COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: United Kingdom 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: United Kingdom, 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) 58 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: United Kingdom     Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 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 ...................................................................................................................... 17 

Topic 1

  Governance and public participation ....................................................................... 20 

1.1
  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 20 

1.2

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

1.3

  Progress with European Commission recommendations ............................................. 23 

Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District............................................................. 24 

  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
2.1
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 24 

2.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 44 

2.3

  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 46 

Topic 3
bodies 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water 

 ................................................................................................................................... 48 

  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
3.1
RBMPs.................................................................................................................................... 48 

3.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first Cycle ....................... 70 

3.3

  Progress with European Commission recommendations ............................................. 72 

Topic 4

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................... 78 

  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
4.1
RBMP ..................................................................................................................................... 78 

4.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance in the first cycle ............................. 93 

4.3

  Progress with European Commission recommendations ............................................. 94 

Topic 5
bodies 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater 

 ................................................................................................................................... 98 

  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
5.1
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 98 

5.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 107 

5.3

  Progress with European Commission recommendations ........................................... 108 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 6

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................. 109 

  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
6.1
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 109 

6.2

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

6.3

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

Topic 7
  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 
Ecological Potential................................................................................................................. 118 

7.1
  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle for designation ............................................................................................................. 118 

7.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 121 

7.3

  Progress with European Commission recommendations ........................................... 122 

Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions .............................................................. 124 

  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
8.1
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 124 

8.2 Exemptions ..................................................................................................................... 124 

8.3 Main changes in implementation and compliance in the first cycle ............................... 132 

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

Topic 9

  Programme of measures.......................................................................................... 134 

9.1
  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 134 

9.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance in the first cycle ........................... 147 

9.3

  Progress with European Commission recommendations ........................................... 149 

Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity .......................................... 152 

10.1
  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 152 

10.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 155 

10.3

Progress with European Commission recommendations ........................................ 155 

Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture................................................... 156 

11.1
  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 156 

11.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 158 

11.3

Progress with European Commission recommendations ........................................ 158 

Topic 12

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture ..................... 160 

12.1
  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 160 

12.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance in the first cycle ....................... 163 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
12.3

Progress with European Commission recommendations ........................................ 163 

Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology ................................................................ 164 

13.1
  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 164 

13.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance in the first cycle ....................... 166 

13.3

Progress with European Commission recommendations ........................................ 167 

Topic 14

Economic analysis and water pricing policies .................................................... 169 

14.1
  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .... 169 

14.2

Progress with European Commission recommendations ........................................ 170 

Topic 15
and measures) .......................................................................................................................... 175 

  Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives 

15.1
  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 175 

15.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 180 

15.3

Progress with European Commission recommendations ........................................ 180 

Topic 16

Adaptation to drought and climate change .......................................................... 181 

16.1
  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 181 

16.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 183 

16.3

Progress with European Commission recommendations ........................................ 183 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms and definitions 

EQS Directive 

Environmental Quality Standards Directive 

FD 

Km 

km2 

KTM 

PoM 

RBD 

RBMP 

WFD 

WISE 

Annex 0 

Floods Directive 

Kilometre 

Kilometre squared 

Key Type of Measure 

Programme of Measures 

River Basin District 

River Basin Management Plan 

Water Framework Directive 

Water Information System for Europe 

Member States reported the structured information on the 
second  RBMPs  to  WISE  (Water  Information  System  for 
Europe).  Due  to  the  late  availability  of  the  reporting 

guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an 
Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying 

what  information  they  were  unable  to  report  and  the 
reasons  why.  This  Annex  was  produced  using  a template 

included  in  the  reporting  guidance.  If  Member  States 
reported all the required information, this explanatory note 

was not necessary. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Foreword 

The  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  (2000/60/EC)1  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. 

1  Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  a  framework  for  the 

Community action in the field of water policy  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
General Information 

Map A Map of River Basin Districts 

Source: 2012 assessment reports, WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

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

The  information  on  areas  of  the  national  RBD  (Map  A),  including  sharing  countries,  is 

provided in Table A.  

The share of the United Kingdom in the respective international RBD is 75.4 % (Neagh Bann) 

and 39.8 % (North Western) as shown in Table B. 

6 

North SeaAtlantic OceanEnglish ChannelUKUK01UK04UK05UK09UK08UK06Celtic SeaUK02UK10UK12UK03UK07UKGBNIIENBUK11UKGBNIIENWUKGBNINEIESEFRAIESWIEWEIEGBNISHIEEAGBNIIENWGBNIIENBBESchelde_VLNLSC0100200km 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A: Overview of the United Kingdom‘s River Basin Districts  

RBD Name 

Size (km2)2 

Countries 
sharing 
RBD 

RBD 

UK01 

UK02 

UK03 

UK04 

UK05 

UK06 

UK07 

UK08 

UK09 

UK10 

UK11 

UK12 

Scotland 

Solway Tweed 

Northumbria 

Humber 

Anglian 

Thames 

South East 

South West 

Severn 

Western Wales 

Dee 

North West 

113920 

17511 

9029 

26051 

27868 

16190 

10199 

21478 

21300 

16647 

2235 

13160 

UKGBNIIENB  Neagh Bann 

8289 (6100 in UK) 

UKGBNIIENW  North Western 

14709 (4900 in UK) 

UKGBNINE 

North Eastern 

3995 

UKGI17 

Gibraltar 

33.4 including coastal 
waters 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

IE 

IE 

- 

- 

Table B: Transboundary river basins by category and % share in the United Kingdom 

Name international 
river basin 

Countries 
sharing 
RBD 

Neagh Bann 
North Western (rivers Erne and Foyle) 
Total 

IE 
IE 

Co-ordination 
category 
2 

Total 1-4 

km² 
6125 
4900 
11031 

 % 
75.4 
39.8 

km² 
6125 
4900 
11031 

 % 
75.4 
39.8 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

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.  

2 Size includes coastal waters. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Status of second river basin management plan reporting 

A  total  of  15  of  the  16  RBMPs  of  the  United  Kingdom  (Scotland,  Solway  Tweed, 

Northumbria,  Humber,  Anglian,  Thames,  South  East,  South  West,  Severn,  Western  Wales, 
Dee,  North  West,  Neagh  Bann,  North  Western,  North  Eastern)  were  published  between  22 

February 2015 and 18 February 2016. A RBMP for Gibraltar has not been published in WISE. 
Documents  are  available  from  the  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA)  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  the  United  Kingdom  are  as 
follows: 

 

Governance and public consultation 

 

In  all  of  the  United  Kingdom  RBDs  stakeholders  were  involved  via  a  broad  range  of 

mechanisms,  including  advisory  groups  and  (in  England  and  Wales)  catchment 

partnerships. 

 

The  information  available  concerning  the  public  consultation  of  the  draft  RBMP  for 

Scotland  is  contradictory,  with  some  documents  indicating  a  4-month  consultation 
period and others a 6-month period. The WFD requires a minimum of six months for 

the public consultation on the Plans. 

 

The United Kingdom did not adopt and publish all the RBMPs in accordance with the 

timetable in the Water Framework Directive. The United Kingdom RBMP for Gibraltar 
was adopted but not reported in WISE. 

 

Characterisation of the RBD 

 

Significant efforts appear to have been made for the re-delineation and characterisation 
of  groundwater  bodies  in  the  second  RBMP.  The  identification  of  more  groundwater 

bodies  was  due  to  better  conceptual  understanding  of  groundwater  and  an  improved 
risk/ status assessment. Further characterisation work has also included the assessment 

of linkages with surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems. 

 

The definition of significance of pressures on surface water was reported to be linked to 

the potential failure of objectives in all 15 RBDs, whereas significance was defined in 
terms  of  thresholds  in  12  of  the  15  RBDs.  For  groundwater,  the  definition  of 

significance  of  pressures  was  in  terms  of  thresholds  and  was  linked  to  the  potential 
failure  of  objectives  in  12  of  the  15  RBDs  that  reported.  However,  in  the  second 

RBMPs  the  pressure  affecting  the  greatest  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the 
United Kingdom as a whole was “unknown anthropogenic pressures” (28 % of surface 

water bodies). In addition, a range of pressures were reported not to have been assessed.  

9 

 
 
 

All RBDs established an inventory of emissions. Only 11 substances were included in 

an inventory for all 15 RBDs. The RBMPs stated that substances are only included in 
the  inventories  if  they  are  assessed  as  being  relevant.  The  CIS  Guidance  Document 

recommends providing basic estimation of emission including for substances of minor 
relevance, but this does not seem to have been done. Different combinations of Tier 1, 

Tier  2  and  Tier  3  of  the  methodology  were  implemented  (while  the  CIS  Guidance 
Document  recommends  using  at  least  Tier  1+2  for  all  substances  deemed  relevant  at 

RBD level. The data quality ranged from good to very uncertain, or was not reported. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status  

 

In  the  three  RBDs  in  Northern  Ireland,  there  was  an  increase  in  the  number  of 

monitoring  sites  in  coastal  waters,  lakes  and  rivers,  while  the  number  of  sites  in 
transitional waters decreased. 

 

In  12  of  the  15  RBDs  in  Scotland,  England  and  Wales  there  was  a  reduction  in  the 

number of monitoring sites in all water categories. The largest decreases were generally 
in transitional waters and coastal waters. The United Kingdom subsequently explained 

that  this  reduction  is  due  to  better  targeting  the  monitoring  effort  on  the  basis  of 
increased knowledge.3 

 

The  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  included  in  operational  monitoring  decreased, 

with respect to the first RBMPs, in 12 of the 15 RBDs. 

 

 

The required biological quality elements are not monitored in any water body included 
in surveillance monitoring for all water categories. 

Fish are not monitored in any lake in Scotland, England and Wales but are monitored in 
lakes in Northern Ireland. River continuity is reported not to be monitored in any of the 

RBDs. 

 

Not all River Basin Specific Pollutants were monitored at the minimum recommended 

frequency. Environmental Quality Standards have not been established for sediment or 

biota,  while  some  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  have  been  monitored  in  these 
matrices 

3 There appear to be significant errors in the reporting on monitoring in WISE, which makes it difficult to have a 

reliable assessment on all aspects of monitoring. 

10 

 
 
                                                      
 

There  is  a  lack  of  comprehensive  reference  conditions  for  a  significant  proportion  of 

types in each water category, particularly for hydromorphological quality elements. The 
United  Kingdom  subsequently  highlighted  that  this  is  a  consequence  of  using  an 

alternative  method  for  determining  ecological  potential,  by  selection  of  mitigation 
measures rather than biological quality elements. 

 

There  is  some  evolution  in  the  development  of  assessment  methods  since  the  first 
RBMPs,  as  there  are  now  developed  assessment  methods  for  phytoplankton  in 

transitional waters and angiosperms in coastal waters. However, this is still not the case 
for  fish  in  lakes,  with  the  exception  of  the  three  RBDs  in  Northern  Ireland,  nor  for 

hydromorphological  quality  elements.  In  Northern  Ireland,  biological  quality  element 
assessment methods are still missing for benthic fauna in lakes and transitional waters, 

and for macroalgae in transitional waters in one of the three RBDs. 

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

 

In the UK overall there has been a net reduction in the number of sites and water bodies 

monitored for  chemical  status; only 16 %, 2 %,  3 % and 8 % of the total  monitoring 

sites across the RBDs in the UK are used for the monitoring of chemical status in lakes, 
rivers,  transitional  and  coastal  waters  respectively.  There  was  no  monitoring  in 
territorial  waters  and  their  status  is  not  assessed.  This  reduction  can  partially  be 

explained  by  the  implementation  of  a  risk  based  approach  (in  England,  Wales  and 
Scotland) to identify which water bodies require monitoring in order to rationalise the 
monitoring programme.  

 

There was a large increase (from 36 to 96 %) in the proportion of surface water bodies 

classified as good for the second RBMP compared to the first cycle. There was also a 

decrease in the proportion with unknown status (from 63 to 2 %). 

 

The majority of Priority Substances (ranging from 13 to 41 as monitored) listed across 
the United Kingdom RBDs are monitored in water for status assessment. Monitoring is 
undertaken at frequencies that meet the minimum requirements in the Directive at some 

sites  but  not  at  others.  Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  are 
monitored in biota in most RBDs, at a limited number of sites but at a frequency that 

meets the requirements of the Directive. 

 

Arrangements  are  in  place  for  the  long-term  trend  analysis  of  concentrations  of  those 
Priority  Substances  listed  in  Part  A  of  Annex  I  of  the  EQS  Directive  that  tend  to 

11 

 
 
accumulate in sediment and/or biota in most RBDs, not all (10 of the 14) substances are 

monitored consistently across the RBDs. Monitoring frequencies meet the requirements 
of the Directive. 

 

The method of dealing with measurements of Priority Substances lower than the limit 
of quantification is as specified in the Directive for 12 of the 15 RBDs; three RBDs in 

Northern Ireland reported the use of a different method. 

 

The majority of Priority Substances in inventories and discharged are monitored in the 

UK  RBDs.  However,  a  total  of  20  Priority  Substances  were  discharged  but  not 
monitored in at least one RBD, with more than three Priority Substances discharged but 

not  monitored  in  the  majority  of  RBDs.  The  UK,  however,  suggests  this  may  be  a 
reporting mistake. 

  More than 80 % of surface water bodies in the UK were classified for chemical status 
with  low  confidence  and  the  remainder  with  either  medium  confidence  or  high 
confidence.  A  high  proportion  of  water  bodies  classified  in  good  status  but  with  low 

confidence were not monitored but classified on the basis of a risk based approach.  

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 

bodies 

 

 

A large proportion (73 %) of the groundwater bodies are not subject to monitoring. 

Quantitative status is assigned to all groundwater bodies but the method for assigning 
status without monitoring data is unclear. 

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

 

Surveillance monitoring is implemented in a limited number of groundwater bodies and 
operational monitoring does not cover all groundwater bodies at risk. 

 

Substances causing risk are not completely covered by operational monitoring. 

  WFD  core  parameters  are  not  monitored  at  all  in  seven  river  basin  districts  and 

ammonium is not monitored in the remaining eight river basin districts. 

 

Groundwater associated surface waters have not  been considered in  status  assessment 
in the Scotland RBD. 

12 

 
 
 

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

Ecological Potential 

 

In  general,  the  methodology  for  heavily  modified  water  bodies’  designation  is  well 

explained in guidelines and/or appendices to RBMPs for all relevant aspects, including 
significant  adverse  effects  and  better  environmental  options.  However,  specific 

information on the outcomes of the assessment of significant adverse effects and better 
environmental  options  is  not  provided  at  the  water  body  level.  Furthermore,  physical 

alterations  are  not  reported  for  all  water  categories  designated  as  heavily  modified 
water bodies in all RBDs. For England and Wales, it was explained that information is 

not  held  about  the  history  of  water  bodies  that  are  now  considered  heavily  modified, 
therefore data on physical alterations cannot be provided. 

 

Good  ecological  potential  is  defined  using  the  Prague  approach  (England,  Wales  and 

Scotland)  or  a  hybrid  approach  (Northern  Ireland).  Good  ecological  potential  has  not 
been  defined  in  terms  of  biological  quality  elements  for  any  of  the  RBDs  but  on  the 

basis  of  mitigation  measures  that  must  be  undertaken  to  reach  good  ecological 
potential. Several  mitigation measures  for defining  GEP are reported in  all RBDs but 
specific assessments of ecological changes expected from taking these measures are not 

mentioned.  However,  monitoring  is  recommended  to  identify  biological  changes 
delivered by the implementation of mitigation measures. 

 

Environmental objectives and exemptions 

 

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

groundwater  bodies.  Information  is  also  provided  on  when  the  objectives  will  be 
achieved. 

 

Information on drivers, pressures and impacts leading to exemptions was reported. 

Still  a  significant  number  of  exemptions  is  applied  and  those  related  to  Article  4(5) 

have  increased.  The  justifications  for  exemptions  are  made  more  transparent  and  are 
provided  at  the  water  body  level.  However,  there  is  still  a  lack  of  detail  for  the 

justifications and applied criteria in several plans assessed, and those related to Article 
4(5) need to be reconsidered. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 

Programme of Measures 

 

Progress  has  been  fairly  good  overall  with  7  out  of  the  15  RBDs  stating  that  all 

measures  included  in  the  first  Programme  of  Measures  (PoM)  had  been  completed, 
three RBDs reporting that some of the planned measures had been completed and five  

RBDs  reporting  that  all  planned  measures  had  been  started.  Changes  in  the  second 
RBMP  have  been  made  in  response  to  improvements  in  understanding  pressures  and 

impacts,  significant  management  challenges  and  understanding  where  to  prioritise 
action. 

 

Financing  of  measures  has  been  secured  in  12  out  of  15  of  the  RBDs  but  not  for  the 
RBDs in Northern Ireland. 

  With respect  to  coordination with  the Floods Directive, joint  consultation  was carried 
out  in  England  and  Wales.  The  objectives  and  requirements  of  the  Floods  Directive 
have been considered in the second RBMP in all RBDs, specific win-win measures in 

terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  Floods  Directive,  drought 
management and use of  Natural  Water Retention  Measures have been included in  the 

PoM. The design of new and existing structural measures for the Floods Directive have 
been  adapted  to  take  into  account  WFD  Environmental  Objectives.  The  plans  are  not 
fully  integrated,  and  a  joint  consultation  has  not  been  carried  out  in  Scotland  or 

Northern Ireland. 

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 

 

Five RBDs have reported high values of Water Exploitation Index +, one of them likely 

beyond sustainability. 

  Most  of  the  abstraction  pressure  is  caused  by  public  water  supply,  usually  from  both 

surface water bodies and groundwater bodies. 

 

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

impoundment and a register of impoundments (under Article 11(3)(e)). 

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture 

 

 

The link between pressures and measures has been established on a general level and an 

appraisal of the gaps between pressures and measures has been done. 

The English RBMPs describes whether measures are mandatory or voluntary. For other 
RBDs  it  was  not  clear  whether  the  measures  being  recommended  were  entirely 

14 

 
 
mandatory  or  voluntary4.  In  many  cases  measures  are  based  on  regulations  making 
them mandatory, but there are a large number of other measures which are likely to be 
voluntary schemes. 

Drinking  water  protection  measures  (e.g.  establishment  of  safeguard  zones,  buffer 
zones etc.) are found in all RBDs except Scotland. 

Financing  of  agricultural  measures  is  secured  in  all  basins,  except  those  in  Northern 
Ireland and Scotland. 

 

 

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 

 

 

The measures proposed are generic and do not address individual Priority Substances, 
River Basin Specific Pollutants or Groundwater pollutants.  

There is no information on funding to tackle any of the surface water or groundwater 
measures included in the UK’s RBMPs. 

  Measures related to hydromorphology 

 

Operational KTM to address hydromorphological pressures and indicators on the gap to 
be  filled  for  hydromorphological  pressures  are  explicitly  reported  for  the  RBDs  in 

Scotland, England and Wales. For the RBDs of Northern Ireland, relevant KTM have 
been linked to national hydromorphological measures but they have not been reported 

as  tackling  specific  significant  pressures.  The  RBMP  refers  to  a  "prioritisation  of 
issues" such as barriers  to fish migration and to  co-ordination  of river  restoration and 

continuity  work  by  2020.  However,  in  most  RBDs  there  is  no  explicit  mention  of 
implementing specific technical measures that will address the priority issues. 

 

In the RBDs of Scotland, England and Wales, ecological flows have been derived for 
all relevant water bodies, but have been implemented only in some of the water bodies 

(work still ongoing). In the RBDs of Northern Ireland, ecological flows have been only 
derived for some relevant water bodies but have not been implemented yet. There are 

plans to do so in the second RBMP. 

 

Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

 

 

Cost  recovery  is  explained  in  general  but  not  transparently  presented  for  all  relevant 

user sectors in all RBDs. 

Only general information on the application the polluter pays principle was reported. 

4  The  UK  subsequently  indicated  that  information  on  mandatory  measures  is  provided  in  the  section  of  the 

RBMPs called – “Information on mechanisms for the Water Framework Directive”. 

15 

 
 
                                                      
 

Considerations  specific  to  Protected  Areas  (identification,  monitoring,  objectives 

and measures) 

 

For  Protected  Areas  designated  under  the  Birds5  and  Habitats6  Directives  (associated 
with  both  surface  and  groundwater),  additional  objectives  have  been  set  for  the  most 
part.  For  a  proportion  of  these,  it  is  noted  that  work  is  still  ongoing  to  establish  the 

needs.  For  a  small  proportion,  mainly  associated  with  Natura  2000  sites,  the 
achievement  of  the  WFD  objectives  is  assessed  to  be  sufficient  also  to  achieve  the 

objectives of the other Directives. 

 

For Protected Areas associated with shellfish production, specific objectives are set to 

be  identical  to  the  repealed  Directive  2006/113/EC  in  all  but  a  very  small  number  of 

Protected Areas in the Scotland RBD. 

 

The  reported  monitoring  activities  are  very  limited  and  this  represents  a  significant 

change  since  the  first  RMBP  as  there  was  a  significant  monitoring  programme 
specifically  for  protected  surface  water  areas  covering  all  relevant  Directives  and  for 

most of RBDs. Hence reported monitoring activities in relation to Protected Areas seem 
to be now very limited and lacking for most RBDs, although the monitoring would be 

reported through other different instruments. 

 

Adaptation to drought and climate change 

 

Climate  change  was  considered  in  various  ways  in  all  RBDs  and  it  is  stated  that  the 
guidance document on how to adapt to climate change was used. 

 

However,  not  all  RBDs  have  performed  a  climate  proofing  of  measures,  and  not  all 

have linked measures to the national adaptation strategy. 

 

There is a sub-plan on water scarcity and droughts for the Scotland and Solway Tweed 

RBDs,  and  in  all  RBDs  in  England  but  no  such  sub-plans  are  reported  for  the  other 
RBDs  where  drought  and  water  scarcity  are  identified  as  issues  related  to  climate 

change. 

5 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 

6 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043 

16 

 
 
 
                                                      
Recommendations  

 

The United Kingdom needs to ensure that, in the preparation of the next RBMPs, the 

public 

is  duly  consulted 

taking 

into  account 

these  documents  purpose  and 

complexity. 
improve 
international  cooperation  in  order  to  ensure  the  timely  achievement  of  the  WFD 

 The  United  Kingdom  should  continue 

to  develop  and 

objectives. 

 

The United Kingdom needs to provide a more detailed explanation on the way in which 

the apportionment of pressures among sources is carried out.  

 

Further  work  is  needed  in  the  assessment  of  pressures,  as  a  wide  range  of  pressures 

have not been assessed and no specific reasons could be identified for their exclusion. 

 

Inventories  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  chemical  substances  have  been 

established  in  all  RBDs,  but  not  for  all  Priority  Substances  and  other  substances 

identified in part A of Annex I of the EQS Directive. Complete inventories need to be 
established. 

 

 

 

The  United  Kingdom  should  strengthen  monitoring  of  surface  water  by  covering  all 
relevant quality elements in all water categories for all regions.  

The  United  Kingdom  should  complete  the  development  of  assessment  methods, 
including 
including 

relevant  quality  elements, 

reference  conditions, 

for  all 

hydromorphological  quality  elements.  Assessment  methods  for  biological  quality 
elements should be developed for all water categories. 

The  monitoring  for  status  assessment  to  reach  sufficient  confidence  and  spatial 
coverage  for  all  the  Priority  Substances  should  be  continued  (including  territorial 

waters  whose  status  should  be  also  assessed).  In  particular,  monitoring  should  be 
performed in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage to 

classify  all  water  bodies,  and  all  priority  substances  should  be  considered  in  the 
assessment of status, in the relevant matrix. If reduced frequencies or a different matrix 

are  used,  the  corresponding  explanations  should  be  provided,  as  required  by  the 
Directive. 

 

The  United  Kingdom  should  perform  trend  monitoring  to  ensure  that  all  the  relevant 

substances  specified  in  Directive  2008/105/EC  are  monitored  in  a  way  that  provides 
sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage.  

17 

 
 
 

The United Kingdom should address the large uncertainties reported in relation to the 

assessment  of  the  status,  the  pressures  and  the  effect  of  potential  measures  for 
groundwater bodies.  

 

 

The monitoring of groundwater networks should also be significantly improved.  

The  process  to  identify  heavily  modified  water  bodies  and  to  define  good  ecological 

potential needs to be completed. This should be done by providing information on the 

outcomes of the assessment of significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the 
use or on the wider environment and the lack of better environmental options at water 

body level (designation tests according to Articles 4(3)a and 4(3)b) in all RBDs. This 
will improve the transparency of the designation process. Ecological potential needs to 

be defined in terms of biology in all RBDs. 

 

A significant number of exemptions have been applied in the second RBMPs and those 

related  to  Article  4(5)  have  increased.  Efforts  should  continue  to  further  improve 
justifications for the application of exemptions in relation to Article 4(4) and 4(5) and 

to  make  them  more  transparent  in  all  RBMPs.  Particularly  the  criteria  used  for  the 
justification of Article 4(5) exemptions need to be reconsidered. 

 

The United Kingdom should ensure in all RBDs a thorough assessment of any planned 
new modifications in line with the requirements of the WFD and as further specified by 

the Judgment of the Court in case C-461/13. The use of exemptions under Article 4(7) 
needs to be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD 

and made transparent in the RBMPs. 

 

Although indicators of the gaps to good status for significant pressures on groundwater 

and  surface  waters  have  been  reported  electronically  to  WISE  across  the  United 
Kingdom RBDs, indicators of the level of progress expected in the implementation of 

measures is less well defined. It should be ensured that the RBMPs clearly identify the 
gap  to  good  status,  and  that  the  Programmes  of  Measures  are  designed  and 

implemented to close that gap. 

 

KTMs  should  be  operational  and  cover  all  the  pressures  causing  failure  to  reach  the 

objectives. In addition, all individual Priority Substances, River Specific Pollutants and 

Groundwater pollutants identified as causing failure should be associated with KTMs. 

 

The  United  Kingdom  should  ensure  that  funding  for  the  implementation  of  measures 

has been secured for all RBDs and that all the costs are reported. 

18 

 
 
 

The problem of water scarcity and over-abstraction, which are significant pressures in 

certain  RBDs,  should  be  better  tackled  with  targeted  measures.  The  United  Kingdom 
could consider extending controls to all water abstractions, including the smaller ones. 

 

For all UK RBDs, it should be stated 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.  

 

The  UK  should  ensure  the  definition  and  implementation  of  appropriate  measures  to 

address the significant hydromorphological pressures. The prioritisation of issues does 
not seem to have been translated into specific actions to tackle the relevant pressures. 

 

 

The UK should finish the establishment and implementation of ecological flows for all 
relevant water bodies in all RBDs. 

The  United  Kingdom  should  apply  cost  recovery  for  water  use  activities  having  a 
significant  impact  on  water  bodies  or  justify  any  exemptions  using  Article  9(4).  It 

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

United  Kingdom  should  also  transparently  present  the  water-pricing  policy,  including 
the  use  of  adequate  incentives  for  users  to  use  water  efficiently  and  provide  a 

transparent overview of estimated investments and investment needs. 

 

The  United  Kingdom  should  extend  the  establishment  of  safeguard  zones  to  protect 

drinking  water  sources  in  designated  groundwater  bodies  to  all  RBDs  to  ensure  that 
such areas are protected. 

 

The  United  Kingdom  should  clarify  if  monitoring  programmes  for  relevant  Protected 

Areas covering both groundwater and surface waters in RBDs are being carried out.  

19 

 
 
 
 
Topic 1

  Governance and public participation 

1.1

  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

1.1.1

  Administrative arrangements – RBDs 

In the United Kingdom, implementation of the WFD is mainly undertaken at the sub-national 
level:  England,  Wales,  Scotland,  Northern  Ireland  and  Gibraltar.  The  UK  has  identified  16 

RBDs, of which 12 lie in England, Scotland and Wales, three in Northern Ireland and one in 
Gibraltar.  

The United Kingdom did not report a RBMP for Gibraltar in WISE although it was reported to 
the European Commission as a separate document.  

The  UK  shares  two  international  RBDs  with  the  Republic  of  Ireland:  the  Neagh  Bann  and 
North Western RBDs. 

1.1.2

  Administrative arrangements – competent authorities 

There are eight authorities reported for the United Kingdom across the five main jurisdictions:  

  For Scotland, Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency 

  For England, the Secretary of State for Environment,  Food and Rural  Affairs and the 

Environment Agency 

  For Wales, the National Assembly of Wales and Natural Resources Wales (which took 

over the Environment Agency's role for the WFD in Wales in the first cycle) 

  For Northern Ireland, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in 

Northern Ireland;  

  And for Gibraltar, the Department of the Environment and Climate Change. 

1.1.3

  River  Basin  Management  plans  –  structure  and  Strategic  Environmental 

Assessment   

Sub-plans to the RBMPs were reported only for Scotland and Solway Tweed, where sub-plans 

cover  water  scarcity  and  droughts,  invasive  non-native  species,  restoration  of  physical 
conditions (hydro-morphology) and fish barriers.  

20 

 
 
In  England,  Wales  and  Northern  Ireland,  Strategic  Environmental  Assessments  were  carried 
out for the RBMPs; this was not the case for Scotland and Solway Tweed7.  

1.1.4

  Public consultation 

For all RBMPs except Scotland, it is reported that documents were available for consultation 
for the requisite six months.  For the Scotland district the consultation opened on 9 December 
2014 and closed on 9 April 2015.8 

In all UK RBDs, stakeholders were actively involved by authorities. This is reported to include 

stakeholders  in  the  following  areas:  agriculture,  energy,  fisheries,  industry,  navigation  (and 
ports),  water  supply,  mining  and  quarrying,  urban  infrastructure  and  transport  industries, 

consumer groups, NGOs/nature protection and local/regional authorities.   

In Scotland, the mechanisms used for active involvement of stakeholders in the development of 

the RBMPs consisted of advisory groups. In England and Wales, stakeholders were involved 
via advisory groups, the formation of alliances and involvement in the drafting. In the planning 

process,  authorities  engaged  with  stakeholders  using  a  range  of  organisations  such  as 
catchment  partnerships,  liaison  panels,  regional  flood  and  coastal  committees,  customer 
challenge groups, and various sector-specific groups such as the estuaries and coasts sub group 

and the England fisheries group.  

In  Scotland,  the  changes  that  were  made  in  the  RBMPs  in  response  to  issues  raised  by 

stakeholders and impacts on the RBMP included introduction of new information, adjustments 
to  specific  measures,  changes  to  the  selection  of  measures  and  commitment  to  action  in  the 

next RBMP cycle. 

In  England  and  Wales,  impacts  on  the  RBMP  included  introduction  of  new  information, 

adjustments to specific measures, changes to the methodology used, changes to the selection of 
measures, commitment to action in the next RBMP cycle and commitment to further research. 

Further specific impacts included the use of plain English and improved signposting to detailed 
data  and  information;  providing  detailed  catchment  level  information  in  consultation  and 

updated  RBMPs;  improved  linkages  between  RBMPs  and  flood  plans  and  describing  links 
with other plans and processes.  

7 The UK subsequently informed that the first Strategic Environmental Assessments for the Scotland RBMP and 
Solway Tweed RBMP included a forward look; a screening/scoping exercise was carried out for the second 
cycle RBMPs. 

8  Appendix  10  of  the  River  Basin  Management  Plan  for  the  Scotland  RBD,  however,  indicates  that  the  public 

consultation was open from 22 December 2014 to 22 May 2015. 

21 

 
 
                                                      
Impacts  of  public  participation  on  the  RBMPs  are  also  reported  for  Northern  Ireland: 

adjustments to specific measures and changes to selection of measures. 

1.1.5

  Integration  with  the  Floods  Directive  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 

Directive 

In England and Wales, a joint consultation was carried out between the RBMPs and the Flood 
Risk  Management  Plans  prepared  under  the  Floods  Directive9.  This  was  not  the  case  in 
Scotland, Solway Tweed RBD or Northern Ireland.  

For RBDs in England and Wales, RBMPs included sections on coordination of measures with 
the  Floods  Directive.  The  Scotland  and  Solway  Tweed  RBMPs  contain  information  on  links 

with flood risk management. 

For  England  and  Wales,  a  joint  consultation  was  carried  out  between  the  RBMPs  and  the 
Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive10;  in  addition,  a  document  was  prepared  to  assist 
estuarine  and  coastal  stakeholders  respond  to  the  consultation  on  the  draft  RBMPs  in  the 

context of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 

A review found some references to  the Marine Strategy  Framework Directive but  not to  that 
Directive’s objectives. In the RBMP for the South West RBD in England, reference is made to 

the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  as  a  plan  affecting  water  management,  but  no 
specific reference is made to the objectives of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. There 

is  a  link  to  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  PoM  on  the  RBMP  Page  of  the  Defra 
website11.  The  RBMP  for  Neagh  Bann  in  Northern  Ireland  references  the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework  Directive  and  notes  that  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  PoM  will 
complement  that  for  the  WFD  but  does  not  specifically  cite  the  objectives  of  the  Marine 

Strategy  Framework  Directive.  The  RBMP  for  Scotland  provides  a  reference  to  the  Marine 
Scotland Act 2010, though not to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive itself.  

1.1.6

  International coordination and co-operation  

The  UK  has  reported  that  there  is  an  international  agreement  and  a  permanent  co-operation 

body in place with the Republic of Ireland – covering the Neagh Bann and North Western in 
the United Kingdom  (designated as category two cooperation). Joint RBMPs, however, were 

9  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  

10 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  
11 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-management-plans-2015  

22 

 
 
                                                      
not  prepared.  The  UK  reported  that  there  was  no  international  co-ordination  on  public 

participation. 

Coordination  between  the  United  Kingdom  (Northern  Ireland)  and  the  Republic  of  Ireland 

takes  place  via  the  Joint  North  South  WFD  Coordination  group,  a  working  group  under  the 
Joint  North  South  Ministerial  Council.  Areas  of  coordination  include:  local  management 

issues,  strategic  environmental  assessment,  monitoring  programmes,  joint  funding  of 
transboundary projects, public communication and a joint approach to setting exemptions12.  

1.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

There are two changes that have been noted in terms of administrative arrangements compared 
to the first cycle. 

In the first cycle, the United Kingdom designated four RBDs in Northern Ireland, including the 
Shannon  international  RBD  shared  with  the  Republic  of  Ireland.  Only  two  km2  of  this 
international RBD were located in Northern Ireland. In the second cycle the United Kingdom 
part of this territory is now included in the North Western international RBD.  

A  change  is  seen  in  Wales:  in  the  first  cycle,  the  Environment  Agency  was  a  competent 
authority for RBDs in Wales; Natural Resources Wales has taken over this role in the second 

cycle. 

1.3

  Progress with European Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation: River basin management plans for Gibraltar shall be reported. 

Assessment:  A  RBMP  for  Gibraltar  has  been  adopted13.  It  has  not,  however,  been 
reported  to  WISE14.  Consequently,  the  United  Kingdom  has  partially  fulfilled  this 
recommendation. 

12 Sources include, among others, a joint document from 2008, Working Together: Managing Our Shared Waters, 
https://www.daera-

prepared 
ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/doe/working-together-managing-our-shared-waters-north-western-
2008.PDF. More recent documents were not found on UK or Republic of Ireland web sites. 

the  North  Western 

International  RBD, 

available 

for 

at: 

13   See: 

https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/new/sites/default/files/HMGoG_Documents/Gibraltar_River_Basin_Management
_Plan_Public_Consultation_Main_Report.pdf  

14 The United Kingdom  noted that Gibraltar’s second RBMP was attempted to be submitted via the WISE portal. 

However there are several errors which Gibraltar is working on with the Helpdesk. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District 

2.1

  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle  

2.1.1

  Delineation of water bodies 

Overall in the United Kingdom, there has been a decrease in the numbers of delineated surface 
water  bodies  compared  to  the  first  cycle,  with  the  biggest  decrease  occurring  for  river  water 

bodies (17 %) (Table 2.1).  

There  was  a  decrease  in  numbers  of  river  water  bodies  in  14  of  the  15  RBDs  with  a  small 

increase  in  Scotland.  There  are  big  differences  among  the  four  regions  and  the  RBDs.  For 
example,  there  was  a  37  %  decrease  in  the  number  of  river  water  bodies  in  the  South  West 

RBD  (England)  and  the  Western  Wales  RBD  (Wales),  around  20  %  decrease  in  numbers  of 
river water bodies in Northern Ireland and a small increase (1 %) in Scotland.  

For  lakes,  there  was  no  change  in  numbers  in  five  RBDs,  an  increase  in  one  RBD  and  a 
decrease in nine RBDs. There was no change between the two cycles in terms of transitional 

waters  in  seven  RBDs,  a  decrease  in  six  RBDs  and  an  increase  in  two  RBDs.  The  regional 
differences  are  again  highlighted  by  the  fact  that  there  was  a  small  decrease  in  identified 

transitional waters in Scotland compared to 15 % increase in the South East RBD (England).  
Of the 13 RBDs with identified coastal water bodies, there was no change in numbers in six 

RBDs, an increase in two RBDs and a decrease in five RBDs. 

Concerning the reasons for the changes, in the Neagh Bann RBD changes made to river water 
bodies  in  the  second  plans  were  based  on  aggregation  of  water  bodies  of  less  than  10km2 
catchment  areas,  aggregation  of  water  bodies  previously  split  because  they  contained  more 

than one monitoring site, or as a result of the review of cross-border water bodies. No changes 
were  reported  for  lakes.  Changes  made  to  transitional  and  coastal  water  bodies  were  due  to 

splitting  of  water  bodies  where  only  part  was  heavily  modified,  aggregation  of  water  bodies 
below  the  minimum  size  threshold  and  changes  based  on  monitoring  evidence  from  the  first 
cycle.  Some  water  bodies  with  significantly  differing  quality  at  different  monitoring  stations 

were  split.  There  was  also  a  review  of  cross-border  water  bodies  which  influenced  these 
changes.  Similarly,  in  the  Scotland  RBD  increased  understanding  of  status  due  to  new 

monitoring data allowed some water bodies to be split where pressures and status varied. In the 
Severn RBMP, it was explained that the mapping of the network of surface water bodies was 

updated using a ‘detailed river network’ for the  second RBMP. This  resulted in  a number of 
very small ‘non-reportable’ water bodies being removed and resolved some errors. No changes 

24 

 
 
to the methodology were made for transitional or coastal water bodies, though some changes 

have been made to  the delineation on a case-by-case basis.  For example, some coastal water 
bodies  were  changed  to  transitional  water  bodies  with  a  corresponding  change  in  the 

monitoring networks. 

Table  2.2  shows  the  differences  in  size  distribution  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the  United 

Kingdom between the second and first RBMPs. The minimum sizes largely remained the same 
but  there  was  an  increase  overall  in  the  minimum  length  of  rivers,  which  changed  from  an 

average minimum length of 0.12 km in the first RBMPs to 1.02 km in the second RBMPs. The 
minimum size criteria reported were 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and 0.5 km2 surface area 
for lakes.  

Table 2.3 summarises the information provided by the United Kingdom on how water bodies 

have  evolved  between  the  two  cycles  for  both  surface  water  and  groundwater.  For  surface 
water, the largest changes were for river water bodies where there were a significant number of 

deletions and aggregations of water bodies. This may also account for the increase in minimum 
river water body length if smaller water bodies were aggregated or removed.  

