplementary measures under the main  

KTMs related to agriculture. 

Figure  15:  Number  of  Member  States  which  report  national  basic  measures  under  KTM 
related to agriculture. 

229 

 
 
 
 
 
Source: WISE electronic reporting. 

Figure 4: Number of Member States which report national supplementary measures under 

KTM related to agriculture 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. 

Most  Member  States  have  reported  national  basic  measures  under  KTM2  to  reduce  nutrient 

pollution  from  agriculture.  There  are  also  supplementary  measures  reported  under  KTM2  in 
almost all Member States with few exceptions. The majority of Member States also have basic 

measures  reported  under  KTM3  to  reduce  pesticides  pollution  from  agriculture,  KTM8  on 
water  efficiency,  technical  measures,  KTM15  to  phase-out  or  reduce  emissions  of  Priority 

Substances and KTM13 on drinking water protection measures.  

Special attention is  given to  drinking water protection. Most Member States have defined, or 
are in the process of defining, specific zones including specific water protection measures (see 

also chapter 15) and apply basic measures under KTM13 (Drinking water protection measures 
(e.g.  establishment  of  safeguard  zones,  buffer  zones  etc)).  In  several  countries,  there  are  also 

supplementary measures reported under KTM13.  

While  basic  measures  are  mandatory  in  most  cases,  the  supplementary  measures  are  mostly 
applied on a voluntary basis and are linked to the EU Rural Development Programs under the 
Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP).  Payments  under  Article  38  of  the  Rural  Development 

Regulation contribute to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive.  

230 

 
 
 
 
Considering the fact that agricultural pressures and in particular nutrients are still amongst the 
main  reasons  for  not  achieving  good  status,  the  high  dependency  on  voluntary  action  by  the 

farming sector might not lead to an adequate degree or rate of improvement across all RBDs, if 
the uptake by farmers remains low.  

The CAP´s mandatory cross-compliance framework includes statutory requirements related to 
water  protection  and  management  arising  from  the  implementation  of  the  Groundwater 
Directive  and  Nitrates  Directive,  as  well  as  GAEC121  standards  relevant  for  the  protection  of 
waters.  In  addition,  under  the  CAP´s  Greening,  additional  rules  have  been  introduced  for 

protecting  water  and  habitats  by  establishing  ecological  focus  areas.  It  is  acknowledged  that 
there is room for improvement in the implementation of this measure.122 

Farmers Consultation 

Almost all Member States reported having consulted with farmers or farmers associations when 

setting up the programmes of measures.  

Financing of measures 

More than two-thirds of the Member States reported that the financing of agricultural measures 

is  secured  in  all  their  RBDs  and,  in  a  few  cases,  in  most  of  their  RBDs.  The  EU  Rural 
Development  Program  is mentioned as the main source of  funding.  For those Member States 

where  financing  of  measures  is  not  secured,  the  effectiveness  of  the  POMs  with  regard  to 
agriculture might be significantly impacted. Also, the voluntary nature of measures could be a 

limiting factor if their uptake by farmers remains low. 

The WFD also  requires  the application of the  polluter pays principle under Article 9. This  is 

only  partly  implemented  in  the  agricultural  sector  as  most  supplementary  measures  are  still 
financed  by  external  sources  such  as  the  EU  Rural  Development  Programs  and  national 

sources.  

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle 

Due to  differences  in the reporting of Member  States under the first  and second RBMPs and 
different methods of status assessments of the RBMPs, a detailed comparison between the first 

and second cycle is not possible. However, some observations can be made: 

121  Good  Agricultural  and  Environmental  Conditions  https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/cross-

compliance_en 

122   See also Special report no 21/2017 from the European Court of Auditors: “Greening: a more complex income 

support scheme, not yet environmentally effective” 

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=44179 

231 

 
 
                                                           
  The main pressures remain diffuse pollution (with excessive emissions of nutrients and 

chemicals such as pesticides) and water abstraction in certain areas. 

  Agriculture remains one of the main drivers for water pollution and over-abstraction. 

  Some progress has been made in terms of identifying and quantifying the gap between 
the  current  status  and  good  status  in  terms  of  load  reductions  for  nutrients  and 
pesticides. 

  The types of measures applied by the agricultural sector have not changed. Many of the 
supplementary measures found in the second cycle programmes of measures are linked 
to  the  Rural  Development  Programmes  with  potential  for  inadequate  progress  in 

mitigating risk to  water  due to  the voluntary nature of  measure implementation,  when 
there is a low uptake by farmers. 

  Farmers’  involvement  seems  to  have  increased  as  most  Member  States  report  having 
consulted  with  farmers  or  farmers  associations  when  setting  up  the  programmes  of 
measures.  However,  the  quality  of  this  engagement  remains  unclear  and  ongoing 

advisory  support  for  farmers  in  implementation  of  measures  is  absent  from  most 
RBMPs. 

1.15.2.  Conclusions 

Agriculture continues to be a significant pressure on surface and groundwater in most RBDs in 
the EU. Agriculture has been identified as a major source of pollution and over-abstraction and 

is  partly  responsible  for  habitat  degradation.  Only  about  half  of  the  Member  States  have 
performed  a  gap  assessment  in  terms  of  load  reductions  for  nutrients  and  pesticides  for  their 

second  RBMPs,  following  the  Commission  recommendation  from  the  first  cycle.  For  those 
who  have  not  yet  carried  out  such  a  gap  assessment,  it  remains  unclear  how  the  selected 

measures  will  contribute  to  achieving  good  status.  Member  States  need  to  closely  monitor 
whether the objectives are going to be achieved or not. This includes investigation of the causes 

of the possible failure and establishment of necessary additional measures.  

Basic measures under Article 11.3 are mandatory in most RBDs. Supplementary measures are 

mostly  applied  on  a  voluntary  basis  and  linked  to  the  EU  Rural  Development  Programs. 
Considering  the  fact  that  agricultural  pressures,  and  in  particular  nutrients,  are  still  a  main 

reason for not achieving good status, the high dependency on voluntary action by the farming 
sector  might  not  lead  to  an  adequate  degree  or  speed  of  improvement  to  achieve  WFD 
objectives within a reasonable timeframe. This is of particular importance when developing the 

next phase of the Common Agricultural Policy, which is likely to continue to be a major source 
of funding. 

232 

 
 
1.15.3.  Recommendations 

 

In  the  third  RBMPs,  Member  States  should  identify  appropriate  sources  of  funding, 
such  as  Common  Agricultural  Policy  Strategic  Plans,  to  facilitate  implementation  of 

measures  to  contribute  to  achieving  the  WFD  objectives  in  all  RBDs.  The  effective 
involvement  of  environmental  authorities  in  the  designing  of  CAP  Strategic  Plans 

should support this process. 

  Member  States  should  ensure  that  there  are  explicit  links  in  the  RBMPs  between  the 
WFD and other related Directives (e.g. Nitrate Directive, Sustainable Use of Pesticides 
Directive etc.), supporting programmes and instruments (e.g. CAP Strategic Plans, LIFE 

etc.) and include both nitrogen and phosphorus in the general binding rules. 

  Member  States  should  state  clearly  to  what  extent,  in  terms  of  area  covered  and 
pollution  risk  mitigated,  basic  measures  (minimum  requirements  to  be  adhered  to)  or 

supplementary  measures  (designed  to  be  implemented  in  addition  to  basic  measures) 
will contribute to achieving the WFD objectives in all RBDs. 

  Member  States  should  ensure  a  clear  strategy  is  developed  that  defines  the  basic 
measures  that  all  farmers  should  adhere  to  as  well  as  the  additional  supplementary 

measures that may  be required. The strategy should  be developed in  cooperation with 
the farming community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance and an expert and 

effective  advisory  service  should  be  made  available  to  farmers  to  aid  successful 
implementation  of  the  measures.  The  strategy  should  be  reflected  in  the  system  of 

conditionality,  eco-schemes  and  agri-environment-climate  commitments  of  the  CAP 
Strategic Plans. 

1.16. Measures  related  to  pollution  (including  nutrients,  organic  matter  and 

chemicals) from sectors other than agriculture 

1.16.1. 

Introduction 

In the context of this chapter, pollution is considered in terms of: 

(a)  general  physico-chemical  elements  and  river  basin  specific  pollutants  (RBSPs)  from 

non-agricultural sources causing failure or risk of failure to achieve GES; 

(b) priority  substances  from  non-agricultural  sources  causing  failure  or  risk  of  failure  to 

achieve good chemical status of surface waters; and 

(c) groundwater pollutants from non-agricultural sources causing failure or risk of failure to 

achieve good chemical status of groundwaters. 

Chemical pollution from non-agricultural sources, like that from agriculture, poses a threat to 
the  aquatic  environment  and  to  human  health  via  the  environment.  Effects  include  acute  and 

233 

 
 
 
chronic toxicity in aquatic organisms, accumulation of pollutants in ecosystems, loss of habitats 
and  biodiversity,  and  contamination  of  drinking  water  supplies  and  fishery  products.  As  a 

matter of priority, causes of pollution have to be identified so that measures to combat it can be 
put in place. Pressure and impact assessment for the identification of sources of pollutants has 

to be carried out under Article 5 WFD. On the basis of the information collected in accordance 
with  that  Article  and  Article  8,  Member  States  have  to  establish  an  inventory  of  emissions, 

discharges and losses of all priority substances, and the eight so-called “other pollutants” in the 
EQSs  Directive,  for  each  RBD  or  part  of  a  RBD  lying  within  their  territory,  including  their 

concentrations in sediment and biota, as appropriate. 

Emissions  of  pollutants  should  be  dealt  with  at  source,  in  the  most  economically  and 
environmentally effective manner. 

According  to  WFD  environmental  objectives,  in  making  operational  the  programmes  of 

measures specified in the RBMPs, the Member States must implement the necessary measures 
in  accordance  with  WFD  Article  16(1)  and  (8),  with  the  aim  of  progressively  reducing 

pollution from priority substances and ceasing or phasing out emissions, discharges and losses 
of  priority  hazardous  substances  to  the  aquatic  environment.  Specifically  in  relation  to 

groundwater, the Member States shall implement the measures necessary to prevent or limit the 
input of pollutants into groundwater and to prevent the deterioration of the chemical status of 

all bodies of groundwater. 

More explanation about the types of measures applied is provided in chapter 6.9. 

Chapter  5.2  provides  information  on  the  assessment  of  pressures  and  impacts  on  surface  and 

groundwater  bodies  as  well  as  on  the  establishment  and  use  of  inventories  of  discharges, 
emissions  and  losses  of  chemical  substances.  Chapter  6.4  provides  information  on  the 

monitoring  of  priority  substances  discharged  to  surface  waters  and  on  the  priority  substances 
causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status.  Chapter  6.6  provides  information  on  WFD 

groundwater  chemical  monitoring  and  substances  causing  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical 
status for groundwater bodies. 

KTMs to tackle pollution from non-agricultural sources 

There  are  two  broad  categories  of  measures  that  could  be  established  for  the  control  and 
reduction of pollution from non-agricultural sources: 

  measures  referring  to  the  source  of  pollution  that  allow  the  reduction/phasing-out  of 

more than one pollutant (e.g. a wastewater treatment process); and 

  measures  relating  to  the  specific  substances  causing  the  pollution  (e.g.  banning  or 

restricting the use of a substance). 

234 

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

All  25  Member  States  assessed  provided  information  on  measures  addressing  pollution  by 
nutrients,  organic  matter  and  chemicals  (priority  substances,  river  basin  specific  pollutants, 

groundwater  pollutants  and  other  physico-chemical  parameters)  arising  from  sectors  and 
sources other than agriculture.  

Non-agricultural  sectors  contributing  to  pollution  include  urban  wastewater,  atmospheric 
deposition, mining, Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) plants and non-IED plants, historical 

pollution,  storm  overflows,  urban  run-off,  forestry,  transport,  contaminated  or  abandoned 
industrial sites, discharges not connected to sewerage networks, and waste disposal sites. 

Chapter 6.9 provides more information on the main significant pressures likely to give rise to 

pollution of surface and groundwater bodies for which KTMs are operational. 

The KTMs reported to be pertinent to tackling pollution from non-agricultural sources include:  

-  KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants,  
-  KTM4  -  Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical  pollution  including  sediments, 

groundwater, soil),  

-  KTM13  -  Drinking  water  protection  measures  (e.g.  establishment  of  safeguard  zones, 

buffer zones etc), 

-  KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty, 
-  KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority 
Hazardous  Substances  or  for  the  reduction  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of 
Priority Substances,  

-  KTM16  -  Upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial  wastewater  treatment  plants 

(including farms),  

-  KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off,  
-  KTM21  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas, 

transport and built infra-structure,  

-  KTM22 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from forestry,   
-  KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification, and 
-  KTM99 - Other KTM reported under PoM. 

The majority of Member States reported several of the KTMs mentioned above as pertinent to 

tackling  pollution  from  non-agricultural  sources.  However,  the  reporting  to  WISE  was  not 
always consistent with the reporting in the RBMPs. Furthermore, some KTMs pertinent to non-

agricultural pollution were not always reported under Topic 12 itself, giving the impression that 
they were not considered relevant.  More details on the number of RBDs which reported each 

KTM  as  operational  to  address  at  least  one  significant  pressure  as  well  as  on  the  number  of 

235 

 
 
 
measures  and  the  distinction  between  basic  and  supplementary  measures  are  provided  in 
chapter 6.9. 

While  in  the  first  RBMPs,  the  availability  of  measures  against  chemical  pollution  of  surface 

waters  by  particular  substances  was  generally  not  reported,  in  the  second  RBMPs,  several 
Member  States  reported  KTM15  and/or  other  KTMs  in  relation  to  specific  substances. 

Although some Member States indicated that they were looking at measures to combat mercury 
pollution,  others  indicated  that  it  was  difficult  to  see  how  sufficient  measures  could  be  taken 

against that pollutant at Member-State level..  

Progress  towards  achieving  the  objectives  between  2015  and  2027  via  measures  related  to 
pollution  from  non-agricultural  sources  is  expected  in  most  of  the  Member  States  which 

reported information on relevant pressure gap indicators and KTMs. 

Basic measures to reduce pollution from non-agricultural sources are being taken in most of the 

Member States: 

  An  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  wastewater  point  source 
discharges is in place in all Member States for surface and in most Member States for 

groundwater, although coastal waters are not covered in at least one instance. 

  A  register  of  wastewater  discharges  (Basic  measures  under  Article  11(3)g)  is 
available in all RBDs of most of the Member States for surface and groundwater. In a 
few Member States the register of wastewater discharges is available for surface water 

only. 

  There are no thresholds below which wastewater discharges do not require permits 
and are not subject  to  registration  (WFD  Article 11(3)(g)) in  more than half of the 

Member States. Small discharges are exempted from controls in fewer than half of the 
Member States. In a few Member States, small discharges do not require permits but are 

registered.  

  There  is  prohibition  of  all  direct  discharges  to  groundwater  in  almost  half  of  the 
Member  States  and  in  some  of  the  RBDs  of  a  few  additional  Member  States.  Some 
direct  discharges  to  groundwater  are  authorised  in  accordance  with  Article  11(3)(j)  in 

other Member States, at least in some of their RBDs. 

  There are measures in place to eliminate / reduce pollution from priority substances 
and other substances in all (reported) RBDs in the majority of the Member States.  

Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

In  the  first  RBMPs,  the  measures  focusing  on  household-related  pollution  covered  mostly 

measures  related to the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive and to  WFD Article 11(3)(g), 
(h) and (k). The identification of substance-specific measures was generally missing in the first 

RBMPs,  as  substance-specific  measures  were  reported  only  for  a  few  RBDs,  and  they  were 

236 

 
 
generally  not  linked  to  failure  of  chemical  or  ecological  status.  Many  of  the  measures 
addressing chemical pollution in the Member States were general and it was not always clear 

whether  the  value  they  provided  could  be  attributed  to  action  taken  specifically  to  meet  the 
WFD objectives. 

In  the  second  RBMPs,  substance-specific  measures  to  reduce  the  emissions  of  the  chemical 
substances  preventing  the  achievement  of  good  status  have  been  adopted  in  most  of  the 

Member States.  In a few Member States, the substance-specific measures are clearly reported 
in  the  RBMPs  but  in  many  other  Member  States,  the  main  evidence  for  substance-specific 

measures comes only from the WISE electronic reports, according to which KTMs are in place 
in many Member States for at least some of the priority substances and or river basin specific 

pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  status.  In  these  cases,  however,  the  specific  measures 
proposed  in  the  respective  RBMPs  are  often  generic  and  not  substance-specific,  thus  not 

addressing specific priority substances or river basin specific pollutants. 

