COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Austria 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: Austria, 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) 36 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Austria 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) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - 
 
 
Table of contents 
Acronyms and definitions ............................................................................................................. 4 

Foreword...................................................................................................................................... 5 

General Information .................................................................................................................... 6 

Status of second river basin management plan reporting ........................................................... 8 

Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) 9 

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

Topic 1

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

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

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

Topic 2

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

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

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

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

Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies
.................................................................................................................................................... 38 

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

3.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance between first and second RBMPs . 55 

3.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 56 

Topic 4 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies58 

4.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 58 
4.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle ................................ 73 

4.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 74 

Topic 5 Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies
.................................................................................................................................................... 76 

5.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 76 

5.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ............................. 80 

5.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 81 

Topic 6 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 82 

6.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 82 

1 

 
6.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ............................. 88 

6.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 88 

Topic 7 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 
Ecological Potential................................................................................................................... 89 

7.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle for designation ............................................................................................................... 89 

7.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ............................. 91 

7.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 92 

Topic 8 Environmental objectives and exemptions .................................................................... 94 

8.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 94 

8.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ............................. 99 

8.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 99 

Topic 9 Programme of measures ............................................................................................. 101 

9.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 101 

9.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................... 111 

9.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 112 

Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity ............................................... 115 

10.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle and main changes since the first cycle ........................................................................ 115 

10.2. 

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

Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture ....................................................... 117 

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

 ................................................................................................................................. 117 

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

11.3. 

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

Topic 12 Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture.......................... 121 

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

 ................................................................................................................................. 121 

12.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................ 122 

12.3. 

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

Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology ..................................................................... 125 

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

 ................................................................................................................................. 125 

13.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................ 127 

2 

 
13.3. 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 127 

Topic 14  Economic analysis and water pricing policies ........................................................ 129 

14.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle and main changes since the first cycle ........................................................................ 129 

14.2. 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 130 

Topic 15 Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and 
measures) ................................................................................................................................. 133 

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

 ................................................................................................................................. 133 

15.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................ 136 

15.3. 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 136 

Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change ............................................................... 137 

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

 ................................................................................................................................. 137 

16.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................ 137 

16.3. 

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

3 

 
Acronyms and definitions 

EQS Directive 

Environmental Quality Standards Directive  

Km 

km2 

KTM 

NGO 

PoM 

RBD 

RBMP 

WFD 

WISE 

Annex 0 

Kilometre 

Kilometre squared 

Key Type of Measure 

Non-Governmental Organisation 

Programme of Measures 

River Basin District 

River Basin Management Plan 

Water Framework Directive 

Water Information System for Europe 

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

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
General Information 

Austria (Map A) has a population of 8.3 million1 and an area of 83 870 km2. 

Map A 

Map of RBDs 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

  International RBDs (within European Union and Switzerland) 
  International RBDs (outside European Union) 
  National RBDs (within European Union) 
  Countries (outside European Union) 
  Coastal Waters 

Austria has three RBDs which are all transboundary/international river basin districts: Danube, 
Rhine and Elbe. It is a land locked country and hence has no transitional or coastal waters. 

Information on the extent of the national river basin districts, including countries sharing parts 
of the entire RBD, is provided in Table A: 

1 Eurostat, 2007 

6 

HRHRAdriatic SeaDE4000DE5000DE2000DE1000CZ_5000PL6000CZ_6000CZ_1000SK40000HU1000SI_RBD_1SI_RBD_2ATAT1000AT2000DE2000ITBITACHHRBAAT5000050100km 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table A 

Overview of Austria’s RBDs  

RBD 

Name 

Size (km2) 

% National 
territory within 
transboundary RB 

AT1000 

Danube 

80 565 

96% 

AT2000 

Rhine 

AT5000 

Elbe 

2 365 

921 

3% 

1% 

Countries sharing RBD 

AL, BA, BG, CH, CZ, DE, HR, HU, IT, 
MD, ME, FYROM, PL, RO, RS, SI, SK, 
UA 

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

CZ, DE, PL 

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE  

The  three  international  river  basins  on  the  Austrian  territory  all  have  transboundary 
cooperation.  The  Rhine,  Elbe  and  the  Danube  are  all  governed  by  international  River  Basin 

Commissions. Austria acts as a party in the Danube and has observer status in the Rhine and 
Elbe commissions. In addition, bilateral agreements exist. 

The  share  of  Austria  in  the  respective  international  RBDs  (Table  B)  is  10  %  (Danube),  1  % 
(Rhine) and 0.6 % (Elbe). 

Table B 

Transboundary river basins by category and percentage share in Austria  

Name 
international 
river basin 

National 
RBD 

Countries sharing RBD 

Danube 

AT1000 

AL, BA, BG, CH, CZ, DE, HR, HU, IT, MD, ME, FYROM, 
PL, RO, RS, SI, SK, UA 

Rhine 

Elbe 

AT2000 

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

AT5000 

CZ, DE, PL 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Co-ordination 
category 

1 

km² 

% 

80 565 

10.0 

2 365 

921 

1.0 

0.6 

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

7 

 
 
 
Status of second river basin management plan reporting 

A single RBMP for Austria (covering the three RBDs: Danube, Rhine, Elbe) was published on 

30  June  2017.  Documents  are  available  from  the  European  Environment  Agency  EIONET 
Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/.  

8 

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

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

 

Governance and public consultation 

 

Austria cooperates via the international commissions for the Danube, Elbe and Rhine, 

and  also  via  bilateral  agreements  with  neighbouring  Member  States  and  third 
countries. 

 

 

A broad range of stakeholder groups were actively involved in the development of the 
RBMP. Mechanisms for active involvement included advisory groups. 

Austria  used  information  websites  on  water  issues  in  order  to  stimulate  public 
awareness of the RBMP’s development and encourage participation. 

 

Austria did not adopt and publish the RBMP in accordance with the timetable in the 

Water Framework Directive. 

 

Characterisation of the RBD 

 

There were significant differences in the number of delineated surface water bodies, 
due to  new or better information  that became available during the planning process. 

However, it is unclear, based on information from the RBMP, what the consequences 
of these changes on the classification of status were2. 

 

Type  specific  reference  conditions  have  been  established  for  all  relevant  biological 

quality  elements,  physicochemical  quality  elements  and  hydromorphological  quality 
elements for all river water body types and lake water body types. 

 

Further characterisation work has been reported since the first cycle with the inclusion 

of the assessment of linkages between groundwater bodies and terrestrial ecosystems 

for  all  RBDs.  Linkages  with  surface  water  bodies  in  each  of  the  RBDs  were  not 
reported, but Austria clarified that there are no instances where the groundwater body 

is relevant for the status of the associated surface water body. 

2 Austria subsequently stated that the new water body delineation allows for a more detailed picture of the actual 
status of rivers. 

9 

 
                                                      
 

For surface waters and groundwater, significance of pressures was linked to failure of 

objectives and thresholds are used. 

 

For  groundwater  bodies  97  %  of  water  bodies  had  no  pressures  reported  (this  was 

included in Annex 0) and only 3 % appear to be found to have pressures from diffuse 
agriculture.  

 

For  groundwater, expert judgement was used  for defining significant  pressures from 

point  sources,  artificial  recharge  and  other  pressures.  This  may  indicate  potential 
shortcomings in the assessment of these pressure types. 

 

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

gap  was  reported  for  2021  for  all  substances,  however,  for  some  substances  (for 
example, mercury and its compounds in surface water in the Danube RBD) it appears 
as if the measures may not be sufficient to close the gap to good status by 20273.  

 

Austria  reported  complete  inventories,  including  all  the  41  Priority  Substances  for 

each  of  the  RBDs.  The  inventories  were  developed  according  to  the  methodology 
developed  at  EU  level,  and  presented  in  CIS  Guidance  Document  n°28.  As 

recommended in  the  guidance document, the analysis was limited to  the  first  tier of 
the  methodology  only  for  substances  judged  not  relevant  at  RBD  level,  and  a  more 

complete  assessment  was  carried  out  for  substances  deemed  relevant  at  RBD  level. 
The input data was generally assessed as of uncertain quality. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status  

 

There  was  a  significant  increase  in  the  proportion  of  rivers  included  in  operational 
monitoring, from 6 % reported in the first RBMPs to 20 % in the second. There are no 

operational monitoring programmes for lakes, although all lakes at risk of failing good 
ecological status are covered by surveillance monitoring.  

 

All expected biological quality elements were reported to be monitored in rivers, but 

benthic invertebrates are not monitored in lakes. The assessment method for benthic 
invertebrates in lakes is part of the 2018 Intercalibration Decision.  

3  Austria  subsequently  clarified  that  measures  at  the  national  level  are  not  expected  to  significantly  reduce  the 
diffuse aerial pollution coming from outside of Austria. 

10 

 
                                                      
 

Over  98  %  of  river  water  bodies  were  reported  to  be  monitored  for  all  required 

biological quality elements for surveillance monitoring, none were for lakes. 

 

All  of  the  seven  biological  quality  elements  used  for  the  surveillance  monitoring  of 

rivers and lakes were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all 
sites  where  they  were  monitored.  However,  this  was  almost  never  the  case  for  the 

operational monitoring of biological quality elements. 

 

Hydromorphological quality elements were not reported to be monitored in rivers and 

lakes  in  Austria.  Austria  subsequently  clarified  that  hydromorphological  quality 

elements are monitored in rivers and lakes, but the monitoring is continuous and not 
related to sites and was for that reason not reported to WISE. 

 

Eleven River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored in Austria, only 
in rivers. One RBSP is monitored in fish, eight in settled sediment  and ten in water. 

All  sites  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  were  sampled  at  least  at  the 
recommended minimum frequency for all ten RBSP in water, but this was not the case 

at any of the sites used for operational monitoring. 

 

The  confidence  in  the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  has  significantly 

decreased  between  the  two  cycles.  This  was  an  effect  of  changes  of  the  assessment 
methodology. 

 

Chemical pollution was reported to impact all river and lake water bodies in Austria 
but  none  of  the  biological  assessment  methods  were  reported  to  be  sensitive  to  this 

impact, which is a significant gap in the assessment methodology. 

 

All the relevant hydromorphological and general physicochemical quality elements in 

rivers  and  lakes  were  assessed  in  terms  of  ecological  status/potential  and  the 

classification boundaries are related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological 
quality elements. 

 

 

Expert  judgement  was  reported  to  be  used  extensively  in  the  classification  of  the 
biological quality elements in rivers and lakes4.  

General  physicochemical  quality  elements  were  reported  not  to  be  used  in  the 
classification  of  rivers  and  lakes  even  though  they  were  reported  to  be  extensively 

4  Austria subsequently stated that this is a reporting error and that most of the results that were reported as expert 
judgement were obtained by a grouping procedure. 

11 

 
                                                      
monitored.  Austria  subsequently  clarified  that  physicochemical  quality  elements  are 

used as supportive elements for the assessment of the ecological status.  

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

 

In  its  second  RBMPs,  in  accordance  with  the  EQS  Directive,  Austria  applied  the 

environmental  quality  standard  for  mercury  in  biota,  and  extrapolated  the  results  to 
non-monitored waterbodies. As a consequence, the proportion of surface water bodies 

with good chemical status decreased from 99.5 % to 0 % between the two RBMPs and 
the proportion of waterbodies failing to achieve good status increased from 0.2 % to 

100 %.   

 

A small proportion of river monitoring sites (6 %) (none of the lake (0 %)) are used 

for  the  assessment  of  chemical  status.  A  correspondingly  small  proportion  of  river 
water  bodies  were  monitored  (2  %).  Austria  explained  this  on  the  basis  of  the  risk 

assessment undertaken as part of the characterisation process where a low percentage 
of water bodies were expected to be at risk from substances other than mercury. It is 

not  entirely  clear  whether  this  monitoring  can  fulfil  all  the  objectives  of  the 
surveillance  monitoring  programmes,  in  particular  validating  the  results  from  the 

impact assessment procedure or assessing long term changes in natural conditions and 
long  term  changes  resulting  from  widespread  anthropogenic  activity,  especially  in 

waterbodies  where  no  risk  is  expected  at  the  moment  from  substances  other  than 
mercury. 

 

The  confidence  in  the  assessment  is  reported  as  low  for  almost  all  water  bodies 
classified. However, this applies only to the assessment of chemical status including 

the  ubiquitous  substances  (i.e.  mercury).  The  chemical  status  assessment  when 
omitting ubiquitous substances is associated to medium confidence. 

 

Some, but not all, discharged substances were monitored in each RBD. The frequency 

of  monitoring  generally  met  the  recommended  minimum  frequency  for  surveillance 
monitoring but not for operational monitoring.  

 

Hexachlorobenzene,  mercury  and  hexachlorobutadiene  were  monitored  in  biota  in 
rivers  in  the  Danube  (up  to  22  sites)  and  Rhine  RBDs  (up  to  four  sites)  but  not  the 

Elbe  RBD.  Austria  clarified  that  the  biota  monitoring  was  carried  out  once  in  each 
monitoring  site,  which  is  below  the  minimum  recommended  frequency.  No 
explanation was provided for the reduced frequency.  

12 

 
 

In the Danube RBD all 14 of the Priority Substances are reported to be monitored for 

long-term trends in sediment and/or biota in river water bodies but not in lakes, nor in 
the other RBDs. Spatial coverage appears to be very limited with only five sampling 

locations being monitored for each substance. The frequency of monitoring meets the 
recommended minimum frequency.  

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 

bodies 

 

The  number  of  monitored  groundwater  bodies  increased,  as  well  as  the  reported 

number of monitoring sites. However, 17 groundwater bodies were not monitored in 
the second cycle. According to Austria, where no monitoring sites were available, the 

quantitative status assessment was based on the water balance test. 

 

Groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  were  considered  in  all  river  basin 

districts. 

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

 

 

 

 

97 % of groundwater bodies are directly monitored for chemical status. However, it is 
unclear whether all the core parameters are subject to monitoring. 

There is high confidence in the status of all groundwater bodies. 

It  was reported that surface  water bodies have been considered in  the  assessment  of 

chemical status of groundwater bodies, which is described in Annex 0.  

77  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  in  the  Danube  RBD,  two  in  the 
Rhine RBD, and one in the Elbe RBD have been considered in the status assessments. 

13 

 
 
 
 

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

Ecological Potential 

 

The  significant  adverse  effects  of  restoration  measures  on  the  use  and  the  wider 
environment  -  Article  4(3)(a)  -  have  been  defined  on  the  basis  of  criteria  for 

different activities. 

 

Improvements  to  the  method  for  good  ecological  potential  definition  have  been 

reported since the first RBMP. A key change for both rivers and lakes seems to be 
the  inclusion  of  biological  quality  elements  other  than  fish,  and  the  inclusion  of 

physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements. 

 

The  ecological  changes  expected  due  to  the  mitigation  measures  are  described  in 

the guidance document for assessing good ecological potential in heavily modified 

water bodies. 

 

Environmental objectives and exemptions 

 

Environmental  objectives  for  surface  and  groundwater  bodies  have  been  reported  in 

all RBDs at water body level. The numbers of exemptions applied show a decrease in 
surface waters. There are tables for each water body (separate tables for groundwater, 

lakes, and rivers) providing the justification for the exemption. 

 

Drivers,  pressures  and  pollutants  leading  to  exemptions  are  reported,  although  some 

uncertainties remain. Also impacts due to exemptions are reported. 

 

Information on clear criteria developed for the application of ‘technical unfeasibility’, 

‘disproportionate  costs’  and  ‘natural  conditions’  is  not  provided.  The  application  of 
exemptions might be an issue of implementation of WFD requirements as only limited 

information is provided in the plan. 

 

Programme of Measures 

 

A financial commitment has been secured for the implementation of the Programme 

of Measures (PoM) in all three RBDs albeit for a much reduced budget compared to 

the first cycle.  

 

All  of  the  significant  pressures  identified  in  surface  water  and  groundwater  in  the 

Danube  RBD  are  covered  by  operational  KTMs.  Also  all,  except  one  pressure  for 

14 

 
each RBD, are covered for the Rhine and Elbe RBDs (only surface water is relevant in 

these).  

 

There are 24 national measures to tackle River Basin Specific Pollutants (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”).  However,  for  Zinc  (in  the  Danube  RBD)  no  measures  have 
been reported as due to the source of zinc from historic mining a lower standard was 

defined. There is no information on KTMs for River Basin Specific Pollutants in the 
Rhine and the Elbe RBDs, as these are not considered to be significant pressures.  

 

There  are  24  national  measures  to  tackle  Priority  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”).  Most  Priority  Substances  seem  to  be  subject  to  KTM  14  -  “Research, 

improvement  of  knowledge  base  reducing  uncertainty”.  Benzo(a)pyrene  and  lead 
identified as causing failure of objectives in surface water in the Danube RBD, do not 

seem to be addressed by any measures (the nationally derived KTM “No measures in 
this cycle – review of less stringent target in next cycle” is reported). 

 

Gap indicators and measure indicators are listed for most significant pressure types in 
all three RBDs, together with gap values and measure  indicator values for 2015 and 

2021. However, reported improvements are mainly modest, with most gaps far from 
being closed by 2021, and no gap analyses have been performed for 2021-2027.  

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 

  Water  quantity  pressures  were  not  reported  as  relevant  for  Austria.  The  RBMP 

included a water resource allocation and management plan. 

 

There is a concession, authorisation, and/or permitting regime to control surface and 

groundwater abstractions and water impoundment. 

 

Article 11(3)(c) and 11(3)(f) measures have been implemented in the previous cycle. 

15 

 
 
 
  Measures related to pollution from agriculture 

 

 

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

A general management objective for nutrient pollution (related to nitrogen surplus) is 
set. 

 

A comprehensive gap assessment for nutrients and pesticides has not been undertaken 

in any of the RBDs. 

 

Basic  measures  for  the  control  of  diffuse  pollution  are  implemented  and  several 

supplementary measures are foreseen.  

 

 

Financing of measures is considered as secured in all the RBDs. 

It is not clear from the RBMP to which extent mandatory or voluntary measures will 

contribute to achieving the WFD objectives. 

 

The  RBMP  document  provides  a  map  showing  the  areas  to  which  additional 

supplementary measures are to be applied.  

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 

 

KTMs have been reported to  WISE in  relation  to significant  pressures from  Priority 

Substances and River Basin Specific Pollutants causing failure. 

 

Austria reported that 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")  has  been  mapped  against  national 
measures, and that it is tackling significant pressures in all Austrian RBDs. 

  Measures to tackle nitrate pollution in groundwater have been partly successful. 

 

Information  on  point  sources  of  pollution  by  Priority  Substances  and  River  Basin 

Specific Pollutants, that can be used to identify appropriate measures, is limited. 

 

Information on diffuse sources of pollution is also limited, and since diffuse sources 

of certain pollutants (metals, ubiquitous substances) are apparently the main cause of 
failure,  the  lack  of  knowledge  and  lack  of  measures  makes  progress  assessment 
difficult. 

16 

 
 

Almost  all  the  measures  listed  are  research/knowledge-building  measures,  in 

particular  the  evaluation  of  the  potential  effectiveness  of  measures  against  point 
and/or  diffuse  sources,  therefore  there  is  currently  no  indication  of  the  practical 

measures that will finally be taken, nor of their effectiveness. 

 

The identification of measures  to  tackle non-nitrate pollution of groundwaters  is  not 

yet complete. 

  Measures related to hydromorphology 

 

Significant  hydromorphological  pressures  and  operational  KTMs  to  tackle  these  are 

clearly  identified  in  all  RBDs.  The  priority  areas/priority  rivers  (‘Sanierungsraum’) 

have been extended and, as a result, the rehabilitation area has been enlarged from the 
first  to  the  second  RBMP.  However,  a  comprehensive  instrument  for  funding 

hydromorphological measures is not described. 

 

From  the  information  available,  there  will  be  an  approximately  10  %  to  20  % 

reduction of significant hydromorphological pressures between 2015 and 2021. After 
2021, a still considerable effort in measures is planned to achieve objectives, either in 

terms  of  number  of  water  bodies  required  to  be  covered  by  measures  or  number  of 
barriers that need to be tackled. 

 

 

Ecological flows have been derived and implemented partly, that is, for some relevant 
water bodies, in the three RBDs but the work is still on-going. 

Austria  follows  a  prioritisation  approach,  which  is  based  on  a  long-term  ecological 
concept and phases necessary actions for three management cycles. This includes also 

the  revision  of  permits.  The  permit  regime  for  new  installations  is  described  (as  a 
measure)  in  the  RBMP  as  well  as  new  requirements  for  minimum  ecological  flows 

through the new 2010 legislation.  

 

Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

 

Cost  recovery  calculations  remain 

limited  –  methodologies  for  calculating 

environmental and resource costs have not been adequately explained. 

 

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

17 

 
 

A narrow definition of water services has been used. It is unclear why Article 9(4) has 

been used even if the five water uses are not regarded as water services. 

 

Considerations  specific  to  Protected  Areas  (identification,  monitoring,  objectives 

and measures) 

 

Habitat  and  Birds  Directive  Protected  Areas  dependent  on  groundwater  have  been 
identified. 

 

There  is  a  seemingly  default  assessment  that  good  ecological  status  is  sufficient  to 

reach  more  stringent  objectives  according  to  other  Directives.  Austria  subsequently 
clarified  that  if  more  stringent  objectives  are  required  this  will  be  reported  by  the 

competent  authorities  and  will  be  taken  into  account  for  objective  setting  under  the 
WFD. 

 

Adaptation to drought and climate change 

 

Climate  change  was  considered  in  all  RBDs  and  the  Common  Implementation 
Strategy guidance document on how to adapt to climate change was used. 

 

A climate check of the PoM was carried out. 

18 

 
 
 
Recommendations  

 

Austria  should  carry  out  the  preparation  of  the  next  cycle  of  RBMPs  in  accordance 

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

 

 

Austria  should  continue  to  improve  international  cooperation,  including  coordinated 
assessments  of  the  technical  aspects  of  the  WFD  such  as  ensuring  a  harmonized 

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

Austria should try to be more precise in analysing and linking pressures and impacts, 
and to ensure that appropriate measures are included in the Programmes of Measures 

to address significant pressures at water body level. 

 

Austria  should  continue  to  expand  operational  monitoring.  In  particular,  operational 

monitoring should include lakes which are at risk of failing good status. 

 

Austria should present clearly the relationship between monitoring and classification 
of  ecological  status/potential.  Whenever  possible,  classification  should  be 

predominantly based on monitoring. 

 

Austria should complete the development of assessment methods which are sensitive 

to all significant pressures. 

 

Confidence in the assessment of surface water chemical status for all water categories 

should  continue  to  improve.  The  monitoring  programmes  should  fulfil  all  the 

objectives set in Annex V of the WFD. 

 

Trend monitoring should be performed in all RBDs, for all substances, in a way that 

provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage. 

 

The  results  of  the  assessment  of  significant  adverse  effects  on  the  use  or  the  wider 

environment and better environmental options should be provided at water body level. 
This will improve transparency of the designation process of heavily modified water 

bodies. 

 

Although the number of exemptions has decreased since the first RBMP, a significant 

number of exemptions remains in the second RBMP. Clear criteria for the application 
of  Article  4(4)  and  4(5)  exemptions  need  to  be  further  elaborated  to  improve 

19 

 
transparency  in  the  decision  making  process.  Efforts  need  to  continue  to  implement 

the  required  measures  for  the  timely  achievement  of  the  WFD  objectives.  Ensuring 
the  provision  of  the  required  funding  for  measure  implementation  is  crucial  in  that 

respect,  particularly  with  regard  to  measures  addressing  the  significant  amount  of 
hydromorphological  pressures.  The  justifications  for  the  application  of  Article  4(7) 

exemptions need to be further clarified in the third RBMP. 