25 

 
 
 
 
Table 2.1 

Number  and  area/length  of  delineated  surface  water  bodies  in  the  United 

Kingdom for the second and first cycles 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

Total 
area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

Total 
area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

Year 

RBD 

2016  UK01 

2016  UK02 

2016  UK03 

2016  UK04 

2016  UK05 

2016  UK06 

2016  UK07 

2016  UK08 

2016  UK09 

2016  UK10 

2016  UK11 

2016  UK12 

2016  UKGBNIIENB 

2016  UKGBNIIENW 

2016  UKGBNINE 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

Total 
length of 
water 
body 
(km) 

2 028 

20 810 

6 154 

3 514 

11 216 

6 664 

5 320 

2 309 

7 025 

8 199 

3 858 

730 

5 610 

505 

315 

844 

526 

414 

220 

590 

681 

428 

71 

434 

199 

162 

89 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

309 

35 

45 

134 

46 

73 

28 

61 

68 

64 

21 

163 

10 

8 

3 

Total 
area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

962 

45 

29 

42 

44 

32 

6 

19 

38 

26 

14 

66 

393 

175 

2 

39 

11 

7 

7 

18 

10 

23 

23 

6 

28 

1 

11 

2 

2 

2 

605 

390 

25 

328 

316 

336 

121 

235 

546 

135 

109 

279 

5 

34 

1 

2016  Total 

7 506 

81 409 

1 068 

1 894 

190 

3 464 

2010  UK01 

2010  UK02 

2010  UK03 

2010  UK04 

2010  UK05 

2010  UK06 

2010  UK07 

2010  UK08 

2010  UK09 

2010  UK10 

2010  UK11 

2010  UK12 

2010  UKGBNIIENB 

2010  UKGBNIIENW 

2010  UKGBNINE 

2 013 

20 817 

526 

380 

968 

757 

483 

340 

938 

791 

676 

87 

547 

255 

208 

111 

6 189 

3 560 

11 179 

7 432 

5 455 

2 508 

7 559 

8 303 

4 224 

753 

6 020 

6 754 

6 383 

2 612 

309 

35 

73 

136 

49 

76 

34 

63 

75 

62 

21 

164 

10 

9 

3 

961 

45 

29 

44 

47 

40 

47 

27 

43 

26 

14 

66 

394 

149 

2 

2010  Total 

9 080 

99 749 
Source: WISE electronic reports  

1 119 

1 933 

40 

12 

7 

8 

18 

11 

20 

23 

6 

27 

1 

12 

2 

2 

3 

605 

695 

25 

328 

328 

336 

54 

234 

545 

135 

109 

279 

5 

35 

1 

192 

3 715 

26 

449 

45 868 

8 

7 

2 

13 

1 

11 

23 

1 913 

524 

339 

2 437 

43 

1 646 

3 498 

23 

4 331 

5 

3 

1 

15 

561 

1 511 

227 

166 

915 

63 419 

449 

45 796 

8 

7 

1 

11 

1 

16 

25 

1 913 

705 

329 

2 256 

43 

1 712 

3 498 

24 

4 331 

8 

3 

1 

16 

570 

1 509 

227 

166 

916 

63 400 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.2 

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

Year 

RBD 

Mini-
mum 

Maxi-
mum 

Average  Mini-mum  Maxi-mum  Average 

Mini-
mum 

Maxi-
mum 

Average 

Mini-
mum 

River length (km) 

Lake area (km2) 

Transitional (km2) 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

UK01 

UK02 

UK03 

UK04 

UK05 

UK06 

UK07 

UK08 

UK09 

UK10 

UK11 

UK12 

2016  UKGBNIIENB 

2016  UKGBNIIENW 

2016 

UKGBNINE 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

UK01 

UK02 

UK03 

UK04 

UK05 

UK06 

UK07 

UK08 

UK09 

0.08 

0.64 

1.37 

1.07 

1.17 

0.77 

1.48 

1.6 

0.55 

1.02 

1.5 

1.1 

0 

0 

0 

0.08 

0.56 

0.21 

0.11 

0.01 

0.06 

0.03 

0.12 

0 

69.66 

78.9 

70.77 

102.13 

189.97 

69.69 

87.97 

111.6 

78.72 

47.22 

65.11 

83.06 

0 

0 

0 

69.61 

77.64 

75.96 

111.22 

116.54 

82.33 

83.41 

109.91 

101.65 

10.26 

12.19 

11.16 

13.29 

12.67 

12.85 

10.49 

11.91 

12.04 

9.01 

10.28 

12.93 

0 

0 

0 

10.34 

11.77 

9.37 

11.55 

9.82 

11.29 

7.38 

8.06 

10.5 

0.5 

0.02 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.55 

0.61 

0.51 

0.5 

0.02 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3.11 

1.28 

0.64 

0.31 

0.97 

0.44 

0.22 

0.32 

0.56 

0.4 

0.66 

0.41 

39.28 

21.91 

0.7 

3.11 

1.28 

0.4 

0.32 

0.96 

0.52 

1.4 

0.43 

0.57 

55.34 

8.69 

10.3 

3.13 

12.12 

3.09 

0.78 

3.79 

4.65 

4.93 

4.15 

8.47 

381.14 

52.79 

0.95 

55.33 

8.68 

10.29 

3.12 

12.12 

4.86 

36.03 

6.72 

4.65 

27 

Coastal (km2) 
Maxi-
mum 
4,448.15 

0 

42.22 

0.19 

158.42 

653.19 

126.48 

180.58 

Average 

102.16 

239.16 

74.93 

169.5 

0.11 

1,195.34 

187.45 

42.67 

0.05 

5.14 

0 

42.67 

449.76 

825.53 

0 

42.67 

149.63 

152.08 

0 

0.05 

899.88 

188.32 

0 

0.16 

0.45 

0.06 

0.12 

0.05 

0.08 

0.1 

2.02 

0.09 

70.75 

305.78 

11.45 

247.94 

133.63 

201.01 

30.94 

70.88 

466.27 

22.13 

15.52 

35.43 

3.57 

46.93 

17.58 

33.57 

5.24 

10.2 

90.97 

4.83 

109.34 

109.34 

109.34 

0.1 

2.5 

13.08 

0.33 

0 

0.16 

0.16 

0.06 

0.12 

0.05 

0.08 

0.23 

2.02 

98.18 

2.56 

21.42 

0.6 

70.74 

305.68 

11.43 

247 

133.61 

201.04 

30.91 

70.84 

465.92 

25.34 

2.53 

27.88 

44.52 

17.25 

166.47 

0.46 

1.29 

455.55 

122.06 

166.47 

162.89 

15.13 

57.95 

3.51 

41.01 

18.21 

30.56 

2.71 

10.19 

90.9 

0 

4,454.96 

42.23 

0.19 

328.85 

653.19 

257.77 

328.85 

0.11 

1,195.91 

42.68 

450.01 

42.68 

0.05 

0.02 

0 

302.12 

75.75 

166.47 

61.01 

102 

239.14 

100.66 

328.85 

205.09 

42.68 

107 

825.3 

139.91 

0 

0 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Year 

RBD 

2010 

2010 

2010 

UK10 

UK11 

UK12 

2010  UKGBNIIENB 

2010  UKGBNIIENW 

2010 

UKGBNINE 

Mini-
mum 

Maxi-
mum 

0.08 

0.16 

0.1 

0.71 

0.65 

1.16 

54.03 

65.08 

82.27 

162.78 

140.21 

111.69 

6.25 

8.66 

11.01 

26.49 

30.69 

23.53 

River length (km) 

Lake area (km2) 

Transitional (km2) 

Average  Mini-mum  Maxi-mum  Average 

Mini-
mum 

Maxi-
mum 

Average 

Mini-
mum 

0.09 

22.13 

4.99 

109.28 

109.28 

109.28 

0.11 

2.5 

0.77 

0.07 

98.1 

2.56 

34.48 

0.59 

23.27 

2.53 

17.63 

165.73 

0.33 

1.29 

0.05 

0 

0.16 

44.54 

Coastal (km2) 
Maxi-
mum 
899.63 

0 

451.38 

122.09 

165.73 

185.73 

Average 

180.46 

0 

188.61 

75.79 

165.73 

57.22 

0 

0 

0 

0.54 

0.56 

4.93 

4.15 

14.36 

381.79 

57.78 

0.41 

0.66 

0.4 

39.35 

16.53 

0.53 
Source: WISE electronic reports  

0.88 

0.67 

28 

 
 
Table 2.3 

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

United Kingdom between the first and second cycles 

Type of water body 
change for second cycle  

Groundwater 
Body 

Lake 
Water 
Body 

River Water 
Body 

Coastal 
Water 
Body 

Transitional 
Water Body 

Aggregation 

Aggregation and splitting 

Splitting 

Change 

Change in code 

Extended aea 

Reduced area 

Creation 

Deletion 

No change 

4 

433 

370 

353 

2 

9 

20 

7 

10 

3 

70 

1034 

189 

57 

158 

804 

3 

3 

7 

82 

2071 

6227 

Total water bodies before 
deletion 

Delineated for second 
cycle (after deletion from 
first cycle) 

1158 

1136 

9577 

788 

1066 

7506 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

3 

4 

2 

16 

3 

21 

542 

582 

561 

2 

4 

3 

1 

4 

12 

177 

202 

190 

2.1.2

  Designation of heavily modified water bodies 

There was a 15 % decrease in the number of delineated surface water bodies between the two 

cycles.  In  the  second  cycle,  70.5  %  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the  United  Kingdom  were 
natural, 24 % heavily modified and 5.5 % artificial. Overall in the United Kingdom, there was 

a  decrease  in  the  number  and  proportion  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  between  the  two 
cycles  (Figure  2.1),  particularly  in  terms  of  heavily  modified  river  water  bodies  where  there 

was  a  decrease  in  numbers  and  proportion  in  14  of  the  15  RBDs.  The  exception  was  for 
Scotland where there was an increase of 18 % in heavily modified water bodies from the first 

to the second cycle. Generally fewer artificial water bodies are identified than heavily modified 
water  bodies.  13  UK  RBDs  identified  artificial  water  bodies,  in  10  of  these  there  was  a 

decrease  in  numbers  between  the  two  cycles,  in  two  others  (Scotland  and  Neagh  Bann)  the 
number was the same, and in the South West RBD numbers increased in the second cycle.  

Of the 11 heavily modified lake water bodies in Northern  Ireland, eight  are reservoirs where 
the water body was originally a natural lake, and three were reservoirs where the water body 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
was  originally  a  river.  This  information  on  reservoirs  was  not  reported  for  most  of  the  other 

UK RBDs. 

Heavily  modified  water  bodies  and  artificial  water  bodies  are  discussed  in  more  detail  in 

Chapter 7.  

Figure 2.1 

Proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the  United  Kingdom  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  

2.1.3

  Delineation of groundwater bodies  

Overall in the United Kingdom there was a 20 % increase in numbers of groundwater bodies 
from  the  first  cycle  (Table  2.4).  The  biggest  increase  (75  %)  occurred  in  the  North  Eastern 
RBD  (Northern  Ireland).  There  was  a  20  %  increase  in  numbers  of  groundwater  bodies  in 
Scotland15 and a 5 % decrease in the South West RBD. In three RBDs, the numbers remained 
the same, in three these decreased and in nine, the number of groundwater bodies increased as 

compared to the first cycle. 

Overall  the  changes  in  groundwater  body  delineation  were  due  to  a  better  understanding  of 

groundwater  since  the  first  cycle  and  an  improved  risk/status  assessment  leading  to 
identification of more groundwater bodies. A UK Technical Advisory Group methodology on 

15 The UK subsequently clarified that this was due to the delineation of groundwater bodies as multiple layers or 

horizons.  

30 

 
 
 
                                                      
groundwater  delineation  and  characterisation  was  identified  for  the  second  cycle,  which 

superseded  the  methodology  set  out  in  UK  Technical  Advisory  Group  paper  6(a).  All  RBDs 
have used this new methodology and all have updated groundwater bodies delineation. Since 

the  first  cycle,  groundwater  bodies  have  been  delineated  using  the  characteristics  of  the 
superficial deposits and soils and the calculation of the long term annual average rate of overall 

recharge.  Effort  was  also  put  into  distinguishing  between  different  layers,  a  shallow  layer  of 
superficial  groundwater  bodies,  and  a  deep  layer  of  bedrock  groundwater  bodies.  Superficial 

groundwater bodies are defined as permeable superficial deposit aquifers with a minimum area 
of one km2, which are subdivided by large surface water catchments, and bedrock groundwater 
bodies are defined primarily by bedrock aquifer type. 

The Neagh Bann RBMP highlighted that there is now better mapping data and information on 

superficial  deposits  and  information  on  land  use  pressures.  There  are  nine  superficial 
groundwater bodies in Northern Ireland (two in Neagh Bann RBD) that were delineated for the 

first  time  in  the  second  RBMP.  In  the  Scotland  RBMP  (Scotland  RBD)  individual  aquifers 
were  subdivided  further  to  reflect  differences  in  pressures  on,  or  vulnerability  of,  different 
parts of the aquifers. The South West RBD used improved mapping to update the boundaries 

of groundwater bodies but full details of how this was done are not given in the RBMP.  

Not  much  information  was  provided  in  the  RBMPs  on  the  consequences  of  the  changes  of 

water  body  delineation  to  groundwater  body  status  and  to  comparability  with  the  first  cycle. 
However,  in  the  Severn  RBMP,  a  comparison  was  made  of  water  body  status  in  2009  and 

2015. Groundwater quantitative status has improved, with 91 % of groundwater bodies at good 
status  in  2015  compared  to  84  %  in  2009,  but  groundwater  chemical  status  has  deteriorated, 

from 64 % at good status in 2009 to 51 % in 2015. No analysis of how the re-delineation may 
have influenced this was provided. 

Table 2.3 summarises how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles which shows a 
significant number of deletions and creation of water bodies for groundwater.  

31 

 
 
 
 
Table 2.4 

Number  and  area  of  delineated  groundwater  bodies  in  the  United  Kingdom 

for the second and first cycles 

Year 

RBD 

Number 

UK01 
UK02 
UK03 
UK04 
UK05 
UK06 
UK07 
UK08 
UK09 
UK10 
UK11 
UK12 
UKGBNIIENB 
UKGBNIIENW 
UKGBNINE 
Total 

344 
64 
10 
51 
31 
47 
33 
42 
42 
25 
5 
18 
16 
46 
14 
788 

Area (km2) 
Minimum  Maximum  Average 
206.6 
252.25 
855.51 
479.61 
539.36 
217.81 
195.86 
390.88 
480.09 
489.47 
423.48 
630.17 
382.21 
106.06 
213.3 
264.5 

9,383.87 
2,453.50 
1,824.08 
1,968.22 
3,074.49 
990.95 
970.35 
1,817.62 
2,691.04 
1,947.81 
962.61 
1,514.79 
916.22 
887.83 
1,250.56 
9,383.87 

1.69 
8.71 
269.18 
9.06 
37.11 
7.57 
10.62 
2.07 
10.28 
7.42 
96.36 
22.92 
2.47 
0.06 
7.46 
0.06 

UK01 
UK02 
UK03 
UK04 
UK05 
UK06 
UK07 
UK08 
UK09 
UK10 
UK11 
UK12 
UKGBNIIENB 
UKGBNIIENW 
UKGBNINE 
Total 

2.11 
3.65 
293.01 
9.05 
37.1 
7.57 
10.61 
1.88 
10.28 
2.57 
30.81 
22.9 

284 
73 
9 
50 
31 
46 
30 
44 
40 
25 
6 
18 
14 
45 
8 
723 
Source: WISE electronic reports  

1.88 

2,742.90 
1,781.70 
1,822.74 
1,967.33 
3,118.16 
1,080.29 
969.67 
1,817.42 
4,064.46 
1,947.43 
962.13 
1,396.90 

234.39 
214.85 
949.88 
488.14 
539.36 
222.71 
211.77 
366.65 
507.54 
487.57 
350.18 
602.52 

4,064.46 

283.64 

2016 
2016 
2016 
2016 
2016 
2016 
2016 
2016 
2016 
2016 
2016 
2016 
2016 
2016 
2016 
2016 

2010 
2010 
2010 
2010 
2010 
2010 
2010 
2010 
2010 
2010 
2010 
2010 
2010 
2010 
2010 
2010 

2.1.4

  Identification of transboundary water bodies  

The only two RBDs in the United Kingdom that are part of international RBDs are in Northern 

Ireland: both have reported transboundary coastal, transitional and river water bodies, and also 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
lakes  in  one  RBD  (North  Western).  In  the  Neagh  Bann  RBD  16  transboundary  groundwater 

bodies were reported and 46 in the North Western RBD. 

2.1.5

  Typology of surface water bodies 

There has been an increase in the number of reported river types, from 45 in the first RBMPs 
to  57  in  the  second  RBMPs  (Table  2.5).  In  the  second  RBMPs,  there  were  36  lake  and  10 

transitional  water  types  compared  to  43  and  11,  respectively,  in  the  first  RBMPs.  For  both 
cycles 19 coastal water types were reported. The biggest decrease in numbers of surface water 

types between the two cycles was for the Solway Tweed RBD. This RBD had the most types 
in  the  first  RBMP.  Solway  Tweed  is  shared  between  the  English  and  Scottish  Competent 

Authorities, it is likely that typology codes have been harmonised in this shared RBD for the 
second  cycle  resulting  in  fewer  type  codes  overall16.  Type  codes  have  been  reported  for  all 
surface  water  bodies  in  the  United  Kingdom,  including  artificial  and  heavily  modified  water 
bodies. 

It  should  be  noted  that  more  types  were  reported  for  each  category  in  the  WISE 
methodological schema than in the WISE surface water body schema. The reasons for this are 
not known but could relate to different types being assigned to one water body. For example in 

the Severn RBMP, it was reported that the lakes typology was adjusted to include three depth 
categories rather than two.  

Member  States  were  asked  to  report  ‘Not  applicable’  in  WISE  if  there  is  no  corresponding 
intercalibration type for national types17. Overall in the United Kingdom, five of the 19 coastal 
water  types  did  not  have  corresponding  intercalibration  types.  In  summary,  16  of  the  36 
reported lake types in the United Kingdom did not have corresponding intercalibration types, 

representing 67 % of lake water bodies. Similarly for rivers, 29 of the 57 river types did not 
have  corresponding  intercalibration  types,  representing  19  %  of  river  water  bodies  and  for 

transitional  waters  3  of  the  10  transitional  water  types  did  not  have  corresponding 
intercalibration types, representing 14 % of transitional water bodies.  

Around 76 % of artificial water bodies, 30 % of heavily modified water bodies and 21 % of 
natural  water  bodies  in  the  United  Kingdom  were  reported  not  to  have  corresponding 

16  The  United  Kingdom  subsequently  clarified  that  the  Environment  Agency  in  England  reviewed  and  changed 

their water body network which resulted in small water bodies being taken out.   

17 The United Kingdom subsequently clarified that the Environment Agency in England intercalibrated those types 
that  were  common  with  other  Member  States  and  used  exactly  the  same  methodology  to  derive  class 
boundaries for non-intercalibrated types, therefore providing the same level of ambition. 

33 

 
 
                                                      
intercalibration types18. It should be noted that all except four of the 9325 surface water bodies 
in the United Kingdom had a reported ecological status or potential.  

In conclusion, there is some uncertainty on the comparability of the ecological status/potential 

for  a  significant  proportion  of  lake  water  bodies  and  artificial  water  bodies  in  the  United 
Kingdom. 

Table 2.5 

Number  of  surface  water  body  types  at  RBD  level  for  the  first  and  second 
cycles.  Note  that  the  total  is  not  the  sum  of  the  types  in  each  RBD  as  some 

types are shared by RBDs. 

RBD 

Rivers 

UK01 
UK02 
UK03 
UK04 
UK05 
UK06 
UK07 
UK08 
UK09 
UK10 
UK11 
UK12 
UKGBNIIENB 
UKGBNIIENW 
UKGBNINE 
Total 

1st 
21 
45 
24 
24 
24 
24 
24 
24 
24 
24 
24 
24 
8 
8 
8 
45 

2nd 
20 
24 
16 
16 
10 
11 
8 
15 
17 
13 
9 
22 
9 
10 
6 
57 

Lakes 

Transitional 
2nd 
1st 
3 
4 
3 
9 
1 
5 
3 
5 
4 
5 
2 
5 
3 
5 
5 
5 
2 
5 
4 
5 
1 
5 
1 
5 
1 
6 
1 
6 
1 
6 
10 
11 
Source: WISE electronic reports  

2nd 
16 
15 
7 
9 
3 
7 
3 
6 
7 
9 
7 
9 
5 
4 
3 
36 

1st 
16 
30 
14 
14 
14 
14 
14 
14 
14 
14 
14 
14 
13 
13 
13 
43 

Coastal 

1st 
9 
16 
7 
7 
7 
7 
7 
7 
7 
7 
7 
7 
12 
12 
12 
19 

2nd 
8 
3 
4 
2 
4 
1 
3 
6 
0 
7 
0 
1 
3 
1 
3 
19 

2.1.6

  Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies 

Table 2.6 shows the number of surface water body types at RBD level in the United Kingdom 
for  which  reference  conditions  were  established,  for  the  first  and  second  cycles.  Reference 

conditions have not been established for all biological quality elements for all types in any of 
the four water categories in the United Kingdom. Over 82 % of types in each category have not 
had hydromorphological reference conditions established19. The situation for physicochemical 
quality elements is in-between the biological quality elements and hydromorphological quality 

18 The United Kingdom subsequently highlighted that the intercalibration activity continues for hydromorphology 

in ECOSTAT. 

19  The  United  Kingdom  subsequently  highlighted  that  this  is  a  consequence  of  using  an  alternative  method  for 
determining ecological potential, by selection of mitigation measures rather than biological quality elements. 

34 

 
 
 
                                                      
elements, where reference conditions have been established for some quality elements in most 

types.  

In  terms  of  each  water  category,  reference  conditions  have  been  established  for  all  relevant 

biological quality elements in 40 % of transitional waters types, 26 % of coastal waters types, 
17  %  of  lake  water  types  and  16  %  of  river  water  types.  In  terms  of  hydromorphological 

quality  elements,  there  are  no  types  in  any  category  where  reference  conditions  have  been 
established  for  all  relevant  quality  elements,  and  for  100  %  of  transitional  waters,  96  %  of 

coastal waters, 83 % of lake waters and 82 % of river waters types, reference conditions have 
not  been  established  for  any  relevant  quality  element.  In  terms  of  physicochemical  quality 

elements, there are no types in any category where reference conditions have been established 
for all relevant quality elements. However, there are some reference conditions for some of the 

relevant  physicochemical  quality  elements  for  all  types  in  lake,  river  and  transitional  water 
bodies, and for 96 % of coastal water types. 

In conclusion, the lack of comprehensive reference  conditions  for  a significant  proportion of 
types in each water category, casts doubt on the validity of ecological assessment methods in 
the United Kingdom20. 
Table 2.6 

Percentage of surface water body types in the United Kingdom with reference 
conditions  established 
the  biological, 
for  all,  some  and  none  of 
hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements.  

Water types 

Biological quality 
elements  

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 

Physicochemical 
quality elements 

Water 
category 

Lakes  

Rivers  

Transitional  

Coastal 

All  
Some  
None 
All  
Some  
None 
All  
Some  
None 
All  
Some  
None 

17 % 
78 % 
5 % 
16 % 
60 % 
24 % 
40 % 
40 % 
20 % 
26 % 
70 % 
4 % 

17 % 
83   

18 % 
82 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

96 % 
4 % 

4 % 
96 % 
Source: WISE electronic reports  

2.1.7

  Characteristics of groundwater bodies 

The  reported  information  included  the  geological  formation  of  the  aquifer  types  in  which 
groundwater bodies reside and details of whether groundwater bodies are layered. Linkage of 

20 The United Kingdom highlighted that they believe the methodology used is in line with CIS guidance. 

35 

 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
water bodies to surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems has been reported for all RBDs. 

In the first RBMPs, information on whether a groundwater body was layered or not, and links 
to surface water bodies, had only been reported for the 11 England and Wales RBDs but not 

for  the  RBDs  in  Scotland  and  Northern  Ireland.  No  information  on  links  to  terrestrial 
ecosystems and on the geological formation of aquifers was reported for any UK RBDs in the 

first  cycle.  Overall  there  seems  to  have  been  progress  in  further  characterisation  of 
groundwater bodies in the United Kingdom between the two cycles. 

2.1.8

  Significant pressures on water bodies 

It  is  difficult  to  compare  the  number  and  proportion  of  water  bodies  affected  by  significant 

pressures because of the changes introduced to the types of pressures reported for the second 
cycle and because the United Kingdom only reported pressures at the aggregated level in the 

first RBMPs, while disaggregated pressures were reported in the second RBMPs. In addition, 
the  United  Kingdom  re-delineated  its  surface  and  groundwater  bodies  for  the  second  cycle 

meaning that there were often fewer water bodies in the second RBMPs. Figure 2.3 shows that 
there is an apparent decrease in diffuse, point and hydromorphological pressure types.  Figure 
2.4 shows that the most significant  pressures on  surface waters in  the United Kingdom  were 

reported  to  be  anthropogenic  unknown  (28  %),  followed  by  diffuse  agricultural  (20  %)  and 
physical  alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian  area/shore  –  other  (20  %).    These  pressures  vary 

across regions in the UK.  

In  the  first  RBMP,  the  Scotland  RBD  reported  significant  proportions  of  its  surface  water 

bodies  to  be  affected  by  point  source,  diffuse  source,  water  abstraction  and  water  flow 
regulations  and  morphological  alteration  pressures.  In  the  second  RBMP  for  the  Scotland 

RBD,  most  of  the  surface  water  reported  to  be  affected  by  pressures  were  by  unknown 
anthropogenic pressures (42 % of surface water bodies). In other RBDs, there are some striking 

differences between the two cycles irrespective of the changes in water body delineation and 
definition of pressure types for reporting. For example, in the Anglian RBD in the first RBMP, 

715  river  water  bodies  (94  %)  were  affected  by  point  source  pressures  and  in  the  second 
RBMP, 302 river water bodies (57 %). Similarly, in the South West RBD in the first RBMP, 

722  (80  %)  river  water  bodies  were  affected  by  diffuse  source  pressures,  and  in  the  second 
RBMP, 325 (55 %).  

Twenty  one  different  pressure  types  are  reported  to  affect  groundwater  bodies,  although  one 
type (Physical  alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore  - Agriculture) may be a reporting 

error.  Diffuse  agricultural  pressures  were  the  most  significant  pressure  in  terms  of  the 
proportion of affected groundwater bodies in seven of the 12 UK RBDs reporting this pressure. 
Mining pressures are also significant in nine RBDs and abstraction or flow diversion pressures 
were reported in seven RBDs.  

36 

 
 
A range of pressures have not been assessed in surface water, for example 19 pressure types in 

Solway Tweed RBD  and South  West  RBD (e.g. physical  alteration, dams, barriers and lock, 
removal  of 
hydrological  alteration,  hydromorphological  alteration,  exploitation  or 

animal/plants, litter, anthropogenic pressures), and 34 in the Neagh Bann RBD (e.g. abstraction 
or  flow  diversion  for  agriculture  and  dams,  barriers  and  locks  for  irrigation).  However,  no 

specific reasons could be identified in the RBMPs for the exclusion of these pressures from the 
assessment. 

Figure 2.3  Comparison  of  pressures  on  surface  water  bodies  in  the  first  and  second 
cycles.  Pressures  presented  at  the  aggregated  level.  Note  there  were  9325 

identified  surface  water  bodies  for  the  second  cycle  and  10961  for  the  first 
cycle. 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

37 

 
 
 
Figure 2.4 

The  10  most  significant  pressures  on  surface  water  bodies  and  groundwater 

bodies in the United Kingdom for the second cycle 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.9

  Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater 

The  definition  of  significance  of  pressures  on  surface  water  was  reported  to  be  linked  to  the 
potential  failure  of  objectives  in  all  15  RBDs,  whereas  significance  was  defined  in  terms  of 

thresholds  in  12  of  the  15  RBDs:  the  three  exceptions  were  the  three  RBDs  in  Northern 
Ireland21. For example the Scotland RBMP describes that pressures are identified as significant 
where they have contributed to  a breach of  an environmental standard  for  good status  or  are 
contributing to a risk that an environmental standard will be breached (e.g. contributing to an 

upward trend in the concentration of pollutants).  

For surface water, a combination of both expert judgment and numerical tools have been used 

in all 15 UK RBDs to assess significance of both point source, diffuse source and water flow 
regulation and morphological alteration pressures. 

For groundwater, a combination of both expert judgment and numerical tools were used in 12 
RBDs  for  point  source  pressures:  these  pressures  were  reported  not  to  be  assessed  in  three 
Northern  Ireland  RBDs  22.  Artificial  recharge  to  groundwater  pressures  was  not  assessed  in 
three RBDs (Scotland, two in Northern Ireland)23.  

The definition of significance of pressures on groundwater was determined based on thresholds 

and was linked to the potential failure of objectives in 12 of the 15 RBDs. In the three Northern 
Irish RBDs, the significance of pressures on groundwater was not determined on the basis of 

thresholds nor linked to the potential failure of objectives. 

Since  the  first  RBMPs  there  has  been  further  data  gathered,  but  no  specific  changes  in  the 

methodology for the second RBMPs were identified. Information from the South West RBMP 
shows  that  more  than  1,900  investigations  have  been  carried  out  to  identify  the  reasons 

(pressures  and  sources  of  pressures)  why  good  status  and  protected  area  objectives  have  not 
been  achieved,  but  the  methodology  documents  behind  these  investigations  and  other  risk 

assessments are not accessible. For Scotland, it is stated that ‘Over the period 2009 to 2015, we 
have improved our understanding of pressures and their impacts on bodies of surface waters. 

Among the reasons for this was the availability of a further six years of targeted environmental 
monitoring and developments  in  scientific knowledge of the environmental standards needed 

21 The United Kingdom subsequently clarified that at the time of reporting, in the absence of a common definition, 

Northern Ireland’s interpretation of significant was based on those pressures occurring most widely. 

22 The United Kingdom subsequently clarified that expert judgement was used in Northern Ireland to assess point 
source  pressures  in  groundwater  for  all  three  RBDs.  Expert  judgement  was  also  used  to  assess  water 
abstraction pressures in two of the three Northern Ireland RBDs.  

23  The  United  Kingdom  subsequently  clarified  that  no  artificial  recharge  to  groundwater  is  taking  place  in  any 

groundwater bodies in Northern Ireland. 

39 

 
 
                                                      
to protect aquatic plant and animals.’ However, a detailed description of the methodology used 
and changes since 2009 is not given in the RBMP24. 

2.1.10

  Significant impacts on water bodies 

Nutrient pollution (34 % of surface water bodies), altered habitats due to morphological change 
(32 % of surface water bodies) and organic pollution (13 % of surface water bodies) were the 

three  most  common  impacts  reported  by  the  United  Kingdom  in  the  second  RBMPs  (Figure 
2.5). The UK reported six impact types on groundwater (Figure 2.5). The most significant in 

terms of the proportion of affected water bodies was chemical pollution (16 % of groundwater 
bodies)  followed  by  damage  to  groundwater-dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  for  chemical  / 

quantitative reasons (13 %) and diminution of quality of associated surface waters for chemical 
/ quantitative reasons (11 %). The other impacts were relatively minor.  

Figure 2.5 

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

24 The United Kingdom subsequently highlighted that this information is available in annual classification reports 
and  in  the  UKTAG  methods  and  Standards  documents  (which  have  not  been  reported)  and  that  significant 
water  management  issues  are  pressures  where  a  step  change  in  action/regulation/tools  is  required  to  see 
environmental improvements. 

40 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Source: WISE electronic reports  

As for comparing significant pressures between the two cycles, it is also difficult to compare 
significant impacts because of changes in delineation of water bodies and in the definition of 

impact  types  between  the  cycles.  Overall  in  the  United  Kingdom,  there  has  been  a  15  % 
decrease in the numbers of surface water bodies between cycles. However, a number of impact 

types have stayed the same between the two cycles: nutrient enrichment; organic enrichment, 
acidification and saline intrusion. In addition, for the first cycle an impact was "Contamination 

by Priority Substances or other specific pollutants". For the second cycle "chemical pollution" 
was  the  relevant  impact  type,  which  would  also  include  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants 

thereby making the two types not strictly comparable. For most of the United Kingdom RBDs, 
there was a reported decrease in the percentage of surface water bodies impacted by nutrient 

enrichment  and organic  enrichment  with  the biggest  decrease of 45 % in  the Western Wales 
RBD  for  nutrient  enrichment.  A  striking  observation  is  that  in  the  first  cycle  3067  (28  %) 

surface  water  bodies  in  UK  were  reported  to  be  impacted  by  "Contamination  by  Priority 
Substances". Using the broader definition of chemical pollution for the second cycle, only 314 

(3  %  surface  water  bodies)  were  affected.  Irrespective  of  the  changes  in  the  delineation  of 
water bodies and impact definitions between the two cycles, this seems to be a very significant 

change. 

2.1.11

  Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 

Overall in the United Kingdom, 38.5 % of groundwater bodies were at risk of failing to be in 
good  chemical  status,  with  the  greatest  proportion  in  the  North  West  RBD  (100  %)  and  the 
smallest  in  Scotland  (1.7  %).  This  information  was  not  reported  in  the  first  RBMPs.  53 
pollutants  were  identified  as  causing  a  risk  of  failure  in  groundwater  bodies  in  the  United 
Kingdom as a whole. 18 pollutants were causing a risk in groundwater bodies in 10 or more of 

41 

 
 
 
 
the  15  RBDs,  with  nitrate  being  reported  in  all  15  RBDs  (this  suggests  that  nitrate  was 

included  as  chemical  pollution  rather  than  nutrient  enrichment  in  the  reporting  of  impacts). 
Cadmium  and  its  compounds  and  Nickel  and  its  compounds  were  causing  a  risk  in 

groundwater bodies in  11 RBDs, fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene and naphthalene in  10 RBDs. 
At the United Kingdom  level,  nitrate was  causing a  risk in  the most groundwater bodies (32 

%), followed by lead (22 % of groundwater bodies) and copper (18 % of groundwater bodies). 

Overall  in  the  United  Kingdom,  36  %  of  groundwater  bodies  were  at  risk  of  failing  good 

quantitative status. All water bodies in the North West RBD were at quantitative risk with the 
fewest groundwater bodies at risk in Scotland (2.6 %). The reasons for the risk on quantitative 

status  in  the  United  Kingdom  were  significant  damage  to  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 
ecosystems  resulting  from  an  anthropogenic  water  level  alteration  in  27  %  of  groundwater 

bodies;  significant  diminution  of  the  status  of  surface  waters  resulting  from  anthropogenic 
water level alteration or change in flow conditions in 16 % of groundwater bodies; exceedance 

of  available  groundwater  resource  by  long-term  annual  average  rate  of  abstraction  that  may 
result in a decrease of groundwater levels in 14 % of groundwater bodies; and saline or other 
intrusions in 8 % of groundwater bodies. 

2.1.12

  Quantification and apportionment of pressures  

Member States report, for each significant pressure type, the quantitative indicators of the scale 

of  the  pressures  in  terms  of  the  gap  required  to  be  filled  for  the  achievement  of  the 
Environmental Objectives and the Key Types of Measure to address the reported gap: these are 

hereafter called "pressures for which measures are reported".  

For the United Kingdom  as a whole 35 different surface water pressure types were reported. 

Diffuse  agricultural  pressures  were  reported  for  14  out  of  the  15  UK  RBDs,  the  next  most 
reported  was  ‘unknown  anthropogenic  pressures’  in  13  RBDs  and  the  least  common  was 

‘abstraction  or  flow  diversion  for  agriculture’  in  one  RBD.  The  activities/sectors  that  are 
contributing  significantly  to  the  different  impacts  that  are  causing  failure  of  good  ecological 

status/potential and good chemical status are only reported for some RBDs. For example, the 
South  West  RBD  identified  that  agriculture  was  the  sector  affecting  most  water  bodies, 

followed by the water industry. Almost a third of the sectors could not be categorised and were 
classified as unknown.  

A  comparison  of  the  surface  water  pressures  for  which  measures  have  been  reported  against 
those reported at the water body level (WISE surface water bodies schema) indicates that there 
are  a  number  for  which  measures  have  not  reported  in  some  RBDs25.  These  include,  for 

25  The  United  Kingdom  subsequently  clarified  that  for  England  the  risk  assessment  did  not  always  take  into 

account risk of deterioration, therefore measures could not be targeted.  

42 

 
 
                                                      
example  Physical  alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian  area/shore  -  Unknown  or  obsolete  in 

Scotland  and  Solway  Tweed  RBDs  and  Point  -  Aquaculture  in  the  Neagh  Bann  and  North 
Eastern RBDs. 

Conversely, abstraction or flow diversion pressures in general were reported to be tackled by 
Key Types of Measure in the Scotland and Solway Tweed RBDs even though these pressures 

had not been reported at the surface water body level. 

Measures were reported for 21 different pressures on groundwater in the United Kingdom as a 

whole,  though  two  (Physical  alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian  area/shore  -  Other  and 
Hydromorphological alteration - Other) may have been reported for groundwater in error. As 

for  surface  water,  diffuse  agricultural  pressures  were  reported  by  the  most  RBDs  (14), 
followed  by  Groundwater  -  Alteration  of  water  level  or  volume  pressures  in  10  RBDs.  The 

least common pressure reported was diffuse transport pressures in one RBD. 

At  the  United  Kingdom  level,  measures  were  reported  for  groundwater  for  a  number  of 

pressures for which the pressure was not reported at the groundwater body level. These were: 
Point  -  Other,  Diffuse  -  Transport,  Physical  alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian  area/shore  - 
Other,  Hydromorphological  alteration  -  Other,  Introduced  species  and  diseases  and 

Anthropogenic pressure – Unknown.  

Conversely,  a  number  of  pressures  were  reported  at  the  groundwater  body  level  but  not  in 

terms of planned measures. These are: Abstraction or flow diversion – Agriculture; Abstraction 
or flow diversion - Public water supply; Abstraction or flow diversion – Industry and Physical 

alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian  area/shore  –  Agriculture.  As  described  previously  the 
hydromorphological pressure types and pressures arising from introduced species and diseases 

may  be  a  reporting  error  as  these  pressure  types  would  not  be  expected  to  be  relevant  for 
groundwater. 

No  information  was  found  in  the  RBMPs  about  which  activities/sectors  are  contributing 
significantly to the different impacts that are causing poor status in groundwater bodies. 

2.1.13

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

In  groundwater,  30  individual  chemical  substances  and  six  ‘other’  chemical  substances, 

including metaldehyde, were reported (in terms of measures to be taken) to be causing failure 
of good chemical status in groundwater. Measures are also planned to tackle nitrate in 10 of the 

15 UK RBDs, ammonia in six and chemicals arising from mining in six. 

In surface waters 23 chemical substances, including some Priority Substances such as mercury 
and benzo(a)pyrene, and River Basin Specific Pollutants, such as dichlorvos and copper, were 

43 

 
 
reported  to  have  measures  planned.  The  chemicals  in  surface  waters  for  which  measures  are 

planned in the most RBDs in the UK were lead, zinc (nine RBDs each), nickel and copper (in 
seven RBDs each). There are a number of Priority Substances causing failure of good chemical 

status  in  surface waters  for which specific measures are not  reported. These are:  endosulfan; 
hexachlorocyclohexane, 
di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 

tributyltin, 

(DEHP), 

DDT, 

trichloroethylene,  cyclodiene  pesticides,  Total  benzo(b)fluor-anthene  +benzo(k)fluor-anthene, 
total benzo(g,h,i)-perylene + indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene.   

2.1.14

  Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances 

Article  5  of  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  (EQS  Directive26)  requires 
Member  States  to  establish  an  inventory  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  all  Priority 
Substances and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I of the EQS Directive for 

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

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

All 15 RBDs have reported an inventory of emissions, but not all substances were included in 

these  inventories.  The  RBMPs  stated  that  substances  are  only  included  in  the  inventories  if 
they are assessed as being relevant, the relevance criteria are discussed in Chapter 4. 

11 substances appeared consistently in all inventories for all 15 RBDs. For 14 of the 15 RBDs, 
total point and total diffuse sources are included in the inventories, while for the North Western 

RBD only total diffuse sources are included.  

The  two-step  approach  from  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  Document 
n°2827 has been followed for all substances included in the inventories in 13 of the 15 RBDs. 
Different combinations of Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 of the methodology were implemented. The 

data quality was assessed as good, uncertain or very uncertain, or not reported. 

2.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Overall in the United Kingdom there has been a 15 % decrease in the numbers of delineated 
surface water bodies compared to the first cycle, with the biggest decrease occurring for river 

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

27   CIS Guidance N° 28 - Preparation of Priority Substances Emissions Inventory  

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

44 

 
 
                                                      
 
water  bodies  (17  %).  There  are  big  differences  among  the  four  regions  and  the  RBDs.  For 

example, there was a 37 % decrease in river water bodies in the South West RBD (England) 
and the Western Wales RBD (Wales), around 20 % decrease in numbers of river water bodies 

in Northern Ireland and a small increase (1 %) in Scotland. 

In the second RBMPs, 70.5 % of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom were natural, 24 

% heavily modified and 5.5 % artificial. Overall in the United Kingdom, there was a decrease 
in  the  number  and  proportion  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  between  the  two  cycles, 

particularly  in  terms  of  heavily  modified  river  water  bodies  where  there  was  a  decrease  in 
numbers  and  proportion  in  14  of  the  15  RBDs.  The  exception  was  for  Scotland  where  there 

was an increase of 18 % in heavily modified water bodies from the first to the second cycle.  

There has been an increase in the number of reported river types, from 45 in the first RBMPs 

to  57  in  the  second  RBMPs.  In  the  second  RBMPs,  there  were  36  lake  and  10  transitional 
water  types  compared  to  43  and  11,  respectively,  in  the  first  RBMPs.  For  both  cycles  19 

coastal water types were reported. 

In the first RBMP, Scotland reported significant proportions of its surface water bodies to be 
affected  by  point  source,  diffuse  source,  water  abstraction  and  water  flow  regulations  and 

morphological  alteration  pressures.  In  the  second  RBMP  for  the  Scotland  RBD,  most  of  the 
surface water reported to be affected by pressures were by unknown anthropogenic pressures 

(42 % of surface water bodies). In other RBDs, there are some striking differences between the 
two  cycles  irrespective  of  the  changes  in  water  body  delineation  and  definition  of  pressure 

types for reporting. For example in the Anglian RBD in the first RBMP, 715 river water bodies 
(94  %)  were  affected  by  point  source  pressures  and  in  the  second  RBMP,  302  river  water 

bodies (57 %). Similarly, in the South West RBD in the first RBMP, 722 (80 %) river water 
bodies were affected by diffuse source pressures, and in the second RBMP 325 (55 %).  

For  most  of  the  United  Kingdom  RBDs,  there  was  a  reported  decrease  in  the  percentage  of 
surface water bodies impacted by nutrient enrichment and organic enrichment with the biggest 

decrease of 45 % in the Western Wales RBD for nutrient enrichment. 

In  the  first  cycle,  only  an  inventory  performed  under  the  European  Pollutant  Release  and 

Transfer Register (E-PRTR) existed. For the second RBMPs much more detailed information 
has been reported to fulfil the requirements of the EQS Directive. 

45 

 
 
2.3

  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation: Provide a more transparent approach where there is a quantitative 
apportionment  of  pressures  between  all  the  contributory  sources  with  the  respective 

contributions they are expected to make to the achievement of WFD objectives.  

