COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Belgium 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: Belgium, 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) 37 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Belgium 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) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - 
 
 
Table of contents  
Acronyms...................................................................................................................................... 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 ...................................................................................................................... 21 

Topic 1

  Governance and public participation ....................................................................... 24 

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

1.2  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 27 

Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District............................................................. 30 

2.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 30 

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ............................. 43 

2.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 44 

Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies
.................................................................................................................................................... 46 

3.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
RBMPs.................................................................................................................................... 46 

3.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ............................. 68 

3.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 70 

Topic 4 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies73 

4.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 73 

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

4.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 90 

Topic 5 Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies
.................................................................................................................................................... 92 

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

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

5.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 99 

Topic 6 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies
.................................................................................................................................................. 100 

1 

 
 
 
6.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 100 

6.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................... 106 

6.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 107 

Topic 7 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 
Ecological Potential................................................................................................................. 108 

7.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 108 

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

7.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 112 

Topic 8 Environmental objectives and exemptions .................................................................. 113 

8.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 113 

8.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................... 119 

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

Topic 9 Programme of measures ............................................................................................. 121 

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

9.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................... 131 

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

Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity ............................................... 134 

10.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ...................... 134 

10.2. 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 135 

Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture ....................................................... 136 

11.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ...................... 136 

11.2. 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 137 

Topic 12 Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture.......................... 139 

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

 ................................................................................................................................. 139 

12.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................ 141 

12.3. 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 142 

Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology ..................................................................... 143 

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

 ................................................................................................................................. 143 

13.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................ 144 

2 

 
13.3. 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 145 

Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies ......................................................... 146 

14.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since first  cycle ..................... 146 

14.2. 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 146 

Topic 15 Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and 
measures) ................................................................................................................................. 148 

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

 ................................................................................................................................. 148 

15.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................ 152 

15.3. 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 153 

Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change ............................................................... 155 

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

 ................................................................................................................................. 155 

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

16.3. 

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

3 

 
 
Acronyms and definitions 

EQS Directive 

Environmental Quality Standards Directive 

FD 

Km 

km2 

KTM 

PoM 

Floods Directive 

Kilometre 

Kilometre squared 

Key Type of Measure 

Programme of Measures 

QA/QC Directive 

Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive  

RBD 

RBMP 

WFD 

WISE 

Annex 0 

River Basin District 

River Basin Management Plan 

Water Framework Directive 

Water Information System for Europe 

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

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Foreword 

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

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

2015 and reported to the European Commission in March 2016. 

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

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

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

situation in the Member States may have changed since then. 

5 

 
 
 
General Information 

Belgium (Map A) has a population of about 11 million and has a total area of 30 528 km2. The 
country  consists  of  three  regions:  the  Brussels-Capital  Region,  the  Flemish  Region  and  the 
Walloon Region.  

Map A  Map of River Basin Districts (RBDs) 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 
  International RBDs (within European Union) 
  International RBDs (outside European Union) 
  National RBDs (within European Union) 
  Countries (outside European Union) 
  Coastal Waters 

Belgium has four RBDs, of which the Meuse and Scheldt cover most of the Belgian territory. 
The Rhine and Seine RBDs cover a much smaller part of Belgium. Because of the division of 

responsibilities  among  the  different  regions  of  the  federal  state  of  Belgium  there  are  several 
plans for the same RBD within Belgium. 

6 

DE2000DE2000LU RB_001NLSCNLMSDE7000BESchelde_VLFRAFRB2BESeine_RWFRB1LU RB_001LU RB_000BERhin_RWBEMaas_VLNLRNDE2000DE2000BEFRCNorth SeaBEEscaut_Schelde_BRBEEscaut_RWBEMeuse_RW02550kmBENordzee_FED 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The areas of the national RBDs including sharing countries is provided in Table A. 

Table A 

Overview of Belgium’s RBDs  

Region 

RBD code 
BESchelde_VL 
BEEscaut_Schelde_BR  Brussels Capital 
BEEscaut_RW 

Wallonia 

Flanders 

BENoordzee_FED 

BEMaas_VL 

BEMeuse_RW 

BERhin_RW 

BESeine_RW 

Federal 

Flanders 

Wallonia 

Wallonia 

Wallonia 

Size (km2)  Countries sharing RBD 

12 027 

FR, NL 

162 

3 773 

 128 

1 601 

FR, NL 

FR, NL 

FR, NL 

DE, FR, LU, NL 

12 278 

DE, FR, LU, NL 

770 

80 

AT, CH, DE, FR, LI, (LU),( IT), NL 

FR 

Source: RBMPs reported to WISE 

The three large international RBDs on Belgian territory (Scheldt, Meuse and the Rhine) have 

international  co-operation  in  place,  including  international  agreements  and  international 
cooperation body. Belgium’s percentage share of each international RBD is shown in Table B. 

Table B 

Transboundary RBDs by category and percentage share in Belgium  

Name 
internati
onal 
RBD 

National RBD 

BESchelde_VL 

BEEscaut_Schelde_BR 

Scheldt 

BEEscaut_RW 

RBD 
Name 

Scheldt 

Scheldt 
(Brussels) 
L’Escaut 

BENoordzee_FED 

North Sea 

Countries sharing RBD 

1 

4 

Coordination category 

km²  % 

km²  % 

FR, NL 

FR, NL 

FR, NL 

FR, NL 

12 02
7 

33 

162 

0.4 

3 773 

10.3 

128 

0.4 

Meuse 

BEMaas_VL 

BEMeuse_RW 

Rhine 

BERhin_RW 

Seine 

BESeine_RW 

Maas 

Meuse 

Rhine 

Seine 

DE, FR, LU, NL 

1 601 

4.6 

DE, FR, LU, NL 

AT, CH, DE, FR, LI, 
(LU), (IT), NL 

FR 

12 27
8 

35.5 

770 

0.4 

80 

0.08 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Belgium provided additional countries that share a RBD – shown in brackets. 

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

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Status of second river basin management plan reporting 

A  total  of  eight  RBMPs  (Scheldt,  Scheldt  (Brussels),  L’Escaut,  North  Sea,  Maas,  Meuse, 

Rhine  and  Seine)  were  published  between  2  March  2016  and  8  March  2017.  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 RBMPs of Belgium are as follows: 

 

Governance and public consultation 

 

Advisory groups were used for the active involvement of stakeholders in Flanders, and 

ongoing stakeholder involvement is indicated for the Federal RBD for coastal waters. 

 

For two RBDs of the Flanders Region and the RBD of the Brussels region, the RBMPs 

and Flood Risk Management Plans were combined in a single plan. In all three regions, 
joint consultation of RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans was undertaken. 

 

Belgium did not adopt and publish all RBMPs in accordance with the timetable in the 
WFD. 

 

Belgium  has  organised  RBD  management  along  regional  lines  based  on  the  regional 

competences in Belgium, thus splitting river basins into separate RBDs for each region. 
While  coordination  occurs  at  several  levels  –  including  bilateral  cooperation  among 

regions,  national  coordination  and  coordination  within  international  RBDs  –  it  is  not 
clear if this is sufficient to ensure that the environmental objectives established by the 

Directive are achieved efficiently. 

 

Characterisation of the RBD 

 

No  information  about  whether  typologies  used  by  Brussels  region  were  validated 
against  biological  data  could  be  found  in  the  RBMPs1.  50  water  bodies  (~10%)  were 
reported  not  to  have  applicable  common  intercalibration  types  including  artificial, 
heavily  modified  and  natural  water  bodies.  It  is  unclear  how  the  results  of 
intercalibration are translated to these types and water bodies2. 

 

Further  characterisation  work  for  groundwater  bodies  has  been  undertaken  since  the 

first  RBMPs,  by  describing  the  geological  formation  and  whether  or  not  they  are 
layered. Groundwater body links to terrestrial ecosystems have been reported in all six 

1 Flanders subsequently clarified that the information exists in background documents. They are reported via the 
hyperlink  http://www.integraalwaterbeleid.be/nl/stroomgebiedbeheerplannen/stroomgebiedbeheerplannen-2016-
2021/documenten/achtergronddocumenten/AD_Beoordeling_Ecologische_Chemische_Toestand.pdf  

2 Belgium subsequently clarified that for Flanders, all water bodies within the same water category were assessed 
using the same biological assessment method, but with relevant type-specific modifications.  

9 

 
                                                      
 
RBDs. Links to surface water bodies are only reported by four RBDs: the two RBDs in 

Flanders provided an explanation of why this information was not reported to WISE. 

 

Expert judgment is used by a number of RBDs in Belgium to assess the significance of 

pressures arising from water abstraction and water flow modifications on surface waters 
and  pressures  on  groundwater  from  point  sources,  diffuse  sources  and  water 

abstractions.  This  brings  into  question  the  reliability  and  comparability  of  the 
assessment of these pressures in Belgium. Significance of pressures on surface waters 

were reported as not linked to failure of objectives nor defined in terms of thresholds in 
the Wallonia RBDs. For groundwater, the pressures have only been linked to failure of 

objectives in three RBDs. 

 

Seven  RBDs  reported  significant  pressures  to  be  addressed  in  the  Programme  of 

Measures  (PoM)  but  the  gaps  to  good  status  were  not  quantified.  The  situation  is 
similar for chemical substances. Belgium explained in Annex 0 that the information is 

available  but  could  not  be  reported  in  the  required  format.  Inventories  of  emissions, 
discharges  and  losses  have  been  established  in  all  RBDs  except  the  North  Sea3.  The 
inventories  all  include  all  41  Priority  Substances.  Tier  1  of  the  methodology  was 
implemented for some of the substances deemed relevant at RBD level, which is not in 

line  with  the  CIS  Guidance  Document  n°28,  higher  tiers  were  also  implemented  in 
some  cases.  The  data  quality  ranged  from  medium  to  very  uncertain,  or  was  not 

reported. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status  

 

Overall,  there  has  been  an  increase  in  operational  monitoring  sites  and a  reduction  in 

surveillance monitoring  sites. Only  one lake was included in  surveillance monitoring, 
while they were five in the first RBMPs. 

 

In the Maas RBD, there is no surveillance programme for lakes, even if lakes have been 

delineated.  In  the  Schelde  RBD  there  are  no  monitoring  programmes  for  the  only 
coastal water body delineated. 

 

All expected biological quality elements and general physicochemical quality elements 
were reported to be monitored in rivers and lakes.  

3  Belgium  subsequently  clarified  that  direct  discharges  to  the  North  Sea  are  forbidden.  This  does  not  exclude, 
however, the possibility that substances are present due to diffuse sources or atmospheric deposition. 

10 

 
                                                      
 

In  rivers,  there  has  been  an  improvement  in  the  monitoring  of  hydromorphological 

quality  elements  since  the  first  RBMPs.  However,  hydromorphological  quality 
elements were reported to have been monitored in lakes for the first RBMPs but not for 

second.  Belgium 

the 
the  hydromorphological 
characteristics  of  lakes  are  only  monitored  in  cases  where  they  have  changed  in 

subsequently  explained 

that 

comparison to the previous RBMP, which was not the case between the first and second 
RBMPs for any lakes in Belgium. 

 

In the coastal water body in the North Sea RBD, hydromorphology was not monitored 
and only two general physicochemical quality elements were monitored. 

 

Environmental  quality  standards  were  established  for  approximately  104  River  Basin 

Specific  Pollutants  in  water,  covering  all  eight  RBDs  (the  total  number  is  uncertain 
because  of  possible  errors  in  the  electronic  reporting  of  some  substances).  The  vast 

majority  of  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  in  water  have  been  derived  in 
accordance with the Technical Guidance Document No. 27 and the analytical methods 

used for most of the substances meet  the minimum  performance criteria laid  down in 
Article  4.1  of  the  Quality  Assurance  /  Quality  Control  Directive  (QA/QC  Directive) 
(2009/90/EC) for the strictest standard applied. 