 

KTMs should cover all the pressures causing failure to meet the WFD objectives. In 

particular, all Priority Substances and River Specific Pollutants identified as causing 
failure should be associated with KTMs. 

 

Similarly, the gap analysis of the measures required to achieve good status in the light 
of the pressures should be more strongly elaborated. 

 

Austria should complete a comprehensive gap assessment for diffuse  pollutant loads 

from agriculture (nutrients, agri-chemicals, sediment, organic matter) across all waters 
in  all  RBDs  and  link  it  directly  to  mitigation  measures  in  the  third  RBMPs  (as  per 

WFD Article 11(3)(h)), to facilitate the achievement of WFD objectives. 

 

In  the  third  RBMPs,  Austria  should  state  clearly  to  what  extent,  in  terms  of  area 

covered  and  pollution  risk  mitigated,  basic  measures  (minimum  requirements  to  be 
complied with) or supplementary measures  (designed to  be implemented in  addition 

to basic measures) will contribute to achieving the WFD objectives. It should ensure 
that correct balances between basic and supplementary measures as well as mandatory 

and  voluntary  measures  are  reached.  Sources  of  funding  (e.g.  CAP  Pillar  1,  Rural 
Development  Programmes)  should  be  identified,  as  appropriate,  to  facilitate 

successful implementation of these measures.  

 

Austria  should  provide  more  information  about  measures  taken  or  to  be  taken  to 

address diffuse sources of pollutants in particular (e.g. existing laws better enforced; 
action plans or guidance modified in order to specifically support the achievement of 

WFD objectives), and about how effective they are expected to be. 

 

In  order  to  take  an  ambitious  approach  to  combatting  chemical  pollution,  Austria 

needs  to  move  as  soon  as  possible  from  knowledge-gathering  measures  to  putting 
practical measures in place. 

20 

 
 

Austria  should  continue  the  work  on  reducing  significant  hydromorphological 

pressures  in  order  to  achieve  the  environmental  objectives  in  the  third  cycle,  in 
particular ensuring the necessary funding of hydromorphological measures. 

 

Austria should continue 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. 

 

Austria should apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact 

on  water  bodies  or  justify  any  exemptions  using  Article  9(4).  It  is  recommended  to 

present in a transparent manner how financial, environmental and resource costs have 
been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. It 

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

 

Austria should ensure that all relevant Protected Areas are properly monitored. 

21 

 
 
 
Topic 1

 Governance and public participation 

   Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

1.1.
in the second cycle 

1.1.1.  Administrative arrangements – river basin districts 

Austria has  three RBDs, each part of international  RBDs: Danube;  Rhine;  and the Elbe. The 
Danube RBD covers 96 % of Austria’s territory. Austria prepared a single national RBMP for 

all three RBDs. 

Due to delays, Austria did not adopt and publish the RBMP in accordance with the timetable in 

the Water Framework Directive. 

1.1.2.  Administrative arrangements – competent authorities 

The Federal Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism has the main roles for the monitoring and 
assessment of groundwater and surface water, enforcement of regulations, pressure and impact 

analysis,  economic  analysis,  preparation  of  the  RBMP  and  PoM,  public  participation, 
implementation  of  measures  and  coordination  of  implementation,  as  well  as  reporting  to  the 

European Commission.  

Nine regions (specifically the Landeshauptmann, or Governor, of each region) have the same 

roles,  apart  from  the  coordination  of  WFD  implementation  and  reporting  to  the  European 
Commission.  

Three  Federal  Ministries  have  main  roles  for  the  preparation  of  the  RBMP  and  the 
implementation  of  measures:  (1)  Health;  (2)  Transport,  Innovation  and  Technology;  and  (3) 

Science,  Research  and  Economy.  The  Science,  Research  and  Economy  Ministry,  however, 
only has a role for the implementation of measures. 

1.1.3.  River  Basin  Management  plans  –  structure  and  Strategic  Environmental 
Assessment 

Austria did  not  prepare  sub-plans for its RBMP. A  Strategic Environmental Assessment was 
prepared for Austria’s RBMP. 

1.1.4.  Public consultation 

A broad range of stakeholder groups were actively involved in the development of the RBMP.  

22 

 
The  public  and  interested  parties  were  informed  of  the  public  consultation  via  the  internet, 

invitations  to  stakeholders,  local  authorities,  meetings,  printed  material,  social  network  and 
written consultation. Documents were made available for the required six months. Documents 

were available for download and paper copies were distributed at exhibitions. 

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

agriculture/farmers, 
local/regional 
authorities, navigation/ports, NGOs/nature protection and water supply and sanitation; specific 

fisheries/aquaculture, 

energy/hydropower, 

industry, 

groups  included  the  Confederation  of  Cities,  Federation  of  Municipalities,  Chamber  of 
Commerce and Chamber of Labour.  

Mechanisms  for  active  involvement  of  stakeholders  included  advisory  groups  and  regular 
exhibitions.  In  addition,  the  Federal  Ministry  for  Sustainability  and  Tourism  had  three 
informational  websites:  the  Water  Information  System  Austria  (WISA)5  provides  technical 
information  for  the  interested  public;  the  Wasseraktiv  website6  provides  information  on  the 
Austrian  water  sector  to  support  public  involvement  in  the  WFD;  and  the  Generation  Blue 
website7 provides information on water to young people in Austria. 

Public  consultation  had  the  following  impacts  on  the  RBMP:  Addition  of  new  information, 

adjustment  to  specific  measures,  changes  to  the  selection  of  measures,  changes  to  the 
methodology  used,  commitment  to  action  in  the  next  RBMP  and  commitment  to  further 

research. 

1.1.5.  Integration with the Floods Directive 

Austria  did  not  combine  its  RBMP  and  its  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  under  the  Floods 
Directive8 into a single plan, but there was joint consultation for the plans. 

1.1.6.  International coordination 

Each of Austria's three RBDs is part of an international RBD: the Danube, the Rhine and the 

Elbe  international  RBDs.  An  international  agreement,  permanent  co-operation  body  and 
international  RBMP  are  in  place  in  all  RBDs  (such  level  of  cooperation  is  designated  as 

“Category  1”  cooperation  in  the  context  of  this  assessment).  Explicit  links  have  been  made 
with national RBMPs within the international RBMP. There was international coordination on 

5  https://www.bmnt.gv.at/wasser/wisa/ 
6  www.wasseraktiv.at 
7   www.generationblue.at 
8   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 

 
                                                      
public  participation  in  all  of  Austria’  RBDs  (for  further  information  see  the  reports  on 

international coordination on the Water Framework Directive). 

In addition,  Austria has  established bilateral agreements and  commissions  with  neighbouring 
Member  States,  cited  in  the  RBMP:  The  Czech  Republic,  Germany9,  Hungary,  Slovakia  and 
Slovenia. Other cooperation mechanisms include the Austrian-Swiss Commission for the Joint 

Use of the Upper Inn and an agreement with Liechtenstein. 

1.2.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission did not have recommendations on governance for Austria based on the first 

RBMP and first PoM.  

9   Including the International Water Protection Commission for Lake Constance. 

24 

 
 
                                                      
Topic 2

 Characterisation of the River Basin District 

2.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle  

1.2.1.  Delineation  of  water  bodies  and  designation  of  heavily  modified  and  artificial 

water bodies 

There was an overall increase in the number of delineated river water bodies (36 %) and this 

increase was apparent in all RBDs (Table 2.1). The RBMPs stated that the delineation of water 
bodies  can  change  in  the  process  of  the  planning  due  to  new  or  better  information10.  The 
numbers  of  lake  water  bodies  remained  the  same.  The  numbers  of  groundwater  bodies 
increased in one RBD by 2 % and there was no change in other RBDs (Table 2.2). 

In 2016, 91 % of identified surface water bodies were natural, 8 % were designated as heavily 
modified and 1 % as artificial. Overall, there has been an increase in the number of natural and 

heavily modified river water bodies of approximately 10 % between 2010 and 2016 but as a 
proportion  of  the  total  they  remained  the  same  (Figure  2.1).  There  has  been  about  a  4  % 

decrease  in  the  number  of  artificial  water  bodies  but  again  as  a  proportion  of  the  total  it 
remained at 1 %. The water uses and physical alterations have been reported for each heavily 

modified water body category. 

Table 2.3 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in Austria between 

the  second  and  first  cycles,  it  shows  there  were  no  significant  changes.  The  minimum  size 
criteria reported were a 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and a 0.5 km2 surface area for lakes. 
The RBMP states that there is no ‘spatially inclusive and comprehensive planning’ for water 
bodies  smaller  than  the  minimum  size.  However,  it  is  stated  that  ‘the  objectives  and 

methodological rules for delineation’ do apply to these water bodies and that objectives focus 
more on conservation, as most small water bodies are not impacted by human activities. 

Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by Austria on how water bodies have evolved 
between the two cycles.  The water body type with the most changes was river water bodies, 
with water bodies created (n = 159), split (n = 1 623), and deleted (n = 125). 

10  Austria  further  clarified  by  providing  an  example  where  one  part  of  the  water  body  is  in  good  condition  – 
delineation into two parts for getting water bodies with uniform status. 

25 

 
 
                                                      
Table 2.1 

Year 

RBD 

2016  AT1000 

2016  AT2000 

2016  AT5000 

2016 

Total 

2010  AT1000 

2010  AT2000 

2010  AT5000 

2010 

Total 

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

Lakes 

Number of water 
bodies 

Total length of 
water body (km) 

Number of water 
bodies 

Total area (km2) of 
water bodies 

7 752 

214 

99 

8 065 

7 054 

194 

91 

7 339 

30 933 

893 

451 

32 278 

30 089 

860 

444 

31 392 

55 

5 

2 

62 

55 

5 

2 

62 

481 

39 

1 

522 

399 

534 

1 

934 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Table 2.2 

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

Year 

RBD 

Number 

2016  AT1000 

130 

2016  AT2000 

2016  AT5000 

2016 

Total 

7 

1 

138 

2010  AT1000 

128 

2010  AT2000 

2010  AT5000 

2010 

Total 

7 

1 

136 

Minimum 

12.06 

48.22 

921.3 

12 

48 

921 

Area (km2) 

Maximum 

9 569.29 

564.42 

921.3 

9 563.00 

564 

921 

Average 

713.68 

333.21 

921.3 

724.05 

333 

921 

Table 2.3 

Size  distribution  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Austria  in  the  second  and  first 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

cycles 

Year 

RBD 

2016  AT1000 

2016  AT2000 

2016  AT5000 

2010  AT1000 

2010  AT2000 

2010  AT5000 

River length (km) 

Lake area (km2) 

Minimum  Maximum  Average  Minimum  Maximum  Average 

0.03 

0.5 

0.86 

0.03 

0.5 

0.31 

84.6 

20.64 

17.74 

83.75 

20.59 

15.18 

3.99 

4.17 

4.56 

4.27 

4.43 

4.87 

0.47 

0.55 

0.54 

0.51 

0.54 

0.54 

244.14 

34.92 

0.56 

161.02 

530.03 

0.56 

8.75 

7.81 

0.55 

7.25 

106.84 

0.55 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.1 

Proportion of surface water bodies in Austria 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 1.4 

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

Austria between the second and first cycles 

Type of water body change for second cycle  

Lakes 

Rivers 

Groundwater  

Change 

Aggregation 

Splitting 

Aggregation and splitting 

Extended area 

Creation 

Deletion 

Change in code 

No change 

Total water bodies before deletion 

Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

121 

116 

1 623 

330 

159 

125 

31 

5 685 

8 190 

8 065 

11 

4 

123 

138 

138 

62 

62 

62 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.2.2. Identification of transboundary water bodies  

Transboundary  river  water  bodies  were  identified  in  each  RBD  and  lake  water  bodies  were 
identified in the Danube and Rhine RBDs. The RBMP stated that delineation of transboundary 

water  bodies  has  been  coordinated  with  the  respective  neighbouring  countries  but  no  further 
information was provided.  

Austria  identified  20  transboundary  groundwater  bodies  in  the  Danube  RBD.  They  were 
delineated with the respective neighbouring countries (Germany, Slovenia and Hungary) in the 

framework  of  the  ‘boundary  water  commissions’.  However  the  RBMP  does  not  explain 
international  river  basin  commissions,  or  other 
whether 

the  respective 

these  are 

bodies/authorities.  

1.2.3. Typology of surface water bodies 

Based  on  the  data  reported  to  WISE  there  appeared  to  be  a  significant  decrease  of 
approximately 70% of the number of types between the first and second RBMP for both rivers 
and lake water bodies (Table 2.5)11. The RBMP did not provide an explanation for this; it only 
stated  that  the  typology  for  water  bodies  in  each  surface  water  category  ‘has  been  checked’, 
and that in  individual cases changes to  the typology was carried out.  No further details  were 

provided and no background document was referenced. 

Member  States  were  asked  to  report  ‘Not  applicable’  if  there  is  no  corresponding 

intercalibration  type  for  national  types.  Many  national  types  (heavily  modified,  artificial  and 
natural) have been intercalibrated. In each of the RBDs there are several river and lake water 

body types that were reported not to have corresponding intercalibration types (six lake water 
body types and seven river water body types). Whist the delineation of water bodies has been 

coordinated with neighbouring countries in all three Austrian RBDs, the second RBMP do not 
explicitly  mention  whether  the  typology  was  coordinated  with  the  Member  States  within  the 
intercalibration process12. 

11  Austria  subsequently  clarified  that  typology  was  not  changed  between  first  and  second  RBMPs  and  that  the 
Austrian typology is a complex system with types for each biological quality element separately. Austria further 
stated that the WISE reporting was based on broad types and may therefore have caused these discrepancies. 
12  Austria  subsequently  clarified  that  even  though  it  is  not  mentioned  in  the  RBMPs,  the  typology  was 
coordinated with the Member States within intercalibration process. 

28 

 
 
 
                                                      
Table 2.5 

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

RBD 

Rivers 

Lakes 

AT1000 

AT2000 

AT5000 

TOTAL 

2010 

150 

73 

14 

169 

2016 
4513 
15 

2 

49 

2010 

2016 

43 

5 

1 

46 

12 

2 

1 

14 

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.14 

1.2.4. Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies 

Table  2.6  shows  the  percentage  of  surface  water  body  types  in  Austria  with  reference 

conditions established for the first and second cycles. Type specific reference conditions have 
been established for all relevant biological quality elements, physicochemical quality elements 

and hydromorphological quality elements  for all river water body types  and lake water body 
types. 

The RBMP does  not  mention  whether the identification of type-specific reference conditions 
was coordinated with other Member States15. 

Table 2.6 

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

physicochemical quality elements  

Water 
category 

Water 
types 

Lakes 

Rivers 

All  

Some  

None 

All  

Some  

None 

Biological quality 
elements 
100% 

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 

Physicochemical quality 
elements 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

13  Austria subsequently informed that the correct number is 39 and not 45. 
14  Austria subsequently informed that the data for 2010 do not reflect the real number of water body types, WISE 
reporting  was  based  on  broad  types  and  may  therefore  have  caused  these  discrepancies.  Austria  subsequently 
informed that typology was not changed between first and second RBMPs. 
15  Austria  subsequently  highlighted  that  the  comparison  of  reference  conditions  was  a  major  part  of  the 
intercalibration exercise where Austria was included in all steps. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
                                                      
1.2.5. Characteristics of groundwater bodies 

The  geological  formation  of  the  aquifer  types  in  which  groundwater  bodies  reside  were 
reported. However, details of whether groundwater bodies are layered or not does not appear to 
be  reported  (marked  as  ‘No  information’)16.  Further  characterisation  work  has  been  reported 
since the first RBMP with the inclusion of the assessment of linkages to terrestrial ecosystems 

for  all  RBDs.  However,  the  assessment  of  linkages  with  surface  water  bodies  in  each  of  the 
RBDs  was  not  reported  and  was  included  in  Annex  017.  Austria  stated  that  the  status  of  the 
surface water bodies was assessed and for surface water bodies which were not at good status it 
was further assessed if the associated groundwater body had a negative impact on the surface 

water body. It was determined that there were no instances where the associated groundwater 
body is relevant for the status of the associated surface water body.  

1.2.6. Significant pressures and impacts on water bodies 

For  the  second  RBMP,  all  significant  pressures  that  were  assessed  for  surface  waters  were 

reported. In the first RBMP, pressures were reported at an aggregated level. Overall, it appears 
there  was  a  large  increase  in  the  reporting  of  diffuse  and  point  pollution  between  the  two 
cycles18 with a decrease in the reporting of hydromorphological, abstraction and flow pressures 
(Figure  2.2).  In  the  second  RBMP,  atmospheric  deposition  was  reported  as  a  pressure  on  all 
surface water bodies, followed by dams, barriers and locks (27 %) (Figure 2.3). 

For groundwater bodies 97 % of water bodies had no pressures reported for them (Annex 0) 
and only 3 % appear to be assessed and determined to have pressures from diffuse agriculture 
pollution (Figure 2.3). For groundwater it was reported that 39 pressures were not assessed19, 
many of which were related to surface water specific pressures such as dams and hydrological 

changes.  However,  there  were  some  pressures  that  could  impact  groundwater  that  were  not 
assessed, such as discharges not connected to a sewerage network, and  mining. According to 

the  background  documentation,  no  pressures  were  excluded  (that  is,  all  pressures  were 
assessed). 

16  Austria subsequently highlighted that in Austria there are no layered geological structures. 
17  Annex 0: A document produced by the Member State giving a short explanation why certain element could not 
be reported. The Annex 0 is ratified by the Commission.  
18  Austria subsequently stated that this was due to new data.  
19  Austria subsequently clarified that these pressures have not been considered because they were not deemed to 
be important in the RBD. 

30 

 
                                                      
Figure 2.2  Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Austria in the first and 

second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note there were 8 
127 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 7 401 for the first 

cycle 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

31 

 
 
Figure 2.3  The most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies 

in Austria for the second cycle 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
In  the  second  RBMP,  the  most  significant  impact  on  surface  water  bodies  was  chemical 

pollution  (affecting  100  %  of  surface  water  bodies),  followed  by  altered  habitats  due  to 
morphological  changes  (43  %)  (Figure  2.4).  For  groundwater,  Annex  0  was  reported  for  the 

majority of impacts, with chemical pollution only reported for four water bodies in the Danube 
RBD (3 %). Austria did not report on impacts in the first RBMP. 

Figure 2.4 

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

Source: WISE electronic reports 

33 

 
 
 
 
1.2.7. Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater 

For  surface  waters  numerical  tools  were  used  for  defining  significant  pressures  from  point 
sources  and  a  combination  for  numerical  tools  and  expert  judgement  were  used  for  defining 

significant pressures from diffuse sources, abstraction and water flow pressures. According to 
the  RBMP,  the  assessment  of  chemical  pollution  from  point  sources  remained  the  same  as 

2010,  whereby  a  significant  pressure  was  determined  when  the  loading  of  the  discharge 
exceeded a certain threshold related to the environmental quality standard. For diffuse nutrient 

pressures  a  new  methodology  was  developed,  whereby  the  loads  were  calculated  by 
modelling20  and  thresholds  for  phosphate  and  nitrates  were  applied  to  determine  the 
significance of the pressure. This change in methodology may account for the minor increase 
in water bodies with diffuse pressures in relation to nutrients shown in Figure 2.2. 

For  groundwater,  expert  judgement  was  used  for  defining  significant  pressures  from  point 
sources,  artificial  recharge  and  other  pressures,  but  no  further  information  was  found  in  the 

RBMP.  For  diffuse  and  abstraction  pressures  numerical  tools  were  used.  For  nutrients 
(nitrates)  INVEKOS  data21,  European  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Programme  and  statistical 
data were used to calculate input and output per agricultural area. For pesticides, an Austrian 

database called GeoPEARL was used. For abstraction pressures the abstraction volumes were 
calculated  using  statistics  and  estimations  of  per  capita  consumption.  For  agriculturally 

irrigated areas and industry, abstractions were calculated based on average values taken from 
reports and studies. 

For both surface water and groundwater bodies the significance of pressures were reported to 
be  linked  to  the  potential  failure  of  objectives  and  were  reported  to  be  defined  in  terms  of 

thresholds.  The  RBMP  reported  that  the  existence  of  a  ‘potential  significant  pressure’  was 
linked to the potential failure of objectives by examining the status of the water body, then it is 

checked if measures are planned in the water body which will potentially change the status and 
eliminate the risk to the water body. 

1.2.8. Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 

In the Danube RBD 14 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing to meet 

good  chemical  status.  For the Rhine  and Elbe RBDs the risk of failing  good chemical status 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  reported.  The  pollutants  putting  groundwater  bodies  at  risk  of 

failing good chemical status have been reported. 

20   MONERIS - Modelling Nutrient Emissions to River Systems 
21  INVEKOS is the ‘Integriertes Verwaltung- und Kontrollsystem’, that is, the system for managing the Common 
Agricultural Policy payments in Austria. 

34 

 
                                                      
In the Danube RBD 1.5 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing to meet 

good  quantitative  status.  For  the  Rhine  and  Elbe  RBDs  there  was  reported  to  be  no  risk  of 
failing good quantitative status. 

1.2.9. Quantification and apportionment of pressures  

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

significant pressures reported at the water body level. For example, in the Rhine RBD, dams, 
barriers and locks - unknown or obsolete, was reported at the surface water body level but this 

pressure was not reported as being tackled in the PoM.   

According to the RBMPs, agriculture, for diffuse sources, and waste water treatment plants, for 

point  sources,  were  the  main  responsible  sectors/activities  causing  failure  of  good  chemical 
status. 

1.2.10. Quantification of gap to be filled for pressures causing failure of status objectives 

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

these substances to achieve good status by 2021 were reported. The indicator gap was reported 
for  2021  for  all  substances,  however,  for  some  substances  (for  example,  mercury  and  its 
compounds  in  surface  water  in  the  Danube  RBD)  it  appears  as  if  the  measures  may  not  be 

sufficient  to  close the  gap to  good status  by 2027. The reasons  for this  were not  clear in  the 
RBMP22.  

1.2.11. Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances 

Article  5  of  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  2008/105/EC23  (EQS  Directive)  
requires  Member  States  to  establish  an  inventory  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  all 
Priority Substances and the 8 other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I of the EQS Directive 

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

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

(respectively priority hazardous substances). 

22  Austria  subsequently clarified that  measures at the  national level are not expected to significantly reduce the 
diffuse aerial pollution coming from outside of Austria. 
23 Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental 
quality  standards  in  the  field  of  water  policy,  amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Council  Directives 
82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council 

35 

 
                                                      
Austria  reported  that  41  Priority  Substances  were  included  in  the  inventories  for  each  of  the 
RBDs.  Austria  implemented  the  two  step  approach  from  CIS  Guidance  Document  n°2824  on 
establishing  inventories  of  emissions.  Tier  1  of  the  methodology  was  implemented  for 

substances deemed not relevant at RBD level. For substances relevant at RBD level, either Tier 
3  (pathway  oriented  approach)  or  Tier  1  (point  source  information)  +  Tier  2  (riverine  load 
approach) were applied, in line with the recommendation from the Guidance Document.25 The 
quality of the input data was assessed as uncertain in most cases. 

2.1.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

There was an overall increase in the number of river water bodies (36 %) and this increase was 
the case for all RBDs. The numbers of lake water bodies remained the same. The numbers of 

groundwater bodies increased in the Danube RBD by 2 % and there was no change in the other 
RBDs.  

Since the first RBMP it appears there was a large increase in the number of occasions where 
diffuse  and  point  source  pressures  were  reported,  with  a  decrease  in  the  reporting  of 

hydromorphological, abstraction and flow pressures. 

2.2.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

 

Recommendation: Make sure that RBMP are more precise in analysing and linking 
pressures and impacts (information regarding status and the scale of the pressures 

is not always clear). 