Assessment:  In  the  United  Kingdom,  for  the  first  RBMPs  a  quantitative  source 

apportionment  was  undertaken  for  some  impacts  and  their  main  pressures.For  other 
pressures  a  more  qualitative  apportionment  was  performed,  where  sources  were 

identified but their relative contribution to impacts and pressures on water bodies were 
not assessed or quantified. There were also differences between the four regions in the 

United Kingdom. In the second RBMPs, the United Kingdom reported indicators of the 
gaps  to  be  filled  for  a  number  of  significant  pressures  (e.g.  for  diffuse  agricultural 

pressures). For all pressures these are in terms of numbers of water bodies, and length 
and  areas  of  water  bodies  failing  WFD  objectives,  and  no  indicators  on  loads  of 

pollutants  needing  to  be  reduced  or  barriers  that  require  action  to  achieve  objectives 
have been reported. From this information it is not clear what progress has been made. 

The  recommendation  has  not  been  fulfilled,  and  more  information  on  source 
apportionment is needed. 

  Recommendation:  Address  the  large  uncertainties  reported  in  the  first  RBMPs  in 
relation  to  the  assessment  of  the  status,  the  pressures  and  the  effect  of  potential 

measures.  

Assessment: In terms of the assessment of pressures, there is no evidence of progress in 

the information reported to WISE: 28 % of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom 
were  reported  to  be  affected  by  unknown  anthropogenic  pressures  and  no  further 

information was found in the RBMPs. The recommendation has not been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  More  information  needs  to  be  included  in  the  RBMPs  on  the 
methodology used to identify significant pressures and how this analysis feeds into the 
development  of  monitoring  programmes  and  how  the  measures  defined  address  the 

significant pressures.  

Assessment: In terms of characterisation, the United Kingdom reported to WISE on the 

tools used to assess significant pressures indicating some progress. As recorded above, 
the United Kingdom reported many different significant pressures (including unknown 

anthropogenic  pressures,  which  requires  further  investigation)  and  has  reported  Key 
Types of Measures for some but not for all pressures. Since the first RBMPs there has 

been further data gathered but no specific changes in the methodology for the second 

46 

 
 
cycle  of  RBMP  were 

identified.  There 

is 

therefore  no  evidence 

that 

this 

recommendation has been fulfilled.  

47 

 
 
 
 
Topic 3

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  ecological 

status in surface water bodies 

3.1

  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the 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.  

Monitoring  programmes  are  reported  for  all  15  RBDs  and  include  all  the  expected  water 

categories and purposes (surveillance and operational).  

Monitoring  sites  and  monitored  water  bodies  used  for  surveillance  and  operational 

monitoring 

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

for different purposes for the second RBMPs. Figure 3.1 shows the proportion of water bodies 
subject to surveillance and operational monitoring.  

In  12  of  the  15  RBDs  in  the  United  Kingdom,  there  has  been  a  reduction  in  the  number  of 
monitoring  sites  in  all  applicable  water  categories  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs.  The 

largest  decreases were  generally in transitional  waters  and  coastal  waters;  for  example, there 
was an 88 % reduction in transitional water sites in the Anglian RBD and in coastal water sites 

in  the  South  East  RBD.  In  contrast,  in  the  three  RBDs  in  Northern  Ireland,  there  was  an 
increase  in  numbers  of  sites  in  coastal  waters,  lakes  and  rivers,  while  the  number  of  sites  in 

transitional waters decreased. 

In  general,  in  the  second  RBMPs  more  sites  are  used  for  operational  monitoring  than  for 

surveillance  monitoring:  for  example,  21316  and  2634  sites  in  rivers,  respectively,  in  the 
United  Kingdom.  Overall,  there  was  a  reduction  in  the  numbers  of  sites  used  in  rivers  for 

surveillance for the second RBMPs (2634) compared to the first RBMPs (5584) and the same 
is true for operational monitoring (29702 for the first plans and 21316 for the second).  

48 

 
 
 
Table 3.1 

Number  of  sites  used  for  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  in  the 

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

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

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

second RBMP  
UK_01 

UK_02 

UK_03 

UK_04 

UK_05 

UK_06 

UK_07 

UK_08 

UK_09 

UK_10 

UK_11 

UK_12 

UK_GBNIIENB 

UK_GBNIIENW 

UK_GBNINE 

Total by type of site 
Total number of 
monitoring sites used 
for surveillance and/or 
operational monitoring 
first RBMP 

UK_01 

UK_02 

UK_03 

UK_04 

UK_05 

UK_06 

UK_07 

UK_08 

UK_09 

UK_10 

UK_11 

365 

167 

190 

215 

158 

131 

119 

316 

222 

410 

59 

162 

39 

56 

25 

1 104 

736 

1 062 

3 388 

2 715 

2 153 

1 197 

2 654 

2 403 

1 225 

176 

1 826 

299 

246 

132 

2 634 

21 316 

68 

16 

14 

11 

10 

6 

4 

11 

14 

21 

5 

48 

92 

119 

24 

463 

113 

25 

25 

32 

33 

39 

9 

29 

30 

21 

9 

83 

0 

0 

0 

62 

14 

11 

22 

16 

17 

18 

52 

18 

70 

15 

19 

68 

86 

25 

83 

15 

14 

24 

33 

27 

41 

46 

29 

99 

0 

35 

7 

5 

4 

448 

513 

462 

179 

17 

11 

2 

14 

0 

16 

27 

0 

59 

0 

11 

43 

28 

270 

677 

22 474 

844 

811 

813 

669 

364 

445 

484 

613 

291 

346 

919 

311 

559 

83 

1 335 

980 

1 621 

4 293 

3 469 

2 332 

1 628 

3 794 

3 871 

2 547 

421 

73 

10 

3 

2 

3 

1 

1 

3 

3 

14 

2 

49 

133 

42 

95 

155 

57 

94 

30 

95 

83 

66 

22 

48 

33 

120 

131 

229 

194 

141 

277 

159 

191 

51 

146 

45 

129 

137 

329 

248 

197 

309 

173 

208 

51 

206 

24 

84 

12 

84 

137 

99 

352 

429 

69 

7 

21 

8 

20 

0 

19 

31 

0 

70 

0 

21 

12 

3 

44 

325 

342 

37 

111 

13 

110 

1 

176 

178 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Surv. 
385 

Op 
2 780 

Surv. 
15 

36 

55 

24 

281 

229 

121 

15 

26 

3 

Op 
182 

14 

10 

3 

Surv. 

161 

69 

123 

44 

Op 

165 

Op 

84 

Surv. 

34 

12 

16 

73 

5 584 

29 702 

174 

1 081 

1 971 

2 137 

1 133 

1 481 

29 986 

1 155 

2 386 

1 694 

UK_12 

UK_GBNIIENB 

UK_GBNIIENW 

UK_GBNINE 

Total by type of site 
Total number of 
monitoring sites used 
for surveillance and/or 
operational monitoring 

Source: Member States electronic reports to WISE  

Table 3.2 

Number  of  monitoring  sites  in  relevant  water  categories  used  for  different 
purposes in the United Kingdom28 

Monitoring Purpose 

CHE - Chemical status 

ECO - Ecological status 

NID - Nutrient sensitive area 
under the Nitrates Directive29 - 
WFD Annex IV.1.iv 

OPE - Operational monitoring 

SEA - International network of a 
sea convention 

SHE - Shellfish designated waters 
- WFD Annex IV.1.ii 

SOE - EIONET State of 
Environment monitoring 

SUR - Surveillance monitoring 

UWW - Nutrient sensitive area 
under the Urban Waste Water 
Treatment Directive30 - WFD 
Annex IV.1.iv 

Total sites irrespective of 
purpose 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional 

Coastal 

139 

394 

201 

448 

221 

463 

201 

532 

2 007 

526 

21 316 

11 

104 

2 634 

637 

25 

287 

15 

462 

1 

513 

15 

845 

22 484 

811 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

63 

546 

92 

325 

8 

27 

677 

94 

813 

28 It should be noted that while operational and surveillance monitoring purposes were reported by all RBDs, and 
chemical status and ecological status were reported by two of the twelve RBDs in Great Britain, only the three 
RBDs in Northern Ireland reported on other monitoring purposes. 

29  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 

30  Council  Directive  91/271/EEC  of  21  May  1991  concerning  urban  waste-water  treatment  http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31991L 0271 

50 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
Figure 3.1 

Percentage  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  and  operational 

monitoring  in  the  United  Kingdom  for  the  first  RBMPs  (2010)  and  second 
RBMPs (2016). Note no differentiation is made between water bodies included 

in ecological and/or chemical monitoring 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

In all except one RBD (Scotland), there was an increase in the numbers of sites used for the 
surveillance monitoring of lakes. In the North Eastern RBD there was an eight-fold increase (3 

to  24 sites) and in  the Thames RBD  a six-fold increase (one to  six sites). There was also  an 
increase in the numbers of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring of rivers, and 

surveillance sites in coastal waters in the three RBDs in Northern Ireland.  

Otherwise  there  were  significant  decreases  in  the  numbers  of  sites  used  to  monitor  rivers, 

transitional  waters  and  coastal  waters  in  the  12  RBDs  in  Scotland,  England  and  Wales  for 
surveillance  purposes  (except  transitional  waters  in  the  Scotland  RBD)  and  for  operational 

purposes. For example, for surveillance monitoring in rivers in the Anglian RBD, there was a 
reduction from 613 sites for the first RBMP to 158 sites for the second, while for operational 
monitoring the reduction was from 3469 sites for the first RBMP to 2715 for the second. 

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

ecological status/class. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.2 

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

included  in  surveillance  monitoring  in  the  United  Kingdom.  Note:  Standard 
colours  and  class  descriptors  for  ecological  status  based  on  WFD  Annex  V, 

Article 1(4)2(I) used for illustration purposes. 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

A differentiated presentation between ecological status and potential and 
including all types of quality element can be viewed here - 
https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_Qualit
yElement_Status_Compare/SWB_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindo
w=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false&:showVizHo
me=no 

Transboundary surface water body monitoring 

Of the 15 RBDs in the United Kingdom only the three located in Northern Ireland reported that 

some of their monitoring sites were part of international networks. Some of the sites in coastal, 
transitional and river water bodies were part of a sea convention network. 

Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) 

Table  3.3  illustrates  the  quality  elements  used  for  the  monitoring  of  all  relevant  water 

categories for the second RBMPs: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. 

No general physicochemical quality elements have been reported to be monitored in any water 

category  in  the  RBDs  entirely  within  England  or  the  English  parts  of  the  RBDs  shared  with 
Scotland and Wales. The United Kingdom has clarified that this is due to a reporting error.  

52 

 
 
 
 
Table 3.3 

Quality  elements  monitored  for  the  second  RBMPs  in  the  United  Kingdom 

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

Biological quality elements 

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

s
e
t
y
h
p
o
r
c
a
M

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

c
i
h
t
n
e
B

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

h
s
i
F

s

m
r
e
p
s
o
i
g
n
A

e
a
g
l
a
o
r
c
a
M

Lakes 

Rivers 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

Transitional 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

Coastal 

Yes 

Yes  Yes 

Yes  Yes 

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

r
e
h
t
O

Yes 

Yes 

c
i
t
a
u
q
a

r
e
h
t
O

a
r
o
l
f

No 

No 

No 

No 

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 

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

e
m
i
g
e
r

l
a
d
i
t

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

y
t
i
u
n
i
t
n
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

No 

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

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

General physicochemical quality elements 

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

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

l
a
m
r
e
h
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

n
o
i
t
a
n
e
g
y
x
O

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

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

s
u
r
o
h
p
s
o
h
P

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
C

e
t
a
c
i
l
i
S

r
e
h
t
O

d
n
a
n
i
m
r
e
t
e
d

t
n
e
i
r
t
u
n
r
o
f

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Lakes 
Rivers 
Transitional 
Coastal 
Source: WISE electronic reports. The United Kingdom subsequently indicated that in England hydrological 
regime is monitored in rivers and that the freshwater flow into most transitional waters is monitored and 
modelled and results are subsequently reported. 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Fish  are  not  monitored  in  any  lake  in  all  RBDs  in  Scotland,  England  and  Wales,  but  are 

monitored  in  lakes  in  Northern  Ireland.  Fish  were  also  not  reported  for  some  RBDs  with 
transitional waters in England, where they had been monitored for the first plan. 

River continuity is reported not to be monitored in the United Kingdom. Hydromorphological 
quality elements are not monitored in coastal waters in the United Kingdom nor in transitional 

waters in most RBDs. The hydrological/tidal regime is not monitored in any water category or 
RBD in the United Kingdom, except for lakes in two of the three RBDs in Northern Ireland.31 

In terms of the quality elements monitored for surveillance purposes, only six of the RBDs in 

the  United  Kingdom  (Scotland,  Solway-Tweed,  Western  Wales  and  the  three  RBDs  in 
Northern Ireland) had any coastal water bodies where all required biological quality elements 

31  The  United  Kingdom  subsequently  noted  that  river  continuity  is  monitored  in  England,  while  in  Scotland 

modelling of the hydromorphological quality elements is carried out rather than monitoring. 

53 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
were  monitored.  For  lakes,  all  of  the  15  RBDs  had  no  water  bodies  where  all  required 

biological quality elements were monitored. In contrast, 14 of the 15 RBDs had a number of 
river  water  bodies  where  all  required  biological  quality  elements  were  monitored  with  the 

fewest being in the Anglian RBD (6 %) and the most in the North Western RBD (95 %). Only 
the  Scotland  RBD  had  none.  12  RBDs  had  no  transitional  water  bodies  where  all  required 

biological  quality  elements  were  monitored.  All  required  biological  quality  elements  were 
monitored  in  at  least  some  transitional  water  bodies  in  the  Scotland  RBD  (15  %),  in  the 

Western Wales RBD (80 %) and in the Dee RBD (100 %). 

Only  six  of  the  15  RBDs  (Severn,  Western  Wales,  Dee  and  the  three  RBDs  in  Northern 

Ireland)  reported  any  hydromorphological  quality  elements  to  be  included  in  surveillance 
monitoring. All the required hydromorphological quality elements were not monitored in any 

water body in the United Kingdom. Morphological conditions were monitored for surveillance 
in some water bodies in those six RBDs but hydrological or tidal regime were only monitored 

in  two  of  the  three  RBDs  in  Northern  Ireland.  River  continuity  was  not  reported  to  be 
monitored in any river water body in the United Kingdom for any purpose. 

Only  one  river  water  body  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  in  the  United  Kingdom  is 

monitored  for  all  expected  physiochemical  quality  elements.  Seven  of  the  15  RBDs  did  not 
report any physicochemical quality elements to be monitored; these are all solely in England. 

The United Kingdom clarified that this was due to a reporting error and that physicochemical 
quality  elements  were  monitored  in  those  RBDs.  All  river  water  bodies  included  in 

surveillance  monitoring  in  the  remaining  eight  RBDs  included  oxygenation  and  nutrient 
conditions (phosphorus) and almost all thermal conditions (98 %).  

The WFD states that "Operational monitoring shall be carried out for all those bodies of water 
which, on the basis of either the impact assessment carried out in accordance with Annex II or 

surveillance monitoring,  are identified as  being at  risk of failing to  meet  their environmental 
objectives  under  Article  4".  A  comparison  of  the  number  of  water  bodies  at  less  than  good 

ecological status/potential and the number of these that are included in operational monitoring 
indicates that for a number of RBDs  and water  categories over 90 % of water bodies  at  less 

than good status/potential are included in operational monitoring: coastal waters in five RBDs, 
transitional  waters  in  four  and  rivers  in  ten.  For  these  RBDs  and  water  categories,  this  is 

consistent with the reported basis of classification, which for rivers is overwhelmingly based 
on monitoring. However, for lakes, in general less than 50 % of water bodies at less that good 

status/potential  are  included  in  operational  monitoring.  For  some  RBDs  in  England  and 
Northern Ireland this is not consistent with the reported means of classification which is largely 

54 

 
 
based  on  monitoring.32  This  raises  a  question  as  to  how  the  lakes  at  less  than  good 
status/potential have been classified. 

Grouping has been reported to be used in Scotland for some water bodies in all categories. 

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

site for a period of one year during the 6-year period covered by a RBMP. For phytoplankton, 
this  should  be  done  twice  during  the  monitoring  year  and  for  the  other  biological  quality 

elements  once  during  the  year.  Operational  monitoring  should  take  place  at  intervals  not 
exceeding once every six months for phytoplankton and once every three years during the 6-

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

89 % of sites used to monitor phytoplankton for surveillance purposes in the United Kingdom 
were  sampled  at  least  at  the  minimum  recommended  frequency.  All  other  biological  quality 

elements used for surveillance monitoring were sampled at least at the minimum recommended 
frequency at all of the sites at which they were monitored. 

Of  the  seven  biological  quality  elements  used  for  operational  monitoring  only  angiosperms 

were  sampled  at  least  at  the  minimum  recommended  frequency  at  all  sites  where  it  was 
monitored, which was only 13 sites. Of the other biological quality elements, the next largest 

proportion of sites sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency was macroalgae 
(99 % of 79 sites), followed by phytobenthos (88 % of 4209 sites), benthic invertebrates (87 % 

of 6997 sites), macrophytes (80 % of 3886 sites), phytoplankton (71 % of 259 sites) and fish 
(31 % of 4149 sites). 

River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored 

Table 3.4 shows the number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants in the UK 

as  reported  in  the  first  and  second  RBMPs.  The  three  RBDs  in  Northern  Ireland  reported 
monitoring  sites  at  the  aggregated  quality  element  level  (QE3-3  -  River  Basin  Specific 

Pollutants). No other River Basin District did so at this aggregated level. 

The  monitored  chemical  substances  including  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  also 

reported  at  the  individual  substance  level  for  15  RBDs  in  the  UK.  Reported  chemical 
substances that are not Priority Substances or Certain Other Pollutants are assumed to be River 

Basin  Specific  Pollutants,  as  the  explicit  reporting  of  monitored  individual  River  Basin 

32 The United Kingdom subsequently indicated that all lakes of more than 50 ha in Northern Ireland are monitored 
for  both  surveillance  and  operational  purposes.  However,  they  were  only  reported  in  WISE  as  surveillance 
sites. 

55 

 
 
                                                      
Specific Pollutants was not requested for the reporting of the second RBMPs. On this basis 101 
different chemical substances are monitored in the United Kingdom.33 60RBSPs are monitored 
in water in coastal waters, 36 in lakes, 92 in rivers and 72 in transitional waters. 29  substances 

are monitored in biota and 16 in sediment in coastal waters; 30 in biota and four in sediment in 
rivers; 29 in biota (unspecified), 22 in biota other than fish and 16 in sediment in transitional 

waters:  none of these substances was monitored in biota or sediment in lakes. 

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

quality  elements: once every three months is recommended for “other pollutants”, which  are 
taken  here  to  equate  to  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants.  Surveillance  monitoring  should  be 

carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the 6-year period covered 
by a river basin management plan. For River Basin Specific Pollutants this should be done four 

times for the surveillance year, and for operational monitoring four times a year for each year 
of the cycle. 

Of  the  83  substances  included  in  surveillance  monitoring,  35  were  monitored  at  least  at  the 
minimum  recommended  WFD  frequency  at  all  sites  where  they  were  monitored,  and  for  16 
substances  at  none  of  the  sites.  Of  the  99  substances  included  in  operational  monitoring,  28 

were monitored at least at the minimum recommended WFD frequency at all sites where they 
were monitored, and for 23 substances at none of the sites. 

Annex  V,  section  1.3.4  of  the  WFD  does  not  explicitly  define  the  matrices  to  which  the 
minimum  required  frequency  of  monitoring  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  (“Other 

Pollutants”) applies. Required monitoring frequencies are specified for Priority Substances in 
biota and sediment 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 frequency of once per 
year has been applied to the monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants in biota/sediment.  

40 % and 11 % of the 35 chemical substances monitored in biota were sampled at or greater 
than  the  minimum  frequency  at  all  and  none,  respectively,  of  the  sites  where  they  were 

monitored. 69 % and 6 % of the 16 chemical substances monitored in sediment were sampled 
at or greater than the minimum frequency at all and none, respectively, of the sites where they 

were monitored. 

33  The  United  Kingdom  subsequently  stated  that  there  are  29  designated  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  in  the 

United Kingdom 

56 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 3.4 

Number  of  sites  used  to  monitor  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  reported  in 

the second RBMPs and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national 
pollutants reported in the first RBMPs in the United Kingdom. Note the data 

from  both  cycles  may  not  be  fully  comparable  as  different  definitions  were 
used  and  also  not  all  Member  State  reported  information  at  the  site  level 

meaning that there were no equivalent data for the first RBMPs. 

RBMP 

second  

first    

Sites used to monitor River Basin 
Specific Pollutants 

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

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional  Coastal 

345 

3975 

277 

230 

128 

5763 

248 

244 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

3.1.1.  Ecological Status/potential of surface water  

The  ecological  status/potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the  United  Kingdom  in  the  second 

RBMPs is illustrated on Map 3.1.  

Figure 3.3 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. 

Figure 3.4 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom for 
the first RBMPs with that for the second and that expected by 2015. 

57 

 
 
 
Map 3.1 

Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom. 

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i) 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

High 
Good 
Moderate 
Poor  
Bad 
Unknown 
River Basin Districts 
Countries outside the European Union 

A differentiated presentation of this data between ecological status and 
potential and including all types of quality element can be viewed here - 
https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_Qualit
yElement_Status_Compare/SWB_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindo
w=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false&:showVizHo
me=no 

58 

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

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

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Figure 3.4  Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom 

for  the  second  RBMPs,  for  the  first  RBMPs  and  expected  in  2015.  The 
number in parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for each cycle. 
Note the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2004 to 

2015. The year of the assessment of status for the first RBMP is not known 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Overall  in  the  United  Kingdom  for  the  second  RBMPs,  ecological  status/potential  was  less 

than good in two thirds of surface water bodies. In the Scotland RBD, the situation was better, 
with  41  %  of  the  rivers,  27  %  of  lakes  and  3-6  %  of  water  bodies  in  the  two  saline  water 

categories  failing  good  status/potential.  There  has  been  very  little  change  since  the  first 
RBMPs.  

59 

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

status/potential. The information for the United Kingdom is shown in Figure 3.5. 

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

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

Source: WISE electronic reports  

60 

 
 
 
 
 
Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element  

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

Figure 3.6  Ecological  status/potential  of  the  biological  quality  elements  used  in  the 
classification of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom. 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  

61 

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

status/potential for the first and second RBMPs. It should be noted that this comparison should 

be treated with caution as there are differences between the numbers of surface water bodies 

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

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

classified biological quality elements in surface water bodies between the first 

and second RBMPs 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

62 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 illustrate the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential 

of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom for the second RBMPs. 

Figure 3.8 

The classification of the ecological status or potential of surface water bodies 
in the United Kingdom using 1, 2, 3 or 4 types of quality elements. Note: The 
4  types  are:  biological;  hydromorphological,  general  physicochemical  and 
River Basin Specific Pollutants. 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Figure 3.9 

The  percentage  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the  United  Kingdom  where  no 
biological quality element  (BQEs) 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 

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

Source: WISE electronic reports.  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
Water  bodies  of  all  categories  in  each  River  Basin  District  have  been  classified  (Figure  3.2) 

according  to  hydromorphological  quality  elements,  overwhelmingly  based  on  monitoring 
results.  However,  these  elements  are  not  reported  to  be  monitored  in  the  WISE  Monitoring 
schema  for  nearly  all  water  bodies  in  all  categories  and  RBDs34.  Similarly,  general 
physicochemical quality elements have been used to classify water bodies in each category and 

RBD.  All  the  expected  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  have  been  used  in  the 
classification  of  rivers,  except  for  thermal  conditions  in  Northern  Ireland35,  and  nitrogen 
conditions in Scotland. For lakes,  transparency and thermal conditions have not been used in 
classifying any water bodies, and salinity conditions, acidification and nitrogen have not been 

used  in  the  Scotland  RBD.  Oxygenation  conditions  and  nitrogen  conditions  are  the  only 
general physicochemical quality elements used to classify transitional and coastal waters in the 

United  Kingdom.  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  used  in  the  classification  of  water 
bodies  in  all  relevant  water  categories  in  all  RBDs,  overwhelmingly  based  on  the  results  of 

monitoring with the exception of a few river water bodies in Northern Ireland where grouping 
was used. 

Grouping and monitoring results are approximately equally used to classify water bodies in the 

Scotland RBD for some biological quality elements and most general physicochemical quality 
elements.  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  solely  classified  using  monitoring  results.  In 

the other RBDs, the classification of water bodies in all categories has mainly been based on 
monitoring results.  

In  the  South  West  RBMP  (which  was  taken  to  be  representative  of  all  England  RBDs)  it  is 
stated  that  a  new  Ecological  Status  Indicator  monitoring  network  has  been  set  up  that  is  a 

statistically robust approach for operational  and surveillance monitoring  programmes, as  it is 
designed to  achieve  a minimum level  of 75 %  certainty  at  a water body  scale. When pooled 

together at a national scale, the network will allow reporting the annual change in the number 
of water bodies that meet good status with 95 % confidence. When the certainty is lower, the 

English  Competent  Authority  brings  all  available  evidence  together  from  other  monitored 
parameters, bespoke investigations, data from surrounding water bodies within the catchment 

and  information  from  third  parties.  No  information  is  provided  on  what  is  done  specifically 
when there is no ecological monitoring data.  

The reasons for the difference in the number of water bodies monitored for a particular quality 
element and the number of water bodies that are subsequently classified are not  explained in 

the RBMPs or supporting documents for Scotland and Northern Ireland.  

34 The United Kingdom subsequently indicated that in England hydrological regime is monitored in rivers and that 
the  freshwater  flow  into  most  transitional  waters  is  monitored  and  modelled  and  results  are  subsequently 
reported. 

35 The United Kingdom subsequently stated that temperature in rivers has been assessed against standards. 

64 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 3.10  Basis  of  the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  in  the  United 
Kingdom. The percentages are in terms of the number of waterbodies in each 
category. 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements 

Compared to the first RBMPs, there are now developed assessment methods for phytoplankton 
in  transitional  waters  and  angiosperms  in  coastal  waters,  but  not  for  fish  in  lakes  nor  for 

hydromorphological quality elements. In the three RBDs in Northern Ireland, there are still no 
assessment methods for benthic fauna in lakes36 and transitional waters, and in the Neagh Bann 
RBD for macroalgae37 in transitional waters. For the second RBMPs for England, Scotland and 
Wales  there  were  still  no  developed  assessment  methods  for  fish  in  lakes,  while  one  was 

reported for Northern Ireland. 

Reference conditions are reported not to be established for any biological or physicochemical 
quality  elements38  in  coastal  and  transitional  waters  in  Northern  Ireland,  and  only  for  some 
hydromorphological quality elements.  

The  sensitivity  of  the  biological  quality  assessment  methods  to  different  impacts  have  been 
reported and there do not seem to be any particular gaps or inconsistencies.  

Intercalibration of biological assessment methods and national classification systems 

In  the  United  Kingdom  58  %  of  surface  water  body  types  are  linked  to  common 
intercalibration  types.  The  water  category  with  most  national  types  linked  to  common 

intercalibration  types  is  lakes  (77  %)  followed  by  rivers  (47  %),  coastal  waters  (41  %)  and 
transitional  waters  (40  %).  No  information  was  required  to  be  reported  to  WISE  on  which 

biological  assessment  methods  have  been  intercalibrated,  and  how  the  class  boundaries  have 
been set for national types not linked to the common intercalibration types. There was also no 

information  on  how  the  results  from  the  intercalibrated  types  have  been  translated  to  other 
national types in the RBMPs or supporting documents. 

36 The United Kingdom subsequently explained that they have two assessment methods for benthic fauna in lakes. 
One  is  the  Lake  acidification  macroinvertebrate  metric  (LAMM)  which  is  designed  to  detect  the  impact  of 
acidification on the quality element.  Acidification has not been identified as a pressure on Northern Ireland 
lakes. The second is the chironomid pupal exuviae technique (CPET) which is designed to detect the impact of 
nutrient  enrichment  on  the  quality  element.  In  ecoregion  17  it  has  not  been  possible  to  collect  chironomid 
pupal exuviae in sufficient numbers to allow assessment using this method. These two assessment methods are 
therefore not usable in Northern Ireland. 

37  The  United Kingdom subsequently stated that  the  established Rocky  Shore Macroalgae Tool (RSL/FSL)  was 
not applied to transitional waters in Northern Ireland due to a lack of suitable substrate which would impede 
the establishment of macroalgal species. Other tools such as Fucoid Extent (FE) were investigated at a NI and 
UK level but were not formally adopted due to inconsistency of results and unreliable data. 

38  The  United  Kingdom  subsequently  stated  that  there  are  reference  conditions  for  oxygenation  and  nutrient 
conditions  for  transitional  and  coastal  waters.  These  are  based  on  salinity  normalised  reference  curves,  as 
established by the UK Guidance Technical Standards. 

66 

 
 
                                                      
 
Assessment of hydromorphological quality elements  

Hydrological  regime  was  reported  to  be  assessed  in  terms  of  ecological  status/potential  in 

rivers  and  lakes  in  all  RBDs  and  the  classification  boundaries  are  related  to  the  class 
boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements except for the three RBDs in Northern 

Ireland.  Hydrological  or tidal  regime was  also  reported to  be  assessed in terms  of  ecological 
status/potential  in  transitional  and  coastal  waters  in  all  RBDs  except  Scotland.  The 

classification  boundaries  were  related  to  the  sensitive  biological  quality  elements  in  the 
England and Wales RBDs but not in Northern Ireland. 

River  continuity  was  reported  to  be  assessed  in  terms  of  ecological  status/potential  and  its 
classification  boundaries  related  to  the  sensitive  biological  quality  elements  in  12  of  the  15 

RBDs. The exception was for the three RBDs in Northern Ireland. 

Morphological conditions were reported to be assessed in terms of ecological status/potential 

in all water categories in all RBDs in the United Kingdom, and in the Scotland, England and 
Wales RBDs their classification was reported to  be related to  the sensitive  biological  quality 
elements. In the three RBDs in Northern Ireland the classification boundaries were reported not 

to be related to the sensitive biological quality elements. 

Classification methods for general physicochemical quality elements  

Standards  have  been  reported  for  many  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  in  many 

types  of  water  bodies,  including  tightening  of  the  phosphate  standards  in  rivers.  Many  are 
compatible with the Good-moderate status/potential boundaries for sensitive biological quality 

elements.  

Transparency conditions are not assessed in relation to ecological status/potential in any of the 

RBDs.  Thermal  conditions  are  only  assessed  in  rivers  in  the  Scotland,  England  and  Wales 
RBDs and their classification are only reported to be related to the sensitive biological quality 

elements  in  one  RBD  (Solway  Tweed).  Thermal  conditions  are  assessed  in  Northern  Ireland 
only for transitional and coastal waters and the classification boundaries are not related to the 

sensitive biological quality elements. 

Oxygenation  conditions  are  assessed  in  terms  of  ecological  status/potential  in  all  water 

categories  in  all  RBDs,  with  their  classification  boundaries  being  related  to  the  sensitive 
biological quality elements in 12 of the 15 RBDs, the exception being the RBDs in Northern 

Ireland.  

Salinity  conditions  were  not  assessed  in  relation  to  ecological  status/potential  in  Scotland  in 
any  water  category.  In  the  England  and  Wales  RBDs  the  only  category  where  they  were 

67 

 
 
assessed was in lakes and the boundaries were related to sensitive biological quality elements. 

In  Northern  Ireland  they  were  assessed  only  in  transitional  and  coastal  waters  and  the 
boundaries were not related to the sensitive biological quality elements. 

Acidification  status  was  assessed  in  relation  to  ecological  status/potential  only  in  rivers  and 
lakes in Scotland, England and Wales RBDs and the classification boundaries were related to 

the  sensitive  biological  quality  elements.  In  Northern  Ireland,  acidification  status  was  just 
assessed in transitional and coastal waters and the classification boundaries were not related to 

the sensitive biological quality elements. 

Nutrient conditions were assessed in all water categories and all RBDs in terms of ecological 

status/potential and were classified in terms of the sensitive biological quality elements in all 
cases except for all four water categories in the three RBDs in Northern Ireland. 

No  standards  were  reported  for  transparency  or  salinity  conditions  in  rivers  for  the  whole 
United  Kingdom.  Standards  were  reported  for  the  other  general  physiochemical  quality 

element types: thermal, nutrient and oxygen conditions and acidification status. All standards 

were  consistent  with  the  good‐moderate  status  boundary  of  the  relevant  sensitive  biological 
quality elements. 

Standards were reported for four (oxygenation, salinity, acidification and nutrient conditions) 
of  the  six  groups  of  physicochemical  quality  elements  in  lakes  in  Scotland,  England  and 

Wales.  In  Northern  Ireland  standards  were  only  reported  for  oxygenation  and  nutrient 
conditions.  There  were  no  reported  standards  for  transparency  conditions  in  lakes.  All 

standards  were  consistent  with  the  good‐moderate  status  boundary  of  the  relevant  sensitive 
biological quality elements 

Only  standards  for  oxygenation  and  nutrient  conditions  were  reported  for  transitional  and 

coastal  water  for  all  RBDs  and  the  standards  are  consistent  with  the  good‐moderate  status 

boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. 

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

It  is  indicated  in  the  RBMPs  that  the  methodology  for  the  selection  of  specific  pollutants  is 
covered in a United Kingdom guidance document on revised standards for the second RBMPs. 

The initial list of substances included substances covered by existing legislation, which were 
generally monitored, and substances that have emerged as possible concerns. The substances 

were ranked in terms of their hazardous properties and likelihood of exposure, following EU 
guidance.  

68 

 
 
Environmental  Quality  Standards  are  reported  for  38  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  in  the 

United  Kingdom.  They  have  only  been  established  for  water,  and  not  for  sediment  or  biota. 
The standards were reported to have been derived in accordance with the Technical Guidance 
Document No 2739 for 32 substances in all the RBDs where standards had been derived. For 
four  substances  the  technical  guidance  was  reported  as  not  having  been  used  in  any  of  the 

RBDs (all in England and Wales) and for two substances (arsenic and iron) the guidance was 
reported not to have been used in 11 RBDs and to have been used in four RBDs. 

The analytical methods used meets the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4.1 
of the Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive (2009/90/EC)40 for the strictest standards 
applied for 18 River Basin Specific Pollutants. For seven substances the methods did not meet 
the minimum performance criteria for any standard and for 13 substances the methods did for 

some  standards  but  not  for  others.  For  all  substances  and  standards  where  the  minimum 
performance  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  4.1  were  not  met,  the  analytical  method  complied 

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

All RBDs in the United Kingdom  reported that River Basin Specific Pollutants were used in 

the classification of ecological status/potential for all the relevant water categories: monitoring 
results  were  used  for  the  classification,  with  the  exception  of  nine  river  water  bodies  in 

Northern  Ireland.  In  the  United  Kingdom  as  a  whole  five  different  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants  are  reported  to  be  causing  failure  of  good  ecological  status/potential.  Zinc  was 

causing  failure  in  the  most  surface  water  bodies  (156)  followed  by  copper  (85)  and 
cypermethrin (55). 

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

Overall ecological status/potential has been reported for all water bodies in the second RBMPs, 

which  was  also  the  case  for  the  first  RBMPs.  The  confidence  in  classification  has  improved 
compared  to  the  first  RBMPs  for  all  water  categories.  The  classification  of  ecological 

status/potential is often based on several quality elements in all water categories.  

The one-out-all-out principle was reported to have been used in the classification of the overall 

status/potential in all RBDs.  

In  terms  of  how  the  spatial  extent  of  any  ecological  impacts  within  water  bodies  have  been 

taken into account when deriving the overall status of a water body, the RBMP for the South 

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

WFD%2027%20EC%202011.pdf  

40   http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:201:0036:0038:EN:PDF 

69 

 
 
                                                      
West RBD indicated that investigations to confirm the scale and extent of impacts occur after 

the  classification  stage.  The  UK  technical  guidance  methodology  provides  recommendations 
for  how  spatial  issues  and  the  use  of  multiple  monitoring  stations  should  be  dealt  with.  For 

example, if there are only a handful of sites and each monitoring station is representative of a 
significant proportion of the water body, the entire water body can be classified on the basis of 

the  results  for  the  monitoring  station  indicating  the  worst  impact.  How  this  recommendation 
has been implemented is not discussed in the RBMPs. 

No  information  on  the  methodology  for  dealing  with  the  non-deterioration  objective  when 
classifying  water  bodies  appears  to  have  been  reported  in  the  RBMPs  or  supporting 

information. 

Grouping is used for the classification of some water bodies for 19 (out of 46) quality elements 

across the four water categories in  the United Kingdom.  The largest  proportion classified by 
grouping  is  for  nutrient  conditions  (68  %  of  water  bodies)  in  coastal  waters,  followed  by 

oxygenation conditions (62 %) and benthic invertebrates (61 %), also in coastal waters. 42 % 
of lakes were classified by grouping in terms of benthic invertebrates, 17 % of rivers in terms 
of benthic invertebrates and 15 % of transitional water in terms of fish. 

In information obtained from the Neagh Bann RBMP, the revision of the delineation of river 
water bodies meant that there was less need for grouping for classification purposes compared 

with  the first  RBMP, although it was  still needed in  a number of places.  In total,  there  were 
currently 34 river water bodies without monitoring stations in Northern Ireland.  

3.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first Cycle 

There was a small increase in the proportion of surface water bodies included in surveillance 

monitoring  between  the  first  and  the  second  RBMPs  in  14  of  the  15  RBDs,  with  a  small 
decrease in the Scotland RBD. The biggest increase in the proportion of surface water bodies 

included  in  surveillance  monitoring  was  in  the  North  Western  RBD,  where  80  %  were 
monitored  for  the  first  RBMP  and  87  %  for  the  second.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 

surface  water  bodies  were  re-delineated  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs  with  10961 
surface  water  bodies  being  delineated  for  the  first  RBMPs  and  9325  for  the  second,  a  15  % 

decrease  in  numbers  overall  in  the  United  Kingdom.  Any  comparisons  therefore  need  to  be 
taken with caution. 

In  terms  of  surveillance  monitoring  only  six  of  the  RBDs  in  the  United  Kingdom  (Scotland, 
Solway-Tweed, Western Wales and the three RBDs in Northern Ireland) had any coastal water 

bodies where all required biological quality elements were monitored. For lakes, all of the 15 
RBDs  in  the  United  Kingdom  had  no  water  bodies  where  all  required  biological  quality 

70 

 
 
elements were monitored. In contrast 14 of the 15 RBDs had a number of river water bodies 

where  all  required  biological  quality  elements  were  monitored  with  the  fewest  being  in  the 
Anglian (6 %) and the most in the North Western RBD (95 %). Only the Scotland RBD had 

none. Fish were not monitored in any of the water bodies included in surveillance monitoring. 
Furthermore, 12 RBDs  had no transitional water bodies where  all required biological  quality 

elements were monitored for surveillance purposes.  

All  required  biological  quality  elements  were  monitored  in  at  least  some  transitional  water 

bodies in the Scotland RBD (15 %), in the Western Wales RBD (80 %) and in the Dee RBD 
(100 %). 

Overall, there was a decrease in the proportion of surface water bodies included in operational 
monitoring  between  the  first  RBMPs  and  the  second  in  12  of  the  15  RBDs,  with  the  largest 

decrease being in the Dee RBD where for the first RBMP 100 % of surface water bodies were 
included in operational monitoring and this decreased to 67 % for the second. There were small 

increases  in  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  operationally  monitored  in  all  three  RBDs  in 
Northern Ireland between the first RBMPs and the second.  

In  general,  more  sites  may  be  required  in  a  water  body  being  monitored  for  surveillance 

purposes  than  in  water  bodies  included  only  in  operational  monitoring.  This  is  because 
surveillance  monitoring  may  require  the  monitoring  of  more  quality  elements  with  different 

sites  required  for  different  quality  elements  (to  be  indicative  of  all  potential  pressures  and 
impacts),  while  operational  monitoring  often  focuses  on  monitoring  the  effects  of  specific 

pressures, which may require fewer quality elements depending on the nature of the impacts. 
As  examples,  for  the  first  RBMPs,  on  average  in  the  United  Kingdom  there  were  around  12 

monitoring  sites  in  each  coastal  and  22  sites  in  each  transitional  water  body  used  for 
surveillance monitoring, and around 7 and 13 sites respectively for operational monitoring. For 

the  second  RBMPs,  these  average  figures  for  coastal  and  transitional  water  bodies  had 
decreased to around nine sites per water body for surveillance monitoring in each of these two 

categories,  and  to  around  three  and  five    sites  for  operational  monitoring  in  coastal  and 
transitional waters, respectively. There were similar decreases in the number of sites per river 

water  body  used  for  surveillance  monitoring,  from  around  six  in  the  first  RBMPs  to  around 
three for the second. However, for lakes there was an increase in the numbers of sites per water 

body  used  for  surveillance  monitoring  from  around  two  in  the  first  RBMPs  to  four  in  the 
second. These increases happened in 14 of the 15 RBDs. The general decrease in the number 

of  sites  per  water  body  in  rivers,  coastal  and  transitional  waters  may  help  to  explain  the 
decreases  in  the  numbers  of  monitoring  sites  used  between  the  first  RBMPs  and  the  second, 

which may seem  contradictory with  the  increase in  the proportion of water bodies which are 
monitored.  

71 

 
 
For the first plans fish were reported not to be monitored in lakes but to be monitored in rivers 

and transitional waters. For the second plans, fish were reported to be monitored in lakes only 
in the three Northern Ireland RBDs but not in Scotland, England and Wales. There is therefore 

still  a  gap  in  the  monitoring  of  this  element  in  lakes.  Fish  were  also  not  reported  for  some 
RBDs with transitional waters in England, where they had been monitored for the first plan.  

