COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: The Netherlands Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans
Date: 2019-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, adaptation to climate change, application of EU law, environmental risk prevention, flood, risk management, water, water management, water pollution, watercourse

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.2.2019  SWD(2019) 50 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: The Netherlands     Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL  on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans  {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 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} - 
 
 
Table of Contents 
Acronyms and definitions ............................................................................................................. 5 

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

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

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

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

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 19 

Topic 1

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

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

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

Topic 2

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

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

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 37 

2.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 37 

Topic 3
bodies 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water 

 ................................................................................................................................... 38 

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

3.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs ................... 55 

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

Topic 4

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................... 57 

4.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 57 

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

1 

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

Topic 5
bodies 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater 

 ................................................................................................................................... 74 

5.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 74 

5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 78 

5.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 78 

Topic 6

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................... 79 

6.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 79 

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

6.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 85 

Topic 7
  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 
Ecological Potential................................................................................................................... 86 

7.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle for designation ............................................................................................................... 86 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 88 

7.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 88 

Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions ................................................................ 90 

8.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 90 

8.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 96 

8.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 96 

Topic 9

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

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

9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 109 

9.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 110 
2 

 
 
 
 
Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity .......................................... 112 

10.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 112 

10.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 113 

10.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 113 

Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture................................................... 114 

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

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

11.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 115 

Topic 12

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture ..................... 118 

12.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 118 

12.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 119 

12.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 119 

Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology ................................................................ 121 

13.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 121 

13.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 122 

13.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 123 

Topic 14

Economic analysis and water pricing policies .................................................... 124 

14.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance .................................... 124 

14.2 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 125 

  Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives 

Topic 15
and measures) .......................................................................................................................... 127 

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

3 

 
 
 
 
15.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 131 

15.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 131 

Topic 16

Adaptation to drought and climate change .......................................................... 132 

16.1 

Requirements in the second cycle ........................................................................... 132 

16.2 

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

4 

 
 
 
 
Acronyms and definitions 

EQS Directive 

Environmental Quality Standards Directive 

FD 

Km 

km2 

KTM 

PoM 

Floods Directive 

Kilometre 

Kilometre squared 

Key Type of Measure 

Programme of Measures 

QA/QC Directive 

Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive  

RBD 

RBMP 

WFD 

WISE 

Annex 0 

River Basin District 

River Basin Management Plan 

Water Framework Directive 

Water Information System for Europe 

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

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Foreword 

The  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  (2000/60/EC)  requires  in  its  Article  18  that  each 

Member  State  reports  its  River  Basin  Management  Plan(s)  (RBMPs)  to  the  European 
Commission. The second RBMPs were due to be adopted by the Member States in December 

2015 and reported to the European Commission in March 2016. 

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

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

The  Member  State  Reports  reflect  the  situation  as  reported  by  each  Member  State  to  the 
European Commission in 2016 or 2017 and with reference to River Basin Management Plans 

(RBMP) prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States may have changed since then. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
General Information 

The Netherlands (Map A) cover a total area of 41 526 km² and has 16.4 m inhabitants.  

Map A  

Map of River Basin Districts 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

  International River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
  International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) 
  National River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
  Countries (outside European Union) 
  Coastal Waters 

It  has  four  RBDs,  which  are  all  parts  of  international  RBDs.  The  sharing  countries  are 

European Union Member States, as well as Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Information on the 
areas  of  the  national  RBD  including  sharing  countries  is  provided  in  Table  A  and  the 

percentage share in the Netherlands is shown in Table B. 

7 

North SeaBEEscaut_RWNLSCNLRNNLMSNLNLEMDE2000BESchelde_VLDE3000DE7000BEMaas_VLBEMaas_VLBEMeuse_RWBEEscaut_Schelde_BR050100km 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A: Overview of RBDs in the Netherlands 

RBD 

Name 

Size (km2) 

Percentage of 
national territory 

NLRN 

Rhine 

28 500 

NLSC 

Scheldt 

NLMS  Meuse 

NLEM 

Eems 

3 200 

7 500 

2 600 

69 

8 

18 

6 

Percentage of 
international 
RBD 

17.1 

5.5 

21.8 

13 

Countries sharing RBD 

AT, BE, CH, DE, FR, IT, LI, LU 

BE, FR 

BE, DE, FR, LU 

DE 

Source: RBMPs reported to WISE  

Table B 

Transboundary river basins by category and % share in the Netherlands 

Name 
international 
river basin 

Rhine 

Scheldt 

Meuse-Maas 

Ems 

National RBD 

Countries sharing RBD 

1 

Co-ordination category 

NLRN 

NLSC 

NLMS 

NLEM 

AT, BE, CH, DE, FR, IT, LI, LU 

BE, FR 

BE, DE, FR, LU 

DE 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

km² 

28917 

3200 

7500 

2600 

 % 

17.0 

5.5 

21.8 

13.0 

Category 1: International agreement, permanent co-operation body and international 
RBMP in place.  
Category 2: International agreement and permanent co-operation body in place. 
Category 3: International agreement in place. 
Category 4: No co-operation formalised. 

8 

 
 
 
Status of second river basin management plan reporting 

A total of four RBMPs for the Netherlands (Rhine, Scheldt, Meuse, Ems) were published on 
22 December 2015. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency (EEA) 
EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ 

9 

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

The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMP of the Netherlands are as follows: 

 

Governance and public consultation 

 

 

 

 

The  Netherlands  has  long-standing  mechanisms  for  coordination  among  the  many 

public bodies involved in water management. 

The RBMPs are linked to other water management plans at international, national and 

regional levels. 

The  Netherlands  cooperates  closely  on  water  management  with  other  Member  States, 

via both international river commissions and bilateral agreements. 

The public and interested parties were informed by a range of mechanisms, including 

media. Consultations also covered other national and regional water management plans. 

There was an outreach to the general public via social media.  

 

A broad range of stakeholders was actively involved, including via advisory groups. 

 

Characterisation of the RBD 

 

Three of the 18 lake water typologies did not have corresponding intercalibration types: 
most of these are heavily modified or artificial water bodies1. 

 

Type specific reference conditions have only been established for some of the relevant 

hydromorphological  quality  elements  in  each  water  category.  This  may  lead  to  some 
weaknesses in the classification of status/potential according to the hydromorphological 

quality elements. 

 

For  groundwater  bodies,  further  characterisation  work  has  been  undertaken  since  the 
first cycle by describing the geological formation and whether they are layered or not. 
The Netherlands has also included an assessment of linkages with surface water bodies 

and terrestrial ecosystems. 

 

The significance of pressures is reported to be defined in terms of thresholds or linked 

to  the  potential  failure  of  objectives  for  all  RBDs  for  both  surface  water  and 

1  The  Netherlands  subsequently  clarified  that  all  of  them  are  brackish,  which  were  not  included  in  the 

intercalibration exercise.  

10 

 
                                                      
groundwaters. However, expert judgment was used to assess the significance of water 

abstraction and water flow pressures on surface waters.  

 

32 of the 41 substances Priority Substances were included in an inventory for each of 
the RBDs2.  Tier 1 (point source information) was implemented for a limited number of 
substances  (for  most  of  the  others  no  information  was  reported).  The  Guidance 

Document recommends using at least Tier 1+2 for substances deemed relevant at RBD 
level.  

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status  

 

There  was  an  increase  in  the  proportion  of  lake  water  bodies  included  in  operational 
monitoring since the first RBMPs. However, operational monitoring decreased in river 

and  coastal  water  bodies.  Surveillance  monitoring  decreased  in  all  four  water 
categories. 

 

All biological quality elements used for surveillance monitoring were sampled at least 

at  the  minimum  recommended  frequency  at  all  sites  at  which  they  were  monitored. 
However, this was not the case for operational monitoring for most biological quality 

elements. 

 

213  different  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  reported  to  be  monitored,  only  in 

water.  They  were  monitored  in  all  water  categories.  All  of  those  monitored  for 
surveillance purposes were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at 

all  sites  where  they  were  monitored.    In  contrast,  of  those  included  in  operational 
monitoring only 2 % were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at 

all sites where they were monitored. 

 

Based on the one-out-all-out-approach, there are still only two water bodies in good or 

high ecological status/potential, although the first RBMPs foresaw that good ecological 
status/potential would be reached by 2015 for 9-13 % of artificial and heavily modified 

water bodies and for 28 % of natural water bodies. It should be noted, however, that at 
the  level  of  the  individual  biological  quality  elements  there  has  been  some  progress 

between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs  in  terms  of  an  increase  in  the  proportion  of 
surface water bodies achieving good ecological status/potential. 

2  The  Netherlands  subsequently  clarified  the  reasons  for  not  including  the  substances  on  the  inventories  was 
because the production of the substances has ceased and the application of these substances as pesticides is no 
longer allowed in the EU. 

11 

 
                                                      
 

The confidence in classification of ecological status is reported as high or medium for 

all water bodies, which is a major improvement since the first RBMPs, which included 
no information on confidence. 

 

Assessment methods have been developed for all relevant biological quality elements in 
all water categories. A new method for angiosperms has been developed for transitional 

and coastal waters. 

 

Environmental Quality Standards were reported for 96 River Basin Specific Pollutants, 

of  the  213  which  were  monitored.  All  standards  were  derived  in  accordance  with 

Technical  Guidance  n°  27  and  the  analytical  methods  used  meet  the  minimum 
performance  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  4(1)  of  the  Quality  Assurance  /  Quality 

Control Directive (QA/QC Directive). 

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

 

About half of surface water bodies in the second RBMP were failing to achieve good 

status  (52  %)  with  39  %  at  good  status  and  9  %  in  unknown status.  The  Netherlands 
reported chemical status in the second RBMP based on the more stringent standards in 

the  revised  Environment  Quality  Standards  Directive  (2013/39/EU).  This  precludes  a 
direct comparison between chemical status in the first and second RBMPs. 

 

 

Although not  reported to WISE, the Netherlands  subsequently  clarified that territorial 
waters have been monitored for chemical status. 

About 60 % of all water bodies were monitored. The overall number of  water bodies 
delineated decreased between the two RBMPs, and according to WISE, the number of 

sites  and  waterbodies  monitored  have  also  decreased.  However  it  is  unclear  whether 
this  apparent  decrease  in  monitoring  sites  /  waterbodies  results  from  different 

approaches to reporting between the first and the second RBMP. 

 

23  %  of  water  bodies  were  classified  by  monitoring,  69  %  by  grouping  and  9  %  by 

expert judgement.  

 

A  majority  of  water  bodies  are  classified  with  high  confidence.  The  Netherlands 
mentioned grouping is applied only when the confidence of the assessment within the 

group was high. 

12 

 
 

The  Netherlands  mentioned  that  all  41  priority  substances  were  taken  into  account  in 

the  assessment  of  status,  and  that  all  substances  were  monitored,  including  those 
assessed as discharged. Monitoring frequencies for the majority of substances met the 

recommended  minimum  frequency  for  operational  and  surveillance  monitoring  in 
water.  

  Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were not monitored in biota but 
in water, for assessment against alternative standards said by the Netherlands to be as 

protective as the biota standards.  

 

For trend assessment, no Priority Substances were monitored in sediment or biota. The 

RBMPs  indicated  that  trend  analysis  is  undertaken  on  the  basis  of  water  column 

monitoring. 

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 

bodies 

 

 

All groundwater bodies are covered by monitoring. 

All  groundwater bodies  have a clear status  with  high confidence, still remain in  good 

status and are not at risk. 

 

Groundwater  associated  surface  water  bodies  and  groundwater  dependent  ecosystems 

have been considered in  the assessment of status although they are not  related to  any 

risk. 

 

All ecosystems have been considered although they are not related to any risk. 

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

 

 

 

The coverage of groundwater bodies by monitoring remains fully comprehensive. 

Not all WFD core parameters are monitored. 

The  total  groundwater  body  area  failing  good  chemical  status  has  significantly 

decreased.  This is partly due to changes in the reporting methodology. 

 

Groundwater  associated  surface  water  bodies  and  groundwater  dependent  ecosystems 

have been considered in  the assessment of status although they are not  related to  any 
risk. 

13 

 
 

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

Ecological Potential 

 

In the context of designating heavily modified water bodies, the RBMPs contain brief 
descriptions of how significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use and 

the wider environment have been defined (as part of the methodology).  

 

The  Netherlands  has  also  set  up  a  system  of  factsheets  with  detailed  information  for 

each water body on the outcomes of assessments of the designation tests of the WFD. 
These  factsheets  contain  descriptions  of  the  assessment  of  restoration  measures  and 

their significant adverse effects on the use and the wider environment as well as on the 
assessment of “other means” to achieve the beneficial objectives of the modifications, 

in order to reach decisions on the designation. 

 

Good ecological potential has been defined in terms of biological elements. The good 

ecological  potential  definition  for  biological  quality  elements  is  based  upon  the 

assessment of biological quality element values for good ecological status of the closest 
comparable  water  body  type,  but  with  maximum  values  for  good  ecological  potential 

that  may  be  lower  than  those  for  good  ecological  status  (it  is  lower  for  at  least  one 
biological quality element).  

  Mitigation measures for defining good ecological potential have been reported in WISE 
for all four RBDs. The ecological changes expected due to the mitigation measures are 

described in a qualitative way with reference to biology. 

 

Environmental objectives and exemptions 

 

Environmental  objectives  for  ecological  and  chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies 

and  chemical  and  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  have  been  reported  in  all 
RBDs.  

 

 

Drivers, pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions are reported. 

The low number of water bodies that is in good status by 2015 and the high number of 

remaining  exemptions  poses  a  significant  challenge  with  regard  to  the  timely 

achievement of the WFD objectives. 

14 

 
 
 
 

Programme of Measures 

 

All measures planned for the first cycle have been completed; significant progress has 

been  made  in  linking  measures  to  pressures  and  providing  gap  analyses  with 
quantitative gap indicators for meeting objectives.  

 

It is not clear whether the Programmes of Measures (PoMs) are sufficiently ambitious 
as in a large number of water bodies some pressures will not be addressed by 2027. An 

analysis of the planned measures has been carried out, in particular for the preparation 
of the third plans, but it is acknowledged that a quantitative anaylisis would be difficult 

with the available scientific knowledge. 

 

A clear  financial  commitment has  been secured  for the implementation  of PoM in  all 

four RBDs. 

  Most  significant  pressures  on  surface  waters  and  groundwaters  have  been  covered  by 

KTMs. 

 

The  Netherlands  have  mapped  a  total  of  30  national  measures  and  71  national 
supplementary measures against 18 predefined KTMs and 26 of its own KTMs. 

 

Priority substances and KTMs to tackle them have been reported for surface water in all 

four RBDs. 

 

Gap  analyses  have  been  presented  for  all  significant  pressures  in  all  four  RBDs  for 

2015, 2021 and 2027. For groundwater, most gaps are expected to be closed by 2021, 
and  all  by  2027.  For  surface  waters,  gap  values  are  expected  to  be  reduced  in  most 

cases, but few are expected to be closed by 2027. 

 

There has been close co-ordination between RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans 

in all four RBDs. 

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 

  Water  abstraction  pressures  have  been  reported  to  be  relevant  for  some  areas  of  the 
Netherlands,  but  no  information  has  been  reported  yet  on  abstractions,  the  water 
exploitation index + or in support of the European State of the Environment Report in 

relation to water quantity. 

15 

 
 

There  is  a  permitting  regime  and  a  register  of  abstractions  for  surface  water  and 

groundwater, and a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control water 
impoundment. 

 

No specific water resource allocation and management plans have been developed and 
only  complementary  measures  associated  to  “KTM99-Other”  are  reported  to  tackle 

significant abstraction pressures.  

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture 

 

 

 

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

Safeguard zones have been established for abstractions. 

Implementation of basic measures Article 11(3)(h) for the control of diffuse  pollution 
from agriculture at source is ensured in all RBDs and the same rules apply across the 

whole RBD. 

 

Supplementary measures for reducing pollution from agriculture are reported as well as 

measures to reduce sedimentation from soil erosion and surface runoff.  

 

Financing of measures is secured and the costs of the measures are reported. 

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 

 

KTMs have been reported in all RBDs in the Netherlands for significant pressures from 

individual Priority Substances causing non-compliance. 

 

The  reported  information  indicates  that  substance-specific  measures  are  in  place  for 

each  of  the  Priority  Substances  and  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  reported  to  be 

causing  failure  in  surface  water  bodies,  and  for  each  of  the  pollutants  reported  to  be 
causing failure of good chemical status of groundwater in all assessed RBMPs. 

  Measures related to hydromorphology 

 

Significant  hydromorphological  pressures  and  operational  KTM  to  tackle  these  are 
reported in all RBDs. Basic measures are also in place (authorisation and/or permitting 

regime  to  control  physical  modifications),  though  there  is  no  register  of  physical 
modifications of water bodies. 

16 

 
 

Ecological flows have been derived and implemented for all relevant water bodies and 

the national measures include several measures to guarantee ecological flow. 

 

Although  KTM23  on  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  is  not  specifically  reported, 

reference  is  made  to  the  inclusion  of  integrated  approaches  (including  Natural  Water 
Retention  Measures  and  green  infrastructure)  in  several  water-related  strategies  and 

plans.  These  will  have  consequences  for  the  implementation  of  Natural  Water 
Retention Measures in all RBMPs. 

 

Between 2015 and 2021, very little progress is expected in terms of closing the gap for 

hydromorphological pressures in three RBDs (the Ems, Meuse and Scheldt RBDs). The 
main  progress  is  expected  to  be  achieved  between  2021  and  2027.  Only  in  the  Rhine 

RBD, some more progress is expected by 2021 in terms of reducing the number of water 
bodies  failing  the  objectives  due  to  physical  alterations  from  agriculture,  dams  and 

barriers and other hydromorphological alterations.  

 

Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

 

A broad definition of water services has been used and cost recovery calculations are 

presented for all water services. 

 

No detailed information on the application of the polluter pays principle was reported. 

 

Considerations  specific  to  Protected  Areas  (identification,  monitoring,  objectives 

and measures) 

 

The Netherlands has developed specific plans for a majority of the Protected Areas, but 
there are still some Protected Areas for which additional measures have not been set in 

the second River Basin Management Plans.   

 

Objectives for protected areas linked to the Birds and Habitats Directives are currently 

all generic and work is reported to be on-going to determine specific needs. 

  Monitoring  has  only  been  reported  for  Drinking  Water  Protected  Areas  related  to 
groundwater but  the monitoring was not  reported for  any other type of protected area 

(this was only done through the reporting under the other relevant Directives). 

17 

 
 
 
 

Adaptation to drought and climate change 

 

Climate change was considered in several ways in all river basin districts and it is stated 

that  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  guidance  document  on  how  to  adapt  to 
climate change was used. 

 

Specific sub-plans addressing climate are also reported for all river basin districts in the 
Netherlands. Sub-plans addressing water scarcity and droughts have been reported for 

all river basin districts in the second cycle. 

18 

 
 
 
Recommendations  

 

The  Netherlands  should  continue  to  improve  international  cooperation,  including 

coordinated assessments of the technical aspects of the Water Framework Directive such 

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

 

The  Netherlands  should  complete  the  assessment  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  existing 
agricultural measures and identify which additional measures are needed to achieve the 

objectives of the WFD. 

 

The  Netherlands  should  make  sure  that  assessment  methods  for  biological  quality 

elements  are  sensitive  to  all  significant  impacts,  including  chemical  pollution. 
Hydromorphological quality elements should be used for classification of water bodies. 

 

The chemical status of the remaining water bodies in unknown status should be assessed  

and  the  status  of  territorial  water  bodies  should  be  reported  to  WISE.  If  reduced 
monitoring  frequencies  are  used,  the  Netherlands  should  provide  the  corresponding 

explanations, as required by the WFD. 

 

The  Netherlands  should  continue  investigating  the  possibility  to  monitor  in  biota  for 

status  assessment,  and  in  a  non-water  matrix  for  trend  assessment  (following  on  the 
discussions in the Working Group Chemicals). 

 

 

A significant number of exemptions is still applied in the second RBMPs. Efforts need to 
be continued to  ensure the implementation  of an ambitious PoM in  order to  ensure the 

timely  achievement  of  the  WFD  objectives.  The  justifications  for  the  application  of 
exemptions should be reviewed accordingly. 

Specific  prioritisation  of  measures  based  on  cost-effectiveness  analysis  should  be 
provided. 

 

It is not clear whether the measures identified are adequate and whether the Programmes 

are  sufficiently  ambitious,  as  many  of  the  pressures  are  estimated  not  to  be  fully 
addressed  by  2027.  The  Netherlands  should  define  ambitious  measures  based  on  the 

pressures  and  impacts  analysis  and  status  assessment  of  water  bodies.  The  choice  of 
measures should reflect the significance of the pressure. 

19 

 
 

In  the  third  RBMPs  the  Netherlands  should  describe  in  more  detail  how  it  is  proposed 

that the “Deltaplan Agrarisch Waterbeheer” can help to reduce pollution from agriculture 
and characterise additional measures that have been included in this plan. 

 

As  regards  chemical  pollution  from  non-agricultural  sources,  the  Netherlands  should 
ensure  that  the  Programmes  of  Measures  are  based  on  reliable  assessment  of  the 

pressures, and that all relevant pollutants are identified and addressed. 

 

The Netherlands should apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant 

impact  on  water  bodies  or  justify  any  exemptions  using  Article  9(4).  The  Netherlands 

should continue to transparently present how financial, environmental and resource costs 
have been calculated and how the contribution of the different users is ensured. It should 

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

 

The  Netherlands  has  failed  to  provide  information  on  the  implementation  of  additional 
measures for several relevant Protected Areas, with the exception of safeguard zones for 

the protection of Drinking Water. The Netherlands needs to conclude its on-going work 
to determine the needs for measures under the Habitat and Birds Directives.. 

20 

 
 
 
Topic 1

  Governance and public participation 

1.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

1.1.1  Administrative arrangements – river basin districts 

The  Netherlands  has  four  RBDs:  the  Rhine,  which  covers  69  %  of  the  national  territory; 
Meuse; Scheldt; and Ems. All four are part of international RBDs.  

1.1.2  Administrative arrangements – competent authorities 

The Netherlands reported Competent Authorities across several administrative levels.  

At  national  level,  the  Netherlands  reported  that  the  Ministry  of  Infrastructure  and  the 

Environment  has  main  roles  for  the  enforcement  of  regulations,  economic  analysis,  pressure 
and impact analysis, preparation of the RBMPs and PoM, public participation, coordination of 

implementation and reporting to the European Commission; and it has supporting roles for the 
monitoring and assessment of status of surface water and for the implementation of measures. 

The Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management has main roles for the preparation of the 
RBMPs and PoM and the coordination of implementation. The Netherlands informed that in 

2017, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment became the Ministry of Infrastructure 
and Water Management; the roles of the Ministry of Economic Affairs have been taken by the 

Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. 

The  12  provinces  each  have  main  roles  for  the  monitoring  and  assessment  of  status  of 

groundwater,  enforcement  of  regulations,  pressure  and  impact  analysis,  public  participation, 
implementation of measures and coordination of implementation.  

The 24 regional water authorities3 are each responsible for the monitoring  and assessment of 
status  of  surface  water,  enforcement  of  regulations,  pressure  and  impact  analysis,  public 

participation, implementation of measures and coordination of implementation.  

The Association of Dutch Municipalities has a main role for the implementation of measures 

and a supporting role for the coordination of implementation. 

In  its  assessment  of  the  first  RBMPs,  the  European  Commission  recommended  that  the 
Netherlands  provide  transparency  concerning  the  coordination  mechanisms  among  the  many 

competent authorities.  

3   The Netherlands subsequently informed that there are currently 21 regional water authorities.  

21 

 
                                                      
The second RBMPs explain that coordination takes place under the lead of the Water Steering 

Group (Stuurgroep Water), chaired by the Minister of Infrastructure and Environment (now the 
Minister  of  Infrastructure  and  Water  Management).  Bodies  represented  in  the  group  include 

Rijkswaterstaat (an Agency of the Ministry in charge of water infrastructure, amongst others), 
provinces, regional water authorities, municipalities and drinking water authorities.  