Assessment:  This  recommendation  applies  to  a  number  of  Topics.  In  terms  of 

characterisation, there appeared to be a link between the pressures and impacts with the 
key  pressures  on  surface  waters  being  atmospheric  deposition  and  dams,  barriers  and 

locks  and  the  associated  impacts  being  chemical  pollution  and  altered  habitats  due  to 
morphological changes. Austria reported that 41 Priority Substances were included in the 

inventories  for  each  of  the  RBDs.  In  terms  of  characterisation,  therefore  this 
recommendation has been fulfilled.  

24   Guidance Document No. 28 - Technical Guidance on the Preparation of an Inventory of Emissions, Discharges 
and Losses of Priority and Priority Hazardous Substances. 
25   An  increase  in  tier  is  associated  with  an  improved  understanding  of  sources  and  pathways,  resolution  and 
detail, all of which helps the identification of appropriate measures. 

36 

 
                                                      
 

Recommendation: Clarify delineation of small water bodies in the second RBMP.  

Assessment: The minimum size criteria reported were 10 km2 catchment area for rivers 
and 0.5 km2 surface area for lakes. The RBMP states that there is no ‘spatially inclusive 
and comprehensive planning’ for water bodies smaller than the minimum size. However, 
it is stated that ‘the objectives and methodological rules for delineation’ do apply to these 

water bodies and that objectives focus more on conservation, as most small water bodies 
are  not  impacted  by  human  activities.  An  adequate  explanation  has  been  provided  and 

this recommendation has been fulfilled.  

 

Recommendation:  Make  clearer 

the  approach  regarding  consideration  of 

uncertainties  in  the  Article  5  pressures  and  impacts  analysis;  monitoring  and 
classification of status has influenced the targeting of measures.  

Assessment:  The  approach  regarding  consideration  of  uncertainty  in  the  Article  5 
pressures  and  impacts  analysis  was  not  described  in  the  RBMP  and  in  the  background 

documentation, therefore this recommendation has not been fulfilled. 

37 

 
 
 
Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological 
status in surface water bodies 

3.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in second RBMPs 

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.  

Austria reported that there were separate surveillance and operational monitoring programmes 

for rivers in each RBD. There were two lake surveillance programmes, one each in the Danube 
RBD  and  the  Rhine  RBD.  There  were  no  operational  monitoring  programmes  for  lakes:  No 
information was found in the assessed RBMP explaining the reason for this26. 

Monitoring sites 

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

purposes for both plans, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for 
the second RBMPs. 

Table 3.1 

Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Austria 
for the second second  and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of 
comparability with data reported for the firstt RBMP, the second  RBMP data 
does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or 

chemical monitoring 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Surveillance 

Operational 

Surveillance 

Operational 

Second RBMP  

AT_1000 

AT_2000 

AT_5000 

Total by type of site 

68 

7 

1 

76 

1 903 

78 

44 

2 025 

32 

1 

0 

33 

0 

0 

0 

0 

26  Austria  subsequently  informed  that  all  lakes  at  risk  of  failing  the  objectives  are  included  in  the  surveillance 
monitoring. 

38 

 
  
  
  
  
  
                                                      
Rivers 

Lakes 

Surveillance 

Operational 

Surveillance 

Operational 

Total number of monitoring sites 

2 117 

First RBMP 

AT_1000 

AT_2000 

AT_5000 

Total by type of site 

68 

7 

1 

76 

537 

33 

15 

585 

Total number of monitoring sites 

635 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

33 

33 

32 

1 

0 

33 

1 

0 

0 

1 

Table 3.2 

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

Monitoring Purpose 

OPE - Operational monitoring 

SUR - Surveillance monitoring 

Total sites irrespective of purpose 

Rivers 

2 025 

76 

2 101 

Lakes27 
0  

33 

33 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

The number of monitoring of sites for the surveillance monitoring of rivers and lakes remained 
the same between the two RBMPs. For the first RBMP there was one operational  monitoring 

site  in  lakes,  but  none  for  the  second.  All  lakes  with  risk  for  failure  are  included  in  the 
surveillance network. In rivers, there was a 3.5 fold increase in operational sites between the 

first and second RBMPs. 

Monitored quality elements (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) 

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

27   Austria subsequently informed that there were 28 monitoring sites for Surveillance monitoring of lakes. 

39 

 
  
  
  
  
  
                                                      
Table 3.3 

Quality  elements  monitored  for  the  second  RBMPs  in  Austria  (excluding 

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

Biological quality elements 

Hydromorphological quality elements28 

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

c
i
t
a
u
q
a

r
e
h
t
O

a
r
o
l
f

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

r
e
h
t
O

Lakes 

Yes  Yes  No  No  Yes 

Rivers 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

No 

No 

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

No 

No 

y
t
i
u
n
i
t
n
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

No 

General physicochemical quality elements 

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

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

No 

l
a
m
r
e
h
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

n
o
i
t
a
n
e
g
y
x
O

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Lakes 

Rivers 

y
t
i
n
i
l
a
S

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

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

s
u
t
a
t
s

n
e
g
o
r
t
i

N

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 
Source: WISE electronic reports  

Yes 

s
u
r
o
h
p
s
o
h
P

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
C

Yes 

Yes 

e
t
a
c
i
l
i
S

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

No 

No 

t
n
a
n
i
m
r
e
t
e
d

r
e
h
t
O

t
n
e
i
r
t
u
n

r
o
f

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

No 

No 

In the second RBMPs, all expected biological quality elements were reported to be monitored 

in  rivers  in  Austria  whereas  phytobenthos  and  benthic  invertebrates  were  not  monitored  in 
lakes29. Hydromorphological quality elements were not reported in WISE to be monitored in 
rivers  and  lakes  in  Austria.  All  expected  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  were 

monitored in rivers and lakes. 

In the first RBMP, all required biological quality elements were reported to be monitored for 

rivers  in  all  RBDs.  All  required  biological  quality  elements  were  monitored  in  lakes  in  one 
RBD.  In  the  Rhine  RBD,  benthic  invertebrates  were  not  monitored  in  lakes  and  in  the  Elbe 
lakes  were  not  monitored  at  all30.  Hydromorphology  and  general 

RBD, 
physicochemical quality elements were also reported as fully monitored in the first RBMP. 

two 

the 

28   Austria subsequently indicated that hydromorphological quality elements are monitored in rivers and lakes, but 
the monitoring is continuous and not related to sites, and therefore, is not reported in WISE. 
29  Austria  subsequently  stated  that  for  benthic  invertebrates  the  assessment  method  is  currently  (2018) 
intercalibrated. For phytobenthos the justification for omitting this biological quality element was accepted by the 
European Commission during the intercalibration exercise 2017. 
30  Austria subsequently indicated that the two lakes are artificial and do not have a risk of failure. 

40 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
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 over the period covered by a RBMP, i.e. six years. For phytoplankton, this 

equates  to  twice  during  the  monitoring  year  and  the  other  biological  quality  elements  once 
during  the  year.  As  a  guideline,  operational  monitoring  should  take  place  at  intervals  not 

exceeding once every six months for phytoplankton and once every three years during the six 
year cycle for the other biological quality elements. Greater intervals may be justified on the 

basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. 

All of the seven biological quality elements used for the surveillance monitoring of rivers and 

lakes  were  sampled  at  least  at  the  minimum  recommended  frequency  at  all  sites  where  they 
were monitored. Conversely, only one of the 1 533 sites used for the operational monitoring of 

fish in rivers was sampled at the recommended minimum frequency. The other two biological 
quality elements  (phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates) used in  the operational  monitoring 

of rivers were not sampled at least at the recommended minimum frequency at any of the sites 
where they were monitored. Lakes were not included in operational monitoring. 

Monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants 

In  the  second  RBMP,  11  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  reported  to  be  monitored  in 
Austria, only in rivers. One (dibutyltin) was monitored in fish, eight in settled sediment and ten 

in water. Seven substances are monitored at 107 sites including copper and zinc, the other four 
at fewer sites.  

As mentioned above, Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring 
of  the  different  quality  elements:  Once  every  three  months  is  recommended  for  river  basin 

specific pollutants. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a 
period of one year during the period covered by a river basin management plan i.e. six years. 

For river basin specific pollutants this would equate to four times for the surveillance year, and 
for operational monitoring four times a year for each year of the cycle. 

All  sites  for  all  ten  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  in  water  included  in  surveillance 
monitoring were sampled at least at the recommended minimum frequency. Conversely, none 

of the sites used for the operational monitoring of the ten pollutants in water were sampled at 
least  at  the  recommended  minimum  frequency:  It  was  reported  that  the  monitoring  will  be 

implemented once per cycle and, depending on the results, future monitoring will be decided. 

Annex  V,  section  1.3.4  of  the  WFD  does  not  explicitly  define  the  matrices  to  which  the 

recommended  minimum  frequency  of  monitoring  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  (“Other 

41 

 
Pollutants”) applies. Recommended minimum monitoring frequencies are specified for Priority 

Substances in biota in Article 3(2)(c) of EQS Directive 2008/105/EC: this is once per year for 
operational  and  surveillance  monitoring  purposes.  For  consistency,  this  recommended 

minimum  frequency  of  once  per  year  has  been  applied  to  the  monitoring  of  River  Basin 
Specific Pollutants in biota/sediment.  

Of the 32 sites monitored for dibutyltin in fish none was sampled at least at the recommended 
minimum frequency. All five sites where eight River Basin Specific Pollutants were monitored 

in settled sediment were not sampled at the recommended minimum frequency. 

Table 3.4 shows the 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. The data from both plans may not be fully comparable as different 

definitions  were  used  (in  the  first    RBMP,  some  MS  sometimes  reported  more  than  just  the 
River Basin  Specific Pollutants), but  it points  to  an apparent  decrease in  the number of sites 

between the two plans.  

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  Austria.  Note  the  data  from  both 
plans may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used. 

RBMP 

second  

first  

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

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Rivers 

113 

185 

Surveillance and operational monitoring of surface water bodies 

Figure 3.1 shows the percentage of surface water bodies that have been subject to surveillance 

and operational monitoring in the first and second RBMPs.  

42 

 
 
Figure 3.1 

Percentage  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  and  operational 

monitoring  in  Austria  as  reported  in  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 reports  

Over 98 % of the monitored river water bodies were reported to be monitored for all required 
biological  quality  elements  for  surveillance  monitoring,  none  of  the  lakes  in  surveillance 

monitoring were sampled for all required biological quality element.  

The  number  of  delineated  lakes  remained  the  same  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs.  In 

rivers, there was a 10 % increase in the number of water bodies. The proportion of lakes and 
rivers  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  remained  virtually  the  same  or  slightly  fell: 

approximately 1 % of river water bodies and 45 % of lakes. 

In contrast there was a significant increase in the proportion of rivers included in operational 
monitoring overall in Austria from 6 % for the first RBMP to 20 % for the 2nd RBMP. 2 % of 
lakes were included in operational monitoring for the first RBMPs; none were for the second. 

Figure  3.2  illustrates  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  in  each  ecological  status/potential  class 
that are included in surveillance monitoring.  

43 

 
 
Figure 3.2 

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

included in surveillance monitoring in Austria  

Source: WISE electronic reports  

In  the  second  RBMP  it  is  reported  that  three  biological  quality  elements  were  used  in  the 
operational  monitoring  of  rivers:  Fish  were  predominantly  used  (in  77  %  of  water  bodies  in 

operational  monitoring),  followed  by  benthic  invertebrates  (28  %)  and  phytobenthos  (21  %). 
Lakes were not included in operational monitoring31 even though some (seven) in the Danube 
RBD were at less than good status and lakes were subject to significant pressures (for example, 

diffuse pressures from atmospheric deposition) in all three RBDs.  

Transboundary surface water body monitoring 

Austria reported two lakes and 128 rivers as transboundary water bodies. Austria did not report 
any monitoring sites as being part of international programmes32. 

31  Austria  subsequently  stated  that  all  lakes  at  risk  of  failing  the  objectives  are  included  in  the  surveillance 
monitoring. 
32   Austria subsequently indicated that the water bodies treated in the transboundary commissions were reported in 
WISE. However, the monitoring sites were all reported in the same category and there was no distinction between 
national and international monitoring. 

44 

 
 
                                                      
3.1.2.  Assessment and classification of ecological Status/potential of surface water  

Ecological status or potential of surface water 

The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Austria reported in the second RBMP 

is illustrated in Map 3.1. This is based on the most recent assessment of status. 

There  was  a  decrease  in  the  proportion  of  lakes  at  good  or  better  ecological  status/potential 

between  the  two  RBMPs  (from  95  %  to  89  %),  in  contrast  there  was  a  4  %  increase  in  the 
proportion of river water bodies at good or better ecological status/potential (from 42 % to 46 

%). There were 17 (0.2 %) surface water bodies with unknown ecological status/potential for 
the first RBMP, this increased to 107 (1.3%) surface water bodies for the second RBMP. Many 

of the changes in ecological status/potential at the water body level were reported to be due to 
a significant change in monitoring (site, methodology) since the first RBMP. 

Figure  3.3  compares  the  ecological  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Austria  for  the  first 
RBMPs with that for the second RBMPs and that expected by 2015. 

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

45 

 
 
Map 3.1 

Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Austria based on the 

most recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies 

High 

Good 

Moderate 

Poor  

Bad 

Unknown 

RBDs 

Countries outside the European Union 

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). 
Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

46 

050100kmAT2000AT1000AT5000AT 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Figure 3.3   Ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Austria  reported  in 

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

period  of  the  assessment  of  status  for  the  second  RBMP  was  2010  to  2015. 
The year of the assessment of status for the first RBMPs is not known  

Source: WISE electronic reports  

47 

 
 
Figure 3.4  Expected  date  of  achievement  of  good  ecological  status/potential  of  surface 

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

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Confidence in ecological status assessment 

Figure 3.5 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. No surface 

water bodies were classified for ecological status/potential with medium confidence in the first 
RBMP:  84  %  were  classified  with  high  confidence  and  16  %  with  low.  The  proportion  of 
surface  water  bodies  classified  for  ecological  status/potential  with  high  confidence  in  the 

second  RBMP  decreased  to  15  %,  with  57  %  having  medium  confidence  and  28  %  low 
confidence. In conclusion, the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential has 
significantly decreased between the first and second RBMPs33.  

33 Austria subsequently indicated that this is caused by a change of methodology for the assignment of confidence 
to assessment results. 

48 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 3.5  Confidence  in  the  classification  of  ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface 

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

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Classification of ecological status at the quality element level 

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

classification of surface waters.  

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

status/potential  for  the  two  cycles.  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 two cycles. 

Figure 3.8 illustrates the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers and 

lakes for the second RBMP. 

49 

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

classification of surface water bodies in Austria. 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 reports  

Figure 3.7  Comparison of ecological status/potential in Austria according to classified 
biological quality elements in surface water bodies between the two RBMPs

Source: WISE electronic reports  

50 

 
 
 
Figure 3.8 

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

in Austria using one, two, three or four types of quality element. 
Note:  The 

types  are:  biological,  hydromorphological,  general 

four 

physicochemical and River Basin Specific Pollutants. 

Assessment methods for the biological quality elements 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

There  were  gaps  in  the  methods  reported  for  the  assessment  of  biological  quality  elements: 

phytoplankton  in  (very  large)  rivers  and  for  benthic  invertebrates  and  phytobenthos  in  lakes. 
The  assessment  methods  were  reported  to  be  sensitive  to  some  but  not  all  relevant  impacts: 

Chemical pollution was reported to impact all river and lake water bodies in Austria but none 
of  the  biological  assessment  methods  were  reported  to  be  sensitive  to  this  impact:  This  is 

evaluated as a gap in the assessment methods that requires attention. 

Assessment of hydromorphological quality elements  

There are assessment  methods for  all relevant  hydromorphological  quality  elements  in  rivers 
and lakes, and the classification boundaries for these supporting quality elements are related to 

the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. 

Classification methods for general physicochemical quality elements 

All  the relevant  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  in  rivers  and lakes are assessed in 
terms  of  ecological  status/potential  and  the  classification  boundaries  are  related  to  the  class 
boundaries for the sensitive biological  quality  elements. Standards have been reported for all 

51 

 
 
the relevant general physicochemical quality elements in river and lakes and the standard are 

consistent  to  the  good-moderate  status  boundary  of  the  relevant  sensitive  biological  quality 
elements.  

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

Environmental  quality  standards  have  been  set  for  35  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants:  For 

copper, zinc and nitrite, there were different standards relating to the hardness of the water. All 
standards  are  for  water  only.  Ten  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  reported  to  be 

monitored in water. 

Standards  are  set  for  rivers  and  lakes  and  all  are  in  accordance  with  the  2011  Technical 
Guidance  Document  No  2734  and  the  analytical  methods  used  for  all  substances  meet  the 
minimum  performance  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  4(1)  of  the  QA/QC  Directive 
(2009/90/EC35) for the strictest standard applied. 

Use of monitoring results for classification 

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

Use of monitoring results for classification in lakes 

Expert judgement was used extensively in the classification of the biological quality elements 

in lakes. Monitoring results and grouping were also used. In some cases the number of directly 
monitored  water  bodies  was  above  or  below  to  those  that  were  subsequently  used  in  the 

classification of ecological status/potential. In the Elbe RBD, lakes were not directly monitored 
but were reported as being classified by expert judgment36. 

The classification of the hydrological regime and morphological conditions in lakes was solely 
based on monitoring results even though these elements were reported not to be monitored in 
WISE:  This  is  a  possible  reporting  error37.  General  physicochemical  quality  elements  were 

34https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0cc3581b-5f65-4b6f-91c6-433a1e947838/TGD-EQS%20CIS-
WFD%2027%20EC%202011.pdf  
35  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:201:0036:0038:EN:PDF 
36 Austria subsequently stated that they were not classified by expert judgement but by grouping. 
37   Austria subsequently stated that hydromorphological quality elements are monitored in rivers and lakes, but the 
monitoring is continuous and not related to sites. Thus the hydromorphological monitoring was not included in the 
WISE templates. 

52 

 
                                                      
reported  not  to  be  used  in  the  classification  of  lakes  even  though  they  were  reported  to  be 
extensively monitored38. 

River Basin Specific Pollutants were used in the classification of lakes, all based on grouping 

even though monitoring results were reported not to be used at all, which makes it difficult to 
understand how lakes have been classified using River Basin Specific Pollutants39. 

Use of monitoring results for classification in rivers 

Overwhelmingly,  expert  judgment  was  used  in  the  classification  of  the  biological  quality 

elements  for  rivers:  63  %  of  classification  determinations  using  biological  quality  elements 
were  based  on  expert  judgment,  30  %  on  grouping  and  only  7  %  of  monitoring  results.  The 

classification  of  macrophytes  was  reported  as  not  based  on  monitoring  results  for  any  river 
water  body  even  though  this  element  was  directly  monitored40.  This  may  indicate  some 
uncertainty in  the  assessment and  classification  methods for macrophytes in  rivers. This  was 
also  the  case  for  the  other  three  biological  quality  elements  used  for  classification  of  rivers 

where  more  water  bodies  were  directly  monitored  than  were  subsequently  classified  using 
monitoring results41. 

All the relevant hydromorphological quality elements have been reported as being used in the 

classification  of  status/potential  of  rivers,  all  based  on  monitoring  results.  However,  these 
elements were reported as not being monitored.42 

There  was  extensive  monitoring  of  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  in  rivers  but 
these elements were reported not be used in the classification of status43. River Basin Specific 
Pollutants were used in the classification of rivers, mainly based on grouping, to a lesser extent 
on monitoring and for some water bodies on expert judgement. 

38  Austria subsequently stated that general physicochemical quality elements are used as supportive element for 
the assessment of the ecological status. 
39  Austria subsequently clarified that the analysis of pressure and impacts undertaken according to article 5 of the 
Water Framework Directive identified an absence of significant pressure by specific pollutants on lakes. 
40 Austria subsequently stated that it is a reporting error. 
41 Austria subsequently explained that some sampling sites were afterwards considered as not representative. 
42  Austria subsequently stated that hydromorphological quality elements are monitored in rivers and lakes, but the 
monitoring is continuous and not related to sites. Thus the hydromorphological monitoring was not included in the 
WISE templates. 
43   Austria subsequently stated that general physicochemical quality elements are used as a supportive element for 
the assessment of the ecological status. 

53 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 3.9 

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

percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category.   

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Overall classification of ecological status (one-out, all-out principle) 

The ‘one-out, all-out’ principle was applied in all RBDs in deriving the overall classification of 
the ecological status of a water body.  

Figure 3.10 shows the percentage of surface water bodies that have not used particular types of 
elements in classifying ecological status or potential. 

54 

 
 
Figure 3.10 

Percentage of surface water bodies in Austria 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 reports  

3.2.  Main  changes  in  implementation  and  compliance  between  first  and 

second RBMPs 

There was a significant increase in the proportion of rivers included in operational monitoring 

overall in Austria: from 6 % reported in the first RBMP to 20 % in the second. For lakes, there 
were two operational monitoring sites reported in the first RBMP, but none in the second. The 

number of monitoring of sites for the surveillance monitoring of rivers and lakes remained the 
same. 

All expected biological quality elements were reported to be monitored in rivers in Austria in 
the second RBMP, it was also the case in the first RBMP. In lakes, phytobenthos and benthic 
invertebrates  were  reported  as  not  monitored  in  the  second  RBMP44,  whereas  in  the  first  
RBMP all required biological quality elements were reported to be monitored in lakes in one 

RBD,  in  the  Rhine  RBD,  benthic  invertebrates  were  not  monitored  in  lakes  and  in  the  Elbe 
RBD the two lakes were not monitored at all.  

44  Austria  subsequently  stated  that  for  benthic  invertebrates  the  assessment  method  is  currently  (2018) 
intercalibrated. For phytobenthos the justification for omitting this biological quality element was accepted by the 
European Commission during the intercalibration exercise 2017. 

55 

 
 
                                                      
In the second RBMP, hydromorphological quality elements were reported not to be monitored 
in WISE in rivers and lakes in Austria45, whereas they were monitored for the first RBMP.  

All expected general physicochemical quality elements were monitored in rivers and lakes in 

both RBMPs. 

3.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation: Further details on how the monitoring relates to the classification of 
water  bodies  would  better  support  the  selection  of  monitoring  sites  and  their  use  for 

ecological status/potential classification. 

  Recommendation:  Although  most  biological  quality  elements  are  used  for  the 
classification  of  ecological  status  it  should  be  clearer  why  some  biological  quality 
elements have not been considered for certain water body types.  

Assessment: Further details are still required and the reported information in WISE is 
not  clear.  Whilst  all  the  required  biological  quality  elements  are  monitored  in  rivers, 
there  are now  gaps in  lakes46.  In  addition,  hydromorphological  quality elements were 
reported  not 
that 
hydromorphological  elements are monitored in  rivers and lakes,  but  the monitoring is 
continuous and not related to sites, thus they were not included in WISE). 

in  WISE  (Austria  clarified  subsequently 

to  be  monitored 

The  classification  of  macrophytes  was  not  based  on  monitoring  results  for  any  river 
water body even though this element was directly monitored47. This was also the case 
for  the  other  three  biological  quality  elements  used  for  classification  of  rivers  where 
more  water  bodies  were  directly  monitored  than  were  subsequently  classified  using 

monitoring results. Expert judgement was used extensively. The justification for this is 
not  known.  Overall  therefore,  not  enough  information  on  progress  regarding  this 

recommendation could be found in the RBMP. 