In the first RBMPs hydrological regime was reported to be monitored in rivers and lakes and 
tidal  regime  in  transitional  waters  but  not  in  coastal  waters.  In  the  second  RBMPs 

hydrological/tidal  regime  was  only  reported  as  being  monitored  for  lakes  in  two  Northern 
Ireland RBDs. This is a significant change from the first RBMP. 

For  the  first  plans,  morphological  conditions  were  reported  to  be  monitored  in  all  water 
categories only in the England and Wales RBDs but river continuity was not reported for any 

RBD in the UK. In the second RBMP morphological conditions were not reported for Scotland 
for any of the four water categories and they were not reported for any RBD in terms of coastal 

waters,  for  five  of  the  15  RBDs  for  lakes,  for  four  of  15  RBDs  for  rivers  and  for  9  of  the 
13 RBDs  for  transitional  waters.  There  appears  to  have  been  a  significant  decrease  in  the 
monitoring  of  morphological  conditions,  particularly  in  the  RBDs  in  England.  There  is  also 

still a significant gap in the monitoring of these elements in Scotland. River continuity was not 
reported for the first nor for the second RBMPs. 

The  UK  has  reported  to  WISE  on  the  monitoring  of  physicochemical  parameters  at  an 
aggregate level for the first RBMPs, and it was not clear which specific quality elements were 

being monitored. For the second plans, nutrient conditions were not reported to be monitored 
in  any  of  the  England  RBDs,  which  the  United  Kingdom  explained  was  due  to  a  reporting 

error. 

The ecological status/potential has not improved significantly in the United Kingdom since the 

first RBMPs, and the status/potential changes reported at the quality element-level are mostly 
reported  as  not  consistent,  but  due  to  changes  in  monitoring  and  assessment  methods.  The 

large  majority  of  water  bodies  in  the  United  Kingdom  are  still  in  less  than  good  ecological 
status/potential.  

3.3

  Progress with European Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  Address  the  large  uncertainties  reported  in  the  first  RBMPs  in 
relation  to  the  assessment  of  the  status,  the  pressures  and  the  effect  of  potential 
measures. 

72 

 
 
Assessment:  To  address  the  uncertainties,  the  United  Kingdom  would  need  to  have 

fully WFD compliant monitoring programmes in place covering all the required quality 
elements. This is not the case, as there are still big gaps in the monitoring programmes.  

However,  the  confidence  in  the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  has 
improved  for  the  United  Kingdom  as  a  whole,  both  in  terms  of  information  on 

confidence for a larger proportion of water bodies (increasing from 52 % to 73 %), as 
well as an increased proportion of water bodies with high or medium confidence (from 

51 % to 72 % for rivers and lakes and from 63 % to 85 % for transitional and coastal 
waters). 

Also  the  biological  quality  element  assessment  methods  missing  for  the  first  RBMPs 
have now been developed: these are phytoplankton in transitional waters for the whole 

United  Kingdom,  and  angiosperms  in  coastal  waters  for  Northern  Ireland.  Also  fish 
methods for river and lakes, as well as angiosperms in transitional and coastal waters 

and  benthic  fauna  in  coastal  waters  have  been  developed  in  Northern  Ireland.  The 
United Kingdom subsequently clarified that the assessment methods for benthic fauna 
in Northern Ireland are common to the whole United Kingdom. 

In  conclusion,  there  has  been  progress  on  this  recommendation  though  there  are  still 
some significant gaps remaining. The recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  The  monitoring  network  needs  to  be  reviewed  to  ensure  that  the 
gaps  in  the  quality  elements  that  are  monitored  are  filled.  Further  clarification 
regarding the identification of and monitoring of chemical pollutants is needed, where 

this is missing. In particular, chemical pollutants should be monitored in all categories 
of water body in all regions of the UK.  

Assessment: The gaps reported for the first RBMPs have largely not been filled for the 
second,  for  example  on  river  continuity  and  morphological  conditions  in  Scotland. 

Furthermore,  for  some  quality  elements  the  reported  data  shows  a  deterioration,  for 
example  the  monitoring  of  hydrological/tidal  regime  in  rivers,  lakes  and  transitional 

waters,  but  the  United  Kingdom  subsequently  clarified  that  this  was  due  to  errors  in 
reporting.  

Progress has been made for River Basin Specific Pollutants in all RBDs, as 17 % of the 
total  reported  monitoring  sites  are  used  to  monitor  at  least  one  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutant. 

73 

 
 
 
In conclusion, there has not been sufficient progress on this recommendation and it is 

not 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 
there  is  an  ambitious  approach  to  combating  chemical  pollution  from  River  Basin 

Specific  Pollutants  and  that  adequate  measures  are  put  in  place.  United  Kingdom 
needs to provide clearer reporting on the methodologies used to set the Environmental 

Quality Standard values for national specific pollutants. 

Assessment: The RBMP have information on how River Basin Specific Pollutants have 

been selected. In terms of how and when River Basin Specific Pollutants are monitored, 
this part of the recommendation has been met as detailed information on the monitored 

substances has been reported for all RBDs and relevant water categories. 

Another  improvement  is  that  the  methods  used  to  set  the  Environmental  Quality 

Standards for River Basin Specific Pollutants are reported for most substances to be in 
accordance  with  the  Technical  Guidance  Document  No  27,  in  contrast  to  the  first 

RBMPs, when there was no information on how the standards had been set.  

All  RBDs  in  the  United  Kingdom  reported  that  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were 

used  in  the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  for  all  the  relevant  water 
categories.  Five  different  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  are  reported  to  be  causing 

failure of good ecological status/potential in the United Kingdom as a whole. 

In conclusion, there has been progress on this recommendation and it is considered as 

fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Improve  the  monitoring  of  impacts  in  the  second  RBMPs.  Further 
investigations  in  that  regard  need  to  be  translated  into  increased  confidence  in  the 
impact of pressures and status assessment”. “In the first plans there was a focus on the 

more traditional quality elements for operational monitoring with benthic invertebrates 
and  physicochemical  quality  elements  being  monitored  in  the  most  water  bodies 

included  in  operational  monitoring.  It would  be expected  that  as  assessment  methods 
are  developed  for  the  other  biological  quality  elements  that  more  of  them  would  be 
monitored for  operational  purposes in  relation  to the ambient  pressures on the water 
bodies”.  In  Northern  Ireland  there  was  no  operational  monitoring  for  coastal  and 
transitional  waters  and  for  lakes  only  water  flow  was  reported  to  be  monitored”. 

74 

 
 
”There  should  be  a  clear  description  of  how  monitoring  has  been  improved  in  the 

second plan and how that has increased confidence in the assessment of pressures and 
status  for  example  by  having  a  longer  period  of  monitoring  results  available  for  the 

second  cycle  which  should  increase  the  level  of  confidence  in  the  classification  of 
status. 

Assessment: The RBDs  in  England have not  reported any biological  quality  elements 
(or  any  other  quality  elements)  that  are  being  monitored  in  coastal  waters,  but  the 

United Kingdom subsequently clarified that this was a reporting error. Some RBDs in 
England have also not reported relevant information for transitional waters. 

Note that there has been a re-delineation of water bodies after the first RBMPs which 
may have affected the proportion of water bodies affected by each type of significant 

pressures and hence the selection of the most sensitive biological quality elements for 
operational  monitoring.  Comparisons  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs  should  be 

treated  with  caution.  Also  note  that  the  comparisons  between  the  first  and  second 
RBMPs are based on 12 RBDs in England, Scotland and Wales, as the three RBDs in 
Northern  Ireland  had  not  reported  information  in  the  required  format  in  the  first 

RBMPs. 

All  four  relevant  biological  quality  elements  were  used  in  operational  monitoring  in 

coastal waters for the first RBMPs, though the predominant biological quality element 
used  was  phytoplankton  followed  by  benthic  invertebrates.  Based  on  the  information 

from only  four RBDs  with reported information, phytoplankton  and macroalgae were 
the  biological  quality  elements  which  were  predominately  used  for  operational 

monitoring for the second RBMPs, though angiosperms, phytobenthos (not an expected 
biological quality elements for coastal waters) and benthic invertebrates were also used.  

There  seems  to  have  been  an  increased  used  of  macroalgae  in  coastal  waters  and  a 
decrease  in  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  where  phytoplankton  and  benthic 

invertebrates are monitored. 

Four  of  the  five  relevant  biological  quality  elements  were  used  in  operational 

monitoring in lakes for the first RBMPs, while fish were not monitored in lakes in all 
RBDs  for  the  second  RBMPs.  The  biological  quality  elements  which  were 

predominately  used  for  the  first  RBMPs  were  phytoplankton  followed  by  benthic 
invertebrates.  The biological  quality  elements  which were predominately  used for the 
operational  monitoring  of  lakes  for  the  second  RBMPs  were  again  phytoplankton 
followed  by  macrophytes  and  benthic  invertebrates;  fish  were  again  not  monitored  in 

75 

 
 
any lake. The relative use of the different biological quality elements remains roughly 

the same in the second as in the first RBMPs. 

All  four  relevant  biological  quality  elements  were  used  in  operational  monitoring  in 

rivers  for  the  first  RBMPs,  though  the  biological  quality  element  that  was 
predominately used was benthic invertebrates (in around 90 % of river water bodies), 

followed  by  fish.  The  use  of  fish  in  operational  monitoring  in  rivers  appears  to  have 
remained roughly the same as for the first RBMPs, but there was a noticeable increase 

in the proportion of rivers where macrophytes, phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates 
were monitored. 

For the first  RBMPs,  all five of the relevant  biological  quality elements  were used in 
operational monitoring in transitional water, the biological quality element which was 

predominately  used  was  phytoplankton,  followed  by  benthic  invertebrates.  In  the 
second  RBMPs,  three  RBDs  (Humber,  Thames  and  Dee)  did  not  report  on  which 

biological  quality  elements  were  monitored  for  operational  purposes  in  transitional 
waters. In the other nine RBDs in England, Wales and Scotland, the biological quality 
element that was predominately used for the second RBMPs was benthic invertebrates, 

though  all  other  biological  quality  elements  were  reported  in  at  least  one  RBD, 
including  macrophytes  and  phytobenthos  which  might  not  be  expected  to  be  used  in 

transitional waters. Notably, Scotland used fish in 91 % of transitional water bodies for 
operational  purposes.  Comparison  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs  seems 

unreliable based on the lack of reporting for transitional waters in the second RBMPs in 
some RBDs. 

In terms of the recommendation to use more and different biological quality elements 
for  operational  monitoring  as  methods  are  developed,  progress  seems  to  have  been 

made particularly in terms of coastal waters and rivers.  

It  is  difficult  to  make  a  quantitative  comparison  of  the  relative  levels  of  confidence 

achieved in the classification of ecological status/potential between the first and second 
RBMPs  because  of  the  significant  re-delineation  of  water  bodies.  However,  an 

approximate comparison shows that overall in the UK, the proportion of water bodies 
classified as either high or good with high confidence, increased from 11 % in the first 

RBMPs to 13 % in the second for lakes and from 6 % to 11 % for rivers. In terms of 
coastal and transitional waters the proportion classified as high or good at high status 

with high confidence decreased. The improvement in the confidence of classification of 
high  and  good  status  river  and  lake  water  bodies  may  reflect  the  improvement  in 
assessment methods in these water categories, while for transitional and coastal water 

76 

 
 
the  reverse  may  be  indicated.  There  may  also  be  other  factors  affecting  the  level  of 

confidence,  such  as  the  frequency  of  monitoring  of  the  quality  elements  in  the 
respective water categories. 

In conclusion, there has been progress on this recommendation and it is fulfilled. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
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 RBMP  

4.1.1

  Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters 

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

Member  States  have  to  implement  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  programmes  in 
accordance with the requirements of the WFD and of the EQS Directive, for the assessment of 

ecological status/potential and chemical status.  

Surveillance monitoring programmes should allow Member States to supplement and validate 

the  impact  assessment  procedure  (see  chapter  2),  to  efficiently  and  effectively  review  the 
design  of  their  monitoring  programmes,  and  to  assess  the  long-term  changes  in  natural 

conditions  and  those  resulting  from  widespread  anthropogenic  activity.  For  operational 
purposes,  monitoring  is  required  to  establish  the  status  of  waterbodies  identified  as  being  at 
risk of failing to meet their environmental objectives, and to assess any changes in the status of 

such waterbodies resulting from the PoM. 

Section 3.1.1 of this report summarises the characteristics of the surveillance and operational 

monitoring programmes in the United Kingdom for the second RBMP. 

Figure  4.1  summarises  the  proportion  of  sites  used  for  the  monitoring  of  chemical  status  in 

surface waters for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used 
for  surveillance  and/or  operational  purposes.  More  detailed  information  can  be  found  on  the 
website of the European Environment Agency41. 

Figure 4.1 shows that only 16 %, 2 %, 3 % and 8 % of the total monitoring sites are used for 

the monitoring of chemical status in lakes, rivers, transitional and coastal waters respectively. 
No  territorial  waters  have  been  monitored  and  assessed  for  chemical  status  in  the  UK. 

Significantly more sites were used for monitoring of ecological status.  

For  the  second  RBMP,  across  all  RBDs  in  the  UK  and  for  all  water  categories,  a  similar 

proportion of monitoring sites for chemical status are included in the operational (12 %) and 
surveillance  (11.9  %)  monitoring  programmes.  There  is  some  variation  between  UK 
administrative regions with respect to water category and monitoring purpose. For operational 

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

78 

 
 
                                                      
monitoring, a higher proportion of coastal water sites (>67 %) are monitored in England than 

in  Scotland (Scotland and Solway Tweed RBDs) (>12 %), Wales (the Western Wales RBD) 
(23 %) and Northern Ireland (<9.3 %); a similar pattern is apparent for transitional waters; in 

lake  water  body  sites,  no  operational  monitoring  for  priority  substances  is  undertaken  in 
Northern  Ireland  but  the  proportion  of  monitoring  sites  is  similar  in  Scotland,  England  and 

Wales (27 – 65 %); and in river water bodies, the proportion of monitoring sites is in the same 
order (10-30 %) in all jurisdictions. For surveillance monitoring, a higher proportion of coastal 

water sites (<25 %) are monitored in England than in Scotland (Scotland and Solway Tweed 
RBDs) (12 – 15 %), Wales (the Western Wales RBD) (23 %) and Northern Ireland (5-9 %); a 

similar pattern is apparent for transitional waters; in lake water body sites, a similar proportion 
is  monitored  in  England,  Wales  and  Northern  Ireland  (2-18  %)  with  a  greater  proportion  in 

Scotland  (the  Scotland  RBD)  (24  %);  in  rivers,  a  low  proportion  of  sites  are  included  in 
England  (0.1  to  2  %)  and  Wales  (2  –  9  %)  with  higher  proportions  in  two  of  the  Northern 

Ireland RBDs (15-17 %) and in Scotland (the Scotland RBD) (19 %).   

Figure 4.1 

Proportion  of  sites  used  for  monitoring  of  chemical  status  and,  for 
comparison,  ecological  status,  in  the  United  Kingdom.  The  number  in 

parenthesis  next  to  the  category  is  the  total  number  of  monitoring  sites 
irrespective of their purpose 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

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

different water body types for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between 
sites used for surveillance and/or operational purposes. Also given is the proportion of water 
bodies monitored for any purpose and, for comparative purposes, those for ecological status. 

79 

 
 
 
 
Up to 13 % of lake water bodies, 7 % of river water bodies, 6 % of transitional waters and 5 % 

of  coastal  water  bodies  were  monitored  for  chemical  status  in  the  second  RBMP.  A  greater 
proportion of water bodies were monitored for ecological status although the percentages were 

still relatively low. 

The  majority  of  surface  water  bodies  at  poor  chemical  status  are  monitored  for  Priority 

Substances as part of the operational monitoring programme. However, in some cases surface 
water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status are reported not to be monitored.  

Figure 4.2 

Proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category  which  are  monitored  for 
chemical status and for ecological status, in the United Kingdom. The number 

in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of water bodies in that 
category 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

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

Monitoring for status assessment 

Requirements 

Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes in order to 
provide  inter  alia  a  coherent  and  comprehensive  overview  of  water  status  within  each  RBD. 
The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of priority substances, frequency and numbers 

80 

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

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

(version 

force 

in 

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

Spatial coverage  

In nine of the RBDs in the UK, more than 40 % of coastal water bodies were not monitored for 

priority substances with the highest proportions in Scotland (UK01 and UK02 RBDs) (>75 %) 
where the number of coastal water bodies is greatest (440) but in RBDs with coastal waters in 

England,  Wales  and  Northern  Ireland  the  largest  proportions  are  monitored  for  six  or  more 
substances  (though  the  number  of  coastal  water  bodies  is  much  fewer).  In  12  of  the  RBDs, 

more than 33 % of transitional water bodies were not  monitored for priority substances with 
the highest proportions in Scotland (UK01 and 02) (>80 %) where the number of transitional 

water bodies is greatest (41); the majority of the remaining water bodies are monitored for six 
or more priority substances. For 13 of the 15 RBDs, the majority of lake water bodies were not 
monitored  for  priority  substances  (>90  %)  with  the  exception  of  Northern  Ireland  where  the 

majority  of  the  small  number  of  lake  water  bodies  was  monitored  for  six  or  more  priority 
substances. In each of the RBDs in the UK, more than 40 % (40-83 %) of river water bodies 

were  not  monitored  for  priority  substances  with  the  remainder  monitored  for  three  or  more 
priority substances.  

Across  the  15  UK  RBDs,  the  number  of  Priority  Substances  that  are  monitored  in  water  for 
status assessment ranges from 13 (Dee RBD) to 41 (for all three Northern Ireland RBDs) with 

only three RBDs monitoring for less than 25 Priority Substances.  

Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene are monitored in biota in 13 of the 15 

RBDs;  not  reported  to  be  monitored  in  the  Scotland  RBD  and  one  of  the  Northern  Ireland 
RBDs (North Eastern RBD).42 Monitoring is undertaken at less than 10 sites in each relevant 
RBD  and  generally  in  more  sites  in  coastal  and  transitional  waters  than  in  lakes  and  rivers. 
However, UK subsequently  clarified that the results of this monitoring is not  included in  the 

assessment of chemical status, with the exception of mercury in Wales. 

42  The  United  Kingdom  subsequently  clarified  that  in  Northern  Ireland  monitoring  of  hexachlorobenzene  and 
hexachlorobutadiene  ceased  in  2012  on  the  basis  of  the  risk  assessment  and  the  lack  of  detection  of  these 
pollutants in biota over a number of years. 

81 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Frequencies 

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

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

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

Overall  in  the  UK,  all  of  the  41  Priority  Substances  was  monitored  in  water  for  status 
assessment  at  some  sites  at  frequencies  of  12  times  per  year  and  at  least  once  in  the  cycle 

meeting the minimum  guidelines for surveillance monitoring. The RBDs in  Northern  Ireland 
monitored all substances at these frequencies but fewer substances met these requirements in 

the  other  RBDs  in  the  UK.  For  operational  monitoring,  the  minimum  guidelines  frequencies 
were met for 36 of the 41 substances in the UK overall at some sites. These guidelines were 

not met for any substance in the Northern Ireland RBDs but were met for some substances in 
the other RBDs of the UK. 

The  monitoring  frequency  for  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  in  biota 

for  status  assessment  of  once  every  year  was  met  in  those  RBDs  were  monitoring  was 
undertaken  with  the  exception  of  those  in  Northern  Ireland.  Monitoring  was  reported  to 

undertaken once per cycle with future frequencies to be determined. 

Monitoring for long-term trend assessment 

Requirements 

Article 3.3 of the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009) requires Member States to monitor 
14  priority  substances43  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  

Arrangements were reported to be in place for the long-term trend analysis in sediment and/or 
biota in 12 of the RBDs in UK with no information available for RBDs in Northern Ireland. 

43   Anthracene,  brominated  diphenylether, 

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

chloroalkanes,  DEHP, 

cadmium,  C10-13 

82 

 
 
                                                      
Overall in the UK, 10 of the 14 Priority Substances (chloroalkanes, di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, 

hexachlorocyclohexane  and  pentachlorobezene  were  not  reported  as  being  monitored)  are 
monitored in sediment and/or biota for trend assessment. All of these are monitored in RBDs 
in England with only three in RBDs in Scotland (sediment only) and none in RBDs in Wales44 
and  Northern  Ireland.45  With  regards  to  water  category,  coastal  and  transitional  waters  are 
monitored for all ten substances and nine in rivers in those RBDs where monitoring for trend 
assessment  occurs.  There  is  no  monitoring  of  sediment  and/or  biota  in  lakes  for  trend 

assessment in the UK. Monitoring for trend assessment was undertaken at less than 10 sites in 
each relevant RBD across all water categories. 

Frequencies 

The sampling frequency is at least once every three years for all reported RBDs which meets 

the guideline in the Directive.  

Monitoring of Priority Substances that are discharged in a RBD 

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  states,  in  Section  1.3.1  (Design  of  surveillance  monitoring),  that 
“Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year 
during  the  period  covered  by  a  river  basin  management  plan  for  [inter  alia]:  priority  list 

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

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

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

quantities.” 

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

into the river basin or sub-basin.  

The  majority  of  Priority  Substances  in  inventories  are  discharged  and  monitored  in  the  UK 

RBDs. However, a total of 20 Priority Substances were discharged but not monitored in at least 

44  The  UK  clarified  that  mercury,  the  polycyclic  aromatic  hydrocarbons,  the  brominated  diphenylethers  and 
several  other  priority  substances  are  monitored  in  sediment  for  trend  assessment  in  Wales.  This  must  have 
been a reporting error. 

45 UK mentioned that in Northern Ireland there is insufficient monitoring data available for trend assessments to 
be carried out though relevant data is used for status assessment. Some monitoring for trend is carried out in 
Northern Ireland in the context of Ospar, however it is unclear whether this is performed in accordance with 
the requirements of the WFD, and it is not performed in all relevant WFD water categories. 

83 

 
 
                                                      
 
one RBD, with more than three Priority Substances discharged but not monitored in all RBDs. 

The UK highlighted this may be a reporting mistake. 

Performance of analytical methods used  

In the United Kingdom for a majority of Priority Substances (19 in England and Wales; 25 in 
Scotland  and  35  in  Northern  Ireland),  the  analytical  methods  used  meet  the  minimum 

performance  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  4.1  of  the  Technical  specifications  for  chemical 
analysis  and  monitoring  of  water  status  Directive46  for  the  strictest  standard  applied.  For  the 
remaining ones  (22 in England and Wales; 16 in Scotland and seven in Northern Ireland) , the 
analytical  methods  complied  with  the  requirements  laid  down  in  Article  4.2  of  Technical 

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

The  method  of  dealing  with  measurements  of  Priority  Substances  lower  than  the  limit  of 
quantification is as specified in Article 5 of the Technical specifications for chemical analysis 

and  monitoring  of  water  status  Directivefor  12  of  the  15  RBDs;  three  RBDs  in  Northern 
Ireland reported the use of a different method.  

4.1.2

  Chemical Status of surface water bodies 

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

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

group.  For  the  majority  of  water  bodies,  the  assessment  of  chemical  status  was  undertaken 
between  2013  and  2015.  The  most  recent  assessment  year  was  2015  for  RBDs  in  England, 

2014  for  Scotland  and  Wales  (Western  Wales  and  Dee  RBDs)  and  for  the  three  RBDs  in 
Northern Ireland. 

The chemical status of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom for the second RBMP is 
illustrated in Map 4.1. This is based on the most recent assessment of status. 

The  chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  all  relevant  water  categories  in  the  United 
Kingdom for the first and second RBMPs is given in Table 4.1.  

46  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  

84 

 
 
                                                      
Map 4.1 

Chemical status of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom 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) 

85 

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

Chemical status of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom 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  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 

Rivers (7506) 

Lakes (1068) 

Transitional (190) 

Coastal (561) 

Total 

first RBMP 

Rivers (9080) 

Lakes (1119) 

Transitional (192) 

Coastal (570) 

Total 

Good 

Failing to achieve 
good 

Unknown 

Number 

 % 

Number 

 % 

Number 

 % 

7 132 

1 067 

179 

542 

8920 

2 948 

363 

93 

506 

3910 

95 % 

99.9 % 

94 % 

97 % 

96 % 

32 % 

32 % 

48 % 

89 % 

36 % 

165 

1 

10 

11 

187 

161 

1 

16 

3 

181 

2 % 

0.09 % 

209 

3 % 

5 % 

2 % 

2 % 

2 % 

1 % 

8 % 

1 % 

2 % 

1 

8 

218 

5 971 

755 

83 

61 

6870 

0.50 % 

1 % 

2 % 

66 % 

67 % 

43 % 

11 % 

63 % 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 4.3 shows the confidence in the classification of chemical status for the second RBMP. 
Overall 83 % of surface water bodies in the UK (excluding Northern Ireland) were classified 

for chemical status with low confidence, 16 % with medium confidence and only 1.4 % with 
high confidence. For lakes, 8 % were classified with medium confidence and 92 % with low 

confidence.  For  rivers,  only  1.7  %  were  classified  with  high  confidence,  17  %  with  medium 
confidence and 81 % with low confidence. In transitional waters, only two water bodies (1 %) 
were  classified  with  high  confidence,  38  %  with  medium  confidence  and  61  %  with  low 
confidence. In coastal water, 9 % were classified with medium confidence and the remainder 

(91 %) with low confidence. No information on the confidence in the classification of chemical 
status was reported for RBDs in Northern Ireland.47   

The UK subsequently clarified that, in England, Scotland and Wales, water bodies have been 

classified  as  in  good  chemical  status  with  low  confidence  where  a  risk  assessment  has  been 

47  The  United  Kingdom  subsequently  clarified  that  in  Northern  Ireland  all  chemical  classification  confidence 
levels on published status information was reported as low confidence based on the statistical requirements to 
meet the increasing confidence limits and the low density of evidence.   

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
undertaken  and  has  identified  no  predicted  risks  from  Priority  Substances.  Risk  assessments 

may have included investigatory monitoring and modelling. These water bodies have not been 
monitored as part of the monitoring programmes reported in the second RBMP. The UK also 

clarified that this approach has not been implemented in Northern Ireland where unmonitored 
water bodies were classified as unknown status. 

Figure 4.3  Confidence in the classification of chemical status of surface water bodies in 

the United Kingdom based on the most recently assessed status/potential 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Classification  of  chemical  status  is  intended  to  be  assessed  according  the  ‘one-out-all-out’ 
principle such that the failure of one Priority Substance Environmental Quality Standard in a 

water  body  results  in  failure  to  achieve  good  status  classification  for  that  water  body.  No 
explicit reference to the application of the ‘one-out-all-out’ principle with respect to chemical 

status was made in the UK RBMPs. 

Figure 4.4 compares the chemical status of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom for the 

first RBMP with that for the second RBMP (based on the most recent assessment of status) and 
that  expected  by  2015.  There  was  a  large  increase  in  the  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies 

classified as good for the second  RBMP compared to the first (as explained by the risk based 
approach  described  above);  the  majority  of  these  were  classified  as  unknown  in  the  first 

RBMP. There was a small increase from 96 % at good chemical status for the second RBMP to 
97 % expected by the end of 2015. 

87 

 
 
 
 
The  assessment  of  chemical  status  for  the  second  RBMP  was  expected  to  be  based  on  the 
standards laid down in  EQS Directive 2008/105/EC  (version in  force on 13 January 200948). 
Some Member States did not implement the Directive in the first RBMPs as the transposition 

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

Directive  2013/39/EU  amended  the  EQS  Directive.  In  particular,  it  sets  more  stringent 
environmental  quality  standards  for  seven  substances49.  Member  States  were  asked  to  report 
whether the new standards caused the status of the surface water body to appear to deteriorate. 

This  was  the  case  for  less  than  1  %  of  surface  water  bodies,  because  of  lead,  nickel  and 
benzo(a)pyrene in the United Kingdom as a whole. 

Figure 4.4  Chemical status of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom 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.  

Source:WISE electronic reporting 

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

quality standards, unless Member States apply exemptions under WFD Article 4(4) and/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 the United Kingdom is shown in  Figure 4.5 and shows that more 

than 90 % of the water bodies were expected to be at good chemical status by the end of 2015. 
However, 10 % of rivers are not expected to achieve good chemical status until beyond 2027. 

48  Please  note  that  Directive  2013/39/European  Union,  which  amended  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards 
Directive,  introduced  a  less  stringent  annual  average  environmental  quality  standard  for  naphthalene  in 
transitional and coastal waters. This less stringent environmental quality standard should be taken into account 
for the determination of surface water chemical status by the 2015 deadline laid down in Article 4 of the WFD.  
49  Anthracene,  Brominated  diphenylether,  Fluoranthene,  Lead  and  its  compounds,  Naphthalene,  Nickel  and  its 

compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 

88 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.5  Expected date of achievement of good chemical of surface water bodies in the 

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

Priority Substances causing the failure of good chemical status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Member States were expected to report exceedances for individual substances on the basis of 

the most relevant  Environmental  Quality Standard for  each substance.  For the seven Priority 
Substances with more stringent 2013 Environmental Quality Standards, exceedance of either or 
both of the 2008 and 2013 standards (as appropriate) should have been reported (see above). 

There  were  19  Priority  Substances  reported  to  be  causing  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical 
status in surface water bodies in the United Kingdom. The “top-10” in terms of the proportion 

of water bodies failing because of the substance is shown in Figure 4.6.  

89 

 
 
 
Figure 4.6 

The  top-10  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical 

status  in  surface  water  bodies  in  the  United  Kingdom  (please  note  11 
substances are shown due to a tie). 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Overall for surface water bodies in the United Kingdom, the largest proportion of exceedances 

were for the annual average environmental quality standard for cadmium (27 %), lead (20 %), 
nickel  (11  %)  and  mercury  (10  %)  and  4-nonylphenol  (7  %).  Exceedances  of  maximum 

allowable  concentration  environmental  quality  standards  were  rare  and  only  occurred  in 
Northern Ireland for hexachlorocyclohexane and total benzo(b)fluor-anthene + benzo(k)fluor-
anthene50. Only endosulfan was reported to have exceeded both types of environmental quality 
standard again in Northern Ireland51.  

Ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances 

According  to  Article  8(a)  of  the  EQS  Directive52,  eight  priority  substances  and  groups  of 
priority  substances  are  behaving  like  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic 
substances53.  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 

50  The  United  Kingdom  subsequently  clarified  that  the  environmental  quality  standard  for  total  benzo(b)fluor-
anthene + benzo(k)fluor-anthene is listed as an annual average concentration environmental quality standard, 
and that there is no applicable maximum allowable concentration environmental quality standard.  

51 The United Kingdom  subsequently clarified that the maximum allowable concentration environmental quality 
standard  for  endosulfan  was  not  exceeded  and  that  the  annual  average  concentration  for  endosulfan  was 
reported as a failure in the RBMP as a precaution and that it was not a true breach of the environmental quality 
standard.  

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

dioxins, hexabromocyclodecane and heptachlor 

90 

 
 
 
                                                      
deposition). In order to show the progress made in tackling other priority substances, Member 

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

The  influence  of  ubiquitous  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  Priority  Substances  on  the 
assessment of chemical status in the UK is limited. Overall 2 % of surface water bodies fail to 

achieve  good  status;  while  mercury,  tributyltin,  PAH  and  brominated  diphenylethers  are 
among  the  Priority  Substances  causing  failure,  when  these  substances  are  removed  from  the 

assessment  of  chemical  status  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  failing  good  status  remains 
unchanged  at  2  %.  This  is  illustrated  in  the  2018  State  of  Water  report  of  the  European 
Environment Agency54. 

However,  the  true  extent  of  the  influence  of  these  substances  cannot  be  fully  determined 

because  a  large  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  have  been  assigned  good  status  with  low 
confidence  on  the  basis  of  a  risk  assessment  or  have  been  assigned  an  unknown  status  class 

because they have not been monitored. The extent to which pressures in relation to ubiquitous 
persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  Priority  Substances  have  been  included  in  the  risk 
assessment has not been determined as part of the assessment of the second RBMPs. 

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

The majority of Priority  Substances monitored are used in the assessment of chemical status. 

Across  the  whole  of  the  UK  there  are  only  four  RBDs  where  not  all  priority  substances  are 
used  in  the  assessment  of  status.  In  the  Scotland  RBD,  dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, 

endosulfan,  di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate  and  tributyltin  are  not  monitored  but  are  reported  as 
being  used  in  the  assessment  of  chemical  status.  Of  the  group  of  Priority  Substances,  Total 

cyclodiene  pesticides  (aldrin  +  dieldrin  +  endrin  +  isodrin),  brominated  diphenylethers  and 
Total  Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene    +  Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene  are  reported  as  not  used  in  the 

assessment  of  chemical  status  whereas  Total  DDT  is  reported  as  being  used  but  neither  this 
parameter nor its components are monitored. 

For RBDs in England55 and Wales (Solway Tweed, Northumbria, Humber, Anglian, Thames, 
South  East,  South  West,  Severn,  Western  Wales56,  Dee  and  North  West),  the  following  21 

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

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

55 The UK clarified that there have been reporting mistakes.for England. 
56 The UK confirmed these substances were monitored and used in the assessment of status in Wales. This must 

have been a reporting mistake. 

91 

 
 
                                                      
 
 
Priority  Substances  are  reported  as  being  used  in  the  assessment  of  chemical  status  but  not 

monitored: 
trichloroethylene;  1,2-dichloroethane;  endosulfan;  di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate; 
simazine;  tetrachloroethylene;  chlorfenvinphos;  hexachlorocyclohexane;  trifluralin;  atrazine; 

chlorpyrifos;  alachlor;  total  DDT,  p,p'  +  DDT,  o,p'  +  DDE,  p,p'  +  DDD,  p,p');  total 
1,2-dichloroethane; 
benzo(b)fluor-anthene  +  Benzo(k)fluor-anthene; 

4-nonylphenol; 

isomers); 
octylphenol 
chloroalkanes  C10-13;  total  benzo(g,h,i)-perylene  +  indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene.  brominatedB 

(4-(1,1',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol); 

trichlorobenzenes 

(all 

diphenylethers  (congener  numbers  28,  47,  99,  100,  153  and  154)  is  reported  as  being 
monitored but not used the assessment of chemical status.  

For  RBDs  in  Northern  Ireland,  the  following  Priority  Substances  are  monitored  but  are  not 
used in the assessment of chemical status: hexachlorobutadiene; hexachlorobenzene; mercury 

and its compounds.  

As  stated  previously,  surface  water  bodies  not  monitored  for  chemical  status  are  reported  as 

good status except for RBDs in Northern Ireland where they are reported as unknown status. 

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

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

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

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

No alternative and/or additional standards were reported for the RBDs in the UK.  

Use of mixing zones  

Article 4 of the EQS Directive provides Member States with the option of designating mixing 
zones adjacent to points of discharge in surface waters. Concentrations of priority substances 
may exceed the relevant environmental quality standard within such mixing zones if they do 
not affect the compliance of the rest of the surface water body with those standards. Member 

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

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

According  to  WISE,  mixing  zones  have  not  been  designated  in  the  United  Kingdom,  but  a 
possible reporting mistake was then pointed out by the UK. 

92 

 
 
Background Concentrations and Bioavailability 

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

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

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

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

their  compounds  are 

taken 

quality standard in all 15 RBDs of UK. The application of water quality parameters that affect 
the bioavailability of metals when assessing monitoring results against relevant environmental 

quality standards have been taken into account in all 15 RBDs in UK.  

4.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance in the first cycle 

There  has  been  a  significant  reduction  in  the  number  of  sites  and  water  bodies  monitored  in 

operational  monitoring  programmes  for  Priority  Substances  in  RBDs  in  England  and  Wales. 
This is explained by the risk based approach taken by the Environment Agency in England and 

Wales  (noting  that  Wales  is  now  covered  by  Natural  Resources  Wales,  which  became 
operational in 2013) to identify which water bodies require monitoring. Water bodies at lower 

risk were identified as being at Good Status, with low confidence without further monitoring. 

In  England  and  Wales,  a  large  increase  in  the  number  of  surface  water  bodies  classified  as 

good  chemical  status  has  been  reported  with  a  large  decrease  in  the  number  reported  as 
unknown  chemical  status.  RBDs  in  England,  Wales  and  Scotland  are  reporting  that 

unmonitored  surface  water  bodies  are  classified  as  good  chemical  status  where  the  risk 
assessment  has  identified  a  low  risk  of  failing  good  status  for  all  Priority  Substances.  This 
approach is not adopted in Northern Ireland where unmonitored water bodies are classified as 
unknown status. 

There  has  therefore  been  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  monitoring  sites  and  water  bodies 
monitored  for  operational  purposes  for  chemical  status  in  the  second  cycle  in  England  and 

Wales. 

In  the  UK,  new  standards  for  chemicals  were  developed  as  part  of  a  UK-wide  collaboration 

and have been widely consulted upon. However, it is unclear from the RBMPs and background 

93 

 
 
documents  the  extent  to  which  the  new  standards  developed  applied  to  Priority  Substances. 

The details are described in selected RBMPs were as follows:  

 

In  the  Humber  RBD  the  changes  over  the  first  cycle  are  described  which  relates  to  a 

growth in the quantity and quality of the evidence available. In England, an additional 
£1.5m  pounds  invested  in  chemical  monitoring  technology.  The  environmental 

assessment  criteria  have  been  improved  with  new  standards  for  additional  chemical 
substances. A full description of changes to environmental standards is described in the 

UKTAG website (http://www.wfduk.org/). 

 

In the Western Wales RBMP Overview Annex document describes the methodological 

changes  that  have  been  introduced  for  the  second  cycle.  These  include  updated 
standards for some chemical substances. 

 

In  the  Neagh  Bann  (Northern  Ireland)  RBMP  the  main  changes  are  described.  The 

classification  tools  and  standards  used  for  WFD  classification  in  2015  have  changed 
during the first river basin cycle. UKTAG undertook a technical review of the tools and 

standards.  New  or  revised  water  quality  standards  for  a  wide  range  of  pollutants  in 
surface waters have been adopted. The standards incorporate the latest understanding of 
the risk posed  for  example, taking into account  the natural  background  of metals  and 

their  bioavailability.  In  the  Northern  Ireland  Environment  Agency  (NIEA)  Surface 
Water Monitoring and Classification Methodology it was described that for the second 

cycle: further substances have been introduced, more substances are to be assessed by 
biota  standards,  and  some  water  EQSs  have  been  tightened  (i.e.  become  more 

restrictive). 

Overall  in  the  United  Kingdom,  there  are  23  Priority  Substances  that  were  reported  to  have 

improved  from  poor  to  good  chemical  status  since  the  first  RBMP.  The  number  of  surface 
water  bodies  affected  was  very  small  representing  less  than  1  %  of  the  total  surface  water 

bodies in the United Kingdom.   

4.3

  Progress with European Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  Address  the  large  uncertainties  reported  in  the  first  RBMPs  in 
relation  to  the  assessment  of  the  status,  the  pressures  and  the  effect  of  potential 

measures.  

Assessment:  With  specific  reference  to  the  chemical  status  of  surface  waters, 

uncertainties in the assessment of status arise from the extent of monitoring for Priority 
Substances  in  surface  water  bodies:  whether  the  full  range  of  Priority  Substances  are 

94 

 
 
monitored at the appropriate frequency and the approach adopted to the classification of 

status based on this information. With respect to the extent of monitoring for Priority 
Substances, in most of the RBDs in the United Kingdom, between more than 33 and 40 

%  of  coastal,  transitional  and  river  water  bodies  and  more  than  90  %  of  lake  water 
bodies were not monitored for Priority Substances. The remainder were monitored for 

the majority of Priority Substances in water at frequencies that met the requirements of 
the  Directive  for  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  at  some,  but  not  all,  sites. 

Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were monitored in biota in 12 of 
the 14 RBDs in a limited number of water bodies and at the frequency required by the 

Directive.  However,  the  results  of  the  monitoring  in  biota  was  not  used  in  the  status 
assessment,  with  the  exception  of  mercury  in  Wales.  With  respect  to  monitoring  of 

surface water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status as part of the operational 
monitoring programme, the majority of surface water bodies are monitored for Priority 

Substances.   

Overall most of surface water bodies in the UK were classified for chemical status with 
low confidence. The main reason for this in England, Wales and Scotland was the use 

of a risk assessment approach to identify surface water bodies not at risk from Priority 
Substances and to classify these as in  good chemical status with low confidence. The 

use  of  this  approach  accounts  for  the  significant  reduction  in  the  number  of  water 
bodies in unknown status from the first RBMP. The risk assessment approach has not 

been  assessed  in  detail  as  part  of  the  assessment  of  the  second  RBMPs.  In  Northern 
Ireland,  low  confidence  was  assigned  to  chemical  status  classifications  due  to  data 

limitations  and  unmonitored  water  bodies  were  assigned  unknown  status.  In 
conclusion, there has been progress on this recommendation and it has therefore been 

partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  More  information  needs  to  be  included  in  the  RBMPs  on  the 
methodology used to identify significant pressures and how this analysis feeds into the 

development  of  monitoring  programmes  and  how  the  measures  defined  address  the 
significant pressures. 

Assessment:  With  respect  to  monitoring  programmes  in  general,  the  supporting 

documents for the RBMPs in England indicate that the monitoring has moved to a risk-
based approach based on significant pressures to target monitoring efforts effectively. 