 

Environmental  Quality  Standards  were  also  derived  for  nine  substances  in  sediment, 

but were not derived in accordance with Technical Guidance Document No. 27 though 
the analytical methods meet the requirements of Article 4.1 of the QA/QC Directive. 

 

 

River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  reported  to  be  monitored  in  all  surface  water 
categories, while they had not been monitored in lakes for the first RBMPs. 

All 79 River Basin Specific Pollutants were included in surveillance monitoring and all 
were  sampled  in  water  at  least  at  the  minimum  recommended  frequency  at  all  of  the 

sites where they were monitored.  

 

All the required quality elements are monitored in most, but not all, river water bodies 

included in surveillance monitoring. However, this is not the case for any of the coastal, 

lake  and  transitional  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  monitoring,  although  for 
transitional water bodies some of the required quality elements are monitored. 

 

The confidence in classification of ecological status/confidence is reported as high for 
almost all water bodies, which is a major improvement since the first RBMPs, where no 

information was given on confidence. 

11 

 
 

Belgium  is  still  quite  far  from  achieving  good  status/potential  in  all  surface  water 

bodies  and  the  timing  for  the  achievement  of  objectives  is  unknown  for  60%  of  the 
water bodies. 

 

 

The classification of ecological status is based predominantly based on monitoring data. 

Assessment  methods  are  complete  for  most  biological  quality  elements  in  all  water 

categories and RBDs. All the biological quality elements with methods developed are 

used for classification in most water bodies in all water categories.  

 

Assessment  methods  are  developed  for  all  relevant  hydromorphological  quality 

elements  in  rivers  and  for  morphological  conditions  in  transitional  waters,  and  were 
reported to be related to the sensitive biological quality elements.  

  Methods for the assessment of the physico-chemical quality elements are developed for 
most of the relevant quality elements for the different water categories and are related 

to the sensitive biological quality elements. However, the nutrient standards are close to 
or  higher  than  the  nutrient  saturation  level  for  nutrient  sensitive  biological  quality 

elements. 

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

 

The extent of monitoring for Priority Substances was high in Belgium: 82 % to 100 % 

of river water bodies in seven of the eight RBDs in Belgium were monitored for more 

than 10 Priority Substances in water. The remainder were monitored for between zero 
and four substances. 

 

All lake water bodies in the Maas RBD and 53 % in the Schelde RBD were monitored 

for  four  Priority  Substances,  with  the  remaining  monitored  for  more  than  10  Priority 

Substances.  

 

All water bodies (coastal and territorial) in the North Sea RBD were monitored for six 

to 10 Priority Substances. The coastal water body (Zwin) in the Schelde RBD was not 
monitored for any Priority Substances.  

 

83 % of transitional water bodies were monitored for more than 10 Priority Substances, 
with the remainder monitored for four Priority Substances. 

12 

 
 

For  status  assessment,  a  large  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  were  monitored  for 

more  than  10  Priority  Substances  in  water  in  most  RBDs.  Fewer  substances  were 
monitored in  the  remaining RBDs.  There is  a lack of  consistency in  the frequency  of 

monitoring of Priority Substances in water with examples of frequencies that meet the 
guideline  requirements  of  the  WFD  and  instances  where  they  do  not.  Mercury, 

hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene are monitored in biota in coastal, river and 
transitional water bodies in most RBDs for status assessment. Monitoring is undertaken 

in  a  limited  number  of  water  bodies.  The  frequency  reported  in  all  RBDs  met  the 
requirements of once every year in at least some sites. 

 

For trend assessment, Belgium has monitored all 14 of the Priority Substances required 
for  the  monitoring  of  long-term  trend  in  sediment  and/or  biota  in  sediment  in  river 

water  bodies  in  four  RBDs  and  fewer  in  the  remainder.  The  frequency  of  the 
monitoring  meets  the  minimum  guidelines  in  the  Directive  but  the  spatial  extent  of 

monitoring is limited.  

 

In  all but  one of the RBDs in  Belgium, 41 Priority Substances have been included in 

inventories, though not all are discharged or monitored.  

 

All  water  categories,  including  territorial  waters,  are  monitored  and  classified  for 

chemical status in Belgium. 

 

Overall  between  the  two  cycles  there  was  a  large  decrease  in  proportion  of  surface 
water bodies with good chemical status from 35 to 2 % and a significant increase in the 

proportion failing to achieve good status from 30 to 98 %. This pattern occurred across 
all RBDs, except those that had all their water bodies with poor status in both the first 

and  second  RBMPs  (Schelde  Brussels  and  North  Sea  RBDs).  Importantly,  the 
proportion with unknown status has reduced from 35 % to less than 1 %.  

 

Between 10 and 41 Priority substances are used in the classification of chemical status 
depending  on  the  RBD.  Grouping  is  applied  for  the  classification  of  chemical  status 

(though not in the North Sea RBD) but the basis for the approach is not well described 
in the RBMPs. 

 

Overall  43  %  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Belgium  were  classified  for  chemical  status 

with high confidence and 57 % with medium confidence. 

 

Between 13 and 41 (depending on the RBD) of the environmental quality standards laid 

down in Part A of Annex I of the EQS Directive for assessment of the chemical status 

13 

 
of bodies of surface water were applied and used in the assessment of chemical status. 

However,  in  RBDs  where  not  all  the  standards  have  been  applied,  Belgium  reported 
that  alternative  and/or  additional  standards  for  particular  Priority  Substances  had  also 

not  been  applied.  It  is  therefore  unclear  which  standards  have  been  used  in  the 
assessment of chemical status. 

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 

bodies 

 

There has been an increase in coverage for quantitative monitoring in the second cycle; 

nearly all groundwater bodies are now covered by monitoring. 

 

The  number  /  area  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  quantitative  status  dropped 

significantly. 

 

The  confidence  in  quantitative  status  assessment  is  high  for  50%  of  the  groundwater 

bodies and medium for the remainder. 

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

 

 

 

Chemical monitoring covers almost all groundwater bodies. The number of operational 
monitoring  sites  has  increased  significantly  in  the  second  cycle.  Not  all  substances 

causing risk are subject to surveillance and operational monitoring in all RBDs. 

Not all WFD core parameters are monitored in all RBDs. 

The needs of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have not been considered in 

the establishment of groundwater threshold values. 

 

Only  in  the  Flanders  region  and  Scheldt  (Brussels)  RBDs,  where  groundwater 

dependent terrestrial ecosystems exist, they have been considered in status assessment 
while for the other RBDs they were not. 

 

 

In the three Walloon river basin districts, where groundwater associated surface waters 
exist, they have not been considered in status assessment. 

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

14 

 
 

Sufficient information is provided on criteria for the identification of substantial change 

in character, the types of physical alterations and the water uses which are considered 
for  the  designation  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies.  However,  no  information  could 

be found on criteria used for the assessment of significant adverse effect of restoration 
measures  on  the  use  and  the  wider  environment  or  an  explanation  of  how  better 

environmental options have been assessed. 

  Mitigation  measures  for  achieving  good  ecological  potential  have  been  reported  in 
WISE, but no description of the ecological changes that these measures are designed to 
achieve could  be found  in  the RBMPs. Furthermore, no methodological  document on 

the definition of good ecological potential is available yet for Wallonia. 

 

Environmental objectives and exemptions 

 

Environmental  objectives  for  ecological  and  chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies 

and  quantitative  and  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  have  been  reported, 

although a significant number of unknowns remain. 

 

Drivers,  Pressures  and  pollutants  leading  to  exemptions  are  reported.  Also  impacts 

leading to exemptions are reported. 

 

The  level  of  information  provided  behind  the  justification  of  exemptions  varies  a) 

depending  on  the  reason,  and  b)  depending  on  the  different  regions.  Therefore,  the 
application of the justification of technical feasibility for Article 4(4) exemptions might 

be  an  issue  of  insufficient  implementation  of  WFD  requirements,  as  relevant 
information is lacking in some RBMPs and reported background documents. 

 

Programme of Measures 

 

Some  progress  has  been  made  in  carrying  out  cost-effectiveness  analyses.  No  clear 
summary  of  progress  has  been  provided  and  it  is  not  possible  to  judge  if  any 

improvements have been achieved towards attaining WFD objectives. In particular it is 
not clear whether the PoM is sufficiently ambitious (in a large number of water bodies 

the objectives will not be achieved even by 2027). 

 

No  clear  financial  commitment  for  the  implementation  of  the  PoM  has  been  received 

from all relevant sectors in any of the RBDs. 

15 

 
  Most significant pressures are covered by KTMs, particularly in the RBD’s in Flanders, 
where  all  are  covered.  A  few  significant  pressures  are  not  covered  by  operational 
KTMs,  notably  none  for  diffuse  agricultural  pollution  in  groundwater  in  the  Rhine 

RBD,  and  abstractions/flow  diversions  and  alterations  of  water  level  or  volume  in 
groundwater (L’Escaut - Walloon). In addition, no water retention measures seem to be 
operational although these were included in relation to the Floods Directive (FD)4.   

 

Belgium has mapped a total of 155 measures and 112 supplementary measures against 

a total of 22 predefined KTMs, eight KTMs related to the Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive, and 10 regionally defined measures.   

 

KTMs  to  tackle  RBSPs  in  surface  water  and  groundwater  have  been  reported  for  the 

Flanders Region (Schelde and Maas RBDs). There  is  no  information  on  the  number  of 
surface  water  bodies  causing  failure  of  objectives  due  to  River  Basin  Specific 

Pollutants, and no KTMs have been reported to tackle River Basin Specific Pollutants, 
in the Walloon and Brussels Regions.  

 

 

 

KTMs  used  to  tackle  Priority  Substances  have  been  reported  for  the  Flanders  Region 
(Scheldt  and  Maas  RBDs).  There  is  no  information  for  Priority  Substances  in  the 

Walloon Region (four RBDs). 

There  is  an  almost  complete  absence  of  gap  analyses5,  making  it  difficult  to  judge 
progress or expected progress in achieving WFD objectives (limited information for the 
North Sea RBD only). 

Joint consultation of RBMPs and FD Flood Risk Management Plans have been carried 
out  (in all except  the North Sea RBD), and the  RBMPs and  Flood  Risk  Management 

Plans  have  been  integrated  into  a  single  plan  for  the  Scheldt  in  the  Brussels  and 
Flanders regions, and for the Maas in the Flanders region only. 

4 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  

5 Belgium has clarified that a gap analysis has been performed and reported in a background document for 
Flanders (Scheldt and Maas)  
http://www.integraalwaterbeleid.be/nl/stroomgebiedbeheerplannen/stroomgebiedbeheerplannen-2016-
2021/documenten/achtergronddocumenten/achtergronddocument-doelafstand-nutrienten-oppervlaktewater 

16 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
 
  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 

  Water  abstraction  pressure  is  relevant  for  a  few  RBDs  in  Belgium.  The  Water 
Exploitation  Index  is  only  reported  for  one  region  (Wallonia)  with  a  value  of  6.4  % 
(2011), and not for other regions. However, according to the information  provided by 

Belgium, Flanders reported such data via State of the Environment. 

 

 

The main uses for water consumption have not been reported to WISE. 

Regarding measures under Article 11(3)(c), in two out of three RBDs which face water 

abstraction pressures,  new measures or significant  changes are foreseen  in  the second 
RBMPs. 

  Water reuse has  been included as a measure in  terms  of managing water resources in 

three RBMPs. 

  Measures  for  the  prior  authorisation  of  artificial  recharge  or  augmentation  of 
groundwater bodies  -  Article 11(3)(f)  -  have been implemented in  the previous cycle, 

and new measures or significant changes are planned. 