45  Austria subsequently stated that hydromorphological quality elements are monitored in rivers and lakes, but the 
monitoring is continuous and not related to sites. Thus the hydromorphological monitoring was not included in the 
WISE templates. 
46  Austria  subsequently  stated  that  for  benthic  invertebrates,  the  assessment  method  is  now  intercalibrated.  For 
phytobenthos  the  justification  for  omitting  this  biological  quality  element  was  accepted  by  the  European 
Commission during the intercalibration exercise in 2017. 
47 Austria subsequently stated that this is a reporting error. 

56 

 
                                                      
Overall,  there  appears  to  be  a  deterioration  in  implementation,  therefore,  this 

recommendation has not been fulfilled. 

  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 
to  take  an  ambitious  approach  to  combatting  chemical  pollution  and  that  adequate 

measures are put in place. 

Assessment: Detailed information on the monitored River Basin Specific Pollutants and 

their exceedances has been reported, all water River Basin Specific Pollutants included 
in  surveillance  monitoring  were  sampled  at  least  at  the  recommended  minimum 

frequency,  but  this  wasn’t  the  case  for  operational  monitoring  in  water  and  for  biota 
and  sediments.  Classification  of  rivers  for  Specific  Pollutants  was  mainly  based  on 

grouping  for  rivers  and  exclusively  for  lakes,  whereas  no  monitoring  was  reported  in 
the second RBMP. 

Therefore, this recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

57 

 
 
Topic 4 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status 
in surface water bodies 

4.1.  Assessment  of  implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle  

1.2.12. 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  MS  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 Austria for the second RBMP.  

Figure 4.1 summarises the proportion of sites used for the monitoring of chemical status in lakes 
and  rivers  for  the  second  RBMP.  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 Agency48. 

The vast majority of sites were used for monitoring of ecological status in rivers (99%) and all 
sites  were  used  for  monitoring  of  ecological  status  in  lakes  but  no  site  was  used  for  the 

monitoring  of  chemical  status  in  lakes  and  only  6%  of  sites  were  used  for  monitoring  of 
chemical  status  in  rivers.  Hence  the  spatial  coverage  of  the  chemical  monitoring  programme 

appears to be limited. Austria explained that they designed their chemical monitoring programme 
on  the  basis  of  their  pressure-impact  assessment:  Apart  from  mercury,  the  other  priority 

substances are expected to cause a risk in a very low number of waterbodies and water bodies 
without risk from substances other than mercury were not monitored. Hence the limited number 
of water bodies monitored. However, it is not entirely clear how these monitoring programmes 
allow  the  assessment  of  the  long-term  changes  in  natural  conditions  and  those  resulting  from 

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

58 

 
                                                      
widespread anthropogenic activity in waterbodies where no risk is expected at the moment. It is 

also  not  entirely  clear  how  the  monitoring  programmes  allow  a  validation  of  the  impact 
assessment procedure for waterbodies in which  no risk is  expected from substances other than 

mercury.    

In  comparison  to  monitoring  for  chemical  status  in  the  first  RBMP,  there  is  a  reduction  in 

monitoring for lakes (13 sites and 10 water bodies reported in the first RBMP). To explain this 
reduction, Austria mentioned that they used the possibility offered in WFD, Annex V, 1.3.1. to 

monitor  certain  waterbodies  every  three  cycles,  when  “the  previous  surveillance  monitoring 
exercise showed that the body concerned reached good status and there is no evidence from the 

review  of  impact  of  human  activity  in  Annex  II  that  the  impacts  on  the  body  have  changed”. 
Overall, the number of sites used to monitor priority substances also decreased between the first 

RBMP (186 sites reported) and the second RBMP (127 sites reported).  

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

rivers  for  the  second  RBMP.  In  this  figure,  no  distinction  is  made  between  water  bodies 
monitored  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 4.1 

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

comparison,  ecological  status, 
in 
parenthesis next to the category is the total number of monitoring 

in  Austria.  The  number 

sites irrespective of their purpose 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

59 

 
 
 
Figure 4.2 

Proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category  monitored, 

monitored  for  chemical  status  and,  for  comparison,  monitored  for 
ecological  status,  in  Austria.  The  number  in  parenthesis  next  to  the 

category is the total number of water bodies in that category  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

45 % of river waterbodies and 21 % of lake waterbodies were reported to be monitored in the 
second RBMP. All of these were included in the monitoring of ecological status. For chemical 

monitoring, no lakes and only 2 % of river water bodies were monitored. Water bodies where no 
ubiquitous  substance  was  expected  to  cause  a  risk  were  not  monitored.  Only  0.4  %  of  river 

waterbodies  and  none  of  the  lakes  are  identified  to  be  at  risk  of  failing  good  chemical  status 
when mercury is not considered.  

Only  1.4  %  of  water  bodies  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  were  reported  to  be 
monitored in Austria as a whole.  

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

Monitoring for status assessment 

Requirements 

Article  8(1)  of  the  WFD  requires  MS  to  establish  monitoring  programmes  in  order  to  provide 
inter alia a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. The amount 

of monitoring undertaken in terms of priority substances, frequency and numbers of sites should 
be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of status. According to the EQS Directive 
(version  in  force  in  2009),  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  have  to  be 

60 

 
 
monitored in biota for status assessment, unless MS derived a standard for another matrix, which 

is at least as protective as the biota standard.  

Spatial coverage 

As  stated  above,  for  chemical  monitoring,  no  lakes  and  only  2  %  of  river  water  bodies  were 
monitored  (according  to  Austria  this  is  based  on  their  pressure-impact  assessment,  which  has 

determined that 0.4 % of river water bodies and lo lakes are at risk of failure of good chemical 
status  –  please  note  these  numbers  do  not  include  the  ubiquitous  substance  mercury).  Water 

bodies without risk from substances other than mercury were not monitored. 

Between 93 and 99 % of river water bodies in each of the three RBDs were reported not to be 

monitored  for  Priority  Substances.  However,  67,  seven  and  one  river  water  bodies  in  the 
Danube,  Rhine  and  Elbe  RBDs  respectively  were  monitored  for  more  than  ten  Priority 

Substances. 

Austria  reported  monitoring  data  for  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  in 

biota (fish) for status assessment at 27 to 31 sites (depending on the substance) in the Danube 
RBD and in the Rhine RBD. In the Elbe RBD, mercury is monitored in the water column only 
for status assessment (hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene are not monitored). 

Frequencies 

The WFD indicates that, for the surveillance and operational monitoring of Priority Substances 

in water, the frequency of monitoring should be at least monthly for one year during the RBMP 
cycle  and  at  least  monthly  every  year,  respectively.  Monitoring  in  biota  for  status  assessment 

should  take  place  at  least  once  every  year  according  to  the  EQS  Directive.  MS  can  choose  to 
monitor less frequently for any matrix, provided they can justify greater intervals on the basis of 

technical knowledge and expert judgement. Monitoring frequencies were reported for 17 Priority 
Substances at site level in the Danube RBD, 15 in the Rhine RBD and nine in the Elbe RBD. All 

parameters  with  an  environmental  quality  standard  in  water  were  reported  to  be  monitored  at 
least  12  times  the  year(s)  they  were  monitored  (one  or  two  years  per  cycle),  which  is  in 

accordance with the minimum recommended frequency for surveillance but not for operational 
monitoring. According to WISE, the parameters with an environmental quality standard in biota 

were monitored once or twice per cycle. Austria clarified that the biota monitoring was carried 
out  once  in  each  monitoring  site,  which  is  below  the  minimum  recommended  frequency.  No 

explanation was provided for the reduced frequency. 

Monitoring for long-term trend assessment 

Requirements 

61 

 
Article 3(3) of the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009) requires Member States to monitor 
14 substances49 that tend to accumulate in  sediment  and/or biota, for the purpose of long-term 
trend assessment. Monitoring should take place at least once every three years, unless technical 

knowledge and expert judgment justify another interval.  

Spatial coverage 

In the Danube RBD all 14 relevant Priority Substances are reported to be monitored in biota / 
sediment  for  long-term  trends  in  river  water  bodies  but  no  such  substance  is  reported  to  be 
monitored in lakes50. Only five sampling locations are monitored for each substance hence the 
spatial  coverage  appears  to  be  very  limited.  No  long-term  trend  monitoring  is  reported  in 

sediment and/or biota in either of the other two RBDs. 

Frequencies 

Where  priority  substances  are  monitored  for  long-term  trends  (in  river  water  bodies  in  the 

Danube  RBD  only),  monitoring  is  reported  to  be  performed  once  every  three  years,  in 
accordance with the WFD.  

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.”  MS  are  therefore  required  to  monitor  all  Priority  Substances  which  are  discharged 

into the river basin or sub-basin.  

brominated 

diphenylether, 

49Anthracene, 
hexachlorobenzene, hexabutadiene, hexachlorocyclohexane, lead, mercury, pentachlorobenzene, PAH, Tributyltin.  
50  Austria  subsequently  informed  that  lakes  were  not  submitted  to  point  source  pressures  and  therefore  were  not 
covered by trend monitoring. However, trend monitoring should not be performed only where point sources have 
been identified (as diffuse sources may also exist), and consequently trend monitoring should be performed in lakes 
as well as in rivers.  

chloroalkanes,  DEHP, 

cadmium,  C10-13 

fluoranthene, 

62 

 
 
                                                      
Austria  reported  that  for  all  three  RBDs,  at  least  some  discharged  substances  were  not 

monitored.  This  was  the  case  for  chlorpyrifos  in  the  Danube  RBD,  nonylphenol  in  the  Rhine 
RBD  and  for  tributyltin  and  brominated  diphenylethers  in  the  Elbe  RBD.  This  seems  to  be  in 

contradiction with the requirement of the WFD. 

Performance of analytical methods used  

For  33  of  the  41  (groups  of)  Priority  Substances,  the  analytical  methods  meet  the  minimum 
performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/90/EC51, in all three RBDs. For 
the  remaining  eight  substances,  the  analytical  methods  complied  with  the  requirements  laid 
down in Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/90/EC in all RBDs (i.e. for these substances Austria used 

the best available analytical techniques not entailing excessive costs). 

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

quantification is as specified in Article 5 of Directive 2009/90/EC. 

1.2.13. Chemical Status of surface water bodies 

MS are required to report the year on which the assessment of chemical status was 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. In Austria, the 
chemical assessments were carried out in the period of 2010 to 2015 for all three RBDs, but the 

specific years have not been reported.  

The one-out-all-out approach was used for classification.  

The  chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Austria  for  the  second  RBMP  is  illustrated  in 
Map 4.1. This is based on the most recent assessment of status and shows that all surface water 

bodies were classified as failing to achieve good chemical status. 

The  assessment  of  chemical  status  for  the  second  RBMP  was  expected  to  be  based  on  the 
standards  laid  down  in  the  EQS  Directive  (version  in  force  on  13  January  200952).  Some 

51 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 
52   Directive  2013/39/EU,  which  amended  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive,  introduced  a  less 
stringent  annual  average  EQS  for  naphthalene  in  transitional  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.  

63 

 
                                                      
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 RBMPs53. 

53  According  to  the  European  Overview  on  the  Implementation  of  the  first  RBMP  “It  is  stated  in  the  [Austrian] 
RBMPs  that  the  priority  substances  and  other  pollutants  in  the  EQSD  were  used  in  the  assessment  of  chemical 
status.  The  chemical  pollution  by-law  in  force  at  the  time  of  the  RBMP  includes  national  standards  that  are  less 
stringent  than  those  in  the  EQSD  for  a  number  of  priority  substances.  In  addition,  the  following  substances  are 
missing: chloroalkanes, fluoranthene, nickel, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and tributyltin compounds (TBT).” 
This document is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/impl_reports.htm  

64 

 
 
 
                                                      
Map 4.1 

 Chemical status of surface water bodies in Austria 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  lakes  and  rivers  in  Austria  for  the  first  and  second  RBMP  is  given  in 
Table  4.1.  More  information  on  the  chemical  status  in  each  RBD  and  water  category  can  be 
found on the website of the European Environment Agency54. Table 4.1 shows that there was a 
considerable shift in status from good to failing to achieve good between the two  RBMPs. 

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

65 

GoodFailing to achieve to goodUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 4.1 Chemical status of surface water bodies in Austria for the second and first  RBMP. 

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 2008/105/EC (version in force on 13 January 2009). 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 

Lakes (62) 

Rivers (8 065) 

Total  (8127) 

First RBMP 

Lakes (62) 

Rivers (7 339) 

Total (7401) 

Good 

Failing to achieve 
good 

Unknown 

Number 

% 

Number 

% 

Number 

% 

62 

8 065 

8127 

100% 

100% 

100% 

62 

7 299 

7361 

100% 

99% 

99.5% 

18 

18 

0.2% 

0.2% 

22 

22 

0.3% 

0.3 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The considerable change in chemical status between the first and second RBMP is attributable to 

the assessment of mercury in biota in the second RBMP. This change in status therefore results 
from a more accurate assessment of status in the second RBMP. 

Figure 4.3 shows the confidence in the classification of chemical status for the  second RBMP. 
Almost  all  of  the  classifications  were  given  a  low  level  of  confidence55.  Confidence  in  the 
classification  of  chemical  status  for  the  first  RBMP  was  generally  not  reported  by  Member 
States56. 

55  Austria  subsequently  informed  that  this  is  a  reporting  error  and  that  at  national  level  all  chemical  status 
assessments without monitoring (by grouping) have medium confidence. 
56   Austria subsequently stated that for the first RBMP the confidence in the classification was reported. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.3 

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

Austria based on the most recently assessed status/potential  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

In  Austria  as  a  whole,  98  %  of  water  bodies  were  classified  for  chemical  status  with  low 

confidence  and  1.2  %  with  high  confidence.  All  lake  water  bodies  and  98  %  of  river  water 
bodies were classified with low confidence and only 1.2 % of river water bodies were classified 
with  high  confidence57.  Austria  subsequently  clarified  that  a  medium  level  of  confidence  is 
associated  to  the  assessment  of  chemical  status  when  omitting  ubiquitous,  persistent 

bioaccumulative and toxic substances. Figure 4.4 compares the chemical status of surface water 
bodies in Austria for the first RBMP with that for the second RBMP (based on the most recent 

assessment  of  status)  and  that  expected  by  2015.  This  again  illustrates  the  marked  change  in 
status between the first and second RBMPs. The status given in the second RBMP is identical to 

the status expected in 2015. 

57  As  mentioned  above,  Austria  stated  that  this  is  a  reporting  error  and  that  at  national  level  all  chemical  status 
assessments without monitoring (by grouping) have medium confidence. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.4 

Chemical  status  of surface water bodies in Austria  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 2010 to  2015. The year of the 
assessment of status for the first RBMP is not known 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

As  mentioned  above,  the  considerable  change  in  chemical  status  between  the  first  and  second 
RBMP results in particular from a more accurate assessment of status (assessment of mercury in 

biota). 

Directive  2013/39/EU  amended  the  EQS  Directive.  In  particular,  it  set  more  stringent 
environmental quality standards for seven substances58. MS were required to indicate if the new 
standards caused the status of the surface water bodies to appear to deteriorate. This was not the 

case in Austria.  

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

Quality  Standards,  unless  MS  apply  exemptions  under  WFD  article  4(4)  or  less  stringent 
objectives under WFD article 4(5). 

Member  States  were  asked  to  report  the  expected  date  for  the  achievement  of  good  chemical 
status. The information for Austria is shown in Figure 4.5. Good chemical status of surface water 

bodies is expected to be achieved by the end of the third planning cycle in the Rhine and Elbe 
RBDs.  However  it  is  expected  that  this  will  not  be  achieved  in  15  river  water  bodies  in  the 

Danube RBD, which represents only 0.19 % of water bodies in the Danube RBD and 0.18 % of 
all water bodies in Austria as a whole. 

58  Anthracene,  Brominated  diphenylether,  Fluoranthene,  Lead  and  its  compounds,  Naphthalene,  Nickel  and  its 
compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 

68 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.5 

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

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Priority substances causing the failure of good chemical status 

Member  States  were  expected  to  report  exceedances  based  on  the  revised,  more  stringent 
Environmental Quality Standards from Directive 2013/39/EU. For Austria, as mentioned earlier, 
no change in status is expected because of these standards, compared to the initial standards. 

The substance causing the greatest proportion of water bodies to fail good chemical status was 
mercury (99.5 %). It appears that this substance was monitored for the first time in biota during 

the  first  cycle  2010-2015,  and  monitoring  results  in  biota  (which  showed  systematic 
exceedances) were then  extrapolated to  non monitored waterbodies. This  possibly  explains the 

considerable  difference  in  classification  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs.  The  “top” 
substances causing failure in terms of the proportion of water bodies are shown in  Figure 4.6 – 

besides mercury there were only a few more substances of small significance. For surface water 
bodies, the largest proportion of exceedances were for the annual average (AA) environmental 

quality  standard  in  biota  for  mercury  (99.4  %).  There  was  no  exceedance  for  the  maximum 
environmental  concentration  environmental  quality  standard  for  any  substance  (for  the 

substances other than mercury the AA EQS was reported as being exceeded). 

In the  Danube RBD several  Priority Substances  which were causing failure  in  the first  RBMP 

were  reported  to  have  reached  concentrations  below  their  environmental  quality  standards  in 
several  waterbodies  in  the  second  RBMP.  The  proportions  of  river  water  bodies  where  such 

69 

 
 
 
improvements happened were relatively small in comparison to the total number of river water 

bodies, but seem significant in relation to the proportion of waterbodies where these substances 
were failing. Improvements were identified in 0.21 % of river water bodies for benzo(a)pyrene; 

0.17 % of river water bodies for cadmium; 0.14 % of river water bodies for lead; 0.12 % of river 
waterbodies  for  tributyltin-cation  and  0.03  %  of  river  waterbodies  for  hexachlorobenzene. 

Improvements  in  chemical  status  were  not  reported  for  the  other  two  RBDs.  (Austria  clarified 
that all water bodies were already assessed as in good status in this area in the first RBMPs).  

70 

 
 
 
Figure 4.6 

The top Priority Substances causing failure to achieve good chemical status in 

surface water bodies in Austria  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances 

According to article 8(a) of the EQS Directive59, eight priority substances and groups of priority 
substances  are  behaving  like  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulable  and  toxic  substances60. 
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, MS have the possibility to 
present the information related to chemical status separately for these substances.  

These ubiquitous, persistent and bioaccumulable subtances have a very significant influence on 
the  overall  chemical  status  in  Austria,  as  mercury  is  causing  failure  in  all  waterbodies.  When 

mercury  is  omitted,  more  than  99  %  of  waterbodies  are  assessed  as  being  in  good  chemical 
status.  This  is  illustrated  in  the  2018  State  of  Water  report  of  the  European  Environment 
Agency61. 

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

All 41 Priority Substances are reported as being taken into account in the assessment of chemical 
status in all three RBDs in Austria. 

59   Amended by Directive 2013/39/EU. 
60   Brominated diphenylether, Mercury and its compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), Tributyltin,  PFOS, 
dioxins, hexabromocyclodecane and heptachlor. 
61  https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water (p. 40-41 of the report).  

71 

 
 
 
                                                      
Austria  reported  that  in  the  Danube  RBD,  29  of  the  41  Priority  Substances  used  in  the 

assessment  of  chemical  status  were  monitored.  The  following  substances  were  used  in  the 
status  but  not  monitored:  benzene,  pentachlorophenol,  octylphenol, 
assessment  of 

chlorfenvinphos,  trifluralin,  chlorpyrifos,  trichlorobenzenes  (all  isomers),  all  cyclodiene 
pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, isodrin), and DDT (total DDT and DDT-p,p’)62 . 

In  the  Rhine  RBD,  27  of  the  41  Priority  Substances  were  used  in  the  assessment  of  chemical 
status  and  were  monitored.  DDT,  p,p',  benzene,  pentachlorophenol,  4-nonylphenol,  di(2-

chlorpyrifos, 
ethylhexyl)phthalate 
trichlorobenzenes  (all  isomers)  were  used  in  the  assessment  of  chemical  status  but  were  not 
monitored63. 

(DEHP),  octylphenol, 

chlorfenvinphos, 

trifluralin, 

For  the  Elbe  RBD,  22  of  the  41  Priority  Substances  were  used  in  the  assessment  of  chemical 

status  and  were  monitored.  Benzene,  hexachlorobutadiene,  pentachlorophenol,  4-nonylphenol, 
(DEHP),  octylphenol,  chlorfenvinphos,  hexachlorocyclohexane, 
di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 

pentachlorobenzene,  trifluralin,  chlorpyrifos,  trichlorobenzenes  (all  isomers),  tributyltin-cation, 
all  cyclodiene  pesticides  (aldrin,  dieldrin,  endrin,  isodrin),  DDT  (total  DDT  and  DDT-p,p’), 
brominated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154) were used in  the 
assessment of chemical status but not monitored64.  

No information was found on how the substances mentioned above were taken into account in 

the assessment of status, in the absence of monitoring in the matrix for which an environmental 
quality standard exists. 

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

According  to  the  EQS  Directive,  MS  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 other matrix (or matrices) offers at 

least the same level of protection as the standard established in the Directive. 

Austria reported that all the environmental quality standards laid down in Part A of Annex I of 

the  EQS  Directive  had  been  applied  to  assess  the  chemical  status  of  surface  waterbodies. 
Alternative and/or additional standards for particular Priority Substances had therefore not been 

applied. 

62   Austria stated that for all these parameters monitoring data are available, either in biota or in sediment. It seems 
however  that  the  data  available  would  be  intended  for  trend  assessment  and  not  used  for  status  assessment,  as 
Austria did not derive any environmental quality standards in these matrices for these substances. 
63   See footnote above. 
64   See footnote above. 

72 

 
                                                      
Using of mixing zones 

Article  4  of  the  EQS  Directive  provides  MS  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.  MS  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  were  designated  under  Article  4  of  the  EQS  Directive  for  all  three  RBDs  in 

Austria.  Austria  stated  that,  for  all  three  RBDs,  the  methodology  for  designation  of  Mixing 
Zones does not follow the tiered approach as laid down in the 'Technical Background Document 

on  Identification  of  Mixing  Zones'.  However  links  to  documents  providing  details  of  the 
alternative approach used are provided. 

Background Concentrations and Bioavailability 

The EQS Directive stipulates that MS 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. 

Natural  background  concentrations  for  metals  were  taken  into  consideration  where  such 
concentrations prevent compliance with the relevant environmental quality standards in all three 

RBDs. 

In  assessing  results  against  the  relevant  environmental  quality  standards,  water  quality 

parameters that affect the bioavailability of metals (such as pH), were taken into account. This 
was the case in all three RBDs.  

4.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle 

In comparison to monitoring for chemical status in the first RBMP, there has been a reduction in 
monitoring for lakes (13 sites and 10 water bodies reported in the first RBMP). To explain this 
reduction, Austria mentioned that they used the possibility offered in WFD, Annex V, 1.3.1, to 
monitor  certain  waterbodies  every  three  cycles,  when  “the  previous  surveillance  monitoring 

73 

 
exercise showed that the body concerned reached good status and there is no evidence from the 

review  of  impact  of  human  activity  in  Annex  II  that  the  impacts  on  the  body  have  changed”. 
Overall,  the  number  of  sites  used  to  monitor  priority  substances  decreased  between  the  first 

RBMP (186 sites reported) and the second RBMP (127 sites reported). 

Overall, between the two RBMPs there was a large decrease in the proportion of surface water 

bodies with good chemical status from 99.5 % to 0 % and a significant increase in the proportion 
failing to achieve good status from 0.2 % to 100 %. This pattern occurred across all three RBDs 

and all Natural/Heavily Modified/Artificial water body categories. The reason for this difference 
is the assessment of mercury in biota in the second RBMP, leading to assessments of widespread 

failure  of  good  chemical  status  in  water  bodies.  It  therefore  reflects  the  more  accurate 
assessment of status in the second RBMP. 