The  risk-based  approach  determined  the  majority  of  the  operational  monitoring  but 
surveillance monitoring is driven more by the need to include a subset of water bodies 

representing a range of physical conditions, pressures and status classes to assess long-
term  environmental  trends.  This  is  most  evident  in  the  application  in  England,  Wales 

95 

 
 
and Scotland of the risk assessment results in relation to Priority Substances to justify 

not  monitoring  water  bodies  identified  as  not  at  risk  and  to  classify  them  as  in  good 
status  but  with  a  low  confidence.  There  is  progress  with  respect  to  the  linking  of 

significant  pressures 
recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

to 

the  development  of  monitoring  programmes.  This 

  Recommendation:  Further clarification regarding the identification of and monitoring 
of  chemical  pollutants  is  needed,  where  this  is  missing.  In  particular,  chemical 

pollutants  should  be  monitored  in  all  categories  of  water  body  in  all  regions  of  the 
United Kingdom. 

Assessment: With respect to Priority Substances, monitoring is undertaken in all water 
categories including lakes though no operational monitoring for Priority Substances is 

reported for lakes in  Northern  Ireland. Monitoring in  sediment  is  undertaken in  10 of 
the  15  RBDs.  Sediment  monitoring  is  not  undertaken  in  Northern  Ireland  for  WFD 

purposes in any water category and is not undertaken in lakes in the United Kingdom. 
Monitoring  in  biota  is  reported  to  be  undertaken  in  13  of  the  15  RBDs.  No  biota 
monitoring is undertaken in Scotland57. Biota monitoring is undertaken predominantly 
in  coastal  and  transitional  waters  with  some  undertaken  in  rivers  and  lakes).  Gaps 

remain  in  the  extent  of  sediment  and  biota  monitoring  in  the  United  Kingdom. 
Information  on  Priority  Substances  monitored  has  been  provided  by  the  United 

Kingdom  as  part  of  the  second  cycle  reporting  in  all  RBDs  and  relevant  water 
categories.  In  conclusion,  there  has  been  progress  on  this  recommendation  and  it  has 

therefore been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  The  biota  standards 

for  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 

hexachlorobutadiene in the EQS Directive, or standards providing an equivalent level 
of protection, should be applied where not already used. Trend monitoring in sediment 

or biota as specified for several Priority Substances in Directive 2008/105/EC Article 
3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMPs. 

Assessment:  Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  are  monitored  in 
biota in 12 of the 14 RBDs for status assessment; not monitored in the Scotland RBD 
and  one  of  the  Northern  Ireland  RBDs  (North  Eastern  RBD)58.  Monitoring  is 
undertaken  at  less  than  10  sites  in  each  relevant  RBD  and  generally  in  more  sites  in 

57  The United Kingdom subsequently clarified that monitoring of biota in Scotland has been undertaken but not 

reported to WISE. 

58  The  United  Kingdom  clarified 

in  Northern  Ireland  monitoring  of  hexachlorobenzene  and 
hexachlorobutadiene  ceased  in  2012  on  the  basis  of  the  risk  assessment  and  the  lack  of  detection  of  these 
pollutants in biota over a number of years. 

that 

96 

 
 
                                                      
coastal  and transitional  waters than in  lakes  and rivers. The monitoring  frequency for 

mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene in biota for status assessment of 
once  every  year  was  met  in  those  RBDs  were  monitoring  was  undertaken  with  the 

exception  of  those  in  Northern  Ireland.  However,  UK  subsequently  clarified  that  the 
results of this monitoring are not included in the assessment of chemical status in any 

RBD, with the exception of mercury in Wales. 

Arrangements are in  place for the long-term trend analysis of  concentrations of those 

Priority  Substances  listed  in  Part  A  of  Annex  I  of  the  EQS  Directive  that  tend  to 
accumulate  in  sediment  and/or  biota  in  12  of  the  RBDs  in  UK  with  no  information 
available  for  RBDs  in  Northern  Ireland59.  Overall  in  the  UK,  10  of  the  14  Priority 
Substances  are  monitored  in  sediment  and/or  biota  for  trend  assessment.  All  of  these 

are  monitored  in  RBDs  in  England  with  only  three  in  RBDs  in  Scotland  (sediment 
only)  and  none  in  RBDs  in  Wales60  and  Northern  Ireland.  With  regards  to  water 
category, coastal and transitional waters are monitored for all ten substances and nine in 
rivers  in  those  RBDs  where  monitoring  for  trend  assessment  occurs.  There  is  no 
monitoring  of  sediment  and/or  biota  in  lakes  for  trend  assessment  in  the  UK. 

Monitoring for trend assessment was undertaken at less than 10 sites in  each relevant 
RBD across  all water categories. The sampling  frequency  is  at  least  once three  every 

years for all reported RBDs which meets the every three year guideline in the Directive. 
In  conclusion,  there  has  been  progress  on  this  recommendation  and  therefore  it  has 

been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Improve  the  monitoring  of  impacts  in  the  second  RBMPs.  Further 
investigations  in  that  regard  need  to  be  translated  into  increased  confidence  in  the 

impact of pressures and status assessment. 

Assessment: A majority  of water bodies failing to  achieve  good chemical  status  were 

monitored. With regard to confidence in status assessment, more than 80 % of surface 
water bodies in the UK were classified for chemical status with low confidence and the 

remainder  with  either  medium  confidence  or  high  confidence.  A  high  proportion  of 
water bodies classified in good status but with low confidence were not monitored but 
classified  on  the  basis  of  a  risk  based  approach.  However,  it  is  not  clear  whether  the 

risk was assessed for all substances taking into account the relevant matrix. Therefore, 
the recommendation has been partially fulfilled.  

59 See related section for more details on the clarifications provided by the UK. 
60 The UK pointed towards a possible reporting mistake: see clarifications in the related section. 

97 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
Topic 5

  Monitoring, 

and 
quantitative status of groundwater bodies 

assessment 

classification 

of 

5.1

  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

5.1.1

  Monitoring of quantitative status in groundwater 

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  in  the  United  Kingdom  is  788  (Table  2.3).  576 

groundwater  bodies  are  not  subject  to  monitoring  for  quantitative  status  (Table  5.1).  This 
means  that  73  %  of  groundwater  bodies  are  not  monitored.  Between  5  %  and  72  %  of  the 

groundwater bodies in the river basin districts are subject to monitoring for quantitative status 
as shown in Table 5.3.61 

The number of groundwater bodies increased by 9 % from 723 in the first cycle to 788 in the 
second cycle and the total groundwater body area slightly increased. 353 groundwater bodies 

remained unchanged since the first cycle. 

The number of monitored groundwater bodies increased from 183 in the first cycle to 212 in 
the second cycle. The number of monitoring sites for quantitative status is listed in Table 5.3 

and shows a slight increase from 1289 in the first cycle to 1462 in the second cycle. 

Almost all of the groundwater bodies (786 of 788) are identified as Drinking Water Protected 

Areas, allocated in all 15 river basin districts. 

There  is  no  evidence  in  the  data  reported  to  WISE  or  in  the  RBMPs  that  grouping  has  been 

applied  for  the  purpose  of  monitoring.  In  the  Scotland  RBD,  grouping  was  applied  for 
classification  of  status  with  respect  to  nitrate  levels.  However,  no  indication  is  given  that 

grouping  of  groundwater  bodies  for  quantitative  status  assessment  was  undertaken.  Also  for 
the  South  West  and  Neagh  Bann  river  basin  districts,  no  indication  was  found  that  grouping 

was applied to the assessment of groundwater quantitative status.  

The  assessments  of  the  RBMPs  did  not  find  further  explanations  for  the  lack  of  quantitative 
monitoring62: 

61 United Kingdom subsequently clarified, that a risk-based monitoring is performed. Monitoring is mostly done 
in those areas at risk of pressures/downgrades. Where groundwater bodies are impacted by similar pressures, 
they are  grouped and only  some of  the  groundwater bodies  will be  monitored, but the  classification applied 
across the whole group of groundwater bodies. 

62  United  Kingdom  subsequently  clarified  that  the  UK  Technical  Advisory  Group  report  concluded  that 
groundwater availability is preferred to a groundwater level trend analysis. To meet the requirements of Annex 
2.1.2,  in  England  the  quantitative  status  of  all  groundwater  bodies  is  based  on  the  groundwater  availability, 
calculated  through  either  conceptualisation  or  groundwater  modelling  to  confirm  recharge,  environmental 

98 

 
 
                                                      
 

In Scotland (e.g. the Scotland RBD) only 18 out of 344 groundwater bodies (5.2 % or 

5.6 % by area) are monitored for quantitative status.  43 % of groundwater bodies are 
assessed as probably or  definitely not  at  risk under the 2005 characterisation  process. 

No  further  detail  can  be  found  for  the  lack  of  quantitative  monitoring.  RBMP 
appendices state that the monitoring programme  for quantitative status  is in  place but 

does  not  give  details  except  to  indicate  that  the  network  will  be  amended  during  the 
period 2015 to 2021 in order to assess changes resulting from the PoM established in 

the current plan. 

 

In England (e.g. the South West RBMP) 16 out of 42 groundwater bodies (38.1 % or 

39.3 % by area) are monitored for quantitative status. No further detail could be found 
around  the  reasons  why  some  groundwater  bodies  were  not  monitored.  The  UK 
Technical  Advisory  Group63  Task  12(a)  Guidance  on  Monitoring  Groundwater 
provides  national  guidelines  that  state:  “For  quantitative  monitoring,  representative 

monitoring  points  should  be  reflective  of  the  conceptual  model  of  risk  and  be 
representative of groundwater conditions within the monitored groundwater body, lying 

outside the immediate hydraulic influence of abstraction pressures such that day-to-day 
variations in pumping will not adversely influence the data”. 

 

In  Northern  Ireland  (e.g.  the  Neagh  Bann  RBMP)  two  out  of  16  groundwater  bodies 
(12.5  %  or  27.7  %  by  area)  are  monitored  for  quantitative  status.  Northern  Ireland 

Water does not use groundwater for public water supply, so monitoring of groundwater 
sources  relies  largely  on  third  party  boreholes  and  the  cooperation  of  landowners  to 

continue  monitoring,  meaning  that  the  network  can  change  frequently.  The  network 
consists mainly of industrial boreholes where groundwater is utilised for manufacturing 

or  food/  drinks  production.  A  small  number  of  springs  or  boreholes  installed  by 
Northern  Ireland  Environment  Agency,  which  are  purged  prior  to  sampling,  are  also 

monitored. The selection of monitoring stations to date has been based on a pressure-
pathway  assessment  of  the  groundwater  bodies  and  the  availability  of  potential 
monitoring points.64 

needs  and  abstraction  pressure.  Changes  in  groundwater  availability  are  equivalent  to  changes  in  levels  of 
groundwater. The report highlights the South West RBD as an area of concern regarding monitoring. This is 
an area of complex and fractured geology and any groundwater level monitoring would not be representative 
of  the  aquifer  conditions.  This  is  also  an  area  of  low  rates  of  abstraction  and  low  abstraction  pressure, 
therefore,  a  groundwater  availability  approach  is  more  representative  of  several  groundwater  bodies  in  the 
South West RBD. 

63 UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework Directive. https://www.wfduk.org/  
64 United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) subsequently clarified that the classification methodology for quantitative 
status  relies  on  water  balance  (groundwater  recharge,  abstractions)  and  less  on  groundwater  levels.  The 
abstracted volumes are monitored through compliance returns. 

99 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
Table 5.1 

Number of water bodies in the United Kingdom directly monitored and the purpose of monitoring 

 European Union RBD 
Code 

Total ground-water bodies directly 
monitored 

UK01 

UK02 

UK03 

UK04 

UK05 

UK06 

UK07 

UK08 

UK09 

UK10 

UK11 

UK12 

UKGBNIIENB 

UKGBNIIENW 

UKGBNINE 

85 

28 

4 

46 

28 

35 

23 

22 

32 

23 

4 

18 

9 

13 

10 

NID - 
Nutrie
nt 
sensiti
ve area 
under 
the 
Nitrate
s 
Directi
ve - 
WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.iv 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

CHE - 
Chemic
al 
status 

DWD - 
Drinki
ng 
water - 
WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.i 

82 

23 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

9 

11 

9 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

9 

11 

9 

100 

Monitoring Purpose 

OPE – 
Operatio
nal 
monitori
ng 

QUA – 
Quantitat
ive status 

SOE - 
EIONET 
State of 
Environm
ent 
monitorin
g 

SUR – 
Surveilla
nce 
monitorin
g 

TRE – 
Chemica
l trend 
assessme
nt 

66 

21 

1 

36 

25 

13 

1 

12 

22 

20 

4 

18 

0 

0 

4 

18 

8 

4 

29 

18 

31 

23 

16 

23 

18 

3 

9 

2 

5 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

9 

11 

9 

76 

20 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

9 

13 

9 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 

7 

7 

 
 
 Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Table 5.2 

Number of groundwater monitoring sites in the United Kingdom and their purpose  

European 
Union RBD 
Code 

Total ground-
water 
monitoring sites 

CHE – 
Chemical 
status 

DWD – Drinking 
water - WFD 
Annex IV.1.i 

OPE – 
Operational 
monitoring 

QUA – 
Quantitativ
e status 

SOE - EIONET State 
of Environment 
monitoring 

SUR – 
Surveil-lance 
monitoring 

TRE - 
Chemical 
trend 
assessment 

Monitoring Purpose 

UK01 

UK02 

UK03 

UK04 

UK05 

UK06 

UK07 

UK08 

UK09 

UK10 

UK11 

UK12 

UKGBNIIE
NB 

UKGBNIIE
NW 

UKGBNINE 

218 

177 

51 

370 

414 

338 

190 

239 

355 

227 

28 

448 

40 

20 

37 

198 

53 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

38 

15 

27 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

38 

15 

27 

161 

143 

1 

186 

249 

68 

1 

100 

199 

110 

16 

366 

0 

0 

9 

45 

35 

50 

184 

165 

270 

189 

139 

156 

117 

12 

82 

2 

6 

10 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

101 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

38 

15 

27 

146 

29 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

40 

20 

31 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

15 

9 

18 

 
 
 
 
Table 5.3 

Proportion  of  groundwater  bodies  in  the  United  Kingdom  monitored  for 

quantitative status 

European 
Union RBD 
Code 

No of groundwater bodies 
with quantitative 
monitoring 

Total No. 
groundwater 
bodies 

 % of total groundwater bodies 
monitored for quantitative 
status 

UK01 

UK02 

UK03 

UK04 

UK05 

UK06 

UK07 

UK08 

UK09 

UK10 

UK11 

UK12 

UKGBNIIEN
B 

UKGBNIIEN
W 

UKGBNINE 

18 

8 

4 

29 

18 

31 

23 

16 

23 

18 

3 

9 

2 

5 

5 

344 

64 

10 

51 

31 

47 

33 

42 

42 

25 

5 

18 

16 

46 

14 

5.23 % 

12.50 % 

40.00 % 

56.86 % 

58.06 % 

65.96 % 

69.70 % 

38.10 % 

54.76 % 

72.00 % 

60.00 % 

50.00 % 

12.50 % 

10.87 % 

35.71 % 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

5.1.2

  Assessment and classification of quantitative status for groundwater 

Map  5.1  displays  the  most  recently  assessed  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies.  It 
shows that 666 of 788 groundwater bodies (85 %) were of good quantitative status, 121 (15 

%)  are  failing  good  status  and  one  groundwater  body  is  of  unknown  status  (Figure  5.1).  In 
terms  of  area,  this  means  that  about  16  %  are  failing  good  quantitative  status.  Figure  5.2 
shows  the  confidence  in  status  classification65.  The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  of 
unknown status increased from zero in the first cycle to one in the second RBMP.66 

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  quantitative  status  decreased 

significantly by 20 % from 150 groundwater bodies in the first RBMP to 121 in the second 

65 United Kingdom subsequently clarified that the fact that for 29 % of the groundwater bodies the confidence in 

the status results is unknown is a reporting error. 

66  United  Kingdom  (Northern  Ireland)  subsequently  clarified  that  the  groundwater  body  with  unknown 
quantitative status is Kiltyclogher in the North-Western International River Basin District. Only 0.6 km² of its 
total 24.7 km² area is located within Northern Ireland. Therefore, no input data for the Low Flow Enterprise 
model or water balance test are available in the Northern Irish part to conduct the quantitative status test. 
102 

 
 
 
                                                      
RBMP (from 18.7 % to 16.3 % of the total groundwater body area). However, in four river 

basin  districts  (Anglian,  Neagh  Bann,  North  Western  and  North  Eastern)  the  number  of 
groundwater  bodies  of  poor  status  increased.  The  RBDs  Scotland,  South  West  and  Neagh 

Bann did not show significant changes and no reasons for changes were mentioned. In total, 
about 36 % of the groundwater bodies are at risk of failing good quantitative status. 

In  all  15  river  basin  districts  the  water  balance  was  assessed  by  a  comparison  of  annual 
average  groundwater  abstraction  against  the  ‘available  groundwater  resource’  for  every 

groundwater body (backed by a modelling approach). 

The  reasons  for  the  failure  of  good  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  are  shown  in 

Figure  5.3.  There  are  93  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  status  due  to  diminution  of  the 
status  of  groundwater  associated  aquatic  ecosystems,  59  groundwater  bodies  failing  good 

status  due  to  failing  the  water  balance  test,  which  means  that  the  long-term  annual  average 
rate  of  groundwater  abstraction  is  exceeding  the  available  groundwater  resource,  eleven 

groundwater  bodies  are  failing  due  to  saline  intrusion  and  eight  groundwater  bodies  due  to 
damage to  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial ecosystems.  The expected date of achievement 

of good quantitative status in the United Kingdom is shown in Figure 5.4.  

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

applied in accordance with WFD Article 2(27). In all RBDs all environmental objectives were 
considered in status assessment. 

In  total  280  of  788  groundwater  bodies  are  at  risk  of  failing  good  quantitative  status.  211 
groundwater  bodies  are  at  risk  of  failing  good  quantitative  status  due  to  damage  to 

groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems,  124  due  to  diminution  of  the  status  of 
groundwater  associated  aquatic  ecosystems,  111  groundwater  bodies  are  at  risk  of  failing 

good quantitative status due to failing the water balance test and 61 due to saline intrusion. 

103 

 
 
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) 

5.1.3

   Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

For 687 groundwater bodies, in all river basin districts, groundwater associated surface waters 
were reported. A considerable number of them are related to a risk. In all river basin districts 

groundwater associated surface waters were considered for status assessment. 

Except  for  the  Scotland  and  Western  Wales67  RBDs,  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 
ecosystems  are  reported  in  all  river  basin  districts.  A  considerable  number  of  these 
ecosystems are related to a risk. In all river basin districts with groundwater bodies connected 

67 United Kingdom subsequently clarified that Western Wales does have GWDTEs, but due to difficulties, this 

information was not reported to WISE. 

104 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
to  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  these  were  considered  in  status  assessment 

and their needs were assessed. 

Figure 5.1  Quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in  the  United  Kingdom  for  the 
second  RBMP,  for  the  first  RBMP  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in 
parenthesis  is  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  for  each  cycle.  Note  the 
period of the assessment of status for the second plan was 2009 to 2015. The 
year of the assessment of status for the first plan is not known. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 5.2 
in the United Kingdom based on the most recent assessment of status68 

Confidence in the classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

68 United Kingdom subsequently clarified that the fact that for 29 % of the groundwater bodies, the confidence in 

the status results is unknown, is a reporting error. 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 5.3  Reasons  for  the  failure  of  good  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  in  the 

United Kingdom based on the most recent assessment of status 

Notes: ‘Water balance’ = long-term annual average rate of abstraction exceeds the available groundwater resource which 
may result in a decrease of groundwater levels. 
‘Surface water’ = Failure to achieve Environmental Objectives (Article 4 WFD) for associated surface water bodies resulting 
from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions; significant diminution of the status of surface waters 
resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions. 
‘Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems’ = Significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems 
resulting from an anthropogenic water level alteration. 
‘Saline or other intrusion’ = Regional saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced sustained changes 
in flow direction. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 5.4  Expected date of achievement of good quantitative and good chemical status 
of  groundwater  bodies  in  the  United  Kingdom.  788  groundwater  bodies 

delineated for the second RBMP. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

For 357 of 788 groundwater bodies, there were no changes since the first RBMP. 

The  monitoring  situation  slightly  improved.  The  overall  number  of  groundwater  bodies 

increased although the total groundwater body area remained nearly the same. The number of 
monitored  groundwater  bodies  increased  from  183  in  the  first  cycle  to  212  in  the  second 

cycle.  The  number  of  monitoring  sites  for  quantitative  status  shows  a  slight  increase  from 
1289 in the first cycle to 1462 in the second cycle 

The  overall  status  situation  improved:  the  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good 
quantitative status decreased significantly by 20 % from 150 groundwater bodies in the first 

RBMP  to  121  in  the  second  RBMP  (from  18.7  %  to  16.3  %  of  the  total  groundwater  body 
area). However, in four river basin districts (Anglian, Neagh Bann, North Western and North 

Eastern) the number groundwater bodies of poor status increased. 

Assessments identified that there is a summary of changes or updates for this Topic in some, 

but not all RBMPs. For example, summaries for Scotland, South West and Neagh Bann RBDs 
were found. 

-  Scotland:  the  RBMP  states  that  the  location  and  boundaries  of  groundwater  bodies  were 
substantially  reviewed  and  revised  to  take  account  of  the  latest  understanding  of  the 

characteristics  of  groundwater.  The  revisions  resulted  in  an  increase  in  the  number  of 
groundwater bodies in the RBD from 284 to 344. Classifications for all groundwater bodies 

were  reviewed  using  the  new  thresholds  and  classification  methodology.  Numbers  of 
groundwater bodies monitored for quantitative status have not changed between the first and 

the second RBMP. 

  South West: the RBMP includes a good summary of changes since the first RBMP in 
monitoring  programmes  and  quality  and  quantity  of  evidence,  but  no  specifics  for 
groundwater quantity are listed. There has been no deterioration in quantitative status 

for groundwater bodies. The number of groundwater bodies monitored for quantitative 
status has increased from 12 to 16 between the first and the second cycle. 

 

- Neagh Bann: a general summary of the changes to classification methods is provided 
in the RBMP, but no changes are noted for groundwater quantitative status. However, 

it  is  noted  that  new  information  has  become  available,  which  has  enabled  more 
detailed  assessments  for  saline  intrusion  and  groundwater  dependent  ecosystems. 

Therefore, there are changes affecting status resulting from monitoring and assessment 

107 

 
 
 
methods,  as  well  as  real  impacts  on  the  water  environment.  The  number  of 

groundwater bodies monitored for quantitative status has decreased from three to two 
between the first and the second cycle69. 

5.3

  Progress with European Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation: Improve the monitoring of impacts in the second RBMPs. Further 
investigations  in  that regard need to  be translated into increased confidence in  the 
impact of pressures and status assessment. 

Assessment:  The  recommendation  on  improvement  of  monitoring  is  not  fulfilled. 
Still  73  %  of  the  groundwater  bodies  are  not  covered  by  monitoring.  United 

Kingdom  subsequently  clarified  that  the  unknown  confidence  in  the  status 
assessment is caused by a reporting error. 

69   United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) subsequently clarified that quantitative status is assessed by a number of 
tests including the surface water chemical tests, which were conducted for the first time for the second cycle 
classification. Since this test  element  was  not conducted for the  first cycle classification, no comparison to 
establish true deterioration is possible. 

108 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 6

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  chemical 

status of groundwater bodies 

6.1

  Assessment  of 

implementation  and 

compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

6.1.1

  Monitoring of chemical status in groundwater 

The total  number of groundwater bodies in  the United Kingdom  is  788 (Table 2.4).  In total 

661 groundwater bodies are not subject to surveillance monitoring (Table 5.1). About 38 % of 
the groundwater bodies are at risk and not all of them are subject to operational monitoring. 

The assessment found no indication that grouping of groundwater bodies for monitoring and 
assessment of chemical status was applied in the assessed RBMPs70. 

The number of groundwater bodies increased by 9 % from 725 in the first cycle to 788 in the 
second cycle and the total groundwater body area slightly increased. 353 groundwater bodies 

remained unchanged since the first cycle. There had been substantial changes in the number 
of groundwater bodies in different RBDs. 

The number of groundwater bodies with surveillance monitoring dropped significantly from 
409 in the first cycle to 127 (16 %, in five of 15 RBDs) in the second cycle. The number of 

monitoring  sites  is  listed  in  Table  5.2  and  Table  5.3  shows  that  the  number  of  surveillance 
monitoring sites  has  dropped significantly  from  4080 in  the first  cycle to 266 in  the second 

cycle. The number of operational monitoring sites has been decreased significantly since the 
first cycle, from 4006 to 1609. Except for the Scotland and Solway Tweed RBDs, the number 

of  groundwater  bodies  at  risk  is  higher  (303  groundwater  bodies)  than  those  covered  by 
operational monitoring (243 groundwater bodies). 

Monitoring  is  very  limited.  Not  all  substances  at  risk  of  causing  deterioration  in  chemical 
status are subject to surveillance and operational monitoring. The assessment found no further 

information which could explain why some substances which were recorded as posing a risk 
were not monitored. For example, in the Scotland RBD, four substances are causing risk but 

only  one  (nitrate)  was  included  in  operational  monitoring;  in  the  South  West  RBD  32 
substances are causing risk and only 24 are included in operational monitoring.  

The WFD core parameters nitrate, ammonium, electrical  conductivity, oxygen  and pH were 
not reported to be monitored at all in seven RBDs (Northumbria, Humber, Anglian, Thames, 

70  United  Kingdom  subsequently  clarified  that  all  groundwater  quality  monitoring  sites  in  Wales  are  used  for 
both operational and surveillance monitoring but were only reported in WISE once (under operational). 

109 

 
 
                                                      
South  East,  South  West  and  North  West)  and  there  is  no  monitoring  of  ammonium  in  the 
remaining RBDs71. 

6.1.2

  Assessment and classification of chemical status in groundwater 

Map  6.1  and  Figure  6.1  display  the  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  for  the  most 

recently  assessed status.  It  shows that 546 of 788 groundwater bodies (69 %) were of  good 
chemical status, and the remaining 242 groundwater bodies (31 %) are failing good chemical 

status. In terms of area, this means that about 49 % are failing good chemical status.  Figure 
6.2 shows the confidence in status classifications. All groundwater bodies had and still have a 

clear status, in the first and in the second RBMPs.  

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  status  increased  since  the  first  cycle 

from 190 (26 %) to 242 (31 %) groundwater bodies (Figure 6.1). In 13 RBDs, the number of 
groundwater bodies in poor status increased, in the Thames RBD it decreased and in the Dee 

RBD,  it  remained  the  same.  In  terms  of  groundwater  body  area,  the  percentage  of  total 
groundwater body area at poor status has increased from 41 % in the first RBMP to 49 % in 

the second cycle; in the Scotland, Solway Tweed, Northumbria, Humber and Thames RBDs 
the area in poor status decreased. The expected date of achievement of good chemical status 

in United Kingdom is shown in Figure 6.2. 

The reasons for the failure of good chemical status of groundwater bodies are shown in Figure 

6.3.  For  140  groundwater  bodies,  the  general  assessment  of  the  chemical  status  for  the 
groundwater body as a whole failed. This assessment considers the significant environmental 

risk from pollutants across a groundwater body and a significant impairment of the ability to 
support human uses. 85 groundwater bodies are failing the drinking water test which means 

that  the  requirements  of  drinking  water  protected  areas  have  not  been  met.  75  groundwater 
bodies  are  failing  the  groundwater  associated  surface  water  test  which  means  that  there  is 

diminution of the status of groundwater associated surface water. Seven groundwater bodies 
are  failing  the  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystem  test  which  means  that  there  is 

damage  to  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  and  12  groundwater  bodies  are 
failing  good  chemical  status  due  to  saline  or  other  intrusion.  Figure  6.4  shows  the  top  10 

pollutants  causing  failure  of  status  and  Figure  6.5  shows  the  top  10  causing  a  sustained 
upward trend.  

The  calculation  of  the  extent  of  exceedance  of  a  groundwater  quality  standard  or  a 
groundwater  threshold  value  is  in  11  RBDs  based  on  the  groundwater  body  area.  For  four 

71 United Kingdom clarified, that total ammonia (which includes ammonium and ammonia) is monitored at all 
Northern Irish groundwater chemical monitoring stations and ammonium is monitored at all Welsh sites. 
110 

 
 
                                                      
RBDs,  it  is  not  clear  how  the  extent  of  exceedance  of  a  groundwater  quality  standard  or  a 
groundwater threshold value was calculated as ‘other’ method was reported72.  

In  all  RBDs,  groundwater  threshold  values  have  been  established  for  all  pollutants  or 

indicators  of  pollution  causing  a  risk  of  failure  of  good  chemical  status  including  some 
Groundwater Directive73 Annex II substances. There are differences in the list of substances 
with  threshold  values  between  RBMPs  and  no  indication  that  all  Groundwater  Directive 
Annex  II  substances  have  been  considered  in  the  establishment  of  threshold  values  was 
found74. 
In  14  RBDs,  natural  background  levels  have  been  considered  in  the  groundwater  threshold 

value establishment, while in the Scotland RBD they have not been considered. There was no 
explanation for this approach. 

A trend methodology is available and assessments have been performed in all RBDs. Trend 
reversal assessment has been performed in some RBDs. 

Map 6.1  Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies in the United Kingdom 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) 

72  The  United  Kingdom  subsequently  clarified  that  the  "other"  method  was  reported  previously  to  the 

Commission http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/groundwater/reports.htm 

73 Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
and 
of 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006L0118-20140711 

deterioration 

groundwater 

pollution 

against 

74 United Kingdom clarified, that for all RBDs in Northern Ireland (North Eastern, Neagh Bann, North Western) 
all Groundwater Directive Annex II substances have been considered in threshold values establishment. 

111 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 6.1 

Chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in  the  United  Kingdom  for  the 
second RBMP, for the first RBMP and expected in 2015. The number in 
the parenthesis is the number of groundwater bodies for each cycle. Note 
the period of the assessment of status for the  second RBMP was 2007 to 
2012. The year of the assessment of status for first RBMP is not known.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 6.2 

Confidence in the classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 
in the United Kingdom based on the most recent assessment of status. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

112 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6.3 

Reasons  for  failing  good  chemical  status  in  the  United  Kingdom  for  the 

most recent assessment of status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Notes: ‘Surface water’ = Failure to achieve Environmental Objectives (Article 4 WFD) in associated surface water bodies or 
significant diminution of the ecological or chemical status of such surface water bodies. 
‘Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems’ = Significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems which depend directly on the 
groundwater body. 
‘Saline or other intrusion’ = Regional saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced sustained changes in 
flow direction. 

‘Drinking Water Protected Area’ = Deterioration in quality of waters for human consumption. 
‘General water quality assessment’ = Significant impairment of human uses; significant environmental risk from pollutants 
across the groundwater body. 

6.1.3

  Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/  or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

For  a  total  of  687  groundwater  bodies,  in  all  RBDs,  groundwater  associated  surface  waters 
were  reported.  A  considerable  number  of  them  in  all  RBDs  are  related  to  risk  and  75 

groundwater bodies are failing good  chemical status. In all RBDs, except the Scotland RBD 
(with  250  groundwater  bodies  with  associated  surface  waters75),  groundwater  associated 
surface waters were reported as having been considered in the status assessment.  Figure 6.6 
shows the percentage of groundwater bodies at risk of failing good chemical status and good 
quantitative status. 

Except for the Scotland and Western Wales RBDs76, a total of 249 groundwater bodies with 
groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were reported. A considerable number of these 
ecosystems in all these RBDs are related to a risk and seven groundwater bodies are failing 

good  chemical  status.  In  all  RBDs  with  groundwater  bodies  connected  to  groundwater 
dependent terrestrial ecosystems they were considered in status assessment. 

75 United Kingdom clarified, that they have been considered in the second cycle for water quality and irrigation 

(Saline intrusion). 

76  United  Kingdom  subsequently  clarified  that  Western  Wales  does  have  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 

ecosystems but due to difficulties this was not reported in the WISE electronic submission. 

113 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Groundwater  associated  aquatic  ecosystems  and  groundwater  dependent 

terrestrial 

ecosystems have been considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values in all 
RBDs. 
The consideration of ecosystems follows UK Technical Advisory Group77 Paper 11b(i) upon 
the Groundwater Chemical Classification for the purposes of the WFD and the Groundwater 

Directive.  It  applies  to  all  assessed  groundwater  bodies  and  includes  methodologies  for  the 
assessment  of  diminution  of  surface  water  chemistry  and  ecology  and  assessment  of 

groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems. 

Figure 6.4 

Top 10 groundwater pollutants causing failure of good chemical status in 
the United Kingdom 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 6.5 

Top 10 pollutants with upward trends in groundwater bodies in the United 
Kingdom 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

77 UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework Directive. https://www.wfduk.org/  

114 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 Figure 6.6 

Percentage of groundwater bodies in the United Kingdom at risk of failing 

good chemical status and good quantitative status for the second plan 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

6.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

There is a summary of changes or updates for this Topic in all the RBMPs assessed, although 
the extent of the information is limited.  

The number of groundwater bodies increased by 9 % from 725 in the first cycle to 788 in the 
second cycle and the total groundwater body area slightly increased. 353 groundwater bodies 

remained unchanged since the first cycle. There had been substantial changes in the number 
of groundwater bodies in different RBDs. 

The monitoring situation deteriorated. Only 125 out of 788 groundwater bodies (16 %) in five 
of  15  RBDs  are  covered  by  monitoring.  The  number  of  surveillance  monitoring  sites  has 

dropped significantly from 4080 in the first cycle to 255 in the second cycle. Also the number 
of  operational  monitoring  sites  has  been  decreased  significantly  since  the  first  cycle,  from 

4006  to  1603  sites.  However,  the  UK  subsequently  clarified  that  all  groundwater  quality 
monitoring sites in Wales are used for both operational and surveillance monitoring but were 
only reported in WISE once (under operational). 

The status situation deteriorated: the total number of groundwater bodies failing good status 

increased since the first cycle from 190 (26 %) to 242 (31 %) groundwater bodies. In terms of 
groundwater  body  area,  there  was  an  increase  from  41  %  in  the  first  cycle  to  49  %  in  the 

second cycle. 

The  reasons  for  changes  in  chemical  status  in  some  assessed  RBMPs  are:  re-delineation  of 

groundwater  bodies,  splitting  and  merging  of  groundwater  bodies,  additional  pressures, 
changed  groundwater  threshold  values  and  (in  Scotland)  increased  understanding  of  natural 

115 

 
 
 
groundwater  body  characteristics  and  pressures.  The  following  more  detailed  changes  were 

found: 

  Scotland (the Scotland RBD): the number of groundwater bodies increased from 284 
to 344 but ‘Good’ chemical status remained broadly the same. Threshold values were 

reviewed  and  updated  in  2014.  The  location  and  boundaries  of  groundwater  bodies 
were reviewed and substantially revised to take account of the latest understanding of 

the characteristics of groundwater. These revisions resulted in a significant increase in 
the number of groundwater bodies. 

  England  (e.g.  the  South  West  RBD):  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  decreased 
from  44  to  42.  New  quality  standards  have  been  introduced  as  a  result  of  the  2013 

amendments of the Environment Quality Standards Directive. There were only minor 
changes to groundwater body boundaries.  

  Northern  Ireland  (e.g.  the  North  Eastern  RBD):  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies 
increased from 8 to 14. Improved mapping led to changes of boundaries, splitting of 

groundwater bodies and the creation of new superficial groundwater bodies. 

6.3

  Progress with European Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation: address the large uncertainties reported in the first RBMPs in 
relation  to  the assessment  of  the status, the pressures and the effect  of  potential 

measures.  

Assessment:  the  number  of  surveillance  monitoring  sites  dropped  significantly 

from  4080  to  255  sites.  Only  16  %  of  the  groundwater  bodies  are  subject  to 
surveillance  monitoring.  Operational  monitoring  sites  had  been  reduced  as  well, 

from 4006 to 1603 sites and in 10 of 15 RBDs, not all groundwater bodies at risk 
are  subject  to  operational  monitoring.  There  is  no  indication  that  grouping  of 

groundwater bodies for monitoring and assessment of chemical status was applied 
in  the  assessed  RBMPs.  There  is  no  monitoring  of  the  WFD  core  parameters 

nitrate,  ammonium,  electrical  conductivity,  oxygen  and  pH  in  seven  RBDs 
(Northumbria,  Humber,  Anglian,  Thames,  South  East,  South  West  and  North 
West) and there is no monitoring of ammonium in the remaining RBDs. The UK 
subsequently  clarified  that  total  ammonia  (which  includes  ammonium  and 

ammonia)  is  monitored  at  all  northern  Irish  groundwater  chemical  monitoring 
stations and also ammonia in Wales. The recommendation to establish fully WFD 

compliant monitoring programmes is not fulfilled. 

116 

 
 
  Recommendation:  improve  the  monitoring  of  impacts  in  the  second  RBMPs. 
Further  investigations  in  that  regard  need  to  be  translated  into  increased 

confidence in the impact of pressures and status assessment. 

Assessment: the recommendation on improvement of monitoring to increase 
confidence is not fulfilled as noted in the recommendation above. 

117 

 
 
 
 
Topic 7

  Designation  of  Heavily  Modified  and  Artificial  Water 

Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 

7.1

   Assessment  of 

implementation  and 

compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle for designation  

7.1.1

  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies 

Although  the  overall  proportion  of  total  water  bodies  designated  as  heavily  modified  and 

artificial is similar between the first and second RBMPs (Figure 7.1), in some RBDs there is a 
significant  reduction  in  this  proportion  since  the  first  RBMPs.  In  specific,  in  the  Solway 

Tweed,  Northumbria,  Humber,  Severn  and  North  West  RBDs,  the  share  of  rivers  (in 
Northumbria also of lakes) designated as artificial has been notably reduced. In the Anglian 

RBD, the share of river water bodies designated as artificial has been reduced by almost half. 
Also  the  absolute  number  of  river  water  bodies  designated  as  heavily  modified  has  been 

reduced  (by  ca.  100  water  bodies),  but  the  percentage  of  river  water  bodies  designated  as 
heavily  modified  water  bodies  in  total  has  slightly  increased.  In  the  South  West  RBD,  the 

percentage  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  in  coastal  waters,  lakes  and  rivers  has  been 
reduced, but at the same time, more lakes are designated as artificial water bodies. 

Information on whether reservoirs were originally rivers or lakes has been reported only for 
the lake water bodies of the three RBDs of Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, three lake 

heavily modified water  bodies are reservoirs which were originally rivers. According to  the 
Common  Implementation  Strategy  guidance  on  this  issue,  it  is  recommended  to  designate 

such water bodies as river heavily modified water bodies. Another eight lake heavily modified 
water bodies are reservoirs which were originally lakes. In Scotland, England and Wales, data 

on whether reservoirs were originally lakes or rivers are not held.  

The main water uses for which river water bodies are designated as heavily modified water 

bodies are flood protection and urban development. Energy from hydropower is a main use of 
designated heavily modified water bodies in Scotland and land drainage for agriculture in the 
Anglian RBD. For lake water bodies, the main water uses for designation as heavily modified 
water  bodies  are  urban  development  as  well  as  the  wider  environment.  In  Scotland,  also 

energy  from  hydropower  plays  an  important  role.  For  coastal  water  bodies,  the  main  water 
uses  for  heavily  modified  water  bodies  designation  are  flood  protection,  transport 

(navigation/ports) and the wider environment, while for transitional waters the uses are flood 
protection and transport. 

118 

 
 
Figure 7.1 

Proportion of total water bodies in each category in the United Kingdom 

that has been designated as heavily modified or artificial  

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Physical  alterations  are  not  reported  for  all  water  categories  designated  as  heavily  modified 

water bodies in all RBDs; gaps have been identified in several RBDs in England and Wales 
(Northumbria,  Humber,  South  East,  South  West,  Severn,  Western  Wales  (no  alterations 

reported),  Dee  (no  alterations  reported)  and  North  West).  According  to  the  reporting,  in 
England  and  Wales,  information  is  not  held  about  the  history  of  water  bodies  that  are  now 

considered heavily modified, therefore data on physical alterations cannot be provided. 

In general, the methodology for heavily modified water bodies designation is well explained 

for all the relevant  aspects  (criteria for substantial  changes in  character, types of water uses 
and physical alterations of the designated heavily modified water bodies, criteria for assessing 

significant adverse effects and explanation of how WFD Article 4(3)b has been applied (better 
environmental  option)).  Specific  guidance  (UK  Technical  Advisory  Group)  is  applied  in  all 

RBDs.  The  methodological  documents  for  England  include  separate  sections  for  freshwater 
and  estuarine/coastal  waters.  In  Northern  Ireland,  there  are  separate  documents  for  rivers, 

lakes and transitional/coastal waters. 

Information on how the significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use and the 

wider environment  (Article 4(3)a) have been defined is  found in methodological  documents 
(guide documents and/or appendices to RBMPs) for some but not all RBDs. For the RBDs of 

Scotland,  appendices  to  the  RBMP  refer  to  the  criteria  for  designating  heavily  modified  if 
restoring  the  conditions  needed  to  achieve  good  ecological  status  would  have  a  significant 

adverse effect on the benefits served by the modifications (e.g. flood protection, navigation, 

119 

 
 
 
etc.).  The  documents  of  the  RBMPs  of  England,  Wales  and  Northern  Ireland  do  not  give 

details of how adverse effects were defined but the RBMPs include references to national UK 
Technical  Advisory  Group  guidance,  which  contains  details  on  where  significant  adverse 

effects may apply. 