In a few Member States, no substantial improvement in terms of  substance-specific measures 
was  observed  in  many  or  all  of  their  RBDs,  and  the  measures  to  tackle  pollution  from  non-

agricultural sources are still very general and not linked to failure of chemical and ecological 
status. 

It has to be pointed out that because of the limited level of detail reported in some of the first 
RBMPs on this issue, it is challenging to identify all relevant progress made in Member States.  

Several  Member  States  are  making  particular  progress  on  improving  urban  wastewater 

treatment, through the construction or upgrading of treatment plants. However, it is not always 
clear whether funding has been secured for planned upgrades. 

1.16.2.  Conclusions 

Basic  measures  to  reduce  pollution  from  non-agricultural  sources  such  as  an  authorisation 
and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  wastewater  point  source  discharges,  the  operation  of 

registers of wastewater discharges, and the prohibition or limitation of all direct discharges to 
groundwater, and/or other measures to eliminate / reduce pollution from priority substances and 

other substances are in place in most of the Member States. 

The  identification  of  substance-specific  measures  was  a  major  gap  in  the  first  RBMPs,  as 

substance-specific measures were reported only for a few RBDs, and they were often general 
and not linked to failures of chemical and ecological status. This situation has improved in the 

second  RBMPs,  as  substance-specific  measures  to  reduce  the  emissions  of  the  pollutants 
preventing the achievement of good status have been adopted in several Member States. There 

is  however  still  significant  room  for  improvement  as  the  specific  measures  proposed  in  the 
RBMPs  of  many  Member  States  are  often  generic  and  not  substance-specific,  and  in  a  few 

237 

 
 
Member  States  the  measures  are  still  very  general  and  not  linked  to  failure  of  chemical  and 
ecological status. 

Progress  towards  achieving  the  objectives  between  2015  and  2027  via  measures  related  to 
pollution  from  non-agricultural  sources  is  expected  in  most  of  the  Member  States  which 

reported information on relevant  pressure  gap indicators and KTMs. Although some Member 
States  specifically  referred  to  the  need  to  phase  out  the  emissions  of  priority  hazardous 

substances, the rationale for identifying measures appeared in most cases to be the need to meet 
the EQSs for good status. Therefore measures are likely to be missing where needed in some 

RBDs to achieve the phasing out of emissions. 

1.16.3.  Recommendations 

  Member States should ensure that measures (including KTMs) are identified to address 
pollution  by  individual  substances  (Priority  Substances,  RBSPs  and  Groundwater 

pollutants) from non-agricultural sources. 

  Member  States  should  assess  the  likely  effectiveness  of  measures  so  that  they  can 
identify and implement appropriate supplementary measures to achieve the objective of 

good status as soon as possible. 

  Member  States  should  ensure  the  operation  of  a  register  of  discharges  and  a  suitable 

authorisation/permitting regime for all relevant water bodies. 

  The  progress  made  on  implementing  improvements  to  urban  waste  water  treatment, 
including  sourcing  funding  and  prioritising  the  most  important  locations,  should  be 

continued and accelerated where possible. 

  Member States should ensure that measures aim at phasing out the emissions of Priority 

Hazardous Substances, including where the EQSs have not been exceeded. 

238 

 
 
1.17. Measures related to hydro-morphological alterations 

1.17.1. 

Introduction 

The WFD explicitly requires Member States to manage the effects on the ecological status of 

water which result from changes to physical characteristics of water bodies. It requires action in 
those  cases  where  the  hydro-morphological  modifications  are  having  an  impact  on  the 

ecological  status  interfering  with  the  ability  to  achieve  the  WFD  objectives  and  to  avoid 
deterioration due to new modifications or new sustainable human development activities. 

Measures related to hydro-morphological improvements in the RBMPs are mainly reported as 

supplementary  measures  with  the  aim  of  achieving  the  objectives  established  pursuant  to 
Article 4. Also basic measures under article 11(3) can impose controls over activities related to 

hydro-morphological  modifications.  In  addition  to  controls  and  registers  of  physical 
modifications,  certain  regulatory  actions  may  be  taken  to  support  the  improvement  of  hydro-

morphology,  such  as  reviewing  existing  permits  to  incorporate  mitigation  measures  for  the 
achievement of WFD objectives. 

WFD  hydro-morphological  measures  planned 
to  reduce  existing  hydro-morphological 
pressures and improve the ecological status or potential of impacted water bodies should not be 

taken  in  a  silo  approach  but  it  is  beneficial  both  in  terms  of  the  effects  to  be  achieved  and 
funding opportunities to coordinate the planning of WFD measures with the planning process 

for other sectors (e.g. planning for the energy, transport and agricultural sectors). 

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle 

Links of measures to significant hydro-morphological pressures  

Significant  hydro-morphological  pressures  have  been  identified  in  practically  all  Member 
States  assessed  for  this  report.  No  hydro-morphological  pressures  were  identified  in  a  single 

case  which  may  be  due  to  the  lack  of  appropriate  assessment  methods  and  appropriate 
monitoring data to understand the nature of hydrological and morphological modifications.  

Hydro-morphological  pressures  should  be  clearly  related  to  the  main  sectors  responsible  for 
causing  these  pressures  on  the  water  environment  However,  in  the  second  RBMPs  of  most 

Member  States,  the  identified  hydro-morphological  pressures  are  not  clearly  apportioned  to 
specific  sectors,  according  to  the  WISE  reporting.  The  significant  hydro-morphological 

pressures  have  been  clearly  linked  to  sectors  only  in  a  fifth  of  Member  States.  In  a  third  of 
Member States, the sector linked to the significant hydro-morphological pressures of all or the 

largest share of affected water bodies is either unknown or reported as “other” (i.e. not linked to 
one of the key sectors in the WISE reporting). In almost half the Member States, there is only 

partial  apportionment  of  the  hydro-morphological  pressures  to  sectors,  i.e.  for  part  of  the 

239 

 
 
pressures or in part of the RBDs, apportionment has been made, while for other pressures or in 
other RBDs, the sector is unknown or “other”. 

The  KTM  reported  most  frequently  by  Member  States  as  operational  to  address  significant 
hydro-morphological pressures in the second RBMPs are: 

•  KTM  5  Improving  longitudinal  continuity  (e.g.  establishing  fish  passes,  demolishing 

old dams). 

•  KTM  6  Improving  hydro-morphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than 
longitudinal continuity (e.g. river restoration, improvement of riparian areas, removal of 
hard  embankments,  reconnecting  rivers  to  floodplains,  improvement  of  hydro-

morphological con-dition of transitional and coastal waters, etc). 

•  KTM 7 Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows. 

•  KTM 14 Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty 

•  KTM 23 Natural water retention measures, and 

•  KTM 99 – Other KTM reported under the POMs 

Section  8.9  provides  additional  information  on  the  number  of  national  measures  (basic  and 

supplementary) mapped against each of these KTM in each Member State. 

The  majority  of  Member  States  have  reported  operational  KTM  to  address  the  significant 

hydro-morphological pressures in all their RBDs where such pressures are identified. In a few 
Member  States,  no  KTM  to  tackle  hydro-morphological  pressures  were  reported  in  WISE, 

although hydro-morphological pressures are identified. It is noted though that in these Member 
States, information in the published RBMPs gives evidence that hydro-morphological measures 

are planned for the second cycle, despite the gap in the WISE reporting. 

In a few Member States, operational KTM for hydro-morphological pressures are reported only 
for some but not all of their RBDs. In some Member States, , KTM are addressing only some 

but  not  all  of  the  main  hydro-morphological  pressures  identified.  in  once  example,  KTM  are 
addressing  only  pressures  linked  to  continuity  barriers  but  not  other  types  of  hydro-

morphological pressures. In one of the RBDs in another country, KTM (research activities) are 
generally addressing physical alterations. 

The  main  types  of  specific  national  measures  taken  to  address  hydro-morphological 
modifications  were  checked  in  50  representative  RBDs  across  Member  States.  The  hydro-

morphological  measures  most  frequently  planned  in  the  second  RBMPs  are  related  to 
continuity interruption (e.g. fish ladders, removal of structures such as weirs, bypass channels), 

sediment/debris  management,  setting  of  ecological  flows,  habitat  restoration  and  specific 
restoration of modified bed and bank structures. 

240 

 
 
Figure 1 Main types of specific national measures on hydro-morphology 

Source:  Published  RBMPs  of  50  RBDs  selected  for  detailed  assessment  across  the  EU.  The 
RBDs  selected  were  those  with  the  most  extensive  hydro-morphological  pressures  in  each 

Member State. 

Indeed,  restoring  river  continuity  is  in  many  RBDs  one  of  the  priority  issues  for  hydro-
morphological improvements. River continuity is specifically related to the free passage of fish 

and  is  in  this  respect  distinguished  into  upstream  continuity  (allowing  the  fish  to  migrate 
upstream)  and  downstream  continuity  (allowing  downstream  migration).  Management 

objectives  for  restoring  river  continuity  are  reported  to  have  been  set  in  all  RBDs  of 
approximately half of the Member States, while in another  few Member States, such objectives 

have  been  set  for  some  but  not  all  of  their  RBDs.  More  than  a  third  of  Member  States  have 
reported not to have set any management objectives for river continuity. The objectives set for 

river continuity are quantitative (e.g. km of rivers connected, number of obstacles to be made 
passable) in all RBDs of almost half of the Member States, while in another quarter of Member 
States,  the  objectives  are  quantitative  only  for  some  of  the  RBDs.  In  one  Member  State, 

although continuity objectives are set, they have not been quantified. 

Basic measures under WFD article 11.3(i) 

Almost  all  Member  States  take  basic  measures  to  address  hydro-morphological  pressures 
according  to  WFD  article  11.3(i).  These  measures  correspond  to  authorization/permitting 

regimes to control physical modifications, which cover changes to the riparian area. Only one 
has such an authorization/permitting regime, which does not cover changes to the riparian area. 

241 

 
 
 
In  another  Member  State,  no  authorisation/permitting  regime  for  physical  modifications  has 
been reported. 

The majority of Member States also has registers of physical modifications in place in all their 
RBDs or in a few of their RBDs. In one fifth of Member States, there is no register of physical 

modifications in any of the RBDs.  

Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures 

In the 2015 recommendations of the Commission based on the assessment of progress on the 
implementation  of  the  programmes  of  measures  from  the  first  RBMPs,  many  Member  States 

were  asked  to  provide  evidence  that  they  consider  natural  water  retention  and  green 
infrastructure measures in their second RBMPs.  

Win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  Floods  Directive, 
drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures are reported to be included 

in the programmes of measures in the majority of Member States. In one Member State, such 
win-win measures are reported for some but not all of its RBDs, while in a few Member States, 

such win-win measures have not been included in their programmes of measures.  

The  specific  KTM  on  natural  water  retention  (KTM23)  is  reported  as  operational  to  address 
significant  hydro-morphological  pressures  (e.g.  related  to  flood  protection  and  agriculture)  or 

abstractions  in  one  third  of  Member  StatesIn  one  country  ,  KTM23  is  applied  but  only  in 
relation  to  diffuse  pollution  pressures  (hydro-morphology  or  abstractions).  In  the  majority  of 

Member States  though, KTM23-Natural water retention measures is not reported yet as part of 
the  operational  KTM  to  tackle  significant  pressures.  Examples  of  measures  reported  under 

KTM23  refer  to  the  restoration  of  floodplain  meadows  and  floodplain  forests  but  also 
reconstruction of drainage systems in agriculture and forestry or removal of weirs in the context 

of river restoration. 

Measures for ecological flows and their implementation 

Having  a  sufficient  ecological  flow  regime  is  a  prerequisite  to  reach  GES  in  rivers  and  it  is 

crucial to maintain a flow throughout the river continuum. Therefore, establishing ecologically 
based flow regimes is an important measure in the RBMPs.  

In the second RBMPs, ecological flows have been reported to be derived and implemented for 
all  relevant  water  bodies  in  very  few  Member  States.  In  the  majority  of  Member  States, 

ecological flows have been derived and implemented only for some water bodies yet in all or 
part of their RBDs. Therefore, in most Member States, the work on defining and implementing 
ecological flows is still ongoing in the second cycle. 

242 

 
 
In one fifth of Member States and in some of the RBDs of another fifth, ecological flows have 
not been derived yet, but there are plans to do so during the second planning cycle. 

As shown in Figure 1, setting of ecological flows is planned as a specific measure in 42% of 
the  second  RBMPs,  in  the  majority  of  Member  States.  Explicit  references  that  the 

establishment  of  ecological  flows  is  addressed  by  specific  regulations  were  found  for  several 
Member  States,  while  in  some  of  these,  the  relevant  requirements  are  new  compared  to  the 

legislation  which  was  valid  under  the  first  RBMPs.  In  other  Member  States,  there  are  still 
ongoing  initiatives  to  set  new  standards  and  methodologies  for  ecological  flow  definition  in 

order to achieve WFD objectives. 

Table 1 

Derivation and implementation of ecological flows in the second RBMPs 

Derivation  and  implementation  of 
ecological flows 
Ecological  flows 
derived 

Member States 

in all water bodies  All RBDs: ES, CY, EE, HU, NL 

in 
some  water 
bodies (work is still 
ongoing) 

In some RBDs: FR (4 RBDs), IT (2 RBDs), 
All RBDs: CZ, AT, DK, RO, SE, SI 
In  some  RBDs:  UK  (Scotland,  England,  Wales, 
Northern Ireland), BE (1 RBD), BG (1 RBD), DE (7 
RBDs),  FI  (7  mainland  RBDs),  FR  (10  RBDs),  PL 
(8 RBDs), PT (9 RBDs)  
in all water bodies  All RBDs: CY, HU, NL 

Ecological  flows 
implemented 

some  water 
in 
bodies (work is still 
ongoing) 

Ecological 
flows  derived  but  not 
implemented  but  there  are  plans  to  do 
so in 2nd cycle 
Ecological flows not derived but there 
are plans to do so in 2nd cycle 

Some RBDs: FR (2 RBDs) 
All RBDs: CZ, ES, AT, EE, RO, SE, SI 
Some RBDs: UK (Scotland, England, Wales), BG (1 
RBD),  DE  (7  RBDs),  FR  (2  RBDs),  IT  (2  RBDs), 
PL (8 RBDs), PT (8 RBDs) 
All RBDs: DK 
Some  RBDs:  UK  (Northern  Ireland),  BE  (1  RBD), 
FI (7 mainland RBDs) 
All RBDs: LV, LU, MT, SK, HR 
Some  RBDs:  BE  (7  RBDs),  BG  (3  RBDs),  IT  (5 
RBDs), PL (1 RBD), PT (1 RBD)  
DE (3 RBDs), FI (1 RBD), IT (1 RBD), PL (1 RBD) 

Ecological  flows  not  derived  and  no 
plans to do so in 2nd cycle* 
Source: WISE reporting 2016; Note (*): For some of the RBDs, where there is no intention to 
derive ecological flows, this is due to the fact that no river water bodies are reported. 

Ambition of hydro-morphological measures in closing the gap to good status/potential 

In  terms  of  the  level  of  ambition  in  tackling  significant  hydro-morphological  pressures,  the 
situation  differs  between  Member  States.  In  some  Member  States,  there  will  be  small  to 

medium progress in terms of closing the gap for hydro-morphological pressures by 2021, but 
the  main  progress  is  expected  between  2021  and  2027.  In  other  countries,  the  information 

reported  in  WISE  indicates  that  no  or  very  little  progress  is  expected  in  closing  the  gap  for 
significant hydro-morphological pressures between 2015 and 2021.  

243 

 
 
Overall, however, from the information reported by the 25 Member States, it is clear that the 
implementation  of  the  analysis  of  the  gap  to  good  status  and  of  the  level  of  implementation 

expected in  the KTMs  varies considerably between the Member States  (see also  section 8.9). 
Quite frequently data on the gap to good status are only reported for 2015 and 2021 but not for 

2027,  or  are  reported  for  only  part  of  the  pressures  or  part  of  the  KTM.  For  some  Member 
States,  no  conclusion  on  the  level  of  ambition  in  closing  the  gap  for  hydro-morphological 

pressures can be reached due to the lack of reporting on the relevant indicators. 