1.1.3  RBMP – structure and Strategic Environmental Assessment   

For  all  four  of  its  RBDs,  the  Netherlands  reported  (Figure  1.1)  that  separate  plans  cover  the 
following  topics:  agriculture,  chemical  industry,  chemical  pollution,  climate  change,  coastal 

erosion, hydropower, nutrient enrichment, rural planning, transport, urban planning and water 
scarcity and droughts.  

Figure 1.1 

Issues,  sectors,  sub-basins  or  water  categories 
supplemented by more detailed sub-plans for the second cycle 

in 

the  Netherlands 

RBD 

NLEM 

NLMS 

NLRN 

NLSC 

e
r
u
t
l
u
c
i
r
g
A

 

 

 

 

y
r
t
s
u
d
n
i

l
a
c
i
m
e
h
C

 

 

 

 

r
e
w
o
p
o
r
d
y
H

 

 

 

 

t
r
o
p
s
n
a
r
T

 

 

 

 

s
t
h
g
u
o
r
d
d
n
a

y
t
i
c
r
a
c
S
r
e
t
a
W

 

 

 

 

y
t
i
u
n
i
t
n
o
c
n
o
i
t
a
r
g
i
m

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

:
r
e
h
t
O
 

 

 

 

t
n
e
m
h
c
i
r
n
e

t
n
e
i
r
t
u
N

 

 

 

 

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
p
l
a
c
i
m
e
h
C

 

 

 

 

n
o
i
s
o
r
e

l
a
t
s
a
o
C

 

 

 

 

g
n
i
n
n
a
l
p
l
a
r
u
R

 

 

 

 

g
n
i
n
n
a
l
p
n
a
b
r
U

 

 

 

 

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

 

 

 

 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

  Covered by sub-plans 

The Netherlands reported the following separate plans: the National Water Plan 2016-2021; the 

Plans of the Regional Water Authorities 2016-2021, the Water Management and Development 
Plan for the Dutch Main Water System4. The Netherlands also cites the international RBMPs 
related to each of its RBDs and their PoM. 

A Strategic Environmental Assessment was reported to have been carried out for RBMPs and 

Programmes of Measures in all four RBDs. 

4 The Netherlands subsequently informed that the RBMPs also refer to the regional plans of all provinces. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
1.1.4 

Public consultation 

In  all  four  RBDs,  the  public  and  interested  parties  were  informed  by:  Internet,  invitations  to 

stakeholders,  local  authorities,  media  (papers,  TV  and  radio)  and  meetings.  Documents  were 
made available (for the requisite six months) either electronically via download or in hard copy 

in municipal buildings.  

The following stakeholder groups were actively  involved in  the development  of the RBMPs: 

agriculture/farmers,  consumer  groups,  energy/hydropower,  fisheries/aquaculture,  industry, 
local/regional  authorities,  NGOs/nature  protection  and  water  supply  and  sanitation  operators. 

Active  involvement  used  the  following  mechanisms:  establishment  of  advisory  groups, 
involvement  in  drafting  and  regular  exhibitions.  In  addition,  there  was  an  outreach  to  the 

general public using social media. 

Public  consultation  had  the  following  impacts  in  each  of  the  RBDs:  the  addition  of  new 

information, changes to the selection of measures and changes to the methodology used. 

The  European  Commission,  in  its  review  of  the  first  RBMPs,  recommended  that  the 
Netherlands  ensure  that  all  relevant  documents  are  easily  accessible  for  public  participation. 

The  RBMPs  indicate  that  the  public  consultation  also  covered  the  draft  plans  of 
Rijkswaterstaat, the Provinces and the water boards. The Netherlands informed that a national 
web  site5  was  used  to  provide  all  these  plans;  moreover,  factsheets,  prepared  for  each  water 
body in the Netherlands, were also available for consultation6.    

1.1.5 

Integration  with  the  Floods  Directive  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive 

The Netherlands carried out joint consultation of its RBMPs and the Flood Risk Management 
Plans under the Floods Directive7 . 

The Netherlands carried out a joint consultation between the RBMPs and the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive8. 

5  See:  www.helpdeskwater.nl/sgbp.  The  draft  plans  for  consultation  are  available  at  the  following  page: 

https://www.helpdeskwater.nl/onderwerpen/wetgeving-beleid/kaderrichtlijn-water/2016-
2021/@177334/waterbeheerplannen-0/ 

6 

https://www.waterkwaliteitsportaal.nl/Beheer/Data/Publiek?viewName=Factsheets&year=2015&month=Dece
mber  

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

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

23 

 
                                                      
1.1.6 

International coordination  

All  four  of  the  RBDs  in  the  Netherlands  are  part  of  an  international  RBD.  An  international 

agreement,  a  permanent  co-operation  body  and  an  international  RBMP  are  in  place  for  all 
RBDs  (designated  as  category  1  cooperation).  Moreover,  explicit  links  were  made  with 

national  RBMPs  within  the  international  RBMP.  Netherlands  reported  that  there  was 
international coordination on public participation only in one RBD, the Rhine9.  

The Netherlands also cooperates bilaterally on water management with neighbouring Member 
States:  for  example,  with  the  Flanders  Region  of  Belgium  in  the  Flemish-Dutch  Scheldt 

Commission and the Flemish-Dutch Bilateral Meuse Commission. For further information see 
the reports on international coordination on the Water Framework Directive. 

1.2 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

•  Recommendation: The division of competences between the different authorities results in 
a  complex  system  with  different  levels  involved  in  the  implementation  of  the  WFD. 

Furthermore,  the  background  documents  with  many  important  details  are  not  easily 
accessible,  and  the  relevant  information,  including  on  pressures,  methodologies  and 

measures,  may  be  spread  in  several  plans  (national,  regional,  local).  Improved 
transparency  and  communication  of  the  coordination  mechanisms  between  competent 

authorities  would  be  advisable.  In  addition,  easy  access  to  all  relevant  documents  will 
encourage  public  participation  in  both  the  development  and  delivery  of  necessary 

measures to ensure sustainable water management. 

Assessment:  Regarding  coordination,  the  RBMPs  explain  that  coordination  takes  place 

under the lead of the Water Steering Group (Stuurgroep Water), chaired by the Ministry of 
the  Ministry  of  Infrastructure  and  Water 
Infrastructure  and  Environment  (now 

Management).  Bodies  represented  in  the  group  include  the  Rijkswaterstaat,  Provinces, 
regional  water  management  authorities,  municipalities  and  drinking  water  authorities. 

Consequently, the Netherlands has fulfilled this part of the recommendation.  

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

9  The  Netherlands  subsequently  informed  that  the  international  parts  of  the  RBMPs  were  part  of  the  public 

consultation process in all RBDs.    

24 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
For  the  second  cycle  of  RBMPs,  public  consultation  also  covered  the  draft  plans  of 

Rijkswaterstaat, the Provinces and the water boards; moreover, detailed factsheets on each 
water body were available for consultation. Consequently, this part of the recommendation 

has also been fulfilled. 

25 

 
 
 
Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District 

2.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle  

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

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

water bodies 

There has been a reduction in the number of river water bodies in one RBD (the Rhine RBD -6 

%)  and  the  others  have  remained  the  same  (Table  2.1).  There  has  been  a  reduction  in  the 
number of lake water bodies in one RBD (the Meuse RBD -6 %), an increase of only 1 % in 

one RBD (the Rhine RBD) and the others have remained the same. Fewer coastal water bodies 
were  delineated  in  the  second  cycle  in  all  four  RBDs  (nine  compared  to  fifteen,  40  % 
reduction)10.  The  numbers  of  transitional  and  groundwater  bodies  (Table  2.2)  remained  the 
same. 

The minimum size criteria reported were 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and 0.5 km2 surface 
area for lakes, which is system B in Annex II of the WFD. Table 2.3 shows the differences in 

size distribution of surface water bodies in the Netherlands between the second and first cycles. 
It  is  notable  that  both  the  maximum  and  the  average  size  of  coastal  water  bodies  have 
decreased significantly in area11. The RBMPs also noted that some small changes in the areas 
of  water  bodies  in  each  water  category  were  made,  in  particular  for  coastal  water  bodies. 

Coastal  waters  have  been  limited  to  one  mile  from  the  coast,  contrary  to  the  first  cycle;  this 
was  to  avoid  overlap  with  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  and  was  in  line  with 
delineations in neighbouring countries12.  

10   The  Netherlands  clarified  that  the  actual  number  of  coastal  waters  remained  the  same,  but  that  five  were 

reported as territorial water bodies. However these were not reported to WISE in the second cycle.  

11   This likely relates to the removal of territorial waters as coastal water bodies. 
12   The Netherlands subsequently highlighted that the chemical status is assessed for the 12-mile zone. 

26 

 
 
                                                      
Table 2.1 

Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in the Netherlands for the second and first cycles  

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Year 

RBD 

Number of 
water bodies 

2016 
2016 
2016 
2016 
2016 

2010 
2010 
2010 
2010 
2010 

NLEM 
NLMS 
NLRN 
NLSC 
Total 

NLEM 
NLMS 
NLRN 
NLSC 
Total 

5 
103 
137 
1 
246 

5 
103 
145 
1 
254 

Total length of 
water body 
(km) 
271 
2 288 
2 351 
16 
4 927 

Number of 
water 
bodies 
14 
52 
336 
49 
451 

Total area (km2) 
of water bodies 

20 
80 
2 710 
244 
3 055 

Number of 
water 
bodies 
1 
1 
2 
1 
5 

275 
2 117 
2 349 
16 
4 756 

14 
49 
338 
49 
450 

33 
82 
2 692 
239 
3 046 
Source: WISE electronic reports. 

1 
1 
2 
1 
5 

Total area (km2) 
of water bodies 

Number of 
water bodies 

175 
46 
170 
326 
717 

176 
46 
134 
328 
684 

1 
1 
4 
3 
9 

2 
2 
6 
5 
15 

Total length of 
water body 
(km) 
135 
84 
3 159 
717 
4 095 

684 
496 
8 682 
2 027 
11 889 

Table 2.2 

Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in the Netherlands for the second and first cycles 

Year 

RBD 

Number 

Area (km2) 

Minimum 

Maximum 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

NLEM 

NLMS 

NLRN 

NLSC 

Total 

NLEM 

NLMS 

NLRN 

NLSC 

Total 

2 

5 

11 

5 

23 

2 

5 

11 

5 

23 

330.65 

26.32 

223.48 

47.9 

26.32 

331 

26 

223 

47 

26 

1 981.65 

6 277.99 

6 141.16 

1 773.15 

6 277.99 

1 982.00 

6 277.00 

6 141.00 

1 773.00 

6 277.00 

Average 

1 156.15 

2 024.06 

2 138.20 

804.16 

1 737.98 

1 156.50 

2 023.80 

2 137.91 

796 

1 736.04 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.3 

Size distribution of surface water bodies in the Netherlands in the second and first cycles  

Year 

RBD 

River length (km) 

Lake area (km2) 

Transitional (km2) 

Coastal (km2) 

Minimum  Maximum 

Average  Minimum  Maximum 

Average  Minimum  Maximum  Average  Minimum  Maximum 

Average 

2016  NLEM 

12.55 

2016  NLMS 

2016  NLRN 

3.79 

1.67 

2016  NLSC 

15.74 

2010  NLEM 

12.55 

2010  NLMS 

2010  NLRN 

3.87 

0.26 

2010  NLSC 

15.74 

108.35 

104.61 

120.55 

15.74 

108.35 

108.44 

120.57 

15.74 

54.29 

22.22 

17.16 

15.74 

54.95 

20.55 

16.2 

15.74 

0.03 

0.01 

0 

0 

0.17 

0.01 

0 

0.02 

8.99 

63.17 

1 148.95 

139.31 

8.99 

63.97 

1 137.43 

139.02 

1.45 

1.55 

8.07 

4.97 

2.37 

1.66 

7.96 

4.87 

174.86 

135.03 

83.76 

135.03 

83.76 

269.81 

2 156.22 

326.01 

0.51 

363.49 

174.86 

45.89 

49.8 

326.01 

175.8 

46.23 

48.04 

174.86 

45.89 

119.99 

326.01 

175.8 

46.23 

85.87 

45.89 

84.89 

175.8 

46.23 

66.96 

135.55 

95.74 

548.91 

400.15 

256.05 

3 077.06 

1 446.95 

135.03 

83.76 

789.71 

238.97 

342.23 

247.95 

327.86 

327.86 

327.86 

0.51 

1 300.91 

405.47 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In the second RBMP only 2 % of identified surface water bodies were natural with 42 % being 

designated  as  heavily  modified  and  56  %  as  artificial.  Figure  2.1  shows  the  proportion  of 
surface water bodies in  the Netherlands designated as artificial, heavily  modified and natural 

for  the  second  and  first  cycles.  The  decrease  in  coastal  water  bodies  was  mostly  in  terms  of 
natural water bodies (-45 %), but the only artificial coastal water body was not delineated in 

the second cycle. For lake water bodies there was an increase in artificial water bodies (1 %), a 
decrease  in  heavily  modified  water  bodies  (-2  %),  whereas  the  natural  lake  water  bodies 

remained  the  same.  For  river  water  bodies  there  was  an  overall  decrease  in  artificial  and 
heavily modified water bodies (-10 % and -3 % respectively), whilst there was an increase of 

17 % in natural river water bodies. Overall in the second RBMP there was a high proportion of 
heavily modified and artificial water bodies (97 %). 

Figure 2.1 

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

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

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by the Netherlands on how water bodies have 

evolved between the two cycles. It shows there were not a significant amount of changes and 

29 

 
 
that  there  were  minimal  changes  to  river  and  lake  water  bodies.  The  changes  included  both 

aggregation and splitting, creation and deletion.  

Table 2.4 

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

Netherlands between the second and first cycles  

Type of water body change for 
second cycle  

Aggregation 

Splitting 

Aggregation and splitting 

Change in code 

Extended area 

Creation 

Deletion 

No change 

Total water bodies before deletion 

Delineated for second cycle (after 
deletion from first cycle) 

Groundwater 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

1 

15 

2 

51 

2 

177 

248 

246 

3 

151 

2 

4 

9 

291 

460 

451 

23 

23 

5 

5 

5 

6 

9 

15 

9 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

2.1.2 

Identification of transboundary water bodies 

All four RBDs are international. Two groundwater bodies were identified as transboundary in 
the Scheldt RBD. No surface water bodies were reported as transboundary in WISE.  

2.1.3  Typology of surface water bodies 

In general there was an apparent decrease in number of types from first RBMP to the second 
RBMP13  (Table  2.5).  It  was  stated  in  the  RBMPs  that  the  typology  remains  a  working 
instrument and that it is a compromise between a workable method and the specificities of each 

water body. 

It is reported that the Netherlands applied system B and they designated their own categories. 

Member  States  were  asked  to  report  “Not  applicable”  if  there  is  no  corresponding 
intercalibration  type  for  national  types.  Most  national  types  (heavily  modified,  artificial  and 

13 The Netherlands subsequently clarified that this is the result of the difference in the reporting format between 
2009 and 2016 and in order to report the ecological classification in 2009 all water bodies were reported as a 
separate type (this was in agreement with the Commission and the EIONET helpdesk). They further stated that 
the numbers should be: R-types 2010 identical to 2016 (total 12); L-types 2010 identical to 2016, except for 
NLRN  (17  L-types  2010  is  correct);  T-types  2010  identical  to  2016  (all  RBD  1);  C-types  2010  should  be: 
NLEM  2,  NLMS  2,  NLRN  4,  NLSC  3.  There  are  fewer  coastal  water  body  types  in  2016  because  coastal 
waters between 1 and 12 miles no longer have been presented as water bodies 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
natural) have been intercalibrated. However, in each of the RBDs there are lake water bodies 

that are reported not to have a corresponding intercalibration type. Overall three of the 18 lake 
water  types  (type  codes  M30,  M31  and  M32)  did  not  have  corresponding  intercalibration 
types: most of these are heavily modified or artificial water bodies14. There was a second phase 
of intercalibration that was finalised in 2013. There has been an update of the typologies and 

intercalibration, but only for natural waters, not for heavily modified or artificial water bodies. 
The  RBMPs  reported  that  compared  to  the  first  cycle  there  was  more  harmonisation  in  the 

biological  quality  elements  used  and  comparable  water  types  with  other  European  Union 
Member States. 

Table 2.5 

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

RBD 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

NLEM 

2010 

8 (3) 

NLMS 

114 (11) 

NLRN 

NLSC 

6 

2 (1) 

Total 

121 (12) 

2016 

3 

11 

6 

1 

12 

2010 

16 (5) 

57 (8) 

17 

56 (7) 

131 (18) 

2016 

5 

8 

16 

7 

18 

2010 

2 (1) 

2 (1) 

1 

2 (1) 

4 (1) 

2016 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2010 

4 (2) 

4 (2) 

4 

8 (3) 

13 (4) 

2016 

1 

1 

3 

2 

3 

Source: WISE electronic reports. Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are 

shared by RBDs. Numbers in brackets were provided by the Netherlands and the differences are based on the 
changes in reporting.  

2.1.4  Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies 

Type  specific  reference  conditions  have  been  established  for  all  relevant  biological  quality 
elements in most but not all river types (Table 2.6): for one river type (R7), biological quality 
elements have been established for some but not all15. Type specific reference conditions have 
been  established  for  all  relevant  physicochemical  quality  elements  in  all  river  types  for  each 
water category. Type specific reference conditions have only been established for some of the 

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

elements. 

14  The  Netherlands  subsequently  clarified  that  all  of  them  are  brackish,  which  were  not  included  in  the 

intercalibration exercise.  

15  The  Netherlands  subsequently  clarified  that  this  is  a  reporting  error  and  for  all  biological  quality  elements, 

references and metrics are available.  

31 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 2.6 

Percentage of surface water body types in the Netherlands with reference 

conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, 
hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in 

parenthesis are the number of types in each category 

Water category  Water types 

Rivers (12) 

Lakes (18) 

Coastal (3) 

Transitional (1) 

All 

Some 

None 

All 

Some 

None 

All 

Some 

None 

All 

Some 

None 

Biological quality 
elements 
92 %  

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 

Physicochemical 
quality elements 
100 % 

8 %  

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

Source: WISE electronic reports.  

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

2.1.5  Characteristics of groundwater bodies 

The geological formation of the aquifer types in which groundwater bodies reside and details 
of whether groundwater bodies are layered have been reported. Further characterisation work 

has  been  reported  since  the  first  cycle  with  the  inclusion  of  the  assessment  of  linkages  with 
surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems for all RBDs. 

2.1.6 

Significant pressures on water bodies 

The reporting of pressure types also changed between the reporting cycles and as a result it is 

difficult  to  compare  significant  impacts  because  of  these  changes  and  the  changes  in  the 
delineation  of  water  bodies  between  the  cycles.  In  the  second  RBMP,  diffuse  agricultural 

pressures  were  reported  to  affect  the  largest  proportion  (78  %)  of  surface  water  bodies 
followed by pressures from dams, barriers and lock from "other" sectors (61 %) (Figure 2.2). 

In the first RBMP, the Netherlands only reported pressures at an aggregated level with diffuse 
source  pressures  affecting  90  %  of  surface  water  bodies  (Figure  2.3).  For  most  of  the 
Netherlands’ RBDs there was a reported increase in water bodies impacted by diffuse sources, 
particularly in the Rhine RBD. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In the second RBMP, ‘Point source  – other’ was reported to affect the largest proportion (57 

%) of groundwater bodies followed by the pressure ‘Diffuse – agriculture’ (52 %) (Figure 2.2).  

It was reported what pressures were excluded from the assessment: ‘Point  - Mine waters’ for 
surface and groundwaters16. 

Figure 2.2 

The  most  significant  pressures  on  surface  water  bodies  and  groundwater 

bodies in the Netherlands for the second cycle  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

16  The  Netherlands  subsequently  clarified  that  mine  waters  is  not  a  significant  pressure  to  surface  water  or 

groundwater in the Netherlands. 

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 2.3  Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in the Netherlands in the 

first and second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note there 
were 711 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 724 for the 

first cycle.  

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

2.1.7  Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater 

For surface waters numerical tools were used for defining significant pressures from point and 
diffuse  sources.  Other  pressures  were  identified  by  expert  judgment  (e.g.  abstractions  and 

flow).  For  surface  water  bodies  significance  of  pressures  has  been  defined  in  terms  of 
thresholds and is linked to the potential failure of objectives. 

For groundwaters a combination of numerical tools and expert judgment was used for defining 
significant  pressures  from  point  and  diffuse  sources.  The  significance  of  pressures  has  been 
defined in terms of thresholds and is linked to the potential failure of good status.  

The  RBMPs  did  not  highlight  any  major  changes  in  the  methodology  or  criteria  for  the 

identification of pressures since the first cycle. 

2.1.8 

Significant impacts on water bodies 

In  the  second  RBMP,  the  most  significant  impact  on  surface  water  bodies  was  nutrient 
pollution  (86  %)  followed  by  altered  habitats  due  to  morphological  changes  (includes 
connectivity) (75 %), altered habitats due to hydrological changes (68 %), chemical pollution 

34 

 
 
 
(50 %) and organic pollution (48 %) (Figure 2.4). For groundwater bodies the most significant 

impacts  were nutrient  and organic pollution each with  61 % of  groundwater bodies  affected. 
The Netherlands did not report on impacts in the first RBMP. 

Figure 2.4 

Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in the 
Netherlands for the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

2.1.9  Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 

No groundwater bodies in any of the RBDs were reported to be at risk of failing to meet good 
chemical  status  in  the  second  RBMP.  The  pollutants  putting  groundwater  bodies  at  risk  of 

35 

 
 
 
 
failing good chemical status have been reported for two RBDs (the Meuse RBD and the Rhine 

RBD). No groundwater bodies in any of the RBDs were reported to be at risk of failing to meet 
good quantitative status in the second RBMP. 

2.1.10  Quantification of the gap and apportionment of pressures  

There  are  some  inconsistencies  in  the  pressures  for  which  measures  are  planned  and  the 

significant  pressures  reported  at  the  water  body  level.  For  example,  in  the  Meuse  RBD, 
‘Diffuse  -  urban  runoff’  and  ‘Diffuse  –  agricultural’  have  been  reported  at  the  groundwater 
body level but this pressure has not been reported as being tackled in the PoM17.  

14 Priority Substances are causing the failure of good chemical status in surface waters in the 

Netherlands, and two pollutants (total phosphorus and nitrogen) causing the failure. Inventories 
of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances 

Article  5  of  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  (EQS  Directive)18  requires 
Member  States  to  establish  an  inventory  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  all  Priority 

Substances and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I EQS Directive for each 
RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States 
to further target measures to tackle pollution from priority substances. It should also inform the 

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

(respectively priority hazardous substances).  

The  Netherlands  reported  inventories  for  each  of  their  four  RBDs.  Of  the  41  Priority 

Substances  33  were  included  in  an  inventory  for  each  of  the  RBDs.  The  following  Priority 
Substances and groups of priority substances and other pollutants  were not included in any of 

inventories: 

the 
chlorfenvinphos; 
pentachlorobenzene total cyclodiene pesticides (aldrin + dieldrin + endrin + isodrin) and total 

chlorpyrifos; 

trifluralin; 

alachlor; 

atrazine; 

DDT (DDT, p,p' + DDT, o,p' + DDE, p,p' + DDD, p,p'). The Rhine RBMP reported that these 
substances  were  not  included  in  the  emission  inventory  because  the  production  of  the 

substances has ceased and the application of these substances as pesticides is no longer allowed 
and therefore there are zero emissions. 

17 The  Netherlands subsequently clarified that this  was reported and linked to surfacewaterbody in the complex 

reporting schema of PoM (poMID=1) but should have been also be linked to groundwater (poMID=2). 

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

Parliament 

Council 

and 

the 

of 

36 

 
                                                      
The  two-step  approach  from  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  Document 
n°2819 has been followed for all substances considered in the inventories. For a limited number 
of  substances  Tier  1  (point  source  information)  was  implemented  (for  most  of  the  others  no 

information  was  reported). The Guidance Document recommends using at  least Tier 1+2  for 
substances deemed relevant at RBD level. The data quality was not reported. 