 

 

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

RBDs,  which  face  significant  abstraction  pressures  and  inconsistency  with  WFD-

objectives  (the  Maas  and  the  Scheldt  RBD),  exempt  small  abstractions  from  permits 
(although they are registered and thus controlled).  

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture 

 

 

 

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

A gap assessment for nutrients and pesticides has been undertaken in all of the RBDs.  

For  the  North  Sea  RBD  the  area  of  agricultural  land  to  be  covered  by  measures  to 

achieve environmental objectives was reported. 

 

Basic  measures  are  implemented  in  the  Seine,  Scheldt,  Rhine,  Meuse,  Maas,  and 

L’Escaut RBDs and supplementary measures to reduce nutrient pollution are applied in 
all RBDs. 

17 

 
 

It is not clear from the RBMPs what part mandatory or voluntary measures will take in 

achieving the WFD objectives. 

 

Financing of measures is secured in Wallonia. 

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 

 

A  wide  range  of  Key  Type  of  Measures  (KTMs)  relevant  to  addressing  chemical 

pressures have been identified in four of the Belgian RBDs (Escaut-Scheldt, North Sea, 
Maas and Schelde) – but not in the other four. 

 

 

A  register  of  waste-water  discharges  exists  in  seven  out  of  eight  Belgian  RBDs 
although  it  covers  groundwater  in  only  two  of  them.  Authorisation  and/or  permitting 

regimes to control waste water point source discharges are in place in seven out of eight 
Belgian RBDs for surface and groundwater.  

The RBMP of the Schelde RBD contains specific measures to reduce the emissions of 
all  identified  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants,  and  to  tackle  pollutants  causing  poor 
groundwater status6. 

  Measures to address, the River Basin Specific Pollutants in the Scheldt (Brussels) and 
Wallonia  RBDs  are  mentioned  only  in  a  general  (not  substance-specific)  way  in  the 

RBMPs. Measures for groundwater pollutants are also not specified in detail. 

  Measures related to hydromorphology 

 

The links between hydromorphological measures and pressures have been made more 

obvious in the second RBMPs. Operational KTMs were reported in all five RBDs with 
significant  hydromorphological  pressures.  However,  for  the  majority  of  water  bodies 

to  have 

reported 
is 
unknown/obsolete or indicated as "other", that is, not specified as one of the key sectors 

significant  hydromorphological  pressures, 

the  driver 

indicated in the WISE reporting. 

 

Indicators on the gap to be filled for significant hydromorphological pressures by 2021 

and 2027  are not  reported. Even if the  reporting  of this  gap  was optional, the lack of 
such information does not allow any conclusions on the level of ambition in closing the 

gap. No indicator values were reported either for the KTMs. 

 

In the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD,  ecological flows  have been derived  for some relevant 

water bodies but the work is still ongoing. This is seen as progress from the first cycle, 

6 Belgium clarified that this was the case also for the Maas RBD. 

18 

 
                                                      
where it was announced that a study of base flow values would be done. For the other 

seven  RBDs,  ecological  flows  have  not  been  derived  for  all  water  bodies  at  risk  of 
failing environmental objectives due to abstractions, flow diversions or impoundments, 

but there are plans to do so during the second cycle.  

 

Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

  Water services are defined differently in the Belgian RBDs. 

 

Not all RBMPs include information on environmental and resource costs.  

  With  the  exception  of  the  North  Sea  RBD  the  economic  analysis  was  reported  as 

updated. 

 

 

Considerations  specific  to  Protected  Areas  (identification,  monitoring,  objectives 
and measures) 

There was a significant increase in the number of Protected Areas reported for Article 7 
for Drinking Water (from 379 to 587), Habitats (from 263 to 499) and for Birds (from 

218 to 386). For the remaining types, the numbers were similar. 

 

Additional objectives for surface water Protected Areas have been established in some 

RBDs for Drinking Water and Protected Areas under the Habitats and Birds Directives, 

and the Ramsar Convention. However, for some habitats areas, the default objective of 
good status is considered sufficient, although it has not been assessed in detail. 

 

 

The  reported  monitoring  programmes  was  only  reported  in  Wallonia,  being  less 
completed than in  the first  cycle, as the scale of  monitoring of  groundwater Article 7 

Drinking  Water  areas  is  reduced  by  half  with  the  remainder  at  a  comparable  scale  in 
terms of the number of monitoring sites. 

Exemptions to additional objectives for Protected Areas have been applied for the first 
time in the second cycle. 

 

Adaptation to drought and climate change 

 

Climate change was considered in only a few river basin districts (Maas and Scheldt) 

and  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  guidance  document  on  how  to  adapt  to 

climate change was used in these. 

 

KTM  24  –  “Adaptation  to  climate  change”  is  applied  in  Flanders  and  Wallonia;  No 

specific sub-plans addressing climate change were reported for Belgium. 

Droughts were not reported to be relevant for the country.   

19 

 
 
Recommendations  

 

 

 

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

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

Belgium  should  further  ensure  that  consultation  processes  at  various  levels  (regional, 
national, international) are coordinated. 

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

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

 

Although Belgium has made progress in characterisation, further work is needed on the 

apportionment of significant pressures; in particular hydromorphological pressures and 
to better identify "unknown anthropogenic pressures". 

 

 

 

Belgium  still  needs  to  address,  for  all  RBDs,  the  links  between  status,  individual 
pressures and the PoM. Furthermore, the assessment of significance of pressures needs 

to be more based on numerical tools rather than expert judgement. 

Belgium  should  continue  to  expand  its  monitoring  programmes  in  order  to  cover  all 

relevant quality elements and, in particular, the biological quality elements. 

Belgium  should  make  sure  that  the  nutrient  standards  used  are  such  that  they  do  not 

cause  a  risk  of  failure  in  reaching  good  status  for  the  nutrient  sensitive  biological 

quality elements. 

  Monitoring  for  status  assessment  should  be  completed  to  reach  sufficient  confidence 
and  spatial  coverage  for  all  the  Priority  Substances  as  well  as  the  monitoring 
frequencies in all monitoring sites according to the Directive. 

 

Trend monitoring arrangements should be completed in all RBDs to ensure that all the 
relevant  substances  specified  in  Directive  2008/105/EC  are  monitored  in  a  way  that 
provide sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage. 

 

Improve  status  assessment  of  groundwater,  and  further  uptake  links  with  associated 

aquatic  ecosystems  and  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems.  Ensure  that  all  core 
parameters  are  monitored  and  continue  improving  operational  monitoring  for 

groundwater bodies at risk. 

 

For Flanders the criteria used for the assessment required under WFD Articles 4(3)(a) 
and  4(3)(b)  need  to  be  made  transparent,  i.e.  the  assessment  of  significant  adverse 

20 

 
effects of restoration measures on uses or the wider environment and an explanation of 

how  better  environmental  options  to  deliver  the  beneficial  objectives  served  by  the 
HMWB have been assessed. For Wallonia the methodology used for the definition of 

good  ecological  potential  needs  to  be  made  available  in  order  to  improve  the 
transparency of objective setting for Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies. 

 

The overall significant and stagnant number of exemptions which are still applied in the 
second RBMP is an issue of concern and an important number of unknowns regarding 

the  timeframe  for  the  achievement  of  the  objectives  remains.  Efforts  need  to  be 
continued  to  implement  the  required  measures  in  order  to  ensure  the  timely 

achievement  of  the  WFD  objectives.  Improvements  have  been  made  in  terms  of  the 
justification  of  exemptions  compared  to  the  first  RBMPs,  which  should  be  further 

continued for the different justifications in all regions. 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost-effectiveness  analyses  should be conducted and details  provided of  prioritisation 
of measures based on the cost-effectiveness analyses7. 

The RBMPs should clearly identify the gap to good status for individual pressures and 

water bodies, and the PoM should be designed and implemented to close that gap. 

Belgium should make clear financial commitments for the implementation of the PoMs. 

In the third RBMPs, state clearly to what extent in, terms of area covered and pollution 

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

will contribute to  achieving the WFD  objectives  and identify sources of funding (e.g. 
CAP Pillar 1, RDP), as appropriate, to facilitate implementation of these measures.  

Continue  to  review  and  develop  the  strategy  for  the  delivery  of  WFD  objectives,  in 
cooperation  with  the  farming  community  and  the  authorities  in  charge  of  CAP  in 

Belgium to ensure the third RBMP is technically feasible and that all relevant policies 
and  instruments  (e.g.  RDP,  CAP  Pillar  1,  Nitrates  Directive,  etc.)  contribute 

significantly to RBMPs.  

 

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

objectives  in  all  RBDs.  In  addition,  all  Priority  Substances  and  River  Specific 

Pollutants identified as causing failure should be associated with KTMs.  

7  Belgium  subsequently  clarified  that  details  are  available  in  the  POM:    “maatregelenprogramma  chapter  1 
Uitgangspunten en methodiek bij de prioritering en de selectie van maatregelen in het kader van de KRLW” and 
that the document has been uploaded in WISE. 

21 

 
                                                      
 

In  order  to  ensure  an  ambitious  approach  to  combatting  chemical  pollution,  it  is 

important that Belgium, in particular Wallonia, identify and implement KTMs specific 
to addressing pollution by the Priority Substances and River Basin Specific Pollutants, 

and  that  it  take  a  more  substance-specific  approach  to  identifying  measures  to  tackle 
groundwater pollutants. 

 

 

Belgium should extend the coverage of its register of waste water discharges to better 
cover discharges to groundwater. 

Belgium should make sure that the necessary hydromorphological measures to achieve 

good  status  are  designed  and  included  in  the  next  cycle  of  RBMPs,  including  those 
targeting  the  good  ecological  potential  for  heavily  modified  water  bodies,  and  should 

ensure the necessary funding to implement those measures. 

 

Belgium  should  continue  prioritising  the  use  of  green  infrastructure  and/or  natural 

water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements in water 
quality,  flood  protection,  habitat  conservation,  etc.),  social  and  economic  benefits 

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

 

Continue to apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on 

water bodies, including impoundments, abstraction, storage, treatment and distribution 
of  surface  waters,  and  collection,  treatment  and  discharge  of  wastewater,  also  when 

they  are  'self-services',  for  instance  self-abstraction  for  agriculture,  or  justify  any 
exemptions using Article 9(4). Transparently present how financial, environmental and 

resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different 
users is  ensured (disaggregated into at  least  industry, households and agriculture), i.e. 

demonstrating  how  the  polluter  pays  principle  has  been  taken  into  account. 
Transparently present the water-pricing policy, including the use of adequate incentives 

for  users  to  use  water  efficiently,  and  documenting  volumes,  prices,  and  costs 
associated with water services. Provide a transparent overview of estimated investments 

and investment needs. 

 

Belgium needs to continue its work on the additional needs that need to be set for all 

relevant  Protected  Areas  and  their  additional  associated  objectives.    It  also  needs  to 
ensure that monitoring of surface and groundwater bodies covers all relevant Protected 

Areas. 

22 

 
 
 
Topic 1

 Governance and public participation 

1.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

1.1.1  Administrative arrangements – RBDs 

Belgium has reported eight RBDs, which are structured by international RBD and by region:  

  Four Belgian RBDs are part of the Escaut/Scheldt/Schelde international RBD: L’Escaut 
in  the  Walloon  Region;  the  Escaut/Scheldt  (Brussels)  in  the  Brussels  Region;  the 
Schelde  in  the  Flanders  Region;  and  the  North  Sea  coastal  waters,  managed  by  the 

Federal government.  

  Two RBDs are part of the Meuse international RBD: the Maas in the Flanders Region 

and the Meuse in the Walloon Region.  

  The  Walloon  Region  has  one  RBD  that  is  part  of  the  Rhine  international  RBD,  the 
Rhine RBD, with its RBMP, and one RBD that is part of the Seine, the Seine RBD.  