4.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  The  assessment  of  chemical  status  should  be  based  on  all  the 
substances  listed  in  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive,  and  on  the 
environmental  quality  standards  listed  in  that  Directive,  unless  equivalently  protective 

environmental quality standards are derived.  

Assessment:  Austria  reported  that  all  the  environmental  quality  standards  laid  down  in 

Part A of Annex I of the EQS Directive had been applied to assess the chemical status 
surface  waterbodies,  and  that  alternative  and/or  additional  standards  for  particular 
Priority Substances had not been applied. Austria also reported to have used all Priority 

Substances  in  the  assessment.  However  several  substances  (including  some  discharged 
substances) were not reported to be monitored or were monitored in a matrix for which 

no  corresponding  environmental  quality  standards  existed.  Progress  has  therefore  been 
made towards meeting the requirements of this recommendation, however it could not be 

determined how the chemical  status  was assessed for substances (especially discharged 
substances) when not monitored/ monitored in a matrix with no corresponding standard. 

  Recommendation:  Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  should  be 
monitored in biota for comparison with the biota standards in the Environmental Quality 
Standards  Directive,  unless  water  environmental  quality  standards  providing  an 
equivalent  level  of  protection  are  derived.  Trend  monitoring  in  sediment  or  biota  for 
several  substances as specified in  Directive 2008/105/EC  Article 3(3) will  also  need to 
be reflected in the next RBMP. 

74 

 
Assessment:  Austria  reported  monitoring  data  for  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 

hexachlorobutadiene in biota (fish) for status assessment at a small number of sites in the 
Danube  RBD  and  in  the  Rhine  RBD.  In  the  Elbe,  mercury  is  monitored  in  the  water 

column only for status assessment (hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene are not 
monitored). 

In the Danube RBD all 14 relevant Priority Substances are reported to be monitored for 
long-term  trends  in  river  water  bodies  but  no  such  substances  are  reported  to  be 

monitored in lakes. Only five sampling locations are monitored for each substance hence 
the spatial coverage appears to be very limited. No long-term trend analysis is reported in 

sediment and/or biota in either of the other two RBDs. 

Progress  has  therefore  been  made  in  meeting  this  recommendation  and  it  is  partially 

fulfilled. 

75 

 
 
Topic  5  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  quantitative 
status of groundwater bodies 

5.1.  Assessment of  implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in second cycle 

5.1.1.  Monitoring of quantitative status in groundwater 

The number of groundwater bodies increased by 1.5 % from 136 in the first RBMP to 138 in the 

second RBMP, and the total groundwater body area increased by 0.1 %. 136 groundwater bodies 
remained unchanged since the first cycle (Table 2.2). 17 groundwater bodies were not subject to 

monitoring for quantitative status (Table 5.1, Table 5.2). This means that 12.3 % of groundwater 
bodies were not monitored for quantitative status. In the Elbe and Rhine RBDs, all groundwater 

bodies  were  subject  to  quantitative  monitoring;  in  the  Danube  113  out  of  130  groundwater 
bodies were subject to quantitative monitoring (87 %). 

Grouping  of  groundwater  bodies  by  hydrogeology  or  administrative/planning  boundaries  was 
applied in all RBDs, creating 66 groups each attributed to one of three aquifer types. 

The number of monitoring sites for quantitative status in the second cycle was reported as 4 169 

(Table  5.3).  This  is  an  increase  of  786  from  the  first  RBMP.  The  reason  is  that  for  the  first 
RBMP only monitoring sites used for the risk analysis were reported. For the second RBMP all 

existing monitoring sites were reported. 

102 of the 138 groundwater bodies were identified as Drinking Water Protected Areas, allocated 

in  all  RBDs.  In  the  Danube  RBD,  95  out  of  130  groundwater  bodies  were  Drinking  Water 
Protected Areas; in the Rhine RBD this was six out of seven and in the Elbe RBD it was one out 

of one. 

Table5.1 

RBD 

AT1000 

AT2000 

AT5000 

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

Total groundwater 
bodies directly 
monitored 

127 

7 

1 

Monitoring Purpose 

CHE - Chemical status 

QUA – Quantitative status 

126 

7 

1 
Source: WISE electronic reports 

113 

7 

1 

76 

 
 
 
 
Table 5.2 

Proportion of groundwater bodies in Austria monitored for quantitative status 

RBD 

AT1000 

AT2000 

AT5000 

No of groundwater bodies 
with quantitative monitoring 

Total No. groundwater 
bodies 

% of total groundwater bodies 
monitored for quantitative status 

113 

7 

1 

130 

7 

1 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

86.92% 

100% 

100% 

Table 5.3 

Number of groundwater monitoring sites in Austria and their purpose  

RBD 

AT1000 

AT2000 

AT5000 

Total groundwater 
monitoring sites 

5 718 

437 

21 

Monitoring Purpose 

CHE - Chemical status 

QUA - Quantitative status 

1 921 

72 

14 
Source: WISE electronic reports 

3 797 

365 

7 

5.1.2.  Assessment and classification of quantitative status for groundwater 

Map 5.1 and Figure 5.1 illustrate the most recently assessed quantitative status of groundwater 
bodies. All groundwater bodies met good quantitative status in both the first and second RBMP.  

Figure  5.2  shows  that  with  the  exception  of  7  %  of  groundwater  bodies  there  was  high 

confidence  in  status  classification.  All  groundwater  bodies  had  a  high  confidence  in  status  in 
both  the  first  and  second  RBMPs.  17  groundwater  bodies  were  not  subject  to  monitoring  for 
quantitative status and it is unclear how their status was determined65. 

Water  balance  was  assessed  in  all  three  river  basin  districts.  The  criterion  of  ‘available 

groundwater  resource’  was  fully  applied  in  all  river  basin  districts  in  accordance  with  WFD 
Article 2(27). All environmental objectives were considered in the status assessment. 

In total, two groundwater bodies were at risk of failing good quantitative status, and for both the 
risk is attributed to uses/functions. 

65 Austria subsequently clarified that where no monitoring sites were available; the status assessment was based on 
the water balance test assessment, but it is still unclear how this was carried out without monitoring data. 

77 

 
 
                                                      
 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) 

78 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
  
Figure 5.1  Quantitative status of groundwater bodies in Austria for the second RBMP, for 

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

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

Expected good status in
2015

Second plan (138)

First plan (136)

Expected good status in
2015

Second plan (138)

First plan (136)

100% 

100% 

100% 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage of GWB 

Good

Poor

Unknown

Not good

100% 

100% 

100% 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage of GWB 

Good

Poor

Unknown

Not good

Source: WISE electronic reports 

79 

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

Austria based on the most recent assessment of status  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

5.1.3.  Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

The assessment of linkages with surface water bodies in each of the RBDs was not reported and 
was  included  in  the  Annex  0.  Austria  stated  that  the  status  of  the  surface  water  bodies  were 

assessed;  subsequently,  for  the  surface  water  bodies  which  were  not  at  good  status  it  was 
assessed if the associated groundwater body had a negative impact  on the surface  water body. 

There were no instances where the associated  groundwater body  was relevant  for the status  of 
the associated surface water body and therefore Austria did not establish an overall inventory of 

groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems.  

80  groundwater  bodies  are  directly  linked  with  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems, 

and these were considered in the status assessment in all RBDs. For groundwater bodies in the 
Danube RBD, damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems is causing risk of failure. 

The needs of terrestrial ecosystems were considered in the status assessment in all RBDs. 

5.2.   Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

All groundwater bodies met good quantitative status in both the first and second RBMP.  

80 

 
 
 
 
The number of monitoring sites for quantitative status in the second cycle was reported as 4 169 

in  which  was  an  increase  of  786  from  the  first  RBMP  (as  mentioned  above,  due  to  partial 
reporting in the first RBMP).  

5.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

topic.  

81 

 
 
 
Topic 6 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status 
of groundwater bodies 

6.1.  Assessment of  implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in second cycle 

1.2.14. Monitoring of chemical status in groundwater 

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Austria  is  138  (Table  2.2),  of  which  134  were 

monitored for chemical status (Table 5.1), which is 97 % of groundwater bodies. The number of 
monitoring  sites  is  displayed  in  Table  5.3,  there  was  a  total  of  2 007  monitoring  sites  for 

chemical status in groundwater. 

Groundwater bodies were grouped into 66 groups for the monitoring and assessment of chemical 

status, based on hydrogeology and administrative/planning boundaries.  

It  is  unclear  based  on  the  reported  information  whether  all  the  core  parameters  are  subject  to 
monitoring, specifically oxygen, conductivity and pH66. 

1.2.15. 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  134  of  138  groundwater  bodies  (97  %)  were  of  good  chemical 
status, and the remaining four groundwater bodies were poor status. In terms of area this means 

that about 3 % is failing to meet good chemical status. Figure 6.1 also shows that the percentage 
of groundwater bodies at good status has declined slightly since the first cycle. 

Figure 6.2 shows that the confidence in the status assessment was primarily high, with less than 
10 % of water bodies classified with medium confidence. 

66  Austria  clarified  that  all  WFD  core  parameters  are  subject  to  monitoring  at  all  2007  groundwater  monitoring 
sites. 

82 

 
                                                      
Map 6.1 

Map  of  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Austria  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) 

83 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
Figure 6.1 

Chemical status of groundwater bodies in Austria for the second RBMP, for 

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

assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2012-2014. The years of the 
assessment of status for the first RBMP was 2006-2008   

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Figure 6.2 

Confidence in the classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies in 

Austria. 138 groundwater bodies delineated for second RBMP. 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

84 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6.3 displays the reasons for failing good chemical status. In all cases this was attributed to 

failing  the  general  water  quality  assessment.  More  specifically,  in  all  four  failing  groundwater 
bodies  failure  is  attributed  to  nitrate  (Figure  6.4).  In  one  groundwater  body  failure  is  also 

attributed to deisopropyldeethylatrazine. 

Figure 6.3 

Reasons  for  failing  good  chemical  status  in  Austria  for  the  most  recent 

assessment of status 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

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. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.4 Top groundwater pollutants causing failure of good chemical status in Austria  

Source: WISE electronic reports  
Note: only 2 pollutants reported causing failure. 

Natural background levels have been considered in the assessment of status, but not in threshold 
value  establishment.  Assessment  of  upward  trends  was  undertaken  in  all  the  Rhine  and  Elbe 

RBD groundwater bodies, with only nitrate displaying such a trend (Figure 6.5). 

Figure  6.6  shows  the  percentage  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Austria  at  risk  of  failing  good 

chemical status and good quantitative status for the second RBMP. 18 groundwater bodies were 
at risk of failing to meet good chemical status (13 %) and all of them are subject to operational 

monitoring.  For  the  Danube  RBD  it  was  reported  to  WISE  that  there  were  point  source 
pollutants that were causing risk of failure of good chemical status, for which threshold values 
have not been established67. 

67  Austria subsequently clarified that for all pollutants causing risk of failure good chemical status threshold values 
do exist. 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 6.5  Top pollutants with upward trends in groundwater bodies in Austria  

Source: WISE electronic reports Note: only one pollutant identified as having an upward trend. 

Figure 6.6 

Percentage of groundwater bodies in Austria at risk of failing good chemical 
status and good quantitative status for the second RBMP  

B
W
G

f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

13% 

1% 

Chemical

Quantitative

Source:  WISE electronic reports  

1.2.16. Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/  or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

No  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  were  reported.  The  assessment  of  linkages  with 

surface water bodies in each of the RBDs was not reported but was included in Annex 0. It was 
reported  that  surface  water  bodies  have  been  considered  in  the  assessment  of  chemical  status. 

Annex 0 reported that firstly the status of the surface water bodies was assessed; subsequently 
for  those  surface  water  bodies  which  were  not  in  good  status  it  was  assessed  if  the  associated 

groundwater body had a negative impact on the surface water body.  

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
There  were  77  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  in  the  Danube  RBD,  two  in  the 

Rhine  RBD,  and  one  in  the  Elbe  RBD.  Groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  were 
considered  in  the  status  assessments,  but  it  was  reported  that  the  protection  of  groundwater 
dependent terrestrial ecosystems was not considered in the establishment of threshold values68. It 
was reported that two groundwater bodies within the Danube RBD were at risk of failing good 
chemical status related to surface water or terrestrial ecosystems69. 

6.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

The number of groundwater bodies at poor chemical status increased from three in the first cycle 

to  four  in  the  second  cycle.  These  all  lie  within  the  Danube  RBD,  where  the  total  number  of 
groundwater bodies increased from 128 to 130. 

6.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

topic.  

68 Austria commented subsequently that this could be a reporting error. 
69 Austria clarified that there is no risk related to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems.   

88 

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

7.1.  Assessment of  implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in second cycle for designation  

1.2.17. Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies 

7.8 % of total water bodies in the second RBMP were designated as heavily modified and 1.3 % 

as artificial. The WFD requires  a  review of designation every six  years.  As noted below, only 
few changes have been noted in the designation of river and lake heavily modified and artificial 

water bodies since the first RBMP. 

Figure  7.1  shows  the  proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category  that  are  designated  as 

heavily modified or artificial.  

Figure 7.1 

Proportion of total water bodies in each category in Austria that have  been 

designated as heavily modified or artificial  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

In the Danube and Rhine RBDs, there were 13  reservoirs that were originally rivers and  eight 
reservoirs that were originally lakes.  

The water uses for which river water bodies were designated as heavily modified were mainly 
hydropower  production  and  flood  protection.  Some  heavily  modified  river  water  bodies  were 
designated due to navigation, storage for fisheries and tourism. The main physical alterations of 

89 

 
 
heavily  modified  river  water  bodies  were  channelisation/straightening/bed  stabilisation/bank 

reinforcement  and  weirs/dams/reservoirs.  Lake  heavily  modified  water  bodies  were  designated 
due to hydropower and mainly affected by weirs/dams/reservoirs. 

The  approach  for  the  designation  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  and  artificial  water  bodies 
followed the same national methodology as in the first cycle. 

The  significant  adverse  effects  of  restoration  measures  on  the  use  and  the  wider  environment 
under  Article  4(3)(a),  were  defined  in  a  background  document  on  the  designation  of  heavily 

modified  water  bodies  and  artificial  water  bodies,  which  was  also  used  in  the  first  RBMP. 
Criteria  for  the  significant  adverse  effects  were  provided  but  no  specific  thresholds  for  the 

criteria are established: for example, criteria in the case of hydropower include loss or reduction 
of  electricity  production,  loss  or  reduction  of  peak  electricity  generation,  loss  of  control  and 

reserve  capacity,  reduction  of  the  regional  or  national  energy  security;  in  the  case  of  flood 
protection: increase of flood risk, reduction in value of real estate, endangerment of bed stability, 

reduction of the agricultural production area; and, in the case of tourism and recreation: loss or 
reduction of bathing sites or water sports opportunities. 

According  to  the  background  document  on  the  designation  of  heavily  modified  water 

bodies/artificial water bodies, checks were made as to whether the beneficial objectives served 
by  the  modifications  of  the  heavily  modified  water  bodies  could  be  achieved  by  other  means, 

which would have been a better environmental option. There were no further details as to how 
this check was performed, except for the case of hydropower installations for which more details 

are  given  in  the  background  document  on  the  designation  of  heavily  modified  water 
bodies/artificial  water  bodies;  for  hydropower,  in  specific,  three  screening  questions  are 
provided for performing the assessment of other means70. 

1.2.18. Definition  of  Good  Ecological  Potential  for  Heavily  Modified  and  Artificial  Water 

Bodies 

Good  ecological  potential  was  reported  as  defined  at  water  body  level  in  all  three  RBDs.  The 

approach used for good ecological potential definition in all three RBDs is a hybrid combining 
elements  of  the  CIS  Guidance  and  the  Prague  approach,  although  good  ecological  potential  is 

also reported to have been defined in terms of biology in all three RBDs. The biological quality 
elements for which biological values have been derived to define maximum and good ecological 

potential are phytobenthos, macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish. A comparison between 

70  Can  hydropower  production  be  moved  to  another  water  stretch?  Can  the  electricity  production  (baseload)  be 
replaced by another renewable energy form or by electricity savings? Can peak electricity production be replaced by 
another form of energy? 

90 

 
                                                      
good ecological potential and good ecological status has been made in all three RBDs. Possible 

biological  quality  element  values  were  estimated  for  different  types  of  hydromorpologically 
modified  water  bodies.  The  definition  of  good  ecological  potential  on  the  basis  of  biological 

quality elements is based on the same approach as for ecological status for phytobenthos, benthic 
invertebrates  and  fish,  with  some  adaptations.  Macrophytes  were  mentioned  as  usually  not 

applicable, as many river types are naturally lacking macrophytes, and therefore not used or very 
restrictively used. 

For rivers, methods  for assessing fish, benthic invertebrates and macrophytes were reported as 
sensitive to altered habitats due to morphological and hydrological changes. For lakes, methods 

for assessing fish and macrophytes were reported to sensitive to hydromorphological changes. 

Several  mitigation  measures  for  defining  good  ecological  potential  have  been  reported  in  all 

three  RBDs.  The  ecological  changes  expected  due  to  the  mitigation  measures  are  described  in 
the guidance document for assessing good ecological potential in heavily modified water bodies, 

in  terms  of  a  general  approach.  The  application  of  the  mitigation  measures  is  water  body 
specific. The ecological benefits/changes of the measures are assessed using in particular fish as 
a  criterion  and  if  relevant,  also  benthic  invertebrates  are  used.  For  several  species  and  age 

groups,  a  five  point  assessment  scale  is  used  (1  to  5,  5  being  the  highest  possible  quality 
improvement  of  the  aspect),  using  experience  and  expert  knowledge  for  evaluation.  Austrian 

authorities have informed that as the definition of the mitigation measures necessary to achieve 
GEP  (without  significant  effect  on  the  use  or  wider  environment  as  well  as  providing  a 

significant ecological improvement) needs detailed planning for each HMWB, this could not be 
done during the first RBMP due to the high number of water bodies, lack of administrative and 

planning capacities, knowledge gaps etc. For this reason, nearly all HMWB in the first RBMP 
were classified to be at less than good ecological status. 

7.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

Only some changes are noted in the designation of river and lake heavily modified water bodies 

and  artificial  water  bodies  between  the  first  and  the  second  RBMP.  Especially  in  the  Rhine 
RBD, the number of heavily modified river water bodies increased from 45 to 74 (the length of 

river heavily modified water bodies also increased from 213 to 345km). 

An  assessment  has  been  performed  whether  the  existing  heavily  modified  water  bodies  and 

artificial  water  bodies  still  fulfil  the  criteria  for  designation,  and  whether  other  water  bodies 
which were formerly not designated as heavily modified water bodies or artificial water bodies 
should  be  designated  in  the  second  RBMP.  This  assessment  resulted  in  58  newly  designated 

91 

 
heavily  modified  water  bodies  in  total.  However,  no  explanation  is  provided  why  the  58 

additional water bodies have been newly designated, except for an overall explanation covering 
all heavily modified water bodies. 

The guidance document for assessing good ecological potential in heavily modified water bodies 
outlines  the  changes  that  were  made  to  the  methodology  in  relation  to  the  first  RBMP.  It 

describes 
lakes,  detailing  physico-chemical, 
hydromorphological  and  biological  quality  elements,  hydromorphological  characteristics  under 

the  approach 

rivers  and 

in  detail 

for 

which  good  ecological  potential  can  be  achieved,  and  how  a  ‘measures  approach’  to  good 
ecological potential is being followed. A key change for both rivers and lakes seems to be the 

inclusion  of  biological  quality  elements  other  than  fish,  and  the  inclusion  of  physico-chemical 
and hydromorphological quality elements. 

7.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  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  RBMP.  This  is  needed  to  ensure 
transparency of the designation process. 

Assessment: A background document provides information  and criteria for the analysis 
of  significant  adverse  effects  of  restoration  measures  on  all  uses  relevant  to  the 
designation  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies.  There  is  also  information  provided  on 

checking  whether  beneficial  objectives  served  by  the  modifications  of  the  heavily 
modified  water  bodies  can  be  achieved  by  other  means.  However,  the  screening 

questions  mentioned  only  address  hydropower  installations.  Although  information  on 
these assessments is given in the methodological document, specific information on the 

outcome  of  the  assessment  of  significant  adverse  effects  and  better  environmental 
options was not found on water body level. 

Therefore, the recommendation is considered as partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  (report  2015)  Work in  the next RBMP to  improve the revision of  the 
designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies and methodologies for establishing Good 

Environmental  Potential.  Water  Bodies  below  storage  lakes  or  dams  for  hydropower 

92 

 
production  are  automatically  classified  as  heavily  modified  water  bodies  according  to 

the  Austrian  RBMP  provisions.  There  are  a  significant  number  of  water  bodies  with 
water  flow  and  morphological  alterations  due  to  hydropower  plants  (nearly  56  %  of 

waterbodies). 

Assessment:  For  issues  concerning  the  designation  of  HMWB,  refer  to  the  previous 

recommendation.   

Concerning  the  methodology  for  establishing  good  ecological  potential,  improvements 

have been reported since the first RBMP. A key change for both rivers and lakes seems 
to  be  the  inclusion  of  biological  quality  elements  other  than  fish,  and  the  inclusion  of 

physicochemical  and  hydromorphological  quality  elements.  In  addition,  the  ecological 
benefits/changes  of  the  mitigation  measures  for  defining  good  ecological  potential  are 

assessed using in particular fish as a criterion and if relevant, also benthic invertebrates 
are used. For several species and age groups, a five point assessment scale is used (1 to 5, 

5  being  the  highest  possible  quality  improvement  of  the  aspect),  using  experience  and 
expert knowledge for evaluation. 

Therefore, the part of the recommendation referring to good ecological potential seems to 

have  been  fulfilled,  although  it  cannot  be  concluded  whether  the  methodological 
development of good ecological potential has been finalised. 

93 

 
 
 
Topic 8 Environmental objectives and exemptions 

8.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in second cycle 

8.1.1.  Environmental objectives 

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

Article  4(1)  defines  the  WFD  general  objective  to  be  achieved  in  all  surface  and  groundwater 
bodies,  that  is,  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  201571),  groundwater  (good  chemical  and  quantitative  status  by  2015),  and 
for  Protected  Areas  (achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  associated  Directive  by  2015  unless 
otherwise specified).  

Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status in surface waters were reported in 
all  RBDs,  through  tables72  for  each  water  body  (separate  tables  for  groundwater,  lakes,  and 
rivers).  There  is  a  clear  indication  in  the  RBMP  of  the  year  in  which  the  objectives  will  be 
reached (2015, 2021, or 2027).  

Member States are also required to specify additional environmental objectives and standards in 
Protected Areas where these were required to ensure the requirements of the associated Directive 

are met. An assessment of such additional objectives for Austria is provided under Chapter 15 of 
this report. 

Assessments  of  the  current  status  of  surface  and  groundwater  bodies  in  Austria  are  provided 
elsewhere  in  this  report:  for  ecological  status/potential  of  surface  waters  in  Chapter  3;  for 

chemical status of surface waters in Chapter 4; for quantitative status of groundwater bodies in 
Chapter 5; for chemical status of groundwater bodies in Chapter 6; and for status of surface and 

groundwater bodies associated with Protected Areas in Chapter 15. 

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

summarised for Austria elsewhere in this report: For ecological status/potential of surface waters 

71 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. 
72   https://www.bmnt.gv.at/wasser/wisa/fachinformation/ngp/ngp-2015.html  

94 

 
                                                      
in  Chapter  3;  for  chemical  status  of  surface  waters  in  Chapter  4;  for  quantitative  status  of 

groundwater bodies in Chapter 5; and for chemical status of groundwater bodies in Chapter 6.  