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

There has been a reduction in the number of river water bodies in the Rhine RBD (-6 %) and 
the  others  have  remained  the  same.  There  has  been  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  lake  water 

body in one RBD (the Meuse RBD -6 %), an increase of 1 % in one RBD (the Rhine RBD) 
and the others have remained the same. Coastal waters have been limited to one mile from the 

coast,  contrary  to  the  first  cycle;  this  has  been  to  avoid  overlap  with  the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework Directive. The numbers of transitional and groundwater bodies remained the same. 

It is difficult to compare significant impacts because of changes in delineation of water bodies 
between the cycles and in the definition of impact types. For most of the Netherlands RBDs an 

increase  was  reported  in  water  bodies  impacted  by  diffuse  sources,  particularly  in  the  Rhine 
RBD between the first RBMP and the second RBMP. 

2.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

topic. 

19 CIS Guidance N° 28 - Preparation of Priority Substances Emissions 

Inventoryhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm 

37 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 3

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

3.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second RBMPs 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

3.1.1  Monitoring of ecological status/potential 

Monitoring programmes 

Article  8.1  of  the  WFD  requires  Member  States  to  establish  monitoring  programmes  for  the 

assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and 
comprehensive overview of water status  within each RBD. Territorial waters are not  a water 

body category under 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. 

Separate  monitoring  programmes  were  reported  for  surface  waters  and  for  groundwater 
including both surveillance and operational monitoring. 

Monitoring sites  

Table  3.1  compares  the  number  of  monitoring  sites  used  for  surveillance  and  operational 

purposes between the first and second RBMPs, and  Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used 
for different purposes for the second RBMPs. Figure 3.1 shows the percentage of water bodies 

included in surveillance and operational monitoring between the first and second RBMPs. 

Overall  there  was  a  small  increase  in  the  number  of  sites  used  for  operational  and/or 

surveillance monitoring of surface waters in the Netherlands, 854 for the first plan and 857 for 
the  second.  However,  there  were  significant  decreases  in  the  numbers  of  sites  used  for  the 

surveillance  monitoring  of  all  four  water  categories  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs. 
Proportionally the largest decrease was in coastal waters where numbers decreased from 26 for 

the first RBMP to 10 for the second RBMP. There were also significant decreases in numbers 
of  operational  sites  in  coastal  (44  %)  and  transitional  waters  (30  %)  but  small  increases  in 

operational sites in lakes (2 %) and rivers (1 %) from the first to the second RBMPs. 

38 

 
 
 
Table 3.1 

Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in the 

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

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

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

second RBMP  

NL_EM 

NL_MS 

NL_RN 

NL_SC 

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

NL_EM 

NL_MS 

NL_RN 

NL_SC 

Total by type of site 
Total number of monitoring 
sites 

2 

38 

29 

0 

69 

2 

48 

31 

0 

81 

354 

6 

129 

208 

1 

344 

5 

140 

193 

1 

339 

5 

7 

54 

14 

80 

5 

11 

67 

12 

95 

14 

70 

359 

22 

465 

2 

1 

4 

4 

2 

4 

5 

3 

1 

1 

5 

3 

1 

1 

7 

1 

11 

14 

10 

10 

475 

16 

12 

14 

51 

359 

30 

454 

4 

3 

3 

4 

4 

5 

7 

4 

14 

20 

2 

4 

13 

7 

26 

1 

2 

10 

5 

18 

342 

462 

23 

27 

Surv. = Surveillance monitoring, Op. = Operational Monitoring 

Sources: Member States electronic reports to WISE  

Table 3.2 

Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different 

purposes in the Netherlands 

Monitoring Purpose 

Chemical status 

Ecological status 

Operational monitoring 

EIONET State of Environment monitoring 

Surveillance monitoring 

Total sites irrespective of purpose 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional  Coastal 

184 

322 

344 

35 

69 

355 

298 

444 

465 

26 

80 

475 

9 

14 

14 

16 

11 

16 

8 

11 

10 

12 

10 

12 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

39 

 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.1 

Percentage  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  and  operational 

monitoring  in  the  Netherlands  for  the  first  RBMP  (2010)  and  second 
RBMP  (2016).  Note  no  differentiation  is  made  between  water  bodies 

included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

To add context to the assessment of the number of water bodies used in monitoring, there was 
a 40 % reduction in the number of identified coastal water bodies from the first to the second 

RBMPs. There was also a small decrease in the numbers of river water bodies (254 to 246) and 
an increase of one in the number of lakes. Overall five transitional water bodies were identified 

for both periods. 

There was a small reduction in the proportion of coastal, lake and river water bodies included 

in  surveillance  monitoring  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMP.  For  example,  for  river  water 
bodies 82 (18 %) were included in surveillance monitoring for the first RBMP compared to 72 
(16 %) for the second RBMP. All five transitional water bodies were included in surveillance 

monitoring for the second RBMP compared to four of the five for the first RBMP. 

In terms of river and coastal water bodies, there was a reduction in the proportion included in 

operational monitoring between the two RBMPs, and an increase in the proportion of lakes and 
all transitional water bodies were included for both RBMPs. The largest proportional change 

(reduction)  was  for  rivers  with  249  (98  %)  being  included  in  operational  monitoring  for  the 
first RBMP and 221 (90 %) for the second RBMP. 

40 

 
 
 
Monitored water bodies used for ecological status/potential 

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

ecological status class. 

Figure 3.2 

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

included in surveillance monitoring in the Netherlands 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Transboundary surface water body monitoring 

The  Netherlands  did  not  report  any  transboundary  surface  water  bodies,  but  did  report  two 
transboundary  groundwater  bodies  in  the  Scheldt  RBD.  The  Netherlands  did  not  report  any 

monitoring sites that were part of international networks even though it is likely that some are 
used for this purpose. 

Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) 

Table 3.3 illustrates the quality elements used for the monitoring of water bodies for the second 
RBMP. No differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. 

41 

 
 
Table 3.3 

Quality  elements  monitored  for  the  second  RBMPs  in  the  Netherlands 

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

Biological quality elements 

Hydromorphological quality elements 

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

s
e
t
y
h
p
o
r
c
a
M

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

c
i
h
t
n
e
B

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

h
s
i
F

s

m
r
e
p
s
o
i
g
n
A

e
a
g
l
a
o
r
c
a
M

Lakes 

Yes 

Rivers 

Yes 

No 
(Yes) 
No 
(Yes) 

No 
(Yes) 

Yes  Yes 

Yes  Yes  Yes 

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

r
e
h
t
O

c
i
t
a
u
q
a
r
e
h
t
O

a
r
o
l
f

Yes 

Yes 

Transitional  Yes 

Coastal 

Yes 

Yes  Yes 

Yes  No 

No 
(Yes) 
No 
(Yes) 

No  Yes 

No  Yes 

y
t
i
u
n
i
t
n
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

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

e
m
i
g
e
r

l
a
d
i
t

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

General physicochemical quality elements 

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

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

l
a
m
r
e
h
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

n
o
i
t
a
n
e
g
y
x
O

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

y
t
i
n
i
l
a
S

Lakes 

No (Yes)  No (Yes) 

Yes 

No (Yes) 

Rivers 

Transitional 

Coastal 

No 

No 

No (Yes) 

No (Yes) 

Yes 

Yes 

No (Yes)  No (Yes) 

No (Yes) 

No 

No 

s
u
t
a
t
s
n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
d
i
c
A
No 
(Yes) 
No 
(Yes) 

No 

No 

n
e
g
o
r
t
i

N

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

s
u
r
o
h
p
s
o
h
P

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
C

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes (No) 

e
t
a
c
i
l
i
S

No 

No 

No 

No 

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

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

r
e
h
t
O

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

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

t
n
e
i
r
t
u
n

No 

No 

No 

No 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Values in brackets provided by the Netherlands subsequent to WISE 

reporting. 

Two RBDs have one coastal water body each, which were reported not to be monitored. The 

expected  biological  quality  elements  are  monitored  in  the  other  two  RBDs  within  coastal 
waters. All the expected biological quality elements are monitored in some lake water bodies. 
There is only one reported river water body in one RBD, which in terms of biological quality 
elements was only monitored for other aquatic flora. In the other three RBDs with rivers, all 

the expected biological quality elements were monitored in some water bodies. In none of the 
RBDs  with  transitional  water  bodies  are  all  the  expected  biological  quality  elements 

monitored. Fish and benthic invertebrates are not monitored in transitional water bodies in two 
RBDs. 

Hydromorphological quality elements were not reported to be monitored in any coastal water 
body  in  the  Netherlands  and  in  the  transitional  water  bodies  in  two  of  the  four  RBDs  with 

42 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
transitional water bodies. Hydrological  regime is  not  monitored in  lakes  in  one RBD but  the 

expected  elements  are  in  the  other  three  RBDs.  Continuity  and  hydrological  regime  are 
monitored  in  rivers  in  three  of  the  four  RBDs  with  rivers;  morphological  conditions  are 

monitored in rivers in three of the four RBDs. 

In  general,  only  two  types  of  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  are  monitored  in  the 

Netherlands:  nutrient  and  oxygenation  conditions.  The  other  groups  (transparency,  thermal 
conditions, salinity and acidification status) are not reported to be monitored20.  

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 period covered by a RBMP i.e. six years. For phytoplankton this 
should be done twice during the monitoring year and for the other biological quality elements 

once during that year. As a guideline, operational monitoring should take place at intervals not 
exceeding once every six months for phytoplankton and once every three years during the six 

year cycle for the other biological quality elements. Greater intervals may be justified on the 
basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. 

All  biological  quality  elements  used  for  surveillance  monitoring  in  all  four  water  categories 

were  sampled  at,  or  more  than,  the  minimum  WFD  recommended  frequency  at  all  sites  at 
which they were monitored. In coastal waters two of the three, in transitional waters three of 

the  four  and  in  rivers  one  of  the  five  biological  quality  elements  used  for  operational 
monitoring  were  sampled  with  a  compliant  frequency  at  all  of  the  sites  where  they  were 

monitored.  In  lakes  none  of  the  biological  quality  elements  were  reported  as  having  been 
sampled at this frequency at all sites. 

River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored 

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  provides  guidance  on  the  frequency  of  monitoring  of  the  different 
quality  elements:  once  every  three  months  is  recommended  for  “other  pollutants”  which  are 

taken  here  to  equate  to  river  basin  specific  pollutants.  Surveillance  monitoring  should  be 
carried  out  for  each  monitoring  site  for  a  period  of  one  year  during  the  period  covered  by  a 

river  basin  management  plan  i.e.  six  years.  For  river  basin  specific  pollutants  the  frequency 
should be four times for the surveillance year, and for operational monitoring four times a year 

for each year of the cycle. 

213  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  reported  to  be  monitored  in  water  (only)  in  the 

Netherlands including 102 reported as "other chemical substances". 212 of these were included 

20  The  Netherlands  subsequently  indicated  that  all  relevant  general  physicochemical  quality  element  groups  are 

monitored and used in assessing status/potential. The omission in the reporting is likely to be an error.  

43 

 
                                                      
in  surveillance monitoring of water, all were sampled at  least  at  the minimum  recommended 

frequency at all sites where they were monitored. Of the 213 River Basin Specific Pollutants 
included  in  operational  monitoring  only  four  (2  %)  were  sampled  at  least  at  the  minimum 

recommended  frequency  at  all  sites  where  they  were  monitored.  For  25  substances  (12  %) 
none of the sites were sampled at this frequency. 

Table  3.4  shows  the  number  of  sites  used  to  monitor  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  in  the 
Netherlands  for  the  first  and  second  RBMPs.  A  small  reduction  in  monitoring  of  rivers  (six 

sites) is observed with a greater reduction for lakes (49 sites, a 16 % reduction). Transitional 
and coastal water have remained the same. 

Table 3.4 

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

pollutants reported in the first RBMP in the Netherlands. Note, the data from 
both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and 

also not all Member State reported information at the site level meaning that 
there were no equivalent data for the first RBMP  

RBMP 

first  

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

second  

Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific 
Pollutants 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

176 

170 

315 

266 

8 

8 

8 

8 

Sources: WISE electronic reporting  

Use of monitoring results for classification 

Grouping was not used in the classification of ecological status/potential at the quality element 
level. However, the Netherlands also reported that the grouping of water bodies has been used 

in  extrapolating  the  assessment  and  classification  of  ecological  status  from  monitored  water 
bodies to those water bodies with no monitoring sites.  

Monitoring  results  were  solely  used  in  coastal  and  transitional  waters,  and  overwhelmingly 
used in lakes (~95 % of total lake water bodies) and rivers (~95 % of total river water bodies). 

Expert judgement was used to approximately the same extent in rivers and lakes where around 
1 % of water bodies were classified by this means.  

There  is  a  mismatch  between  the  number  of  water  bodies  monitored  for  different  quality 

elements (fewer) and the number of water bodies classified based on monitoring results (more) 
for the same quality elements. 

44 

 
 
3.1.2  Ecological Status/potential of surface water  

The  ecological  status/potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the  Netherlands  for  the  second 
RBMPs is illustrated in Map 3.1. This is based on the most recent assessment of status. 

Figure 3.3 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential and  Figure 
3.4  compares  the  ecological  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the  Netherlands  for  the  first 

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

Map 3.1 

Ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the  Netherlands 
based  on  the  most  recently  assessed  status/potential  of  the  surface  water 

bodies 

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1(4)(2)(i). 

High 

Good 

Moderate 

Poor  

Bad 

Unknown 

RBDs 

Countries outside the European Union 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

45 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Figure 3.3  Confidence  in  the  classification  of  ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface 

water  bodies  in  the  Netherlands  based  on  the  most  recently  assessed 
status/potential  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Figure 3.4  Ecological  status or  potential  of surface water bodies in the Netherlands for 

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

period  of  the  assessment  of  status  for  the  second  RBMPs  was  2009  to  2014. 
The year of the assessment of status for first RBMPs is not known  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

46 

 
 
  
Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological 

status/potential. The information for Netherlands is shown in Figure 3.5. 

Figure 3.5  Expected  date  of  achievement  of  good  ecological  status/potential  of  surface 

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

All  water  bodies  have  been  classified,  except  three  artificial/heavily  modified  lakes  in  the 

Rhine RBD. This is an improvement for the two saline water categories since the first RBMPs, 
when 25 % of transitional and coastal water bodies were of unknown status/potential.  

Based on the one-out-all-out approach, there are still only two water bodies in good or better 
ecological  status/potential  for  the  second  RBMP  in  spite  of  the  first  RBMPs  objective  to 

achieve good ecological status/potential by 2015 for 9-13 % of artificial and heavily modified 
water  bodies  and  for  28  %  of  the  natural  water  bodies.  The  achievement  of  the  good  status 

objective has now been postponed to 2027 or later for most of the water bodies. For the first 
RBMP there were three water bodies at good status/potential. There was a small reduction in 

the proportion of water bodies with unknown status/potential from 1.1 % (eight water bodies) 
in the first RBMP to 0.4 % (three water bodies) for the second. 

At the level of the individual biological quality element there has been some progress between 
the  two  RBMPs  in  terms  of  an  increase  in  the  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  achieving 

47 

 
 
good ecological status/potential. For example, in terms of benthic invertebrates the proportion 

of surface water bodies at good status/potential for the first plan was 19 % (724 water bodies)  
increasing to 25 % (711 water bodies) for the second.  

The  RBMP  for  the  Rhine  RBD  reports  that  ecological  status/potential  has  improved 
significantly since 2009; the improvement  is  due to  improvements in  most biological  quality 

elements,  except  fish,  which  remained  more  or  less  stable.  The  improvement  is  still  not 
sufficient to improve the overall status/potential to good or high. 

A  comparison  with  the  status  in  2009  in  the  Scheldt  RBMP  shows  a  mixed  picture:  water 
bodies  in  good  or  high  status  have  decreased  for  algae,  while  there  is  an  increase  of  water 

bodies in  good/high status for benthic invertebrates, fish and macrophytes. There are still no 
water bodies with good/high ecological status/potential.  

A similar comparison in the Ems RBMP shows that the ecological status has improved since 
2009;  overall  improvements  are  still  not  enough  to  move  the  ecological  status  from  good  to 

high. 

It is stated in the Meuse RBMP that there is a significant improvement compared to 2009 for 
all quality elements. However, this is still not sufficient to improve the overall ecological status 

to good or high. 

Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element 

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

48 

 
 
Figure 3.6  Ecological  status/potential  of  the  biological  quality  elements  used  in  the 

classification  of  surface  waters  in  the  Netherlands.  Note  that  water  bodies 
with unknown status/potential, and those that are monitored but not classified 

or not applicable, are not presented. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure  3.7  compares  the  classification  of  biological  quality  elements  for  the  first  and  second 
RBMPs  for  rivers  and  lakes.  It  should  be  noted  that  this  comparison  should  be  treated  with 

some caution as there are differences between the numbers of surface water bodies classified 
for  individual  elements  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs  and  slight  changes  due  to 

adaptation to  Intercalibration and technical improvement of biological metrics. In general for 
the elements provided in Figure 3.7 the percentage of rivers and lakes at high/good status has 
increased. 

49 

 
 
 
Figure 3.7  Comparison  of  ecological  status/potential  in  the  Netherlands  according  to 

classified  biological  quality  elements  in  rivers  and  lakes  between  the  two 
RBMPs 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 illustrate the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential 
of water bodies in the Netherlands for the second RBMPs. 

The classification of the individual quality elements is illustrated in Figure 3.10.  

50 

 
  
Figure 3.8 

The classification of the ecological  status or  potential  of water bodies in the 

Netherlands  using  1,  2,  3  or  4  types  of  quality element.  Note:  the  four types 
are:  biological;  hydromorphological,  general  physicochemical  and  River 

Basin Specific Pollutants 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 3.9 

The  percentage  of  water  bodies  in  the  Netherlands  where  no  biological 

quality  element  or  no  hydromorphological  (HYMO)  or  no  general 
physicochemical  (PHYSCHEM)  or  no  river  basin  specific  pollutant 

(RBSP) has been used in the classification of ecological status or potential 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. The Netherlands noted that hydromorphology has, in fact, been 
used in classification. 

51 

 
 
 
Figure 3.10 

Basis of the classification of ecological status/potential in the Netherlands. 

The percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

52 

 
 
Several  quality  elements  are  reported  to  be  in  good  status/potential  in  a  large  proportion  of 

water bodies in all or some of the RBDs: These are phytoplankton in coastal and transitional 
waters  and  oxygenation  conditions  in  all  the  water  categories.  There  are  also  several  other 

quality elements in  good status/potential in  many water bodies in  most of the RBDs, e.g. all 
biological quality elements in lakes, transparency and nutrients in lakes, benthic invertebrates 

in rivers and other aquatic flora and benthic invertebrates in transitional waters.  

For many water bodies, a change in class is reported for several quality elements, but there is 

no clear pattern for the different quality elements, some changes are to the better and others to 
the  worse.  Some  of  the  changes  are  reported  as  consistent,  others  are  due  to  changes  in 

monitoring and/or assessment systems.  

Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements 

Assessment  methods  are developed  for  all biological  quality  elements  in all water categories 
except  macroalgae  in  transitional  and  coastal  waters21.  A  new  method  for  angiosperms  has 
been developed for transitional and coastal waters.  

Reference conditions are set for all types and all the biological quality elements where methods 
are developed.   

The sensitivity of several of the biological quality element methods to different impacts have 
been reported as impact-specific. 

The  methodology  document  referenced  in  the  RBMPs  was  examined  for  major  changes  in 
assessment methodologies for the biological quality elements. There did not appear to be any 

major changes in methodology, except for a reference to the calculation of confidence levels of 
the  overall  ecological  assessment  and  the  fact  that  a  new  method  had  been  developed  for 

angiosperms in transitional and coastal waters, compared with the first RBMP. 

Intercalibration of biological assessment methods and national classification systems 

A number of water body types are reported to have been linked to the common intercalibration 

types, but  it is  not  clear  which biological  quality element  methods have  been intercalibrated, 
and  how  the  class  boundaries  have  been  set  for  national  types  not  linked  to  the  common 

intercalibration types. 

21 The Netherlands subsequently stated that in terms of macroalgae in transitional and coastal waters the Common 
Intercalibration  Strategy  Working  Group  on  Ecological  Status  had  accepted  that  this  element  was  not 
applicable in the Netherlands. 

53 

 
                                                      
All national types are linked to an intercalibration type, except three brackish water lake types. 

Surprisingly, two national river types with calcareous geology, R17 and R18, have been linked 
to a siliceous intercalibration type: R-C122.  

Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements 

The  use  of  hydromorphological  quality  elements  in  the  classification  of  ecological 
status/potential is generally lacking23 even though certain hydromorphological quality elements 
(hydrological  or  tidal  regime,  river  continuity  conditions  and  morphological  conditions)  are 
reported to be supporting sensitive biological quality elements. 

Assessment methods for general physicochemical quality elements 

Common standards are reported for all types of water bodies in all water categories for thermal 
conditions, oxygenation conditions and nutrient conditions, for transparency in lakes, and for 

salinity  and  acidification  in  rivers  and  lakes.  The  nutrient  standards  are  higher  than  the 
saturation level for nutrient sensitive biological quality elements, although they are indicated to 

support these biological quality elements. 

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

It is reported in the methodology paper (cited in the RBMPs) that there is a list of substances 
with significant emissions (diffuse and point) that have been added to the list of substances to 

be monitored. 

Environmental  Quality  Standards  were  reported  for  96  different  River  Basin  Specific 

Pollutants;  all  standards  were  for  water  only.  All  standards  have  been  derived  in  accordance 
with  the  2011  Technical  Guidance  Document  Number  2724  and  the  analytical  methods  used 
meet  the  minimum  performance  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  4(1)  of  the  QA/QC  Directive 
(2009/90/EC25) for the strictest standard applied for all substances. 

Overall classification of ecological status  

The Netherlands reported that the one-out-all-out principle has been used in all RBDs. 

22 The Netherlands subsequently indicated that national types R17 and R18 have a relative small size (<8 m) and 
calcareous  geology  is  not  really  excluded  from  intercalibration  type  RC-1  as  calcareous  and  siliceous  types 
can combine together to some extent and, therefore, in the Netherlands’ view the best fit is with RC-1. 

23 The Netherlands subsequently indicated that the classification of hydromorphological quality elements is only 

relevant to the classification of good ecological status and maximum ecological potential. 
24   https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0cc3581b-5f65-4b6f-91c6-433a1e947838/TGD-EQS%20CIS-

WFD%2027%20EC%202011.pdf 

25  Directive  2009/90/EC  of  31  July  2009  laying  down,  pursuant  to  Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the  Council,  technical specifications  for chemical analysis and  monitoring of  water status 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1524565750309&uri=CELEX:32009L0090 

54 

 
                                                      
3.2  Main  changes  in  implementation  and  compliance  since  the  first 

RBMPs 

Overall  there  was  a  small  increase  in  the  number  of  sites  used  for  operational  and/or 

surveillance monitoring of surface waters in the Netherlands between the two plans. However, 
there were significant decreases in the numbers of sites used for the surveillance monitoring of 

all four water categories between the two RBMPs in the Netherlands. Proportionally the largest 
decrease was in coastal waters where numbers decreased from 26 for the first RBMP to 10 for 

the  second  RBMP.  There  were  also  significant  decreases  in  numbers  of  operational  sites  in 
coastal (44 %) and transitional waters (30 %) but small increases in operational sites in lakes (2 

%) and rivers (1 %) from the first to the second RBMPs. 

The confidence in classification of ecological status/potential is given as high or medium for 

all water bodies, which is  a major improvement since the first  RBMP, where no information 
was given on confidence.  

All  water  bodies  have  been  classified,  except  three  artificial/heavily  modified  lakes  in  the 
Rhine RBD. This is an improvement for the two saline water categories since the first RBMP, 

when 25 % of transitional and coastal water bodies were unknown.  

For many water bodies, a change in class is reported for several quality elements, but there is 

no clear pattern for the different quality elements, some changes are to the better and others to 
the  worse.  Some  of  the  changes  are  reported  as  consistent,  others  are  due  to  changes  in 

monitoring and/or assessment systems.  

River Basin Specific Pollutants are monitored in all RBDs, the methodology for analysis and 

assessment is well described, and the water bodies and substances causing exceedances of the 
Environmental Quality Standard values are reported. 