1.1.2  Administrative arrangements – competent authorities 

Belgium is a federal state which has delegated competence with regard to water policy to the 
regions. 

Belgium reported four Competent Authorities:  

 

the  Federal  Public  Service  For  Public  Health,  Food  chain  Safety  and  Environment 

(national level);  

 

the Government of Brussels Capital Region; 

 

the Coordination Committee for Integrated Water Policy in the Flanders Region; and, 

 

the Walloon Government. 

Cooperation among regions includes national coordination within the Steering Group on Water 

in  the  Coordination  Committee  for  International  Environmental  Policy  (CCIEP).  Formal 
coordination  also  takes  place  within  international  RBD  commissions  (that  is,  for  the  Scheldt 

and the Meuse). 

23 

 
Belgium subsequently clarified that, the CCIEP mainly deals with the coordination of Belgian 

comments,  positions  or  delegations  on  policy  matters  as  well  as  reporting  to  international 
organisations.  They  have  also  informed  that  the  Steering  Group  on  Water  of  the  CCIEP 

operates according to the general mandates of the CCIEP and coordinates the implementation 
of the WFD and the FD.  

In  addition,  bilateral  consultations  are  held  between  the  regions,  both  at  the  regional  level 
between the competent  administrations and at  the local  level, e.g. within the basin  structures 

and the working groups on transboundary water consultations.  

1.1.3  RBMPs –structure  

The two RBMPs in the Flanders Region (for the Schelde and the Maas RBDs) have two types 

of sub-plans: for groundwater systems and for river sub-RBDs (see Figure 1.1 below). For the 
Flanders Schelde RBD, for example, there are 10 sub-RBD plans and five groundwater plans. 

 Figure 1.1  Issues, sectors, sub-basins or water categories in Belgium supplemented by more 
detailed sub-plans for the second cycle8 

s
t
h
g
u
o
r
d
d
n
a

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

y
r
t
s
u
d
n
i

l
a
c
i
m
e
h
C

e
r
u
t
l
u
c
i
r
g
A

r
e
w
o
p
o
r
d
y
H

t
r
o
p
s
n
a
r
T

RBD 

BEMAAS_VL  

BESCHELDE_VL 

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

n
o
i
s
o
r
e

l
a
t
s
a
o
C

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

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

t
n
e
m
h
c
i
r
n
e

t
n
e
i
r
t
u
N

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

d
n
a

r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

:
r
e
h
t
O

s
n
i
s
a
b
-
b
u
s

 

 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

 

Covered by sub-plans 

1.1.4 

Public consultation 

For  all  of  Belgium's  RBMPs,  draft  documents  were  available  for  public  consultation  for  the 
requisite six months. In the two RBDs of the Flanders Region and for the North Sea RBMP, 

8   Belgium subsequently informed that sub River Basin Management Plans exist in Flanders (Scheldt and Maas) 
for each sub-basin and for each groundwater system. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
documents  were  available  for  download.  For  the  four  RBMPs  produced  in  the  Walloon 

Region,  documents  were  available  for  download  and  paper  copies  were  available  in 
government  buildings  and  distributed  at  exhibitions,  and  the  documents  were  also  mailed 

directly.  In  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  RBD,  documents  were  available  for  download  and  paper 
copies were available in government buildings and distributed at exhibitions.  

Stakeholders  were  actively  involved  in  all  eight  Belgian  RBMPs.  Stakeholders  groups  that 
industry,  Non-Governmental 
were 

agriculture/farmers, 

involved  were: 

actively 

Organisations/nature protection and water supply and sanitation in the Walloon Region. These 
groups  were  involved  in  addition  to  local/regional  authorities  and  ports/navigation  in  the 

Flanders  Region;  and  fisheries/aquaculture,  local/regional  authorities  and  Non-Governmental 
Organisations /nature protection for the North Sea RBMP. 

Stakeholders were involved in drafting in all four RBMPs prepared in the Walloon Region and 
in  the  RBMP  of  the  Brussels  Capital  Region.  Stakeholders  were  also  involved  via  regular 

exhibitions  for the four RBMPs in  the Walloon Region.  For the two RBMPs prepared in  the 
Flanders  Region,  stakeholders  were  involved  via  advisory  groups.  Ongoing  stakeholder 
involvement  was  indicated  only  for  the  North  Sea  RBMP  for  coastal  waters:  via  the 

Coordination Committee for International Environmental Policy with regional authorities, via 
the International Scheldt Committee with other stakeholders and through synergy with ongoing 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive9 implementation stakeholder involvement.  

The  impacts  of  consultation  were:  adjustment  to  specific  measures,  for  all  plans  except  the 

North Sea RBMP for coastal waters; commitment to further research in six RBMPs (those of 
the  Flanders  and  Walloon  Regions);  commitment  to  action  in  the  next  RBMP  cycle,  for  the 

two RBMPs in the Flanders Region; addition of new information (for the four RBMPs in the 
Walloon Region); and, for the Federal RBMP for Coastal Waters, corrections of text that did 

not have any influence on assessment or measures. 

1.1.5 

Integration with the FD and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

The two RBMPs of the Flanders Region (Schelde and Maas) are integrated with the Flood Risk 

Management Plans into a single plan. This  is  also the case for the Scheldt  (Brussels) RBMP 
and Flood Risk Management Plan.  

9  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  

25 

 
                                                      
Joint Consultation of the RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plan was carried out for seven 

of  Belgium's  eight  RBMPs  (the  exception  being  the  North  Sea  RBMP,  where  the  FD  is  not 
applied).  

Joint consultation was not carried out with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.  

1.1.6 

International coordination and cooperation  

All of Belgium's RBDs are part of international RBDs. For three RBDs – Scheldt, Meuse and 

Rhine  –  a  common  international  RBMP  and  a  PoM  are  in  place  (designated  as  Category  1 
cooperation).  For  these,  links  have  been  made  with  national  RBMPs  within  the  international 

RBMPs. Coordination with other Member States has taken place within the commissions for 
these international RBDs.  

Belgium  and  its  regions  were  involved  in  intensive  cooperation  activities  in  all  three 
international  RBDs,  including  on  monitoring,  identification  of  significant  water  management 

issues  and  the  preparation  of  national  and  international  RBMPs  and  PoMs.  For  the  Scheldt 
international  RBD,  for  example,  an  international  RBMP  was  prepared;  regarding  the  PoM, 
some measures were coordinated among Member States, both via the Scheldt Commission and 

its  working  groups  and  bilaterally  (for  further  information  see  the  reports  on  international 
coordination on the WFD). 

In addition, Belgium has a range of bilateral agreements in place with neighbouring Member 
States:  for  example,  the  Flanders  Region  and  the  Netherlands  have  established  the  Flemish-

Netherlands  Bilateral  Maas Commission  for cooperation on water management in the Meuse 
International River Basin10.  

For  the  4th  RBD,  the  Seine,  coordination  is  at  the  level  of  Category  4  (no  formalised 
cooperation).  For  none  of  the  RBMPs,  however,  did  Belgium  report  to  WISE  that  there  was 

international coordination on public participation.  

See Chapter 9 for information about international coordination on measures.  

1.2 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

10  http://www.vnbm.eu/  

26 

 
                                                      
  The  RBMPs  for  the  region  of  Wallonia  should  be  urgently  adopted.  The  public 
consultation  in  Wallonia  will  finish  on  18  January  2013,  and  the  plan  should  be 
adopted as soon as possible after this process is finalised.  

  Given the lack of adoption of the plans in the Wallonia and recent adoption in Brussels 
capital,  it  is  difficult  to  ensure  that  there  is  an  effective  coordination  in  the 

implementation of the WFD, including the setting of objectives and exemptions, and the 
definition  of  the  necessary  measures.  The  coordination  between  the  different  Belgian 

entities  (Flanders,  Wallonia,  Brussels  and  the  Federal  coastal  waters)  should  be 
enhanced for the next cycle of RBMPs. The implementation of the Directive should be 

coordinated  across  the  RBDs,  to  ensure  the  achievement  of  the  environmental 
objectives  established  under  Article  4,  and  in  particular  all  PoM  need  to  be 

coordinated for the whole of the river basin district, including within a Member State. 

  Ensure  good  coordination  between  the  different  regions.  In  the  past,  plans  were 
developed separately by each of the Regions and by the Federal government for coastal 

waters.  Although  the  Regions  and  the  Federal  government  participate  in  the 
International River Commissions of the Scheldt and the Meuse, this is not sufficient to 
enable  effectively  coordinated  implementation  of  the  WFD.  In  particular,  the  PoMs 

need to be clearly linked where they concern pressures and measures that affect several 
Regions (e.g. pollution from the Regions that affects coastal waters). 

  Ensure that consultation processes at various levels (regional, national, international) 
are coordinated and that key information (pressures, monitoring, status, environmental 
objectives and exemptions, measures) is made available in a consolidated way for the 

whole of the RBDs (at least for the Belgian part), avoiding separate products available 
in different timelines which made impossible having a completed picture of the RBD. 

27 

 
 
 
Assessment:  

While the information reported to WISE is insufficient to further assess whether intra-regional 
cooperation  improved  in  the  second  cycle,  Belgium  subsequently  clarified  that  coordination 

occurred at several levels, including bilateral cooperation among regions, national coordination 
and  coordination  within  international  RBDs.  Evidence  from  the  assessment  of  other  topics 

nonetheless  indicates  there  remain  some  different  approaches  between  the  regions  on  key 
issues of WFD implementation (i.e. the definition of Good Ecological Potential).  

The information available indicates that mechanisms are in place and that cooperation among 
Belgium’s regions has improved; consequently, these recommendations are partially fulfilled.  

28 

 
  
 
Topic 2

 Characterisation of the River Basin District 

2.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in second cycle  

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

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

water bodies 

There  was no  change in the numbers of identified coastal, lake and transitional water bodies 

between the two cycles (Table 2.1). However, overall in Belgium there was a decrease in the 
number of river water bodies from 320 in the first RBMP to 302 in the second for example, in 

the Scheldt RBD there was a decrease, with 155 river water bodies in the second cycle versus 
160 in the first cycle. The RBMP reported that this was due to updates in the RBD boundary 

and merging of homogeneous water bodies.  

The  minimum  size  (length)  of  rivers  in  Belgium  has  not  significantly  changed  between  the 

cycles (Table 2.2). For example, the minimum length in the Meuse RBD in the first cycle was 
1.9 km, and 2.2 km in the second. In the Scheldt RBD, the minimum length of a river water 

body in the first cycle and in the second cycle was 0.3 km. The minimum size of water bodies 
has been reported for RBMP in Belgium which varies between RBDs. The Scheldt (Brussels) 

RBD  has  a  small  area  and  low  number  of  water  bodies,  and  expert  judgement  was  used  to 
select the three main surface water bodies for the reporting. 

There was an increase in number of heavily modified river water bodies from  87 in  the first 
RBMP to  99 in  the second cycle in  the Scheldt  RBD accompanied by  a  reduction in  natural 

rivers  from  40  to  23  implying  that  some  natural  water  bodies  in  the  first  RBMP  have  been 
designated as heavily modified in the second (Figure 2.1). There were also smaller reductions 

in natural and an increase in heavily modified river water bodies between the two cycles in the 
Meuse RBD. In contrast, in the Maas RBD, there was a small increase in the number of natural 

rivers, and small decrease in the number of heavily modified rivers between the two cycles. 

The number of groundwater bodies was the same for both cycles and there are only some small 
differences in their areas (Table 2.3). 