The  second  RBMPs  also  provide  evidence  of  checking  whether  the  beneficial  objectives 

served by the modifications of the heavily modified water bodies can be achieved by “other 
means”,  which  are  a  significantly  better  environmental  option,  technically  feasible  and  not 

disproportionately  costly (Article 4(3)b). For the  RBDs of Scotland, background documents 
provide an overview of the criteria applied to determine the benefits served by the modified 

characteristics  that  cannot,  for  reasons  of  technical  feasibility  or  disproportionate  costs,  be 
achieved by other means which are a significantly better option. The background documents 

of the RBMPs of England, Wales and Northern Ireland do not give details on how beneficial 
objectives  can  be  achieved  by  other  means  but  the  RBMPs  are  assumed  to  have  followed 

national UK Technical Advisory Group guidance, which contains details on this assessment. 

However,  specific  information  on  the  outcomes  of  the  assessment  of  significant  adverse 

effects and of better environmental options (designation tests according to Articles 4(3)a and 
4(3)b) is not provided at water body level. 

7.1.2

  Definition of Good Ecological Potential for Heavily Modified and Artificial Water 

Bodies 

Good ecological potential is reported as defined in all RBDs. In England, Wales and Scotland, 

the Prague approach is used for defining good ecological potential, which bases the definition 
on the identification of mitigation measures. For the RBDs in Northern Ireland, it is reported 

that  a  hybrid  approach  combining  elements  of  the  Prague  approach  and  the  Common 
Implementation  Strategy  approach  (approach  based  on  biological  quality  elements  as 

illustrated in Common Implementation Strategy Guidance No 4) is applied. In all RBDs, good 
ecological potential is defined at water body level.  

All RBDs follow national guidance (UK Technical Advisory Group) on the classification of 
ecological potential. This takes into account regional variations, for example taking particular 

account  of  sediment  management  in  Scotland.  The  developed  method  addresses  all  water 
categories  and  several  specific  uses,  including  agricultural  drainage,  hydropower,  flood 

protection, navigation/ports and drinking water supply.  

Good ecological potential has not been defined in terms of biological quality elements for any 
of the RBDs but on the basis of mitigation measures that must be undertaken to reach good 
ecological  potential.  The  UK  Technical  Advisory  Group  guidance  recommends  that  only 

biological  quality  element  assessment  tools  that  are  little  affected  by  hydromorphological 

120 

 
 
alterations are used to assess pollution of heavily modified water bodies and artificial water 

bodies.  If  the  results  from  such  tools  indicate  "moderate  status",  the  water  body  would  be 
classed as moderate ecological potential. 

Some  biological  quality  elements  assessment  methods  in  use  for  rivers  are  reported  as 
sensitive  to  hydrological  and  morphological  changes  in  RBDs  of  England  and  Wales.  This 

concerns methods for assessing fish and phytobenthos, which are sensitive to hydrology and 
morphology, as well as methods for assessing benthic invertebrates and macrophytes, which 

are  sensitive  to  morphological  changes  only.  For  lakes,  only  one  method  for  assessing 
macrophytes (LEAFPACS2) is reported as sensitive to morphological changes in England and 

Wales.  In  two  RBDs  (Scotland  and  Solway  Tweed),  this  method  is  reported  as  sensitive  to 
both hydrological and morphological changes. For coastal waters, two methods for assessing 

angiosperms (SKIPPER and Intertidal Seagrass Tool) are reported as sensitive to hydrological 
and morphological changes. Another method for assessing angiosperms (SAILOR) is reported 

as sensitive to morphological changes. In Scotland and Solway Tweed, the Intertidal Seagrass 
Tool is also reported as sensitive to morphological changes when assessing marcoalgae. The 

method Infaunal Quality Index - Soft Sediment for assessing benthic invertebrates is reported 
as sensitive to hydrological changes. For transitional waters, one method for assessing fish in 

Northern Ireland (Estuarine Multimethod Fish Index) is reported as sensitive to hydrological 
and  morphological  changes.  Another  method  for  assessing  fish  in  England,  Wales  and 

Scotland  (Transitional  Fish  Classification  Index  2)  is  reported  as  sensitive  only  to 
hydrological changes. 

Several  mitigation  measures  have  been  reported  in  all  RBDs  but  specific  assessments  of 
ecological  changes  are  not  mentioned.  However,  monitoring  is  recommended  to  identify 

biological changes delivered by the implementation of mitigation measures. 

A  comparison  between  good  ecological  potential  and  good  ecological  status  has  not  been 
undertaken in any of the RBDs78. 

7.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

As  described  above,  there  have  been  modifications  in  the  extent  of  designation  of  water 

bodies as heavily modified or artificial in several RBDs since the first RBMPs.  

The  reasons  for  changes  in  the  numbers  or  size/area  of  water  bodies  designated  as  heavily 

modified  water  bodies  and  artificial  water  bodies  since  the  first  cycle  are  explained.  In 
Scotland,  the  designations  were  based  on  a  review  of  the  characterisation  of  surface  water 

78  According  to  the  WFD  Reporting  Guidance  2016,  on  the  comparability  between  GEP  and  GES,  see 
conclusions  of  the  2010  CIS  HMWB  workshop,  paragraph  60A:  https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/cd419883-
ff4d-4d43-a82b-aef3d33e04ed/Conclusions%20HMWB%20workshop%20Brussels%20March%202009.pdf   

121 

 
 
                                                      
body  types  and  the  reasons  for  designation  of  those  water  bodies  designated  as  heavily 

modified or artificial in the first RBMP. The review considered updated data on pressures and 
impacts, changes in the uses of water bodies, including as a result of new developments that 

have been permitted since the first RBMP was published, and whether any other means have 
become available that could provide equivalent benefits to those served by the modifications 

to  the  water  bodies.  In  England,  designations  have  been  continually  reviewed  and  changes 
made  if  designations  from  the  first  RBMP  were  applied  incorrectly,  due  to  water  body 

boundary changes and because of new "uses". In the RBDs of Northern Ireland, some changes 
in  designations  have  been  made  as  a  result  of  improved  evidence.  For  example,  since  lake 

heavily  modified  water  bodies  were  designated,  lake  habitat  surveys  have  been  carried  out 
and lakes have been classified using the lake MImAS method and hydrology standards; this 

information has been taken into account in the second cycle designations. 

Explicit  descriptions  of  changes  made  to  the  heavily  modified  water  bodies  designation 

methodology since the first cycle are given for some, but not all, the RBMPs assessed. For the 
RBDs of Scotland and Northern Ireland, the overall designation methodology is provided but 

methodological  changes  since  the  first  cycle  are  not  explicitly  described.  For  the  RBDs  of 
England,  it  is  explained  how  the  Environment  Agency  has  built  upon  and  improved  the 

original  artificial  water  bodies  and  heavily  modified  water  bodies  designations  published  in 
the first RBMPs in 2009, on the basis of specific assessment criteria. In addition, in 2013 the 

non-specific water use was removed from the approved list of uses for designation, and any 
designations  related  to  such  uses  were  reviewed.  For  transitional  and  coastal  waters,  there 

have  been  no  methodological  revisions  to  heavily  modified  water  bodies  designations  since 
the first RBMPs. 

There have been no changes in the methodology for defining good ecological potential, as the 
relevant background document is the same as the one used in the first RBMPs. 

7.3

  Progress with European Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation 10: the process to identify heavily modified water bodies and to 
identify good ecological potential needs to be completed. The designation of heavily 
modified water bodies should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The 

assessment  of  significant  adverse  effects  on  their  use  or  the  environment  and  the 
lack of significantly better environmental options should be specifically mentioned 

in the RBMPs. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process. 

Assessment:  in  general,  the  methodology  for  heavily  modified  water  bodies 

designation  is  well  explained  for  all  the  relevant  aspects  (criteria  for  substantial 
changes in character, types of water uses and physical alterations of the designated 

122 

 
 
heavily modified water bodies, criteria for assessing significant adverse effects and 

explanation  of  how  WFD  Article  4(3)b  has  been  applied  (better  environmental 
option).  

Information on the application of the designation tests according to  Articles 4(3)a 
and 4(3)b is found in methodological documents for some but not all RBDs. For the 

RBDs of Scotland, background documents outline the criteria for the assessment of 
significant  adverse  effects  and  for  assessing  better  environmental  options.  The 

background documents of the RBMPs of England, Wales and Northern Ireland do 
not give details on these aspects but the RBMPs are assumed to have followed the 

national  UK  Technical  Advisory  Group  guidance,  which  contains  relevant  details 
on  these  types  of  assessments.  However,  specific  information  on  the  outcomes  of 

the  assessment  of  significant  adverse  effects  and  of  better  environmental  options 
(designation  tests  according  to  Articles  4(3)a  and  4(3)b)  is  not  provided on  water 

body level. 

There  have  been  no  changes  in  the  methodology  for  defining  good  ecological 

potential, as the relevant background document is the same as the one used in the 
first RBMPs. A major gap is that good ecological potential has not been defined in 

terms of biology (biological quality elements) for any of the RBDs but only on the 
basis  of  mitigation  measures  that  must  be  undertaken  to  reach  good  ecological 

potential. Several mitigation measures have been reported in all RBDs but specific 
assessments  of  ecological  changes  are  not  mentioned.  However,  monitoring  is 

recommended  to  identify  biological  changes  delivered  by  the  implementation  of 
mitigation measures. 

Therefore, this recommendation has been partially fulfilled  

123 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions 

8.1

  Assessment  of 

implementation  and 

compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

8.1.1

  Environmental objectives 

The  environmental  objectives  are  defined  in  Article  4  of  the  WFD.  The  aim  is  long-term 

sustainable water management based on a high level of protection of the aquatic environment. 
Article 4(1) defines the WFD general objective to be achieved in all surface and groundwater 
bodies,  i.e.  good  status  by  2015.  Within  that  general  objective,  specific  environmental 

objectives are defined for heavily modified water bodies (good ecological potential and good 
chemical status by 201579), 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 surface water ecological and chemical status have been reported 
in all RBDs, as well as for quantitative and chemical status for groundwater.  Information is 

also provided on when the objectives will be achieved. 

For the second cycle plans, 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 the United Kingdom elsewhere in this report: for ecological status/potential of 

surface waters (Chapter 3); chemical status of surface waters (Chapter 4); quantitative status 
of groundwater bodies (Chapter 5); chemical status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 6). 

8.2 Exemptions 

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

respective conditions are met and the required justifications are explained in the RBMP. 

Figure 8.1 summarises the percentage of water bodies expected to be at least in good status in 

2015 and the use of at least one exemption in the United Kingdom for the four main sets of 
environmental objectives. 

79  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. 

124 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 8.1 

Water bodies in the United Kingdom 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 the objectives is 
unknown. 

Article  4  of  the  WFD  allows  under  certain  conditions  for  different  exemptions  to  the 
objectives.  The  exemptions  under  WFD  Article  4  include  the  provisions  in  Article  4(4)  - 

extension of deadline beyond 2015, 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.  

In addition, Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive allows Member States to exempt inputs 
of pollutants to groundwater under certain specified circumstances. 

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

125 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8.2 

Type of exemptions applied to surface water and groundwater bodies for 

the  second  plan  in  the  United  Kingdom.  Note:  Ecological  status  and 
groundwater quantitative status exemptions are reported at the water body 

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

waters  for  each  Priority  Substances  that  is  causing  failure  of  good 
chemical status 

Source:  WISE electronic reports 

Application of Article 4(4) 

In  surface  waters  the  number  of  exemptions  applied  under  Article  4(4)  has  changed  in  all 

RBDs.  Even  if  a  full  comparison  to  the  first  cycle  is  not  possible  there  is  evidence  that  in 
some RBDs the number increased. The justifications for the use of exemption under Articles 

126 

 
 
 
4(4)  are  provided  for  all  RBDs  and  refer  to  technical  feasibility,  natural  conditions,  and 

disproportionate costs. 

In  groundwaters,  the  number  of  exemptions  applied  under  Article  4(4)  has  changed  in  all 

RBDs.  In  all  RBDs  except  Anglian,  Neagh  Bann  and  North  Western  the  number  of 
exemptions  decreased, but  at  the same time Article 4(5) increased in  the RBDs in  England. 

The  justification  on  the  use  of  Article  4(4)  exemption  relates  to  technical  feasibility  in  the 
Scotland, Solway Tweed, Northumbria, Humber, Thames, South East and North West RBDs. 

Disproportionate costs were used for justification in the Anglian, Thames, South East, South 
West  and  Severn  RBDs  and  natural  conditions  in  the  Northumbria,  Thames,  South  East, 

Neagh Bann, North Western and North Eastern RBDs.  

Exemptions due to technical feasibility under Article 4(4) are defined in all RBMPs.  

In the case of the Thames RBD, which was subject to a more detailed assessment, 263 water 
bodies  have  had  alternative  objectives  set  because  of  technical  infeasibility,  under  both 

Articles 4(4) and 4(5). Six Natura 2000 Protected Areas and on Shellfish Water also have this 
justification.  The  RBMP  describes  what  "technically  unfeasible"  covers.  It  also  sets  out  the 

general  circumstances  under  which  each  justification  has  been  applied  and  also,  where 
relevant, gives more specific circumstances for particular elements. Examples of justification 

include: no known technical solution is available, cause of adverse impact unknown where a 
solution  cannot  feasibly  be  identified,  practical  constraints  of  a  technical  nature  prevent 

implementation  of  the  measure  by  an  earlier  deadline  and  finally  the  problem  cannot  be 
addressed because of lack of action by other countries. Some of the circumstances include that 

for  established  invasive  alien  species,  such  as  American  signal  crayfish,  there  is  no  known 
technical solution to eradicate them.  

In  the  North  Eastern  RBD  (another  RBMP  assessed  in  more  detail),  exemptions  under 
Article 4(4)  are  justified  by  being  technically  unfeasible  rather  than  disproportionately 

expensive. Extended deadlines have been set in preference to less stringent objectives. Details 
at  the  water  body  level  are  signposted  via  the  relevant  website  and  further  details  to  define 

"technically unfeasible" are given in the background documents. 

The reasons for applying Article 4(4) on the basis of disproportionate costs vary among the 

RBDs  and  are  mainly  justified  (with  different  levels  of  detail)  by  arguments  such  as 
affordability,  cost  benefit  analyses,  benefit  assessments,  distribution  of  costs  and  social  and 

sectorial impacts.  

For  example,  in  Scotland,  the  RBMP  describes  water  bodies  where  achieving  good  status 
would be disproportionately expensive. The plan lists 64 water bodies where the condition of 

water  plants  and  animals  appear  to  be  good  even  though  concentrations  of  nutrients  are 
127 

 
 
elevated  and  further  action  would  be  disproportionately  expensive.  However,  no  detail  on 

what constitutes disproportionate expense is provided. 

In  the  Thames  RBD,  which  was  assessed  in  more  depth,  343  water  bodies  have  alternative 

objectives  on  the  grounds  of  disproportionate  costs.  The  RBMP  describes  circumstances 
under  which  exemptions  to  the  environmental  objectives  have  been  applied  in  accordance 

with Article 4(4). The document describes the general approach for applying disproportionate 
costs, but also in specific situations (e.g. hydrological regime is impacted, nutrient pollution, 

groundwater status). However, it remains unclear how this approach has been applied on the 
water  body  level  (e.g.  assessment  on  how  costs  of  implementing  the  measures  have  been 

weighted against benefits in a specific case).  

Exemptions  due to natural  conditions are justified in  all RBMPs assessed but  with  different 

degrees of information.  For  example, while  natural  conditions  are reported in  WISE for the 
Scotland  RBMP  the  appendices  do  not  refer  to  natural  conditions  as  a  justification  for  not 

achieving  objectives.  The  Thames  and  North  Eastern  RBMPs  and  their  background 
documents describe the national guidance on this: these exemptions have been applied where 

it is expected that it will take time before the biological quality of the water body recovers, 
due to the time taken for the plants and animals to re-colonise and become established after 

the  hydromorphological,  chemical  and  physicochemical  conditions  have  been  restored  to 
'good';  or  the  time  taken  for  the  habitat  conditions  to  stabilise  after  improvement  works. 

Further natural background levels of substances are used as a justification not to meet WFD 
objectives  and  to  apply  an  exemption,  whereas  the  adaptation  of  the  reference  conditions  is 

not indicated as an option.  

The  main  drivers  causing  exemptions  under  Article  4(4)  in  surface  waters  are  urban 

development,  transport,  industry,  agriculture  and  unknown  -  other.  In  the  Scotland  and 
Solway  Tweed  RBDs  also  energy,  tourism  and  recreation  and  forestry  is  mentioned.  The 

Solway  Tweed  RBD  also  mentioned  climate  change.  Northern  Ireland  also  refers  to  flood 
protection,  forestry,  fisheries  and  aquaculture  and  energy.  The  main  drivers  causing 

exemptions  under  Article  4(4)  in  groundwater  in  England,  Wales  and  Scotland  are  Urban 
development, Transport, Industry, Agriculture and Unknown - other. For Northern Ireland the 

main drivers are agriculture and industry.  

The  pressures  responsible  for  exemptions  under  Article  4(4)  in  surface  water  come  from  a 

broad  range  of  activities  including  urbanisation,  industry,  agriculture,  mining,  atmospheric 
deposition and activities causing changes in hydromorphology (Table 8.1). For groundwater 
the  main  pressures  are  point  and  diffuse  pollution  from  atmospheric  deposition,  mining, 

settlements  and  agriculture  as  well  as  water  abstraction  for  industry  and  agriculture  (Table 
8.2). 

128 

 
 
Table 8.1 

Pressures  on  surface  water  bodies  responsible  for  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  in  surface  water  and  for  which 

exemptions have been applied 

Significant pressure on surface water bodies 

1.1 - Point - Urban waste water 

1.2 - Point - Storm overflows 

1.3 - Point - IED plants 

1.4 - Point - Non IED plants 

1.5 - Point - Contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites 

1.7 - Point - Mine waters 

1.9 - Point - Other 

2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off 

2.10 - Diffuse - Other 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.4 - Diffuse - Transport 

2.5 - Diffuse - Contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites 

2.6 - Diffuse - Discharges not connected to sewerage network 

2.7 - Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition 

2.8 - Diffuse - Mining 

4.1.5 - Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - 
Unknown or obsolete 

4.2.8 - Dams, barriers and locks - Other 

4.2.9 - Dams, barriers and locks - Unknown or obsolete 

8 - Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown 

Failing 
Priority 
Substances 

Article 4(4) 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 

Article 4(4)  
Disproportionate 
cost exemptions 

Article 4(4) 
Natural 
conditions 
exemptions 

Article 4(5) 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 

Article 4(5) 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 

Number 

Number 

Number 

Number 

Number 

Number 

3 

1 

3 

5 

4 

3 

1 

4 

5 

4 

1 

3 

1 

3 

3 

2 

1 

1 

4 

3 

2 

0 

2 

2 

5 

3 

10 

1 

5 

0 

0 

8 

2 

1 

1 

12 

41 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

129 

2 

0 

1 

2 

0 

51 

1 

3 

2 

0 

0 

5 

2 

0 

50 

0 

0 

0 

34 

0 

0 

0 

5 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

0 

0 

0 

7 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

12 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

12 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

2 

 
 
 
 
Table 8.2 

Pressure  responsible  for  pollutants  in  the  United  Kingdom  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  

Article 4(4) - 
Technical 
feasibility 

Article 4(4) - 
Disproportionat
e cost 

Article 4(4) - 
Natural 
conditions 

Article 4(5) - 
Technical 
feasibility 

Article 4(5) - 
Disproportionat
e cost 

1.1 - Point - Urban waste water 

1.2 - Point - Storm overflows 

1.3 - Point - IED plants 

1.4 - Point - Non IED plants 

1.5 - Point - Contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites 

1.6 - Point - Waste disposal sites 

1.7 - Point - Mine waters 

1.9 - Point - Other 

2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off 

2.10 - Diffuse - Other 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.5 - Diffuse - Contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites 

2.6 - Diffuse - Discharges not connected to sewerage network 

2.8 - Diffuse - Mining 

3.3 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Industry 

3.7 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Other 

6.2 - Groundwater - Alteration of water level or volume 

8 - Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown 

26 

4 

7 

5 

3 

8 

6 

45 

60 

6 

6 

5 

4 

34 

26 

12 

1 

4 

7 

6 

4 

8 

5 

3 

13 

19 

5 

5 

8 

2 

3 

16 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

7 

1 

1 

15 
6 
Source: WISE electronic reports

130 

2 

1 

3 

5 

21 

5 

1 

13 

3 

3 

2 

1 

12 

50 

29 

3 

4 

10 

20 

2 

26 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Application of Article 4(5) 

The  number  of  RBDs  in  which  Article  4(5)  has  been  applied  in  surface  water  has  increased 
between the first and the second cycle. Article 4(5) is applied in all RBDs except the ones in 

Northern Ireland. The reasons are technical feasibility and disproportionate costs. Article 4(5) 
in relation to groundwater has also increased. In the first cycle Article 4(5) was only applied in 

Northumbria and North West. Now it is also applied in Humber, Anglian, Thames; South East; 
South  West,  Severn,  Western  Wales  and  Dee.  The  reasons  are  technical  feasibility  and/or 

disproportionate costs, which were defined. 

Background documents80 have been assessed in more detail. The assessment reveals evidence 
that these justifications are not fully in line with the requirements and logic of the WFD. For 
example,  the  justification  for  this  exemption  is  provided  as  the  economic  appraisal  has 

determined  that  the  costs  of  implementing  the  most  cost  effective  and  technically  feasible 
measures needed to reach good status are greater than the benefits to be gained from achieving 
good  status.  However  according  to  Common  Implementation  Guidance  Document  No.  2081 
disproportionality  should  not  begin  at  the  point  where  the  costs  measured  simply  exceed 
quantifiable benefits82. 

Further  justifications  include  that  flows  in  some  rivers  and  streams  can  vary  naturally  on  a 
seasonal  basis  and  that  these  are  natural  phenomena  but  can  result  in  a  water  body  being 

classified at less than good status. In addition natural barriers to fish migration are mentioned 
which sometimes result in  fish being classified at  less than good status in a water body. The 

adaptation  and  correction  of  reference  conditions  may  be  more  appropriate  than  applying 
Article 4(5) exemptions.  

The drivers and pressures behind the Article 4(5) exemptions are the same as for Article 4(4) 
(see above). 

Application of Article 4(6) 

Article 4(6) exemptions are not applied.  

80See 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/500573/Part_2_River_basin_m
anagement_planning_process_overview_and_additional_information.pdf  

81https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/2a3ec00a-d0e6-405f-bf66-

60e212555db1/Guidance_documentN%C2%B020_Mars09.pdf  

82  UK  subsequently  clarified  that  this  was  not  the  case  in  Wales.  Furthermore,  it  clarified  that  in  England  the 
approach  was  to  make  allowance  for  uncertainty  and  confidence  in  the  quantified  appraisal,  to  encourage 
further  investigation  where  the  initial  estimate  of  costs  was  only  slightly  above  benefits,  and  to  include 
qualitative information on benefits in the judgement of what objective to set. 

131 

 
                                                      
Application of Article 4(7) 

According  to  WISE,  Article  4(7)  exemptions  have  been  applied  in  the  Scotland  RBD  for  a 
number  of  water  bodies.  However,  there  are  some  discrepancies  in  the  reporting  for  other 

RBDs: for example, the North Eastern RBD data reported to WISE states that no Article 4(7) 
exemptions  have  been  applied,  but  the  background  documents  state  that  one  development  (a 

hydroelectricity  scheme)  has  been  authorised  despite  the  potential  of  it  to  result  in 
deterioration. Generally, further clarification is required whether the procedures as set out by 

the  WFD  and  in  Article  4(7)  have  been  followed  since  no  specific  information  on  the 
assessment of the impact of new modifications on water body status and the assessment of the 

specific Article 4(7) conditions is provided. 

Application of Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive 

Exemptions  to  groundwater  under  Article  6(3)  of  the  Groundwater  Directive  have  not  been 
applied.  

8.3 Main changes in implementation and compliance in the first cycle 

The number of exemptions applied under Article 4(4) and 4(5) have changed in all RBDs. The 
number  of  RBDs  for  which  Article  4(5)  has  been  applied  in  surface  water  has  increased 

between the first and the second cycle. The UK subsequently clarified that in England this is in 
large part because the evidence base is substantially improved and more robust than it was in 

first  cycle  and  an  extensive  and  robust  economic  appraisal  of  measures  was  taken  at  the 
catchment  scale.  The  objectives  and  justifications  for  alternatives  are  based  on  this  vastly 

improved evidence base and understanding. 

Article 4(5) is  now  applied in  all RBDs  except  the ones in  Northern  Ireland. The number of 

Article 4(5) exemptions in relation to groundwater has also increased. In the first cycle it was 
only applied in the Northumbria and North West RBDs but is now also applied in the Humber, 

Anglian, Thames, South East, South West, Severn, Western Wales and Dee RBDs. 

8.4 Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  the  UK  needs  to  provide  more  transparency  in  the  RBMPs  on  the 
assessment of environmental objectives and exemptions. A large number of exemptions 

132 

 
have  been  applied  in  this  first  cycle  of  RBMPs.  While  the  WFD  does  provide  for 

exemptions, there are specific criteria that must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. 
The  application  of  exemptions  needs  to  be  more  transparent  and  the  reasons  for  the 

exemptions should be clearly justified in the plans. The UK 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  number  of  exemptions  has  increased  in  particular  those  related  to 
Article 4(5). The justifications for exemptions are made more transparent and are given 

at the water body level, however there is still a lack of details in several plans assessed 
and criteria need to be reconsidered. The recommendation is therefore partly fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  the  use  of  exemptions  under  Article  4(7)  should  be  based  on  a 
thorough  assessment  of  all  the  steps  as  requested  by  the  WFD,  in  particular  an 

assessment  on  whether  the  project  is  of  overriding  public  interest  and  whether  the 
benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and regarding the absence 

of  alternatives  that  would  be  a  better  environmental  option.  Furthermore,  these 
projects may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the 

adverse impact on the status of the water. All conditions for the application of Article 
4(7) in individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the 

project planning as possible. 

Assessment: improved information for the application of Article 4(7) has been provided 

in  the  RBMPs  and  reported  in  WISE.  Remaining  questions  for  some  RBDs  include 
whether the potential effects of planned new modifications on water body status have 

been assessed at quality element level and whether all the steps as required by Article 
4(7) have been followed. The recommendation is therefore partially fulfilled.  

Recommendation:  be  more  transparent  in  the  next  cycle  in  the  decision  process  in 
terms  of  the  point  (ratio)  where  measures  become  disproportionately  expensive  and 

how this relates to the level of confidence required before decisions to take measures 
are made.  

Assessment: the justifications have been made more transparent and are given on water 

body  level,  but  a  lack  of  detail  remains.  The  recommendation  is  therefore  partially 
fulfilled.  

133 

 
 
Topic 9

  Programme of measures  

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the PoM reported by Member States; more 

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

The  Key  Types  of  Measure  (KTM)  referred  to  in  this  section  are  groups  of  measures 
identified  by  Member  States  in  the  Programme  of  Measures,  which  target  the  same 

pressure or purpose. The individual measures included in the Programme of 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  Type  of 
Measure because it may be multi-purpose, but also because the Key Types of Measure 

are not  completely independent  silos. Key Types of Measure have been introduced to 
simplify  the  reporting  of  measures  and  to  reduce  the  very  large  number  of 

Supplementary Measures reported by some Member States (WFD Reporting Guidance 
2016).  

A Key Type of Measure may be one national measure but it would typically comprise 
more than one national measure. The 25 predefined Key Types of Measure are listed in 

the WFD Reporting Guidance 2016. 

The  Key  Type  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 the second cycle 

9.1.1

  General issues 

An  indication  as  to  whether  or  not  measures  have  been  fully  implemented  and  made 
operational is when they have been reported as being planned to tackle significant pressures (at 

the  Key  Types  of  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.  Clear  efforts  have  been  made  in  the  United  Kingdom  in  all 
RBDs  to  identify  pressures  at  the  water  body  level  and  to  link  measures  to  significant 

pressures. Significant pressures considered to be causing failure of good status for groundwater 

134 

 
 
bodies have been reviewed for a selection of the 15 RBDs for which information is provided. 

In the Scotland RBD, significant pressures causing failure are identified under seven different 
categories  covering  point  sources,  diffuse  sources  and  abstraction  or  flow  diversion  whereas 

Key Types of Measure only relate directly to one of these significant pressures (2.8 Diffuse  - 
Mining). However, Key Types of Measure have been identified for pressures not identified as 

causing  failure  of  objectives.  In  the  South  West  RBD,  Key  Types  of  Measure  cover  all 
significant  pressures  causing  failure  but  with  additional  Key  Types  of  Measure  covering 
pressures not reported to be causing failure83. In the Neagh Bann RBD, Key Types of Measure 
are  reported  for  only  one  out  of  seven  significant  pressures84.  A  similar  picture  emerges  for 
surface  waters  (from  a  review  of  the  Scotland,  South  West  and  Neagh  Bann  RBMPs),  with 
Key Types of Measure not covering all pressures causing failures and Key Types of Measure 

being reported for pressures not identified as causing failures (e.g. for certain metals and their 
compounds). 

Cost-effectiveness  analysis  is  an  appraisal  technique  that  provides  a  ranking  of  alternative 
measures  on  the  basis  of  their  costs  and  effectiveness,  where  the  most  cost-effective  has  the 
highest ranking. For the first cycle PoM the United Kingdom used cost-effectiveness analysis 

as  a  tool  to  assess  measures  for  all  significant  pressures.  This  has  continued  for  the  second 
cycle  PoM  where  a  combination  of  a  qualitative  and  quantitative  cost-effectiveness  analysis 

has been carried out in all 15 RBDs for supporting the selection of measures proposed under 
the 2015-2021 PoM. 

Cost data for both cycles has been comprehensively reported but for a few exceptions. Firstly, 
no  cost  data  has  been  reported  for  the  Scotland  RBD.  The  Annex  0  report  states  that  “Costs 

were not collated at this scale for Scotland”. No further information could be found as part of 
this  assessment.  In  terms  of  the  sectoral  financing  of  measures,  for  the  Solway  Tweed  RBD 

“not applicable” has been stated for every sector indicating that financing has not been secured 
from any sector which requires further clarification (an explanation for this is not provided in 

the Annex 0 report). The Northern Ireland RBDs all reported a combined total investment for 
the  2009-2015  PoM  of  €340  m.  The  11  other  RBDs  reported  investments  for  Article  11(3)a 

requirements  (measures  required  to  implement  Community  legislation  for  the  protection  of 
water) for the 2009-2015 PoM ranging from €19.3 m in the Solway Tweed RBD to €1580 m in 

the  Thames  RBD.  The  total  investment  for  Article  11(3)a  requirements  in  all  11  RBDs  was 

83 The United Kingdom  subsequently clarified that this is to prevent future failures and to prevent deterioration. 
84  The  United  Kingdom  subsequently  clarified  that  Northern  Ireland  did  identify  and  report  a  wide  range  of 
pressures.  In  order  to  rationalise  reporting,  and  in  the  absence  of  a  common  definition,  Northern  Ireland’s 
interpretation of significant was based on those pressures occurring most widely. It should be noted that this 
definition  is  not  in  line  with  CIS  Guidance  Document  3  which  provides  clear  guidance  on  the  definition  of 
significant pressures. 

135 

 
                                                      
€5393 m.  Investments  in  measures  required  by  Articles  11(3)b-l,  11(4)  and  11(5)  (all  other 

measures)  in  the  2009-2015  PoM  were  also  reported  and  ranged  from  €7.8  m  in  the Solway 
Tweed RBD to €330 m in the Western Wales RBD85. The total investment for Articles 11(3)b-
l, 11(4) and 11(5) (all other measures) requirements in the 11 RBDs was €1024 m. Therefore 
the total investment reported for the 2009-2015 PoM in the United Kingdom was €6757 m. 

The capital investment that will be required for the second cycle PoM was reported by 14 of 
the 15 RBDs, broken down by type of measures. However, the three Northern Ireland RBDs 

did  not  report  the  annual  operation  and  maintenance  costs.  A  total  capital  investment  of 
€5865 m  will  be  required  to  implement  the  planned  Article  11(3)a  requirements  in  the  14 

RBDs, with investment costs ranging from €14 m in the Northumbria RBD to €1236 m in the 
Western  Wales  RBD.  €424 m  will  be  required  in  annual  operation  and  maintenance  costs 

across  11  RBDs  for  the  Article  11(3)a  measures,  ranging  from  €0.58 m/year  in  the 
Northumbria  RBD  to  €339 m/year  in  the  Western  Wales  RBD.  The  total  capital  investment 

that is required to implement measures required by Articles 11(3)b-l, 11(4) and 11(5) (all other 
measures)  is  reported  to  be  €2894 m  for  the  14  RBDs  who  reported  this  information.  The 
investment  required ranges from  €25 m  in the North  Eastern RBD to  €562 m  in  the Humber 

RBD. 14 RBDs reported the annual operation and maintenance costs for the Articles 11(3)b-l, 
11(4) and 11(5) measures, totalling €414 m, and ranging from €1.9 m/year in the North Eastern 

RBD to €88.6 m/year in the Anglian RBD. 

The  total  capital  investment  reported  for  the  2015-2021  PoM  is  €8759 m,  compared  to  the 

€ 6757 m reported for the 2009-2015 PoM. A lack of finance was reported as an obstacle in all 
RBDs,  except  the  Humber  RBD  for  the  implementation  of  the  2009-2015  PoM.  A  clear 

financial  commitment  (e.g.  approved  budget  or  financial  mechanism  by  the  parliament, 
Ministry  of  Finance  or  other  financial  responsible  authority)  has  been  secured  for  the 

implementation of the PoM in 12 of the 15 RBDs for which information is reported. The three 
RBDs in Northern Ireland report not to have secured funding for implementation of the PoM. 

The  other  RBDs  have  all  secured  cross-sectoral  funding  (e.g.  for  measures  relating  to 
agriculture,  industry,  transport,  etc.)  except  for  the  Scotland  RBD  and  Solway  Tweed  RBD. 

For the Scotland RBD, no clear commitment to funding has been secured from any sector. For 
the  Solway  Tweed  RBD,  ‘not  applicable’  has  been  stated  for  every  sector,  implying  that 

sectors are not relevant within this RBD, which is clearly not the case and as it is not explained 
in the Annex 0 report this requires further clarification. 

85 UK reported that the significant difference between the investment for Western Wales and other RBDs is most 

probably a result of the inclusion of water company business investment in the Western Wales figure. 

136 

 
                                                      
All 15 RBDs reported that some European Union funding had been received for the 2009-2015 

PoM, and that European Union funding was expected for the 2015-2021 PoM. The variation in 
the way the information has been reported for the different RBDs makes it difficult to present a 

national picture, but it is clear that the level of European Union funding is expected to increase 
slightly for the second cycle PoM. 

National measures, both basic and supplementary, have been mapped against a broad range of 
Key Types of Measure covering a range of basic and supplementary measures. Supplementary 

measures have been identified in the majority of the United Kingdom RBDs with often several 
supplementary measures being mapped to individual Key Types of Measure (for example Key 

Types of Measure relating to agricultural pollution, urban pollution and hydromorphology). 9 
% of the basic measures and 15 % of the supplementary measures are mapped against KTM21 

-  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas,  transport  and  built 
infrastructure. 6 % of the basic measures and 18 % of the supplementary measures are mapped 

against KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty. A number 
of  national  Key  Types  of  Measure  have  been  introduced  to  account  for  basic  measures  in 
particular. Basic measures have been reported that fulfil all the requirements of Article 11(3). 

In  general  across  RBDs  in  the  United  Kingdom,  the  Key  Types  of  Measure  reported  for 
significant pressures map well to those mapped against National measures although there are 

exceptions. In Northern Ireland (Neagh Bann) only two Key Types of Measure are reported to 
be  tackling  significant  pressures  (KTM  2  “reduce  nutrient  pollution  from  agriculture”  and 

KTM 14 “Research, improvement of knowledge  base reducing uncertainty”) whereas twenty 
Key Types of Measure are mapped against national measures86. Where information is provided 
(only two RBDs) on the percentage of water bodies affected by significant pressures that are 
not expected to achieve good status or potential by 2027 the percentage range is never reported 

as being above 10 %. 

Not all River Basin  Specific Pollutants identified as causing failure of  good status  in surface 

waters  and  chemical  pollutants  causing  a  failure  of  good  status  in  groundwaters  have  an 
associated Key Type of Measure. For example in the Scotland RBD, ammonium is identified 

as causing a failure in 31 surface water bodies and yet no corresponding Key Type of Measure 
is identified. Another example is in the Western Wales RBD, where for groundwater bodies, 

although pollutants causing failure include nitrate, iron, lead, nickel, cadmium, copper and zinc 

86  The  United  Kingdom  subsequently  clarified  that  Northern  Ireland  did  identify  and  report  a  wide  range  of 
pressures. In order to rationalise reporting, and in the absence of a common definition, NI’s interpretation of 
significant was based on those pressures occurring most widely. It should be noted that this definition is not in 
line with CIS Guidance Document 3 which provides clear guidance on the definition of significant pressures. 

137 

 
                                                      
Key  Types  of  Measure  are  not  reported  for  lead,  nickel  and  cadmium87.  Furthermore,  11 
groundwater  pollutants  were  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status  and  had  no  reported 
specific  measures  (Key  Types  of  Measure).  The  relevant  RBDs  were  the  Scotland  RBD, 

Solway Tweed RBD and Severn RBD. Lead, iron and zinc were such pollutants in two of the 
three RBDs. No specific measures for groundwater pollutants causing failure were reported for 

any of the three Northern Ireland RBDs (Neagh Bann, North Western and North Eastern) even 
though failures were reported at the groundwater body level. 

Not all Priority Substances identified as causing a failure in surface waters have an associated 
Key Types of Measure. For example, in the Humber RBD, out of the eight substances reported 

as causing a failure only two have an associated Key Type of Measure with substances such as 
DDT, cadmium  and tributyltin-cation not having an  associated Key  Type of Measure.  In the 

Severn RBD, of the 11 substances identified as causing a failure of objectives in surface waters 
only three have associated Key Types of Measure. Overall, specific measures (Key Types of 

Measure) were not reported for 13 chemical substances causing failure of good chemical status 
or  good  ecological  status/potential  in  10  RBDs.  The  most  common  chemicals  where  this 
occurred were tributyltin in eight RBDs, mercury in seven RBDs and cadmium in six RBDs. A 

Key  Type  of  Measure  was  reported  for  dichlorvos  in  the  Humber  RBD  even  though  this 
substance was not reported to be causing failure of status in the surface water bodies schema. 

No specific measures for chemicals causing failure in surface waters were reported for any of 
the three Northern Ireland RBDs even though failures were reported at the surface water body 

level. 

The  level  of  ambition  and  expected  progress  resulting  from  the  PoM  for  the  second  cycle  is 

poorly  defined.  Although  indicators  of  the  gaps  to  good  status  for  significant  pressures  on 
groundwater and surface waters have been reported electronically to WISE across the United 

Kingdom  RBDs,  indicators  of  the  level  of  progress  expected  in  the  implementation  of 
measures  is  less  well  defined.  Where  values  are  provided  these  usually  show  that  progress 

towards the achievement of objectives is expected between 2021 and 2027. Indicators were not 
set for 2015 so this represents an improvement in implementation. The information relating to 

indicators for Key Types of Measure, and what  level of implementation of measures are less 
consistently reported throughout the United Kingdom RBDs. Values have been defined for a 

few Key Types of Measure for 2021 and 2027 but in general values have not been defined. 

The England and Wales RBDs (i.e. 10 out of the 15 RBDs reporting this information for the 

United  Kingdom)  state  that:  a  joint  consultation  was  carried  out  on  the  RBMPs  and  Marine 

87  UK  reported  that  this  is  a  function  of  the  groundwater  bodies  failing  for  a  surface  water  chemicals  and  a 

reporting nuance that the KTM is against the surface water. 

138 

 
                                                      
Strategy;  the  preparation  of  the  RBMP  and  PoM  have  been  coordinated  with  the 

implementation  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive,  and;  the  need  for  additional 
measures or more stringent measures beyond those required by the WFD in order to contribute 

to the achievement of the relevant Marine Strategy Framework Directive objectives in coastal 
and  marine  environments  have  been  considered  in  the  PoM  (but  with  no  need  for 

implementation).  For  the  Scotland  RBD,  coordination  with  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive  is  reported  to  not  have  taken  place  and  for  the  Solway  Tweed  RBD  and  the  three 

Northern  Ireland  RBDs  (Neagh  Bann,  North  Western  and  North  Eastern)  only  during  the 
preparation  of  the  RBMP  and  PoM.  National/RBD  specific  measures  that  are  relevant  to  the 

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (basic measures, their associated Key Types of Measure 
and the pressures and/or chemical substances that they are tackling to meet WFD objectives) 

are  provided  for  all  RBDs.  These  include  the  construction  or  upgrading  of  wastewater 
treatment  plants,  improving  hydromorphological  conditions  (such  as  for  fish  passage), 

measures  for  phasing  out/reducing  emissions  of  priority  hazardous/Priority  Substances  and 
reducing agricultural pollution.  