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle 

In the first RBMPs, a linkage between water uses, types of hydro-morphological pressures and 

specific  hydro-morphological  measures  could  be  found  only  in  around  40%  of  the  RBMPs 
assessed  across  the  EU.  Thus,  it  was  not  possible  to  assess  in  detail  whether  the  hydro-

morphological measures planned covered all the significant hydro-morphological pressures. In 
the second RBMPs, information on the links between measures, hydro-morphological pressures 

and water uses/sectors has largely improved, partly due to the improved WISE reporting which 
requires  a  linkage  between  KTM,  pressures  and  specific  sectors.  Nevertheless,  for  a  large 

number  of  water  bodies  affected  by  hydro-morphological  pressures,  the  sector/driver  is  still 
unknown/obsolete. 

In  addition,  through  the  improved  WISE  reporting,  the  gap  to  be  closed  for  hydro-

morphological pressures is better specified for 2015 and 2021. 

Several  hydro-morphological  measures  of  the  first  RBMPs  have  not  been  implemented  yet 

mainly  due  to  lack  of  financing,  planning  procedures,  public  acceptance  of  measures,  legal 
issues and issues related to land ownership. In most cases, measures of the first RBMPs which 

were incomplete by end 2015 are included in the second RBMPs. 

In  some  Member  States,  no  specific  hydro-morphological  measures  or  very  limited  measures 
were reported in the first RBMPs). In these Member States, the reporting of operational KTM 

and  more  detailed  measures  related  to  hydro-morphological  modifications  in  the  second 
RBMPs is considered an improvement compared to the first RBMPs. 

1.17.2.  Conclusions 

The  majority  of  Member  States,  with  few  exceptions,  have  reported  operational  KTMs  to 
address significant hydro-morphological pressures. In some Member States, no specific hydro-

morphological measures or very limited measures were reported in the first RBMPs. Overall, 
the reporting of operational KTM and more detailed measures related to hydro-morphological 

modifications  in  the  second  RBMPs  is  considered  an  improvement  compared  to  the  first 
RBMPs. 

244 

 
 
The hydro-morphological measures most frequently planned in the second RBMPs are related 
to  continuity  interruption  (e.g.  fish  ladders,  removal  of  structures  such  as  weirs,  bypass 

channels),  sediment/debris  management,  setting  of  ecological  flows,  habitat  restoration  and 
specific restoration of modified bed and bank structures. 

In  the  second  RBMPs,  information  on  the  links  between  measures,  hydro-morphological 
pressures  and  water  uses/sectors  has  largely  improved,  partly  due  to  the  improved  WISE 

reporting which requires a linkage between KTM, pressures and specific sectors. Nevertheless, 
for a large number of water bodies affected by hydro-morphological pressures, the sector/driver 

was reported as still unknown/obsolete.  

In  addition,  through  the  improved  WISE  reporting,  the  gap  to  be  closed  for  hydro-
morphological pressures is better specified for 2015 and 2021.  In some Member States, there 

will be small to medium progress in terms of closing the gap for hydro-morphological pressures 
by 2021, but the main progress is expected between 2021 and 2027. In other Member States, 

the information reported in WISE indicates that no or very little progress is expected in closing 
the  gap  for  significant  hydro-morphological  pressures  between  2015  and  2021.  For  some 

Member  States,  no  conclusion  on  the  level  of  ambition  in  closing  the  gap  for  hydro-
morphological pressures can be reached due to the lack of reporting on the relevant indicators. 

In  most  Member  States,  the  work  on  defining  and  implementing  ecological  flows  is  still 
ongoing  in  the  second  cycle.  Ecological  flows  were  reported  to  have  been  derived  and 

implemented  for  all  relevant  water  bodies  only  in  few  Member  States.  In  the  majority  of 
Member States, ecological flows have been derived and implemented only partially. 

1.17.3.  Recommendations 

  Member  States  should  continue  the  work  on  restoration  of  water  bodies,  and  in 
particular  improve  river  continuity  and  restore  habitats  in  many  RBDs  throughout 
Europe. Authorisation and permitting systems to ensure appropriate control of physical 

alterations should be applied more widespread in all Member States. 

  Ecological flows required to achieve GES should be properly derived wherever relevant 
based  on  all  relevant  biological  quality  elements,  and  their  implementation  for  the 

timely achievement of GES ensured. 

  The use of green infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures should be more 
widespread  to  allow  for  a  large  range  of  environmental,  social  and  economic  benefits 
that  these  types  of  interventions  have  the  potential  to  provide,  as  compared  to  grey 

infrastructure. 

245 

 
 
1.18. Economic analysis and water pricing policies 

1.18.1. 

Introduction 

At the time of its introduction, the WFD was one of the first framework directives to explicitly 

refer  to  economic  analysis  and  include  the  use  of  economic  instruments  (e.g.  environmental 
charges and taxes). This is based on the polluter pays principle and on the understanding that 

economic instruments can be important tools in managing environmental pressures that affect 
Europe’s waters. 

The  WFD  includes  three  general  economic  concepts,  closely  related  but  not  equivalent,  each 

one imposing specific requirements on water economics in general and water pricing schemes 
specifically: 

  Cost  recovery establishes the overall amount that users are charged for  water services 
(through  fees  or  taxes).  The  WFD  requirements,  however,  are  not  limited  to  the 
financial costs for the provision of a water service, but  also  of the costs  of associated 

negative environmental impacts (environmental costs) as well as forgone opportunities 
of alternative water uses (resource costs). 

 

Incentive pricing deals with the way water users pay for their use and whether the right 

price signals are transmitted, i.e. it addresses the question how water is being paid for 
and how the water price affects the behaviour of water users. 

  The  polluter  pays  principle  establishes  how  environmental  costs  should  be  covered 
among economic agents, i.e. it looks at the adequacy of contributions from the different 
agents based on their role in causing these costs. 

The principle of cost recovery is referred to in Article 9(1) of the WFD as follows:  

“Member States shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, 
including environmental and resource costs, having regard to the economic analysis conducted 

according to Annex III, and in accordance in particular with the polluter pays principle. 

Member States shall ensure by 2010  

- 

that water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources 

efficiently, and thereby contribute to the environmental objectives of this Directive,  

-  an  adequate  contribution  of  the  different  water  uses  disaggregated  into  at  least 
industry,  households  and  agriculture,  to  the  recovery  of  the  costs  of  water  services 
based on the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III and taking account of 
the polluter pays principle.  

246 

 
 
Member States may in so doing have regard to the social environmental and economic effects 
of  the  recovery  as  well  as  the  geographic  and  climatic  conditions  of  the  region  or  regions 

affected." 

As  a  basis  for  this,  Article  5  of  the  WFD  requires  Member  States  to  undertake  an  economic 

analysis  of  water  uses  according  to  the  specifications  of  Annex  III.  Annex  III  of  the  WFD 
requires  that  the  economic  analysis  of  water  uses  should  contain  enough  information  in 

sufficient detail (taking account of the costs associated with collection of relevant data) in order 
to: 

  Make  the  relevant  calculations  necessary  for  taking  into  account  the  principle  of 
recovery  of  the  costs  of  water  services  under  Article  9,  taking  into  account  long  term 
forecasts of supply and demand for water in the RBD and where necessary: 

- 

- 

estimates of the volume, prices and costs associated with water services. 

estimates of the relevant investment including forecasts of such investments. 

  Make judgments about the most cost-effective combination of measures with respect to 
water  uses  to  be  included  in  the  Programmes  of  Measures  under  Article  11  based  on 

estimates of the potential costs of such measures. 

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 2nd cycle and 
key changes since the 1st cycle 

Water services and cost recovery  

In  about  one  third  of  the  Member  States  assessed,  only  public  water  supply  and  waste  water 

collection/treatment are covered (in the first cycle, a narrow definition was used by more than 
half  of  the  Member  States).  Such  a  narrow  definition  limits  very  significantly  the  potential 

impact  of  Article  9  provisions  by  reducing  the  scope  of  the  analysis  and  cost  recovery 
calculations to a limited number of water services.  Compared to the first cycle however, where 

more  than  half  of  the  Member  States  used  a  narrow  definition  of  water  services,  this  is  a 
significant improvement. 

In more than one third of the Member States, a rather wide definition of water services is used, 

including  water  use  activities  that  have  a  significant  impact  on  water  bodies  such  as  for 
example  (inter  alia),  hydropower  generation,  navigation  and  flood  protection,  or  self-

abstraction for irrigation and industrial purposes.  In Latvia for example, a broad definition of 
water services has been used, and cost recovery rates are presented for all these services.   

According  to  Article  9.4  of  the  WFD,  Member  States  can  choose  not  to  apply  the  "cost 

recovery  principle"  for  some  water  services,  in  cases  where  this  does  not  compromise  the 
purposes and the achievement of the objectives of the WFD. While most Member States take 

247 

 
 
waste water and sanitation as the core area for cost recovery, it is counter-intuitive to note that 
one fifth of the Member States applied Article 9.4 for precisely this area.  

Self-abstraction is the water service for which Art 9.4 has been most often used. Further it is 
noted that the application of Article 9.4 varies across Member States, and also across RBDs in 

the  same  Member  State.  Additionally,  in  some  Member  States,  the  water  services  for  which 
Article 9.4 is applied do not correspond with the water services which are reported for Article 9 

cost recovery purposes. 

Figure 1: Article 9.4 applied in (all/some/none) RBDs in Member States  

Source: WISE reporting 2016. 

Calculation of cost recovery rates and the inclusion of environmental and resource costs 

The  main  observation  with  regards  to  the  calculation  of  cost  recovery  rates  is  that  there  are 
varying methodologies in place, which can be attributed to the fact that such calculations need 
to  take  into  account  the  local  conditions  but  which  makes  it  difficult  to  make  comparisons 
across RBDs or Member States.  

Overall there is a consensus in all Member States about the need to cover the financial costs of 

water services. Considerable work is reported in all Member States regarding the calculation of 
financial costs of  water  services (in  all Member  States there is  some information of financial 

cost recovery presented). At the same time, the approaches vary across the Member States and 
it is not always clear how exactly financial costs are calculated and if all elements of financial 

costs are taken into account in the calculation, for example regarding capital costs (investment 
costs, depreciation, cost of capital, replacement costs etc). 

248 

 
 
 
Regarding the estimation and integration of  environmental and resource costs it is reported 
that environmental and  resource  costs are calculated for all reported  water services in  half of 

the Member States (in about one third of the Member States environmental and resource costs 
are not calculated, and in a few Member States only some water services are). However, this 

does not automatically mean that the calculation is transparent.   

The significance of these costs is judged very differently among the Member States, from being 

highly important to not significant at all. The situation also differs significantly with regard to 
their (partial or full) internalization, often even within Member States. As in the first RBMPs, 

an  often-shared  opinion  is  that  the  environmental  and  resource  costs  are  already  minimized 
through permit systems and internalized through charges and fees. In several Member States, in 

cases in which the good environmental status is not reached in a water body due to a specific 
water service, the environmental and resource costs of that service are assumed to be as high as 

the  costs  of  the  measures  that  would  be  needed  to  reach  the  good  status  (abatement  cost 
approach). 

Figure 2: Environmental and resource costs calculated in RBDs in all Member States 

assessed for all/some/no water services 

Source: WISE reporting 2016. 

The use of quantification and monetary valuation of ecosystem services is so far not used for 

supporting the Article 9 implementation.  

249 

 
 
 
 
 
Water-pricing policies, adequate incentives and volumetric charges 

Water-pricing  policies  are  unevenly  implemented  across  the  EU.  Price  levels  for  water 
services vary significantly across the assessed Member States, ranging from 0 over very small 

amounts to rather high levels.  

Incentive  pricing  is  not  referred  to  in  many  of  the  RBMPs.  Even  when  referred  to,  the 

information  is  mostly  too  general  and  does  not  present  the  situation  in  appropriate  analytical 
detail.  In  most  cases,  a  global  explanation  is  provided,  stating  that  the  regulations  and 

instruments in place guarantee that incentives are set.  

In  the  first  cycle,  in  many  cases  there  was  not  sufficient  information  on  whether  water 
metering  was  in  place  for  different  water  uses,  information  that  is  fundamental  when 

considering  an  incentive  pricing  policy.  In  the  second  cycle,  the  information  has  improved, 
even if water metering is not a requirement in all Member States and for all water uses, since 

various exemptions for some activities (mostly agricultural activities) exist.  

Across  the  EU,  volumetric  charges  are  in  place  for  58%  of  all  reported  water  services.  For 
31% of the reported water services, volumetric charges are partially in place, and only for 11% 
of  the  reported  water  services,  no  volumetric  charges  are  in  place.  The  assessment  of  the 

incentive function of volumetric charges is not reported in detail, and only general statements 
regarding this issue are given. 

Finally,  in  the  first  RBMPs,  limited  efforts  were  made  on  documenting  the  adequate 

contribution of water uses, and this situation did not change much in the second RBMPs. The 
contributions of the water uses to the recovery of the costs are still unclear in many cases, or 

very vaguely described. Especially in agriculture, adequate contributions are mostly not defined 
(in  58%  of  all  reported  water  services,  there  is  either  no  contribution  reported  at  all,  or  the 

situation is unclear). In Hungary and Slovakia however, pricing policies have been modified to 
increase cost recovery in agriculture. 

Polluter pays principle  

The polluter pays principle is mentioned in most second RBMPs only in a general way without 
providing details, e.g. regarding which policy instruments or other mechanisms guarantee that 

the polluter pays principle is applied and how. 

Economic analysis 

The  economic  analysis  has  been  updated  in  virtually  all  RBDs  assessed  (fully  in  125  and 
partially  in  15  RBDs).  It  has  not  been  updated  in  only  one  RBD,  and  for  two  RBDs  the 

situation is not clear. 

250 

 
 
 
1.18.2.  Conclusions 

In  spite  of  the  efforts  made  by  several  Member  States,  in  part  thanks  to  the  ex-ante 
conditionality  for  the  2014-2020  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds,  progress  on  the 

implementation of the principle of cost recovery and the use of economic instruments has been 
limited,  which  limits  the  potential  of  promoting  efficient  water  management.  The  RBMPs  in 

the  majority  of  cases  do  not  report  much  progress  or  changes  since  the  first  implementation 
cycle.  Only  a  number  of  Member  States  have  changed  their  previous  approaches  to  water 

pricing or their water pricing policies based on the work done to implement Article 9.  

Some  progress  can  be  noted.  A  significant  amount  of  Member  States  have  widened  the 

definition  of  water  services  to  water  use  activities  that  have  a  significant  impact  on  water 
bodies,  such  as  for  example  hydropower  generation,  navigation  and  flood  protection,  or  self-

abstraction  for  irrigation  and  industrial  purposes.    This  does  not  mean  however  that  the 
respective cost recovery calculations are fully developed or transparently presented. 

On  the  calculation  of  financial  costs  of  water  services,  considerable  work  is  reported  by  all 

Member States (even if not always complete/transparent). 

Environmental and resource costs are treated more specifically in the second cycle compared to 

the first cycle: there are more efforts evident to calculate these costs and more information is 
available on methodologies and approaches, and there is  more transparency on whether these 

costs have been internalized or not. 

In the second cycle the information has improved on whether water metering was in place for 
different water uses, even if water metering is not a requirement in all Member States and all 

water uses, since various exemptions for some activities (mostly agricultural activities) exist. 

The economic analysis has been updated in almost all RBDs. 

Nonetheless the implementation of Article 9 remains incomplete, which limits the potential of 

promoting efficient water management in the EU. Several key points require further attention. 
It  is  noted  that  reporting  is  uneven  across  Member  States  and  even  across  RBDs  within  the 
same  Member  State.  In  many  cases  methodologies  to  calculate  costs  are  insufficiently 
documented  and  essential  information  is  missing.  This  makes  it  difficult  to  efficiently  assess 

the effectiveness of the use of economic instruments. 

Cost  recovery  is  not  always  applied  to  all  water  use  activities  having  a  significant  impact  on 
water bodies. The application of Article 9.4 also varies across Member States, and across RBDs 

in the same Member State. 

The  Member  States  that  calculate  the  environmental  and  resource  costs  of  water  services 

generally use a wide range of different methodologies, which can be attributed to the fact that 

251 

 
 
such calculations need to take into account the local conditions but makes it difficult to make 
comparisons  across  Member  States.  However,  in  many  cases  these  costs  are  considered  as 

calculated  through  their  internalization,  without  a  primary  effort  to  actually  estimate  them. 
Hence,  significant  gaps  remain  and  there  is  room  to  improve  the  transparency  on  how  these 

costs have been dealt with. The European Commission could support the development of more 
consistent methodologies. 