29 

 
Table 2.1 

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

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional Waters 

Coastal Waters 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

Total 
area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

Year 

RBD 

2016  BEESCAUT_RW 

2016  BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 

2016  BEMAAS_VL 

2016  BEMEUSE_RW 

2016  BENOORDZEE_FED 

2016  BERHIN_RW 

2016  BESCHELDE_VL 

2016  BESEINE_RW 

2016  Total 

2010  BEESCAUT_RW 

2010  BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 

2010  BEMAAS_VL 

2010  BEMEUSE_RW 

2010  BENOORDZEE_FED 

2010  BERHIN_RW 

2010  BESCHELDE_VL 

2010  BESEINE_RW 

2010  Total 

3 

5 

15 

18 

36 

40 

3 

5 

15 

18 

36 

40 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

Total 
area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

Number 
of water 
bodies 

Total 
area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

Total 
length of 
water 
body 
(km) 

1 509 

39 

273 

79 

3 

15 

257 

4 952 

16 

155 

2 

527 

79 

3 

17 

287 

2 246 

39 

9 346 

1 533 

39 

270 

257 

4 929 

16 

160 

2 

534 

295 

2 203 

40 

9 309 

6 

6 

6 

6 

43 

43 

42 

42 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

128 

1 

130 

1 428 

1 

1 429 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.2 

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

Year 

RBD 

2016 

BEESCAUT_RW 

Lake area (km2) 

River length (km) 

Transitional (km2) 

Coastal (km2) 

Min  Max  Mean 

Min 

2.31 

Max  Mean  Min  Max  Mean  Min  Max  Mean 

107.43 

19.11 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

BEESCAUT_SCHEL
DE_BR 

BEMAAS_VL 

0.65 

3.27 

1.53 

BEMEUSE_RW 

BENOORDZEE_FED 

BERHIN_RW 

BESCHELDE_VL 

0.08 

19.87 

2.39 

10.13 

14.93 

13.09 

1.6 

2.25 

5.44 

0.32 

79.72 

18.18 

119.56 

19.27 

45.84 

17.92 

128.26 

128.26 

128.26 

109.93 

14.49 

0.16 

26.15 

7.24 

1.46 

1.46 

1.46 

BESEINE_RW 

13.22 

25.89 

19.55 

2010 

BEESCAUT_RW 

BEESCAUT_SCHEL
DE_BR 

BEMAAS_VL 

0.54 

3.64 

1.62 

BEMEUSE_RW 

BENOORDZEE_FED 

BERHIN_RW 

BESCHELDE_VL 

0.08 

19.84 

2.37 

2.35 

107.44 

19.4 

10.13 

14.93 

13.09 

1.6 

1.92 

5.44 

0.32 

79.72 

15.85 

122.68 

20.12 

45.89 

18.45 

1 428 

1 428 

1 428 

109.93 

13.77 

0.15 

24.48 

6.93 

1.45 

1.45 

1.45 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

BESEINE_RW 

13.56 

26.76 

20.16 

Source: WISE electronic reporting.  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.1 

Proportion of surface water bodies in Belgium 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 reporting. 

32 

 
 
 
 
Table 2.3 

Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Belgium for the second 

and first cycles 

Year 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

RBD 

Number 

Area (km2) 
Minimum  Maximum  Average 

BEESCAUT_RW 

BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 

BEMAAS_VL 

BEMEUSE_RW 

BENOORDZEE_FED 

BERHIN_RW 

BESCHELDE_VL 

BESEINE_RW 

Total 

BEESCAUT_RW 

BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 

BEMAAS_VL 

BEMEUSE_RW 

BENOORDZEE_FED 

BERHIN_RW 

BESCHELDE_VL 

BESEINE_RW 

Total 

10 

5 

10 

21 

2 

32 

80 

10 

5 

10 

21 

2 

32 

80 

72.56 

21.23 

45.9 

38.15 

65.63 

49.27 

73 

21 

46 

38 

65 

48 

1 382.00 

162.49 

875.05 

3 311.10 

566.06 

87.08 

352.01 

591.66 

668.03 

366.83 

6 051.10 

1 364.36 

1 382.00 

162 

875 

3 588.00 

566 

86.8 

351.3 

592.1 

668 

366.5 

6 050.00 

1 360.16 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

2.1.2 

Identification of transboundary water bodies in national shares of international 
RBDs 

Belgium did not report any transboundary surface water bodies11. However, there is evidence 
of coordination on adjacent  water bodies, provided in  the relevant  overarching reports of the 

Scheldt and Meuse RBDs. A difference in the magnitude of rivers was identified: while RBDs 
in Wallonia included all rivers (including small water bodies), France included only the larger 

ones, while the Flanders region and the Netherlands had a similar and intermediate approach.  

It  was  reported  that  for  the  transboundary  surface  water  bodies,  the  coherence  of 

characterization  was  checked  for  each  of  the  water  bodies  (bi-or  multilaterally  between 
Member States). Homogeneous transboundary stretches of the Meuse River were defined using 
a joint and coordinated typology. 

11 Belgium subsequently clarified that there are no transboundary surface water bodies and that all water bodies 
take into account national/regional borders in their delineation because of administrative arrangements. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Belgium also did not report any transboundary groundwater bodies12.  

2.1.3  Typology of surface water bodies 

In  the  second  RBMP,  Belgium  reported  two  coastal  water  types,  six  lake  types,  three 

transitional water types and 41 river types (Table 2.4). The maximum number of types to be 
shared by RBDs was two in RBDs in both the Flanders and Wallonia RBDs, but not common 
to  the  two  regions13.  No  information  was  found  in  the  RBMPs  on  how  the  typologies  have 
been made biologically relevant14. 

Table 2.4  

Number  of  surface  water  body  types  at  RBD  level  in  Belgium  for  the  first 
(2010) and second (2016) cycles 

RBD 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

BEESCAUT_RW 

BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR 

BEMAAS_VL 

BEMEUSE_RW 

BENOORDZEE_FED 

BERHIN_RW 

BESCHELDE_VL 

BESEINE_RW 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

6 

2 

7 

5 

2 

5 

30 

29 

0 

3 

9 

1 

0 

5 

7 

1 

0 

0 

8 

0 

0 

0 

12 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

TOTAL 

45 
Source: WISE electronic reporting 
 Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs.  

41 

13 

2 

3 

2 

4 

6 

There was a significant decrease in the number of water body types in Belgium from 64 in the 

first cycle RBMP to 53 in second RBMP. There was a reduction by seven types in lakes, all of 
which were in the two Flanders RBDs. For rivers, there was a reduction in types in six of the 

eight  RBDs  with  rivers,  an  increase  in  one,  and  no  change  in  the  other.  In  the  two  largest 
RBDs,  there  were  differing  numbers  of  river  types  identified  in  second  RBMP:  29  in  the 

Meuse RBD and seven in the Scheldt RBD. 

Six  river,  one  coastal,  two  lake  and  one  transitional  water  equivalent  intercalibration  types 

were reported by Belgium in second RBMP. 50 water bodies (~10%) were reported not to have 

12 Belgium  subsequently clarified that there  are  no transboundary groundwater bodies and all  water bodies take 
into  account  national/regional  borders  in  their  delineation  because  of  administrative  arrangements.  Belgium 
further clarified that when a water body forming part of one or more cross border aquifers, coordination between 
the parties concerned has been put in place. 
13 Belgium subsequently clarified that this is true  for the Escaut/Schelde and in Wallonia, the landscape is very 
different between the Escaut RBD and the Meuse RBD and the same typology cannot be applied. 
14 Belgium subsequently clarified that the information exists in background documents that did not form part of 
their reporting.  

34 

 
  
 
                                                      
applicable  common  intercalibration  types  including  artificial,  heavily  modified,  and  natural 

water bodies. Therefore it is unclear how the results of intercalibration are translated to these 
types  and  water  bodies.  In  general,  there  has  been  a  coordination  of  typologies  with 

neighbouring  states.  For  example,  in  the  Meuse  International  RBD,  there  was  a  coordinated 
approach  among  Member  State’s  parties  for  the  typology  of  the  rivers  in  the  International 

RBD, but not for lakes. The exception was reported to be for Brussels Region, because there 
are very few water bodies, and they are highly modified or artificial for which there were no 

equivalent counterparts. 

2.1.4  Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies 

Table  2.5  shows  the  percentage  of  surface  water  body  types  in  Belgium  with  reference 
conditions established for the first and second cycles. For one of the two coastal water types (in 

the Scheldt RBD) reference conditions had not been established for any  quality element.  For 
the other type in the North Sea RBD, reference conditions were reported to be established for 
all  biological  quality  elements  and  physico-chemical  quality  elements  but  for  none  of  the 

hydromorphological quality elements.  

Table 2.5  Percentage  of  surface  water  body  types  in  Belgium  with  reference  conditions 

established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physico-
chemical quality elements15  

Water category  Water types 

Biological quality 
elements 

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 

Physico-chemical 
quality elements 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

All  

Some 

None 

All  

Some 

None 

All  

Some 

None 

All  

Some 

None 

90% 

10% 

100% 

100% 

50% 

50% 

53% 

47% 

43% 

10% 

47% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

50% 

50% 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

All  six  lake  types  in  Belgium  were  reported  to  have  reference  conditions  established  for  all 
biological  quality  elements  but  for  none  of  the  hydromorphological  and  physico-chemical 

15 Belgium subsequently stated that the data reported into WISE are incorrect for hydromorphological and 
physico-chemical quality elements. 

35 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                      
quality elements. Of the 18 lakes in Belgium (all in the Flanders RBDs), 17 are artificial and 

the other heavily modified. The significance of the lack of comprehensive reference conditions 
for lakes needs to be assessed in relation to assessing the ecological potential of these lakes16.  

25 of the 58 river types were reported to have reference conditions for all relevant biological, 
hydromorphological  and  physico-chemical  quality  elements:  all  of  these  types  were  in  the 

Wallonia RBDs. The other 6 river types in the Wallonia RBDs had reference conditions for all 
hydromorphological  quality  elements  but  only  for  some  biological  quality  elements  and 

physico-chemical  quality  elements.  For  all  the  river  types  in  the  Flanders  RBDs  reference 
conditions have been established for relevant biological quality elements  and for all physico-

chemical  quality  elements.  This  information  is  available  in  the  RBMPs  but  was  not  always 
reported through WISE. For the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD (two types) reference conditions have 

been established for all biological quality elements but for none of the hydromorphological and 
physico-chemical  quality  elements.  There  are  still  gaps  in  the  establishment  of  reference 
conditions in Belgium.  

As with lakes, for transitional waters, reference conditions were established in all 4 types for 
all relevant  biological  quality  elements  but  for none of the hydromorphological  and physico-

chemical quality elements.  

2.1.5  Characteristics of groundwater bodies 

Six RBDs in Belgium have delineated groundwater bodies. All RBDs reported the geological 
characteristics of the aquifers and whether they are layered or not. Groundwater body links to 

terrestrial ecosystems have been reported in all six RBDs but links to surface water bodies are 
only reported by four RBDs: the two RBDs in the Flanders region provided an explanation of 

why this information was not reported to WISE.  

2.1.6 

Significant pressures on water bodies 

The most significant pressure on rivers in Belgium was from diffuse agricultural sources (96% 
of river water bodies in six RBDs) (Figure 2.2.). Atmospheric deposition was significant in all 

eight  RBDs  with  82  %  of  river  water  bodies  being  affected  and  point  source  pressures  from 
urban waste water in seven RBDs affecting 79 % of river water bodies. In terms of lakes, 89 % 

(of the 16) lake water bodies are affected by diffuse agricultural pressures, 28 % by ‘physical 
alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Unknown or obsolete’ and ‘diffuse atmospheric 

deposition’ in 22 %.  

16  Belgium  subsequently  clarified  that  this  assessment  has  been  carried  out  and  this  information  is  available  in 
background documents.  