3.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

on the following: 

•  Recommendation:  The  identification  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  needs  to  be  more 
transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they 
were monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken 

into  account  in  the  assessment  of  ecological  status.  It  is  important  that  there  is  an 
ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put 

in place.  

55 

 
Assessment:  The  Netherlands  reported  details  of  the  specific  River  Basin  Specific 

Pollutants monitored in each RBD. River Basin  Specific Pollutants were also  used in  the 
classification of ecological status/potential and the River Basin Specific Pollutants causing 

the  failure  of  status  were  also  given.  Environmental  quality  standards  were  also  reported 
for  96  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  for  the  Netherlands  and  the  standards  were  all 

reported to have been derived in accordance with the 2011 Technical Guidance Document 
Number 27. In these aspects, it is clear that the Netherlands has met this recommendation. 

56 

 
 
 
 
Topic 4

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

4.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle  

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

4.1.1  Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters 

Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for monitoring of chemical status  

Member  States  have  to  implement  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  programmes  in 

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

Surveillance monitoring programmes should allow Member States to supplement and validate 
the  impact  assessment  procedure,  to  efficiently  and  effectively  review  the  design  of  their 

monitoring programmes, and to  assess the long-term  changes in  natural  conditions  and those 
resulting  from  widespread  anthropogenic  activity.  For  operational  purposes,  monitoring  is 

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

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

Figure  4.1  summarises  the  proportion  of  sites  used  for  the  monitoring  of  chemical  status  in 
surface waters for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used 

for  surveillance  and/or  operational  purposes.  More  detailed  information  can  be  found  on  the 
website of the European Environment Agency26.  

Up  to  67  %  of  monitoring  sites  are  used  for  the  monitoring  of  chemical  status  in  surface 
waters.  Although  not  reported  to  WISE,  the  Netherlands  clarified  that  territorial  waters  have 

been monitored for chemical status.  

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

57 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.1 

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

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

A large proportion of the monitoring sites in each water category are used for the monitoring of 
ecological  status  (88-93  %)  with  a  smaller  proportion  (52-67  %)  used  for  chemical  status 

(Figure 4.1). 

According  to  WISE,  for  surface  water  bodies  across  all  RBDs  in  Netherlands,  a  higher 

proportion of sites was monitored for chemical  status under operational  monitoring (58 % of 
total sites monitored) than under surveillance monitoring (14 % of total sites  monitored). For 

water  bodies,  similar  percentages  were  reported  respectively  for  operational  and  surveillance 
monitoring (58 % and 16 % respectively).  However, the Netherlands subsequently informed 

that  all  sites  monitored  for  chemical  status  were  included  in  the  surveillance  monitoring 
programme with a proportion of these also included in the operational monitoring programme.  

Between the two RBMPs, according to WISE, there was a net decrease in monitoring sites and 
surface water bodies monitored for operational purposes (an increase of four sites and decrease 

of 26 water bodies), the increase was associated with an increase in lake monitoring sites. For 
surveillance  monitoring  the  number  of  sites  has  decreased  by  43,  and  for  water  bodies  the 

decrease was 21 since the first cycle. This comparison should however be taken with caution as 
there  may  be  issues  with  reporting  of  sites  for  surveillance/  operational  monitoring  as 
mentioned  above.  The  apparent  overall  reduction  in  the  number  of  sites  and  water  bodies 
monitored  may  at  least  partially  result  from  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  water  bodies 
delineated in the second RBMP.  

58 

 
 
Figure 4.2 summarises the proportion of water bodies monitored for chemical status in surface 

waters for the second RBMP. For this figure, no distinction is made between water bodies used 
for  surveillance  and/or  operational  purposes.  Also  given  is  the  proportion  of  water  bodies 

monitored for any purpose and, for comparative purpose, those for ecological status. 

Figure 4.2 

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

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

number of water bodies in that category 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

A high proportion of surface waterbodies  were  monitored for ecological status  in  the second 
cycle  in  all  water  categories  with  fewer  surface  freshwater  water  bodies  monitored  for 

chemical  status;  higher  proportions  were  monitored  in  transitional  and  coastal  water  bodies 
where the total numbers are fewer. 

All  transitional  water  bodies  failing  to  achieve  good  status  were  covered  by  operational 
monitoring in the Netherlands. This was also the case for 57-78 % of lake water bodies failing 

to  achieve  good  status,  67  %  for  coastal  water  bodies  failing  to  achieve  good  status  in  the 
Rhine RBD, the Scheldt RBDs and all coastal  water bodies in  the Ems  RBD and the Meuse 

RBDs. For river water bodies, 67-78 % failing to achieve good chemical status were monitored 
in  the  Ems  RBD,  the  Meuse  RBD  and  the  Rhine  RBDs.  This  is  consistent  with  the  use  of 
grouping  and  expert  judgement  in  the  assessment  of  chemical  status  in  the  absence  of 

monitoring data. 

59 

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

Monitoring for status assessment 

Requirements 

Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes in order to 

provide  inter  alia  a  coherent  and  comprehensive  overview  of  water  status  within  each  RBD. 
The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of Priority Substances, frequency and numbers 

of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of status. According to 
in  2009),  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 
the  EQS  Directive 

(version 

force 

in 

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.  

Spatial Coverage 

Overall  in  the  Netherlands,  according  to  WISE,  all  substances  are  monitored,  except  total 
DDT, brominated diphenylethers, and hexachlorocyclohexane which are not monitored in any 
RBD, and nonylphenol which is not reported to be monitored in the Scheldt and Meuse RBDs. 

However,  the  Netherlands  subsequently  clarified  that  hexachlorocyclohexane,  brominated 
diphenylethers  and  4-nonylphenol  are  monitored,  unless  in  areas  where  no  emissions, 

discharges or losses are identified. 

According to WISE, in all RBDs in the Netherlands, 25 % or more coastal water bodies were 

monitored  for  more  than  10  Priority  Substances  in  water.  The  Netherlands  subsequently 
informed that all coastal waters were monitored for 10 or more Priority Substances. 64 % of 

lake water bodies are monitored for 10 or more Priority Substances in the Ems RBD, but for 
the  remaining  RBDs  only  6  to  10  %  of  lakes  were  monitored  for  this  number  of  Priority 

Substances.  In  the  Ems  RBD,  80  %  of  river  water  bodies  were  monitored  for  10  or  more 
Priority  Substances;  for  the  other  RBDs  less  than  15  %  were  monitored  for  this  number  of 

Priority  Substances.  The  majority  of  transitional  waters  across  all  RBDs  were  monitored  for 
more  than  10  Priority  Substances,  with  the  exception  of  the  Ems  RBD  where  four  Priority 

Substances were monitored. The Netherlands subsequently mentioned that in coastal waters all 
Priority  Substances  are  monitored,  but  most  Priority  Substances  are  found  in  concentrations 

below the limit of quantification.  

This should however be treated with caution, as it seems there may be issues with the reporting 

(in  particular  for  substances  such  as  hexachlorocyclohexane,  brominated  diphenylethers  and 
nonylphenol). 

60 

 
Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  were  not  monitored  in  sediment  or 

biota. The Netherlands monitors for these substances in water for status assessment. 

Frequencies 

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

during  the  RBMP  cycle  and  at  least  monthly  every  year.  Monitoring  in  biota  for  status 
assessment should  take  place  at  least once every  year according to  the EQS  Directive.  In  all 

cases  greater intervals  can be  applied by Member States if justified on the basis of technical 
knowledge and expert judgement. 

Monitoring frequencies in water are reported for between 35 and 38 Priority Substances at site 
level (depending on the RBD) with a frequency of 12 times per year and once per cycle. This 

meets  the  requirement  for  surveillance  monitoring.  Between  29  and  38  Priority  Substances 
(depending on the RBD) were monitored with a frequency of 12 times per year and each year 

in  the  cycle.  This  meets  the  requirement  for  operational  monitoring.  18  Priority  Substances 
were monitored with frequencies ranging from zero to six times per year and from at least once 
to twice per cycle. These frequencies do not meet the recommended minimum frequencies for 

either surveillance or operational monitoring. It could not be determined whether these reduced 
frequencies  resulted  from  a  reporting  mistake  or  whether  they  were  chosen  based  on  expert 

judgment or technical knowledge. 

In the Danube RBD in particular, several substances are reported to be monitored every three 

RBMPs  in  at  least  some  sites,  which  is  likely  to  be  the  implementation  of  Annex  V  section 
1.3.1,  for  cases  where  the  previous  surveillance  monitoring  exercise  showed  that  the  body 

concerned  reached  good  status  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  impacts  on  the  water  body 
have changed.  

Monitoring for long term assessment 

Requirements 

Article 3.3 of the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009) requires Member States to monitor 
14 Priority Substances27 that tend to  accumulate in sediment  and/or biota, for the purpose of 
long-term trend assessment. 

27  Anthracene,  brominated  diphenylether, 

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

chloroalkanes,  DEHP, 

cadmium,  C10-13 

61 

 
 
 
                                                      
Spatial coverage 

The  Netherlands  does  not  monitor  any  Priority  Substances  in  sediment  or  biota  for  trend 
assessment. No information was reported regarding whether arrangements were in place for the 

long-term trend analysis of concentrations of those Priority Substances in the Netherlands. 

However,  the  RBMPs  indicate  that  monitoring  in  the  water  column  is  used  for  trend 

assessment as  well as  for status  assessment. The sampling locations for the trend monitoring 
consist of one monitoring site per water body (the same as for status monitoring). The chemical 

trend monitoring network consists of locations in river mouths in the RBDs, at borders and at 
representative locations in important water bodies or large lakes.   

Frequencies 

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

expert judgment justify another interval.  

The Netherlands does not report monitoring frequencies for trend assessment. 

Monitoring of Priority Substances that are discharged in each RBD  

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  states,  in  Section  1.3.1  (Design  of  surveillance  monitoring),  that 

“Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year 
during  the  period  covered  by  a  river  basin  management  plan  for  [inter  alia]:  priority  list 

pollutants  which  are  discharged  into  the  river  basin  or  sub-basin.”  Section  1.3.2  (Design  of 
operational  monitoring)  of  the  Directive  states  that  “In  order  to  assess  the  magnitude  of  the 

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

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

quantities.” 

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

into the river basin or sub-basin.  

The  Netherlands  reported  that  32  Priority  Substances  were  included  in  an  inventory  and 
discharged for each of the RBDs28 (the Netherlands clarified that for substances not included in 
the inventories no emission has been identified). 

28  The  Netherlands  subsequently  clarified  that  there  can  be  two  reasons  for  not  including  a  substance  in  the 
inventory: 1) a zero-emission has been reported to the ‘NL-Emissiregistratie’ by industry. This might be due to 

62 

 
                                                      
Between 90  and 94 % of Priority Substances discharged were monitored in  the RBDs in  the 

Netherlands.  However,  according  to  WISE,  in  all  four  RBDs  the  following  two  substances 
were  in  an  inventory  and  discharged  but  were  not  monitored:  hexachlorocyclohexane  and 

brominated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154) but in two RBDs 
(the Meuse RBD and the Scheldt RBD) this was the case for a third substance, 4-nonylphenol. 

The Netherlands subsequently clarified that these substances are monitored where  emissions, 
discharged or losses have been identified. 

Performances of analytical methods used  

In the Netherlands, for all monitored Priority Substances the analytical methods used meet the 
minimum  performance  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  4(1)  of  the  QA/QC  Directive 
(2009/90/EC29) for the strictest standard applied. 

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

quantification  is  as  specified  in  Article  5  of  the  QA/QC  Directive  (2009/90/EC)  for  all  four 
RBDs in the Netherlands.   

4.1.2  Chemical Status of surface water bodies 

Member States  are  required to  report the  year on which the  assessment of chemical  status  is 

based. This  may be the  year that the surface water body was monitored. In case of  grouping 
this may be the year in which monitoring took place in the surface water bodies within a group 

that  are  used  to  extrapolate  results  to  non-monitored  surface  water  bodies  within  the  same 
group. For the Netherlands, the assessment of chemical  status  was undertaken between 2009 

and  2014.  The  Netherlands  subsequently  clarified  that  monitoring  data  from  2012,  2013  and 
2014 was used preferentially for the status assessment in the second RBMP but where data was 

missing from one of these years then it was supplemented with data from previous years. 

The  chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the  Netherlands  for  the  second  RBMP  is 

illustrated in Map 4.1. This is based on the most recent assessment of status. 

reporting  thresholds.  Pesticides  and  other  substances  that  are  no  longer  authorized  are  not  included.  The 
Netherlands  decided  not  to  report  zero-emissions  on  the  public  website.  Therefore  these  substances  are  not 
found  on  the  public  website  and  not  reported  to  WISE.  2)  For  the  RBMP,  only  data  from  the  ‘NL 
Emissieregistratie’  was  used for so-called ‘probleemstoffen (substances exceeding the  environmental quality 
standard)’. Other substances were not reported. 

29  Directive  2009/90/EC  of  31  July  2009  laying  down,  pursuant  to  Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the  Council,  technical specifications  for chemical analysis and  monitoring of  water status 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1524565750309&uri=CELEX:32009L0090 

63 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
Map 4.1 

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

recently assessed status of the surface water bodies  

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

The  chemical  status  of  surface  waters  in  the  Netherlands  for  the  first  and  second  RBMPs  is 
given in Table 4.1. The Netherlands reported chemical status in the second RBMP based on the 

environmental  quality  standards  laid  down  in  the  revised  EQS  Directive  (2013/39/EU)  and 
therefore direct comparison with chemical status in the first RBMP is not possible. 

64 

GoodFailing to achieve to goodUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4.1 

Chemical status of surface water bodies in the Netherlands for the second and 

first RBMPs. Note: the number in parenthesis next to the water category is the 
number  of  water  bodies.  Note:  chemical  status  assessment  is  based  on  the 

standards  laid  down  in  EQS  Directive  2013/139/EU  (version  in  force  on  12 
August  2013). Some  Member  States  did  not  fully  implement  the  Directive  in 

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

Category 

second RBMP 

Good 

Number 

 % 

Failing to achieve good 
Number 

 % 

Unknown 

Number 

 % 

Rivers (246) 

103 

42 % 

96 (134) 

Lakes (451) 

176 (175) 

39 % 

259 (265) 

39 % (54 
%) 
57 % (59 
%) 
100 % 

47 (9) 

19 % (4 
%) 

16 (11) 

4 % (2 %) 

5 

8(9) 

89 % (100 %) 

1 (0) 

Transitional (5) 

Coastal (9) 

Total (711) 

first RBMP 

Rivers (254) 

Lakes (450) 

Transitional (5) 

Coastal (15) 

Total (724) 

279 

39 % 

368 

52 % 

153 

352 

1 

506 

60. % 

78 % 

7. % 

70 % 

71 

89 

5 

14 

179 

28. % 

20 % 

93. % 

25 % 

11 % (0 
%) 
9 % 

12 % 

2 % 

64 

30 

9 

39 

5 % 

Source: WISE electronic reporting(the numbers in parenthesis were subsequently provided by the Netherlands, 
who clarified they could not report to WISE the failure of chemical status according to the 2013 environmental 

quality standards for some of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and hexachlorocyclohexane). 

Overall the number of surface water bodies has decreased from 724 in the first cycle to 711 in 

the  second  cycle.  The  majority  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the  second  RBMP  are  failing  to 
achieve good status (52 %) with 39 % at good status and 9 % in unknown status.   

In the Netherlands as a whole, 23 % of water bodies were classified by monitoring, 69 % by 
grouping and 9 % by expert judgement30. The approach described in the RBMPs indicates that, 
where monitoring data is available, the one-out-all-out principle has been applied. 

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

30  The  Netherlands  expressed  some  doubts  about  this  figure  but  could  not  clarify  whether  this  resulted  from  a 

reporting mistake 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.3 

Confidence in the classification of chemical status of surface water bodies in 

the Netherlands based on the most recently assessed status/potential  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Overall  91  %  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the  Netherlands  were  classified  for  chemical  status 

with high confidence and 9 % with medium confidence (the high confidence reported in WISE 
for  water  bodies  in  unknown  status  probably  results  from  a  reporting  mistake).  The 

Netherlands  subsequently  clarified  that  grouping  is  only  applied  when  the  confidence  of  the 
classification within the group is high. Confidence in the classification of chemical status for 

the first RBMPs was not reported.  

Figure 4.4 compares the chemical status of surface water bodies in the Netherlands for the first 

RBMPs with that for the second cycle (based on the most recent assessment of status) and that 
expected  by  2015.  The  direct  comparison  of  chemical  status  between  the  first  and  second 
RBMP  is  not  possible  because  the  assessment  of  chemical  status  in  the  second  RBMP  was 

undertaken  based  on  the  more  stringent  environmental  quality  standards  in  the  revised  EQS 
Directive (2013/39/EU).  

More information on the chemical status in each RBD and water category can be found on the 
website of the European Environment Agency31. 

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

66 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.4 

Chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the  Netherlands  for  the  second 

RBMP,  for  the  first  RBMP  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in  the 
parenthesis  is  the  number  of  surface  water  bodies  for  both  cycles.  Note  the 

period  of  the  assessment  of  status  for  the  second  RBMP  was  2009  to  2014. 
The year of the assessment of status for first RBMP is not known.  

Note also that the assessment of chemical status in the second RBMP was based on the 
more  stringent  standards 
the  revised  Environmental  Standards  Directive 
(2013/39/EU). The use of these more stringent standards is a major contributor to the 
large difference in the proportion of good status between the two RBMPs. 

in 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The assessment of chemical status for the second RBMPs was expected to be reported based 

on  the  standards  laid  down  in  EQS  Directive  2008/105/EC  (version  in  force  on  13  January 
200932).  However,  the  Netherlands  based  the  assessment  of  chemical  status  on  the  more 
stringent standards in the revised EQS Directive (2013/39/EU)33. Compared to the standards in 
force in 2009, the new standards caused the status to appear to deteriorate for 11 %  of water 

bodies for fluoranthene, and for 5 % of water bodies for nickel, in the Netherlands as a whole. 

Good  chemical  status  should  be  reached  by  2021  in  relation  to  the  revised  environmental 

quality  standards,  unless  Member  States  apply  exemptions  under  WFD  Article  4(4)  or  less 

32   Please  note  that  following  Directive  2013/39/EU,  which  amended  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards 
Directive,  introduced  a  less  stringent  annual  average  environmental  quality  standard  for  naphthalene  in 
transitional and cosatal waters. This less stringent environmental quality standard should be taken into account 
for the determination of surface water chemical status by the 2015 deadline laid down in Article 4 of the WFD.  
33  More  stringent  environmental  quality  standards  were  set  for  seven  substances  :  Anthracene,  Brominated 
diphenylether, Fluoranthene, Lead and its compounds, Naphthalene, Nickel and its compounds, Polyaromatic 
hydrocarbons (PAH) 

67 

 
 
 
                                                      
stringent  objectives  under  WFD  Article  4(5).  Figure  4.5  shows  the  expected  date  for  the 

achievement of good chemical status in the Netherlands.  

Figure 4.5 

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

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Good chemical status of surface water bodies is not expected to be achieved by the end of the 
third cycle in any of the RBDs in the Netherlands. Overall more than 50 % of surface water 

bodies in Netherlands are expected to be failing to achieve good chemical status at the end of 
2027. All coastal and transitional water bodies in all of the RBDs are expected to achieve good 

chemical status after 2027.  No data on the expected achievement of good chemical status was 
reported  in  the  first  RBMPs.  The  expected  or  actual  improvement  in  the  chemical  status  of 

surface water bodies at the end of the first planning cycle was reported to be as described in the 
RBMP for all four RBDs. 

Priority substances causing the failure of good chemical status 

The  Netherlands  reported  exceedances  based  on  the  revised,  more  stringent  Environmental 
Quality Standards from Directive 2013/39/EU.  

Priority  Substances  were  reported  to  be  causing  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  in 
surface  water  bodies  in  the  Netherlands  based  on  the  more  stringent  environmental  quality 

68 

 
 
 
standards  in  the  revised  Environmental  Standards  Directive  (2013/39/EU).  The  “top-10” 

substances causing failure are shown in Figure 4.6.  

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

the second RBMP  were  fluoranthene (40 % of  water bodies), benzo(a)pyrene  (19 %), nickel 
and its compounds (19 %) and mercury and its compounds (17 %). 

Figure 4.6 

The  top-10  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical 
status in surface water bodies in the Netherlands 

Source:, WISE electronic reporting 

Overall for surface water bodies in the Netherlands, the largest proportion of exceedances were 

for the annual average-environmental quality standard for fluoranthene (25 %), benzo(a)pyrene 
(15 %), nickel and its compounds (14 %) and mercury and its compounds (12 %). Exceedances 

of  maximum  allowable  concentration  environmental  quality  standards  were  greatest  for 
fluoranthene (8.5 %). 

Ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances 

According  to  Article  8(a)  of  the  EQS  Directive34,  eight  priority  substances  and  groups  of 
priority  substances  are  behaving  like  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic 
substances35.  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 

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

dioxins, hexabromocyclodecane and heptachlor 

69 

 
 
                                                      
States have the possibility to present the information related to chemical status separately for 

these substances.  

While 

two  ubiquitous  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and 

toxic  Priority  Substances 

(benzo(a)pyrene  and  mercury  )  are  reported  among  the  top-10  Priority  Substances  causing 
failure of good chemical status, they are not causing failure alone in the vast majority of cases. 

The  influence  of  these  substances  on  chemical  status  is  limited  with  only  3  %  more  surface 
water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status when they are included in the assessment 

compared  to  when  they  are  not.  This  is  illustrated  in  the  2018  State  of  Water  report  of  the 
European Environment Agency36. 

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

The  Ems  and  Rhine  RBDs  reported  to  WISE  that  almost  all  41  Priority  Substances  are  both 

monitored and used in the assessment. The Priority Substances not monitored but included in 
the  assessment  of  chemical  status  were:  hexachlorocyclohexane,  and  brominated 

diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154) and total DDT. However, the 
Netherlands  subsequently  clarified  that  these  substances  are  monitored  where  emissions, 
discharges and losses were identified.  

The Meuse RBD and Scheldt RBD reported to that almost all 41 Priority Substances are both 
monitored and used in the assessment. The Priority Substances that are not monitored but are 

included in the assessment of chemical status include the substances listed above for the Ems 
RBD  and  the  Rhine  RBDs  plus  4-nonylphenol.  The  Netherlands  subsequently  clarified  that 

these three substances were monitored where emissions, discharges and losses were identified.  

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

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

standards  for  another  matrix  than  the  one  specified  in  the  directive  for  a  given  substance.  If 
they do so, they have to ensure the environmental quality standard they set in the other matrix 
(or  matrices)  offers  at  least  the  same  level  of  protection  as  the  standard  established  in  the 
Directive. 

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

interactive format at :  
https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_SWB_Chemical_Status_Maps/SW
B_Failing_Good_Chemical_Status_RBD?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&
:display_count=no&:showVizHome=no 

70 

 
                                                      
 
The Netherlands reported that all of the environmental quality standards laid down in Annex II 

of the Directive 2013/39/EU for assessment of the chemical status of bodies of surface water 
had been applied for all substances used in the assessment of status. 

Use of mixing zones  

Article 4 of the EQS Directive provides Member States with the option of designating mixing 
zones adjacent to points of discharge in surface waters. Concentrations of priority substances 

may exceed the relevant environmental quality standard within  such mixing zones if they do 
not affect the compliance of the rest of the surface water body with those standards. Member 

States that designate mixing zones are required to include within their RBMPs a description of 
the  approaches  and  methodologies  applied  to  define  such  zones,  and  a  description  of  the 

measures taken to reduce the extent of the mixing zones in the future. 

Mixing zones have been designated in all RBDs in the Netherlands. The Netherlands reports 

that  the  methodology  for  the  designation  of  Mixing  Zones  in  these  RBDs  follows  the  tiered 
approach  as  laid  down  in  the  'Technical  Background  Document  on  Identification  of  Mixing 
Zones'37. The RBMP refer also to the methodology from the “Guidance Immission assessment” 
which  comprises  four  tiers:  Tier  0  (Is  pollution  present?),  Tier  1  (An  initial  screening  if 
emission is trivial), Tier 2 (simple dilution calculations), Tier 3 (Detailed modelling), and Tier 

4 (Research and validation of models). The Netherlands clarified that an assessment of fictive 
discharges in different types of water bodies was carried out with the above methodology. In 

each  cases,  the  distance  where  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  were  met  was 
significantly smaller than the maximal size of the mixing zone mentioned in the CIS Guidance 

Document.  The  Netherlands  also  mentioned  that  the  implementation  of  new  Best  Available 
Techniques should further reduce the extent of the mixing zones in the future. 