Limited  changes  in  the  water  pricing  policies  have  taken  place  in  order  to  implement  the 
Article 9 provisions.  Information  on the incentive function of water pricing  and the adequate 

contribution of water uses is often rather limited and generic. 

1.18.3.  Recommendations 

  Reporting  on  cost  recovery  policies  should  be  sufficiently  detailed  and  transparent, 
while  at  the  same  time  focusing  only  on  the  information  that  is  relevant  to  assess  the 

effectiveness  of  the  use  of  economic  instruments.  To  the  extent  possible  it  should  be 
done in a way that allows for comparison across RBDs.  

  Cost recovery should be applied to all water use activities that have a significant impact 
on  water  bodies,  including  impoundments,  abstraction,  storage,  treatment  and 
distribution  of  surface  waters,  and  collection,  treatment  and  discharge  of  wastewater, 
also  when  they  are  'self-services',  for  instance  self-abstraction  for  agriculture. 

Exemptions based on Article 9(4) should be transparently justified.  

  Sufficient information should be provided about how the financial, environmental and 
resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different 

users  is  ensured  (disaggregated  into  at  least  industry,  households  and  agriculture),  i.e. 
demonstrating how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account.  

  Sufficient  information  should  be  provided  about  the  water-pricing  policies,  including 
the  use  of  adequate  incentives  for  users  to  use  water  efficiently,  and  documenting 
volumes, prices, and costs associated with water services (as required by the Annex III). 

 

In  line  with  the  requirements  of  the  Annex  III  Member  States  should  provide  a 

transparent overview of estimated investments and investment needs. 

252 

 
 
1.19. Protected Areas  

1.19.1. 

Introduction 

According  to  Article  6  and  Annex  IV  of  the  WFD,  Member  States  shall  ensure  the 

establishment  of  a  register  or  registers  of  all  areas  lying  within  each  RBD  which  have  been 
designated  as  requiring  special  protection  under  specific  Community  legislation  for  the 

protection  of  their  surface  water  and  groundwater,  or  for  the  conservation  of  habitats  and 
species  directly  depending  on  water,  including  the  protection  of  Natura  2000  sites  and 

economically significant aquatic species. 

For water bodies which are designated as Protected Areas, the environmental objectives set are 
beyond  good  status,  as  more  stringent  objectives  may  have  to  be  set  for  those  areas  in  the 

relevant Community legislation.  

The  relevant  EU  legislation  for  the  protection  of  water  with  additional  or  more  stringent 
objectives includes the following directives:  

  Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC, as amended by Directive 98/83/EC).  

  Shellfish Directive (2006/113/EC) (repealed)  

  Freshwater Fish Directive (2006/44/EC) (repealed).  

  Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC)  

  Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC)  

  Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC)  

  Birds Directive (2009/147/EC)  

  Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) 

Member  States  were  required  to  report  on  monitoring,  additional  objectives  and  additional 

measures for protected areas under the Habitats/Birds, Shellfish and Drinking Water Directives. 
The Freshwater Fish Directive and the Shellfish Directive were repealed on 22 December 2013. 

According to the WFD, the level of protection should be maintained through the inclusion of 
the designated areas  as Protected Areas under WFD, but Member States were not  required to 

report on additional objectives and measures for freshwater fish protected areas.  

Annex  VII  (7)(1)  of  the  WFD  requires  that  the  RBMPs  contain  a  summary  of  the  measures 
required  for  implementing  Community  legislation  for  the  protection  of  water.  Additional 

measures for Protected Areas should be an integral part of the RBMPs in order to ensure that 
the requirements of those Protected Areas are included in the overall management of the RBDs 

253 

 
 
and to ensure the coherence of the entire water planning with the objectives already established 
by other Community and national legislation. 

Article  11(5)  of  the  WFD  states  that  “additional  measures  as  may  be  necessary  in  order  to 
achieve those objectives are established, including, as appropriate, the establishment of stricter 

EQSs following the procedures laid down in Annex V.”  

Article  4(1)(c)  of  the  WFD  states  that  ‘Member  States  shall  achieve  compliance  with  any 
standards and objectives at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of this Directive, 

unless otherwise specified in the Community legislation under which the individual Protected 
Areas have been established’. Therefore, water bodies in the Protected Areas must be of good 

status by 2015 at the latest, and earlier if required by another piece of Community legislation. If 
a water body is not of good status then it would be expected that an exemption under Article 

4(4) of the WFD has been applied. 

1.19.2.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle 

Identification of protected areas  

All  25  Member  States,  which  have  been  assessed,  have  in  general  reported  and  identified 

protected areas for the relevant Directives (see Table 1).  

Table 1 Number of protected areas for each type at Member State level 

Protected area type 

Member 
State 

AT 
BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

Article 
7 
Abstraction 
for drinking 
water 
201 
605 

359 

25 

374 

2971 

402 

2 

8736 

2132 

25690 

250 

Urban 
Waste 
Water 
Treatment 
Directive 
Sensitive 
Area 

1 

14 

1 

Other 

5 

761 

Bathing  Birds  Fish  Habitats  Nitrates  Shellfish 
134 
40 

61 
220 

97 
278 

13 

12 

16 

96 

94 

113 

160 

1641 

1038 

43 

1834 

273 

3344 

917 

116 

120  219 

18 

598 

110 

66 

420 

198 

194 

27 

37 

593 

168  3269 

234 

109  328 

706  1023 

21 

44 

343 

940 

626 

254 

6 

6 

5827 

1 

104 

11 

181 

392 

80 

18 

107 

70 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Protected area type 

Member 
State 

7 
Article 
Abstraction 
for drinking 
water 

Bathing  Birds  Fish  Habitats  Nitrates  Shellfish 

HU 

IT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

1952 

13870 

238 

2609 

6 

211 

1 

25 

368 

418 

2755 

1266 

1259 

202 

1623 

11 

54 

87 

376 

126 

499 

49 

439 

46 

26 

616 

55 

437 

15 

5 

5 

61 

133 

53 

136 

117 

11 

40 

7 

374 

1 

552  1474 

2596 

100 

30 

145  139 

131 

14 

128 

645 

87 

270 

94 

17 

1058 

1 

214 

219 

1520 

614 

81 

7 

28 

65 

6 

72 

4 

32 

3 

211 

225 

448  489 

Source: WISE reporting 2016. 

Urban 
Waste 
Water 
Treatment 
Directive 
Sensitive 
Area 

3 

177 

1 

12 

54 

1 

372 

Other 

133 

696 

39 

2 

1270 

69 

251 

7 

Note:  The  values  in  the  table  represent  unique  Protected  Areas  as  determined  from  the 

Protected  Area  codes  entered  by  each  Member  State  into  WISE.  A  Protected  Area  that  is 
associated with more than one water body category is counted only once. 

Status assessment 

The reporting of the status assessment regarding both surface and groundwater protected areas 
and  also  regarding  ecological,  quantitative  and  chemical  status  is  quite  comprehensive  in  the 

second  RBMPs.  The  share  of  water  bodies  with  unknown  status  is  relatively  low,  with  the 
exception of chemical status of surface water bodies in protected areas which is unknown for a 

share of almost 20% (see Figure 1). 

Nearly  70%  of  the  ecological  status  assessments  have  been  made  with  high  or  medium 
confidence, meaning that the status assessment should be based on monitoring data. Only for 

6% of the water bodies, it is reported that no information is available for a status assessment. 

Also in the case of groundwater, nearly 70% of the quantitative status assessments have been 
made with high or medium confidence. Only for 8% of the water bodies, it is reported that no 
information is available for a status assessment. 

255 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1 Status of water bodies within protected areas 

Source: WISE reporting 2016 

Ecological status/potential 

Source: WISE reporting 2016 

256 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chemical status - surface water 

Chemical status – groundwater 

257 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Quantitative – groundwater 

Additional objectives in protected areas  

The establishment of additional objectives for the different types of protected areas is shown on 
the EU level in Figure 2. 

It is  concluded that drinking water areas (under Article 7) are the dominant type of protected 

area  for  which  objectives  have  been  set,  followed  by  protected  areas  related  to  the  Habitats 
Directive,  Nitrate  Sensitive  Areas  and  bathing  waters.  Objectives  related  to  the  repealed 

directives  (Fish  and  Shellfish)  are  very  limited  and  concentrated  in  a  few  countries.  The 
situation  is  similar  for  protected  areas  under  the  Urban  Wastewater  Treatment  Directive,  for 

which specific objectives have been set in only few countries. 

258 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2: Objective setting in protected areas per category of protected area.  

Source: WISE reporting 2016 

Table  2  shows  whether  specific  objectives  have  been  set  to  protect  water  dependent  habitats 

and  species  for  protected  areas  under  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives  (amounting  to 
approximately 16 000 protected areas) in the different Member States. For 44% of the protected 

areas under the nature Directives, the additional needs (to reach the more stringent objectives) 
are  still  unknown.  Considering  also  that  for  13%  of  the  protected  areas  for  which  objectives 

have been set, work to determine the needs is ongoing, this indicates that for nearly 60 % of the 
protected areas under nature Directives, the needs for improvement are not yet established.  The 

low reported monitoring activities in relation to protected areas makes this critical, as the data 
necessary to determine the needs are not being produced. 

Only  for  17%  of  protected  areas  under  the  nature  Directives,  specific  water  objectives  have 
been  set  and  the  needs  for  changes  should  be  known.  Further  information  in  some  of  the 

relevant  RBMPs  indicates  that  a  considerable  part  of  this  category  consists  of  water  bodies, 
where the more stringent objectives are already met, meaning that no further effort is needed. 

For  a  number  of  nature  protected  areas  (26%),  the  achievement  of  the  WFD  good  status  is 

expected  to  be  sufficient  also  to  achieve  favourable  conservation  status  under  the  nature 
Directives.  Some  Member  States  have  reported  all  their  protected  areas  in  this  category,  and 

further clarification may be needed on whether this decision is based on individual assessments 
of water bodies. 

259 

 
 
 
 
Table 2: Percentage of protected areas under the Birds and Habitats Directives in the RBMPs for which specific objectives have been set or 

not set. 

Member 
State 

Austria 
(AT) 

Belgium 
(BE) 

Bulgaria 
(BG) 

Cyprus 
(CY) 

Czech 
Republic 
(CZ) 

German
y (DE) 

Denmar
k (DK) 

Estonia 
(EE) 

No  specific  objectives 
set  -    Additional  needs 
are not known 

No  specific  objectives  set  -  Achievement  of 
WFD  good  status  is  sufficient  to  achieve 
favorable conservation status 

Some specific objectives set - 
But  work  still  on-going  to 
determine needs 

Specific objectives set (all 
water  dependent  habitats 
and species) 

0 

27 

0 

0 

100 

82 

0 

87 

0 

47 

26 

100 

0 

0 

100 

13 

0 

7 

44 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

260 

0 

19 

30 

0 

0 

18 

0 

0 

 
 
 
Member 
State 

No  specific  objectives 
set  -    Additional  needs 
are not known 

No  specific  objectives  set  -  Achievement  of 
WFD  good  status  is  sufficient  to  achieve 
favorable conservation status 

Some specific objectives set - 
But  work  still  on-going  to 
determine needs 

Specific objectives set (all 
water  dependent  habitats 
and species) 

Spain 
(ES) 

Finland 
(FI) 

France 
(FR) 

Croatia 
(HR) 

Hungary 
(HU) 

62 

0 

84 

0 

6 

Italy (IT)  53 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Luxemb
ourg 
(LU) 

Latvia 
(LV) 

Malta 
(MT) 

The 
Netherla
nds (NL) 

28 

80 

12 

100 

25 

13 

97 

0 

10 

0 

10 

20 

4 

0 

16 

33 

3 

100 

90 

100 

261 

0 

0 

0 

0 

53 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

 
 
Member 
State 

No  specific  objectives 
set  -    Additional  needs 
are not known 

No  specific  objectives  set  -  Achievement  of 
WFD  good  status  is  sufficient  to  achieve 
favorable conservation status 

Some specific objectives set - 
But  work  still  on-going  to 
determine needs 

Specific objectives set (all 
water  dependent  habitats 
and species) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

100 

0 

1 

Poland 
(PL) 

Portugal 
(PT) 

Romania 
(RO) 

Sweden 
(SE) 

Slovenia 
(SI) 

Slovakia 
(SK) 

United 
Kingdo
m (UK) 

EU 

44 

Source: WISE reporting 2016 

0 

93 

100 

0 

0 

100 

26 

26 

100 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

39 

17 

0 

7 

0 

100 

0 

0 

34 

13 

262 

 
 
Table 3 shows the percentage of shellfish areas where a standard has been set and those without 
any  standard.  It  should  be  noted  that  most  countries  have  used  the  same  standards  as  in  the 

repealed Directive, and only very few countries have fully or for a considerable percentage of 
the protected areas introduced standards different to those in the repealed Directive. Also few 

countries  have  either  no  standards  at  all  or  no  standards  for  a  considerable  percentage  of  the 
shellfish areas.  

Table 3: Percentage of protected shellfish areas where information on standards has been 
reported  

Member State 

Microbiological 

Microbiological 

No  microbiological 

standards  have  been 
set to protect shellfish 

standards  have 
to 
been 

set 

standards  have  been 
set to protect shellfish. 

and 
are 
these 
identical  to  those  in 

protect  shellfish 
these  are 
and 

the  repealed  Shellfish 
Directive 

different  to  those 
in  the  repealed 

2006/113/EC. 

Shellfish 
Directive 

2006/113/EC. 

Austria (AT) 

Belgium (BE) 

Bulgaria (BG) 

Cyprus (CY) 

Czech Rep (CZ) 

Germany (DE) 

Denmark (DK) 

Estonia (EE) 

Spain (ES) 

Finland (FI) 

France (FR) 

Croatia (HR) 

Hungary (HU) 

Italy (IT) 

Luxembourg (LU) 

Latvia (LV) 

Malta (MT) 

- 

- 

0 

- 

- 

41 

0 

- 

42 

- 

100 

100 

- 

57 

- 

- 

- 

The Netherlands (NL)  100 

- 

- 

100 

- 

- 

59 

0 

- 

58 

- 

0 

0 

- 

42 

- 

- 

- 

0 

- 

- 

0 

- 

- 

0 

100 

- 

0 

- 

0 

0 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

0 

263 

 
 
 
 
 
Member State 

Microbiological 
standards  have  been 

Microbiological 
standards  have 

No  microbiological 
standards  have  been 

set to protect shellfish. 

set to protect shellfish 
are 
these 
and 

set 

been 
to 
protect  shellfish 

identical  to  those  in 
the  repealed  Shellfish 

and 
these  are 
different  to  those 

Directive 
2006/113/EC. 

in  the  repealed 
Shellfish 

Directive 
2006/113/EC. 

Poland (PL) 

Portugal (PT) 

Romania (RO) 

Sweden (SE) 

Slovenia (SI) 

Slovakia (SK) 

- 

100 

0 

100 

- 

United 

Kingdom 

98 

(UK) 

EU 

56 

- 

59 

0 

100 

0 

- 

0 

22 

- 

41 

0 

0 

0 

- 

2 

22 

Source: WISE reporting 2016; Note: “-“ in the table indicates no information available. 

Protected area exemptions 

In  the  second  RBMPs,  exemptions  for  protected  areas  have  been  reported  to  a  very  limited 
extent, as only 6% of the protected areas have been exempted from the relevant protected area 

objectives or standards. More than half of the exemptions for protected areas have been applied 
in only few Member States. 

Exemptions have not been applied equally for all Directives, ranging from 1-2% of exemptions 
applied for Drinking Water protected areas and Nitrate Sensitive Areas up to 15% exemptions 
applied for protected areas under the Habitats Directive. The most frequently reported type of 
exemptions  is  time  extension  under  Article  4(4),  because  of  technical  feasibility  issues, 

amounting to nearly 50% of all the exemptions applied. 

Monitoring 

Reporting  of  monitoring  specifically  targeted  towards  protected  areas  is  very  limited  –  in 
certain  countries  even  missing.  Especially  for  groundwater  (both  for  drinking  water  and 

dependent  habitats  and species), the reported monitoring activities are in  general very  low or 
often  missing  (see  table  4).  Figure  2  shows  that  more  than  50%  of  the  protected  areas  with 

264 

 
 
 
 
 
 
objectives  set  are  drinking  water  areas  –  meaning  several  thousands  of  sites,  that  need  to  be 
monitored.  Table  4  shows  the  monitoring  sites  especially  related  to  protected  drinking  water 

areas, summing up to approximately 13 000 sites. According to table 4, more than half of the 
monitoring sites are reported by one country, while more than one third of countries report no 

monitoring sites at all of protected drinking water areas.  