36 

 
                                                      
All  six  transitional  water  bodies  in  Belgium  are  affected  by  ‘diffuse  agricultural  pressures,’ 

‘atmospheric  deposition’  and  ‘physical  alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian  area/shore  - 
Unknown or obsolete.’  

Figure 2.2 

The  10  most  significant  pressures  on  surface  water  bodies  and  groundwater 
bodies in Belgium for the second cycle 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

37 

 
 
 
 
The pressures reported for each cycle are not directly comparable as the methodology for the 

identification  of  pressures  has  changed.  Therefore  the  changes  shown  in  Figure  2.3  are  not 
actual changes in pressures.  

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

554 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 560 for the first 
cycle 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The  most  significant  pressure  on  groundwater  bodies  in  Belgium  in  the  second  RBMP  was 
‘diffuse  agriculture’  (51  %)  and  ‘point  Industrial  Emissions  Directive17  plants’  (25  %)  and 
‘point non-Industrial Emissions Directive plants’ (24 %) (Figure 2.2). In first RBMP, 46 % of 
groundwater bodies were affected by diffuse source pressures, in the second RBMP it was 56 
%. Similarly, in terms of point source pressures 14 % of groundwater bodies were affected in 

the first RBMP and 25 % in the second. 

2.1.7  Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater 

There were differences between the regions in Belgium in the tools used to define significant 
pressures on surface waters. Whilst the four Wallonia RBDs, the Scheldt (Brussels) and North 

Sea RBDs used a combination of numerical tools and expert judgement  for point and diffuse 
sources,  the  two  Flanders  RBDs  used  numerical  tools.  For  water  abstraction  pressures  the 

17  Directive  2010/75/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  November  2010  on  industrial 
emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)   
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0075  

38 

 
 
                                                      
RBDs in Wallonia used a combination of both expert judgment and numerical tools, whilst in 

the Flanders region expert judgment was used. Significance of pressures was linked to failure 
of  objectives  and  was  defined  in  terms  of  thresholds  in  the  Flanders  RBDs  but  not  in  the 

Wallonia RBDs. 

Expert judgment was used to assess significant point sources on groundwater in six RBDs; in 

the seventh (the Maas RBD) a combination of expert judgment and numerical tools was used. 
In five RBDs, a combination of both expert judgement and numerical tools was used to assess 

diffuse  sources  and  in  the  other  two  expert  judgment  only.  Expert  judgement  was  used  for 
water abstraction pressures in five RBDs and two used a combination of both. Significance has 

been defined in terms of thresholds in all seven RBDs and was linked to failure of objectives in 
three RBDs. 

2.1.8 

Significant impacts on water bodies  

Nutrient  pollution  was  the  most  significant  impact  on  all  surface  water  categories  65  %  of 
surface water bodies) and on groundwater (44 % of groundwater bodies)  in  Belgium (Figure 

2.4). Chemical  pollution was also  significant  in  surface and  groundwaters. Acidification also 
impacted 89 % of lakes in Belgium. 

39 

 
 
Figure 2.4   Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Belgium for 

the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

40 

 
 
 
 
2.1.9  Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 

73 % of groundwater bodies in Belgium were reported to be at risk of failing good chemical 
status.  Each  of  the  six  RBDs  with  groundwater  bodies  reported  some  groundwater  bodies  at 

risk.  

Thirty-three  different  pollutants  were  reported  to  be  putting  groundwater  bodies  at  risk  of 

failing  chemical  status  in  Belgium.  The  most  significant  in  terms  of  proportion  of  affected 
groundwater bodies were nitrate (51 % of groundwater bodies across all six RBDs), pesticides 

(40  %  of  groundwater  bodies  across  six  RBDs)  and  sulphate  (27  %  of  groundwater  bodies 
across three RBDs). Further information on the chemical status of groundwaters is provided in 

Chapter six of this report. Fifteen percent of groundwater bodies in Belgium were reported to 
be at  risk of failing  good quantitative status: three of the six RBDs reported no  groundwater 

bodies to be at risk. The reasons for the risk were reported as water balance in three RBDs and 
saline intrusion in one RBD. Further information on the quantitative status of groundwaters is 
provided in Chapter 5 of this report. 

2.1.10  Quantification of the gap and apportionment of pressures  

The  only  RBD  to  report  on  the  gaps  to  be  filled  by  measures  was  the  North  Sea  RBD.  It  is 

clear from  the information  reported that diffuse source pollution has  been apportioned as the 
main  sources  relevant  to  this  RBD:  agriculture,  transport,  atmospheric  deposition  and  other. 

The other RBDs reported significant  pressures to be addressed in  the PoM but  no gaps were 
reported. The Annex 0 reported that the information is available but could not be reported in 

the  required  format.  Belgium  reported  eighteen  chemical  substances  relevant  to  groundwater 
and fifty-four relevant to surface waters which are to be subject to measures but no gaps to be 

filled were provided for  any of the substances. The Annex 0 reported that  the information  is 
available but could not be reported in the required format. Further information on the PoM is 

provided in Chapter 9 of this report. 

2.1.11  Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances 

Article  5  of  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  2008/105/EC18  (EQS  Directive)  
requires  Member  States  to  establish  an  inventory  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  all 

Priority Substances and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I EQS Directive for 
each  RBD,  or  part  thereof,  lying  within  their  territory.  This  inventory  should  allow  Member 

18 Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental 
quality  standards  in  the  field  of  water  policy,  amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Council  Directives 

82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council 

41 

 
                                                      
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  (suppressing)  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  for  priority  substances  (priority 

hazardous substances). 

All  RBDs  except  the  North  Sea  RBD19  reported  inventories  for  all  Priority  Substances.  The 
two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°2820 has 
been followed for all substances considered in the inventories. Tier 1 of the methodology was 

implemented for many of the substances included in the inventories, including for some of the 
substances judged relevant at RBD level. Tier 4 (source oriented) or a combination of Tier 1 

(point source information) and Tier 2 (riverine load) were also implemented. In some cases the 
methodology applied was not reported. The data quality was assessed as medium, uncertain or 

very uncertain, or wasn’t reported. 

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

Overall in Belgium, there was a decrease in the number of river water bodies from 320 in the 

first RBMP to 302 in the second. There was an increase of heavily modified river water bodies 
from 87 in the first cycle to 99 in the second in the Scheldt RBD accompanied by a reduction 

in natural rivers from 40 to 23 implying that some natural water bodies in the first cycle RBMP 
have been designated as heavily modified in the second.  

There was a significant decrease in the number of water body types in Belgium from sixty-four 
in  the  first  cycle  RBMP  to  fifty-three  in  the  second  RBMP.  There  was  a  reduction  by  seven 

types in lakes, all in the two Flanders RBDs. For rivers there was a reduction in types in six of 
the eight RBDs with rivers, an increase in one and no change in the other. In the two largest 

RBDs there were differing numbers of river types identified in the second RBMP: twenty-nine 
in the Meuse RBD and seven in the Scheldt RBD. 

In the first cycle RBMP, diffuse source pressures were affecting 72 % of surface water bodies 
increasing to 100 % of surface water bodies in second RBMP. 44 % of surface water bodies 

were affected by point source pressures in the first cycle rising to 83 % in second. In the first 
cycle,  46  %  of  groundwater  bodies  were  affected  by  diffuse  source  pressures,  in  the  second 

cycle it was 56 %. Similarly, in terms of point source pressures 14  % of groundwater bodies 
were affected in the first cycle and 25 % in the second. 

19 Belgium mentioned that direct discharges to the North Sea are forbidden. However, an inventory of emissions 
would need to be established, to take into account diffuse sources and related emissions. 
20 CIS Guidance N° 28 - Preparation of Priority Substances Emissions Inventory 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm   

42 

 
                                                      
2.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation: Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation 
of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to 

be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place 
before the next cycle.  

Assessment: Hydromorphological pressures have been identified in all RBDs, although 
not  all  hydromorphological  pressures  have  been  fully  assessed  in  all  RBDs  (for 
example,  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  RBD21  did  not  report  on  the  assessment  of  dams 
barriers  and  locks  and  hydrological  pressures).  Hydromorphological  pressures  have 

been addressed  for the  RBDs in  Wallonia. Overall progress  has been made, but  there 
are further steps that can be taken. 

For the second cycle one of the two RBDs with coastal waters (the North Sea RBD and 
the Scheldt RBD) identified specific significant  pressures.  However the  Scheldt RBD 
only reported “unknown anthropogenic pressures”22. There has therefore been progress 
in one RBD but none in the other on this aspect of the recommendation. 

Belgium did not report any transboundary surface or groundwater bodies to WISE: but 
there is evidence of coordination. 

Overall,  there  has  been  some  progress  in  improving  characterisation  but  this 
recommendation has been partially fulfilled.  

  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  the  RBMPs  clearly  identify  the  gap  to  good  status  for 
individual pressures and water bodies, and that PoM are designed and implemented to 

close  that  gap  since  none  of  the  three  Regions  carried  out  an  assessment/analysis  of 
how far pressures (and their corresponding sources) have to be reduced to achieve the 
WFD objectives.  

Assessment: Identifying the gap to good status has only been reported for the North Sea 

RBD.  The  other  RBDs  explained  in  their  Annex  0  why  this  information  was  not 

21 Belgium subsequently highlighted that hydromorphological is indicated as a significant pressure in the reporting 
22  Belgium  subsequently  stated  that  this  water  body  is  a  sea  gate  in  a  nature  reserve  with  no  anthropogenic 
pressures. 

43 

 
                                                      
reported to WISE: Flanders and Brussels Regions claimed it was too difficult; Wallonia 
stated that it has the information but not in the required format23.  

The reported tools to assess significance of pressures show that expert judgment is still 

used  for  some  pressures.  The  use  of  numerical  tools  only  (including  modelling),  was 
reported by some RBDs for some pressures. 

Overall, this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Establish  a  quantitative  source  apportionment  and  a  link  between 
pressures/impacts  and  their  sources.  Belgium  should  use  these  as  a  basis  for 
determining PoM.  

Assessment:  Only  evidence  of  limited  progress:  see  previous  recommendation. 
Therefore this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

23  Belgium  subsequently  clarified  that  other  tools  and  models  were  used  and  explained  in  the  RBMPs. 
highlighting the difficulties of setting up a gap analysis in a multiple pressure environment. 

44 

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

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

3.1.1. Monitoring of ecological status/potential 

Monitoring programmes 

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

assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and 
comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD.  

Monitoring  programmes  were  generally  organised  in  terms  of  surveillance  and  operational 
purposes  for  each  water  category  in  the  RBDs.  Of  note  is  the  surveillance  and  operational 

programme  for  territorial  (for  chemicals)  and  coastal  waters  in  the  North  Sea  RBD.  In  the 
Maas RBD there is no surveillance programme for lakes, and in the Scheldt RBD there is no 
programme for the one coastal water body even though these water categories occur in these 

RBDs.  

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 cycles. Table 3.2 shows the number of sites used for different purposes 
for the second RBMPs.  

There was an increase from four to six surveillance sites reported in coastal waters between the 
two  cycles24;  however,  for  lakes,  rivers,  and  transitional  waters  there  were  decreases. 
Proportionally  the  largest  decrease  was  in  lakes  where  11  sites  had  been  used  for  the  first 
RBMPs and only one for the second RBMPs, with the Maas RBD no longer monitoring any of 

its three lakes for surveillance purposes. In terms of rivers, there was an increase in numbers 
between the cycles in one RBD, a reduction in two, and no change in four: overall there was a 

9%  decrease  in  Belgium.  The  number  of  surveillance  sites  was  halved  in  transitional  waters 
between the two cycles.   

Overall  in  Belgium  there  was  a  7  %  increase  in  the  number  of  sites  used  for  operational 
monitoring  between  the  two  cycles.  Proportionally,  the  largest  increase  (75  %)  was  in  lakes. 