Background Concentrations and Bioavailability 

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

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

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

37   https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/78ce94bb-6f1c-4379-87ac-

88a18967c4c3/Technical%2520Background%2520Document%2520on%2520the%2520Identification%2520o
f%2520Mixing%2520Zones.doc+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk 

71 

 
                                                      
Natural  background  concentrations  for  metals  and 

their  compounds  are 

taken 

into 

consideration where such concentrations prevent compliance with  the relevant  environmental 
quality standard in all four RBDs of the Netherlands. The RBMPs indicate that this is a change 

in approach from the first RBMPs and is a factor that makes direct comparison of the results 
between the cycles difficult. 

Water quality parameters that affect the bioavailability of metals have been taken into account 
when assessing monitoring results against relevant environmental quality standards in all four 

of the RBDs in the Netherlands. 

4.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Between  the  two  RBMPs,  there  was  a  decrease  in  the  number  of  sites  and  waterbodies 

monitored. This comparison should however be treated with some caution, as the Netherlands 
pointed towards a possible mistake in the reporting. It may also partly result from the changes 

in  delineation  between  the  two  RBMPs  (the  overall  number  of  surface  water  bodies  has 
decreased from 724 in the first RBMP to 711 in the second RBMP).  

A  direct  comparison  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs  with  regards  to  the  number  of 
surface water bodies in good status, failing to achieve good status and unknown status is not 

possible  because  the  Netherlands  used  the  more  stringent  environmental  quality  standards  in 
the revised Directive (2013/39/EU) as the basis for the assessment in the second RBMP.   

No information on the date of expected achievement of good chemical status was reported in 
the first RBMPs. The revised EQS Directive (2013/39/EU) sets for 2021 the objective of good 

chemical status in relation to the seven Priority Substances with more stringent environmental 
quality standards; in relation to the majority of Priority Substances, the objective remains 2015 

(with the possibility, in each case to apply exemptions or less stringent objectives when duly 
justified). Good chemical status of surface water bodies is not expected to be achieved by the 

end of the third planning cycle in any of the RBDs in the Netherlands. Overall more than 50 % 
of surface water bodies in the Netherlands are expected to be failing to achieve good chemical 

status at the end of 2027.  

Natural  background  concentrations  for  metals  and 
into 
consideration where such concentrations prevent compliance with  the relevant  environmental 

their  compounds  are 

taken 

quality standard in all four RBDs of the Netherlands. The RBMPs indicate that this is a change 
in approach from the first RBMPs and is a factor that makes direct comparison of the results 

between the cycles difficult. 

72 

 
4.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

•  Recommendation:  The  Netherlands  should  develop  the  necessary  monitoring  for 
Priority Substances in a non-water matrix (such as biota or sediments). In particular, 
mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  should  be  monitored  in  biota 

for  comparison  with  the  biota  standards  in  the  EQS  Directive,  unless  water 
environmental quality standard providing an equivalent level of protection are derived. 

It  should  be  clear  from  the  plans  which  Priority  Substances  are  preventing  the 
attainment  of  good  chemical  status.  The  requirement  for  trend  monitoring  of  Priority 

Substances  in  sediment  or  biota  as  specified  for  several  substances  in  EQS  Directive 
Article 3(3) will need to be reflected in the next RBMPs. 

Assessment:  There  is  no  monitoring  data  reported  of  Priority  Substances  in  biota  or 

sediment  for  any  water  bodies  in  the  Netherlands.  Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 
hexachlorobutadiene were not  monitored in biota but  in water, for assessment against 
alternative standards said by the Netherlands to be as protective as the biota standards. 

The  Netherlands  does  not  monitor  any  Priority  Substances  in  sediment  or  biota  for 
trend assessment.  The Netherlands  reports the use of monitoring in the water  column 

for trend assessment.  

The  Netherlands  has  used  the  more  stringent  environmental  quality  standards  in  the 

revised  EQS  Directive  (2013/39/EU)  and  has  reported  the  substances  causing  the 
failure of good chemical status in associated water bodies.    

 This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

73 

 
 
  Monitoring, assessment and classification of 

Topic 5
quantitative status of groundwater bodies 

5.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

5.1.1  Monitoring of quantitative status in groundwater 

The total  number of  groundwater bodies in  the  Netherlands is  23 (Table  2.2). The number of 

groundwater  bodies  and  the  total  groundwater  body  area  have  not  changed  between  the  two 
reporting cycles. 

All  groundwater  bodies  are  subject  to  monitoring  for  quantitative  status  (Table  5.1)  as  they 
were  previously  in  the  first  RBMP.  The  proportion  of  water  bodies  monitored  is  shown  in 

Table  5.2.  The  number  of  monitoring  sites  for  quantitative  status  is  listed  in  Table  5.3  and 
shows  a  decrease  by  10  %  from  1 045  in  the  first  RBMP  to  936  in  the  second  RBMP.  The 

decrease concerns two of four river basin districts (the Meuse and Rhine river basin districts). 

Of 23 groundwater bodies 15 are identified as drinking water protected areas, allocated in all 
river basin districts. 

Table 5.1 

Number of water bodies in the Netherlands directly monitored and the 
purpose of monitoring 

Total 
ground-
water 
bodies 
directly 
monitored 

2 

5 

11 

5 

RBD 

NLEM 

NLMS 

NLRN 

NLSC 

CHE - 
Chemical 
status 

2 

DRI - 
Groundwater 
abstraction 
site for 
human 
consumption 

1 

4 

10 

2 

Monitoring Purpose 

OPE – 
Operational 
monitoring 

QUA – 
Quantitative 
status 

SUR – 
Surveillance 
monitoring 

TRE – 
Chemical 
trend 
assessment 

1 

4 

10 

2 

2 

5 

11 

5 

2 

5 

11 

5 

2 

5 

11 

5 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5.2 

Proportion of groundwater bodies in the Netherlands monitored for 
quantitative status 

RBD 

NLEM 
NLMS 
NLRN 
NLSC 

No of groundwater bodies 
with quantitative 
monitoring 
2 
5 
11 
5 

Total No. 
groundwater bodies 

 % of total groundwater bodies 
monitored for quantitative status 

2 
5 
11 
5 

100.00 % 
100.00 % 
100.00 % 
100.00 % 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Table 5.3 

Number of groundwater monitoring sites in the Netherlands and their 
purpose  

Total 
ground-
water 
monitoring 
sites 

92 
531 
1393 
62 

CHE - 
Chemical 
status 

(59) 
26(372) 
(702) 
(40) 

DRI - 
Groundwater 
abstraction site 
for human 
consumption 
7 
54 
138 
5 

RBD  

NLEM 
NLMS 
NLRN 
NLSC 

Monitoring Purpose 

OPE – 
Operational 
monitoring 

QUA - 
Quantitative 
status 

SUR - 
Surveillance 
monitoring 

7 
54 
138 
5 

33 
161 
713 
29 

85 
479 
1 255 
57 

TRE - 
Chemical 
trend 
assessment 

52 
320 
564 
35 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. The numbers in brackets were subsequently provided by the Netherlands and 
do not match the data reported to WISE. 

5.1.2  Assessment and classification of quantitative status for groundwater 
Map  5.1  displays  the  most  recently  assessed  status  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies 

for. 

Map 5.1 

Map of the most recently assessed quantitative status of groundwater bodies  

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

75 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
It shows that all 23 groundwater bodies (100 %) were of good quantitative status (Figure 5.1) 

and they had already been in good status in the first RBMP.  

Figure 5.1 

Quantitative status of groundwater bodies in the Netherlands for the second 

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

assessment of status for the first RBMP is not known. 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Figure  5.2  shows  all  groundwater  bodies  have  a  high  confidence  in  status  classification.  All 
groundwater bodies had a clear status in the first cycle and still have it in the current one. The 

expected date of achievement of  good chemical  status in  the Netherlands  is  shown in  Figure 
5.3. 

For all four river basin districts water balance was assessed by a comparison of annual average 
groundwater  abstraction  against  the  ‘available  groundwater  resource’  for  every  groundwater 
body. 

In  all  river  basin  districts  the  criterion  of  ‘available  groundwater  resource’  has  been  fully 

applied  in  accordance  with  WFD  Article  2(27).  In  all  river  basin  districts  all  environmental 
objectives have been considered in the status assessment. 

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

76 

 
 
Figure 5.2  Confidence in the classification of quantitative  status of groundwater bodies 

in the Netherlands based on the most recent assessment of status 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

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

of groundwater bodies in the Netherlands. 23 groundwater bodies delineated 
for second RBMP 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

5.1.3  Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

In  all  river  basin  districts  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  have  been  reported,  are  not 
related to risk and they have been considered in status assessment. 

77 

 
 
 
For all river basin districts groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems  have been reported, 

are not related to risk and have been considered in status assessment. Also, the needs of these 
ecosystems have been considered in status assessment in all river basin districts. 

5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  data  reported  in  WISE  did  not  identify  any  changes  between  the  first  and  the  second 

RBMP. All 23 groundwater bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP. 

The RBMPs and background documents assessment revealed that there is no separate chapter 
in each of the RBMPs that summarise the changes in the RBMP compared to the first cycle. 

However, throughout the documents, there are references to changes or adaptations that have 
been carried out. The documents need to therefore be read completely and thoroughly in order 

to obtain an understanding of specific changes. 

5.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

78 

 
 
 
 
  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical 

Topic 6
status of groundwater bodies 

6.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

6.1.1  Monitoring of chemical status in groundwater 

The total number of groundwater bodies in the Netherlands is 23 (Table 2.2). All groundwater 

bodies  are  subject  to  surveillance  monitoring  (Table  5.1)  and  17  groundwater  bodies  are 
subject to operational monitoring. 

Neither  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  nor  the  total  groundwater  body  area  has  changed 
between the reporting cycles. 

The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  with  surveillance  monitoring  remained  at  23  in  the  first 
RBMP  and  in  the  second  RBMP.  The  number  of  monitoring  sites  is  listed  in  Table  5.3  and 

shows an increase from 1 164 in the first RBMP to 1 876 in the second RBMP. The number of 
operational  monitoring  sites  has  decreased  since  the  first  RBMP,  from  213  (in  nine 
groundwater bodies) to 204 (in 17 groundwater bodies). 

There  was  no  groundwater  body  identified  at  risk  of  failing  good  chemical  status  but  some 
substances were reported to cause risk. Except for nitrate in the Meuse RBD, none of the other 
WFD core parameters of ammonium, electrical conductivity, oxygen and pH is monitored38. 

6.1.2  Assessment and classification of chemical status in groundwater 

Map 6.1 and Figure 6.1 display the chemical status of groundwater bodies for the most recently 
assessed  status.  It  shows  that  20  of  23  groundwater  bodies  (87  %)  were  of  good  chemical 

status, and the remaining three groundwater bodies (13 %) are failing good status. In terms of 
area this means that about 3.7 % are failing good chemical status.  

Figure 6.2 shows the confidence in status classifications. All groundwater bodies had and still 
have a clear status, in the first and in the second RBMP.  

38 The Netherlands subsequently clarified, that in fact all WFD core parameters are monitored and there seems to 

be a reporting error. 

79 

 
 
                                                      
Map 6.1 

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

the most recently assessed status of the groundwater water bodies 

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

80 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.1 

Chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in  the  Netherlands  for  the  second 
RBMP, for the first RBMP and expected in 201539. The number in brackets 
is the number of groundwater bodies for both cycles. Note the period of the 
assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2007 to 2013. The year of 
the assessment of status for first RBMP is not known  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 6.2 

Confidence in the classification of chemical status of  groundwater bodies 
in the Netherlands based on the most recent assessment of status  

Source: WISE electronic reports  

The total number of groundwater bodies failing good chemical status decreased since the first 

RBMP from nine (39 %) to three (13 %) groundwater bodies (Figure 25) (from 30 % to 4 % of 
the total groundwater body area). The RBMP and background documents assessment did not 

39 The Netherlands informed the Commission that this is partly due to changes in the reporting methodology. 

81 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
find  any  explanation  for  this  improvement40.  The  expected  date  of  achievement  of  good 
chemical status in the Netherlands is shown in Figure 5.3. 

Reasons for the failure of good chemical status of groundwater bodies are shown in Figure 6.3. 

For  three  groundwater  bodies  the  general  assessment  of  the  chemical  status  for  the 
groundwater  body  as  a  whole  was  failed.  This  assessment  considers  the  significant 

environmental risk from pollutants across a groundwater body and a significant impairment of 
the ability to support human uses. One groundwater body failed the drinking water test which 

means  that  the  requirements  of  Drinking  Water  Protected  Areas  had  not  been  met.  Two 
groundwater bodies are failing the groundwater associated surface water test which means that 

there is diminution of the status of a groundwater associated surface water. One groundwater 
body is failing the groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystem test which means that there is 

damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems.  

Figure 6.3 

Reasons  for  failing  good  chemical  status  in  the  Netherlands  for  the  most 

recent assessment of status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Notes: 
‘Surface water’ = Failure to achieve Environmental Objectives (Article 4 WFD) in associated surface water 
bodies or significant diminution of the ecological or chemical status of such surface water bodies. 
‘Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems’ = Significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems which depend 
directly on the groundwater body. 
‘Saline or other intrusion’ = Regional saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced 
sustained changes in flow direction. 

‘Drinking Water Protected Area’ = Deterioration in quality of waters for human consumption. 
‘General water quality assessment’ = Significant impairment of human uses; significant environmental risk from 
pollutants across the groundwater body. 
The percentages presented are relative to the total number of groundwater bodies 

40 The Netherlands subsequently clarified, that the explanation might be found in the different methodology used. 

82 

 
  
 
                                                      
Figure 6.4 shows the top 10 pollutants causing failure of status and sustained upward trends. 

Figure  6.5  shows  the  pollutants  causing  failure  of  status  and  the  causing  a  sustained  upward 
trend. 

Figure 6.4 

Top groundwater pollutants causing failure of good chemical status in the 

Netherlands 

Figure 6.5 

Top pollutants with upward trends in groundwater bodies in the Netherlands 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 
Note: only four pollutants reported causing failure. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

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

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

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Few  pollutants  or  indicators  of  pollution  were  reported  as  causing  a  risk  of  failure  of  good 

chemical  status  but  no  groundwater  bodies  were  identified  at  risk  of  failing  good  chemical 
status.  Groundwater  threshold  values  have  not  been  established  for  these  pollutants41,42.  The 
RBMP  and  assessment  of  associated  background  documents  did  not  find  any  indication  that 
the  Groundwater  Directive43  Annex  II  substances  have  been  considered.  In  all  RBDs  natural 
background levels have been considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values. 

A trend and trend reversal methodology is available and assessments have been performed in 

all RBDs. 

6.1.3  Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/  or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

In all RBDs groundwater associated surface waters have been reported, they are not related to 

risk and diminution and damage to these ecosystems have been considered in status assessment 
in all RBDs. 

Groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  have  been  reported  in  all  RBDs,  they  are  not 
related to risk and they have been considered in status assessment in all RBDs. 

It  was  reported  that  groundwater  associated  aquatic  ecosystems  and  groundwater  dependent 

terrestrial  ecosystems  have  been  partially  considered  in  the  establishment  of  groundwater 
threshold values. Nevertheless, there is no groundwater body reported at risk. 

6.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The monitoring situation remains comprehensive although the number of monitoring sites was 

slightly reduced. 

The  status  situation  improved  significantly  as  the  groundwater  body  area  failing  good  status 

dropped from 30 % of the first RBMP to only 4 % of the second RBMP. An explanation for 
this improvement was not found in the RBMP and supporting background documents. 

41   The  Netherlands 

( 
threshold 
https://www.waterkwaliteitsportaal.nl/Beheer/Data/Achtergronddocumenten)  and  informed    that  work  is 
ongoing to evaluate and update  the threshold values. 

established 

clarified 

already 

values 

that 

are 

the 

42  The  Netherlands  subsequently  clarified  that  there  might  have  been  a  misunderstanding  in  the  electronic 
reporting. For three groundwater bodies, which are at poor status but not at risk, indeed indicators have been 
reported. 

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

deterioration 

pollution 

against 

and 

groundwater 

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

84 

 
                                                      
The  Netherlands  subsequently  explained  that  the  improvement  might  be  due  to  the  fact  that 

more data were available for the second RBMPs compared with the first one.  Also the change 
in the assessment methods between the first and second RBMPs was an additional factor that 

led to this improvement.   

6.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

85 

 
 
  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water 

Topic 7
Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 

7.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle for designation  

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

7.1.1  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies 

In the Netherlands 41.6 % of the surface water bodies are designated as heavily modified water 

bodies and 56.4 % as artificial water bodies (Figure 7.1).  

Figure 7.1 

Proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category  in  the  Netherlands  that 

has been designated as heavily modified or artificial  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

The main water uses for water bodies (in all categories) that are designated as heavily modified 

are  flood  protection  and  transport.  The  wider  environment  is  also  used  as  reason  for  heavily 
modified water bodies designation for sixteen heavily modified lakes, seven heavily modified 

rivers and two heavily modified transitional water bodies.  

are 
The  main  physical 
channelisation/straightening/bed  stabilisation/bank  reinforcement,  weirs/dams/reservoirs  and 

river  heavily  modified  water  bodies 

alterations  of 

86 

 
 
land  drainage.  The  main  physical  alterations  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  in  the  other 

water  categories  are  channelisation/straightening/bed  stabilisation/bank 
weirs/dams/reservoirs and locks. 

reinforcement, 

The  RBMPs  contain  brief  descriptions  of  how  significant  adverse  effects  of  restoration 
measures  on  the  use  and  the  wider  environment  have  been  defined  (as  part  of  the 

methodology).  Further  details  on  the  assessment  of  significant  adverse  effects  of  restoration 
measures  (WFD  article  4(3)(a))  and  of  “other  means”  (WFD  article  4(3)(b))  at  water  body 

level can be found in factsheets provided on a portal (Waterkwaliteitsportaal).  

7.1.2  Definition  of  Good  Ecological  Potential  for  Heavily  Modified  and  Artificial 

Water Bodies 

Good ecological potential is reported to be defined at water body level in all four RBDs, using 
a  hybrid  approach  which  combines  elements  of  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy 

Guidance approach (approach based on biological quality elements  as illustrated in Common 
Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  No  444)  and  the  Prague  approach  (based  on  the 
identification of mitigation measures). 

Good  ecological  potential  is  also  reported  to  have  been  defined  in  terms  of  biology.  The 

biological quality element for which biological values have been derived to define maximum 
fish, 
ecological  potential  and  good  ecological  potential  are  benthic 

invertebrates, 

phytoplankton  and other aquatic flora. According to  the WISE report, a  comparison  between 
good  ecological  potential  and  good  ecological  status  has  been  made.  The  good  ecological 

potential definition for biological quality elements is based upon the assessment of biological 
quality element  values for good ecological  status of the closest  comparable water body type, 

but with maximum values for good ecological potential that may be lower than those for good 
ecological status (at least for one biological quality element the GEP value is below GES).  

Mitigation measures for defining good ecological potential have been reported in WISE for all 

four RBDs. The expected ecological changes due to the mitigation measures are described in a 
qualitative way with reference to biology. 

Biological  quality  element  assessment  methods  sensitive  to  hydrological  and  morphological 
changes  are  reported  for  rivers,  lakes,  transitional  waters  and  coastal  waters.  For  rivers, 

methods  for  assessing  fish  and,  for  coastal  waters,  methods  for  assessing  angiosperms  and 

44   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 

87 

 
                                                      
benthic  invertebrates  are  reported  as  sensitive  to  altered  habitats  due  to  hydrological  and 

morphological changes. 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

There  are  only  minor  changes  in  the  designations  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  and 
artificial water body since the first RBMP for rivers, lakes and coastal waters. No changes are 

noted for transitional waters (see Figure 7.1).  

For river heavily modified water bodies, there is only a small reduction in their number in the 
Meuse  RBD  and  the  Rhine  RBD  (respectively,  two  and  six  heavily  modified  water  bodies 

fewer).  For  river  artificial  water  bodies,  there  are  minor  changes  in  the  Meuse  RBD  (one 
additional artificial water body) and in the Rhine RBD (two river artificial water bodies fewer).  

For lake heavily modified water bodies, there are no major changes; in the Rhine RBD, there is 
one  heavily  modified  lake  water  body  fewer  compared  to  the  first  cycle.  For  lake  artificial 

water bodies, there are no major changes either; in the Meuse RBD, there are three additional 
lake  artificial  water  bodies,  while  in  the  Rhine  RBD,  there  is  one  lake  artificial  water  body 

fewer. 

For coastal waters, there are no changes in heavily modified water body designations. The only 
coastal artificial water body, which was designated in the first cycle in the Scheldt RBD, has 

now been de-designated. 

Concerning the good ecological potential definition, no changes to the methodology have been 
noted. The RBMPs refer to a methodology paper dating to 2005, which was used in the first 
RBMPs. 

7.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

•  Recommendation  (report  2015):  Revise  the  designation  of  heavily  modified  water 
bodies in the second RBMPs to ensure that the restoration of water bodies is a strong 
driver for the improvement of the status of water bodies.  

88 

 
•  Recommendation  (report  2012):  The  designation  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies 
should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of 'significant 
adverse  effects'  on  their  use  or  the  environment  and  the  lack  of  'significantly  better 

environmental options' should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. 

Assessment: The RBMPs contain brief descriptions of how significant adverse effects 

of  restoration  measures  on  the  use  and  the  wider  environment  have  been  defined  (as 
part of the methodology). The Netherlands has also set up a system of factsheets with 

detailed information for each water body on the outcomes of assessments under WFD 
articles 4(3)(a) and 4(3)(b). These factsheets contain descriptions of the assessment of 

restoration  measures  and  their  significant  adverse  effects  on  the  use  and  the  wider 
environment  as  well  as  on  the  assessment  of  “other  means”  to  achieve  the  beneficial 

objectives of the modifications, in order to reach decisions on the designation. 

Only  minor  changes  have  been  noted  to  the  numbers  of  designations  of  heavily 
modified  water  bodies  and  artificial  water  body  for  rivers,  lakes  and  coastal  waters. 

This  cannot  be expected for  artificial water bodies  –  in  the Netherlands this concerns 
mostly  man-made  channels  and  ditches.  As  mentioned  above,  the  RBMPs  include 

reference  to  a  portal  with  a  system  of  factsheets  with  detailed  information  for  each 
water body and a description of the outcomes of the designation tests. The motivations 

behind non-considerations of restoration measures and “other means” are described. 

Therefore, this recommendation is considered as fulfilled. 

89 

 
 
Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions 

8.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

8.1.1  Environmental objectives 

Environmental  objectives  are  defined  in  Article  4  of  the  WFD.  The  aim  is  long-term 

sustainable water management based on a high level of protection of the aquatic environment. 
Article 4(1) defines the WFD general objective to be achieved in all surface and groundwater 

bodies,  i.e.  good  status  by  2015.  Within  that  general  objective,  specific  environmental 
objectives are defined for heavily modified water bodies (good ecological potential and good 
chemical status by 201545), groundwaters (good chemical and quantitative status by 2015) and 
for Protected Areas (achievement of the objectives of the associated Directive by 2015 unless 

otherwise specified). 

Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status in surface water and chemical and 

quantitative  status  in  groundwater  have  been  reported  in  all  RBDs.  A  significant  number  of 
exemptions is still applied in the Netherlands. 

Member States are also required to specify additional environmental objectives and standards 
in Protected Areas where these are required to ensure that the requirements of the associated 

Directives are met. An assessment of such additional objectives for the Netherlands is provided 
in Chapter 15 of this report. 