8.1.2.  Exemptions 

Where  environmental  objectives  are  not  yet  achieved  exemptions  can  be  applied  in  case  the 
respective conditions are met and the required justifications are explained in the RBMP. Figure 

8.1 summarises the percentage of water bodies expected to be at least in good status in 2015 and 
the use of at least one exemption for the four main sets of environmental objectives. 

Figure 8.1 

Water bodies in Austria 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 under certain conditions for different exemptions to the objectives: 
An extension of deadlines beyond 2015, less stringent objectives, a temporary deterioration, or 

deterioration / non-achievement of good status / potential due to new modifications, provided a 
set  of  conditions  is  fulfilled.  The  exemptions  under  WFD  Article  4  include  the  provisions  in 

Article  4(4)  -  extension  of  deadline,  Article  4(5)  -  lower  objectives,  Article  4(6)  -  temporary 
deterioration,  and  Article  4(7)  -  new  modifications  /  new  sustainable  human  development 

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

95 

 
 
Figure  8.2  summarises  the  percentage  of  water  bodies  subject  to  each  type  of  exemption  (and 

reason) in relation to the four types of environmental objectives in Austria. 

Figure 8.2 

Type of exemptions reported to be applied to surface water and groundwater 

bodies  for  the  second  RBMP  in  Austria.  Note:  Ecological  status  and 
groundwater quantitative status exemptions were reported at the water body 

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

waters for each Priority Substances that is causing failure of good chemical 
status. No data were reported for groundwaters. 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

96 

 
 
 
Application of Article 4(4) 

Article  4(4)  has  been  applied  in  the  first  cycle  and  is  applied  also  in  the  second  cycle.  For 

groundwater, only exemptions in the Danube RBD are applied. It is unclear if these exemptions 
have been justified under Article 4(4) or Article 4(5). 

As  in  2010,  the  exemptions  according  to  Article  4(4)  in  surface  waters  were  applied  due  to 
technical  feasibility,  disproportionate  costs  and  natural  conditions.  Disproportionate  costs  are 

justified by affordability, distribution of costs and cost effectiveness analyses in all RBDs. For 
groundwater, technical feasibility/technical infeasibility has not been used as an argument. 

Austria reported for each water body which justification is being applied, but without providing 
more detailed justifications. In many cases three reasons were indicated: disproportionate costs; 

technical feasibility; and natural conditions.  

The  RBMP  provides  information  about  the  application  of  exemptions.  However,  no  clear  and 

consistent justifications were reported on how exemptions are being defined.  

Furthermore, there is no justification as to why the scale of improvements required under Article 
4(4)  can  only  be  achieved  in  phases  exceeding  the  timescale.  In  the  RBMP,  there  are  very 

general  explanations  why  it  is  technically  infeasible  to  reach  the  objectives  in  time,  e.g.  the 
number  of  barriers/installations,  uncertainty  regarding  available  funds,  uncertainty  about 

financing  through  local  actors/municipalities,  and  low  prices  for  electricity,  and  hence  low 
amortisation  for  investments  in  small  hydropower.  It  is  also  explained  why  certain  areas  have 

pollution problems that cannot be solved easily, including long response times in water bodies 
after  measures  have  been  taken,  and  difficulties  in  ‘creating  a  cost-effective  PoM  targeting 

diffuse sources’.  

The  drivers  for  exemption  are  agriculture  for  groundwater;  for  surface  waters  they  are: 
Agriculture, energy – hydropower, fisheries and aquaculture, flood protection, industry, tourism 
and  recreation,  transport  and  urban  development.  The  pressures  responsible  for  exemptions 

under  Article  4(4)  in  surface  waters  in  all  RBDs  are  point  pollution  from  urban  waste  water; 
diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture;  abstraction  or  flow  diversion  from  hydropower;  physical 

alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore due  to  flood protection, dams,  barriers;  and locks, 
resulting from hydropower and flood protection; and hydrological alteration due to hydropower 

and hydromorphological alterations. The main significant pressures to surface waters responsible 
for exemptions under Article 4(4) in relation to chemical status are diffuse atmospheric pollution 

97 

 
 
and  unknown  anthropogenic  pressures  (Table  8.1).  Diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  was 

reported as the main pressure on groundwater bodies responsible for exemptions (Table 8.2). 

Table 8.1 

Pressure  responsible  for  Priority  Substances  in  Austria  failing  to  achieve 

good chemical status and for which exemptions have been applied 

Significant  pressure  on 
surface water bodies 

2.5 - Diffuse - Contaminated 
sites or abandoned industrial 
sites 
2.7 - Diffuse - Atmospheric 
deposition 
8 - Anthropogenic pressure - 
Unknown 
9 - Anthropogenic pressure - 
Historical pollution 

Failing 
Priority 
Substances 

Number 
1 

Article4(4) - 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 
Number 
2 

Article4(4) – 
Disproportio-
nate cost 
exemptions 
Number 
2 

Article4(5) - 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 
Number 

Article4(5) - 
Disproportio-
nate cost 
exemptions 
Number 

8 127 

8 127 

32 

32 

1 

3 

2 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

17 

17 

Table 8.2 

Pressure  responsible  for  pollutants  in  Austria  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) - Natural conditions 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2 

5 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

The main impacts causing exemptions in surface waters under Article 4(4) are organic pollution, 
nutrient pollution, altered habitats due to morphological changes (includes connectivity), altered 

habitats  due  to  hydrological  changes,  and  chemical  pollution.  The  pressure  responsible  for 
exemptions  in  groundwater  in  the  Danube  RBD  is  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  with  the 

main impact of chemical pollution.  

Application of Article 4(5) 

Article  4(5)  has  been  applied  in  the  first  cycle,  and  is  again  applied  to  surface  waters  in  the 
Danube RBD. The number of Article 4(5) cases has increased from five to 18 between the first 

and the second cycle. Article 4(5) was applied for technical feasibility and disproportionate costs 
and the information is provided at water body level. 

However, with regard to Articles 4(5), there are no clear, detailed and consistent justifications in 
the RBMP of Austria on how exemptions are being defined.   

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Diffuse atmospheric deposition is the main reason for the application of Article 4(5) to surface 

waters.  Point  pollution  from  contaminated  sites  or  abandoned  industrial  sites  to  groundwater 
were  reported  as  the  main  pressures  on  groundwater  bodies  responsible  for  exemptions  under 

Article 4(5). The driver behind exemptions related to Article 4(5) is industry, causing chemical 
pollution. 

Application of Article 4(6) 

Article 4(6) has not been applied. 

Application of Article 4(7) 

Article 4(7) has been applied in river water bodies of the Danube RBD. While in the first   cycle, 
Article  4(7)  was  only  reported  for  two  cases,  this  number  has  increased  to  11  in  the  second 
cycle. There is no information in the RBMP or the background documents if all steps of Article 

4(7) have been performed, or if the impact of the new modifications on the water status has been 
assessed.  

Application of Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive 

No exemptions according to Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive73 have been applied. 

8.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

As  in  the  first  cycle  the  exemptions  according  to  Article  4(4)  were  applied  due  to  technical 
feasibility,  disproportionate  costs,  and  natural  conditions,  while  Article  4(5)  was  applied  for 

technical  feasibility  and  disproportionate  costs.  In  the  first  cycle  only  technical  feasibility  was 
reported  for  Article  4(5).  The  number  of  Article  4(5)  cases  has  increased  from  five  to  18 

between the first and the second cycle. 

8.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation: A significant number of exemptions have been applied in this first  of 
RBMP. While the WFD does provide for exemptions, there are specific criteria that must 

73  Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of 
groundwater against pollution and deterioration 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006L0118-20140711  

99 

 
                                                      
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. 
The  high  number  of  exemptions  applied  in  these  first  RBMP  is  a  cause  of  concern. 

Austria 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 uncertainties. 

Assessment:  The  numbers  show  a  decrease  in  exemptions  applied  in  surface  waters. 
Objectives  for  surface  waters  and  groundwater  are  clearly  provided  in  the  RBMP. 

Information  on  the  clear  criteria  that  have  been  developed  for  the  application  of 
‘technical  unfeasibility’,  ‘disproportionate  costs’  and  ‘natural  conditions’  are  not 

provided. Therefore this recommendation has been partially fulfilled.  

  Recommendation:  Only  little  improvement  of  the  water  status  is  expected  by  2015  and 

the further objectives are not always clear. 

Assessment: This recommendation has been successfully implemented as objectives for 

surface waters and groundwater are clearly provided in the RBMP. 

  Recommendation:  A  significant  number  of  exemptions  have  been  applied  in  this  first 
cycle  of  RBMPs.  The  application  of  exemptions  needs  to  be  more  transparent  and  the 
reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans, especially in relation 

to disproportionate costs. 

Assessment: See above. 

  Recommendation:  Make  clearer  the  approach  regarding  exemptions  in  the  RBMP: 
methodology  applied  for  defining  technical  feasibility  and  disproportionate  costs; 

measures  under  Article  4(5);  measures  for  planned  new  hydropower  development; 
explanations on implementation of Article 4(7). 

Assessment:  The  reasons  for  exemptions  were  reported  at  the  water  body  level. 
Information  on  the  clear  criteria  that  have  been  developed  for  the  application  of 

‘technical  unfeasibility’,  ‘disproportionate  costs’  and  ‘natural  conditions’  are  not 
provided. An inventory of exemptions from measures required to prevent or limit inputs 

of pollutants into groundwater has not been reported. There is very limited information 
on  Article  4(7)  in  the  RBMP  to  assess  if  this  part  of  the  recommendation  has  been 
followed. Therefore, this recommendation has been partially fulfilled.  

100 

 
Topic 9 Programme of measures  

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the PoM reported by the 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  their  Programme  of  Measures,  which  target  the  same 

pressure or purpose. The individual measures included in  the Programme of Measures 
(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 measures. 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 implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in second cycle 

9.1.1.  General issues 

An indication as to whether or not measures have been fully implemented and made operational 
is  when  they  have  been  reported  as  being  planned  to  tackle  significant  pressures  (at  the  Key 

Types of 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. A large number of pressure types causing the failure of objectives in surface waters in 

101 

 
 
 
all  three  RBDs  were  reported74,  and  only  one  in  groundwater  in  the  Danube  RBD75  (diffuse 
agricultural pollution).  

For  surface  waters,  KTMs  were  reported  operational  for  all  significant  pressure  types  causing 

failure of objectives in the Danube RBD. All except “Dams etc. - unknown or obsolete” in the 
Rhine  RBD,  and  all  except  “Hydrological  alteration  –  hydropower”  in  the  Elbe  RBD,  in  both 

cases because these pressures were not  relevant  in  the Rhine, respectively, Elbe RBDs. KTMs 
for  chemical  substances  were  also  included  (12  in  the  Danube,  mercury  and  ammonia  in  the 

Rhine, and mercury in the Elbe). For groundwater, diffuse agricultural pollution was covered by 
a KTM in the Danube RBD. 

For each RBD, Austria has mapped the number of national basic measures and supplementary 
measures incorporated into a total of 14 predefined KTMs: there are 189 national basic measures 

against 12 of the KTMs, and 87 national supplementary measures against nine of the KTMs (see 
Table  9.1).  The  basic  measure  types  are  also  indicated.  A  large  number  of  national  basic 

measures  (43  %)  relate  to  hydromorphological  issues  (KTM  5  –  “Improving  longitudinal 
continuity (for example, establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams)”; KTM6 – “Improving 
hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity”; and KTM7 – 

“Improvements  in  flow  regime  and/or  establishment  of  ecological  flows”.  None  of  the  basic 
measures are indicated as relating to Article 11(3)(b) - measures for the recovery of cost of water 

services  -  or  to  Article  11(3)(f)  -  controls  including  a  requirement  for  prior  authorisation  of 
artificial  recharge  or  augmentation  of  groundwater  bodies.  There  are  no  additional  KTMs 

developed by Austria. The information is identical for the three RBDs.  

The KTMs against which national measures have been mapped are the same for all three RBDs 

and all the KTMs reported to be tackling significant pressures have national measures mapped 
against them, but two of the KTMs mapped were not reported as tackling significant pressures in 

the  Rhine  and  Elbe  RBDs  (KTM4  -  “Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical  pollution 
including  sediments,  groundwater,  soil)”,  and  KTM13  -  “Drinking  water  protection  measures 

(e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.)”). Therefore, it is not clear if these are 
relevant or will be made operational in these RBDs.  

The  percentage  of  water  bodies  not  expected  to  achieve  good  status/potential  by  2027  is 
indicated  for  all  pressures  on  groundwater  and  surface  water  in  the  Danube  RBD,  and  surface 

water in  the Rhine and Elbe RBDs.  In the Danube RBD, all are zero for groundwater (diffuse 

74   There is reference to Annex 0 for groundwater in all three RBDs 
75   All  groundwater  bodies  in  the  Rhine  and  Elbe  RBDs  were  reported  as  having  good  chemical  and  quantitative 
status in 2010. 

102 

 
                                                      
agricultural, nitrate and a pesticide metabolite); for surface water the majority are listed as zero, 

with four individual substances as 0-10%, and two pressures as “no information” (Hydrological 
alterations – “Flood protection” and – “Other”). In the Rhine and Elbe RBDs, all water bodies 

are expected to reach good status by 2027.  

KTMs have been mapped against pollutants causing failure of objectives in groundwater (nitrate 

and  a  pesticide  metabolite)  and  for  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  in  surface  water  in  the 
Danube  RBD  only  (as  there  are  no  significant  pressures  in  the  Rhine  and  Elbe  RBDs).  For 

surface  water,  seven  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  are  listed  and  various  KTMs  mapped 
against these. For zinc, the nationally derived KTM “No measures in this cycle – review of less 

stringent target in next cycle” is  reported. For groundwater the number of water bodies failing 
objectives due to pollutants is provided, but not for surface water bodies.  

Priority substances have been reported to cause failure of objectives in surface water in all three 
RBDs: Six substances, including mercury, in the Danube RBD, mercury only in both the Rhine 

and  Elbe  RBDs.  Mercury  seems  to  be  a  significant  problem,  causing  by  far  the  most  failures 
(7807 water bodies in the Danube, 219 in the Rhine and 101 in the Elbe).  

Measures  have  been  reported  to  address  failures  caused  by  all  except  one  substance, 

benzo(a)pyrene in the Danube, (16 water bodies failing). For all substances measures have been 
adopted  under  KTM14  -  “Research,  improvement  of  knowledge  base  reducing  uncertainty”, 

except  for lead where the nationally derived KTM “No measure in  this  cycle  – review of less 
stringent target in next cycle” is reported.  

The gap indicator values are area or length of water bodies not achieving objectives due to the 
specified  pressure.  The  measure  indicators  are  number  of  water  bodies  requiring  specified 

measures.  Gap indicators  and measure indicators are listed for all significant  pressure types in 
groundwater  and  surface  water  in  the  Danube  RBD  (except  benzo(a)pyrene  in  surface  water), 

and surface water in the Rhine and Elbe RBDs (except Hydrological alterations - hydropower in 
the  Elbe),  together  with  gap  values  and  measure  indicator  values  for  2015  and  2021,  none  for 

2027.  

Reported improvements are mainly modest, with most far from being closed by 2021. Notably, 

no  improvements  are  expected  for  atmospheric  deposition  and  mercury  in  any  of  the  three 
RBDs.  

Qualitative cost-effectiveness analyses of measures have been carried out for all three RBDs in 
Austria  and  links  to  relevant  documents  have  been  provided,  but  there  seems  to  be  no 

103 

 
straightforward prioritisation of measures (based on an assessment of the RBMP and background 

documents).  

9.1.2.  Financing of measures 

A critical factor in the success of the implementation of the PoM is the availability of funding to 
support the investments required. For the first PoM Austria reported a total investment of €3 325 

m for all RBDs and all measures. For the second PoM, (2016-2021) Austria is expecting a total 
capital investment of €680 m in Article 11(3)(a) requirements (measures required to implement 

Community legislation for the protection of water) with annual operation and maintenance costs 
of  €12.3  m.  A  capital  investment  of  €310  m  is  expected  to  implement  measures  required  by 

Articles 11(3)(b)(l), 11(4) and 11(5) (all other measures) with annual operation and maintenance 
costs of €6.2 million. Depreciation has not been included in the calculation of these investment 

costs. For the first PoM, Austria received €54 m from European Union funds and is anticipating 
receiving a further €37 m for the second PoM. Austria has reported that a financial commitment 

has been secured for the implementation  of programmes of measures in  all three RBDs, albeit 
for a much reduced budget compared to the first cycle. On a sectoral basis, commitments have 
been  secured  where  considered  relevant,  that  is,  for  agriculture,  industry,  urban,  hydropower, 

aquaculture  and  flood  protection  in  all  three  RBDs  (transport,  energy  and  recreation  were  not 
considered relevant in any of the three RBDs).  

9.1.3.  Co-ordination with the other Directives 

Austria is landlocked, therefore co-ordination with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive76 is 
not  considered  relevant  and  no  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  relevant  KTMs  were 
listed. A link to the national RBMP has been provided.  

The RBMPs and Floods Directive77 Flood Risk Management Plans have not been integrated into 
one document in any of the three RBDs, but in all RBDs (1) joint consultation of RBMPs and 

Flood Risk Management Plans was carried out; (2) the objectives and requirements of the Floods 
Directive were considered in the second RBMPs and Programmes of Measures; (three drought 

management measures and use of Natural Water Retention Measures have been included in the 
PoM;  (4)  the  design  of  new  and  existing  structural  measures,  such  as  flood  defences,  storage 

dams and tidal barriers, has been adapted to take account of WFD environmental objectives; (5) 
financial  commitments  have  been  secured;  and  (6)  WFD  Article  9(4)  has  been  applied  to 

76   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  
77   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  

104 

 
                                                      
impoundment  for  flood  protection.  Links  to  documents  with  further  information  have  been 

provided. 

9.1.4.  Prioritisation of measures 

In Austria, there is no straightforward prioritisation of measures. Instead, areas/regions are being 
designated as “priority areas” (Sanierungsraum), in which the objectives will be reached in 2015, 

2021,  or  2027,  according  to  the  Austrian  concept  of  the  “step-wise  reaching  of  objectives” 
(stufenweise Zielerreichung). Such “priority areas” apply only to hydromorphological pressures 

(that is, mostly the hydropower and flow regulation “sectors”), as these are the most significant 
challenge  for  reaching  good  ecological  status,  due  to  the  large  number  of  hydromorphological 

alterations  in  Austrian  water  bodies.  In  the  water  bodies  of  these  “priority  areas”  there  is  a 
legally binding obligation to act.  

The Austrian RBMP also refers to the fact that many measures need to be implemented locally 
and states that the next RBMP (2021) will further define the prioritisation of measures according 

to the local/regional implementation process achieved. 

A form of prioritisation is sometimes mentioned in relation to specific topics, such as: 

  Environmental remediation/clean-up of polluted sites (according to the substances, areas 

polluted, and habitats/areas endangered),  

  The  removal  of  migration  barriers  for  fish  (as  it  makes  more  sense  to  remove 

downstream barriers before upstream barriers), 

  Use of synergies with natural water retention/flood protection measures according to the 

Floods Directive. 

9.1.5.  Measures related to other significant pressures 

Other  significant  pressures  have  been  reported  for  surface  water  for  all  three  RBDs,  these  are 

“Anthropogenic – unknown” in all three RBDs, plus “Anthropogenic - historical” in the Danube 
RBD.  KTMs  are  listed  for  all  pressures,  together  with  gap  indicators  (length  of  water  body 

where  pressure  prevents  achievement  of  objectives)  and  measure  indicators  (length  of  WBs 
required  to  be  covered  by  measure  to  achieve  objectives)  for  2015  and  2021.  The  gaps  are 

expected to be closed by 2021, except for historical pollution (the Danube RBD, for which it is 
indicated that it should be reviewed for the next cycle in terms of a less stringent target).  

105 

 
9.1.6.  Mapping of national measures to Key Types of Measure 

It  was  expected  that  MS  would  be  able  to  report  their  PoM  by  associating  their  national 
measures with  predefined KTMs.  KTMs are expected to  deliver the bulk of the improvements 

through reduction in pressures required to achieve WFD environmental objectives. A KTM may 
be one national measure but it would typically comprise more than one national measures. MS 

are  required  to  report  on  the  national  measures  associated  with  the  KTM,  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  Austria.  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. 

106 

 
 
 
Table 9.1 

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

Key Type of Measure 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater 
treatment plants 

KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture 

KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures 
(for example, establishment of safeguard zones, 
buffer zones etc.) 

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge 
base reducing uncertainty 

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

KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of 
industrial wastewater treatment plants (including 
farms). 

KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from 
soil erosion and surface run-off 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from 
agriculture 

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the 
input of pollution from urban areas, transport 
and built infrastructure 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from 
agriculture. 

KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites 
(historical pollution including sediments, 
groundwater, soil) 

KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (for 
example, 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 

Total number of Mapped Measures 

National basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number of 
RBDs where 
reported 

15 

9 

24 

12 

3 

15 

3 

21 

6 

24 

30 

27 

189 

6 

9 

6 

3 

6 

3 

36 

6 

12 

87 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9.2 

Type of basic measure mapped to Key Type of Measures in Austria  

Basic Measure Type 

Key Type of Measure 

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

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

s
e
g
r
a
h
c
s
i
d
e
c
r
u
o
s

t
n
i
o
P

15 

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

3 

r
e
t
a
W

e
t
s
a
W
n
a
b
r
U

15 

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

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

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

s
e
c
n
a
t
s
b
u
S

9 

24 

24 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of 
wastewater treatment plants 
KTM13 - Drinking water protection 
measures (e.g. establishment of 
safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.) 

KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out 
of emissions, discharges and losses of 
Priority Hazardous Substances or for 
the reduction of emissions, discharges 
and losses of Priority Substances 
KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of 
industrial wastewater treatment plants 
(including farms). 

KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment 
from soil erosion and surface run-off 
KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from 
agriculture 
KTM21 - Measures to prevent or 
control the input of pollution from 
urban areas, transport and built 
infrastructure 
KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution 
from agriculture. 
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 

12 

12 

3 

3 

12 

3 

15 

3 

3 

3 

3 

21 

6 

6 

3 

3 

24 

30 

27 

27 

Key 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

‘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. 
‘Hydromorphology’ = Article 11(3)(i): Measures to control any other significant adverse impact on the status of 
water, and in particular hydromorphological impacts. 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
‘IPPC IED’ = Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC) and the Industrial Emissions 
Directive (2010/75/EU) . 
‘Nitrates’ = Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) . 
‘Point source discharges’ = Article 11(3)(g): Requirement for prior regulation of point source discharges liable to 
cause pollution. 
‘Pollutants diffuse’ = Article 11(3)(h): Measures to prevent or control the input of pollutants from diffuse 
sources liable to cause pollution. 

‘Pollutants direct groundwater’ = Article 11(3)(j): Prohibition of direct discharge of pollutants into groundwater. 

‘Protection water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(d): Measures for the protection of water abstracted for drinking 
water (Article 7) including those to reduce the level of purification required for the production of drinking water. 

‘Surface Priority Substances’ = Article 11(3)(k): Measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters by Priority 
Substances and to reduce pollution from other substances that would otherwise prevent the achievement of the 
objectives laid down in Article 4. 

‘Urban Waste Water’ = Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). 

9.1.7.  Pressures for which gaps to be filled to achieve WFD objectives and the Key Types 

of Measure planned to achieve objectives 

MS  are  required  to  report  the  gaps  that  need  to  be  filled  to  achieve  WFD  environmental 
objectives  in  terms  of  all  significant  pressures  on  surface  waters  and  groundwater,  in  terms  of 

Priority Substances causing failure of good chemical status and in terms of River Basin Specific 
Pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  ecological  status/potential.  MS  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. 