There was also an increase for rivers, but a 23 % decrease in transitional waters.  In terms of 
rivers,  there  were  increases  in  two  RBDs  (those  in  the  Flanders  region),  a  decrease  in  one 

(Meuse RBD) and no changes in the other four RBDs with rivers. 

24 Belgium subsequently stated this is due to differences in reporting and not to an actual increase in surveillance 
sites. 

45 

 
                                                      
Table 3.1 

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

second RBMP  

Surv. 

Op. 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op. 

Surv. 

Op. 

Surv. 

Op. 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal25 

Territorial26 

BEEscaut_RW 
BEEscaut_Schelde_BR 
BEMaas_VL 
BEMeuse_RW 
BENoordzee_FED 
BERhin_RW 
BESchelde_VL 
BESeine_RW 
Total by type of site 
Total number of monitoring sites 
first RBMP 
BEEscaut_RW 
BEEscaut_Schelde_BR 
BEMaas_VL 
BEMeuse_RW 
BENoordzee_FED 
BERhin_RW 
BESchelde_VL 
BESeine_RW 
Total by type of site 
Total number of monitoring sites 

721 

14 
8 
8 
36 

3 
52 
1 
122 

14 
9 
6 
36 

3 
65 
1 
134 

74 
5 
42 
142 

7 
393 
1 
664 

74 
5 
38 
143 
. 
7 
385 
1 
653 

19 

70 

89 

1 

1 

89 

3 

10 

8 

11 

41 

51 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

6 

6 

10 

10 

10 

13 

13 

6 

6 

4 

4 

6 

6 

6 

5 

5 

870 

51 

13 

5 

Sources: Member States electronic reporting to WISE 

25 For the second RBMP 3 stations are also reported to monitor priority substances in biota for surveillance and operational monitoring. They were also surveyed in 
the first RBMP but not separately included yet as monitoring stations in the first RBMP. 
26 Not reported separately in WISE for the first RBMP, so these stations are included in the coastal waters stations in the first RBMP. 

46 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 3.2 

Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different 
purposes in Belgium27  

Lakes  Rivers  Transitional   Coastal  Territorial 

Monitoring Purpose 

CHE - Chemical status 

ECO - Ecological status 

HAB - Protection of habitats or 
species depending on water - WFD 
Annex IV.1.v 

MSF - Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive monitoring network 

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

366 

369 

204 

43 

OPE - Operational monitoring 

89 

664 

10 

RIV - International network of a river 
convention (including bilateral 
agreements) 

Strategic Environmental Assessment - 
International network of a sea 
convention 

SOE - EIONET State of Environment 
monitoring 

SUR - Surveillance monitoring 

1 

TRE - Chemical trend assessment 

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

20 

54 

122 

54 

426 

3 

4 

3 

4 

6 

6 

6 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

Total sites irrespective of purpose 

89 

869 

10 

6 

2 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

The  RBMPs  and  background  documents  provide  a  limited  amount  of  explanation  of  the 
observed  changes.  For  RBDs  in  Flanders,  the  official  decree  that  describes  the  monitoring 

programme is provided but does not elaborate on the changes made. For the Meuse RBD, some 
general information  is  provided with  some details  on the  reasons for the  changes.  There is  a 

total of over 40 modified monitoring sites in rivers. The reasons for these changes include:  

  Abolition of a number of measuring stations that were not necessary (e.g. stations used 

to determine reference conditions);  

  Some stations have been changed for reasons of safety of access; and, 

  Some stations have been changed due to a more rational planning of the network.  

27 Belgium subsequently stated that as the Belgian regions reported in different way on this topic, aggregation and 
conclusions have to be analysed with care and are not representative at a country level. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
The  background  document  on  the  monitoring  programme  for  RBDs  in  the  Wallonia  region 

includes a description of the new monitoring programme and a comparison with the first cycle 
monitoring, but no further reasons or background are provided about why changes have been 
implemented28. 
For the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD, the changes are described in the RBMP but no justification or 

further detail is provided in the RBMP or background document. 

Surveillance monitoring of surface water bodies 

There were no changes in the number of delineated coastal, transitional and lake water bodies 

between the two cycles and only small changes in the number of rivers (534 in the first RBMPs 
to 527 in the second).  

In  general  in  Belgium,  a  larger  proportion  of  lake,  river,  and  transitional  water  bodies  were 
monitored operationally  than for surveillance purposes: for example 71 % and 17 % of river 

water bodies, respectively (Figure3.1).  

Figure 3.1 

Percentage  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  and  operational 
monitoring in Belgium 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 reporting 

28  Belgium  (Wallonia)  subsequently  stated  that  in  the  future  resources  will  focus  more  specifically  on  the 
monitoring  of  the  parameters  declassifying  the  water  bodies.  However,  observation  will  take  place  in  order  to 
ensure that no degradation of the environment occurre for the parameters for which environmental objectives had 
already been achieved. 

48 

 
 
                                                      
Overall, there appears to have been a reduction in surveillance monitoring and an increase in 

operational  monitoring.  For  the  second  RBMPs,  only  one  lake  out  of  18  in  Belgium  was 
included  in  surveillance  monitoring,  while  for  the  first  RBMPs,  five  had  been  included  in 

surveillance monitoring.  

There was a small increase of river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring, from 90 

in  the  first  RBMPs  to  92  in  the  second.  The  Scheldt  RBD  has  a  coastal  water  body  but  no 
monitoring data was available. Monitored surface water bodies in the surveillance programme 

were  distributed  throughout  the  status  classes  in  rivers  (Figure  3.2)  but  were  limited  to  less 
than good classes for the other relevant water categories. 

Figure 3.2 

Proportion  of  water  bodies  in  each  ecological  status/potential  class  that  are 
included in surveillance monitoring in Belgium  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

 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_QualityElement_Status_Compare/SWB
_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false
&:showVizHome=no 

Operational monitoring of surface water bodies 

The only changes in the numbers of water bodies included in operational monitoring between 
the two cycles were  for  rivers. Overall there  was a small increase, from  69 % of river  water 

bodies in the first RBMPs to 71 % in the second. In three RBDs (all in the Wallonia region) 
there  were  small  increases  in  the  number  included  in  operational  monitoring,  and  small 
reductions in the two RBDs in the Flanders region. 

49 

 
 
 
Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) 

Table  3.3  illustrates  the  quality  elements  used  for  the  monitoring  of  surface  waters  for  the 

second RBMPs; no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. 

In the first and second RBMPs, two biological quality elements were reported to be monitored 

in  the  coastal  water  body  in  the  North  Sea  RBD.  Note  that  it  has  been  accepted  by  the 
Common Implementation Strategy Working Group on Ecological Status that angiosperms and 

macroalgae  are  not  applicable  in  coastal  and  transitional  waters  in  Belgium.  In  addition, 
hydromorphology was not monitored, and only two general physicochemical quality elements 

were monitored.  

Hydromorphological  quality  elements  were  reported  to  be  monitored  in  lakes  in  the  first 

RBMPs, whereas in the second RBMPs they were not. All required biological quality elements 
and general physicochemical quality elements were reported to be monitored in both cycles.  

50 

 
 
Table 3.3 

Quality  elements  monitored  for  the  second  RBMPs  in  Belgium  (excluding 

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

macroalgae are not applicable in coastal and transitional waters in Belgium. 

Biological quality elements 

Hydromorphological quality elements 

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

s
e
t
y
h
p
o
r
c
a
M

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

c
i
h
t
n
e
B

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

h
s
i
F

s

m
r
e
p
s
o
i
g
n
A

e
a
g
l
a
o
r
c
a
M

Lakes 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

Rivers 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

r
e
h
t
O

c
i
t
a
u
q
a

r
e
h
t
O

a
r
o
l
f

No 

No 

Transitional  Yes  Yes 

Yes  Yes  No  No  No 

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

e
m
i
g
e
r

l
a
d
i
t

No 

Yes 

No 

y
t
i
u
n
i
t
n
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Coastal 

Yes 

Yes 

No  No  No 

   No (Yes) 

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

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

No 

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

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

l
a
m
r
e
h
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

n
o
i
t
a
n
e
g
y
x
O

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

y
t
i
n
i
l
a
S

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

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

s
u
t
a
t
s

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

n
e
g
o
r
t
i

N

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

s
u
r
o
h
p
s
o
h
P

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
C

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 
No 
(Yes) 

r
e
h
t
O

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

t
n
e
i
r
t
u
n

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

e
t
a
c
i
l
i
S

No 

No 

No 

No 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Belgium  

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional 

Coastal 

All  required  biological  quality  elements  and  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  were 
also reported to be monitored in rivers in all seven RBDs with rivers for the first and second 

cycles. However, only three of the seven RBDs  – Scheldt and Maas (all three elements) and 
they  monitored 
Scheldt 

(only  hydrological 

(Brussels) 

indicated 

regime) 

that 

- 

hydromorphological  quality  elements  in  the  first  RBMPs.  In  the  second  RBMPs,  six  of  the 
seven  RBDs  reported  that  these  elements  were  now  monitored,  indicating  some  progress.  In 

the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  RBD  only  hydrological  regime  was  still  monitored,  leaving  gaps  in 
terms of river continuity and morphological conditions. 

In terms of transitional waters, the same biological quality elements and hydromorphological 
quality elements were reported for both cycles.  

None  of  the  lake  and  transitional  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  (one  and 
three  respectively)  was  monitored  for  all  the  required  biological,  hydromorphological,  and 
general  physicochemical  quality  elements.  In  terms  of  the  biological  quality  elements,  only 

51 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
phytoplankton (in two of the three water bodies) in transitional waters and phytoplankton and 

benthic  invertebrates  in  lakes  were  monitored.  Phytoplankton  and  benthic  invertebrates  were 
surveillance  monitoring  but 
monitored 

the  coastal  water  body 

included 

in 

in 

hydromorphological and some general physicochemical quality elements were not monitored. 

In  terms  of  rivers,  all  the  required  biological  quality  elements  were  monitored  in  four  of  the 

seven RBDs with rivers, representing 62 % of the river water bodies included in surveillance 
monitoring.  For  the  hydromorphological  quality  elements,  73  %  of  those  river  water  bodies 

included  in  surveillance  monitoring  were  monitored  for  all  required  elements.  99  %  of  river 
water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  were  monitored  for  all  required  general 

physicochemical quality elements.  

Two biological  quality  elements  (phytoplankton  and benthic invertebrates) were used for the 

operational  monitoring  of  coastal  waters;  only  one  of  the  two  coastal  water  bodies  was 
included in operational monitoring. For transitional waters, all four relevant biological quality 
elements  were  included  in  operational  monitoring.  Whilst  all  relevant  biological  quality 

elements were included in the operational monitoring of lakes, phytoplankton was monitored 
in  all those water bodies monitored operationally, followed by  fish  and benthic invertebrates 

(78%  of  water  bodies),  phytobenthos  (72  %)  and  macrophytes  (67  %).  Again,  all  relevant 
biological quality elements were included in the operational monitoring of rivers, with benthic 

invertebrates  being  monitored  in  90  %  of  river  water  bodies  included  in  operational 
monitoring, followed by phytobenthos (88 %), macrophytes (72 %) and fish (70 %). 

In  Belgium  as  a  whole,  all  coastal,  lake  and  transitional  water  bodies  at  less  than  good 
ecological status/potential were included in operational monitoring, while in rivers 88 % were 

included.  

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

quality elements. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a 
period of one year during the period covered by a RBD management plan; that is, once every 

six years. For phytoplankton, this should be done twice during the monitoring  year and once 
during the  year for the other biological quality elements. Operational monitoring should take 

place at intervals not exceeding once every six months for phytoplankton and once every three 
years during the six year cycle for the other biological quality elements. Greater intervals may 

be justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. 