The  reported  information  shows  a  need  for  specific  monitoring  of  protected  drinking  water 

areas as well as of other types of protected areas. In a number of countries, there seems to be a 
contradiction between the confidence of the status assessment (high or medium) and the limited 

reported monitoring activity especially related to protected areas. High or medium confidence 
on  the  status  assessment  requires  a  data  basis  established  through  a  monitoring  program  and 

this coherence is not present in the reporting of a number of countries. 

Table  4  Number  of  monitoring  sites  associated  with  drinking  water  protected  areas  for 
groundwater and surface water 

Monitoring sites drinking water 

Groundwater 

Surface water 

Member 
State 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

0 

21 

375 

0 

0 

374 

7084 

0 

773 

346 

0 

286 

0 

641 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

84 

327 

0 

0 

79 

0 

0 

977 

22 

22 

0 

0 

64 

0 

0 

0 

0 

120 

0 

197 

265 

 
 
 
Monitoring sites drinking water 

SE 

SL 

SK 

UK 

EU 

1253 

0 

60 

60 

11273 

86 

0 

7 

7 

1992 

Source: WISE reporting 2016. 

Measures for protected areas 

The  main  information  available  from  the  reporting  on  measures  related  to  protected  areas 

concerns safeguard zones. According to Article 11(3)(d) of the WFD, measures are needed to 
meet  the  requirements  of  Article  7  (Waters  used  for  the  abstraction  of  drinking  water), 

including  measures  to  safeguard  water  quality  in  order  to  reduce  the  level  of  purification 
treatment required for the production of drinking water. According to Article 7(3) of the WFD 

Member  States  shall  ensure  the  necessary  protection  for  the  bodies  of  water  identified 
according  to  Article  7(1)  (drinking  water  protected  areas)  with  the  aim  of  avoiding 

deterioration in their quality in order to reduce the level of purification treatment required in the 
production of drinking water. Member States may establish safeguard zones for those bodies of 

water. 

Table  5  shows  whether  safeguard  zones  have  been  established  in  the  second  RBMPs  and 
whether there is going to be any change as a result of the second cycle. For nearly 80% of the 

RBMPs, safeguard zones are established and no changes are foreseen as a result of the second 
RBMPs. 

266 

 
 
 
Table 5: Number of RBMPs where safeguard zones have been established (or not established), indicating also needs to change the regulations. 

Member 

Safeguard  zones  and  no  plans  to 

Safeguard  zones  but  there  will  be 

No  safeguard  zones  but  plans 

No  safeguard  zones 

States 

change the  regulations  as a result 
of this RBMP 

significant  changes  to  them  as  a 
result of this RBMP 

to  implement  them  as  a  result 
of this RBMP 

and  no  plans 
establish them 

to 

Austria 

3 

(AT) 

Belgium 

4 

(BE) 

Bulgaria 

1 

(BG) 

Cyprus 

(CY) 

Czech 
Rep (CZ) 

Germany 
(DE) 

Denmark 
(DK) 

Estonia 

(EE) 

Spain 
(ES) 

Finland 
(FI) 

1 

3 

10 

4 

2 

17 

7 

0 

2 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

267 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

 
 
Member 
States 

Safeguard  zones  and  no  plans  to 
change the  regulations  as a result 

Safeguard  zones  but  there  will  be 
significant  changes  to  them  as  a 

No  safeguard  zones  but  plans 
to  implement  them  as  a  result 

No  safeguard  zones 
to 
and  no  plans 

of this RBMP 

result of this RBMP 

of this RBMP 

establish them 

France 

14 

(FR) 

Croatia 

0 

(HR) 

Hungary 

1 

(HU) 

Italy (IT)  5 

Luxembo

1 

urg (LU) 

0 

1 

0 

Latvia 

(LV) 

Malta 
(MT) 

The 
Netherla

nds (NL) 

Poland 

9 

(PL) 

Portugal 

9 

(PT) 

Romania 
(RO) 

1 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

3 

0 

4 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

268 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

 
 
Member 
States 

Safeguard  zones  and  no  plans  to 
change the  regulations  as a result 

Safeguard  zones  but  there  will  be 
significant  changes  to  them  as  a 

No  safeguard  zones  but  plans 
to  implement  them  as  a  result 

No  safeguard  zones 
to 
and  no  plans 

of this RBMP 

result of this RBMP 

of this RBMP 

establish them 

Sweden 

0 

(SE) 

Slovenia 

2 

(SI) 

Slovakia 

1 

(SK) 

United 
Kingdom 

11 

(UK) 

EU 

107 

5 

0 

0 

0 

22 

0 

0 

0 

2 

5 

Source: WISE reporting 2016 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

269 

 
 
For  the  remaining  water  bodies  especially  those  protected  under  the  Habitat  and  Birds 
Directives, needs are either not known or it is reported that the WFD good status is sufficient to 

achieve favourable conservation status. In both cases, measures are not necessary in the second 
cycle. 

Overall, there is very limited information about measures to be implemented in protected areas, 
which is probably also related to the fact, that only a very small number of protected areas have 

a specific objective set – and most of them probably already fulfil the objective.  

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle 

Changes with  regard to  protected  areas since the first  cycle are  generally very limited. There 

seems  to  be  a  general  reduction  in  the  reported  monitoring  activities  specifically  targeted 
towards  protected  areas  and  especially  regarding  ground  water.  This  is  critical  as  monitoring 

data  should  be  the  basis  for  setting  objectives,  determining  needs  for  improvement  (gap 
analysis) and for the implementation of measures in the third cycle. 

1.19.3.  Conclusions 

Very little has changed with regard to protected areas since the first cycle. There seems to be a 
large  gap  between  the  intensions  of  the  WFD  concerning  protected  areas  and  the  Member 

States’ efforts – and this goes for both drinking water protected areas and for nature protected 
areas.  

There is a large proportion of the protected areas, where the knowledge about status, pressures 
etc. is lacking - and therefore no objectives are set. Specific objectives have only been set for a 

limited number of protected areas and for a considerable part of water bodies in this category, 
the  more  stringent  objectives  are  already  met,  meaning  that  no  further  effort  is  needed. 

Furthermore, for a significant part of the water bodies related to protected areas, GES under the 
WFD  is  reported  as  sufficient  also  to  reach  the  more  stringent  objectives  according  to  other 

Directives. Therefore, the need for additional measures in protected areas can be described only 
for a very small number of water bodies. 

Reporting  of  monitoring  specifically  targeted  towards  protected  areas  is  very  limited  –  in 
certain countries even missing. Especially regarding groundwater monitoring (both for drinking 

water,  but  also  for  groundwater  dependent  habitats  and  species),  the  gap  between  the  actual 
level of reported monitoring and the needed monitoring is large. In the light of an insufficient 

activity in specific monitoring of protected areas, it is difficult to see how knowledge about the 
needs in protected areas can change significantly during the second cycle.  

1.19.3.  Recommendations 

  Member States should ensure that the register of Protected Areas required under Art. 6 
of  the  WFD  is  complete  and  kept  up  to  date,  that  additional  objectives  linked  to  the 
conservation  of  those  Protected  Areas  are  identified  where  needed,  that  adequate 

monitoring is in place and that all measures necessary to fulfil the specific objectives for 
Protected Areas are included in the Programmes of Measures.  

270 

 
 
 
1.16.  Adaptation to climate change and drought  

Introduction 

Adaptation to climate change 

Floods and droughts have already affected large parts of the EU and have an important impact 

on socio-economic developments. In the future, climate change will probably increase both the 
number and magnitude of these hydrological extremes123. The WFD does not explicitly refer to 
adaptation  to  climate  change,  although  Annex  II  refers  to  the  need  to  identify  ‘significant 
pressures’ affecting water bodies. Furthermore, when drafting the CIS guidance document No. 

24  River  Basin  Management  in  a  Changing  Climate,  Member  States  agreed  that  from  the 
second  planning  cycle  onwards  climate-related  threats  and  adaptation  planning  should  be 

incorporated in their RBMPs. This is reinforced by the fact that almost all the elements which 
are included in the definition of WFD qualitative and quantitative status are sensitive to climate 

change and due to the step-by-step cyclical approach are well-suited for adaptation action. The 
requirements include: 

  Assessing  direct  and  indirect  (primary  and  secondary)  climate  pressures  in  order  to 

provide information for the pressures analyses. 

  Assessing monitoring programmes to ensure early climate impact signal detection. 

  Close monitoring of climate impacts in reference sites (sites with limited anthropogenic 

modification). 

 

Integrating  potential  additional  pressures,  impacts  and  constraints  caused  by  climate 
change in the economic analysis of WFD. 

  Undertaking  a  ‘climate  check’  of  the  PoMs  by  applying  a  transparent  and  fully 

documented methodology. 

  Outlining of specific adaptation measures with preference of robust no-regret actions is 

further recommended. 

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle 

Even if the WFD does not explicitly refer to climate change, it is mentioned as being linked to 

the Directive in nearly all RBDs in various ways, with few exceptions. Climate change aspects 
which are reported to have been considered include the following:  

  Assessing direct and indirect climate pressures  

  Detecting climate change signals  

  Monitoring change at reference sites  

  Setting objectives  

123 EEA (2017): Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016, EEA Report No 1/2017  

271 

 
 
 
                                                           
  Forecasting the economics of water supply and demand  

  Checking the effectiveness of measures  

  Selecting preferably robust adaptation measures  

  Maximising cross-sectoral benefits and minimising negative effects across sectors  

  Applying flood risk management  

  Addressing drought management and water scarcity 

The table below shows the number of RBDs for which each of the climate change aspects has 

been considered in the second RBMPs. 

Figure  1:  Number  of  RBDs  for  which  each  of  the  climate  change  aspects  have  been 
considered 

Source: WISE reporting 2016. 

Climate  change  has  been  mostly  considered  in  the  context  of  flood  risk  management  (112 

RBDs) followed by the assessment of direct and indirect climate pressures (98 RBDs).  

The CIS Guidance on climate change has been used by most Member States.  

The ‘climate check’ of the PoMs is supposed to carry out a sensitivity analysis of the proposed 
measures  based  on  a  fully  transparent  methodology  to  evaluate  long-term  effectiveness  and 
cost-efficiency under changing climatic conditions. The results of the climate check should be 

integrated  in  other  RBMP  processes.  A  climate  check  of  PoMs  has  been  carried  out  in  all 
RBDs, except for some RBDs in a few Member States 

Specific sub-plans addressing the issue of climate change have been reported for a few Member 

States. 

32%  of  the  Member  States  (eight  out  of  25  assessed  in  this  report)  in  one  way  or  another 

adopted  specific  adaptation  measures  to  climate  change  under  KTM24  in  their  RBMPs.  The 
table below gives an overview of those countries which are applying KTM24. Even if the total 

272 

 
 
 
number  of  Member  States  applying  adaptation  measures  has  decreased  (from  11  in  2009),  it 
should  be  noted  that  due  to  the  mainstreaming  efforts  of  climate  change  at  EU  and  Member 

State level over the last years, several planned measures with a different objective will support 
adaptation.  

Table 1 

Application of KTM24-Adaptation to climate change in the second RBMPs 

in the Member States 

Member 
State 

Bulgaria 
(BG) 

Application of KTM24-Adaptation to climate change 

KTM24 is made operational to address significant pressures in 2 of the RBDs 
(BG2000  and  BG3000)  and  national  measures  are  mapped  against  KTM24. 

KTM24 is applied to tackle abstractions and hydro-morphological pressures.  

Germany 
(DE) 

DE2000,  DE4000,  DE5000,  DE6000,  DE7000  all  apply  KTM24-adaptation 
measures to address significant pressures. 

Finland (FI)  Specific climate change adaptation measures, KTM24, have not been applied 
to tackle pressures in any RBD. However, there are national measures mapped 

against KTM24 in one RBD (FIWDA). 

France (FR)  Specific  climate  change  adaptation  measures,  KTM24,  have  been  applied  in 

FRA  FRB2,  FRD,  FRE,  FRH  FRK,  FRL.  In  all  basins  there  are  national 
measures mapped against KTM24. 

Italy (IT) 

KTM24  are  made  operational  to  address  significant  pressures  related  to 
agricultural  diffuse  pollution  in  ITA  and  ITE,  as  well  as  abstractions  and 

hydrological alterations in ITG. 

Romania 
(RO) 

Slovakia 
(SK) 

Croatia 
(HR) 

KTM24 is not made operational to address significant pressures in the RBD, 
although national measures have been mapped against KTM24. 

KTM24 is made operational to address significant pressures in SK4000. Also 
national measures are mapped against KTM 24 in SK4000 

KTM24 is not made operational to address significant pressures in the RBDs, 
although national measures are mapped against KTM 24 in all basins. 

Source: WISE reporting 2016. 

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle 

The  main  change  on  how  climate  change  is  addressed  in  the  plans  in  comparison  to  the  first 
cycle  is  that  the  number  of  basins  where  climate  change  has  been  considered  has  increased 

significantly  and  only  a  few  Member  States/RBDs  have  not  considered  climate  change  yet. 
While in the first cycle a climate check of PoMs was carried out in 41% of the RBMPs (46 out 

of  112),  this  is  now  done  in  all  RBDs  except  RBDs  in  six  Member  States  (117  out  of  143 
RBDs, which corresponds to 82%).  

273 

 
 
 
 
Adaptation to Droughts 
Drought124 is  a natural  phenomenon.  It  is  a temporary, negative and severe deviation  along  a 
significant  time  period  and  over  a  large  region  from  average  precipitation  values  (a  rainfall 

deficit),  which  might  lead  to  meteorological,  agricultural,  hydrological  and  socioeconomic 
drought, depending on its severity and duration. 

A specific Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 
for addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in the EU125 gave further indication 
on the key measures that should be promoted in the RBMPs and other tools in order to reduce 
the impacts of these phenomena. 

The WFD includes several references to droughts: 

 

It contributes to mitigating the effects of droughts (Article 1.e). 

  According to Article 4(6), temporary deterioration in the status of bodies of water shall 
not  be  in  breach  of  the  requirements  of  this  Directive  if  this  is  the  result  of 

circumstances  of  natural  cause  or  force  majeure  which  are  exceptional  or  could  not 
reasonably have been foreseen, in particular prolonged droughts. 

  Supplementary  measures  (Article  11(4))  can  include  (ix)  demand  management 
measures,  inter  alia,  promotion  of  adapted  agricultural  production  such  as  low  water 
requiring crops in areas affected by drought. 

  The RBMPs may be supplemented by the production of more detailed programmes and 
management  plans  for  sub-basin,  sector,  issue,  or  water  type,  to  deal  with  particular 
aspects  of  water  management,  such  as  when  and  where  needed,  a  specific  drought 

management (sub)plan (Article 13(5)). 

Within  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  of  the  WFD,  a  Technical  report  on  Drought 
Management Plans126 was adopted in 2007, and refers to the three key elements for the proper 
mitigation of drought impacts: 

 

Indicators  and  thresholds  establishing  onset,  ending,  and  severity  levels  of  the 

exceptional circumstances (prolonged drought). 

  Measures to  be taken in  each drought  phase in  order to  prevent  deterioration of water 

status and to mitigate negative drought effects. 

124  Based  on  Schmidt,  J.J.  Benítez  &  C.  Benítez  (2012)  Document:  Working  definitions  of  Water  scarcity  and 

Drought. Version 4, and taken note by Water Directors (4 June 2012) 

125  European  Commission  (2007)  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council  -  Addressing the challenge of  water scarcity and droughts in the EU {SEC(2007) 993} {SEC(2007) 
996}/* COM/2007/0414 final */ 

126 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/dmp_report.pdf  

274 

 
 
                                                           
  Organizational framework to deal with drought and subsequent revision and updating of 

the existing drought management plan 

Furthermore,  the  2009  Guidance  document  No.  24  (River  Basin  Management  in  a  Changing 

Climate)  provides  further  guidance,  such  as  e.g.  its  “Principle  11:  Drought  management  and 
water scarcity: Use the WFD as the basic methodological framework to achieve climate change 

adaptation in water scarce areas and to reduce the impacts of droughts”. Furthermore, the Water 
Blueprint127,  including  the  Review  of  the  EU  policy  on  water  scarcity  and  droughts,  in  2012 
encourages  Member  States  to  better  integrate  drought  risk  management  and  climate  change 
aspects  in  their  future  RBMPs  and  when  developing  cross  sectoral  and  multi  hazard  risk 

management plans. 