Assessments  of  the  current  status  of  surface  and  groundwater  bodies  in  the  Netherlands  are 
provided elsewhere in this report: for ecological status/potential of surface waters (Chapter 3); 

chemical  status  of  surface  waters  (Chapter  4);  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies 
(Chapter  5);  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  (Chapter  6);  status  of  surface  and 

groundwater bodies associated with Protected Areas (Chapter 15). 

For the second RBMPs,  Member States  are required to  report the date by which they expect 

each surface and groundwater body to meet its environmental objectives. This information is 
summarised  for  the  Netherlands  elsewhere  in  this  report:  for  ecological  status/potential  of 
surface waters (Chapter 3); chemical status of surface waters (Chapter 4); quantitative status of 

groundwater bodies (Chapter 5); chemical status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 6).  

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

90 

 
                                                      
8.1.2  Exemptions 

Where  environmental  objectives  are  not  yet  achieved,  exemptions  can  be  applied  if  the 

respective conditions are met and the required justifications are provided in the RBMP. 

Figure 8.1 summarises the percentage of water bodies expected to be at least in good status in 

2015 and those subject to the use of at least one exemption in the Netherlands for the four main 
sets  of  environmental  objectives.  The  Netherlands  informed,  in  the  frame  of  the  assessment, 

that  the  “forecast  method”  has  been  applied,  where  exemptions  are  applied  based  on  the 
expected  status  in  2021  taking  into  account  the  effects  of  the  implementation  of  the  PoM. 

According to  the reported data,  exemptions  are  most widely  applied in  relation  to  ecological 
status/potential status objectives. 

Figure 8.1 

Water  bodies reported by The Netherlands expected to  be in at  least good 
status  in  2015  and  use  of  exemptions.  1  =  Surface  water  body  ecological 

status/potential; 2 = Surface water body chemical status; 3 = Groundwater 
body quantitative status; 4 = Groundwater body chemical status  

Source: WISE electronic reports. For some water bodies the date for achievement of good status is unknown. 

Article  4  of  the  WFD  allows  for  different  exemptions  to  the  objectives,  provided  a  set  of 
conditions is fulfilled. These exemptions include the provisions in Article 4(4) - extension of 
deadlines  beyond  2015;  Article  4(5)  -  less  stringent  objectives;  Article  4(6)  -  temporary 
deterioration; and Article 4(7) -  deterioration / non-achievement of good status / potential due 

91 

 
 
to new modifications / new sustainable human development activities. Article 4(4) exemptions 

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

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

Figure 8.2 

Type of exemptions applied to surface water and groundwater bodies for the 
second  RBMP  in  the  Netherlands.  Note:  ecological  status  and  groundwater 
quantitative status exemptions are reported at the water body level. Chemical 
exemptions  for  groundwater  are  reported  at  the  level  of  each  pollutant 
causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status,  and  for  surface  waters  for  each 
Priority Substances that is causing failure of good chemical status 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

92 

 
 
The  Netherlands  subsequently  informed  the  Commission  that  a  system  of  factsheets  exists 

which contains information relevant to the exemptions for all individual water bodies. Even if 
the  factsheets  have  been  reported  to  WISE  they  could  not  be  assessed  due  to  technical 
problems at the time of the assessment (broken links)46. 

Application of Article 4(4) 

The number of exemptions under Article 4(4) has increased. Two water bodies were expected 
to achieve good ecological status/potential in 2015. The Netherlands informed in the frame of 

the  assessment  that  for  chemical  status,  Article  4(4)  exemptions  are  applied  to  100  %  of  the 
surface water bodies due to ubiquitous substances. 

As in  the first RBMP, the exemptions  according  to  Article 4(4) were justified on grounds of 
technical feasibility, disproportionate costs and natural conditions.  

For technical feasibility a range of justifications are provided, for example the uncertainty of 
available land due to voluntary terms and making use of concurrence of projects. 

Disproportionate  costs  have  been  justified  by  affordability  and  cost-benefit  assessment  in 
groundwaters  and  by  affordability  and  social  and  sectoral  impacts  in  surface  waters.  The 
RBMPs mention disproportionate costs in a generic way referring to the water body factsheets 

for further details. For some water bodies the costs were put in perspective of a disproportional 
increase  in  local  taxes  (of  the  regional  water  authorities),  and  measures  were  therefore 

postponed.   

The reported justifications for natural conditions are remaining diffuse pollution from leaching 

pollutants present in the environment (e.g. sediments) after the source has been reduced and the 
recovery time of ecosystems. 

The  main  pressures  to  surface  waters  leading  to  the  justification  of  exemptions  arose  from  a 
broad  range  of  activities  including  urbanisation,  industry,  agriculture,  litter,  abstraction  and 
morphological  activities causing changes in hydro-morphology (Table 8.1). The main drivers 
behind  these  pressures  were  transport  and  agriculture.  The  impacts  causing  the  exemptions 

were  for  all  RBDs  nutrient  pollution,  altered  habitats  due  to  morphological  changes  and 
chemical pollution. 

46 

https://www.waterkwaliteitsportaal.nl/Beheer/Data/Publiek?viewName=Factsheets&year=2015&month=Dece
mber 

93 

 
                                                      
Table 8.1 

Pressure on surface water bodies responsible for Priority Substances in the 

Netherlands  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  and  for  which 
exemptions have been applied 

Significant pressure on surface water 
bodies 

1.1 - Point - Urban waste water 

1.2 - Point - Storm overflows 

1.3 - Point - IED plants 

1.9 - Point - Other 

2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.4 - Diffuse - Transport 
2.6 - Diffuse - Discharges not connected to 
sewerage network 
2.7 - Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition 
3.1 - Abstraction or flow diversion - 
Agriculture 
3.3 - Abstraction or flow diversion - 
Industry 
3.4 - Abstraction or flow diversion - 
Cooling water 
3.7 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Other 
4.1.1 - Physical alteration of 
channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Flood 
protection 
4.1.2 - Physical alteration of 
channel/bed/riparian area/shore - 
Agriculture 
4.1.3 - Physical alteration of 
channel/bed/riparian area/shore - 
Navigation 
4.1.4 - Physical alteration of 
channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Other 
4.2.2 - Dams, barriers and locks - Flood 
protection 
4.2.7 - Dams, barriers and locks - 
Navigation 
4.2.8 - Dams, barriers and locks - Other 
4.3.1 - Hydrological alteration - 
Agriculture 
4.3.2 - Hydrological alteration - Transport 
4.3.5 - Hydrological alteration - 
Aquaculture 
4.3.6 - Hydrological alteration - Other 

4.4 - Hydromorphological alteration - 
Physical loss of whole or part of the water 

Failing 
Priority 
Substances 

Number 

Article 4(4) 
- Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 
Number 

Article 4(4) - 
Disproportionate 
cost exemptions 

Number 

Article 4(4) - 
Natural 
conditions 
exemptions  
Number 

46 

6 

19 

4 

0 

24 

19 

5 

46 

13 

28 

24 

32 

74 

1 

16 

48 

122 

0 

119 

0 

5 

25 

117 

75 

3 

3 

0 

0 

1 

19 

1 

0 

5 

5 

0 

0 

0 

3 

5 

0 

0 

0 

2 

15 

3 

0 

0 

13 

0 

56 

15 

21 

4 

25 

74 

24 

5 

67 

19 

29 

26 

32 

85 

7 

16 

63 

123 

3 

159 

8 

5 

25 

135 

80 

6 

5 

6 

4 

2 

8 

6 

5 

8 

5 

7 

6 

6 

8 

4 

6 

7 

7 

1 

9 

5 

5 

7 

8 

7 

94 

 
Significant pressure on surface water 
bodies 

body 

Failing 
Priority 
Substances 

Number 

Article 4(4) 
- Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 
Number 

Article 4(4) - 
Disproportionate 
cost exemptions 

Number 

Article 4(4) - 
Natural 
conditions 
exemptions  
Number 

5.1 - Introduced species and diseases 
5.2 - Exploitation or removal of animals or 
plants 
5.3 - Litter or fly tipping 

7 - Anthropogenic pressure - Other 
9 - Anthropogenic pressure - Historical 
pollution 

7 

6 

6 

11 

8 

120 

32 

53 

130 

42 

120 

31 

47 

85 

32 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

1 

2 

0 

12 

4 

The main pressures on groundwater leading to the justification of exemptions were point and 
diffuse pollution (Table 8.2). The main driver behind this being agriculture leading to chemical 

pollution 
a  damage 
and 
chemical/quantitative reasons. 

to  groundwater-dependent 

terrestrial 

ecosystems 

for 

Table 8.2 

Pressure  responsible  for  pollutants  in  the  Netherlands  failing  to  achieve 
good chemical status in groundwater and for which exemptions have been 

applied  

Significant pressure on groundwater 

Number of failing 
pollutants 

Number of exemptions 

Article4(4) - Technical 
feasibility 

1.9 - Point - Other 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

4 

1 

5 

1 

Source:  WISE electronic reports 

Application of Article 4(5) 

Article 4(5) was not used in the first cycle, nor in the second cycle. 

Application of Article 4(6) 

Article 4(6) has been applied in all RBDs in surface water because of natural causes (extreme 

floods and prolonged droughts) and in the Rhine RBD also because of accidents. However, the 
information in the respective RBMPs versus WISE is contradictory for the Rhine, Ems, Meuse 

and Scheldt RBMPs. The Netherlands subsequently clarified that the numbers included in the 
RBMP were incorrect and that this exemption was applied in two cases in the Scheldt, eleven 

in the Rhine, four in the Meuse and one in the Ems. 

95 

 
The information and descriptions in these RBMPs outline that in the first cycle, no Article 4(6) 

exemptions  were  applied.  For  the  Rhine  RBD  basin  it  was  mentioned  that  exemptions  were 
applied  in  four  water  bodies  for  reasons  of  natural  circumstances  and  accidents.  No  further 

detailed information was found to describe which circumstances are declared exceptional and 
no  indicators  either,  in  the  respective  RBMPs  or  background  documents.  The  Netherlands 

subsequently  confirmed  that  the  detailed  information  may  be  found  in  the  factsheets,  which 
were not accessible during this assessment. 

Application of Article 4(7) 

Article  4(7)  has  been  applied  in  the  Rhine  RBD  in  two  lake  water  bodies  due  to  new 
modifications. During the assessment the Netherland clarified that further details can be found 

in  factsheets  on  water  body  level.  Even  if  the  factsheets  have  been  reported  to  WISE  they 
could not be assessed due to technical problems at the time of the assessment (broken links) 47. 

Application of Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive 

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

8.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Article 4(6) and Article  4(7) were not  applied in the first  cycle but  have  been applied in  the 
second cycle. The number of exemptions under Article 4(4) has increased. Two water bodies 

were expected to achieve good ecological status/potential in 2015. 

8.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

action on the following: 

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

and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans, in particular 
for those based on technical infeasibility and disproportionate costs. 

Assessment: The number of exemptions has not decreased. The reasons for exemptions 

are provided at the water body level. For the other aspects of the recommendation not 

47 

https://www.waterkwaliteitsportaal.nl/Beheer/Data/Publiek?viewName=Factsheets&year=2015&month=Dece
mber 

96 

 
                                                      
enough information on progress regarding this recommendation could be found in the 

reported plans and the background documents for which the reported link was broken. 
However,  the  Netherlands  subsequently  clarified  during  the  assessment  that  for  each 

water  body  a  factsheet  with  detailed  justifications  for  each  exemption  has  been 
developed. This recommendation can therefore be considered as fulfilled.  

  Recommendation:  The  high  number  of  exemptions  applied  in  these  first  RBMPs  is  a 
cause for concern. The Netherlands should take all necessary measures to bring down 

the number of exemptions for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the 
characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well 

as reducing significantly the degree of uncertainty. 

Assessment:  The  number  of  exemptions  has  not  decreased; 
this 
recommendation has not been fulfilled. However, progress is made for a number of the 

therefore, 

parameters, and a sound PoM has been defined to ensure further improvements in status 
of all water bodies  

  Recommendation:  It  is  unclear  whether  there  are  other  new  physical  modifications 
planned besides those reported in the RBMPs. If this is the case, the use of exemptions 

under  Article  4(7)  should  be  based  on  a  thorough  assessment  of  all  the  steps  as 
requested  by  the  WFD,  in  particular  an  assessment  on  whether  the  project  is  of 

overriding  public  interest  and  whether  the  benefits  to  society  outweigh  the 
environmental  degradation,  and  the  absence  of  alternatives  that  would  be  a  better 

environmental  option.  Furthermore,  these  projects  may  only  be  carried  out  when  all 
possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. 

All conditions for the application of Article 4(7) in individual projects must be included 
and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible. 

Assessment: Not enough information on progress regarding this recommendation could 
be  found  in  the  reported  plans  and  the  background  documents.  Even  if  the  factsheets 

were reported to WISE they could not be assessed due to technical problems at the time 
of  the  assessment  (broken  links)48.  However,  the  Netherlands  subsequently  clarified 
during the assessment that for each water body  a factsheet  with  detailed justifications 
for each exemption has been developed.  

  Recommendation: Exemptions should be adequately justified at water body level. 

48 

https://www.waterkwaliteitsportaal.nl/Beheer/Data/Publiek?viewName=Factsheets&year=2015&month=Dece
mber 

97 

 
                                                      
Assessment: See assessment above. 

  Recommendation:  Make  efforts  to  reduce  the  use  of  exemptions  and  maintain  an 
ambitious  approach  to  WFD  implementation.  The  Netherlands  should  adequately 

justify  the  exemptions  applied  in  the  RBMPs  including  a  proper  assessment  of 
alternative solutions and all necessary mitigation measures. 

Assessment: See assessment above.  

98 

 
  
 
 
Topic 9

  Programme of measures  

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the PoM reported by Member States; more 

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

The  Key  Types  of  Measure  (KTM)  referred  to  in  this  section  are  groups  of  measures 
identified by Member States in the Programme of Measures, which target the same pressure 

or purpose. The individual measures included in the Programme of Measure (being part of 
the RBMP) are grouped into Key Types of Measure for the purpose of reporting. The same 

individual measure can be part of more than one Key Types of Measure because it may be 
multi-purpose, but also because the Key Types of Measure are not completely independent 

silos. Key Types of Measure have been introduced to simplify the reporting of measures and 
to  reduce  the  very  large  number  of  Supplementary  Measures  reported  by  some  Member 

States (WFD Reporting Guidance 2016).  

A Key Type of Measure may be one national measure but it would typically comprise more 

than one national measure. The 25 predefined Key Types of Measure are listed in the WFD 
Reporting Guidance 2016. 

The  Key  Types  of  Measure  should  be  fully  implemented  and  made  operational  within  the 
RBMP planning period to address specific pressures or chemical substances and achieve the 

environmental objectives. 

9.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

9.1.1  General issues 

An  indication  as  to  whether  or  not  measures  have  been  fully  implemented  and  made 
operational is when they have been reported as being planned to tackle significant pressures (at 

the  Key  Types  of  Measure  level).  Significant  pressures  are  also  reported  at  the  water  body 
level.  It  would  therefore  be  expected  that  there  would  be  measures  planned  in  the  RBMP  to 

tackle  all significant  pressures.  In  general  the reported significant pressures are well  covered 
with operational KTMs.  

For groundwater the reported significant pressures are covered with operational KTMs, e.g. all 
pressures  are  covered  for  the  Ems  and  the  Rhine  RBDs  (except  one  significant  “other” 
pressure, i.e. saline intrusion in the Rhine RBD). For the Meuse, diffuse urban and agricultural 

99 

 
 
pressures  are  not  covered,  but  these  may  be  addressed  with  the  operational  KTMs  for 

individual  substances  (MTBE,  nickel,  phosphorus,  nitrate,  and  pesticides).  No  significant 
pressure  has  been  reported  for  the  Scheldt  RBD.  Some  KTMs  not  apparently  related  to 

significant  pressures  have  been  included,  i.e.  groundwater  recharge  in  the  Meuse  RBD,  and 
total phosphorus and arsenic in the Rhine RBD.  

For  surface  water  in  the  Rhine  RBD  all  the  reported  significant  pressures  are  covered  with 
operational  KTMs  (except  abstraction/flow  diversion  for  agriculture).  A  KTM  has  been 

reported to address hydrological alterations for aquaculture, but this has not been not listed as a 
significant  pressure.  Large  numbers  of  individual  substances,  including  Priority  Substances, 

have  also  been  listed  as  being  covered  by  operational  KTMs.  The  listing  of  the  significant 
pressures  includes  large  numbers  of  other  pressures,  apparently  at  water  body  level,  but  this 

seems  to  relate  mainly  to  the  multi-pressure  environment,  rather  than  “significant  other 
pressures”.  

The Netherlands have mapped 24 national basic measures against 12 predefined KTMs, and a 
further  six  national  basic  measures  have  been  mapped  against  four  nationally  developed 
KTMs.  A  total  of  71  national  supplementary  measures  have  been  mapped  against  15 
predefined KTMs and 22 nationally defined KTMs49. All of the measures are applicable to all 
four RBDs. The basic measure types have also been reported.  

Measures are reported against all the requirements of Article 11(3) of the WFD (Table 18) and 
links to further information on Article 11(3)(c-k) basic measures for all RBDs are provided in 

WISE.   

KTMs  reported  to  be  mapped  against  national  measures  (18  predefined  and  a  further  26 

defined  by  the  Netherlands  –  see  footnote  -  identical  for  all  RBDs)  are  considerably  higher 
than the numbers reported as tackling significant pressures, which are very similar in all RBDs 

(8 or 9 KTMs and nine to eleven national measures under KTM 99-Other in each RBD). All 
the  KTMs  reported  as  tackling  significant  pressures  in  each  RBD  have  had  national  basic 

and/or  supplementary  measures  mapped  against  them,  but  not  all  national  measures  are 
reported  as  tackling  significant  pressures  and  therefore  may  not  yet  have  been  put  into 

operation. All of the requirements of Article 11(3) have been fulfilled by the measures reported 
(see Table 18). 

49 The Netherlands subsequently clarified that this was a preliminary mapping and will be improved. Due to the 
late  and complex reporting specification on this topic  not enough time  was available to fully  implement the 
use of KTM’s in the Netherlands national dataflows and national system. 

100 

 
                                                      
No  information  was  reported  with  regard  to  the  number  of  water  bodies  failing  to  achieve 

objectives due to individual pressures.  

Individual  chemical  pollutants  causing  groundwater  bodies  to  fail  to  be  of  good  status,  the 

number of groundwater bodies affected and the KTMs used to tackle them have been reported 
to  WISE  for  the  Rhine  and  Meuse  RBDs  only.  There  is  no  information  on  the  number  of 

surface water bodies failing to achieve good status due to River Basin Specific Pollutants, but 
KTMs  to  address  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  have  been  reported.  Information  on  the 

priority substances and the number of water bodies causing failure of WFD objectives and the 
KTMs used to tackle all of them has been reported for surface water for  all four RBDs. For 

most of the substances KTM 15 - "Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and 
losses  of  Priority  Hazardous  Substances  or  for  the  reduction  of  emissions,  discharges  and 

losses  of  Priority  Substances"  is  used.  The  exceptions  are  isoproturon,  which  is  tackled  with 
KTM  3  -  "Reduce  pesticides  pollution  from  agriculture",  and  cadmium  and  its  compounds, 

which are tackled with KTM 21 - "Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from 
urban areas, transport and built infrastructure".  

Gap analyses have been presented for all the significant pressures which have been reported as 

being  covered  by  measures  in  all  RBDs.  Quantitative  pressure  indicators  and  gap  values  for 
2015,  2021  and  2027,  are  in  place  at  water  body  level,  together  with  explanations  of  other 

pressures  affecting  individual  water  bodies.  Qualitative  indicators  for  the  level  of  progress 
expected in the implementation of KTMs have also been presented but no measure indicators 

or gap values have been provided for these. This is in accordance with what was included by 
the Netherlands in their Annex 0.  

The  indicators  of  the  gap  to  good  status  have  been  reported  as  either  the  number  of  water 
bodies  failing  environmental  quality  standards,  or  the  number  of  water  bodies  in  which  the 

pressure contributes to failing to achieve good status. For groundwater, most gaps are expected 
to be closed by 2021, and all by 2027 in all RBDs. For surface waters, the gap to good status is 

expected to be reduced for most pressures, but few are expected to be fully addressed by 2027. 
In  the  Rhine  RBD,  for  example,  only  three  of  the  gap  values  (dams,  barriers,  locks  for 

irrigation  and  navigation,  and  unknown  anthropogenic  pressures)  and  some  for  individual 
substances are expected to be zero by 2027. The situation is somewhat better for the Ems RBD, 

where about 50 % of the gap values are expected at zero by 2027 (none by 2021).  

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. In the first cycle cost-effectiveness analysis had been undertaken for measures 
in the most important sectors. For the second cycle quantitative cost-effectiveness analysis has 

101 

 
been carried out in all four RBDs. The RBMP and background document assessment indicated 

that  the  cost-effectiveness  of  measures  was  assessed  at  a  generic  level  for  categories  of 
measures, and that there was no specific prioritisation of measures based on cost-effectiveness 

analysis.  

A critical factor in the success of the implementation of the PoM is the availability of funding 

to  support  the  investments  required.  Investment  costs  for  the  years  2009-2015  have  been 
reported  for  all  four  RBDs  (€2 200  m  at  Member  State  level)  as  a  total  for  Articles  11(3)(a-

l)/11(4)/11(5) only (measures required to implement Community legislation for the protection 
of water under Article 11(3)(a) and all other measures).  

For 2016-2021 investment costs have been reported to WISE for all four RBDs as a total for 
Article 11(3)(b-l), 11(4) and 11(5) (all other measures) only (€766.6 m at RBD level, no annual 

costs were reported). Depreciation was taken into account in both cycles.  

European  Union  investment  expenditure  for  the  first  and  second  cycles  has  been  reported  as 

“not available” for the four RBDs. However, the Netherlands have indicated that all cost data 
were available but not in the format required for reporting to WISE.  

A  clear  financial  commitment  has  been  secured  for  the  implementation  of  PoM  in  all  four 

RBDs. On a sectoral basis, commitments have been secured in all four RBDs for Agriculture, 
Industry, Urban, Recreation and Flood Protection, but not for Hydropower. Transport, Energy, 

and Aquaculture which were identified as “not applicable” in all RBDs. 

It was reported that co-ordination of the preparation of all RBMPs and PoM with the Marine 

Strategy Framework Directive had taken place in all four RBDs, and that joint consultation on 
the RBMPs and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive had been undertaken. Consideration 

has been given to the need for additional or more stringent measures beyond those required by 
the WFD in order to contribute to the achievement of the relevant Marine Strategy Framework 

Directive  objectives  in  coastal  and  marine  environments,  with  required  additional  measures 
reported as “dealing with litter”.  

KTMs that are relevant to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive have also been listed for 
all four RBDs, with an indication of the type and number of measures, but not indicating the 

pressures they are addressing.  

Whilst  the  RBMPs  and  Floods  Directive  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  have  not  been 

integrated into single plans in any of the four RBDs, all included:  

102 

 
- 

Joint consultation of RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans;  

-  Consideration  of  the  objectives  and  requirements  of  the  Floods  Directive  in  the  second 

RBMPs and PoM;  

-  Win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive, 

Drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures;  

-  The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams 
and tidal barriers, adapted to take account of WFD environmental objectives, as well as;  

- 

Financial commitments for the implementation of PoM in the flood protection areas, and;  

-  The application of WFD Article 9(4) to impoundment for flood protection. 

9.1.2  Measures related to other significant pressures 

Gap  analyses  for  other  significant  pressures  have  been  reported  for  surface  water  in  all  four 

RBDs  (groundwater  in  the  Rhine  RBD  only).  These  were  unknown,  historical  and  other 
anthropogenic pressures, introduction of new species, exploitation of animals and plants, and 

litter/fly tipping.  KTM 99  -  "Other key type measure reported under PoM  - (Administrative) 
measures which should help in achieving good status or facilitate the implementation of other 

measures  from  the  PoM"  are  applied  to  all  of  these  pressures.  Examples  of  the  measures 
included  under  this  KTM  include  active  fish/shellfish  stock  management,  active  vegetation 

management, measures to prevent or limit  groundwater  contamination, other measures at  the 
source and other generic measures. 