The  RBMPs  and  Floods  Directive88  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  have  not  been  integrated 
into  a  single  plan89.  Joint  consultations  were  carried  out  on  the  RBMPs  and  Flood  Risk 
Management Plans in 10 of the 15 RBDs (those in England and Wales). All RBDs report that 

the  objectives  and  requirements  of  the  Floods  Directive  have  been  considered  in  the  second 
RBMP, that specific win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and 

Floods  Directive,  drought  management  and  use  of  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  have 
been included in the PoM and that the design of new and existing structural measures (such as 

flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers) have been adapted to take into account WFD 
Environmental  Objectives.  For  10  of  the  15  RBDs,  a  clear  financial  commitment  has  been 

secured  for  the  implementation  of  the  PoM  in  the  flood  protection  sector.  However  in  all 
RBDs, Article 9(4) has not been applied to impoundments for flood protection and as such it 

would be an activity/use which should be subject to cost recovery under Article 9. 

9.1.2

  Measures related to other significant pressures 

Indicator gaps (the degree to which a particular pressure needs to be reduced to achieve WFD 
objectives) for other significant pressures (e.g. Introduced species and diseases, Anthropogenic 

pressures - Historical pollution) have mostly been reported for the United Kingdom RBDs for 
2015, 2021 and 2027 but with some values not reported (i.e. not defined) comprehensively for 

88  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 

89 UK reported that exploring how to make information/data from both plans available to stakeholders on the same 

map based system/website. 

139 

 
                                                      
several  RBDs.  As  expected,  where  values  are  reported  these  values  decrease  from  2015  to 

2027.  

In  terms  of  indicator  values  for  Key  Types  of  Measure,  reporting  is  not  as  consistent  as  the 

reporting of indicator gaps. In Scotland, indicator values for Key Types of Measure relating to 
Introduced species and diseases and Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown are provided for 2021 

and 2027 but no values are given for 2015 (although the values show a decrease between 2021 
and  2027).  Similarly,  for  Solway  Tweed,  values  for  Key  Types  of  Measure  relating  to  these 

two  pressures  are  also  reported  for  2021  and  2027  but  not  for  2015.  No  indicator  values  for 
Key Types of Measure are reported for RBDs in England and Wales (Northumbria through to 

North West inclusive) but values are provided for 2015 and 2021 (but not for 2027) for two of 
the three RBDs in Northern Ireland. 

9.1.3

  Mapping of national measures to Key Types of Measure 

It  was  expected  that  Member  States  would  be  able  to  report  their  PoM  by  associating  their 

national measures with predefined Key Types of Measure. Key Types of Measure are expected 
to  deliver  the  bulk  of  the  improvements  through  reduction  in  pressures  required  to  achieve 
WFD Environmental Objectives. A Key Type of Measure may be one national measure but it 

would  typically  comprise  more  than  one  national  measure.  Member  States  are  required  to 
report  on  the  national  measures  associated  with  the  Key  Types  of  Measure,  and  whether  the 

national  measures are basic (Article 11(3)(a) or  Article 11(3)(b-l)) or supplementary  (Article 
11(4)).  

Table 9.1 summarises the number of national measures that have been mapped to the relevant 
Key Types of Measure in the United Kingdom. The number of RBDs for which the Key Type 

of  Measure  has  been  reported  is  also  shown.  Table  9.2  then  summarises  the  type  of  basic 
measures associated with the national measures mapped against the Key Type of Measure. 

Table 9.1 

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

Key Type of Measure 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number 
of RBDs 
where 
reported 

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

KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture 

7 

3 

5 

2 

5 

15 

10 

14 

140 

 
 
Key Type of Measure 

KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. 
establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc) 
KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base 
reducing uncertainty 
KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, 
discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or 
for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of 
Priority Substances 

KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial 
wastewater treatment plants (including farms). 
KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and 
surface run-off 

KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts 
of invasive alien species and introduced diseases 

KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts 
of recreation including angling 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 
KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts 
of fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal and 
plants 

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of 
pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure 
KTM22 - Measures to prevent or control the input of 
pollution from forestry 

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 

KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 

KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical 
pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil) 

KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing 
fish passes, demolishing old dams) 

KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of water 
bodies other than longitudinal continuity 
KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment 
of ecological flows 

KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, 
industry, energy and households 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Advise small and medium sized businesses on pollution 
prevention 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Bring currently exempt water abstractions  within licence 
(New Authorisations) 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Continue to implement the Hydropower guidelines including 
the production of a design and siting guide for developers of 

141 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number 
of RBDs 
where 
reported 

4 

10 

7 

3 

4 

10 

1 

9 

1 

15 

6 

1 

5 

7 

10 

3 

10 

10 

5 

1 

1 

1 

6 

27 

4 

2 

4 

9 

6 

10 

23 

2 

5 

4 

1 

10 

14 

8 

4 

14 

8 

14 

14 

6 

15 

6 

14 

3 

14 

13 

13 

8 

14 

14 

15 

15 

15 

14 

3 

3 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number 
of RBDs 
where 
reported 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

Key Type of Measure 

hydropower schemes 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Contribute to maintenance of, or restoration to, favourable 
conservation status on Natura 2000 Protected Areas through 
undertaking review of consents (see Annex D) 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Develop and deliver a more focussed approach to sewerage 
and drainage management 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Develop and implement legislation to support sustainable 
drainage solutions. 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Develop evidence base to support management of marine 
litter and marine litter strategy. 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Encourage catchment scale community action through area 
statements developed by Natural Resources Wales and other 
co-operative groups aiming to improve water quality in their 
area. 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Ensure the Rural Development Plan supports sustainable 
agricultural practices to achieve WFD and protected area 
objectives 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Give strategic direction for fisheries work in Wales as set out 
in The Agenda For Change for Fisheries 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Implement revised methodology for assessment of hazardous 
pollutants within surface water discharges 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Implementation of SuDS (sustainable drainage systems) 
Code of Practice. Comply with published advice for 
operators on sustainable drainage systems 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Influence planning authorities to require the use of SuDS 
and contribute to the implementation of appropriate SuDS 
technology. 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
KTM99_S005 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
KTM99_S006 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
KTM99_S007 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
KTM99_S009 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
KTM99_S-012 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number 
of RBDs 
where 
reported 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

6 

6 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

Key Type of Measure 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Natural Resources Wales working with Welsh Government 
and others to promote and embed the use of Water Sensitive 
Urban Design (WSUD) into planning policy and devolved 
building regulations 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
New Authorisations (licensing of historically  exempt 
abstractions ) 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
NEW MS KTM  Measures to prevent or control diffuse 
source discharges from mines. 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
NEW MS KTM.  Measures to prevent or control point 
source discharges from mines. 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Prioritise solutions to tackle water body  failures due to 
abstraction 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Promote the implementation of SuDS (sustainable drainage 
systems) in new and existing developments, in both urban 
and rural areas to gain environmental, water quality, social 
and flood risk benefits 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Raise awareness of correct installation and operation of 
private sewage treatment systems 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Raise awareness of the benefits and successes of managing 
surface water run-off through SuDs (sustainable drainage 
systems) and rainwater harvesting in order to mitigate 
flooding and pollution.  
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Reducing disposal of fat, oil and grease to  sewers – 
awareness campaign to influence behaviour with leaflets, 
information packs 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Review and strengthen the effectiveness and enforcement of 
relevant legislation and policy (gap analysis) to improve its 
ability to deal with diffuse water pollution 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Review the implementation of Statutory Management 
Requirements (SMR) and Good Agricultural Environmental 
Condition (GAEC) to strengthen the drivers for best 
agricultural practice - ensure that there is parity in terms of 
the monitoring for and consequence 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Strengthen links between agri-environment options and N2K 
objectives on farms within catchments which are currently 
impacting on N2K sites 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - The 
development of SuDS Approval Bodies to provide consistent 
advice for planning activities and maintenance of schemes 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key Type of Measure 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Water companies develop and deliver catchment 
management options that improve water quality and deliver 
additional ecosystem services 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - We 
will consult on and implement revised guidance for 
sewerage schemes for rural communities under Section 
101A of the Water Industry Act 1991 and consider 
legislating to simplify the process. 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - We 
will look at options to implement Schedule 3 of the Flood 
and Water Management Act 2010, which requires new 
developments to include SuDS features that comply with 
national standards. 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - We 
will publish interim national standards on an advisory basis 
until we commence Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water 
Management Act 2010. 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Welsh Government to develop a regulatory framework that 
encourages sustainable, innovative solutions to waste water 
management 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Welsh Government to review legislative framework 
surrounding rural diffuse pollution 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Welsh Government to review the abstraction licensing 
system to inform future policy in relation to water resource 
management 
Total number of Mapped Measures 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number 
of RBDs 
where 
reported 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

1 

171 

149 

3 

15 

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9.2 

Type of basic measure mapped to Key Type of Measures in the United Kingdom  

Basic Measure Type 

e
s
u
r
e
t
a
w

t
n
e
i
c
i
f
f

E

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

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

D
E
I
C
P
P
I

s
e
t
a
r
t
i

N

r
e
h
t
O

e
c
r
u
o
s

t
n
i
o
P

s
e
g
r
a
h
c
s
i
d

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

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

r
e
t
a
w
y
r
e
v
o
c
e
r

t
s
o
C

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

3 

Key Type of Measure 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment 
plants 
KTM10 - Water pricing policy measures for the 
implementation of the recovery of cost of water services 
from industry 
KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture 
KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. 
establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc) 
KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base 
reducing uncertainty 
KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, 
discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or 
for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of 
Priority Substances 
KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial 
wastewater treatment plants (including farms). 
KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion 
and surface run-off 
KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse 
impacts of invasive alien species and introduced diseases 
KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse 
impacts of recreation including angling 
KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 
KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse 
impacts of fishing and other exploitation/removal of 
animal and plants 
KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of 
pollution from urban areas, transport and built 
infrastructure 
KTM22 - Measures to prevent or control the input of 
pollution from forestry 

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

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

3 

9 

1 

1 

1 

145 

5 

2 

1 

1 

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

5 

3 

4 

3 

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

r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

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

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

e
g
r
a
h
c
e
R

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
u
a

s
r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

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

s
e
c
n
a
t
s
b
u
S

e
t
s
a
W
n
a
b
r
U

r
e
t
a
W

4 

1 

1 

4 

5 

1 

1 

2 

3 

11 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 
KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification 
KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 
KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical 
pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil) 
KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. 
establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams) 
KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of 
water bodies other than longitudinal continuity 
KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or 
establishment of ecological flows 
KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for 
irrigation, industry, energy and households 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM 

Key: 

2 

1 

2 

4 

4 

5 

1 

3 

10 

1 

1 

5 
6 

9 

1 

3 

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

2 

4 

2 

1 

3 

18 

4 

4 

‘Accidental pollution’ = Article 11(3)(l): Any measures required to prevent significant losses of pollutants from technical installations and to 
prevent and/or reduce the impact of accidental pollution incidents. 
‘Controls water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(e): Controls over the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater and impoundment of fresh 
surface waters including a register or registers of water abstractions and a requirement for prior authorisation of abstraction and impoundment. 
‘Cost recovery water services’ = Article 11(3)(b): Measures for the recovery of cost of water services (Article 9). 
‘Efficient water use’ = Article 11(3)(c): Measures to promote efficient and sustainable water use. 
‘Habitats or Birds’ = Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)  or Birds Directive (2009/147/EC)  
‘Hydromorphology’ = Article 11(3)(i): Measures to control any other significant adverse impact on the status of water, and in particular 
hydromorphological impacts. 
‘IPPC IED’ = Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC) and the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) . 
‘Nitrates’ = Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC). 
‘Other’ = Other Directives mentioned in Part A of Annex VI of the WFD. 
‘Point source discharges’ = Article 11(3)(g): Requirement for prior regulation of point source discharges liable to cause pollution. 
‘Pollutants diffuse’ = Article 11(3)(h): Measures to prevent or control the input of pollutants from diffuse sources liable to cause pollution. 
‘Pollutants direct groundwater’ = Article 11(3)(j): Prohibition of direct discharge of pollutants into groundwater. 
‘Protection water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(d): Measures for the protection of water abstracted for drinking water (Article 7) including those to 
reduce the level of purification required for the production of drinking water. 
‘Recharge augmentation groundwaters’ = Article 11(3)(f): Controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or 
augmentation of groundwater bodies. 
‘Surface Priority Substances’ = Article 11(3)(k): Measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters by Priority Substances and to reduce pollution 
from other substances that would otherwise prevent the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 4. 
‘Urban Waste Water’ = Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9.1.4

  Pressures for which gaps to be filled to achieve WFD objectives and the Key Types 

of Measure planned to achieve objectives 

Member  States  are  required  to  report  the  gaps  that  need  to  be  filled  to  achieve  the  WFD 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reported by the Member State. 

9.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance in the first cycle 

In general, the amount and quality of readily available information has improved between the 
two cycles as a result of the revised reporting schema. Therefore, there is often no equivalent 

information for the first  cycle and it is difficult to make direct comparisons between the two 
cycles on what has changed significantly. However, there does appear to be a greater range of 

River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  reported  for  the  second  cycle  compared  to  the  first,  even 
though  measures  may  not  be  in  place  to  address  the  failures  they  cause.  Progress  has  been 

147 

 
 
fairly  good  overall  with  seven  out  of  the  15  RBDs  stating  that  all  measures  had  been 

completed, three RBDs reporting that some of the planned measures had been completed and 
five  RBDs  reporting  that  all  planned  measures  had  been  started.  Obstacles  reported  to  have 

affected implementation include lack of finance which was identified for the majority of RBDs 
and lack of a mechanism for implementation as well as measures not being cost-effective. Lack 

of available measures was identified but to a lesser extent. 

All  of  the  United  Kingdom  RBDs  provided  a  summary  document  on  the  main  changes  that 

have taken place between the two cycles. Information from the RBMP for Scotland (Scotland 
RBD) highlights the work of Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Water and the 

Scottish Government alongside other general measures. More detail is given in the background 
documents, related to work in collecting more information about water bodies, developing and 

refining methods and standards, and refining water body boundaries. 179 water bodies reached 
their improvement target with 47 needing further improvement to meet the objective. Reasons 

why targets were not reached include unfeasibility of measures and disproportionate expense. 
Deterioration occurred in 3.3 % of water bodies, where modifications were permitted to enable 
increased hydropower or to secure drinking water supplies. Water quality was protected in all 

drinking water protected areas but targets were not met in other protected areas. Changes in the 
second  plan  have  been  made  in  response  to  improvements  in  understanding  pressures  and 

impacts, significant management challenges and understanding where to prioritise action. 

Further information was sourced from the RBMPs in England (e.g. South West RBD) which 

has a separate chapter detailing changes from 2009 to 2015: i) Improvements in evidence: for 
example,  classification  has  been  based  on  more  monitoring  results;  investigations  have  been 

carried  out  to  identify  why  objectives  have  not  been  met;  classification  methods  have  been 
improved;  and  there  is  better  mapping  of  the  water  body  network;  ii)  Most  of  the  measures 

summarised  in  the  2009  plans  have  been  completed.  A  small  number  (19)  of  measures  were 
not  completed,  either  because  they  were  no  longer  needed,  not  funded  or  there  was  no 

mechanism to implement it. Around 140 additional measures are under way in the South West 
RBD. Most measures have resulted in improvements to the water environment, but some did 

not  and  15  water  bodies  (all  surface  water  and  not  included  exemptions)  have  deteriorated 
since  2009.  Reasons  for  this  are  explained,  including  additional  pressures,  the  effect  of  one-

out-all-out, standards not being tight enough and measures not being as effective as predicted. 

Information  obtained  from  Northern  Ireland  (e.g.  the  Neagh  Bann  RBMP)  outlines  changes 

made  to  classification  as  part  of  a  UK  Technical  Advisory  Group  technical  review.  This 
includes revisions to ecological assessment methods, water quality standards and standards for 

148 

 
 
river flow and lake levels. A few water bodies have deteriorated and these will be investigated 

to determine the reason why and put measures in place to reverse the trend. 

New legislation or regulations were required to implement the PoM in the first cycle in all 15 

RBDs reported. 

9.3

  Progress with European Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  address  the  large  uncertainties  reported  in  the  first  RBMPs  in 
relation  to  the  assessment  of  the  status,  the  pressures  and  the  effect  of  potential 

measures. 

Assessment:  the  information  reported  for  this  topic  demonstrates  that  some  progress 

has  been  made  in  relation  to  reducing  uncertainty  in  terms  of  both  pressures  and  the 
effect of potential measures. Reported indicators of the gaps to be filled for significant 

pressures  on  groundwater  and  surface  waters  are  reported  across  RBDs  and  where 
values  are  provided  these  usually  show  a  decrease  from  2015  through  to  2027  as 

expected. The information relating to indicator values for the level of progress expected 
in  the  implementation  of  the  Key  Types  of  Measure  are  less  consistently  reported 

throughout the United Kingdom RBDs. The values reported for several  years indicate 
that  a  value  has  not  been  defined.  Indicator  gaps  (the  degree  to  which  a  particular 

pressure needs to be reduced to achieve WFD objectives) for other significant pressures 
(e.g.  Introduced  species  and  diseases,  Anthropogenic  pressures  -  Historical  pollution) 

have mostly been reported for the United Kingdom RBDs for 2015, 2021 and 2027 but 
with some values not reported (i.e. not defined) comprehensively for several RBDs. As 
expected, where values are reported these values decrease from 2015 to 2027. In terms 

of indicator values for KTM, reporting is not as consistent as the reporting of indicator 
gaps relating to pressures. This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  more  information  needs  to  be  included  in  the  RBMPs  on  the 
methodology used to identify significant pressures and how this analysis feeds into the 
development  of  monitoring  programmes  and  how  the  measures  defined  address  the 

significant pressures. 

Assessment:  the  information  presented  for  this  Topic  relates  to  the  latter  part  of  the 

recommendation  in  terms  of  how  the  measures  defined  address  the  significant 
pressures.  The  information  provided  demonstrates  that  progress  has  been  made  as 
KTMs have been made operational (i.e. measures have been adopted, implemented and 

149 

 
 
being used/planned to be used) to address significant pressures for which gaps to reach 

good status have been defined (although not for all pressures and across all RBDs, for 
example, in the Scotland RBD significant pressures causing failure are identified under 

seven  different  categories  covering  point  sources,  diffuse  sources  and  abstraction  or 
flow  diversion  whereas  Key  Types  of  Measure  only  relate  directly  to  one  of  these 

significant pressures - 2.8 - Mining). This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  be  more  transparent  in  the  next  cycle  in  the  decision  process  in 
terms  of  the  point  (ratio)  where  measures  become  disproportionately  expensive  and 
how this relates to the level of confidence required before decisions to take measures 

are made. 

Assessment:  progress  has  been  demonstrated  through  application  of  a  modified 

approach  (e.g.  as  outlined  in  the  part  two  of  the  RBMPs  for  England  and  Wales  - 
"overview  and  additional  information")  and  through  the  use  of  catchment  economic 

appraisals.  Disproportionate  costs  are  made  on  a  judgement  based  on  costs,  benefits 
(i.e.  due  to  an  unfavourable  balance  of  costs  and  benefits),  affordability  and  resource 

availability. This recommendation is fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  increase  the  focus  on  verifying  the  effectiveness  in  the  second 
RBMPs cycle of current basic measures (checking whether they are properly enforced). 

Assessment:  progress  has  been  made  on  verifying  effectiveness  as  information  is 

provided  on  the  gaps  to  be  filled  for  significant  pressures  on  surface  waters  and 
groundwaters  although,  as  mentioned  above,  the  information  is  sporadic  within  and 

between RBDs but where reported often shows an appropriate decrease in the gap from 
2015  through  to  2027  which  implies  enforcement.  This  recommendation  is  partially 

fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify the gap to good status, and 
that the Programme of Measures are designed and implemented to close that gap (this 
is particularly relevant to assess the effectiveness of the existing measures in relation to 

significant  pressures  such  as  agriculture  and  hydromorphology  and  which  additional 
measures are needed to close the gap).  

Assessment: progress is demonstrated through the reported indicator gaps which show 
decreases  from  2015  to  2027  in  most  UK  RBDs  for  significant  pressures  from  both 

agricultural and hydromorphological pressures. For the Scotland RBD, information on 
indicator gaps is lacking for measures associated with agricultural diffuse pollution and 

150 

 
 
similarly  in  the  Northern  Ireland  RBDs  for  hydromorphological  pressures.  However, 

development  of  the  indicator  values  of  the  level  of  progress  of  implementation  of 
measures to close the gaps to good status is less well advanced. This recommendation 

is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  ensure  that  basic  (mandatory)  measures  required  under  the  WFD 
are  implemented.  In  addition,  the  United  Kingdom  should  highlight  clearly  the 
contribution  that  supplementary  measures  are  expected  to  make  towards  the 

achievement  of  WFD  objectives  in  the  second  RBMP.  There  should  be  a  re-focus  to 
“harder  regulation”  and  more  enforceable  supplementary  measures  that  might  make 

these measures more effective. 

Assessment:  progress  has  been  made  in  that  national  measures  have  been  mapped 

against Key Types of Measure covering a range of basic and supplementary measures. 
Supplementary measures have been identified in the majority of the United Kingdom 

RBDs  with  often  several  supplementary  measures  being  mapped  to  individual  Key 
Types  of  Measure  (for  example  Key  Types  of  Measure  relating  to  agricultural 

pollution, urban pollution and hydromorphology). From the information provided on 
the  measures  it  is  not  possible  to  distinguish  whether  the  basic  and  supplementary 

measures are mandatory or voluntary. This recommendation is partially fulfilled 

151 

 
 
 
Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 

10.1

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

10.1.1

  Water exploitation and trends  

In the United Kingdom, there is one RBD (Thames) with a Water Exploitation Index + of very 
high  level,  indicating  unsustainability;  and  several  other  RBDs  (Northumbria,  Humber, 

Anglian, South-East and Dee) with high levels (32-35 %) close to unsustainability. Managing 
water  abstraction  pressures  in  these  RBDs  appears  important  to  achieve  the  WFD  objectives 

and avoid water scarcity situations with negative effects on the environment or water users. 

There  is  no  clear  trend  on  water  abstractions.  For  example,  in  the  Thames  RBD,  latest 

estimates  of  direct  abstraction  of  water  from  non-tidal  surface  and  groundwater  in  England 
show an increase of 2 % from 2014. There had been a gradual decline in estimated abstractions 

between  2000  and  2011.  Following  a  13  %  increase  in  2012,  abstraction  has  remained  at 
around nine billion cubic metres a  year for the past three  years. Since 2011, total abstraction 

has increased by 14 % to 9.4 billion cubic metres.  

No information on trends for the Scotland RBD or RBDs in Northern Ireland was available in 

the reported data or the RBMPs and their appendices. 

10.1.2

  Main uses for water consumption  

Most of the abstraction pressure is  caused by public water supply, usually  from  both  surface 
water  bodies  and  groundwater  bodies.  One  RBD  (North  West)  has  also  significant  industrial 

water  abstractions.  Since  2011,  total  abstraction  in  the  Thames  RBD  has  increased  driven 
mostly by abstraction for electricity generation, which increased from 1.4 billion cubic metres 

in 2011 to 2.5 billion cubic metres in 2015. 

10.1.3

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

Within  the  Basic  Measures  reported,  all  groundwater  and  surface  water  abstractions  are 
registered, and all significant abstractions require a permit. Small abstractions90 do not require 
a  permit.  There  is  a  concession,  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  water 

impoundment and a register of impoundments (under Article 11(3)e). In particular for RBDs 
with  high  abstraction  levels  and  Water  Exploitation  Index  +  (e.g.  Thames,  Northumbria, 

90 Member State United Kingdom subsequently clarified that such a threshold is set based on scientific evidence. 

152 

 
 
                                                      
Humber,  Anglian,  Dee),  it  might  be  relevant  to  consider  extending  controls  to  all  water 

abstractions in the RBD, including the smaller ones.  

Under the United Kingdom Water Resources Act 1991, a licence must be applied for if more 
than  20  m3  per  day  is  to  be  abstracted  and  all  new  licences  are  subject  to  a  time  limit  and 
should  be  reviewed  upon  renewal.  When  the  Environment  Agency  (in  England)  grants  a 

licence to abstract water for the first time, it is likely to be for between six and 18 years. When 
a  licence  is  renewed  it  will  normally  be  for  another  12  years.  They  may  also  grant  short 

duration licences where there may be issues with the licence or water availability in the longer 
term, or if you only need it for a short time. In certain circumstances, the Environment Agency 

(in England) will consider granting licences with a longer duration time limit as long as certain 
conditions  explained  in  the  guidance  document  are  met.  These  licences  will  be  considered 

individually  and  they  will  last  for  no  longer  than  24  years.  This  allows  for  flexibility  and 
adaptation of licences upon review; not necessarily matching the timeline of the RBMP cycles. 

In  Scotland,  abstractions  are  regulated  by  the  Water  Environment  (Controlled  Activities) 
(Scotland)  Regulations  2011;  an  authorisation  may  be  granted  for  a  limited  period  only  and 
will be reviewed by Scottish Environment Protection Agency when deemed necessary, but at 

least once every four years. 

In  Northern  Ireland,  abstractions  are  controlled  by  the  Water  Abstraction  and  Impoundment 

(Licensing) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006. The guidance document for these regulations 
states that Licences issued for both abstractions and impoundments may be reviewed, modified 

or  revoked  at  the  request  of  the  licence  holder  or  if  the  Department  of  Agriculture, 
Environment  and  Rural  Affairs  in  Northern  Ireland  considers  it  is  necessary  to  prevent 

significant  or  serious  damage  to  the  natural  environment,  but  does  not  give  specific  time 
frames for reviews. 

The Environment Agency (in England) will take action to curtail time-limited licences that are 
not sustainable in order to protect the environment from actual or potential damage under the 

Water  Resources  Act  1991.  Replacement  licences  are  granted  on  a  sustainable  basis  in  line 
with  water  body  objectives.  The  Environment  Agency  (in  England)  also  implements  the 

Restoring Sustainable Abstraction programme. This programme identified, investigated and is 
solving  environmental  risks  or  problems  caused  by  unsustainable  licensed  water  abstraction, 

and  can  curtail  abstraction  licences  that  have  been  identified  as  causing  an  environmental 
problem.  The  Environment  Agency  (in  England)  also  has  the  power  to  revoke  or  amend 

abstraction licences to reduce any unacceptable impacts of abstraction on Natura 2000 nature 
conservation  sites  as  well  as  Ramsar  sites  under  the  Conservation  of  Habitats  and  Species 

153 

 
 
Regulations  2010.  In  the  consultation  response  document  for  Thames  it  was  noted  that  there 

was  general  support  for  the  new  abstraction  authorisation  system,  but  any  new  licensing 
system  should  be  based  on  an  in-depth  knowledge  of  the  link  between  flows  and  good 

ecological condition and status. 

In  Northern  Ireland,  small  abstractions  must  comply  with  Permitted  Controlled  Activities 

conditions,  while  larger  permits  must  have  a  licence.  Licences  may  be  refused  if  the 
application does not meet the terms and conditions considered necessary or expedient for the 

purpose of protecting the water environment.  Licences may be revoked  if the Department  of 
Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland is satisfied that the revocation 

is necessary in order to  protect the water environment from serious damage; and the damage 
cannot  be  avoided  by  modifying  the  conditions  of  the  licence,  according  to  the  Water 

Abstraction and Impoundment (Licensing) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006.  

In Scotland, all water users undertaking a controlled activity have a duty to take all reasonable 

steps  to  secure  efficient  and  sustainable  water  use.  The  Scottish  Environment  Protection 
Agency  is  responsible  for  enforcing  the  Regulations  and  therefore  needs  to  ensure  that  the 
quantities being  applied  for are  consistent with  the efficient  and sustainable use of the  water 

required and where significant variations from these conditions arise, a better understanding of 
any  local  factors  contributing  to  the  difference  must  be  obtained.  Operators  are  expected  to 

uphold the conditions of their registration or licence and the Scottish Environment Protection 
Agency has powers to withdraw any authorisation where its conditions are not met. 

Measures  promoting  efficient  and  sustainable  water  use  and  measures  for  the  prior 
authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies were implemented 

in previous cycle, but no new measures or significant changes are planned. 

All  RBDs  implement  measures  associated  to  KTM7  -  Improvements  in  flow  regime  and/or 

establishment  of  ecological  flows,  and  most  of  them  (except  Scotland)  measures  included  in 
KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households. 

Measures associated to other KTM are not foreseen to reduce water abstraction pressures. 

Such  measures  are  brought  through  a  range  of  policy,  legal  or  financial  mechanisms.  These 

include:  legislation,  economic  instruments,  codes  of  good  practice,  negotiated  agreements, 
promotion of good practice and education. 

Measures  in  England  are  implemented  through  a  range  of  programmes,  mainly:  Water 
investment  programmes;  Countryside  Stewardship;  Highways  England’s 
company 

environment  fund;  flood  risk  management 

investment  programme;  catchment 

level 

154 

 
 
government  funded  improvements  and  water  resources  sustainability  measures.  It  should  be 

noted that measures of this type were implemented in the previous cycle, and no new measures 
or significant changes are planned in any of the second RBMPs. 

In  Scotland,  measures  to  protect  and  improve  water  flows  and  levels  are  delivered  through: 
controls  over  the  abstraction  of  fresh  surface  water  and  groundwater,  and  impoundment  of 

fresh  surface  water  under  the  Water  Environment  (Controlled  Activities)  (Scotland) 
Regulations  2011;  economic  instruments  under  the  Quality  and  Standards  Programme  (a 

publicly  funded  programme  of  investment  by  Scottish  Water)  and  the  Scottish  Rural 
Development  Programme  (funding  support  for  storage  ponds  for  irrigation)  and  educational 

projects like the Guidance for developers of run-of-river hydropower schemes run by Scottish 
Environment Protection Agency.  

In  Northern  Ireland,  measures  are  implemented  through  a  wide  range  of  mechanisms,  from 
leakage  reduction  targets  and  development  of  Drinking  Water  Safety  Plans  led  by  Northern 

Ireland  Water  to  monitoring  of  abstractions  and  research  programmes  led  by  the  Northern 
Ireland Environment Agency. A range of supplementary measures has been added to the 2015 
RBMP  on  top  of  those  in  the  first  RBMP,  including  catchment  projects,  investigation 

programmes and new working groups. 

10.2

 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

In  England,  water  licence  reviews  have  been  increasingly  carried  out  over  the  past  years  to 
adapt  abstractions  to  sustainable  levels.  This  is  a  positive  evolution;  however,  its  results  in 

terms of achieving good water body status cannot be judged yet. 

10.3

 Progress with European Commission recommendations 

There were no recommendations made for this topic. 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture  

11.1

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

The  link  between  pressures  and  measures  has  been  established  on  a  general  level  and  an 

appraisal of the gaps between pressures and measures has been undertaken; however due to the 
limited detail reported on the pressure assessment it is not clear if the measures are sufficient.  

Measures to  address these pressures or impacts are reported in all RBDs except the Scotland 
RBD:  KTM3  -  Reduce  pesticides  pollution  from  agriculture,  KTM2  -  Reduce  nutrient 

pollution from agriculture, and KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture, KTM13 - Drinking 
water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc). KTM23 - 

Natural  water  retention  measures  is  found  in  all  RBDs  except  Scotland  and  Solway  Tweed. 
KTM17 – “Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off”, is applied in 

the  Severn,  Western  Wales,  Dee,  Neagh  Bann,  North  Western,  North  Eastern  RBDs.  Basic 
measures  to  control  pollution  from  agriculture  are  applied  in  Western  Wales  (e.g.  Nitrate 

Action  Plan,  Code  of  good  agricultural  practice,  Slurry,  silage  and  agricultural  fuel  oil 
regulations [SSAFO]). The same rules apply across the whole RBD in Scotland and the three 

Northern  Ireland RBDs.  Differentiated  rules  are found in  the Solway  Tweed RBD. All  other 
RBDs apply the rule only in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. In all RBDs except the Western Wales 

RBD, the rules cover nitrates. In the three Northern Ireland RBDs, phosphorus and pesticides 
are also covered.  

It  was  not  clear  in  any  RBDs  whether  the  measures  being  recommended  were  entirely 
mandatory  or  voluntary.  In  many  cases  measures  are  based  on  regulations  making  them 

mandatory,  but  there  are  many  other  measures  which  are  likely  to  be  voluntary  schemes. 
RBMPs  contain,  or  have  links  to,  a  summary  of  measures,  but  it  was  not  clear  in  these 
documents whether measures are mandatory or  voluntary91. For Scotland, the measures were 
not  linked to  the Key Types of Measure.  In most  cases, more detail on the measures used is 
available in background documents. 

In England, the Catchment Based Approach framework was set up to establish independently-
led,  voluntary  partnerships  in  each  management  catchment  to  engage  local  communities  and 

encourage  wider  participation  in  identifying  the  local  pressures,  agreeing  priorities  and 

91 The UK subsequently indicated that, in England the mandatory measures to control pollution from agriculture 
are  listed  on  pages  36  to  38  of  the  part  of  the  RBMP  called,  “Information  on  mechanisms  for  the  Water 
Framework Directive”. 

156 

 
 
                                                      
planning  on-going  actions  to  tackle  the  priorities.  The  United  Kingdom  government  has 

provided  upwards  of  £9m  of  funding  and  operational  support  for  projects  delivered  via 
Catchment  Partnerships  with  more  than  1,500  organisations  in  England.  It  is  not  clear  how 

funding  is  split  between  different  funds  and  how  much  of  the  costs  for  measure 
implementation are borne by the farmers.  

Farmers and Farmers' Unions have been consulted under the Public Consultation process in all 
basins.  

Financing  of  agricultural  measures  is  secured  in  all  basins,  except  those  in  Northern  Ireland 
and Scotland. The source of funding to be mainly national funds such as: 

 

In England national sources include: Catchment Partnership action funds, Environment 
Agency Environment  Programme, Water Company  Investment  programmes (National 

Environment Programme). 

 

In  Scotland  projects  which  help  to  achieve  RBMP  objectives  can  be  eligible  for 

assistance grant funding from the Water Environment Fund, and other schemes such as 
the  Scottish  rural  development  programme,  but  it  is  not  clear  how  much  funding  has 
been allocated to agricultural projects and how much is funded by farmers.  

 

In  Northern  Ireland  both  public  and  private  funds  have  been  identified.  Public  funds 
include  European  Union  Rural  Development  Programme,  Catchment  Partnerships, 

Partnerships  between  government  and  NGOs.  In  Northern  Ireland,  there  are  nine 
measures  linked  to  agriculture,  with  both  Northern  Ireland  Environment  Agency  and 

the  Department  of  Agriculture,  Environment  and  Rural  Affairs  (previously  the 
Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs) responsible for implementation. Funding 

has been secured for three of these measures. The Department of Agriculture and Rural 
Affairs estimated that funding from the Environmental Farming Scheme (a key element 

of the Rural Development Programme 2014-2020) linked to water quality, ranges from 
£15  m-£30  m  and,  therefore,  the  mid-point  of  this  was  assumed.  However,  it  is 
important  to  note  that  a  large  portion  of  this  will  be  funded  by  the  European  Union, 
estimated  to  be  around  60  %.  Table  4.1  of  the  document  ‘Economic  Analysis  Paper’ 

gives funding splits between public and private sector for these measures. 

 

In  Wales  sources  of  funding  include:  the  Rural  Development  Programme  2014-2020; 
Natural  Resources  Wales  WFD  funding;  Natural  Resources  Wales  Environment 

funding. 

157 

 
 
 
Information for the investments for agricultural measures between 2009 and 2015 is provided.  

It remains unclear if the application of the polluter pays principle in the agricultural sector has 
been fully implemented.  

11.2

 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The types of pressures  from agriculture have not changed and the types  of measures applied 

seem to be the same. A gap assessment was missing in the first cycle but has been carried out 
as part of the measures appraisal in the second cycle.  

11.3

 Progress with European Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation: provide a clear strategy that defines the basic/mandatory measures 
that all farmers should adhere to and the additional supplementary measures that can 
be financed because the United Kingdom is a country where agriculture is indicated 

as  exerting  a  significant  pressure  on  the  water  resource  in  all  RBDs.  This  strategy 
should aim at solving the problem of pollution from N, P, organic pollution, sediment, 
and  pesticides.  It  should  involve  the  implementation  of  WFD  basic  measures 

(including  the  Nitrates  Directive)  and  supplementary  measures  at  a  level  that  will 
ensure the achievement of WFD good status.  

Assessment: further information obtained from the RBMP of the Anglian RBD, shows 
that  the  effectiveness  of  measures  implemented  prior  to  the  RBMP  (both  those 

included in the 2009 plans and any  additional measures) is assessed on a qualitative 
basis.  A  full  quantitative  assessment  of  all  programmes  was  not  possible.  In  the 

Scotland RBD, the RBMP includes details of what programmes have previously been 
implemented  but  does  not  provide  an  assessment  of  their  effectiveness.  In  the 

Northern  Ireland  RBDs,  the  reasons  for  failure  to  reach  the  required  standards  are 
discussed  but  not  specifically  in  relation  to  agricultural  issues  or  the  Nitrates 

Directive. General binding rules are used in all RBDs. In  these areas most measures 
not covered under the Nitrates Directive are on a voluntary basis. In Scotland, basic 

measures are also implemented under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) 
(Scotland)  Regulations  2011,  and  other  relevant  legislation.  Detailed  descriptions  of 
Programmes  of  Measures  are  given  in  the  RBMPs,  including  the  voluntary 
Countryside  Stewardship  programme  for  which  funding  comes  from  Common 

158 

 
 
Agricultural Policy monies. Supplementary measures for agricultural pollution are not 

specifically  discussed,  but  it  is  assumed  that  these  will  be  implemented  through 
voluntary schemes such as Countryside Stewardship. In Scotland, most supplementary 

measures  are  on  a  voluntary  basis,  with  measures  including  education  programmes 
and  codes  of  practice.  Some  funding  is  supplied  through  the  Scottish  Rural 

Development  Programme  which,  in  some  cases,  is  linked  to  the  General  Binding 
Rules. No information is given on their expected effectiveness. Northern Ireland uses 

a  whole  territory  designation  approach  for  the  Nitrates  Directives,  so  all  areas  are 
covered by statutory regulations. Supplementary measures are listed in the RBMP; all 

appear  to  be  on  a  voluntary  basis.  Specific  funding  routes  for  agricultural  measures 
include  funds  from  the  Rural  Development  Programme,  with  remaining  monies 

coming  from  both  public  and  private  sources.  Overall,  it  appears  that  the 
recommendations have been partially fulfilled.  

159 

 
 
 
 
Topic 12

  Measures  related  to  pollution  from  sectors  other  than 

agriculture 

12.1

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

In  the  context  of  this  topic,  pollution  is  considered  in  terms  of  nutrients,  organic  matter, 
sediment, saline discharges and chemicals (priority substances, river basin specific pollutants, 

groundwater  pollutants  and  other  physico-chemical  parameters)  arising  from  all  sectors  and 
sources  apart  from  agriculture. KTM are  groups  of measures identified by  Member States in 

their  Programmes  of  Measures  which  target  the  same  pressure  or  purpose.  A  KTM  could  be 
one national measure but would typically comprise more than one national measure. The same 

individual measure can also be part of more than one KTM because it may be multipurpose, 
but also because the KTMs are not completely independent of one another. 

Key  Types  of  Measure  relevant  to  non-agricultural  sources  of  pressures  causing  failure  of 
WFD objectives have been reported for all RBDs in the United Kingdom. These Key Types of 
Measure reported are: 

  KTM1 – Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants. 

  KTM4 – Remediation of contaminated sites. 

  KTM6  –  Improving  hydromorphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than 

longitudinal continuity. 

  KTM10 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost 

of water services from industry 

  KTM12 – Advisory services for agriculture (addressing forestry). 

  KTM 14 – 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. 

160 

 
 
  KTM16  -  Upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial  wastewater  treatment  plants 

(including farms). 

  KTM17- Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off. 

  KTM21  –  Measures  to  prevent  of  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas, 

transport and built infrastructure.  

  KTM22 – Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from forestry. 

  KTM25 – Measures to counteract acidification.  

  KTM99  –  Other  key  types  of  measure  reported  under  PoM,  principally  measures  to 

prevent or control diffuse and point source discharges from mines. 

The  WFD  specifies  that  the  PoM  shall  include,  as  a  minimum,  “basic  measures”  and,  where 
necessary  to  achieve  objectives,  “supplementary  measures”  when  basic  measures  are  not 

enough to address specific significant pressures. Quantitative information (number of measures 
per KTM) on basic and supplementary measures used to tackle pollution from non-agricultural 

sources is provided in all RBMPs in the United Kingdom.  

The  RBMPs  in  the  United  Kingdom  provided  more  targeted  information  on  basic  measures 

required  under  Article  11(3)(c  to  k)  as  follows.  Use  of  an  authorisation  and/or  permitting 
regime to  control  waste water point source discharges (Basic measures Article 11(3)(g)) was 

reported for all RBDs in the United Kingdom for surface waters and groundwaters. A register 
of  waste  water  discharges  (Basic  measures  Article  11(3)(g))  is  available  in  all  RBDs  in  the 
United Kingdom for surface waters and groundwaters. 

Small  waste  water  discharges  do  not  require  permits  but  are  required  to  be  registered  in  10 
RBDs in the United Kingdom. Small waste water discharges are reported to be exempted from 

controls  in  the  Solway  Tweed  RBD.  There  are  no  thresholds  below  which  waste  water 
discharges  do  not  require  permits  in  the  four  RBDs  in  Scotland  and  Northern  Ireland.  In 

Scotland  all  direct  discharges  to  groundwater  are  prohibited.  Some  direct  discharges  to 
groundwater are authorised in accordance with Article 11(3)(j) in all other RBDs in the United 

Kingdom. 