1.16.1.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in 2nd cycle 

Overall,  in  the  second  cycle  of  the  WFD  implementation,  there  are  11  Member  States  where 

drought  is  considered  not  to  be  relevant.  However,  this  reflects  a  geographically  quite  varied 
picture which is not aligned with the drought occurrence as they are identified by the European 
Drought Observatory128. 

For 14 Member States,  drought is a relevant issue, even if the relevance covers only the sub-
basin  level  or  one  specific  RBD.129  The  main  strength  of  these  Member  States  lies  in  the 
adoption of Drought Management Plans, whilst the major weaknesses refer to the lack of such 

plans, at least for the RBDs concerned with droughts (see table below). 

In total, six Member States have reported Drought Management Plans in the second RBMPs. 

Table: Strengths and weaknesses of Member State’s drought management in the second 
RBMPs (selection) 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Germany 

Spain 

Weaknesses 

key  measures 

Strengths 
Drought  Management 
including 
approved and aligned with RBMP 
There  is  a  specific  sub-plan  to 
and 
address  water 
droughts in 2 RBDs 

Plans 
are 

scarcity 

Drought  Management  Plans  are  in 
place 

No  Drought  Management  Plans 
have  been  reported  for  Germany 
(Danube RBD). 
There  is  concern  about  a  possible 
broad  application  of  Article  4(6) 
drought, 
due 
exemptions 
following  the  2017  draft  Drought 

to 

127 Communication from the Commission to the  European Parliament,  the Council, the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions:  A  Blueprint  to  Safeguard  Europe's  Water  Resources 
COM/2012/0673 

128 http://edo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/edov2/php/index.php?id=1000.  
129 For one Member State (Croatia), no information is reported regarding the relevance of droughts. 

275 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Finland 

France 

Hungary 

Italy 

Malta 

Drought  Management  Plan  are 
developed for some RBDs 

The Netherlands 

addressing 

Sub-plans 
water 
scarcity  and  droughts  have  been 
reported  for  all  RBDs  in  the  2nd 
cycle 

Management Plans, not yet adopted 

for 

has 

relevant 

All  Finnish  RBDs  recognise  the 
existence  of 
local  or  sub-basin 
drought  spells  as one of the effects 
of  climate  change.  However,  none 
of 
the  RBDs  has  developed  a 
Drought Management Plan. 
Droughts  are 
the 
country.  No  Drought  Management 
Plan have been reported for France. 
There  is  no  clear  distinction  in  the 
country  between  droughts  and 
scarcity.  No  Drought 
water 
Management 
been 
Plan 
developed in Hungary 
No  Drought  Management  Plan  has 
been reported for one RBD (ITH). 
Drought  Management  Plans  have 
not been reported  
Exemptions  have  been  applied 
following  Article  4(6)  due 
to 
prolonged  droughts  for  all  four 
RBDs. 
Drought  Management  Plans  have 
not been reported for Poland 
Droughts  are  relevant  for  a  major 
part  of  Portugal.  It  is  unclear  if 
proper 
management 
planning and actions are in place to 
justify  the  Article  4(6)  exemptions 
which have been applied. 

drought 

Poland 

Portugal 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

United Kingdom 

Measures  are 
RBMPs 

included 

in 

the 

No  Drought  Management  Plans 
have been reported for Sweden  

No  Drought  Management  Plan  is 
established 

Preparation of selection of drought 
indicators (as measure) 
Changes  in  recognising  drought 
risk  for  several  RBDs.  Drought 
Management Plans are in place for 
some RBDs. 
Source: WISE reporting 2016 and second RBMPs. 

Furthermore, it should be noted that a few Member States have applied Article 4(6) exemptions 

due  to  prolonged  droughts  in  the  second  cycle.  No  information  has  been  reported  on  other 
effects of droughts than the applied exemptions. 

Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle 

Out of the list of Member States for which drought is considered as a relevant topic, only three 
Member States have made progress since the first RBMPs.  

276 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No change or improvement has been identified for seven Member States since the first cycle, 
whilst  the  information  reported  does  not  allow  drawing  conclusions  regarding  the  remaining 

Member States due to the few relevant elements reported.  

1.16.2.  Conclusions  

The  assessment  of  the  second  RBMPs  clearly  shows  that  climate  change  has  been  integrated 

into  water  management  across  Europe.  While  in  the  first  cycle  not  all  RBDs  had  considered 
climate change, in the second cycle almost all Member States followed the CIS agreement that 

from the second planning cycle onwards climate-related threats and adaptation planning should 
be incorporated in their RBMPs. Thereby, the CIS Guidance on climate change has been used 

by most countries. Climate change is mostly considered in relation to flooding, followed by the 
assessment  of  pressures  from  climate  change.  In  one  third  of  the  Member  States,  specific 

measure to adapt to climate change are applied. 

The consideration of drought  as a relevant  water management feature follows an inconsistent 
geographical  pattern:  in  14  assessed  Member  States,  droughts  are  considered  as  relevant 

(including at sub-basin level), whilst in another 11 Member States they are not relevant. 

The development of Drought Management Plans is the key management measure for mitigating 

the  impact  of  droughts  but  is  not  yet  fully  adopted  in  all  drought-facing  river  basin  districts. 
The adoption of elements within the RBMPs that address clearly the key elements for drought 

mitigation (indicators, measures, organisational  set-up) can provide a step-wise approach, but 
their implementation has not been assessed in detail for the purpose. 

Most Member States have reported that they have used the Common Implementation Guidance 

number 24, River Basin  Management in  a changing climate, have done a climate proofing of 
the POMs and have a national Climate Change Strategy or Plan. However, the assessment has 

not  allowed  to  determine  the  effectiveness  of  the  climate  proofing  methodologies,  and  in 
general green infrastructures and water retention measures are underused. 

At  least  two  Member  States  have  applied  Article  4(6)  exemptions  due  to  prolonged  droughts 
during the first planning cycle. Drought Management Plans, and their indicators and measures 
can provide proper elements for a justification. 

At  least  two  Member  States  have  progressed  in  their  drought  management  since  the  first 
planning  cycle  by  developing  drought  indicators  and  extending  the  number  of  RBDs  with 

Drought Management Plans. 

1.16.3.  Recommendations 

  To  further  improve  climate  proofing,  technical  measures  and  planned  infrastructures 
should take due account of climate change predictions, especially for the occurrence of 
extreme phenomena and changes in river flows.  

277 

 
 
  A national  Strategy  for  Adaptation  to  Climate Change should be developed and taken 

into account in the design of the PoM in the relevant Member States.  

  Regarding  drought  management,  Member  States  are  encouraged  to  develop  Drought 
Management  Plans  where  appropriate  and  monitor  drought  events  and  their  severity 

with specific indicators.  

  When  applying  exemptions  under  article  4(6)  for  prolonged  droughts,  Member  States 
should  be  fully  transparent  when  providing  information  on  the  methodologies  applied 

and all possible measures considered to avoid deterioration. 

278 

 
 
6. 

 INTERNATIONAL  COOPERATION  UNDER  THE  EU  DIRECTIVE  2000/60/EC 
ESTABLISHING  A  FRAMEWORK  FOR  THE  COMMUNITY  ACTION  IN  THE  FIELD  OF 
WATER POLICY

130 

1.17. Introduction 

The WFD stipulates that Member States shall ensure that a river basin covering the territory of 
more than one Member State is assigned to an iRBD. Appropriate administrative arrangements, 

including  the  identification  of  the  appropriate  competent  authority  for  the  iRBD  shall  be 
established  by  the  Member  States.  Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  environmental 

objectives of the Directive are met in iRBDs. To this end, Member States shall coordinate at the 
international level on a POMs. 

In the case of an iRBD falling entirely within the EU, Member States shall ensure coordination 
with  the  aim  of  producing  a  single  international  river  basin  management  plan  (iRBMP), 

including involving third countries. If an iRBMP is not produced, Member States shall produce 
RBMPs  covering  at  least  those  parts  of  the  iRBD  falling  within  their  territory  to  achieve  the 

objectives of the Directive. 

International  coordination  by  the  EU  Member  States  was  assessed  for  the  second  river  basin 

management  cycle.  The  following  sections  reflect  the  situation  described  by  the  River 
Commissions  in  their  iRBMPs,  reported  by  each  Member  State  in  2016  or  2017  and 

information on international coordination described in the national RBMPs. The circumstance 
in  the  River  Commissions  or  the  situation  in  the  Member  States  may  have  further  developed 

since then. More detailed information on individual international basins can be obtained from 
the accompanying document compiling iRBMP assessments.  

1.17.1. 

International river basin districts and their coordination mechanisms 

There  are  75  iRBDs  and  30  sub-basins  in  the  EU.  International  coordination  mechanisms 
(agreements, working groups etc.) under the WFD vary among the different international river 

basins districts.  Based on their level  of cooperation, four main categories were identified. An 
overview of different types of international cooperation is given in Table 6. 

Table 6  

Different types of international coordination in relation to the WFD 

Category  Formal 

international 

1 
2 
3 
4 

agreement 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 

International 
coordinating body 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
No 

iRBMP produced 

Yes 
No 
No 
No 

130 This document reflects the situation as described by the River Commissions in their iRBMPs, or as reported by 
each  Member  State  to  the  European  Commission  in  2016  or  2017  and  with  reference  to  national  RBMPs 
prepared earlier. The circumstance in the River Commissions or the situation in the Member State  may have 
further developed since then. 

279 

 
 
 
                                                           
EU Member States were requested to report to WISE the iRBD in their territory and the level 
of international coordination taking place in these iRBDs. Greece, Ireland and Lithuania were 

delayed in the second river basin management cycle and thus did not report to WISE the level 
of international  coordination in  their iRBDs. The categories of these iRBDs were taken from 
the assessment of international coordination in the first cycle131.   

The map below shows the iRBDs and their level of international coordination. 

Figure 16   Overview map of iRBDs  

131  See:  Vogel,  B.,  et  al.  (2012):  Transboundary  Cooperation  Fact  Sheets.  Comparative  Study  of  Pressures  and 

Measures in the Major River Basin Management Plans. available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/water/implrep2007/pdf/Governance-
Transboundary%20Fact%20Sheets.pdf  

280 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
6.1.2. Selection of iRBDs for the assessment 

Twenty-one iRBDs were chosen for the assessment (see Table 7). The selection was based on 
the following criteria: 

  All iRBDs with iRBMPs were selected. 

 

In cases where EU Member States/third countries share several iRBDs (e.g. there are 4 

iRBDs  shared  between  Portugal  and  Spain),  the  most  representative  basin  was 
identified, taking into account the overall iRBD catchment area size, the balanced share 

of  catchment  area  between  the  iRBD  sharing  countries  and  the  level  of  international 
coordination. 

 

iRBDs that hold an insignificant international share (e.g. <1%) were excluded.  

International  basins  shared  with  Greece  (5  iRBDs132),  Ireland  (2  iRBDs133)  and  Lithuania  (2 
iRBDs134)  were  not  assessed  due  to  delays  in  the  adoption  of  the  national  level  RBMPs  and 
reporting. As a result, Category 4 basins (see Table 6 for explanation) were not assessed. Table 
7  presents  the  list  of  basins  included  in  the  assessment  and  the  categories  of  these  iRBDs  as 

reported by the EU Member States.  

 Table 7  

List of selected iRBDs for which an assessment was done 

Category 

International  
River Basin 
Danube 

1
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

Elbe 
Ems 
Meuse 

Odra 
Rhine 

Sava 

Scheldt 

EU Member States/Non-EU countries 

Austria,  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Germany, 
Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, 
Slovakia 
Non-EU:  Switzerland,  Albania,  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina, 
Ukraine,  Moldova, 
Serbia, 
Montenegro, Macedonia 
Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Poland 
Germany, The Netherlands 
Belgium,  Germany,  France,  Luxembourg,  The 
Netherlands 
Czech Republic, Germany, Poland 
Austria,  Belgium,  Germany,  France, 
Luxembourg, The Netherlands 
Non-EU: Switzerland, Liechtenstein 
Croatia, Slovenia 
Non-EU:  Albania,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina, 
Montenegro and Serbia  
Belgium, France 

Italy, 

, 

132  Aoos/Vjosa,  Drin,  Western  Aegean,  East  Aegean  (Maritsa/Evros/Meric)  iRBD  and  Central  Macedonia 

(Axios/Vardar) iRBDs 

133 Neagh Bann and  Northwestern  
134 Lielupe, Nemunas 

281 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Category 

International  
River Basin 
Teno/Tana 

Adige/Etsch 

EU Member States/Non-EU countries 
Finland135 
Non-EU: Norway, Russia 

Italy,  
Non-EU: Switzerland 

Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru  Poland 

Garonne  –  Cantabrico 
-Ebro 
Guadiana 
Gauja/Koiva 
Isonzo/Soca 
Rhone 

Non-EU: Moldova, Ukraine 
France, Spain 

Spain, Portugal 
Estonia, Latvia136 
Italy, Slovenia 
France, Italy 
Non-EU: Switzerland 

Eider 
Narva 

Torneälven/Tornionjok  Sweden, Finland 
Non-EU: Norway 
Germany, Denmark 
Estonia, Latvia137  
Non-EU: Russia 
Germany, Denmark 
Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania 
Non-EU: Ukraine, Belarus 
Sweden 
Non-EU: Norway 

Luleälven,  Umeälven, 
Piteälven 

Schlei Trave 
Vistula 

2
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

3
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

1.18. Overview of International Cooperation  

1.18.1. 

International coordination mechanisms  

The  foundation  for  international  cooperation  on  water  management  are  agreements  or 

conventions to which EU Member States and third countries are party to. These agreements or 
conventions set the objectives, topics for cooperation and coordination mechanisms within the 

iRBD.  They  can  be  bilateral,  i.e.  between  two  countries,  or  multi-lateral,  addressing  in  a 
number of cases cooperation among all the riparian countries. 

All Category 1 basins have agreements or conventions in place. For about ½ of the Category 

1  basin,  the  agreement  or  convention  is  signed  by  all  the  iRBD  sharing  countries.  In  four 
iRBDs – the Danube, the Elbe, the Rhine and the Sava - the international agreements are signed 

by  those  countries  whose  national  territory  represents  a  meaningful  share  of  the  basin. 

135 Finland reported to WISE that the Teno, Näätämöjoki and Paatsjoki iRBD is a Category 2 basin. However, in 
2016 Finland and Norway produced a Joint Management Report similar to an iRBMP. Therefore, the basin has 
been categorized as Category 1. 

136  In  the  case  of  the  Gauja/Koiva,  a  long-term  project  with  governmental  representatives  from  both  countries 
facilitated  international  coordination  in  the  basin  and  as  such  the  basin  has  been  designated  as  Category  2 
within this assessment. 

137 In the Narva iRBD, there does not appear to be a permanent body or long-term project promoting coordination 

and hence the basin has been designated as Category 3 

282 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
However, in  the Rhine, a Coordinating Committee was  established that expands international 
coordination  to  include  the  iRBD  sharing  countries  not  party  to  the  convention.  The  EU  is  a 

contracting party to these agreements in the Danube and the Rhine. 

The Category 2-3 basins included in the assessment have bilateral agreements in place.  

Permanent commissions, working groups or other forms of cooperation bodies can be found 
in all Category 1 and 2 basins. They are responsible for the coordinated implementation of the 

WFD in the basins. In the two out of the four Category 3 basins, meetings were held to discuss 
various  aspects  of  WFD  implementation  but  a  permanent  body  is  not  in  place.    All  the 

permanent  commissions  of  the  Category  1  basins  allow  external  observers  to  participate  in 
meetings. The observers come from sectors like hydropower, public and private water services, 

dredging,  navigation, 
commissions, research, tourism and environmental non-governmental organisations. 

local  governmental  agencies,  other 

industry, 

international  river 

For most of the basins assessed, the coordination mechanisms have not  changed since the 1st 
river basin management cycle. In most cases the agreements have stayed the same with no new 

additions.  However,  in  some  cases  international  coordination  has  expanded  through  the 
ratification of new agreements and work carried out under cooperation projects: 

 

 

 

 

Two iRBDs developed international RBMPs or joint management documents for the first 
time.  In the Sava iRBD138, which is  a sub-basin  of the Danube, an international  RBMP 
was  developed  for  the  first  time.  Following  the  signing  of  a  new  agreement  between 

Finland and Norway in 2014, the two countries produced a “joint roof report in the form 
of a comprehensive “executive summary” of the two national RBMPs”. 