Table 9.3 summarises the significant pressures on groundwater and chemical substances causing 

failure  of  good  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  for  which  gaps  to  the  achievement  of 
WFD environmental objectives have been reported by Austria.  

Table 9.3 

Gaps to be filled to achieve objectives in groundwater in Austria  

Groundwater 
Significant 
Pressure Or 
Substance 
Failing 

2.2 - Diffuse - 
Agricultural 

2.2 - Diffuse - 
Agricultural 

2.2 - Diffuse - 
Agricultural 

Gap indicator 

2015 

2021 

2027 

Number of 
RBDs 

Sum of gaps 

Area (km²) of water bodies not 
achieving objectives because of 
diffuse agricultural pollution 
Area (km²) of water bodies not 
achieving objectives because of 
diffuse agricultural pollution 

Area (km²) of water bodies not 
achieving objectives because of 
diffuse agricultural pollution 

1 404.87 

1 404.87 

1 404.87 

0 

0 

0 

KTM3 - Reduce 
pesticides pollution 
from agriculture. 
KTM12 - Advisory 
services for 
agriculture 
KTM13 - Drinking 
water protection 
measures (for 
example, 

1 

3 

3 

109 

 
 
CAS_14797-
55-8 - Nitrate 

CAS_14797-
55-8 - Nitrate 

Area (km²) of water bodies not 
achieving objectives because of 
Nitrates 
Area (km²) of water bodies not 
achieving objectives because of 
Nitrates 

1 404.87 

1 404.87 

0 

0 

Source: WISE electronic reports 
NR = Not reported to WISE 

establishment of 
safeguard zones, 
buffer zones etc.) 
KTM2 - Reduce 
nutrient pollution 
from agriculture 
KTM12 - Advisory 
services for 
agriculture 

3 

3 

MS were required to report which KTMs or Measures 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 
(0) is comparable with 100 % good ecological status or potential or good chemical status.  

Table 9.4 summarises the KTM, indicators of the measures and the values of the indicators for 
this and subsequent planning cycles reported by Austria. Note that this information was reported 

at the RBD level: the number of RBDs for which the information applies is also given in Table 
9.4.  

Table 9.4 

Key  Types  of  Measure  planned  to  achieve  objectives  in  groundwater  in 
Austria  

Ground-
water 

Significant 
Pressure Or 
Substance 
Failing 

2.2 - Diffuse - 
Agricultural 

2.2 - Diffuse - 
Agricultural 

2.2 - Diffuse - 
Agricultural 

Value of Key Types of Measure 
indicator 

Key Type of 
Measure 

Indicator of Key 
Types of Measure 

2015 

2021 

2027 

Number 
of RBDs 

KTM 2 - 
Reduce 
nutrient 
pollution from 
agriculture 

KTM 3 - 
Reduce 
pesticides 
pollution from 
agriculture 

KTM12 - 
Advisory 
services for 

Area (km²) of water 
bodies not achieving 
objectives because of 
diffuse agricultural 
pollution 

Area (km²) of water 
bodies not achieving 
objectives because of 
diffuse agricultural 
pollution 

Area (km²) of water 
bodies not achieving 
objectives because of 

KN30 - Number of 
water bodies required 
to be covered by 
measures to achieve 
objectives 

KN30 - Number of 
water bodies required 
to be covered by 
measures to achieve 
objectives 

KN30 - Number of 
water bodies required 
to be covered by 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

4 

4 

3 

3 

110 

 
agriculture 

diffuse agricultural 
pollution 

KTM 2 - 
Reduce 
nutrient 
pollution from 
agriculture 

Area (km²) of water 
bodies not achieving 
objectives because of 
Nitrates 

CAS_14797-
55-8 - Nitrate 

CAS_14797-
55-8 - Nitrate 

KTM12 - 
Advisory 
services for 
agriculture 

Area (km²) of water 
bodies not achieving 
objectives because of 
Nitrates 

measures to achieve 
objectives 

KN30 - Number of 
water bodies required 
to be covered by 
measures to achieve 
objectives 

KN30 - Number of 
water bodies required 
to be covered by 
measures to achieve 
objectives 

0 

0 

Source: WISE electronic reports  
NR = Not reported to WISE 

4 

3 

4 

3 

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 first cycle 

The  level  of  implementation  of  the  first  cycle  of  PoM  in  all  three  RBDs  (Danube,  Rhine  and 

Elbe)  was  reported  as  “some  measures  completed”,  and  no  obstacles  were  encountered.  The 
river 
summary 

the  main  water  management 

in  Austria  are 

indicates 

issues 

that 

hydromorphology, river continuity and diffuse pollution in groundwater, all of which are being 

111 

 
 
 
 
addressed. Austria argues that much has been achieved and in particular further deterioration has 

been prevented.  

The  changes  to  the  first  RBMP  are  not  described  in  detail  or  in  a  summary.  However,  some 

guidance  and background documents  have been  updated since the first  cycle, for  example, the 
guidance  document  for  assessing  good  ecological  potential  in  heavily  modified  water  bodies 

(reference provided), the status assessment and the assessment of biological quality elements. 

9.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

the following: 

  Recommendation:  Make  clearer  the  approach  regarding  consideration  of  uncertainties 
in  the Article 5 pressures and impacts  analysis;  monitoring  and classification  of  status 

has influenced the targeting of measures. 

Assessment:  Most  identified  pressures  have  been  addressed  with  measures  and  gap 

analyses carried out for 2015 and 2021 only. However, as progress towards closing the 
gaps  seems  to  be  modest,  perhaps  the  programme  of  implementation  could  be  more 

ambitious. Costs of basic measures in 2015-2021 are slightly lower than those invested in 
2009-2015. In terms of PoM, this recommendation has been partially met.  

  Recommendation:  Meaningful  information  regarding  the  scope,  the  timing  and  the 
funding of  the measures should be included in  the Programme of  Measures  so that the 

approach  to  achieve  the  objectives  is  clear.  All  the  relevant  information  on  basic  and 
supplementary  measures  should  be  included  in  the  summary  of  the  Programme  of 

Measures  to  ensure  transparency  of  the  planned  actions  for  the  achievement  of  the 
environmental objectives set out in the WFD. 

Assessment: Almost all identified pressures are being addressed with measures and gap 
analyses  performed.  However,  as  progress  towards  closing  the  gaps  seems  to  be  very 

slow,  perhaps  it  should  be  examined  whether  the  programme  of  implementation  is 
ambitious  enough.  Costs  of  basic  measures  in  2015-2021  are  slightly  lower  than  about 

one  third  of  those  invested  in  2009-2015.  Therefore  this  recommendation  has  been 
partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Similarly, the gap analysis of the measures required to achieve good 

status in the light of the pressures should be more strongly elaborated. 

112 

 
Assessment:  Gap  analyses  have  been  completed  for  2015  and  2021  in  all  three  RBDs, 

with gap indicators focused on achieving WFD objectives, but there is no information on 
how the remaining gaps (which are considerable) are expected to be closed in the third 

cycle. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled.  

  Recommendation:  The  RBMP  should  provide  more  information  about  the  measures, 
especially the expected impact/effect on the waterbody status. Other information, such as 
the location, timing and financing would add an additional level of concretisation to the 

RBMP. 

Assessment: Although certain financial commitments have been secured for all relevant 

sectors, and gap analyses have been performed, it is not clear whether the programme is 
ambitious to the extent of achieving good status. This recommendation has been partially 

fulfilled.  

Additional  information  from  the  RBMP  and  background  documents  concerning  the 

above recommendations:  

In  general,  it  has  to  be  stated  that  the  Austrian  RBMP  in  2015  (as  in  2009)  is  not 

planning/proposing  concrete  measures  for  specific  water  bodies.  On  the  basis  of  the 
RBMP detailed planning is done on regional and local level. Hence, there is not a single 

specified,  fully  described  measure  in  the  RBMP  which  would  state  the  location,  the 
effect, the costs, and the timing of finalisation of the measure. This is justified by the fact 

that most measures are implemented and decided upon at local level, and that all detailed 
information on a single, specified measure is available only when the concrete, spatially 

explicit planning starts. Instead, the Austrian RBMP is an overall more abstract planning 
document  which  describes  measures  more  broadly,  in  terms  of  general  impacts,  costs, 

difficulties,  importance  etc.  Hence,  the  information  on  financing  and  costs  is  a  broad 
estimation.  As  no  measures  are  spatially  explicit,  there  is  no  assessment  of  the 

impacts/effects of the measures described. Also, the tables for surface waters (lakes and 
rivers separately) and groundwater bodies which state the year in which objectives will 

be  reached  has  a  link  to  a  list  of  measures  that  will  be  implemented  in  the  second 
planning  period  2015-2021  but  not  to  measures  planned  beyond  2021.  All  this  is  not 
stated explicitly, but more ‘discreetly’ in, for example, the introduction to the RBMP.  

  Recommendation:  Develop  fully  the  economic  analysis  of  water  use,  including  the 
calculation of environmental and resource costs, and how the cost effectiveness analysis 
influenced the selection of measures. 

113 

 
Assessment:  Whilst  cost  effectiveness  analyses  have  been  carried  out  for  measures 

(qualitative  only),  no  KTMs  have  been  reported  in  relation  to  water  efficiency  and 
pricing policy. Therefore, this recommendation has been partially fulfilled.  

114 

 
 
Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

10.1. Assessment of  implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in second cycle and main changes since the first cycle 

10.1.1. Water exploitation and trends  

Water  quantity  pressures  were  reported  as  not  relevant  for  Austria;  and  no  groundwater  body 
faces  water  quantity-related  problems  for  achieving  good  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 

bodies.  However,  water  abstraction  pressures  mainly  for  hydropower  use,  although  directly 
returned  after  use,  significantly  affect  the  flow  regime  of  surface  water  bodies  for  13%,  23%, 

and 9% for the Danube, Rhine, and Elbe RBDs respectively. These pressures cause local effects 
on  river  flows,  but  do  not  affect  the  overall  water  balance.  The  Water  Exploitation  Index  +  is 

therefore  not  calculated,  and  no  water  quantity  data  have  been  reported  to  State  of  the 
Environment. The RBMP did include a water resource allocation and management plan. 

10.1.2. Main uses for water consumption  

No data have been reported on the uses of water consumption for the above-mentioned reasons, 

and since water quantity pressures were not reported as significant. 

10.1.3. Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

Regarding  basic  measures  -  Article  11(3)(e),  in  Austria  there  is  a  concession,  authorisation, 
and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  surface  and  groundwater  abstractions  and  water 

impoundment as well as a register of abstractions and impoundments; small abstractions are not 
exempted from these controls.  

Measures on Article 11(3)(c) for sustainable and efficient water use have been implemented in 
the previous cycle,  and  no new measures  and/or significant  changes are  planned for the 2016-

2021 period.  

Measures for the prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies 

-  Article  11(3)(f)  have  been  implemented  in  the  previous  cycle,  and  no  new  measures  and/or 
significant changes are planned for the 2016-2021 period. 

Complementary measures under KTMs were reported for addressing abstraction pressures, and 

refer  to  KTM  7  -  “Improvements  in  flow  regime  and/or  establishment  of  ecological  flows”. 
Water reuse is not foreseen as a measure. 

115 

 
10.2. Progress with Commission recommendations 

There were no Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and first PoM. 

116 

 
 
 
Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture  

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

Pressures  related  to  agriculture  are  clearly  identified,  both  for  surface  and  groundwater. 

Pressures related to  groundwater are only reported in the Danube RBD. Chemical and nutrient 
pollution  from  diffuse  sources  are  impacting  water  quality  in  surface  waters  in  all  RBDs.  In 

addition,  habitats  are  also  being  impacted  (altered)  due  to  agriculture.  Organic  pollution  in 
surface  waters  is  only  reported  for  the  Danube  RBD  and  the  Rhine  RBD.  Groundwater  is 

polluted in the Danube RBD by chemical pollution.  

A  gap  assessment  was  not  performed,  so  it  remains  unclear  how  much  of  the  gap  to  the 

achievement  of  the  WFD  objectives  is  expected  to  be  achieved  by  the  Rural  Development 
Programme measures, Nitrates Directive, or any other measures. 

KTM 2 – Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture (five basic [the minimum requirement to be 
complied  with]  and  12  supplementary  measures),  KTM  3  –  Reduce  pesticides  pollution  from 

agriculture  (7  basic  measures),  KTM  12  –  Advisory  services  for  agriculture  (three 
supplementary measures), KTM 13 – Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of 

safeguard zones, buffer zones etc., supplementary and basic), and KTM17 - Measures to reduce 
sediment  from  soil  erosion  and  surface  run-off  (supplementary  and  basic)  are  applied  in  all 

RBDs. KTM 23 – Natural water retention measures are not applied.  

In the second RBMP itself, however, there is no reference or link at all to the KTMs. Hence, the 

measures reported to WISE cannot be identified in the PoM, and it cannot be determined if these 
are voluntary or mandatory. The source of funding is European Union funds (mostly Common 

Agricultural  Policy  second  pillar,  which  go  into  the  Austrian  ÖPUL  programme,  and  LIFE 
funds).  According  to  WISE,  these  are  quantified  to  be  at  €37  m  from  2015  to  2021.  National 

funds are also mentioned, which stem from the Umweltförderungsgesetz/Law for the promotion 
of environment issues, and from other national regulations. 

Implementation  of  basic  measures  Article  11(3)(h)  for  the  control  of  diffuse  pollution  from 

agriculture  at  source  are  applied  with  the  same  rules  across  the  whole  RBD.  General  binding 
rules  to  control  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  are  applied  to  nitrates,  pesticides  and 

phosphorus.  

117 

 
Austria did not declare safeguard zones around drinking water protection areas according to the 
Nitrate  Directive78;  nevertheless,  7  %  of  the  Austrian  territory  are  in  one  form  or  another 
protected areas  for the abstraction of water for human use/consumption. These zones have not 

been enhanced since the first RBMP, but it seems that they are deemed sufficient. There is no 
information as to whether additional control measures have been introduced to prevent nitrogen, 

phosphorus or pesticides from entering drinking water sources; the basic measures according to 
the  Nitrates  and  EQS  Directives  seem  to  have  been  implemented.  Regarding  additional 

measures,  only  some  changes  to  the  voluntary  Rural  Development  Measures,  related  to  this 
topic, are described.  

Farmers and Farmers' Unions have been consulted under the Public Consultation process in all 
RBDs. 

Financing of agricultural measures is considered to be secured in all the RBDs. 

11.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

No major changes in any of the RBDs for aspects of the topic have been identified. 

11.3. Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

the following: 

  Recommendation:  For  agriculture:  i)  there  is  a  need  to  define  more  clearly  how 
measures  are  linked  to  status  assessment,  ii)  experience  shows  that  a  high  level  of 
co-operation with the farming community at the different stages of the preparation of 

the  Programme  of  Measures  is  important  as  it  ensures  technical  feasibility, 
acceptance  and  the  expected  success,  iii)  a  strategy  mainly  built  on  voluntary 

measures  will  have  difficulties  to  deliver.  The  correct  balance  between  voluntary 
actions  and  a  strong  baseline  of  mandatory  measures  needs  to  be  established.  A 

clear  commitment  at  political  level  is  indispensable,  iv)  the  baseline  for  water 
protection  needs  to  be  very  clear  so  that,  on  the  one  hand  any  farmer  knows  the 

rules, and on the other hand, the authorities in charge of the Common Agricultural 
Policy  funds  can  adequately  set  up  Rural  Development  programmes  and  cross 

compliance water requirements. 

78  Council  Directive  91/676/EEC  of  12  December  1991  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution 
caused by nitrates from agricultural sources: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31991L0676  

118 

 
                                                      
Assessment: No gap assessment has been made and it is not clear from the RBMP to 

which extent mandatory (e.g. Nitrate Action Programme, CAP Pillar 1) or voluntary 
measures  (Rural  Development  Programme)  will  contribute  to  achieving  the  WFD 

objectives. Mandatory actions as regard to nitrogen are part of the Nitrates Directive 
(applied to the whole territory of Austria). Some plant protection measures are also 

mandatory. Based on that baseline (and some other legal acts relate to agriculture), 
the  Austrian  Rural  Development  program  has  been  developed,  which  includes  a 

broad  set  of  funded  voluntary  actions.  The  program  covers  all  types  of  pressures 
identified. Hydro-morphological measures for farmers are voluntary. Therefore this 

recommendation has partly been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Review  the  degree  to  which  the  existing  measures  to  implement 
the  Nitrates  Directive  are  sufficient  to  address  agricultural  pressures  and  ensure 
basic  measures  as  per  Article  11.3.h  are  put  in  place  to  control  other  diffuse 

pollutants – for example, phosphate, pesticides, particulate matter. These measures 
should  be  specific,  have  a  clear  legal  basis,  and  include  appropriate  advice, 

monitoring  and  inspection  regimes  to  ensure  their  effective  implementation.  In 
addition  to  the  basic  measures,  it  should  be  set  out  clearly  what  supplementary 

measures  will  be  needed  to  bridge  the  gap  to  good  status  and  which  of  these 
measures will be included in the second Programme of Measures and what funding 

sources will be used to deliver these. Clear references to expectations for the Rural 
Development Programs in this regard (and to other funding sources) are expected. 

  Assessment:  No  comprehensive  gap  assessment  has  been  made  and  so  it  remains 
unclear what will be achieved through measures to implement the Nitrates Directive, 

through  basic  measures  under  Article  11(3)  of  the  WFD,  through  basic  measures 
included in Pillar 1 (Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions and greening 

of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy),  or  through  supplementary  measures  under 
Pillar 2 of the Common Agricultural Policy. In addition, no evidence was found of 

the effectiveness  of  Articles 11(3)(a) or 11(3)(b). Supplementary measures (Article 
11.4)  have  been  assessed  in  terms  of  reducing  the  pressures  from  agricultural 

to 

the  achievement  of  WFD  objectives. 
activities 
Supplementary  measures  were  reported  to  WISE.  It  remains  unclear  what  the 

levels  compatible  with 

contribution  of  the  Rural  Development  Programme  to  achieving  WFD  objectives 
will be. Therefore, this recommendation has partly been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Provide  more  information  in  second  RBMPs  about  measures 
taken or being taken to address diffuse sources of pollutants (e.g. existing laws better 

119 

 
enforced;  action  plans  or  guidance  modified  in  order  to  specifically  support  the 

achievement of WFD objectives). 

  Assessment:  The  RBMP  contains  a  detailed  description  of  measures  to  address 
diffuse  sources  of  pollutants  by  providing  information  on  the  content  of  the 
measures,  link  to  existing  laws  and  measures;  financial  support,  action  plans  and 

other  relevant  sources  of  information.  Overall  this  recommendation  has  been 
fulfilled. 

120 

 
 
 
Topic  12  Measures  related  to  pollution  from  sectors  other  than 
agriculture  

12.1. Assessment  of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in 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. 

As explained earlier, Key Types of Measure (KTMs) are groups of measures identified by MS 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 Austria: 

  KTM 1 - “Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants” 

  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” 

  KTM  16  -  “Upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial  wastewater  treatment  plants 

(including farms)” 

  KTM  21  -  “Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas, 

transport and built infrastructure”.  

Two additional KTMs were reported in the Danube RBD: 

  KTM  4  -  “Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical  pollution  including  sediments, 

groundwater, soil)” 

  KTM 99 - “Other key type measure reported under PoM (Historical pollution)”. 

121 

 
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).  Austria  has 

indicated the number of basic and supplementary measures per RBD for each KTM mentioned 
above.   

Austria 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  waste-water  point-source  discharges,  and  the  operation  of  a 
register  of  waste-water  discharges,  are  reported  for  all  Austrian  RBDs  for  surface  and 

groundwater.  There  are  no  thresholds  below  which  waste  water  discharges  do  not  require 
permits and are not subject to registration. Some direct discharges to groundwater are authorised 

in accordance with Article 11(3)(j). 

Measures to eliminate/reduce pollution from Priority Substances and other substances have been 

identified in all RBDs in Austria. 

12.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

In the first RBMP, general information was provided on measures targeted to reduce/phase out 

the  emissions  of  chemical  pollutants.  For  the  second  RBMP,  Austria  reported  to  WISE  the 
KTMs  relevant  to  addressing  significant  pressures  from  Priority  Substances  and  River  Basin 

Specific  Pollutants  causing  exceedances.  Austria  also  reported  to  WISE  that  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” - has 
been mapped against national measures, and that it is tackling significant pollution pressures in 

all Austrian RBDs. 

In the second RBMP, information on point sources of pollution by Priority Substances and River 

Basin  Specific  Pollutants  (section  5.2.4)  is  limited;  AT  states  that  diffuse  sources  are  more 
important  than  point  sources  for  metals  and  the  ubiquitous  Priority  Substances  causing  most 

exceedances, and that without knowledge of and measures for these diffuse sources, there can be 
no progress on reaching the objectives79. The Annex to the RBMP includes a table of measures 
for water bodies not reaching good chemical status as a result of point source pollution and lists 
the  substances  responsible  (both  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  and  Priority  Substances);  it 

79    Austria  subsequently  informed  that  at  the  moment  the  main  sources  and  polluters  are  identified  via  modelling 
approaches.  This  will  the  basis  for  monitoring  programs  and  measures  in  the  future  –  for  more  information  see 
RBMP chapter 5.2.3. p129 

122 

 
                                                      
provides  an  update  on  the  measures  taken  and/or  planned.  All  the  listed  water  bodies  have 

measures  assigned  to  them,  but  almost  all  are  research/knowledge-building  measures,  in 
particular the evaluation of the potential effectiveness of measures against point and/or diffuse 

sources, therefore there is currently no indication of the mitigatory measures that will finally be 
taken, nor of their effectiveness.  

There  is  one  groundwater  body  in  Austria  (Südliche  Wiener  Becken  Ostrand,  situated  in  the 
Danube  RBD)  which  fails  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  because  of  pollutants  other  than 

nitrates (Desethyl-and Desisopropylatrazine), and three groundwater bodies that fail because of 
nitrates only. These groundwaters bodies are expected to have reached their objectives in 2027. 

Nitrates are covered by measures, but there is no measure for Desethyl-Desisopropylatrazine in 
the Südliche Wiener Becken Ostrand. 

12.3. Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  made  two  relevant  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  first 
Programmes of Measures: 

  Recommendation: “Provide more information in second RBMP about measures taken or 
being  taken  to  address  diffuse  sources  of  pollutants  (for  example,  existing  laws  better 
enforced;  action  plans  or  guidance  modified  in  order  to  specifically  support  the 

achievement of WFD objectives).” 

Assessment:  Austria  has  reported  KTM  4  -  “Remediation  of  contaminated  sites 

(historical pollution including sediments,  groundwater, soil)” and 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” as basic 

measures being used to tackle diffuse pollution.  

However, as noted above, little detail is given, and the focus, for both Priority Substances 

and River Basin Specific Pollutants (for which the significance of diffuse sources relative 
to  point  sources  has  not  been  determined),  is  on  evaluating  the  potential  of  measures 

rather than on initiating concrete measures. 

In  relation  to  Mercury  and  Polybrominated  diphenylethers  (PBDEs),  Austria  indicates 

that they will still be causing failure in 2027 unless action is taken at international level; 
nothing is said about what is being done at the national level. 

Regarding groundwater, the source of diffuse pollution is always agriculture. 

123 

 
There  is  no  explicit  description  of  specific  supplementary  measures  targeting  diffuse 
sources  of  pollution  other  than  those  from  agriculture  (for  which  there  is  the  ÖPUL80 
programme, running since the first cycle). 

Overall, there is no evaluation/prediction of how effective the final measures will be at 
reducing diffuse pollution to a level allowing good status to be achieved. Therefore, this 

recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  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  to  take  an 
ambitious  approach  to  combatting  chemical  pollution  and  that  adequate  measures  are 

put in place.” 