161 

 
 
The UK reported that measures to eliminate or reduce pollution from Priority Substances and 

other  substances  (Basic  measures  Article  11(3)(k))  are  in  place  in  all  RBDs  in  the  United 
Kingdom.  

Concerning  measures  for  Priority  Substances  causing  failure,  the  Neagh  Bann  RBD  reported 
six  Priority  Substances  causing  non-achievement  of  good  status.  Reduction  of  these  Priority 

Substances  is  a  supplementary  measure  addressing  diffuse  and  point  source  pollution  of 
surface  and  groundwaters  from  chemicals.  The  actions  proposed  are  generic  (e.g. 

implementation of European Union Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of 
Chemicals  regulations)  and  do  not  address  specific  Priority  Substances.  The  delivery 

mechanism and lead agencies are outlined in the plan. There is no information on funding for 
the measures. The Scotland RBD identified five Priority Substances causing failure. There are 

generic measures in the summary of the PoM which cover the control of Priority Substances 
from point sources and urban diffuse sources liable to cause pollution and measures to secure 

compliance. However, no substance specific measures were found. No specific measures were 
found in the RBMPs in England or appendices relating to Priority Substances. 

As far as measures for River Basin Specific Pollutants causing failure in Northern Ireland are 
concerned, reduction in pollution is a generic measure under several pressure types including 

mining  and  urban.  The  measures  and  actions  do  not  appear  to  be  specific  to  River  Basin 
Specific  Pollutants.  The  delivery  mechanism  and  lead  agencies  are  outlined.  There  is  no 

information on funding for the measures. In the Scotland RBMP, there are generic measures in 
the summary of the PoM which cover the control on point and diffuse sources liable to cause 

pollution.  The  measures  do  not  appear  to  be  specific  to  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  and 
implementation of other basic measures for diffuse sources is reported. No substance specific 

measures were found in the RBMPs in England or appendices relating to specific pollutants. In 
Northern  Ireland,  reduction  in  pollution  is  a  generic  measure  under  several  pressure  types 

including mining and urban. The delivery mechanism and lead agencies are outlined. There is 
no information on funding for the measures. 

Similarly,  as  for  surface  waters,  the  Programmes  of  Measures  for  groundwater  do  not  link 
single substances or pollutants to measures. In the Scotland RBMP, there are generic measures 

in the summary of the PoM which cover the control on point and diffuse sources liable to cause 
pollution. The measures are not specific to pollutants causing failure of good chemical status in 

groundwater,  implementation  of  other  basic  measures  for  diffuse  sources  is  reported.  No 
specific  measures  were  found  in  the  RBMPs  in  England  or  appendices  relating  to  specific 
pollutants causing failure of good chemical status in groundwater. 

162 

 
 
12.2

 Main changes in implementation and compliance in the first cycle  

In  the  first  RBMP  no  information  was  found  on  substance-specific  measures  in  Northern 
Ireland or Scotland but some was  found for English and Welsh RBDs. The reported data for 

the  second  cycle  indicates  that  for  Scotland  KTMs  have  been  reported  for  all  Priority 
Substances  and  other  substances  causing  non-compliance.  No  substance-specific  measures 

were found for the Northern Ireland RBMPs. 

12.3

 Progress with European Commission recommendations 

The Commission  made one recommendation relevant  to  this topic based on the first  RBMPs 

and first Programmes of Measures, as follows: 

  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. 

Assessment: although the UK reported that measures to eliminate or reduce pollution from 

Priority Substances and other substances are in place in all RBDs in the United Kingdom, 
the measures are generic, i.e. they do not address individual substances. 

163 

 
 
 
 
Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology  

13.1

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

Significant  hydromorphological  pressures  are  identified  in  all  15  reported  RBDs.  For  the  12 

RBDs  in  Scotland,  England  and  Wales,  operational  Key  Types  of  Measure  to  address 
hydromorphological  pressures are reported in  WISE. The RBMP for Scotland describes how 

barriers will be removed, either by creating fish passes or physically removing barriers such as 
abandoned weirs. The RBMPs for England and Wales describe local measures to be taken in 

each management catchment. The measures vary between the catchments but overall measures 
include restoration of continuity, removal of weirs and habitat restoration. 

The main Key Types of Measure made operational to reduce hydromorphological pressures are 
KTM5, 6, 7 (for abstraction pressures) and KTM99-other measures. 

For  the  three  RBDs  in  Northern  Ireland,  relevant  Key  Types  of  Measure  (KTM5,  KTM6, 
KTM7) are reported as mapped against national measures but have not been reported in WISE 

as  tackling  specific  significant  pressures  on  hydromorphology.  The  RBMP  refers  to  a 
"prioritisation  of  issues"  such  as  barriers  to  fish  migration  and  to  co-ordination  of  river 

restoration and continuity work by 2020. However, there is no reference to the implementation 
of specific technical measures to address the prioritised issues. Although hydromorphological 

pressures  are  recognised,  in  most  RBDs  the  actions  included  to  tackle  these  in  the  second 
RBMPs are of a preparatory nature92. 

For  the  majority  of  water  bodies  reported  to  have  significant  hydromorphological  pressures 
(mainly physical alterations and dams/barriers and locks), the related sectors are not specified 

as one of the key sectors indicated in the WISE reporting. The only sector clearly associated to 
significant physical alterations is flood protection93. 

There is  an authorisation and/or permitting regime in  place to  control physical  modifications 
according to WFD Article 11(3)i, which covers changes to the riparian area of water bodies, in 
all RBDs. However, a register of physical modifications of water bodies is in place only in two 

of the 15 reported RBDs (Scotland and Solway Tweed). 

92 UK subsequently informed the Commission that in England, indicators to support KTM6 (hydromorphology) 
are  currently  implemented  for  Flood  Risk  Management  activities  -  across  all  RBDs.  Our  `kilometres 
enhanced` metric also supports the KTM6 measures to tackle hydromorphological pressures. 

93  UK  subsequently  clarified  that  in  England,  sectoral  analysis  is  undertaken  for  our  pressures  as  part  of  our 
investigation into pressures and in developing programmes of measures. Water body action plans are used to 
inform sectoral plans (e.g. Water Company programmes). 

164 

 
 
                                                      
Quantitative management objectives in terms of river continuity have been set in two out of the 

15  reported  RBDs  (Scotland  and  Solway  Tweed).  At  the  same  time,  KTM5  (Improving 
longitudinal  continuity)  is  reported  for  all  RBDs  in  Scotland,  England  and  Wales.  As 

mentioned above, the RBMP of Scotland includes specific actions to improve access for fish 
migration.  Also  in  the  RBDs  for  England  and  Wales,  specific  measures  to  restore  continuity 

are planned in several management catchments.  

Concerning the link between hydromorphological measures and the revision of permits, for the 

Scotland  RBD,  there  is  reference  to  the  introduction  of  regulatory  controls  enabling  the 
regulating  authority  to  work  with  operators  of  dams  and  weirs  to  ensure  steps  necessary  for 

fish migration. In the RBMPs for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, there is reference to 
provisions  of new licences and permits to  ensure fish passes, but  not  to  revisions of existing 

permits. However, the RBMPs include statements on identifying measures to mitigate adverse 
impacts from physical modifications.  

Win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  Floods  Directive94, 
drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures are reported to be included 
in  the  PoM  of  all  RBDs.  The  RBMPs  for  England  and  Wales  make  general  reference  to 

Natural  Water  Retention  Measures,  for  example  with  regard  to  wetland  creation,  coastal 
realignment and creation of buffer strips next to watercourses.  

The specific KTM23 on Natural Water Retention Measures is applied in 10 RBDs but mainly 
associated  to  addressing  diffuse  pollution  pressures  related  to  agriculture.  Furthermore,  the 

design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal 
barriers, is reported to have been adapted to take into account the WFD objectives in all RBDs.  

In  the  RBDs  of  Scotland,  England  and  Wales,  ecological  flows  have  been  derived  for  all 
relevant water bodies, but have been implemented only in some of the water bodies (work is 

reporting  to  be  still  ongoing).  In  Scotland,  the  RBMP  identifies  the  water  bodies  which  are 
adversely affected by pressures on water flows and levels. Approximately a third of these are 

affected  by  hydroelectricity  schemes  that  do  not  involve  water  storage  in  reservoirs.  Their 
permits  already  require  that  the  impact  from  pressures  on  flow  is  minimised,  therefore  no 

further action is envisaged. Further work is scheduled to improve water flows and levels in a 
number of water bodies, while for others, more evidence will be gathered to confirm if action 

is  needed.  The  RBMPs  for  England  and  Wales  include  general  information  on  planned 
measures  to  address  changes  to  the  natural  flow  and  level  of  water  in  terms  of  changes  in 

94  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 

165 

 
 
                                                      
abstraction  licences  and  implementation  of  demand  management  and  water  efficiency 

techniques. A factsheet on the ‘Environmental Flow Indicators’ states that these indicators are 
used to indicate where abstraction pressures may start to cause an undesirable effect on river 

habitats  and  species.  There  is  no  indication  where  the  environment  is  damaged  from 
abstraction.  The  indicator  on  the  compliance  with  the  environmental  flows  helps  to  indicate 

where  flow  may  or  may  not  support  good  ecological  status.  In  Catchment  Abstraction 
Management  Strategies,  these  indicators  help  to  indicate  where  water  may  be  available  for 

future abstraction without causing unacceptable risk to the environment. 

In  the  three  RBDs  of  Northern  Ireland,  ecological  flows  have  been  only  derived  for  some 

relevant  water  bodies  but  have  not  been  implemented  yet.  There  are  plans  to  do  so  in  the 
second  cycle  and  the  PoM  states  that  Northern  Ireland  will  consider  the  Common 

Implementation  Strategy  guidance  on  ecological  flows  during  the  next  review  of  the  United 
Kingdom Technical Advisory Group Environmental Flow Standards. 

Indicators on the gap to be filled for hydromorphological pressures are reported for the RBDs 
in  Scotland,  England  and  Wales  but  not  for  Northern  Ireland.95  In  some  cases,  the  baseline 
values  of  the  indicators  for  2015  are  missing,  which  does  not  allow  an  assessment  of  the 

ambition in reducing the gap between 2015 and 2021. Where information given is consistent, 
the level of ambition in closing the gap by 2021 is different between RBDs but overall not very 

high. There will be certain reduction of either the number or the area of water bodies affected 
by physical alterations by 2021. According to the reported indicators, the level of ambition to 

close  the  remaining  gap  between  2021  and  2027  seems  very  high.  There  is  the  intention  to 
reduction  of  several  hundreds  of  water  bodies  affected  by  significant 
have  a 

hydromorphological pressures from 2021 until 2027. 

13.2

 Main changes in implementation and compliance in the first cycle 

Significant changes compared to the first RBMPs are noted only for some RBDs in relation to 
hydromorphological  measures.  In  the  first  RBMPs,  no  clear  links  were  identified  between 

hydromorphological  pressures  and  measures.  In  the  second  RBMPs  and  due  to  the  more 
detailed reporting, operational Key Types of Measure to address hydromorphological pressures 

are explicitly reported for the RBDs in Scotland, England and Wales. 

95  The  authorities  of  Northern  Ireland  subsequently  informed  that,  at  the  time  of  reporting,  Northern  Ireland 
identified and reported a wide range of pressures. In order to rationalise the reporting, and in the absence of a 
common  definition,  Northern  Ireland’s  interpretation  of  significant  was  based  on  those  pressures  occurring 
most  widely. Hydromorphological pressures did not fall into this category and therefore indicators and gaps 
were not reported. 

166 

 
 
                                                      
The second RBMPs for Scotland, England and Wales summarise achievements between 2009 

and 2015, also in respect of measures targeting physical modifications. General comments are 
made on the effectiveness of measures implemented and improvements in the evidence basis 

are explained. However, there is no explicit comparison of the first and second cycle measures. 

13.3

 Progress with European Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation: ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify the gap to good status, and 
that the Programme of Measures are designed and implemented to close that gap (this 

is particularly relevant to assess the effectiveness of the existing measures in relation to 
significant  pressures  such  as  agriculture  and  hydromorphology  and  which  additional 

measures are needed to close the gap). 

Assessment:  overall,  in  the  second  RBMPs,  operational  Key  Types  of  Measure  to 

address hydromorphological pressures are explicitly reported for the RBDs in Scotland, 
England and Wales. Indicators on the gap to be filled for hydromorphological pressures 

are reported for the RBDs in Scotland, England and Wales but not for Northern Ireland. 
Indicators  on  the  Key  Types  of  Measure  to  tackle  hydromorphological  pressures  are 
only reported for the Scotland and Solway Tweed RBD96. In some cases, the baseline 
values of the indicators  for 2015 are missing,  which does not  allow an  assessment of 

the ambition in reducing the gap between 2015 and 2021.  

Therefore, this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  consider  and  prioritise  the  use  of  green  infrastructure  and/or 
natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements 

in water quality, increase water infiltration and thus aquifer recharge, flood protection, 
habitat  conservation  etc.),  social  and  economic  benefits  which  can  be  in  many  cases 

more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. 

Assessment:  win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and 

Floods Directive, drought  management  and use of Natural  Water Retention Measures 
are included in the PoM of all RBDs. The RBMPs for England and Wales make general 

reference  to  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures,  for  example  with  regard  to  wetland 
creation, coastal realignment and creation of buffer strips next to watercourses.  In the 

96  UK  subsequently  clarified  that  in  England,  indicators  to  support  KTM6  (hydromorphology)  are  currently 

implemented for Flood Risk Management activities - across all RBDs. 

167 

 
 
                                                      
 
RBMPs  of  Scotland  and  Northern  Ireland,  there  is  reference  to  educational  measures 

and  awareness  around  sustainable  drainage  systems,  but  there  is  no  information  on 
whether  or  not  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  are  prioritised  over  grey 

infrastructure.  The  RBMPs  for  England  and  Wales  refer  to  local  government 
incorporating green and blue infrastructure into regeneration schemes where possible. 

Therefore, based on the information available, this recommendation is fulfilled. 

168 

 
 
 
Topic 14

  Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

14.1

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

Cost  recovery  is  explained  for  water  supply  and  sewage  services,  generally  not  for  broader 
services  (e.g.  self-services  and  navigation).  For  the  Scotland  and  Solway  Tweed  RBDs, 

additional information is given for where also infrastructure for flood protection, infrastructure 
for navigation, irrigation water abstraction, treatment and distribution, and self-abstraction. But 

it is not clear in all cases from the information provided whether cost recovery is applied or not 
for every specific water service/use (there also are differences regarding the use of Article 9(4) 

in the different RBDs).  

Cost  recovery  is  explained  in  general  but  not  transparently  presented  for  all  relevant  user 

sectors in all RBDs. 

Environmental and resource costs are not calculated or internalised in the second cycle. 

For the RBDs in England, the economic analysis of water use was reviewed in accordance with 
WFD Article 5(2) and new estimates of the costs and benefits of measures were made at local 

level (in more than 300 local appraisals) in accordance with WFD annex III subparagraph (b). 
The  new  estimates  were  summarised  at  length  in  the  RBMPs.  The  updated  analysis  of  costs 

represents the environmental and resource costs to be internalised in line with the polluter pays 
principle  and  estimated  by  the  cost-based  approach.  The  updated  analysis  of  benefits  of  all 
technically  feasible  measures  represents  the  external  environmental  and  resource  costs  as 
estimated by the benefit-based approach97. 

Measures taken to ensure efficient use of water are explained in the RMBPs. No charges are 

applied to users for water in Northern Ireland.  

As in the first cycle, the use of the polluter pays principle was reported.  

The economic analysis has been reported as updated for some RBDs, for others partially, while 
for the Western Wales RBD it was not updated. 

97 Based on “Assessment of Environmental and Resource Costs in the Water Framework Directive. Information 
sheet prepared by Drafting Group ECO2 Common Implementation Strategy, Working Group 2B. June 2004” 

169 

 
 
                                                      
Due  to  the  limited  modifications  in  comparison  to  the  first  cycle,  no  major  improvements  in 

implementation are noted. 

14.2

 Progress with European Commission recommendations 

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

 

Recommendation:  the  cost-recovery  should  address  a  broad  range  of  water  services, 
including  impoundments,  abstraction,  storage,  treatment  and  distribution  of  surface 

waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-
services",  for  instance  self-abstraction  for  agriculture.  The  cost  recovery  should  be 

transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs 
shall  be  included  in  the  costs  recovered.  Information  should  also  be  provided  on  the 

incentive  function  of  water  pricing  for  all  water  services,  with  the  aim  of  ensuring  an 
efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into 

account should be provided in the RBMPs. 

Assessment:  water  services  are  managed  differently  in  the  United  Kingdom  RBDs, 

because of different  national  laws  and water utilities. Cost  recovery  rates are presented 
only for water supply and sewage services combined (and not for all RBDs). 

The  data  reported  to  WISE  show  that  Scotland  defines  water  services  as  water  supply 
and  waste  water  services,  infrastructure  for  flood  protection,  infrastructure  for 

navigation,  irrigation  water  abstraction,  treatment  and  distribution,  and  self-abstraction. 
Northern  Ireland  defines  water  services  as  drinking  water  abstraction  (surface  and/or 
groundwater),  treatment  and  distribution  and  sewage  collection  and  wastewater 

treatment. This is reiterated in the RBMPs but not described in further detail. In England, 
water services are described as drinking water abstraction (surface and/or groundwater), 

treatment  and  distribution  and  sewage  collection  and  wastewater  treatment  (when 
considered  together).  This  is  reiterated  in  the  RBMPs  but  not  described  in  any  further 

detail. 

According to the data reported in WISE, Article 9(4) is applied in Northern Ireland (all 

three  RBDs)  and  the  RBD  Scotland  for  drinking  water.  Regarding  wastewater,  it  is 
applied in Northern Ireland (all three RBDs), the RBD Scotland and the Solway Tweed 

RBD. It is not applied in any of the RBDs in England and Wales. 

170 

 
 
Not  all  activities  that  are  related  to  a  significant  pressure  and  are  not  exempted  under 

Article  9(4),  have  been  defined  as  a  water  service.  For  example,  "Abstraction  or  flow 
diversion - Agriculture" in Scotland is mentioned as a pressure but is not a water service, 

as well as "Physical  alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore  - Flood  protection" in 
Northern Ireland and diffuse agricultural pollution in all RBDs.  

It is not clear from the information provided whether cost recovery is applied or not for a 
water service (or whether Article 9(4) is used) while there is an important pressure linked 

with this activity. 

Cost  recovery  rates  are  based  on  a  narrow  definition  of  water  services  in  most  RBDs 

(except Scotland and Solway Tweed RBDs) and the calculation of cost recovery rates is 
provided  only  for  water  supply  and  sewage  services  combined.  A  calculation  and 

presentation of cost recovery contributions from water uses is indicated as "not done" on 
WISE, while it indicates that households, agriculture and industry benefit from the water 

services  of  drinking  water/sewage  in  all  RBDs.  However,  it  is  also  reported  that  the 
economic  analysis  does  not  include  calculations  relating  to  the  contribution  of  each  of 
the  water  uses  to  the  cost  recovery  of  water  services,  except  for  the  three  Northern 

Ireland  RBDs,  where  the  updated  Article  5  report  provides  the  detail  and  statistics  on 
each  of  the  key  sectors  which  are  the  biggest  users  in  terms  of  water.  No  further 

information on cost recovery was provided in the respective RBMPs. 

The English RBMPs have a section which discusses the contributions made by various 

water uses to the cost recovery for water services and discusses economic regulation and 
water metering at a general level, but there is no specific information about whether the 

contribution  of  different  water  uses  (disaggregated  into  at  least  households,  agriculture 
and industry) to cost recovery of water services has been calculated. 

Overall,  only  slight  progress  regarding  this  recommendation  has  been  made  for  the 
second RBMPs and consequently this recommendation is not fulfilled.  

  Recommendation:  take  measures  on  the  incentive  function  of  water  pricing  for  all 
water  services,  with  the  aim  of  ensuring  an  efficient  use  of  water  (for  example,  in 
Northern Ireland, there is no metering or volumetric charging of domestic customers). 
Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account should be 

provided in the second RBMPs. 

Assessment: the following issues have been identified:  

171 

 
 
Scotland  reported  that  the  metering  of  non-households  ensures  that  an  adequate 

contribution  to  water  services  is  provided  by  industry  and  agricultural  users  and  to 
improve  implementation  of  the  polluter  pays  principle.  The  Scottish  Environmental 

Protection Agency has proposed a new charging scheme that was meant to come into 
effect in April 2016 for discharges to the environment and abstractions. The risk-based 

control  regime,  together  with  the  risk-based  charging  scheme,  is  reported  to  make  a 
significant  contribution  to  the  delivery  of  the  stated  environmental  objectives  by 

providing adequate incentives to  ensure efficient water use, and to  minimise resource 
and  environmental  costs.  Therefore,  cost  recovery  is  described  in  the  RBMPs  and 

relevant documentation.  

Northern Ireland reports that the Water and Sewerage Services Order 2006 provides the 

regulatory and financial framework for the water and sewerage industry. It sets out the 
framework  for  funding  of  water  and  sewerage  services  to  be  met  by  consumers.  It  is 

stated  that  water  pricing  is  in  place  for  agriculture  and  industry  and  trade  effluent 
charges  are  also  in  place.  Households  make  a  contribution  through  the  domestic 
regional  rate.  The  relative  contributions  made  by  different  sectors  were  considered  in 

terms of Gross Value Added to the economy and employment. Also here, cost recovery 
is not transparently presented for all relevant user sectors. 

No major advances on "adequate incentives" were reported in the RBMPs. 

In Scotland, households are reported to  be charged on a flat  rate basis linked to  local 

taxation. This is justified by the fact that because Scotland is a water rich country, the 
lack of direct incentives to conserve water will not compromise the achievement of the 

objectives  of  the  WFD.  All  non-household  customers  (including  industry  and 
agriculture operators) are reported to be metered where it is practicable. Scotland also 

reported  that  in  April  2008  retail  competition  was  introduced  for  all  non-household 
water  customers.  The  separation  of  the  retail  activities  from  wholesale  is  reported  to 

have  sharpened  the  incentives  for  water  retailers  to  find  solutions  for  their  customers 
that  minimise  water  use  and  the  discharges  to  sewers.  National  publicity  campaigns 

encourage  households  to  conserve  water  are  carried  out  regularly  through  press  and 
television advertising, and the Climate Change (Scotland) Act places a duty on Scottish 

Water  to  promote  water  efficiency.  Metering  trials  were  reported  to  be  underway  to 
gain  a  better  understanding  of  water  usage  in  the  home  so  that  water  efficiency 

measures  can  be  better  targeted.  The  Scottish  Environmental  Protection  Agency  has 
proposed a new charging scheme that was meant to come into effect in April 2016 for 

discharges to the environment and abstractions. The risk-based control regime, together 

172 

 
 
with the risk-based charging scheme, is reported to make a significant contribution to 

the delivery of the stated environmental objectives by providing adequate incentives to 
ensure  efficient  water  use,  and  to  minimise  resource  and  environmental  costs.  The 

scheme  builds  on  the  existing  scheme  by  adding  a  number  of  further  incentives  and 
stronger penalties: 

1.  The  annual  charges  for  operators  will  be  determined  by  the  size  of  the 

environmental footprint of the activity. 

2.  Charging  for  discharges  is  determined  by  the  pollutants  discharged  over  the 

previous three years, so that those discharging more pay more. 

3.  Abstraction  charges  are  determined  by  the  net  loss  of  water  from  the 

environment, so those using more pay more. 

4.  Impoundment charges are determined by volume. 

5.  Engineering charges are determined so that higher risk activities pay more. 

Northern  Ireland  considers  the  water  pricing  policy  for  households  to  meet  the 
conditions set out in Article 9(4) of the WFD, but the justification should be bolstered 

and there is no report of improvements. They reported, however, that Northern Ireland 
Water  currently  runs  an  extensive  programme  for  promoting  and  improving  water 
efficiency  and  conservation,  with  measures  aiming  at  reducing  leakage  and  demand. 

Water  pricing  is  in  place  for  agriculture  and  industry  through  predominately  metered 
water charges. 

In England current meter penetration is over 50 % and this is expected to rise to 66 % 
by  2020  and  82  %  by  2040  (as  reported  in  the  water  companies´  water  resources 

management plans). 

Almost no new measures have been taken in the second cycle to ensure efficient use of 

water. The key issue in Northern Ireland (no charges for water) is not being tackled.  

Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into account differs from 

region to region, but in no region it is comprehensively provided. 

Scotland  requires  operators  to  take  any  action  necessary  for  the  delivery  of 

environmental objectives, in line with the impact of their activity on the environment, 
which is said to reflect the Polluter Pays Principle. This regime is stated to be the key 

tool for delivering the PoM. The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency has put in 
place a charging scheme which is said to reflect the Polluter Pays Principle as follows: 

173 

 
 
1)  It  aims to allocate costs fairly across all water users, including industry, water 

service providers, and agriculture. 

2)  It focuses upon activities that are likely to have the greatest impact on the water 

environment. 

3)  It  provides  an exemption  from  charging  for those delivering an  environmental 

service. 

Northern  Ireland  reports  that  the  water  pricing  arrangements  for  the  agriculture  and 

industrial  sectors  are  metered  and  charged  according  to  usage  which  promotes  the 
Polluter Pays Principle. 

In England, the costs of measures are said to be broadly allocated to the sectors whose 
activities  cause  the  problems,  and  that  this  is  line  with  the  polluter  pays  principle. 

However,  there  might  be  changes  in  the  payment  regime,  which  might  impact  the 
application  of  the  polluter  pays  principle  as  well.  Hence,  a  clear  description  of  the 

application of the polluter pays principle is not provided. 

In  summary,  only  limited  progress  has  been  made  against  the  recommendations  and 
they are partly fulfilled. 

174 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Topic 15

  Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, 
monitoring, objectives and measures) 

15.1

  Assessment  of 

implementation  and 

compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

The United Kingdom has reported Protected Areas designated under all relevant Directives in 
the  second  cycle  of  River  Basin  Management  Plans  (Table  15.1).  However,  there  are  some 

differences  in  the  reported  information  among  River  Basin  Districts.  For  example,  Protected 
Areas according to the Habitat Directive and dependent on groundwater are reported only for 

the Severn, Western Wales and Dee RBDs and the three RBDs in Northern Ireland. No such 
Protected Areas are reported for the Scotland, Solway Tweed, Northumbria, Humber, Anglian, 

Thames,  South  East  and  South  West  River  Basin  Districts,  although  it  seems  unlikely  that 
there  are  no  groundwater  dependent  habitat  areas  in  these  basins.  Birds  Protected  Areas 

dependent on groundwater are reported for only two RBDs (Western Wales and the Dee). 

Table 15.1  Number of water bodies in all RBDs of the United Kingdom associated with 

Protected Areas, 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/EEC 
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) 
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) 
Nutrient-sensitive areas, including 
areas designated as vulnerable 
zones under Directive 91/676/EEC 
(Nitrates Directive) and areas 

Rivers 

Number of water bodies associated98 
Lakes  Transitional  Coastal  Groundwater 

386 

464 

49 

8 

2 

67 

557 

778 

137 

62 

66 

126 

4 

401 

98 

65 

163 

27 

794 

157 

123 

34 

116 

98 UK subsequently stated that there may have been an error in the information reported to WISE 

175 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Protected Area Type 

designated as sensitive areas under 
Directive 91/271/EEC (Urban 
Wastewater Treatment Directive) 
Areas designated for the protection 
of economically significant aquatic 
species (fish and shellfish) 

Rivers 

Number of water bodies associated98 
Lakes  Transitional  Coastal  Groundwater 

469 

20 

84 

163 

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

A good overview of the status (chemical and ecological and for groundwater also quantitative) 
of  water  bodies  associated  with  Protected  Areas  is  reported  (Figure  15.1).  Both  the  status 

assessment and the application of exemptions are made at water body level. 

Figure 15.1  Status  of  water  bodies  associated  with  the  Protected  Areas  reported  for  the 
United  Kingdom.  Note:  based  on  status/potential  aggregated  for  all  water 
bodies associated with all Protected Areas 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

The  United  Kingdom  clearly  reported  the  number  of  Protected  Areas  (by  types)  where  an 
additional objective has been set and where not.  

176 

 
 
 
 
In general, for Drinking Water Protected Areas (associated with surface and groundwater), no 

specific standards have been set. Where water bodies are deemed to be at risk, safeguard zones 
have been established with the aim of meeting the Drinking Water Protected Area objectives of 

Article 7 of the WFD. In a few RBDs, there is the aim to make some investigations. 

For Protected Areas designated under the Birds and Habitats Directives (associated with both 

surface  and  groundwater),  additional  objectives  have  been  set  for  the  most  part.  For  a 
proportion  of  these,  it  is  noted  that  work  is  still  ongoing  to  establish  the  needs.  For  a  small 

proportion (mainly in Northern Ireland) the achievement of the WFD objective is assessed to 
be sufficient also to achieve the objective in the other Directives. 

For  Protected  Areas  associated  with  shellfish  production,  specific  objectives  are  set  to  be 
identical to the repealed Directive 2006/113/EC99 in all but a very small number of Protected 
Areas  in  the  Scotland  RBD.  In  Scottish  Shellfish  water  Protected  Areas  more  stringent 
standards  have  been  applied  than  those  used  in  the  first  cycle  of  River  Basin  Management 

Plans.  

Overall, the individual water bodies have been assessed and the objective set according to the 
specific conditions has been reported as being met or not. Only for a small proportion of the 

water  bodies  associated  with  Natura  2000  sites,  it  has  been  reported  that  good  status  is 
sufficient also to achieve the objective in the Habitats Directive. 

Monitoring sites of surface and groundwater associated with Protected Areas are only reported 
for those under the  Article 7 of the WFD, the Nitrates and Urban Waste  Water100  Directives 
and shellfish waters (Table 15.2). No specific monitoring sites are reported as associated with 
other  Protected  Areas  (those  designated  under  Bathing,  Habitats  or  Birds  Directives)101.  No 
data are reported on monitoring sites of groundwater associated with Protected Areas, except 
for  under  Article  7  of  the  WFD.  Further  information  on  the  purpose  of  monitoring  sites  for 

surface water and groundwater status assessment can be found in Chapters 3 and 4 (ecological 

99  Directive  2006/113/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  December  2006  on  the  quality 

required of shellfish waters (codified version)  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32006L0113 

100 Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment  

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31991L0271  

101 The UK subsequently clarified that this information is reported via other mechanisms, to avoid a duplication of 

reporting.  

177 

 
 
                                                      
 
 
and chemical status of surface waters) and Chapters 5 and 6 (quantitative and chemical status 
of groundwaters) of this report102. 

Monitoring activities are only reported for the three Northern Ireland RBDs and only related to 
the  Nitrates,  Shellfish103  and  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directives.  The  monitoring 
activity in Northern Ireland has increased, as there is a significant higher number of monitoring 

points related to the Urban Waste Water Treatment and Nitrate Directives.  

Chemical status in surface water and quantitative status of groundwater is based mainly on data 

with  a  low  confidence  (or  no  data)  indicating  a  significant  need  for  monitoring  data.  The 
Scotland, Solway Tweed and Northumbria RBDs differ for quantitative groundwater status, as 

the data is reported as having high confidence. Chemical status of groundwater is mainly based 
on data with high/medium confidence - though for a good proportion of those, no information 

has been reported. Ecological status is based mainly on data with high or medium confidence.  

Table 15.2  Number  of  monitoring  sites  associated  with  Protected  Areas  in  the  United 

Kingdom 

Protected Area type 

Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas 
in 

Rivers 

Lakes  Transitional  Coastal  Groundwate

r 

80 

Abstraction of water intended for 
human consumption under Article 7 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including 

areas designated as vulnerable zones 
under Directive 91/676/EEC 
(Nitrates Directive) and areas 
designated as sensitive areas under 
Directive 91/271/EEC (Urban 

526 

201 

15 

92 

102 Northern Ireland subsequently clarified that the chemical groundwater monitoring network is an integrated and 
holistic  network,  therefore  data  from  the  network  are  utilized  for  assessments  relating  to  groundwater 
dependant terrestrial ecosystems. 

103  Directive  2006/113/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  December  2006  on  the  quality 

required of shellfish waters (codified version)  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32006L0113 

178 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas 
in 

Rivers 

Lakes  Transitional  Coastal  Groundwate

r 

637 

201 

15 

94 

27 

Protected Area type 

Wastewater Treatment Directive) 

Areas designated as sensitive areas 

under Directive 91/271/EEC (Urban 
Wastewater Treatment Directive) 

Areas designated for the protection 
of economically significant aquatic 
species 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

High  or  medium  confidence  of  the  status  assessment  will  require  monitoring  data.  The 
significant part of the assessment based on information with high or medium confidence does 

not fit to the very limited monitoring program specifically for Protected Areas, which has been 
reported.  

The description of the measures needed to  reach  the objective is  different between the River 
Basin Districts. 

In some of the River Basin Management Plans, the description is very detailed and includes a 
table  titled  “Summary  of  measures  for  Protected  Areas”,  which  details  measures  for  all 

relevant  Protected  Areas.  The  plans  contain  links  to  supporting  information  with  a  detailed 
placement  of  the  measures.  Other  plans  are  much  less  detailed  with  a  summary  of  how  the 
pressures will be addressed and no detailed list of measures.  

For most River Basin Management Plans, the measures needed are listed but not quantified in 
terms  of  the  extent  to  which  they  are  applied,  meaning  that  there  is  no  justification  that  the 

objectives will be met. 

The additional measures needed to achieve the objectives are mainly administrative.  

179 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The situation regarding safeguard zones for the protection of drinking water differs across the 

United Kingdom. In two RBDs, there are no safeguard zones and no plans to establish them. In 
10 RBDs, there are safeguard zones in place and for the remaining three RBDs, there are no 

safeguard zones but there are plans to implement them as a result of this RBMP. 

15.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

For a number of types of Protected Area, there seem to be large changes since the first cycle. 
For  example,  in  the  first  cycle  6650  Protected  Areas  for  economically  significant  aquatic 
species (related to fish)104 were reported, while in the second cycle only a few are reported and 
only in Northern Ireland. .  

The reported monitoring activities are very limited as they are only reported for the three RBD 

in  Northern  Ireland and  restricted to  Protected  Areas designated under the Nitrates, Shellfish 
and Urban Waste Water Treatment  Directives. This  is  a change since the first  cycle  as there 

was a significant monitoring programme specifically for protected surface water areas covering 
all relevant Directives but only for Scotland RBD and Solway Tweed RBD.  

For  groundwater,  drinking  water  areas  a  significant  monitoring  program  was  reported  in  the 
first  RBMP  for  all  RBDs  except  for  Northern  Ireland  and  Scotland.  In  the  second  RBMP,  a 

monitoring  program  for  groundwater  and  drinking  water  was  only  reported  for  Northern 
Ireland. 

15.3

  Progress with European Commission recommendations 

There were no recommendations for this topic. 

104 The UK later clarified that these protected areas were designated under the old Freshwater Fish Directive, now 
repealed by the WFD. An equivalent level of protection is provided under the water body objectives set in the 
RBMPs. 

180 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 16

  Adaptation to drought and climate change 

16.1

  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

Climate change was considered in various ways in all RBDs and it is stated that the guidance 

on  how  to  adapt  to  climate  change  (Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  Document 
No. 24) was used. In the Scotland and Solway Tweed RBDs, climate change was considered 
only for drought management105 when dealing with water scarcity and water availability issues. 
All other UK RBDs considered climate change when setting objectives, when selecting robust 

adaptation measures, for forecasting the economics of water supply and demand, in flood risk 
management  and  when  assessing  direct  and  indirect  climate  pressures.  The  Northumbria, 

Humber, Anglian, Thames, South East, South West, Severn, Dee and North West RBDs also 
considered  climate  change  in  the  context  of  maximisation  of  cross-sectoral  benefits  and 

minimisation  of  negative  effects  across  sectors.  Projected  climate  change  has  also  been 
assessed and taken into account in the second RBMP and PoM for all assessed RBDs.  

KTM24  (climate  change  adaptation  measures)  is  not  made  operational  to  address  significant 
pressures in any of the RBDs106. For the three Northern Ireland RBDs, Table 9.2 lists some of 
the  planned  measures  to  address  the  relevant  impacts  of  climate  change  on  the  water 
environment  as  identified  in  the  Northern  Ireland  Climate  Change  Risk  Assessment.  The 

Anglian  RBMP  lists  the  following  projects  as  being  used  to  assist  climate  change  related 
decision  making  relevant  to  river  basin  planning:  UK  Climate  Change  Risk  Assessment; 

Living  with  Environmental  Change  water  and  biodiversity  report  cards;  Future  Flows  and 
Groundwater Levels projects. It states that "Climate change has been taken into account in the 

design of the PoM" but does not directly list the methods which have been used. However, no 
maladaptation measures were identified. 

For  the  Anglian  (i.e.  RBD  in  England),  Neagh  Bann  and  North  Western  RBDs,  climate 
proofing  of  measures  has  been  undertaken.  For  the  Anglian  RBD,  there  is  no  methodology 
described107, but for the Neagh Bann and North Western RBDs such methodology is available.  

105  United  Kingdom  subsequently  clarified  that  in  Scotland  climate  change  and  resilience  of  measures  were 

considered. 

106 United Kingdom subsequently clarified that KTM24 was operationalised but no water bodies were identified as 

failing because of climate change. Therefore no specific KTM24 measures have been assigned. 

107  United  Kingdom  subsequently  clarified  that  in  all  RBDs  in  England,  details  of  the  methodology  on  how 

climate change has been factored into the RBMPs can be found. 

181 

 
 
                                                      
No specific sub-plans addressing climate change are reported for UK. All the RBMPs for the 
RBDs  in  England,  including  the  Anglian  RBMP  Part  1108  contain  reference  to  UK  National 
Climate  Adaptation  Strategy  and  Adaptation  Plan.  RBMPs  for  the  Neagh  Bann  and  North 

Western  RBDs,  reference  the  Northern  Ireland  Climate  Change  Adaptation  Programme  and 
Northern  Ireland Climate Change Risk  Assessment.  No reference is  made to  an international 

climate change strategy within the RBMPs for the Neagh Bann and North Western RBDs, but 
both RBDs are almost entirely within Northern Ireland so an international strategy may have 

been  considered  unnecessary.  Shannon  RBD  is  largely  within  the  Republic  of  Ireland  so  its 
RBMP will be developed alongside those for Ireland which have not yet been submitted. The 

Anglian and North Eastern RBDs are not international RBDs. 

Even though there is no legal obligation to prepare Drought Management Plans, many Member 

States have prepared them in order to  cope with  droughts.  “Droughts and water scarcity"  are 
among the climate change relevant aspects considered in the second RBMPs for the Scotland, 

Solway Tweed, Dee, Neagh Bann, North Western and North Eastern RBDs. 

There is a sub-plan on water scarcity and droughts for the Scotland and Solway Tweed RBDs 
but no such sub-plans are reported for the other RBDs109 where drought and water scarcity is 
identified as an issue related to climate change (Dee, Neagh Bann, North Western and North 
Eastern RBDs)110. 

A  number  of  measures  has  been  included  in  the  Programmes  of  Measures  in  relation  to 
drought,  namely  for  the  Anglian  RBD  -  increased  controls,  the  revocation  of  unused  and 

unreasonable  abstraction  licences,  and  improved  abstraction  licensing  strategies  to  better 
manage water resources. Furthermore, the RBMP promotes water industry drought plans; and 

increased water efficiency measures in new homes, industry and agriculture. Awareness raising 
includes education and encouragement of water efficient strategies by the water industry. 

For  the  Northern  Ireland  RBDs,  stakeholder  events  will  be  held  to  raise  awareness  of  the 
importance of water efficiency and saving, and drought management plans will be developed 

to promote sustainable development of public water supply. No detail is provided on whether 
they have yet been applied. 

108  United  Kingdom  subsequently  clarified  RBMPs  (Part  2)  also  contain  references  to  UK  National  Climate 
Adaptation Strategy and Adaptation Plan. RBMPs indicate that for all England RBDs additional strategies and 
plans are an integral part of water company planning being an essential part of assessing scheme options. 
109  United  Kingdom  subsequently  clarified  that  for  each  RBD  in  England  there  is  a  reference  to  water  industry 

drought plans.  

110  In  Northern  Ireland  the  impacts  of  climate  change  are  considered  within  ‘Sustainable  Water  –  A  Long-term 
Water  Strategy  for  Northern  Ireland  (2015-2040)’.  Short  term  reductions  in  water  availability  due  to  low 
rainfall may lead to low river flows and water scarcity at a local level. 

182 

 
 
                                                      
 
16.2

  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Climate proofing of measures has been carried out in some RBDs.  

Regarding  drought,  in  a  previous  assessment111,  the  Anglian  RBD  was  considered  by  the 
United Kingdom authorities to face drought situations at a sub-basin scale, whilst none of the 
other  RBDs  was  considered  to  face  such  problems.  This  has  changed  for  several  RBDs  now 

considered and for the Anglian RBD, which is no longer considered. According to a previous 
study112  all  UK  RBDs  in  England,  Scotland  and  Wales  had  drought  management  plans 
developed, whilst none in Northern Ireland had. This has significantly changed in the second 

cycle,  with  Northern  Ireland  RBDs  also  developing  drought  management  plans,  which  is  a 
positive development. 

16.3

  Progress with European Commission recommendations 

There was no recommendation arising from the first RBMPs and PoM on this topic.  

111 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Assessment%20WSD.pdf 
112  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/water/implrep2007/pdf/Water%20abstrraction%20and%20use%20-

%20Drought%20management%20Plans.pdf 

183