In the Rhône International RBD, France and Switzerland negotiated a new agreement for 
integrated  management  and  established  in  2016  the  Franco-Swiss  dialogue  to  discuss, 

among  others,  water  management  during  water  scarcity  periods,  river  water  levels, 
drinking water from surface water and groundwater, inter-basin transfers, floods, etc. In 

addition, France and Italy signed a protocol in 2013 for cooperation on the shared Roya 
River  sub-basin  with  the  goal  to  develop  a  transboundary  river  contract  to  support 

common actions for the attainment of WFD’s objectives.  

A  new  agreement  between  Sweden  and  Norway  in  2014  now  clearly  sets  out  the 
coordination of Swedish and Norwegian river basins.  

A project in the Gauja/Koiva iRBD – shared between Estonia and Latvia - led to increase 
coordination  on  a  number  of  WFD  topics,  such  as  delineation,  typology,  monitoring, 

assessment and classification. 

138 The Sava iRBD sharing countries are: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. 

283 

 
 
                                                           
 

A long-term project in the Dniester iRBD between the Ukraine and Moldova has led to 
improved data-sharing and monitoring. 

Public consultation was coordinated by the Category 1 basins. All of the basins published the 

iRBMPs  online  for  consultation.  In  addition,  some  iRBDs  held  public  events  (e.g.  the  Elbe 
Forum and workshops in the Sava) and in the Odra working groups were established to enable 

participation. The Category 1 basin iRBMPs mention that further public consultation outreach 
was done at the national level. 

Basin-wide strategies or plans have been jointly developed in some iRBDs (mainly Category 

1).  Joint  climate  change  strategies  (see  section  6.2.5)  were  developed  in  five  iRBDs.  They 
define common principles and provide guidance on selecting adaptation measures. In addition, 

a few basins have jointly developed programmes to support fish migration (see section 0). 

In the Danube four documents produced by the International Commission for the Protection of 

the  Danube  River  (ICPDR),  while  not  legally  binding,  are  intended  to  serve  as  a  "common 
roadmap"  guiding  national  activities  and  supporting  harmonization  of  actions  throughout  the 

basin. The documents are: 

 

 

 

Joint Statement Navigation & Environment;  

•Guiding Principles on Sustainable Hydropower Development in the Danube Basin; 

•ICPDR Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change; and  

 

•Ecological prioritisation approach for measures to restore river and habitat continuity.  
The  Joint  Statement  on  Navigation  &  Environment  was  launched  in  2007  by  the  ICPDR  in 

cooperation with the Danube Commission and the International Sava Commission. 

In the Rhine, multiple basin-wide programmes are mentioned, mainly focussing on addressing 
hydro-morphological  pressures such as  the Habitat  Connectivity along the Rhine programme, 

Salmon  2020  programme,  the  Lake  Constance  Lake  Trout  programme,  the  Eel  Management 
Plans, the Master Plan Migratory Fish Rhine and the Rhine 2020 programme. 

The  Rhine  (2009),  the  Elbe  (2014)  and  the  Sava  have  adopted  basin-wide  sediment 
management  plans.  In  the  Rhine  and  the  Elbe,  risk  areas  were  classified  to  enable  the 

prioritisation  of  management  options.  In  the  Sava,  the  Protocol  on  Sediment  Management, 
defines the framework for developing a basin-wide sediment management plan. 

1.18.2. 

International  coordination  on  characterisation,  monitoring  and  status 

assessment 

Characterisation of iRBD 

The  WFD  stipulates  that  for  each  river  basin  an  analysis  should  be  carried  out  of  the 
characteristics  of  the  RBD.  This  includes  identifying  the  location  and  boundaries  of  water 

bodies,  typologies  of  water  bodies,  establishing  of  type-specific  reference  conditions  and  the 
identification of pressures and their impacts. 

284 

 
 
All the Category 1 basins coordinated on the development of the Article 5 assessments, i.e. the 
analysis on the characterisation of the iRBD. A few Category 2 basins reported to WISE that 

coordination 
Torneälven/Tornionjok. 

took  place, 

for 

example 

in 

the  Gauja/Koiva, 

Isonzo/Soca, 

and 

Most  of  the  Category  1  basins  indicated  that  some  coordination  of  the  delineation  of 

transboundary  surface  water  bodies  took  place.  In  the  Danube,  Sava  and  Rhine  iRBDs 
(Category 1 basins), common criteria were developed for delineation that focus the iRBMP on 

water  bodies  of  basin-wide  importance.  The  countries  in  the  Category  1  basins  have  used 
differing methodologies, which led to different results. For the most part, the results have been 

harmonised, which has helped surface water bodies to mostly be delineated similarly. Overall, 
the coordination on the delineation of rivers is further along than the delineation of lakes. Most 

of the Category 2-3 basins do not  provide information  on whether there was  coordination on 
surface water body delineation. In some cases, information was found in the RBMPs that state 

coordination took place but the details are limited.  

Transboundary  groundwater bodies were delineated in  the Danube, the Rhine, the Sava and 

the  Isonzo/Soca iRBDs.  In the  Isonzo/Soca international  river basin,  a joint approach/method 
for a coordinated ground water body delineation (for the transboundary water bodies) has been 

developed  and  applied.  The  Eastern  Alps  RBMP,  which  covers  the  Italian  part  of  the 
Isonzo/Soca,  states  that  coordination  initiatives  are  underway  between  Italy  and  Slovenia  for 

the  revision  of  the  delineation  of  groundwater  bodies  on  the  basis  of  the  hydrogeological 
structure rather than administrative boundaries, as agreed at the Italian-Slovenian Commission 

for Water Management.  

 The  designation  of  heavily  modified  and  AWBs  mostly  took  place  at  national  level  and 
details  on  international  coordination  efforts  are  limited.  In  the  Danube  iRBD,  the  countries 

agreed on a harmonised procedure for the final designation and on specific criteria for a step by 
step  approach  on  the  Danube  main  river.  The  designations  for  the  tributaries  are  based  on 

national  methods  and  respective  reported  information.  In  the  Rhine,  the  EU  Member  States 
agreed on common steps for HMWB designation, but the iRBMP states that these steps were 

implemented  differently  within  the  individual  sub-catchments  of  the  Rhine.  The  Scheldt 
iRBMP states that each of the parties used different descriptors for the designation of HMWBs 

but that the different approaches did not lead to substantial differences in the final assessment. 

Coordination  on  typology  has  taken  place  in  most  of  the  Category  1  basins  as  part  of  the 

intercalibration exercise, although in some cases despite coordination differences remain. The 
typology of the Danube River was developed in a joint activity by the basin sharing countries 

already in during the first management cycle. In the Danube, a harmonised typology was used 
by all the basin countries. In the Rhine, water bodies of basin-wide importance (i.e. those with 
catchments >2,500 km2) were classified using a common approach. For each part of the river, 
so-called “Passports” or files were created using common criteria.  

285 

 
 
Information  on  the  coordination  of  typology  is  not  available  for  most  of  the  Category  2-4 
basins.  In  the  Gauja/Koiva  iRBD  (Category  2),  Latvia  and  Estonia  participated  in  typology 

coordination  within  the  2011-2013  transboundary  project.  An  attempt  to  harmonise  national 
typologies with regard to cross-border water bodies was made in the frame of the project. In the 

iRBDs  shared  with  Sweden,  a  revision  of  the  typology  system  has  recently  been  agreed  in 
Sweden, attempting to further harmonize most of the typology factors and their ranges to those 

used in Norway and Finland. This new typology is planned to be applied for the 3rd RBMP. 

Information  on  the  coordination  of  type-specific  reference  conditions  is  limited  in  all 
international  river  basins.  Most  of  the  basins  either  did  not  provide  information  in  their 

iRBMPs  and  RBMPs  or  specifically  mentioned  that  the  establishment  of  type-specific 
reference conditions was undertaken within the individual countries. However, in general it can 

be  assumed  that  the  intercalibration  exercise  led  to  a  certain  level  of  coordination.  In  the 
Danube iRBD (Category 1), countries have agreed on general criteria as a common base for the 

definition  of  reference  conditions  for  rivers  of  basin-wide  importance.  These  have  then  been 
further  developed  on  the  national  level  into  type-specific  reference  conditions.  In  the 

Gauja/Koiva  iRBD,  the  Latvian  RBMP  mentioned  that  there  are  differences  in  type-specific 
reference conditions between the two Member States but that they will be coordinated during 

the next planning period. 

Joint significant water management issues were identified by the Category 1 basins. In a few 

of the Category 2 basins, for example in Torneälven/Tornionjok, coordination was carried out 
on  the  pressure  analysis,  which  is  a  first  step  in  identifying  joint  management  issues  in  the 

future. 

Monitoring  

Surface water bodies 

All  of  the  Category  1  basins  and  6  of  the  Category  2-3  basins  were  assessed  regarding  the 
monitoring of surface water bodies. Not all iRBDs were assessed as an initial screening showed 
that international coordination on monitoring was not taking place in all iRBDs. 

Joint  or  coordinated  monitoring  of  surface  water  bodies  is  taking  place  in  most  Category  1 

basins. In the Danube, the Elbe, the Meuse, the Rhine, the Sava and the Scheldt there are joint 
or coordinated programmes for ecological and chemical monitoring. In the Category 2-3 basins, 

about  half  of  the  basins  (e.g.  Gauja/Koiva,  Dniester,  Tana/Tena,  Vistula)  mention  that  joint 
monitoring  is  being  carried  out,  while  the  other  basins  mention  that  coordination  has  taken 

place although more detailed information on coordination efforts is limited. 

In the Danube, a joint survey is carried out every 6 years, which aids in the harmonisation of 
monitoring  methodologies;  filling  information  gaps  in  monitoring  networks;  testing  new 

methods;  or  checking  the  impact  of  “new”  chemical  substances  in  different  matrices.  In  the 

286 

 
 
Meuse  and  the  Scheldt  iRBDs,  joint  surveys  for  assessing  the  status  of  surface  waters  are 
carried  out.  Every  three  years,  the  commissions  of  the  two  iRBDs  publish  a  report  with  the 

most important results of the measured parameters per measuring station or measuring location.  

For seven Category 1 iRBDs139 and the Gauja/Koiva iRBD (Category 2 basin) a more detailed 
assessment of the information reported to WISE was possible:  

Monitoring of ecological status  

In operational monitoring, quality elements in rivers are assessed that are most sensitive to the 
prevalent  pressures.  Such  a  quality  element  can  then  be  used  as  the  least  common 

denominator for comparable assessments of ecological status, provided that the Intercalibration 
has  been  successful.  The  information  reported  to  WISE  by  the  EU  Member  States  in  each 
iRBD were compared140 to determine whether the quality elements selected were the same. 

In  all  the  iRBDs  assessed,  there  is  a  general  agreement  between  iRBD  sharing  countries  on 
sensitive  quality  elements  used  to  assess  nutrients,  organic  pollution  and  morphological 

pressures.  In  addition,  there  was  a  general  agreement  on  quality  elements  for  hydrological 
pressures in the basins except for in the Danube, the Elbe and the Odra. For chemical pollution 

and temperature pressures, the iRBD sharing countries used different quality elements to assess 
these pressures.  

The river basin specific pollutants  and their EQSs  reported by the Member States to  WISE 
were evaluated. The summary of the evaluation concern two essential aspects: 

  which and how many substances have been selected for the entire basin or parts of it; 

and  

  whether  the  EQSs  are  the  same  or  in  one  or  another  way  comparable  (in  the  same 

range/order of magnitude, for the same matrix). 

The  analysis  showed  similar  findings  in  all  eight  iRBDs  assessed.  The  identification  of  the 
number of river basin specific pollutants varied widely within the iRBDs, with some Member 

States  identifying  a  significantly  higher  number  river  basin  specific  pollutants  compared  to 
other iRBD sharing countries. This means that within the same basin Member States are using a 

different set of river basin specific pollutants for assessing ecological status. In addition, there 
were considerable differences in the number of river basin specific pollutants identified by the 

Member  States  and  the  number  of  pollutants  for  which  EQSs  had  been  defined.  The  lack  of 
EQSs  reduces  the  usability  of  the  monitoring  data  for  those  pollutants  in  terms  of  assessing 

ecological status.  In the basins with three or more iRBD sharing countries, there was not one 

139  The  Sava  and  the  Tana/Teno  could  not    be  assessed  as  these  basins  mostly  have  third  countries  sharing  the 

basin and information for these countries was not reported to WISE. 

140 The analysis differentiates 4 biological quality elements (or 3 biological quality elements and 2 sub- biological 

quality elements), 9 different pressures and 4 different water categories. 

287 

 
 
                                                           
common  river  basin  specific  pollutant  with  an  environmental  quality  standard  identified.  In 
most  cases,  the  river  basin  specific  pollutants  with  an  environmental  quality  standard  were 

commonly  identified  by  half  the  iRBD  sharing  countries.  In  the  iRBDs  shared  by  only  two 
Member States, common river basin specific pollutants with an environmental quality standard 

were  identified.  Overall,  there  was  limited  agreement  for  the  level  of  EQSs  for  river  basin 
specific pollutants among the iRBD sharing countries. This hinders being able to compare the 

results of the status assessment of surface water bodies.  

Monitoring of chemical status  

Member States are required to report to WISE on the priority substances in their RBDs and to 
establish  EQSs  in  line  with  the  EQSs  Directive.  In  operational  monitoring,  these  pollutants 

should  be  monitored  once  a  month  for  the  duration  of  the  river  basin  management  cycle.  In 
surveillance monitoring, the pollutants must be monitored once a month for one out of the six 

years of the management cycle. An important aspect for chemical status assessment, therefore, 
is whether the water samples during monitoring have been taken with the frequency outlined in 
the  WFD.  Other  frequencies  need  a  justification  based  on  expert  judgement  or  technical 

knowledge.  

The  analysis  of  the  frequency  the  Member  States  monitored  priority  substances  showed 
variations  within  the  iRBDs.  For  some  Member  States  within  an  iRBD,  the  monitoring 

frequency reflected the frequency as outlined by the WFD, but for other Member States within 
the same basin the monitoring frequency was less than 12 times/year without providing further 

justification. In none of the iRBDs assessed was the monitoring sampling frequency 100% in 
line with the frequency suggested by the WFD for all iRBD sharing countries. 

Quantitative and chemical monitoring of transboundary groundwater bodies 

Transboundary groundwater bodies were delineated in 5 of the iRBDs, namely the Danube, the 
Isonzo/Soca, the Rhine, the Sava and the Scheldt. The Danube iRBMP states that monitoring of 

the 11 transboundary groundwater bodies of basin-wide importance has been integrated into the 
Transnational Monitoring Network of the ICPDR. In the Isonzo/Soca international river basin, 

cooperation efforts between Italy and Slovenia to define transboundary groundwater bodies and 
to put in place a transboundary monitoring network are underway. The Italian RBMP covering 

the  Isonzo/Soca  reports  that  the  monitoring  networks  for  transboundary  groundwater  bodies 
will be defined in 2016. This work is being carried out under the Italian-Slovenian Commission 

for Hydro-economy via Interreg projects supported by the EU (the Italian RBMP refers to the 
ASTIS and HYDROKARST projects). According to the background document on groundwater 

bodies, a future Sava Commission groundwater body monitoring network is planned and will 
be  based  on  the  existing  national  monitoring  networks.  Maps  showing  the  status  of 

transboundary  groundwater  bodies  are  included  in  the  iRBMPs  of  the  Rhine  and  Scheldt  but 

288 

 
 
joint monitoring or the coordination of monitoring of transboundary groundwater bodies is not 
described. 

Status assessment 

Surface water bodies 

All  of  the  Category  1  basins  and  6  of  the  Category  2-3  basins  were  assessed  regarding  the 

monitoring of surface water bodies.  Not all iRBDs were assessed as a screening showed that 
international coordination on status assessment was limited. 