9.1.3  Mapping of national measures to Key Types of Measure 

It  was  expected  that  Member  States  would  be  able  to  report  their  PoM  by  associating  their 
national measures with  predefined KTMs. The KTMs are expected to deliver the bulk of the 

improvements  through  reduction  in  pressures  required  to  achieve  WFD  environmental 
objectives. Member States are required to report on the national measures associated with the 

KTMs, and whether the national measures are basic (Article 11(3)(a) or Article 11(3)(b-l)) or 
supplementary (Article 11(4)).  

Table 9.1 summarises the number of national measures that have been mapped to the relevant 
KTMs in  the Netherlands. Also shown is  the number of RBDs for which the KTM has been 
reported.  Table  9.2  then  summarises  the  type  of  basic  measures  associated  with  the  national 

measures mapped against the KTM. 

103 

 
Table 9.1 

Mapping  of  the  types  of  national  measures  to  Key  Types  of  Measure  in  the 
Netherlands 50 

Key Type of Measure 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants 

KTM10 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation 
of the recovery of cost of water services from industry 

KTM11 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation 
of the recovery of cost of water services from agriculture 

KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment 
of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc) 

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing 
uncertainty 

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

KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and 
surface run-off 

KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of 
recreation including angling 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 

KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of 
fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal and plants 

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution 
from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure 

KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 

KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution 
including sediments, groundwater, soil) 

KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish 
passes, demolishing old dams) 

KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of water 
bodies other than longitudinal continuity 

KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of 
ecological flows 

KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, 
industry, energy and households 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Active fish stock/ shellfish stock management 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Active vegetation management 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Change agriculture destination 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number of 
RBDs where 
reported 

2 

1 

1 

3 

3 

2 

1 

5 

2 

1 

2 

1 

2 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

10 

1 

2 

5 

1 

12 

4 

1 

1 

1 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

50 The Netherlands subsequently clarified that this was a preliminary mapping and will be improved. Due to the 
late  and complex reporting specification on this topic  not enough time  was available to fully  implement the 
use of KTM’s in the Netherlands national dataflows and national system. 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Key Type of Measure 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Change/develop (new) legislation 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Change/develop (new) policy 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Establish purification wetlands 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Establish special habitats for fish 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Establish special habitats for flora and fauna 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Financial measures 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Measures providing more room for rivers 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Measures to counter groundwater depletion 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Measures to prevent accidents 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Measures to prevent exposure of swimmers to 
contamination 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Measures to prevent or limit groundwater 
contamination 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Measures to prevent or limit the input of pollution 
from industry 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Nutrient measures at the source (broader than just 
agriculture) 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Other advisory services 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Other generic measures 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Other immission measures 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Other landscaping measures 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Other management measures 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Other measures at the source 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Other policy measures 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Other spatial planning measures 

105 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number of 
RBDs where 
reported 

3 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key Type of Measure 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number of 
RBDs where 
reported 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - resolving untreated discharges 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme of 
Measure - Source based measures to reduce plant protection 
product emissions (broader than just agriculture) 

Total number of Mapped Measures 

30 

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

1 

1 

71 

4 

4 

4 

106 

 
 
 
Table 9.2 

Type of basic measure mapped to Key Type of Measures in the Netherlands  

Key Type of Measure 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants 
KTM10 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of 
the recovery of cost of water services from industry 
KTM11 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of 
the recovery of cost of water services from agriculture 
KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment 
of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc) 
KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges 
and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of 
emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Substances 
KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 
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 
KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 
KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of water 
bodies other than longitudinal continuity 
KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of 
ecological flows 
KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, 
industry, energy and households 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM 

Basic Measure Type 

e
s
u
r
e
t
a
w

t
n
e
i
c
i
f
f

E

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

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

D
E
I
C
P
P
I

s
e
t
a
r
t
i

N

r
e
h
t
O

e
c
r
u
o
s

t
n
i
o
P

s
e
g
r
a
h
c
s
i
d

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

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

r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

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

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

e
g
r
a
h
c
e
R

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
u
a

s
r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

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

s
e
c
n
a
t
s
b
u
S

r
e
t
a
W

e
t
s
a
W
n
a
b
r
U

1 

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

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

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

r
e
t
a
w
y
r
e
v
o
c
e
r

t
s
o
C

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 
2 

1 

1 

3 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Member States reports to WISE 

Key 

‘Accidental pollution’ = Article 11(3)(l): Any measures required to prevent significant losses of pollutants from technical installations and to prevent and/or reduce the impact of 
accidental pollution incidents. 
‘Controls water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(e): Controls over the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater and impoundment of fresh surface waters including a register or 
registers of water abstractions and a requirement for prior authorisation of abstraction and impoundment. 
‘Cost recovery water services’ = Article 11(3)(b): Measures for the recovery of cost of water services (Article 9). 
‘Efficient water use’ = Article 11(3)(c): Measures to promote efficient and sustainable water use. 
‘Habitats or Birds’ = Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)  or Birds Directive (2009/147/EC)  
‘Hydromorphology’ = Article 11(3)(i): Measures to control any other significant adverse impact on the status of water, and in particular hydromorphological impacts. 
‘IPPC IED’ = Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC) and the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) . 
‘Nitrates’ = Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC). 
‘Other’ = Other Directives mentioned in Part A of Annex VI of the WFD. 
‘Point source discharges’ = Article 11(3)(g): Requirement for prior regulation of point source discharges liable to cause pollution. 
‘Pollutants diffuse’ = Article 11(3)(h): Measures to prevent or control the input of pollutants from diffuse sources liable to cause pollution. 
‘Pollutants direct groundwater’ = Article 11(3)(j): Prohibition of direct discharge of pollutants into groundwater. 
‘Protection water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(d): Measures for the protection of water abstracted for drinking water (Article 7) including those to reduce the level of purification required 
for the production of drinking water. 
‘Recharge augmentation groundwaters’ = Article 11(3)(f): Controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies. 
‘Surface Priority Substances’ = Article 11(3)(k): Measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters by Priority Substances and to reduce pollution from other substances that would 
otherwise prevent the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 4. 
‘Urban Waste Water’ = Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). 

108 

 
 
 
9.1.4 

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

reported and the Key Types of Measure planned to achieve objectives 

Member  States  are  required  to  report  the  gaps  that  need  to  be  filled  to  achieve  WFD 

environmental  objectives  in  terms  of  all  significant  pressures  on  surface  waters  and 
groundwaters, in  terms  of Priority Substances causing  failure of  good  chemical  status  and in 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reported by the Member State. 

9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The level of implementation of the first cycle of PoM in the Netherlands was reported as “all 
measures completed” for all four RBDs. Obstacles were reported as “Lack of finance”, “Not 
cost-effective” and “Land availability” in all RBDs. Whilst no summary of progress has been 

provided, significant progress seems to have been made in linking measures to pressures and 
providing  gap  analyses  with  quantitative  gap  indicators  for  meeting  objectives  and  at  least 

qualitative information of the measures to address them, as well as financial commitments for 

109 

 
implementing the PoM.  However, it is  not  clear, whether the PoM are sufficiently  ambitious 

(in  a  large  number  of  surface  water  bodies  it  is  anticipated  that  a  number  of  significant 
pressures will not have been fully addressed by 2027). An analysis of the planned measures has 

been carried out, in particular for the preparation of the third plans, but it is acknowledged that 
a quantitative anaylisis would be difficult with the available scientific knowledge. 

9.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

•  Recommendation: Develop a clear link between the measures identified in the Programme 

of Measures and their contribution to the achievement of the WFD objectives.   

Assessment:  Measures  have  been  linked  to  pressures  and  gap  analyses  have  been  carried 

out  for  all  pressures  in  terms  of  number  of  water  bodies  failing  environmental  quality 
standard or number of water bodies in which the pressure contributes to failing to achieve 

good  status,  including  at  water  body  level,  with  explanations  of  other  pressures  affecting 
individual water bodies. This recommendation has been fulfilled.  

•  Recommendation: Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify the gap to good status, and that 
the Programme of Measures are designed and implemented to close that gap. It should be 
assessed, how much of the pressures (and their corresponding sources) have to be reduced 

to achieve the WFD objectives. The Netherlands should clearly define gaps for individual 
pressures  and  water  bodies.  Exemptions  should  be  adequately  justified  at  water  body 

level. 

Assessment: Qualitative information on the gap to good  status has been provided for the 
appropriate measures. There were no quantitative indicators for the measures provided due 

to  the  multi-pressure  environment,  as  mentioned  in  the  Annex  0  reported  by  the 
Netherlands. 

This  recommendation  has  been  fulfilled  in  respect  of  Topic  9  (subject  to  the  Annex  0). 
(See Topic 8 for the justification of exemptions). 

•  Recommendation: The Programme of Measures should contain all the relevant measures 
to  be  applied  in  the  RBD.  Many  of  these  measures  are  only  described  in  the  sub-basin 

plans,  which  results  in  a  quite  general  Programme  of  Measures  in  the  RBMPs  and  in  a 
lack  of  specificity  concerning  the  measures  to  be  implemented.  The  RBMPs  will  benefit 

110 

 
from more detail on how the implementation of the Programme of Measures will lead to 

the achievement of objectives under Article 4. This will require more information on scope 
of  measures,  financing,  timescales,  etc.  In  addition,  budgetary  cuts  decided  after  the 

adoption  of  the  plan  have  cast  serious  doubts  on  the  implementation  of  the  planned 
measures.  Adequate  financing  for  the  Programme  of  Measures  should  be  provided  to 

make it possible to achieve the objectives of the adopted RBMPs. 

 

Assessment: Many details of measures to tackle specific pressures have been provided, 

including the gap analyses and a clear financial commitment has been secured for the 

implementation  of PoM  in  all four RBDs. However, it is  not clear, whether these are 
adequate  and  whether  the  programmes  are  sufficiently  ambitious  as  many  of  the 

pressures are estimated to not be fully addressed by 2027.  An analysis of the planned 
measures has been carried out, in particular for the preparation of the third plans, but it 

is  acknowledged  that  a  quantitative  anaylisis  would  be  difficult  with  the  available 
scientific knowledge. 

It  is  clear  that  progress  is  being  made  and  that  this  recommendation  has  been  partially 
fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Provide an inventory of the different sources of pressures in the second 
RBMPs and define ambitious measures based on the pressures and impacts  analysis  and 

status assessment of water bodies. The choice of measures should reflect the significance of 
the pressure. 

 

Assessment: Many details of measures to tackle specific pressures have been provided, 

including the gap analyses and a clear financial commitment that has been secured for 
the implementation  of PoM in  all four RBDs. However, it is  not  clear,  whether these 

are  adequate  and  whether  the  programmes  are  sufficiently  ambitious  as  many  of  the 
pressures are estimated to not be fully addressed by 2027.  An analysis of the planned 

measures has been carried out, in particular for the preparation of the third plans, but it 
is  acknowledged  that  a  quantitative  anaylisis  would  be  difficult  with  the  available 

scientific  knowledge.  It  is  clear  that  progress  is  being  made  and  that  this  this 
recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

111 

 
 
Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

10.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

10.1.1  Water exploitation and trends  

Water abstraction pressure is relevant for some areas of the Netherlands with 17 % of surface 
water  bodies  in  the  Meuse  RBD  and  18  %  in  the  Rhine  RBD  facing  significant  abstraction 

pressures.  However,  no  information  has  been  reported  regarding  water  quantity,  including 
water abstractions or the Water Exploitation Index +, nor has information been reported yet to 

support  the  European  State  of  the  Environment  Report  in  relation  to  Water  Quantity.  Water 
scarcity  issues  are  not  considered  relevant  at  the  international  level,  and  no  specific  water 

resource  allocation  and  management  plans  have  been  implemented.  Water  abstraction 
(understood as consumptive use) has not been identified as a significant pressure at the RBD 

level (or in significant portions of the RBD).  

10.1.2  Main uses for water consumption  

No data have been reported for the uses of water consumption, as water quantity pressures are 
not reported as significant.  

10.1.3  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

Water  abstraction  is  an  integral  part  of  the  Dutch  water  management.  Regarding  basic 
measures  (Article 11(3)(e)), in  the  Netherlands there is  a permitting  regime and a  register of 

abstractions  for  surface  water  and  groundwater,  and  a  concession,  authorisation  and/or 
permitting regime to control water impoundment but no register of impoundments; and, small 

abstractions are exempted from permitting and controls.  

Measures on Article 11(3)(c) have been implemented in the first cycle, and new measures or 
significant changes are planned for the 2016-2021 period.  

Measures  for  the  prior  authorisation  of  artificial  recharge  or  augmentation  of  groundwater 
bodies (Article 11(3)(f)) have been implemented in  the previous cycle, and new measures or 

significant changes are also planned for the next period. 

112 

 
Complementary  measures  associated  to  KTM  99  -  "Other  key  type  measure  reported  under 

PoM - (Administrative) measures which should help achieving the good status or facilitate the 
implementation of other measures from the PoM" are reported to tackle significant abstraction 

pressures. Re-use is a measure not foreseen in any RBDs. 

Regarding  basic  measures  (Article  11(3)(e)),  in  the  Netherlands  there  is  a  concession, 

authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  water  impoundment  but  no  register  of 
impoundments;  and,  small  abstractions  are  exempted  from  these  controls.  Measures  on  this 

topic have been implemented in  the first  cycle,  and new measures or significant  changes are 
planned for the 2016-2021 period.  

10.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

No significant  change has been detected. However, changes in  applying Article 11(3)(c) and 
(f) are foreseen. 

10.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

topic. 

113 

 
 
 
Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture  

11.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

The  pressures  from  agriculture  (diffuse  pollution  and  hydromorphological  changes)  have  not 
changed since the first cycle and the type of measures applied are essentially the same. Only 

for  groundwater  bodies  in  the  Scheldt  RBD,  there  are  no  relevant  pressures  from  point  or 
diffuse sources with respect to meeting the objectives of the WFD.  

The  Netherlands  subsequently  provided  clarification  that  a  gap  analysis  has  been  carried  out 

and results published in 2013. The results of the gap analysis should also be seen in the context 
of  the  process  of  the  Delta-approach  to  intensify  efforts  in  reducing  diffuse  pressures  in  the 

Netherlands from agriculture. Work in this direction is still ongoing and work is performed as 
regards additional measures to tackle pressures from agriculture, especially as regards nutrients 
and work under the Nitrates Directive51. For this, at the moment regional analyses are carried 
out, which will be integrated in a national analysis in 2019. The results will feed into the third 
RBMPs and in the 7th Nitrates Action programme. 

KTM  2  -  Reduce  nutrient  pollution  from  agriculture  (basic  (the  minimum  requirement  to  be 

complied with) and supplementary) and KTM 3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture 
(basic  and  supplementary)  are  applied  in  all  RBDs.  KTM  17  -  Measures  to  reduce  sediment 

from soil erosion and surface run-off are found in all RBDs as supplementary measures. 

KTM 13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer 
zones  etc.)  (basic  and  supplementary)  are  reported  for  all  RBDs.  Safeguard  zones  around 

drinking  water  protection  areas  have  been  established  in  all  RBMPs.  It  is  stated  that  if 
extraction  of  water  takes  places  for  human  consumption,  then  the  whole  water  body  is 

designated  as  a  protected  area.  Further  details  are  not  provided.  Further,  there  are  several 
measures in the RBMPs that aim to control point and diffuse pollution. However, the link with 

drinking  water  supply  is  not  directly  mentioned,  although  these  might  also  have  a  beneficial 
effect on the wider environment and on drinking water supply. 

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

sources 

by 

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

nitrates 

114 

 
                                                      
The description of the measures in the RBMP is very concise and does not allow an adequate 
judgement to be made as to whether a measure is voluntarily or not52. 

General binding rules to control diffuse pollution from agriculture are established in all RBDs 

for nitrates, phosphates and pesticides. Implementation of basic measures Article 11(3)(h) for 
the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at source follows the same rules across all the 

RBDs.  

Farmers/Farmers'  Unions  have  been  consulted  under  the  Public  Consultation  process  in  all 

RBDs.  

Financing of agricultural measures is secured in all RBDs. The RBMP mentions Horizon2020, 

Common  Agricultural  Policy,  Structural  and  Cohesion  Funds  and  national  funds  for  funding 
measures. 

11.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  pressures  from  agriculture  (diffuse  pollution  and  hydromorphological  changes)  have  not 
changed53 since the first cycle and the type of measures applied are essentially the same. A gap 
assessment was missing in the first cycle and is also missing in the second cycle although the 
link between pressures and measures has been established.  

11.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

on the following: 

•  Recommendation:  Agriculture  is  indicated  as  exerting  a  significant  pressure  on  the 
water resource in the Netherlands. This should be translated into a clear strategy that 
defines  the  basic  and  mandatory  measures  that  all  farmers  should  adhere  to  and  the 

additional  supplementary  measures  that  can  be  financed.  This  should  be  developed 
with  the  farmers'  community  to  ensure  technical  feasibility  and  acceptance.  The 

52  According  to  information  subsequently  provided  by  the  Netherlands,  farmers  that  want  to  participate  in  the 
Deltaplan  Agricultural Water  management can  sign  up voluntarily. This offers  them the opportunity to look 
for tailor-made solutions to contribute to WFD and other policy objectives. However, if they participate in the 
programme, they are obliged to implement the measures they agree to. If they do not take these measures, they 
will have to implement more generic measures that are considered to be effective in their situation, but since 
they are not tailor made, they can be more costly for them to implement. Therefore, there is a strong incentive 
to  participate  in  this  voluntary  scheme.  Tailor-made  measures  that  are  proven  to  be  (cost)  effective  will  be 
secured  (e.g.  in  regulation),  to  get  a  level-playing-field  and  to  connect  innovators  /  early  adaptors  with  the 
others. 

53  According  to  information  subsequently  provided  by  the  Netherlands  the  pressures  from  agriculture  may  not 
have changed in terms of number but they have changed in terms of the magnitude of the pressure for a water 
body. 

115 

 
                                                      
baseline for water protection in the agriculture sector needs to be very clear so that all 

farmers  know  the  rules,  and  the  authorities  in  charge  of  the  Common  Agricultural 
Policy  funds  can  adequately  set  up  Rural  Development  Programmes  and  cross 

compliance water requirements. 

Assessment:  The  RBMPs 

include  a  reference 

to 

the  “Deltaplan  Agrarisch 

Waterbeheer”.  This  is  a  plan  with  specific  measures  to  improve  pollution  from 
agriculture (e.g. nutrients) via additional measures. The exact details of this plan were 
not available for further assessment54. It is unclear if the definition of basic/mandatory 
this  plan  or  another.  The 
measures  for  agriculture  have  been 

included 

in 

recommendation has partially been fulfilled. 

•  Recommendation: Take measures to remove pollution from nitrogen and phosphorous 
at a reasonable economic level because the main source of the diffuse pressures in the 
Netherlands is agriculture. 

Assessment:  The  Netherlands  subsequently  has  provided  to  the  Commission  the 
following  information  relevant  to  this  recommendation:  a  gap  assessment  has  been 
performed.  However,  knowledge  on  how  measures  contribute  to  reaching  the  good 

ecological  status  will  continue  to  improve  over  time.  This  is  a  cyclical  process  and 
work is going on at the moment.  

In addition, according to the assessment, Article 13(h) measures are reported. Funding 
sources are provided in a generic way.  

Although  the  type  of  assessment  carried  out  for  this  Member  State  report  does  not 
allow this conclusion, based on the additional information subsequently provided by the 

Netherlands this recommendation is largely fulfilled. 

•  Recommendation: Assess the effectiveness of the existing measures and identify which 
additional measures are needed to close the gap in the implementation of the Nitrates 
Directive and the WFD. 

Assessment:  As  mentioned  above,  the  Netherlands  has  subsequently  provided 
clarification that a gap analysis has been carried out and results published in 2013. The 

results of the gap analysis should also be seen in the context of the process of the Delta-
approach  to  intensify  efforts  in  reducing  diffuse  pressures  in  the  Netherlands  is 

54   According  to  information  subsequently  provided  by  the  Netherlands,  current  progress  of  the  individual 

projects can be found here: www.agrarischwaterbeheer.nl  

116 

 
                                                      
agriculture.  Work  in  this  direction  is  still  ongoing  and  work  is  performed  as  regards 

additional measures to tackle pressures from agriculture, especially as regards nutrients 
and  work  under  the  Nitrates  Directive.  For  this,  at  the  moment  regional  analysis  are 

carried out, which will be integrated in a national analysis in 2019. The results will feed 
into the third RBMPs and in the 7th Nitrates Action program. 

Although  the  type  of  assessment  carried  out  for  this  Member  State  report  does  not 
allow this conclusion, based on the additional information subsequently provided by the 

Netherlands, it is considered that this recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

•  Recommendation:  Develop  a  clear  strategy  in  the  RBMPs  for  pollution  from 
agriculture  (mainly  nutrients  but  also  pesticides)  and  define  the  basic/mandatory 
measures  –  besides  the  5th  National  Action  Programme  –  that  all  farmers  should 

adhere  to,  and  the  additional  supplementary  measures  that  can  be  financed.  This 
should  be  developed  in  cooperation  with  the  farming  community  to  ensure  technical 

feasibility and acceptance. 

Assessment:  There  is  a  summary  that  relates  to  this  recommendation  of  estimated 
progress  in  the  respective  RBMPs,  but  it  cannot  be  concluded  that  this  was 

communicated to the European Commission in advance of the signing of the National 
the 
Action  Programme.  According 

information  subsequently  provided  by 

to 

Netherlands,  in  the  6th  National  Action  Programme  drinking  water  and  Water 
Framework Directive objectives are included. In addition, the update of the strategy has 

been elaborated in the PoM of the second RBMPs. Based on the additional information 
subsequently provided by the Netherlands, it is considered that the recommendation has 

been largely fulfilled. 

•  Recommendation: Ensure that point and diffuse sources of pollution in the agricultural 

sector are controlled.  

Assessment: See assessment above  

117 

 
 
 
Topic 12

 Measures  related  to  pollution  from  sectors  other  than 
agriculture  

12.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

In  the  context  of  this  topic,  pollution  is  considered  in  terms  of  nutrients,  organic  matter, 
sediment,  saline  discharges  and  chemicals  (Priority  Substances,  River  Basin  Specific 

Pollutants,  groundwater  pollutants  and  other  physico-chemical  parameters)  arising  from  all 
sectors and sources apart from agriculture.  

Key  types  of  measures  (KTM)  are  groups  of  measures  identified  by  Member  States  in  their 
Programmes of Measures which target the same pressure or purpose. A KTM could be limited 

to one national measure, but it would typically comprise more than one national measure. The 
same  individual  measure  can  also  be  part  of  more  than  one  KTM  because  it  may  be 

multipurpose but also because the KTMs are not completely independent of one another. 

The following KTMs relevant to non-agricultural sources of pollution causing failure of WFD 
objectives have been reported for all RBDs in the Netherlands: 

  KTM 1 - "Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants" 

  KTM 4 - "Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, 

groundwater, soil)" 

  KTM 14 - "Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty" 

  KTM  21  -  "Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas, 

transport and built infrastructure"  

  KTM  99  –  “Other  key  type  measures  reported  under  PoM”,  including  measures  to 
prevent  or  limit  groundwater  contamination,  resolving  untreated  discharges,  measures 

to  prevent  or limit  input of pollution from  industry, other  generic measures and other 
policy measures).   

The  WFD  specifies  that  Programmes  of  Measures  shall  include,  as  a  minimum,  “basic 
measures” and, where necessary to achieve objectives, “supplementary measures” when basic 

measures are not enough to address specific significant pressures (see chapter 9 in this report). 

118 

 
The Netherlands has indicated the number of basic and supplementary measures per RBD for 

each KTM mentioned above.    

The  Netherlands  provided  more  targeted  information  on  basic  measures  required  under 

Article 11(3)(c  to  k).  Basic  measures  corresponding  to  Article  11(3)(g),  i.e.  the  use  of 
authorisation and/or permitting regimes to control wastewater point source discharges, and the 

operation  of  a  register  of  wastewater  discharges,    are  reported  for  all  RBDs  for  surface  and 
groundwater.  There  are  no  thresholds  below  which  wastewater  discharges  do  not  require 

permits and are not subject to registration in the Netherlands and there is a prohibition of all 
direct discharges to groundwater. 