Austria  reports  that  it  achieved  the  objective  of  meeting  the  standard  for  zinc  in  one 

water body by diverting an outflow into a larger receiving water body. For two surface 
water  bodies  affected  by  hexachlorobutadiene,  measures  that  had  been  in  place  for 

several  years to restore linked groundwater quality are expected to bring about delayed 
recovery of the surface waters. 

Austria  indicates  that  it  will  not  be  possible  to  meet  the  EQS  for  some  of  the  Priority 
Substances, in particular Mercury and PBDEs, by 2027 without international action, and 

it lists a number of water bodies where less stringent objectives are being set for various 
metals. It is not clear whether any measures are being taken at national level in relation to 
these81. 

From the information available, it is not possible to say whether the final measures taken 

by  Austria  in  relation  to  other  substances/water  bodies  will  be  adequate  to  address  the 
substances  identified  as  causing  problems,  because  Austria  is  still  at  the  stage  of 

assessing  the  effectiveness  of  potential  measures.  Thus,  this  recommendation  is  not 
considered as fulfilled.  

80  Österreichisches Programm zur Förderung einer  umweltgerechten, extensiven  und  den natürlichen  Lebensraum 
schützenden Landwirtschaft (https://www.bmnt.gv.at/land/laendl_entwicklung/oepul/oepul2015.html) 
81  Austria subsequently informed that the source of these metals is historical mining and they found no cost efficient 
measure.  It  is  not  entirely  clear  how  Austria  links  the  concept  of  cost  effficiency  with  the  concepts  of  technical 
feasibility or disproportionate costs, mentioned in WFD article 4 as grounds for exemptions. 

124 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology  

13.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in second cycle 

Significant  hydromorphological  pressures  are 

identified 

in  all  RBDs.  The  significant 

hydromorphological  pressures  are  assigned  to  specific  sectors  for  the  largest  share  of  affected 
water  bodies.  The  main  sectors  related  to  significant  hydromorphological  pressures  are  flood 

protection  and  hydropower.  In  the  WISE  reporting  on  the  Danube  RBD,  there  was  a  large 
number of river water bodies (1082) affected by dams, barriers, or locks for which the sector or 

water  use  is  unknown  or  obsolete.  However,  Austria  subsequently  informed  the  European 
Commission  that  this  has  been  a  reporting  error,  while  the  missing  information  refers  only  to 

single barriers within these water bodies, and not  entire water bodies. This  does not  affect  the 
Program of Measures. 

Operational  KTMs  to  tackle  these  pressures  are  clearly  defined,  specifically  KTM  5  - 
“Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams)”, KTM 

6  -  “Improving  hydromorphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than  longitudinal 
continuity”,  and  KTM  7  -  “Improvements  in  flow  regime  and/or  establishment  of  ecological 

flows”.  In  addition,  quantitative  management  objectives  in  terms  of  restoring  river  continuity 
have been set in all RBDs. 

In terms of basic measures, 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).  There  is  also  a  register  of  physical  modifications  of  water 
bodies. 

The  Austrian  RBMP  is  an  abstract  planning  instrument  and  does  not  name  specific,  spatially 
explicit  measures.  The  general  measures  named  in  the  RBMP  that  could  be  implemented  for 

hydromorphological pressures include: 

  Legal  measures  (already  in  place  for  the  preservation  of  very  good  status  and  for  the 
the 

including  programmes  for 

preservation  and  achievement  of  good  status), 
rehabilitation of water bodies. 

  General  rehabilitation  measures  planned  in  water  bodies  of  the  ‘Sanierungsraum’ 
(rehabilitation  area).  These  measures  are  generic:  a)  improvement  of  morphology,  b) 
longitudinal  continuity,  c)  reduction  of  the  impacts  of  backwater,  d)  reduction  of  the 
impacts of surges, and e) release of compensation water. For some hydromorphological 

125 

 
problems,  possibilities  are  mentioned  (for  example,  ‘technical  fish  passes’,  under  river 
continuity). 

  Financial incentives (national and European Union funds mentioned). 

  Research. 

Win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  Floods  Directive, 

drought management, and use of Natural Water Retention Measures were reported as included in 
the PoM of all RBDs. Furthermore, the design of new and existing structural measures, such as 

flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, was reported to have been adapted to take into 
account  WFD  objectives  in  all  RBDs.  Measures  related  to  hydromorphology  are  aimed  at  the 

restoration  of  good  ecological  status.  Some  of  these  measures  (e.g.  reconnecting  wetlands  and 
side-arms, widening, remeandering) may also serve as natural water retention measures, but this 

is  not  their  main  purpose.  Therefore,  KTM  23-  “Natural  water  retention  measures”  was  not 
reported as such to tackle any significant pressures. 

Ecological  flows  have  been  derived  and  implemented  partly,  that  is,  for  some  relevant  water 
bodies,  in  the  three  RBDs,  but  the  work  is  still  on-going.  The  Austrian  RBMP  describes  the 

permit  regime  for  new  installations  (as  a  measure)  and  the  new  requirements  for  minimum 
ecological flows through new legislation dating to 2010, which need to be followed to obtain a 

permit for operating a hydropower plant or any other installation. However, this only applies to 
new  installations,  or  to  permits  which  run  out  and  need  to  be  reviewed.  Existing  installations 

were  targeted  in  the  first  cycle,  and  it  is  stated  that  in  most  water  bodies  of  the  priority 
rehabilitation area, ecological flows were established. No further information was found on the 

timeline for completing the implementation of ecological flows for all relevant water bodies. 

In  the  second  cycle  the  priority  area  was  extended  to  smaller  catchments.  Within  this  priority 

area  the  ecological  flows  are  expected  to  be  restored  by  2021  and  in  all  other  water  bodies 
measures are planned until 2027.82 

Indicators on the gap to be filled for significant hydromorphological pressures and KTM value 
indicators were reported for 2015 and 2021 (but not for 2027). From the information available, 

82  Austria  subsequently  informed  that  the  high  number  of  hydromorphological  pressures  and  the  huge  extent  of 
restoration measures necessary to achieve the goals of the WFD pose considerable challenges for Austria. Hence, a 
prioritisation approach was chosen, which is based on a long term ecological concept and phases necessary actions 
for  three  management  cycles.  To  cope  with  permits  in  place  with  either  no  expiry  date  or  a  long  duration,  the 
Austrian Water Act authorises the Länder to issue legal regulations (ordinances) with the aim of obliging all holders 
of permits to submit projects related to continuity and ecological minimum flow within a given time frame. Thus the 
existing permits do not have to be changed case by case but with a single legal regulation. These regulations can be 
issued for the defined priority area. 

126 

 
                                                      
there will be approximately 10 % to 20 % reduction of significant hydromorphological pressures 

between 2015 and 2021. After 2021, a still considerable effort in measures is planned to achieve 
objectives,  either  in  terms  of  number  of  water  bodies  required  to  be  covered  by  measures  or 

number of barriers that need to be tackled per water body. 

A  comprehensive  instrument  for  funding  hydromorphological  measures  is  not  described.  For 

some  measures,  for  example  related  to  flood  protection,  hydropower  or  flow  regime,  it  is 
planned  that  they  are  to  be  borne  by  the  entity  operating  or  responsible  for  the  installation,  if 

they  are  situated  in  the  ‘Sanierungsraum’  (rehabilitation  area)  and  a  respective  ordinance  is 
issued.  For  other  hydromorphological  measures,  for  example,  the  reduction  of  surges,  the 

‘environmental support’ law applies, but it seems that only unused funds from the first cycle can 
be used in the second cycle. Flood protection measures or changes to such measures can also be 

funded by other national and European Union funds. 

13.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

Despite  the  largely  ongoing  work,  it  is  noted  that  there  are  new  requirements  for  minimum 

ecological  flows  through  new  legislation  dating  from  2010  and  that  the  priority  area  approach 
appears to be progressing. 

13.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

the following: 

  Recommendation (2015 report): Provide a clear commitment in the second RBMP to 

properly prioritise hydromorphological measures and to a review of hydropower permits 
as restoration measures and the establishment of an ecological flow downstream of 
hydropower plants will be necessary to achieve good surface water status. 

Assessment: The planned KTM to address significant hydromorphological pressures are 
clearly  reported  and  the  ambition  level  for  reducing  hydromorphological  pressures 
between 2015 and 2021 is approximately between 10% to 20% for the different pressures 

and  RBDs.  The  priority  areas/priority  rivers  (‘Sanierungsraum’)  have  been  extended  in 
the second RBMP (for example, some rivers with catchment areas smaller than 100 km² 

have been added, but others also excluded). As a result, the rehabilitation area has been 
enlarged from the first to the second RBMP. However, a comprehensive instrument for 

funding hydromorphological measures is not described. This, in combination to funding 

127 

 
that despite being described as secured has been reduced compared to the previous cycle, 

puts the achievement of targets set into doubt. 

There  is  no  indication  in  the  RBMP  of  a  systematic  revision  of  permits  to  address 

hydromorphological  problems.  However,  the  permit  regime  for  new  installations  is 
described  (as  a  measure)  as  well  as  new  requirements  for  minimum  ecological  flows 

through the new 2010 legislation. It also stated that there is a possibility to change/revise 
existing  permits,  but  it  is  not  intended  to  systematically  review  all  permits  within  a 

specified  horizon.  Concerning  the  review  of  existing  permits,  Austria  follows  a 
prioritisation  approach,  which  is  based  on  a  long-term  ecological  concept  and  phases 

necessary actions over three management cycles.  

Based  on  the  assessment  above,  the  recommendation  is  considered  to  be  partially 

fulfilled. 

128 

 
 
 
Topic 14  Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

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

As in the first cycle, only water supply and waste water services are called ‘water services’ in the 

national  RBMP  as  well  as  in  the  respective  ‘Background  document  on  the  socio-economic 
analysis 2013’. All other uses/sectors are referred to as ‘uses’. However, there is no explanation 

provided  as  to  why  the  two  services  are  identified  as  services,  while  other  uses  linked  to 
significant  pressures  not,  in  both  the  national  RBMP  and  the  ‘Background  document  on  the 

socio-economic  analysis  2013’.  Although  only  two  water  services  were  defined,  the  use  of 
Article  9(4)  is  indicated  for  five  additional  water  services  (flood  protection,  irrigation, 

navigation, self-abstraction, and water storage).  

The  incentive  function  of  water  pricing  is  described  in  the  national  RBMP  on  a  very  general, 

global level. It is not explained what ‘adequate’ means.  

Metering  and  volumetric  charges  were  in  place  for  all  consumptive  uses  and  wastewater 

discharges, but no details on, for example, tariffs, were provided.  

Cost recovery of financial costs was calculated for those regarded by Austria as water services: 

water supply and water treatment, with very high cost recovery rates (higher than 100%).  

Environmental  and  resource  costs  were  briefly  defined  in  the  national  RBMP:  environmental 

costs were defined as damage costs, while resource costs were defined as opportunity costs. As 
in  the  first  cycle,  it  was  stated  that  environmental  and  resource  costs  were  internalised  in  the 

production costs when calculating cost  recovery  (only  for the two defined water services), but 
the methodology/approach was not provided.  

There was no information on the Polluter Pays Principle in the national RBMP, for example, it is 
not explained how a contribution from agriculture and other sectors to the environmental costs of 

diffuse and point-source pollution is ensured. 

The economic analysis was reported to have been updated in Austria, with three additional water 
uses that have been incorporated into it, which were shipping, fisheries and flood protection. 

129 

 
14.2.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  Develop  fully  the  economic  analysis  of  water  use,  including  the 
calculation of environmental and resource costs and how the cost effectiveness analysis 

influenced the selection of measures.  

and 

  Recommendation: Water pricing should provide an incentive to water efficiency.  

Assessment: The incentive function of water pricing is described in the national RBMP 

at a very general level. It is not explained what ‘adequate’ means.  

Metering and volumetric charges were in place for all consumptive uses and wastewater 

discharges.  An  overview  of  average  price  levels  for  water  and  wastewater  is  provided, 
but no details on tariff structure were provided (it is mentioned that factors other than the 

simple amount consumed can be factored in the tariffs).   

Qualitative  cost-effectiveness  analyses  of  measures  have  been  carried  out  for  all  three 

RBDs in Austria, and links to relevant documents have been provided.  

These recommendations are not fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  The  cost-recovery  should  address  a  broad  range  of  water  services, 
including  impoundments,  abstraction,  storage,  treatment  and  distribution  of  surface 

waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when either of these 
services  are  so  called  ‘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 should be included in  the costs recovered. Information 

should also be provided on the incentive function on water pricing for all water services, 
with the aim of ensuring an efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays 

principle has been taken into account should be provided in the RBMP. 

Assessment:  Only  water  supply  and  waste  water  services  are  called  ‘water  services’  in 

the  national  River  Basin  Management  Plan  as  well  as  in  the  respective  ‘Background 
document on the socio-economic analysis 2013’.  

130 

 
All other uses/sectors are referred to as ‘uses’. However, there is no explanation provided 

as  to  why  two  services  are  identified  as  services,  while  other  uses  linked  to  significant 
pressures  not.  There  is  no  explanation  in  either  the  national  River  Basin  Management 

Plan or the ‘Background document on the socio-economic analysis 2013’.  

Although  only  two  water  services  are  defined,  the  use  of  Article  9(4)  is  indicated  in 

WISE  reporting  for  five  additional  water  services  (flood  protection,  irrigation, 
navigation, self-abstraction and water storage).  

Other activities are also linked to significant pressures, for example, agriculture, but not 
to  quantitative  pressures  (that  is,  groundwater  quantitative  status  related),  only  to 

qualitative ones (that is, related to surface water and groundwater qualitative status). For 
all other uses/sectors, it is stated that the objectives of the WFD will be reached with the 

planned  measures,  and  that  the  instrument  ‘cost  recovery’  is  not  necessary  to  be 
employed here. This argument refers to Article 9(4) and the judgement of the European 
Court of Justice83. 

Cost  recovery  of  financial  costs  is  calculated  for  the  two  water  services  regarded  by 
Austria as water services: water supply and water treatment, with very high cost recovery 

rates  (higher  than  100  %).  However,  there  is  no  information  on  the  contribution  of 
households,  industry  and  agriculture  to  the  calculated  cost  recovery,  except  a  general 

statement  that  the  three  sectors/uses  benefit  from  both  water  services  and  that  they  do 
contribute to the cost recovery of these. 

Environmental  and  resource  costs  are  briefly  defined  in  the  national  River  Basin 
Management  Plan:  environmental  costs  as  damage  costs,  resource  costs  as  opportunity 

costs.  As  in  the  first  cycle,  it  is  stated  that  environmental  and  resource  costs  are 
internalised in the production costs when calculating cost recovery (for the two defined 

water  services),  but  the  methodology/approach  is  not  provided.  It  is  also  stated  that 
calculating  and  individually  stating  the  environmental  and  resource  costs  would  be  a 

disproportionately high effort. 

Although cost recovery calculations have changed since the first cycle (other figures are 

provided), the contribution of households, industry and agriculture to the calculated cost 
recovery  is  not  described  anymore  (it  was  described  in  the  first  cycle).  Hence,  there  is 

limited or no progress in relation to the first cycle regarding this recommendation. 

83  C-525/12, judgment of 11 September 2014 

131 

 
                                                      
There is  no information  on the Polluter Pays Principle in  the RBMP, for example, it is 

not explained how a contribution from agriculture and other sectors to the environmental 
costs  of  diffuse  and  point-source  pollution  is  ensured.  This  recommendation  is  not 

fulfilled. 

132 

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

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

Protected surface water areas have been identified for all relevant Directives (Habitats, Birds and 
Bathing),  where  both  objectives  and  status  assessments  were  included.  For  groundwater, 

Protected Areas have been identified in relation to Article 7, Habitats and Birds Directive areas 
dependent on groundwater. Austria has not reported Protected Areas for the Nitrates Directives 

as a whole territory approach was applied. 

Table 15.1 

Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD of Austria, 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/EEC84 

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)85 

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)86 

Other 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Number of protected area Associated 
with 

Rivers 

Lakes  Groundwater 

201 

12 

122 

42 

9 

50 

71 

13 

96 

Figure 15.1 shows the status of water bodies associated with the Protected Areas for Austria. It 

can be seen that less than 50 % of surface water bodies were less than good ecological status and 

84   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  
85  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  
86  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wildfauna and flora 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043  

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
all  surface  water  bodies  failed  good  chemical  status  due  to  ubiquitous  substances  (biota 

monitoring).  More  than  99  %  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Austria  would  reach  good  chemical 
status  without  these  ubiquitous  substances.  The  ecological  status  assessment  for  77  %  of 

Protected  Areas  is  made  with  either  medium  or  low  confidence,  and  for  the  chemical  status 
assessment  of  surface  waters,  the  situation  is  worse  with  nearly  100  %  reported  to  have  low 

confidence.  This  may  indicate  an  insufficient  monitoring  programme,  but  there  may  be  other 
reasons for this, such as grouping of water bodies (in particular where there is no risk of failing 

good status). No monitoring is reported specifically for Protected Areas, as it is included within 
the  Surveillance  and  Operational  monitoring  networks  and  priority  is  given  to  areas  where 

measures may be used to improve quality.  

For groundwater, both the quantitative and qualitative status assessment in relation to all relevant 

Directives (Drinking Water, Habitats and Birds) is reported to be done with high confidence for 
nearly  100  %  of  water  bodies.  As  stated  above,  monitoring  is  not  reported  specifically  for 

Protected Areas but is included within surveillance and operational monitoring networks so this 
high confidence is justified. 

Safeguard  Zones  have  been  reported  to  be  in  place  for  drinking  water  protected  areas  in  both 

surface  and  groundwater  bodies,  with  no  plans  to  change  the  regulations  as  a  result  of  this 
RBMP.87 

It  was  reported  for  all  Protected  Areas  in  relation  to  the  Habitat  and  the  Birds  Directives 
(groundwater dependent and surface water), that the good ecological status is sufficient also to 

reach the favourable conservation status. It appears that this has been used as a default approach 
and not based on a specific assessment of the status and needs for each water body. This is also 

partly confirmed by the statement in the RBMP that ‘with the improvement of the status of water 
bodies,  the  specific  objectives  in  the  protected  areas  will  generally  be  supported’.  However, 

Austria  has  subsequently  clarified  that  if  more  stringent  objectives  have  to  be  set  due  to  e.g. 
nature protection, it must be considered in Water Framework Directive assessment and reported 

by nature protection authorities. At present no report has been made and therefore there was no 
cause to set more stringent objectives. 

87   Austria subsequently clarified that the objectives are included in RBMP in combination with various measures. 

134 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 15.1  Status  of  water  bodies  associated  with  the  Protected  Areas  for  Austria.  Note: 

based  on  status/potential  aggregated  for  all  water  bodies  associated  with  all 
Protected Areas 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

No monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas were reported for either surface waters or 
groundwater in Austria. As mentioned earlier, Austria has clarified, that specific monitoring of 

protected  areas  is  included  within  the  Surveillance  and  Operational  monitoring  networks  and 
priority is given to areas where measures may be used to improve quality.  

The  confidence  of  the  assessment  corresponds  with  the  fact  that  no  specific  monitoring  of 
protected  surface  water  areas  has  been  reported  and  with  the  information  that  the  good 

ecological status is sufficient also to reach the objectives according to the other Directives. 

Furthermore  Austria  subsequently  clarified  that  since  Austria  has  applied  Article  3(5)  of  the 

Nitrates Directive, no nitrate vulnerable zones are delineated and the action program is applied 
to the whole territory. 

135 

 
 
 
No information was reported on the need for additional measures in relation to surface waters, as 

the  good  ecological  status  was  reported  to  be  sufficient  to  reach  the  objectives  related  to  the 
Birds and the Habitats Directives. The good ecological status will generally support the specific 
objectives in the protected areas, but not necessarily lead to their fulfilment88. Safeguard zones 
have been established and a number of restrictions applied like mandatory ban or restrictions on 

the use of pesticides and manure spreading. 

Widespread  use  of  exemptions  has  been  reported.  For  62  %  of  surface  water  Protected  Areas 

(Bathing Water, Habitat and Birds), exemptions have been applied mainly related to Article 4(4), 
and  evenly  divided  between  disproportionate  cost,  natural  conditions  and  technical  feasibility 

exemptions.  This  is  contradictory,  considering  that  no  additional  effort  to  obtain  the  more 
stringent  objectives  should  be  needed  assuming  that  the  good  ecological  status  is  sufficient  to 
obtain the objectives of the Birds and Habitats Directives89. No exemptions have been applied in 
relation  to  groundwater  Protected  Areas,  including  groundwater  dependent  Habitat  and  Bird 

Directive areas. 

15.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

Monitoring  activity  specifically 

targeted 

towards  Protected  Areas  (both  surface  and 

groundwater) was not reported in the second cycle. 

15.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

88 Austria subsequently clarified that additional measures which are not related to water may be required to fulfil the 
objectives  of  the  relevant  Directives  but  these  must  be  set  by  the  relevant  competent  authorities  for  nature 
protection. 
89  Austria  informed  subsequently  that  the  exemptions  refer  to  the  WFD  objectives,  not  to  other  (more  stringent) 
objectives. 

136 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change 

16.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in second cycle 

Climate change was considered in all RBDs and the guidance on how to adapt to climate change 
(CIS Guidance Document  No. 2490) was used.  In  the first  cycle, no climate check of the PoM 
was carried out. Such a check has been now carried out for the second RBMP. Consideration of 

climate change has taken place for: selection of robust adaptation measures; monitoring change 
at  reference  sites;  maximisation  of  cross-sectoral  benefits;  minimisation  of  negative  effects 

across sectors; forecasting the economics of water supply and demand; flood risk management; 
drought  management  and  water  scarcity;  detecting  climate  change  signals;  checking  the 
effectiveness of measures; and assessing direct and indirect climate pressures91. No specific sub-
plans  addressing  climate  change  were  reported  for  Austria.  No  specific  adaptation  measures 
(KTM 24 - “Adaptation to climate change”) were reported92. 

According to the 2012 Topic Report on “Assessment of Water Scarcity and Drought aspects in a 
selection of European Union RBMPs”93, the relevance of droughts was unclear for the country94. 
However, in the RBMP (chapters 10.1 and 10.2) it is stated that water scarcity is not relevant in 

Austria, and droughts occur only seasonally in some regions. No exemptions have been applied 
for Austria following Article 4(6) due to prolonged droughts. 

Even though there is no legal obligation to prepare Drought Management Plans, many Member 
States have prepared them in order to cope with droughts. No Drought Risk Management Plans 

have been reported for Austria. This situation is similar to 2012 (Topic report on: “Assessment 
of Water Scarcity and Drought aspects in a selection of European Union RBMPs”), when such 

plans were not in place for Austria. 

16.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

In  the  first  cycle  no  climate  check  of  the  PoM  was  carried  out.  Such  a  check  has  been  now 

carried out in the second cycle. 

90 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm 
91  Austria  subsequently  clarified  that  the  Austrian  National  Adaptation  Strategy  enshrines  one  field  of  action 
specifically addressed to water resources and water management issues. 
92 Austria subsequently clarified that this happened as win-win measures as well as no-regret measures according to 
climate change adaptation  were generally preferred. However, within chapter 10.3 of the Austrian RBMP options 
for action to address water scarcity and droughts are outlined. 
93 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Assessment%20WSD.pdf 
94 Austria subsequently noted that in chapter 10.2 of the Austrian RBMP 2015 is clearly stated, that some regions 
are affected by seasonal droughts, while water scarcity is of no relevance in Austria. 

137 

 
                                                      
16.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

138