The  review  of  the  Category  1  basin  iRBMPs  shows  that  most  of  the  iRBDs  made  efforts  to 
harmonise  the  assessment  of  ecological  and  chemical  status.  Despite  harmonisation  efforts, 

differences still remain but the iRBMPs reported that progress is being made. In the Ems iRBD, 
to compare the credibility of the results, a three-level confidence level was introduced. In the 

assessment,  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  results  were  classified  in  the  high  confidence 
level,  since  the  assessment  was  reported  to  be  carried  out  in  accordance  with  the  WFD 

requirements.  Most  of  the  results  of  the  second  intercalibration  phase  were  incorporated  into 
the national evaluation systems. In the Meuse, the iRBMP states that for transboundary water 

bodies  bi-  and  trilateral  coordination  between  the  Member  States  took  place  to  ensure 
coherence  on  the  status  of  water  bodies.  In  the  Scheldt,  the  assessment  methods  are  not  the 

same throughout  all iRBD shares. To aid in the harmonisation of monitoring and assessment, 
individual files or “flash cards” have been produced for each transboundary water body, which 

according to the iRBMP are used for coordination and alignment of results. 

Limited information on harmonisation of status  assessment is available in the 6 Category  2-3 
basins  assessed.  The  Spanish  and  French  RBMPs  of  the  Garonne/Eastern  Cantabrian/Ebro 

iRBD mention that international cooperation has taken place with respect to status assessment 
but details are not provided.  

Groundwater bodies 

The  Danube  and  the  Scheldt  describes  in  their  iRBMPs  how  the  quantitative  and  chemical 
status assessment of groundwater bodies is coordinated. Both iRBMPs highlighted the need for 

further  cooperation  efforts.  In  the  Danube  iRBD,  the  countries  used  a  broad  spectrum  of 
different  methodologies  for  the  assessment  of  the  chemical  and  quantitative  status.  Despite 

there being overall coordination facilitated by the ICPDR Groundwater Task Group, the need 
for further harmonisation of the national methodologies is mentioned. In the Scheldt, Member 

States  have  compared  their  assessments  of  quantitative  status.  During  the  international 
coordination  within  the  Scheldt  district,  information  was  exchanged  on  the  groundwater 
monitoring networks for surveillance monitoring, with a particular focus on the transboundary 
aquifers.  However,  chemical  status  has not  been harmonised,  and each  Member State/Region 

289 

 
 
has defined criteria to assess the status that are causing groundwater bodies to be designated as 
at risk.  

Defining ecological potential of heavily modified and artificial water bodies 

Approaches for the determination of GEP were defined at national level by the individual EU 
Member  States  in  all  the  iRBDs.  Some  of  the  Category  1  basins  describe  harmonisation  or 

coordination  efforts  to  align  national  level  approaches.  According  to  the  Rhine  iRBMP,  the 
differences in the methodologies were intensively discussed within the iRBD and are relevant 

with  respect  to  the  harmonisation  of  classification  results  of  transboundary  water  bodies. 
According to the Odra iRBMP, each Member State has its own methodologies for determining 

GEP,  but  the  approaches  were  coordinated  through  a  two-day  workshop  to  minimize 
differences.  The  Meuse  iRBMP  states  that  bilateral  coordination  was  undertaken  to  ensure 

coherence.  

1.18.3. 

International coordination on exemptions and economic analysis 

The Category 1 basins were assessed regarding coordination of exemptions on transboundary 

surface and ground water bodies and the economic analysis of water services. 

Exemptions 

The  iRBMPs  of  the  Rhine  and  Scheldt  indicated  that  coordination  took  place  at  the 
international level. The Scheldt iRBMP states that Member States and Regions used different 

methodologies for the application of exemptions but that coordination on transboundary water 
bodies  took  place.  Coordination  of  exemptions  for  groundwater  bodies  was  not  mentioned  in 

the iRBMPs. In the Rhine iRBD, exemptions were reported to be coordinated for surface water 
bodies  of  basin-wide  importance,  and  the  iRBMP  outlines  the  reasons  for  the  application  of 

exemptions.  The  other  Category  1  basins  indicated  in  their  iRBMPs  that  exemptions  were 
applied at national level but not that specific coordination took place at the international level. 

Economic analysis 

Half  of  the  Category  1  basins  reported  coordinating  on  the  economic  analysis.  In  the  other 
basins, the analysis was carried out at national level and the information was summarized in the 

iRBMP. 

In  the  Danube  iRBD,  the  economic  analysis  and  water  pricing  policies  summarized  in  the 
iRBMP  is  based  on  the  joint  work  performed  for  the  2013  Update  of  the  Danube  Basin 

Analysis.  To  facilitate  the  international  coordination,  two  questionnaires  were  developed  and 
sent out in 2013 to collect information on economics from the Danube countries. The collected 

information  was  summarised  in  form  of  tables.  The  overview  tables  highlight  the 
commonalities and differences in approaches among the Member States and third countries in 

290 

 
 
 
the  Danube.  The  iRBMP  states  that  cost-effectiveness  analysis  is  currently  only  addressed  at 
national level; however, the planning period until 2021 could be used to “pave the way” for a 

possible use of cost-effectiveness analysis in the third management cycle. 

In the Odra iRBD, the sub-working Group “Economic Analysis” of the Odra Commission has 
the main objective to coordinate the exchange of data and information pertaining to economic 

issues  within  the  area  of  water  management.  The  economic  analysis  in  the  Rhine  iRBMP 
presents a trans-national summary of the economic analysis. The information provided is brief 

and summarizes the water uses and the baseline for the Rhine as whole. In the Scheldt iRBD, 
the  countries  applied  a  joint  approach  (commonly  agreed  indicators)  regarding  the  economic 

analysis  of  the  drivers  (households,  industry  &  agriculture).  Water  pricing  policies  were  not 
coordinated; however, the countries analysed the differences in the approaches. 

In  the  Gauja/Koiva  iRBD  (Category  2),  the  2011-2013  transboundary  project  had  as  an 

objective to develop a cost-effectiveness assessment methodology. One of the main results of 
the  project  was  the  coordination  of  a  joint  economic  analysis  approach,  which  included  the 
analysis  of  essential  water  uses,  water  services,  potential  future  trends  and  costs.  Work  has 

been  carried  out  to  coordinate  methodologies  for  economic  analysis  but  methodological  gaps 
still remain. 

1.18.4. 

International coordination on Programme of Measures 

All of the Category 1 basins cooperated on the development of a joint international Programme 
of  Measures  (iPoM).  These  iPoMs  are  all  based  on  jointly  identified  significant  water 

management  issues.  Management  objectives  were  developed  in  each  in  the  basins  to  address 
the significant issues. The iRBMPs present the measures included in the iPoMs, which for the 

most  part  are  a  summary  of  measures  at  national  level.  About  half  of  the  Category  1  basins 
mention  joint  measures  being  implemented  at  international  level.  These  joint  measures  focus 

mainly  on  addressing  pollution  and  overcoming  hydro-morphological  alterations  to  surface 
water bodies. None of the iPoMs provide detailed information on the measures included in the 

programme, such as timing, stakeholders involved, financing, etc., but the iRBMPs refer to the 
national plans for further details.  

In the Scheldt, while there are no joint measures, files for each transboundary water body were 

developed,  wherein  national  measures  planned  by  the  different  Member  States  are  included. 
Through the files, the Member States and Regions can take note of the measures planned by the 

other Parties for the transboundary watercourse involved. According to the iRBMP, these files 
help to influence other Member States and Regions regarding potential measures, for example, 

for new sources of pollutions or resolving existing bottlenecks. 

Four of the Category 1 basins mention a prioritisation method for selecting measures to address 

the transboundary significant water management issues. In the Elbe, priorities at international 
level  have  been  defined  for  measures,  mainly  measures  to  reduce  hydro-morphological 

291 

 
 
pressures, measures to reduce pollution from agriculture and measures to reduce pollution from 
chemical  substances  and measure  related to  waste water treatment.  In the Ems  iRBD, for the 

transboundary  management  issues,  such  as  the  improvement  of  the  water  structure  and 
continuity as well as  the reduction of nutrient  and pollutant inputs, measures were prioritized 

for their implementation and agreed in cross-border coordinated processes. In the Odra iRBD, a 
Strategy  was  developed  in  2013  that  defined  significant  water  management  issues,  suggested 

measures  and  prioritised  action.  This  information  influenced  the  development  of  national 
PoMs. In the Sava iRBMP, priorities for the effective implementation of national measures on a 

basin-wide scale are highlighted and are the basis of further international coordination. 

Measures to address water scarcity 

Water  scarcity  and  droughts  were  not  identified  as  an  international  significant  water 
management issue in the Category 1 basins. As such, the iPoMs do not define joint measures or 

strategies  to  address  this  issue.  Nonetheless,  in  about  half  of  the  iRBDs  measures  to  address 
water  scarcity  and  water  abstraction  are  described.  These  measures  are  carried  out  at  the 

national level. 

Measures to address pollution from agriculture and other sectors 

All  of  the  Category  1  basins  reported  pollution  from  agriculture  and  other  sectors  as  a 

significant  water  management  issue  and  measures  have  been  developed.  Most  of  the  basins 
refer to national level measures to address the issue. 

In  the  Danube,  future  development  scenarios  were  developed  and  the  estimated  effect  of 

measures  on  the  basin-wide  scale  were  assessed.  The  iPoM  also  includes  joint  measures  to 
address  agriculture  pollution.  One  joint  measure  mentioned  is  the  elaboration  of  basin-wide 

management strategies with the aim to reduce nutrient loads of surface and coastal waters. A 
set  of  measures  related  to  the  concept  of  best  agriculture  practice  is  also  suggested  to  be 

adopted in the entire Danube Basin. For pollution from sectors other than agriculture, a number 
of joint measures are described in the iRBMP. The ICPDR has been supporting the introduction 

of  the  phosphate-free  detergents  in  the  Danube  countries  which  committed  themselves  at 
ministerial level to initiate the introduction of a maximum limit for the phosphate content of the 

consumer detergents. 

In  the  Scheldt,  the  Member  States  and  Regions  have  a  joint  approach  to  address  nutrient 

pollution.  Measures  to  address  the  reduction  of  nitrogen  pollution  were  compiled  and 
compared, and the Member States and Regions jointly estimated their impact and costs.  

To address point source pollution, all the Category 1 basins are implementing similar measures 

and strategies. All the basins have internationally coordinated accidental pollution warning and 
response  systems  in  place.  The  focus  of  the  measures  in  the  iPoMs  is  on  constructing  or 

optimizing municipal sewage treatment plants. The implementation of the Urban Waste Water 
Directive  is  frequently  mentioned.  In  addition,  three  Category  1  basins  include  measures  to 

292 

 
 
address  rainwater  discharges  and  two  basins  include  measures  to  address  micro-pollutants. 
Based on the decision of the Rhine Ministers in 2007, the ICPR has intensively worked on the 

assessment  of  the  relevance  of  micro-pollutants  for  the  Rhine  e.g.  due  to  pharmaceutical 
residues and has recommended relevant reduction strategies. In the Meuse, the Netherlands is 

committed  supporting  drinking  water  companies  and  water  boards  to  investigate  the 
elimination of medicines from the water cycle. 

Measure to address hydro-morphological alterations 

Hydro-morphological  alterations,  especially  interruptions  in  river  continuity,  have  been 

identified as significant water management issues in all of the Category 1 basins. Most of the 
basins have identified joint measures, including joint approaches for prioritising actions within 

the  iRBD.  The  Meuse,  the  Scheldt  and  the  Rhine  each  developed  a  “Master  Plan  Migratory 
Fish”,  a  strategy  to  identify  where  measures  should  be  taken  in  each  iRBD  to  improve  the 

habitat and migratory corridors of fish species. 

In the Danube iRBD, in order to enable a sound estimation of where to target measures most 

effectively at the basin-wide scale, an ecological prioritisation of measures to restore river and 
habitat continuity in the iRBD has been carried out. The approach provides information on the 

estimated effects of national measures in relation to their ecological effectiveness at the basin-
wide scale and serves as a supportive tool in the implementation of measures. In the Odra, the 

2013 Strategy to address pressures in the basin details the problem analysis of river continuity 
issues within each Member State, focussing on the three main transboundary rivers within the 

basin. At the international level, rivers that act as migration corridors are especially prioritized. 
The  Strategy  follows  with  an  analysis  of  the  necessary  measures  for  re-establishing  river 

continuity  through  the  national  programmes  within  each  Member  State,  followed  by  a 
prioritisation of locations and measures.  

Similarly, in the Ems iRBD the Member States agreed to a joint approach in the prioritisation 

of measures to address river continuity. Habitat requirements of target species were evaluated 
to identify nationally significant migratory routes. In the Sava iRBD, to address morphological 

alterations  the  iRBMP  differentiates  between  water  bodies  at  risk,  possibly  at  risk  and  not  at 
risk.  

1.18.5. 

International coordination on Climate change and droughts 

Climate  change  impacts  and  the  need  to  adapt  to  climate  change  was  highlighted  in  all  the 
Category  1  iRBMPs.  A  few  of  the  Category  1  basin  have  developed  basin-wide  adaptation 

strategies,  and  some  iRBMPs  mention  taking  climate  change  effects  into  account  in  the 
selection of measures.   

In  the  Danube,  a  Climate  Change  Adaptation  Strategy  was  developed  in  2012.  The  ICPDR’s 
Climate Change Adaptation Strategy provides guidance on adaptation measures for the Danube 

River  Basin  and  includes  information  specific  for  WFD  implementation.  The  Meuse 

293 

 
 
Commission is currently working on a joint report on water scarcity that will help to develop a 
first  framework  for  a  future  approach  to  dealing  with  exceptional  low  water  events  in  the 

Meuse  catchment  area.  The  Rhine  Commission  has  developed  a  Strategy  for  Adapting  to 
Climate Change, which was published in 2015. The Adaptation Strategy includes suggestions 

for  measures  to  be  implemented  by  the  Member  States.  Within  the  Scheldt,  an  initial 
exploratory climate memorandum has been developed. According to the iRBMP, the Climate 

memorandum  discusses  use restrictions/limitations on abstraction as an  option and points out 
that the issue needs to be mapped out further on district level before actions and measures can 

be recommended. 

According to the Elbe iRBMP, in the future adaptation strategies for climate change will play a 
role in the selection of measures and their implementation in the medium and long term. Initial 

scientific results on the impacts of climate change in the Elbe iRBD have already been taken 
into account  in  the selection of measures for the present  management  plan. The Ems  iRBMP 

states  that  measures  in  the  iRBD  were  assessed  regarding  their  sensitivity  to  climate  change 
impacts, and measures were prioritised that would have a positive effect on water management 

under  a  wide  range  of  climate  change  effects.  According  to  the  Sava  iRBMP,  the  priority  in 
dealing with climate change in this cycle of WFD implementation is to propose a set of guiding 

principles  to  assist  Sava  River  Basin  managers  to  establish  a  strategy  for  building  adaptive 
capacity.  

Most  of  the  Category  2-3  basins  did  not  mention  international  coordination  in  the  context  of 
climate  change  in  their  RBMPs.  In  the  Dniester  iRBD  progress  has  been  made  regarding 

cooperation on adaptation to climate change between the Ukraine and Moldova. The Strategic 
Framework  for  Adaptation  to  Climate  Change  in  the  Dniester  River  Basin  was  published  in 

2015. It describes the climate change issues facing the river basin, the potential for adaptation 
to climate change and defines priorities and measures. 

1.19. Recommendations for international cooperation under the WFD 

 

 

In basins where an iRBMP has not been developed, the national RBMPs should include 
a dedicated chapter in their RBMPs describing the international coordination efforts to 
increase transparency. 

iRBD specific information should be reported to WISE as opposed to reporting for the 
whole national RBD. 

 

Institutional  arrangements  in  Category  3  and  4  basins  should  be  further  strengthened 

through  increased  active  exchange  and  coordination  on  all  aspects  of  WFD 
implementation. 

  All  iRBDs  should  strive  to  improve  or  to  initiate  coordination  on  delineation  and 

typology of water bodies.  

294 

 
 
 

Joint or coordination monitoring programme should be enhanced. To ensure that results 
of  assessing  ecological  status  are  comparable,  at  least  one  biological  quality  element 

should be common for each pressure. 

  EQSs should be harmonised for the same pollutants. 

  WFD consistent monitoring of priority pollutants should be made a priority in all basins 

to ensure that chemical status assessment is based on appropriate data. 

 

Status assessment for surface and groundwater bodies should be coordinated. 

  A  joint  methodology  for  setting  exemptions  on  transboundary  water  bodies  should  be 

developed. 

 

International  Programmes  of  Measures  should  strive  to  present  more  information  on 

international mechanisms for measures implementation rather than summarizing actions 
within Member States. Basin-wide approaches should be emphasized. 

295