Measures  to  eliminate/reduce  pollution  from  Priority  Substances  and  other  substances  have 
been identified in all Dutch RBDs. 

12.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle  

Only  basic  substance-specific  measures  were  described  in  the  first  RBMPs.  These  measures 
were  described  very  generally  and  there  was  no  information  on  supplementary  measures  for 

specific chemical substances. 

In the second RBMP, KTMs have been reported for significant pressures from specific Priority 

Substances  causing  non-compliance  in  all  Dutch  RBDs,  which  is  a  clear  step  forward 
compared to the general reporting of six years ago. 

It  is  also  reported  that  measures  are  introduced  for  the  Priority  Substances  and  River  Basin 
Specific  Pollutants  causing  failure  in  surface  water  bodies,  and  for  the  pollutants  causing 

failure of good chemical status of groundwater. 

12.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

•  Recommendation:  Include  in  its  second  RBMPs  substance-specific  measures  to  reduce 

chemical pollution. 

Assessment:  KTMs  have  been  reported  for  significant  pressures  from  individual  Priority 
Substances causing non achievement of good status in all RBDs. 

119 

 
The reported information indicates that substance-specific measures are in place for each of 

the Priority Substances and River Basin Specific Pollutants causing failure in surface water 
bodies,  and  for  each  of  the  pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status  of 

groundwater in all assessed RBMPs. 

An  examination  of  the  RBMPs  for  the  presence  of  indications  of  a  gap  analysis  indicates 

that a gap analysis on measures for specific substances has been performed, i.e. the effects 
of measures to reach good status have been assessed to examine if they will be sufficient to 

reach good status. As an example it can be mentioned that it is indicated in the RBMP for 
the  Meuse  that  gaps  may  remain  in  the  assessment  of  good  status  for  certain  pollutants, 

because sources of these pollutants are diffuse, or come from atmospheric deposition, and 
good  ecological  status  might  not  be  reached  in  2021  or  2027.  The  measures  are  mostly 

mandatory.  It  appears  that  the  funding  of  measures  is  secured  and  arises  from  several 
government  budgets:  e.g.  Deltafund  (up  to  2027)  and  supplemented  by  European  Union 

sources of funding. This recommendation is fulfilled, however a gap to good status remains 
in some cases. 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology  

13.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

Significant  hydromorphological  pressures  and  operational  KTM  to  tackle  these  pressures  are 

reported in  all four RBDs.  In this respect,  only KTM 99  - "Other key type measure reported 
under  PoM  -  (Administrative)  measures  which  should  help  achieving  the  good  status  or 

facilitate the implementation of other measures from the PoM" is reported.  

Overall management objectives in terms of river continuity have been set in all RBDs (but no 

quantitative objectives are set). 

There were a large and diverse number of measures related to hydromorophological alterations 

in  the  second  RBMPs.  As  an  indication,  the  measures  include  among  others  the  following 
types: fish ladders, bypass channels, habitat restoration, sediment/debris management, removal 

of structures, lowering of river banks, inundation of flood plains, and restoration of modified 
bed structures.  

The  sectors  related  to  significant  physical  alterations  are  mainly  flood  protection  and 
agriculture. In addition, for several water bodies, the sector/driver is indicated as  "other", i.e. 

not specified as a key sector in the WISE reporting. The main sectors related to dams, barriers 
and  locks  are  flood  protection  and  "other"  sectors/drivers,  which  are  not  specified  as  a  key 

sector in  the WISE reporting. The main sectors related to  significant  hydrological  alterations 
are agriculture and “other” sectors/drivers. 

In  terms  of  basic  measures  planned  to  tackle  hydromorphological  pressures,  there  is  an 
authorisation and/or permitting regime in place to control physical modifications in all RBDs, 

which covers changes to the riparian area of water bodies according to WFD article 11(3)(i) in 
all RBDs. However, there is no register of physical modifications of water bodies in any RBD. 

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  PoM  of  all  RBDs.  The  specific  KTM  23  -  "Natural  water  retention  measures"  is  not 

specifically reported. Nonetheless, reference is made to the inclusion of integrated approaches 
(including Natural Water Retention Measures and green infrastructure) in several water-related 

strategies  and  plans,  which  will  have  consequences  for  the  implementation  of  Natural  Water 
Retention Measures in all RBMPs. 

121 

 
The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and 

tidal barriers, is also reported to have been adapted to take into account WFD objectives in all 
RBDs. 

Ecological  flows  have  been  derived  and  implemented  for  all  relevant  water  bodies.  The 
national measures include several measures to guarantee ecological flow. However, no specific 

information was found in the RBMPs on the establishment of ecological flows being addressed 
by  specific  regulations  or  reference  to  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  guidance  No. 
3155 on ecological flows. 

Indicators on the gap to be filled for significant hydromorphological pressures are reported for 

2015, 2021 and 2027. From the information available, it can be concluded that between 2015 
and  2021,  it  is  expected  that  there  will  be  no  progress  in  terms  of  closing  the  gap  for 

hydromorphological pressures in three RBDs (the Ems RBD, the Meuse RBD and the Scheldt 
RBD). Only in one RBD (the Rhine RBD), it is expected that there will be some progress with 

a  reduction  of  10  %  to  35  %  in  the  number  of  water  bodies  failing  the  objectives  due  to 
physical  alterations  from  agriculture,  dams  and  barriers  and  other  hydromorphological 
alterations. 

The main progress in  terms  of closing the  gap for hydromorphological  pressures is  expected 
between 2021 and 2027, whereby for many pressures a reduction of the pressure by 50 % up to 

100 % is foreseen compared to 2015 levels. At the same time, however, for many hydrological 
alterations only a small reduction of the pressure will be achieved by 2027. 

13.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  links  of  pressures  to  drivers  and  operational  measures  are  clearer  compared  to  the  first 

RBMPs, due to the improved reporting in WISE. 

The  RBMP  for  the  Rhine  highlights  the  progress  made  with  hydromorphological  measures. 

Marked  progress  includes  the  reconnection  of  water  bodies  in  the  floodplain  with  the  river, 
while  measures  to  improve  structural  hydromorphological  diversity  of  the  banks  are  lagging 

behind in terms of progress since the first RBMPs. 

55   https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/4063d635-957b-4b6f-bfd4-b51b0acb2570/Guidance%20No%2031%20-

%20Ecological%20flows%20%28final%20version%29.pdf 

122 

 
                                                      
13.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

•  Recommendation:  Consider  and  prioritise  the  use  of  green  infrastructure  and/or  natural 
water  retention  measures  that  provide  a  range  of  environmental  (improvements  in  water 

quality, flood protection, habitat conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can 
be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. 

Assessment: The specific KTM 23 - "Natural water retention measures" is not specifically 
reported to address significant pressures in any RBD. At the same time, reference is made to 

the  inclusion  of  integrated  approaches  (including  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  and 
green  infrastructure)  in  several  water-related  strategies  and  plans,  which  will  have 

consequences for the implementation of Natural Water Retention Measures in all RBMPs. 

Therefore,  as  there  is  evidence  on  the  intention  to  consider,  as  well  as  the  actual  use  of 

green  infrastructure  and  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures,  this  recommendation  is 
considered to be fulfilled. 

123 

 
 
 
Topic 14

  Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

14.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 
in 

second  cycle  and  main  changes 

requirements 
in 
implementation and compliance 

the 

A broad definition of water services is used by the Netherlands. These include: production and 
delivery of drinking water; collection and removal of rainwater and sewage; sewage treatment; 

groundwater  management,  and;  regional  water  management.  The  following  water  services 
were  reported  to  WISE:  drinking  water  abstraction,  treatment  and  distribution,  and  the  four 

"other"  services  of  "groundwater  management  including  self-services",  "regional  water 
quantity  management  including  self-services  and  regional  flood  protection",  "sewage 

collection  including  self-services"  and  "wastewater  treatment  including  self-services".  The 
Netherlands  has  not  designated  hydropower,  flood  protection  (for  waters  under  national 

management), shipping and recreation as water services. 

It is indicated in WISE that all uses - households, industry and agriculture - contribute to cost 

recovery of the water services. 

Each  RBMP  contains  a  general  description  of  cost  recovery,  and  cost  recovery  rates  are 

provided. For each of the water services, it has been determined who is responsible for offering 
this service, which sector makes use of the service and how much of it, the involved costs for 

offering  the  water  service  and  the  amount  required  to  be  recovered  from  each  user.  Cost 
recovery  rates  are  between  96  %  and  104  %.  Deviations  from  100  %  represent  yearly 
differences, but 100 % is reached on average over a longer period. It is reported that the costs 

are recovered via regional or local charges and via drinking water contributions. 

Regarding  the  integration  of  environmental  and  resource  costs  in  the  costs  recovered,  it  is 

reported  in  WISE  that  calculations  of  environmental  and  resource  costs  are  derived  for  all 
water services, that these costs are considered as internalised. 

Regarding  resource  costs,  it  is  stated  that  because  the  water  system  management  provides 
sufficient  water  for  each  water  user  under  normal  circumstances,  there  is  no  significant 

shortage of water  at  a large scale. Resource costs are therefore estimated and  calculated, but 
are negligible and not considered further in cost recovery calculations. 

124 

 
It is stated that the “adequacy” of contribution of different water uses is guaranteed. Similarly, 

it is stated that the Polluter Pays Principle has been taken into account. 

The economic analysis is reported as updated. 

14.2  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

on the following: 

•  Recommendation  (from  2012):  The  cost-recovery  should  address  a  broad  range  of 
treatment  and 

impoundments,  abstraction,  storage, 

water  services, 

including 

distribution of surface waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, 
also when they are 'self-services', for instance self-abstraction for agriculture. The cost 

recovery  should  be  transparently  presented  for  all  relevant  user  sectors,  and 
environment  and resource  costs shall  be included in  the  costs recovered. Information 

should  also  be  provided  on  the  incentive  function  of  water  pricing  for  all  water 
services,  with  the  aim  of  ensuring  the  efficient  use  of  water.  Information  on  how  the 

polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs. 

Assessment:  In  the  RBMPs  of  the  Netherlands,  the  following  water  services  are 
identified:  production  and  delivery  of  drinking  water,  collection  and  removal  of 

rainwater  and  sewage,  sewage  treatment,  groundwater  management,  regional  water 
management.  In  WISE,  the  following  water  services  are  reported:  drinking  water 

abstraction,  treatment  and  distribution,  and  the  four  "other"  services  "groundwater 
management  including  self-services",  "regional  water  quantity  management  including 

self-services and regional flood protection", "sewage collection including self-services" 
and "wastewater treatment including self-services".  

This covers a broad range of water services as mentioned on the recommendation. 

It  is  stated  in  the  RBMPs  that  all  significant  pressures  are  covered  by  the  water 

services. However, there is no explanation, justification or information in the RBMPs 
how this identification took place.  

Each RBMP contains a general description on cost recovery, and cost recovery rates are 
provided. For each of the water services it has been reported who is responsible for the 

offering  of  this  service,  which  sector  makes  use  of  the  service  and  how  much,  the 
involved costs for offering the water service and how much is required to be recovered 

125 

 
from each user. Cost recovery rates are between 96 % and 104 %. Deviations from 100 

% are  yearly differences, but  100 % is  reached  on average over a longer period.  It  is 
reported  that  the  costs  are  recovered  via  regional  or  local  charges  and  via  drinking 

water contributions. 

Details  on  how  adequacy  of  contributions  of  the  different  water  users  are  determined 
are provided in the background document56.   

Regarding the integration of environmental and resource costs in the costs recovered, it 

is  reported  in  WISE  that  calculations  are  carried  out  on  environmental  and  resource 
costs for all water services, that these costs are considered as internalised, and that the 

resource  costs  are  considered  to  be  "not  significant".  It  is  reported  in  each  of  the 
RBMPs  that  a  significant  part  of  the  costs  of  water  services  for  environmental 

protection  can  be  seen  as  environmental  costs.  These  costs  are  included  in  existing 
payments  by  users,  and  are  internalised  environmental  costs.  Costs  for  additional 

measures can be seen as the not-internalised part of environmental costs. The moment 
that these measures are implemented, costs are being transferred and recovered in the 
contributions  from  different  users.  This  way,  also  this  not  yet  internalised  part  of  the 

environmental costs will eventually be internalised. 

Regarding  resource  costs,  it  is  stated  that  because  the  water  system  management 

provides sufficient  water for  each water user under normal  circumstances, there is  no 
significant shortage of water at a large scale. Resource costs are therefore estimated and 

calculated, but are negligible and these are not further considered in payments by users 
or  taxation.  As  mentioned  in  Section  14.1,  it  is  stated  that  the  "adequacy"  of 

contribution is guaranteed. Similarly, it is stated that the Polluter Pays Principle is been 
taken  into  account  in  this  way  although  no  further  justification  of  this  statement  was 
available57. 

Progress on the European Commission’s recommendation can be noted, e.g. regarding 

the broad definition of water services and cost recovery calculations, environmental and 
resource costs, the Polluter Pays Principle and "adequateness". The recommendations is 

therefore considered to be fulfilled.  

56   Sterk Consulting, Kostenterugwinning van waterdiensten (2013). https://www.waterkwaliteitsportaal.nl/ 
documenten/december2015publiek/SGBP2/Sterk-Kostenterugwinning_van_waterdiensten_2013.pdf 

57   In July 2018, the Netherlands subsequently noted that no significant cross-subsidisation takes place between 
the  water  users  agriculture,  industry  and  households,  and  that  the  Netherlands  therefore  applied  the  polluter 
pays principle in the correct way. 

126 

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

15.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the  second cycle 

Protected  Areas  have  been  designated  for  the  Drinking  Water,  Bathing  Water,  Habitats  and 
Birds Directives as well as for areas designated for the protection of economically significant 

aquatic  species  in  surface  waters.  The  whole  country  is  designated  as  nutrient  sensitive  area 
under the Nitrates or Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. The same designations mainly 

apply to groundwaters (Table 15.1).  

Table 15.1 

Number  of  protected  areas  of  all  types  in  each  RBD  of  The  Netherlands, 

for surface and groundwater 

Protected Area type 

Abstraction of water intended for 
human consumption under Article 7 

Recreational waters, including areas 
designated as bathing waters under 
Directive 76/160/EEC58 

Protection of species where the 
maintenance or improvement of the 
status of water is an important factor 
in their protection, including relevant 
Natura 2000 sites designated under 
Directive 79/409/EEC (Birds)59 

Protection of habitats or species 
where the maintenance or 
improvement of the status of water is 
an important factor in their 
protection, including relevant Natura 
2000 sites designated under Directive 
92/43/EEC (Habitats)60 

Number of Protected Areas Associated with 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Groundwater 

5 

55 

2 

117 

1 

12 

15 

42 

3 

51 

38 

4 

78 

6 

7 

16 

30 

116 

58  Directive  2006/7/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  February  2006  concerning  the 
management  of  bathing  water  quality  and  repealing  Directive  76/160/EEC  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0007 

59  Directive  2009/147/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  November  2009  on  the 

conservation of wild birds http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0147 

60  Council  Directive  92/43/EEC  of  21  May  1992  on  the  conservation  of  natural  habitats  and  of  wild  fauna  and 

flora http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043 

127 

 
  
  
                                                      
Protected Area type 

Number of Protected Areas Associated with 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Groundwater 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including 
areas designated as vulnerable zones 
under Directive 91/676/EEC (Nitrates 
Directive) and areas designated as 
sensitive areas under Directive 
91/271/EEC (Urban Wastewater 
Treatment Directive)61 

Areas designated for the protection of 
economically significant aquatic 
species 

Whole 
territory 

Whole 
territory 

Whole 
territory 

Whole 
territory 

Whole territory 

1 

1 

4 

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

The status assessment is reported to have high or medium confidence although this cannot be 

verified by information related to specific monitoring of all Protected Areas. 

A good overview of the status (chemical and ecological and for groundwater also quantitative) 

of water bodies associated with Protected Areas is reported (Figure 15.1). 

61  Council  Directive  91/271/EEC  of  21  May  1991  concerning  urban  waste-water  treatment  http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31991L0271 

128 

 
  
  
 
                                                      
Figure 15.1  Status  of  water  bodies  associated  with  the  Protected  Areas  report  for  the 

Netherlands.  Note:  based  on  status/potential  aggregated  for  all  water  bodies 
associated with all Protected Areas 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

The  Netherlands  reported  that  additional  objectives  have  been  set  for  Protected  Areas 
designated in relation to Shellfish and Drinking Water Directive Protected Areas (both surface 

and  groundwater)  but  not  for  those  relating  to  Bathing  Water  Directive  or  economically 
significant aquatic species62.  

For the Habitats  and Birds Protected Areas (both surface water and groundwater dependent), 

the Netherlands reports that a default approach has been used to set additional objectives. The 
Netherlands subsequently informed the Commission that most of the Protected Areas under the 

62  The  Netherlands  subsequently  clarified  that  monitoring  information  for  Bathing  water,  Nitrate,  UWWTD  or 

MSFD are available and are reported under the respective Directives, so as to avoid double reporting.  

129 

 
 
 
                                                      
management plans of the Birds and Habitats Directives are finalised and in operation. It should 

be  noted  that  for  groundwater  dependent  Habitats  and  Birds  Protected  Areas,  the  protected 
areas are divided into two categories: objective met and objective not met. For surface waters 

no  information  is  provided  as  to  whether  objectives  have  been  met  for  sites  relating  to  the 
Birds and Habitats Directives as work is on-going. Objectives for shellfish waters are reported 

to  have  been  met,  but  not  all  objectives  are  reported  to  have  been  met  for  Drinking  Water 
Protected Areas. For groundwaters across the four RBDs, a mixed response is presented with 

not  all  objectives  having  been  met  for  Birds,  Habitats  and  Drinking  Water  related  protected 
areas63. 

The Netherlands did not report that any additional objectives have been set for the remaining 
types of Protected Areas64. 

A  monitoring  programme  for  groundwater  associated  Drinking  Water  Protected  Areas  has 

been reported, but no monitoring was reported for groundwater dependent habitats or rivers.  

A  closer  examination  of  the  RBMPs  has  not  revealed  any  information  about  the 
implementation of additional measures65 for any of the types of Protected Area except for the 
use  of  safeguard  zones  for  the  protection  of  drinking  water.  However,  the  Netherlands 

subsequently  informed  the  Commission  that  for  most  Protected  Areas  under  the  Birds  and 
Habitats Directives, the relevant management plans are finalised and operational.  

Also  the  use  of  safeguard  zones  is  mentioned  for  the  protection  of  drinking  water,  but  there 

will be significant changes to them implemented as a result of this second cycle of River Basin 
Management Plans. 

No monitoring data have been reported for surface waters and for groundwater monitoring data 

is only reported for drinking water areas (Table 5.1).  

63   The Netherlands subsequently highlighted that the reporting for the Habitats Directive will be updated in 2019. 
64   The Netherlands subsequently clarified that for the Habitats and Birds Protected Areas reference is made to the 
so-called  ‘Aanwijzingsbesluiten’.  All  but  one  of  the  “aanwijzingsbesluiten”  are  finalized  and  therefore 
information  is  available  on  what  is  protected  (birds,  vegetation,  animals  and  habitats)  and  which  objective 
should  be  realised.  Habitat  types  and  species  are  affected  by  the  quality  and  quantity  of  surface-  and  /or 
groundwater.  The  specific 
in  so-called 
“profielendocumenten”. 

types  and  species  are  given 

requirements 

for  habitat 

65   The  Netherlands  subsequently  highlighted  that  in  paragraph  1.2  of  the  Program  of  Measures  of  the  RBMPs 
reference is made to management plans for the protected areas under the Bird- and HabitatDirective (see also 
https://www.synbiosys.alterra.nl/natura2000/gebiedendatabase.aspx?subj=actualiteitbeheerplannen). 
These 
management plans contain information about the implementation of additional measures. Specifically special 
requirements for permitting in these areas are mentioned. Moreover, the management plans themselves contain 
several other measures to protect or restore habitats and species. 

130 

 
                                                      
Exemptions  have  been  applied  only  in  relation  to  Article  7  Drinking  Water  Protected  Areas 

(seven out of nine). 

15.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The number of bathing water sites has significantly changed from the first RBMP (644 sites) to 
the second RBMP (262 sites). For the remaining Protected Area types only minor changes in 

numbers of sites are reported. 

In  the  first  RBMP,  specific  monitoring  programmes  for  areas  related  to  the  drinking  water 
(surface  and  groundwater),  Birds,  Habitats  and  Shellfish  Directives  were  reported.  In  the 

second RBMP reporting, specific monitoring has only been reported for groundwater drinking 
water areas66. 

15.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

on the following: 

  Recommendation: Include additional measures for protected areas in the second River 

Basin Management Plans. 

Assessment:  The  examination  of  the  RBMPs  has  not  provided  information  about 

additional  measures  for  protected  areas  except  that  safeguard  zones  have  been 
established  for  drinking  water  protected  areas.  The  Netherlands  clarified  that  the 

information on these areas was reported under the reporting obligations of the relevant 
Directives. For Habitats and Birds areas67, the Netherlands confirmed that the relevant 
management plans are developed and implemented in most of the areas, but this has not 
yet been fully done in all. 

The recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

66   The  Netherlands  subsequently  clarified  that  the  lack  of  reporting  probably  relates  to  the  fact  that  there  has 

been no change since the first RBMP. 

67   The Netherlands subsequently informed the Commission that “reference is made to the management plans for 

each protected area,” and that “some plans have not been finalised”. 

131 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 16

  Adaptation to drought and climate change 

16.1  Requirements in the second cycle 

16.1.1  Climate Change  

Climate change was considered in several ways in all RBDs and it is stated that the guidance 

on  how  to  adapt  to  climate  change  (Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  Document 
Number 2468) was used. Climate change was considered for the preferential selection of robust 
adaptation measures and checking the effectiveness of the measures. It was further considered 
in  flood  risk  and  drought  management  and  water  scarcity.  Climate  change  was  also  used  for 

maximising cross-sectoral benefits and for minimising negative effects across sectors and for 
detecting climate change signals. 

KTM  24  -  "Adaptation  to  climate  change"  is  not  reported  to  have  been  made  operational  to 
address significant pressures in any of the RBDs. National measures are also mapped against 

KTM  24  in  all  RBDs.  Although  KTM  24  is  not  made  operational  to  address  significant 
pressures  in  any  of  the  RBDs,  there  is  reference  to  a  background  document  on  the  climate 

robustness of measures  which was previously developed the first RBMPs. Specific sub-plans 
addressing climate are also reported for all RBDs in the Netherlands.  

16.1.2  Effects and impacts of prolonged droughts, as well as related measures  

Even though there is no legal obligation to prepare Drought Management Plans, many Member 
States have prepared them in order to cope with droughts. According to the 2012 Topic Report 
on  Water  Scarcity  and  Drought  in  RBMPs69,  droughts  are  not  relevant  for  the  country. 
However, exemptions have been applied following Article 4(6) due to prolonged droughts for 

all  four  RBDs.  Furthermore,  sub-plans  addressing  water  scarcity  and  droughts  have  been 
reported for all RBDs in the second cycle. This is in agreement with the finding in the 2012 

Topic report that such plans or key elements were in place. 

16.2  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

on the following: 

68   https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/a88369ef-df4d-43b1-8c8c-
306ac7c2d6e1/Guidance%20document%20n%2024%20-
%20River%20Basin%20Management%20in%20a%20Changing%20Climate_FINAL.pdf  

69   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Assessment%20WSD.pdf  

132 

 
                                                      
•  Recommendation:  The  issue  of  adaptation  to  climate  change  is  very  relevant  in  the 
Netherlands. It will be advisable that the next Dutch RBMPs integrate the dimension of 
climate change into the development and implementation of the measures, including in 

meter allocation systems. 

The  Common  Implementation  Strategy  guidance  was  used  for  climate  proofing  of 

measures  and  it  is  stated  that  climate  change  was  considered  for  the  preferential 
selection of robust adaptation measures and for checking the effectiveness of measures. 

No  specific  mention  of  meter  allocation  systems  can  be  identified  but  overall  it  is 
considered  that  progress  has  been  made  and  this  recommendation  has  largely  been 

fulfilled. 

133