Only  two  biological  quality  elements  were  used  for  the  surveillance  monitoring  of  coastal 

waters:  both  phytoplankton  and  benthic  invertebrates  were  sampled  at  the  minimum 
recommended  frequency  at  all  three  sites  used.  In  transitional  waters,  only  one  biological 
quality element (phytoplankton) was sampled at the minimum recommended frequency at the 

52 

 
two sites used. Only fish and phytoplankton were used in the surveillance monitoring of lakes, 

with one site for each. The site for fish was sampled at the minimum recommended frequency, 
while  the  site  for  phytoplankton  was  not.  Five  biological  quality  elements  were  used  for  the 

surveillance  monitoring  of  rivers  and  none  were  sampled  at  the  minimum  recommended 
frequency at all the sites where they were monitored. The maximum proportion of sites where 

the  minimum  recommended  frequency  was  met  or  exceeded  was  for  phytoplankton  and 
phytobenthos,  for  which  76  %  of  sites  were  sampled  at  the  minimum  frequency,  and  the 

minimum for fish (56 % of sites). 

Overall, only 69  % of the sites  used for the surveillance monitoring of the biological  quality 

elements  in  surface  water  bodies  in  Belgium  were  sampled  at,  or  greater  than,  the  minimum 
recommended frequency. For operational monitoring it was only 24 % of sites. 

Three sites were used for operational monitoring in one of the two coastal water bodies and the 
sites  were  sampled  at  least  at  the  minimum  recommended  frequency  for  phytoplankton  and 
benthic  invertebrates.  In  contrast,  none  of  biological  quality  elements  used  in  transitional 

waters  were  sampled  at  the  minimum  recommended  frequency.  Although  more  biological 
quality elements and more sites were used for the operational monitoring of lakes compared to 

surveillance,  three  of  the  five  elements  were  not  sampled  at  the  minimum  recommended 
frequency  at  any  of  the  sites;  the  other  two  were  in  line  with  the  minimum  recommended 

frequency  at  44  %  of  the  46  sites  used  for  phytobenthos  and  27  %  of  the  41  sites  used  for 
benthic  invertebrates.  None  of  the  five  biological  quality  elements  used  in  the  operational 

monitoring  of  rivers  were  sampled  at  the  minimum  recommended  frequency  at  all  sites.  No 
sites  were  sampled  at  least  at  the  recommended  frequency  for  phytoplankton  whereas  for 

benthic invertebrates 44 % of sites were. 

River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored 

A total of 79 different River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored in the two 

Flanders RBDs and the North Sea Federal RBD in Belgium, all of them in water and three in 
sediment. Polychlorinated biphenyls, copper and zinc were monitored in sediment at one site in 
coastal  waters  and  two  sites  in  territorial  waters.  All  surface  water  categories,  including 
territorial  waters,  were  monitored  for  at  least  some  of  the  pollutants.  No  information  on  the 

individual  chemical  substances  monitored  was  reported  by  the  four  Walloon  RBDs  and  the 
Brussels Region RBD. 

Table 3.4 summarises the number of monitoring sites in each of the categories monitored for 
River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants.  This  is  mainly  from  the  information  reported  at  the  generic 
quality  element  level.  The  notable  differences  between  the  two  cycles  are  an  increase  in  the 
number of monitoring sites in lakes (from 0 to 22) and in rivers (from 523 to 617). 

53 

 
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 Belgium.  Note  the  data  from  both 

cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and not 
all  Member  State  reported  information  at  the  site  level  meaning  that  there 

were no equivalent data for the first RBMPs  

RBMP 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Territorial 

second   Sites used to monitor 
River Basin Specific 
Pollutants 

first  

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

617 

22 

523 

0 

7 

5 

1 

1 

2 

2 

Sources: WISE electronic reporting.Note: the data for rivers, lakes and transitional waters were 
reported at the generic quality element level; that for coastal and territorial waters was from reporting 
on chemicals monitored at the site level.  

River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  reported  in  the  first  RBMPs  to  be  monitored  in  rivers, 

transitional  and  coastal  waters.  In  the  second  RBMPs  this  has  been  extended  to  lakes  and 
territorial waters29. 

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

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

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

each year of the cycle. Greater intervals may be justified on the basis of technical knowledge 
and expert judgement. 

All 79 River Basin Specific Pollutants were included in surveillance monitoring and all were 
sampled at least  at the minimum recommended frequency at  all of the sites where they were 

monitored.  

Information on the individual River Basin Specific Pollutants was not reported at the site level 
for the Wallonia region RBDs, though information was reported at the generic quality element 

level.  For  the  Rhine  and  the  Seine  RBDs  it  is  also  unclear  whether  the  lack  of  reporting  of 
exceedances is a reporting mistake or means that there are no River Basin Specific Pollutants 

exceeding their Environmental Quality Standards in these two RBDs. 

29  Belgium  subsequently  indicated  that  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  had  also  been  monitored  in  territorial 
waters for the first RBMPs, although this had not been reported to WISE. 

54 

 
 
                                                      
Transboundary surface water body monitoring 

Belgium  did  not  report  any  transboundary  surface  water  bodies.  Three  RBDs  reported  river 
monitoring sites that are part of an international network of a river convention30. In addition, 
there  are  sites  in  the  North  Sea  RBD  in  coastal  and  territorial  waters  that  are  part  of  an 

international network of a sea convention.  

3.1.2. Ecological Status/potential of surface water  

The  ecological  status/potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Belgium  in  the  second  RBMPs  is 

illustrated in Map 3.1.  

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

RBMPs with that in the second RBMPs and that expected by 2015. 

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

status/potential. The information for Belgium is shown in Figure 3.4. 

30 Belgium subsequently clarified that all water bodies in Belgium take into account national/regional borders in 
their delineation. Belgium  has also  informed that these  water bodies are considered as contiguous  water bodies 
because of administrative arrangements for which coordination has been put in place.   

55 

 
                                                      
Map 3.1 

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

most recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies 

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

High 

Good 

Moderate 

Poor  

Bad 

Unknown 

RBDs 

Countries outside the European Union 

56 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
Figure 3.3  Ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Belgium  in  the 

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

period of the assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2008 to 2014. 
The year of the assessment of status for the first RBMPs is not known 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

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

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

All water bodies have been classified, except 13 heavily modified water bodies and one natural 
river  water  body  in  the  Meuse  RBD  and  one  coastal  water  body  in  the  Scheldt  RBD.  The 

57 

0%20%40%60%80%100%Coastal (2)Transitional (6)Lakes (18)Rivers (527)% water bodiesLess stringent objectivesalready achieved20152016‐‐20212022‐‐2027Beyond 2027Unknown 
 
 
proportion  of  unknowns  has  decreased  from  7  %  in  the  first  RBMPs  to  3  %  in  the  second 

RBMPs.  

There has been an increase between the two cycles in the proportion of surface water bodies at 

good or better status/potential: the proportion of less than good status/potential surface water 
bodies remained the same. 

The ecological status/potential is still less than good for more than 70 % of all classified river 
water bodies. All  lakes  (18 water bodies), transitional waters (six water bodies) and the only 

coastal water body which was classified are in less than good ecological status/potential. More 
than half of the river water bodies and 2/3 of the lakes are in poor or worse status in the second 

RBMPs.  This  shows  that  Belgium  has  a  long  way  to  go  to  achieve  the  good  status/potential 
objectives, which may be why the timing of achievement of objectives is reported as unknown 

for 60 % of the water bodies (Figure 3.4). 

Three RBMPs were examined in more detail for information on the changes described by the 
Member State in  the ecological  status/potential of surface water bodies between the first  and 

second RBMPs. 

For the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD, data on fish were lacking in the period 2009-2010, and data 

were therefore incomplete. It is reported in the RBMP that a general trend can be described: as 
the principle 'one out/all out' was applied, an insufficient or bad value for fish in 2013 has led 

to a decrease of status compared to the first cycle, when fish data were not used.  

In  the  Scheldt  (Flanders)  RBD  none  of  the  176  assessed  waterbodies  achieved  a  good 

ecological status or potential in the second RBMP as was the case in the first RBMP. There are 
improvements  noticeable  in  the  Scheldt  RBD  for  individual  biological  quality  elements,  but 

not for the overall ecological status.  

In the Meuse (Wallonia) RBD there was an increase in the number of water bodies with a good 

or high ecological status (130 in the second RBMP versus 115 in the first RBMP). 

Confidence in ecological status assessment 

Figure3.5 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. 

The  confidence  in  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  is  given  as  high  for  99%  of 
surface  water  bodies,  which  is  a  major  improvement  since  the  first  RBMPs,  where  no 

information was given on confidence. It should also be noted that no water body was classified 
with low confidence. 

58 

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

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element 

All  the  relevant  biological  quality  elements  are  used  for  classification  in  most  of  the  water 

bodies in all water categories and RBDs (Figure 3.6). All the general physicochemical quality 
elements and hydromorphological quality elements are classified in almost all water bodies in 

the Scheldt and Maas RBDs.  

The hydromorphological quality elements are reported not to be classified in rivers in the four 

RBDs of the Wallonia region  (Escaut,  Meuse, Rhine and Seine RBDs).  Hydromorphological 
quality  elements  are  not  classified  in  rivers  in  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  RBD.  The 

hydromorphological  quality  elements  are  also  missing  in  lakes  in  the  Maas  RBD  and  the 
Scheldt  RBD  and  in  coastal  waters  in  the  North  Sea  RBD.  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants 

were used in the classification of ecological status/potential in all water categories in all RBDs. 

Changes  in  the  status/potential  at  the  quality  element  level  between  the  two  RBMPs  were 

reported  to  be  consistent  for  some  quality  elements  in  some  water  bodies  in  the  Scheldt 
(Brussels)  RBD  and  a  few  water  bodies  in  the  Scheldt  RBD,  but  there  is  no  clear  pattern 

towards better or worse. In the Scheldt and Maas RBDs information on change was reported 
for many water bodies,  but  the vast  majority show no change;  for those that show a change, 

some are to the better and some to the worse with no clear pattern and there is no information 
about  the  reason  for  change.  For  the  other  water  bodies  and  quality  elements  and  RBDs  the 

change is either unknown or there is no information.  

59 

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

classification  of  lakes  and  rivers  in  Belgium.  Note  that  water  bodies  with 
unknown  status/potential,  and  those  that  are  monitored  but  not  classified  or 
not applicable, are not presented31  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

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

status/potential  for  the  two  cycles.  It  should  be  noted  that  this  comparison  should  be  treated 
with caution as there are differences between the numbers of surface water bodies classified for 

individual elements. 

31 Angiosperms and macroalgae are not relevant in coastal and transitional waters. 

60 

 
 
                                                      
 
Figure 3.7  Comparison  of  ecological  status/potential  in  Belgium  according  to  classified 

biological quality elements in rivers and lakes between the two cycles.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 
https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement/SWB_QualityElement?:
embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false&:showShareOptions=true&:showVizHome=no 

Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements 

Assessment methods are complete for most biological quality elements in all water categories 

and  RBDs,  except  phytoplankton  in  rivers  in  the  Meuse,  Rhine  and  Seine  RBDs.  All  the 
biological quality elements with methods developed are used for classification in most of the 

water bodies in all water categories and RBDs.  

The  sensitivity  of  the  biological  quality  element  methods  to  different  impacts  has  been 

reported.  The  methods  seem  to  be  sensitive  to  most  relevant  impacts,  with  the  exception  of 
altered habitats due to hydrological changes in lakes, to which no method was reported to be 

sensitive. 

As was already the case in the first RBMPs, macroalgae were considered as not being relevant 
and therefore no method was needed. 

Intercalibration of biological assessment methods and national classification systems 

Most types of water bodies are linked to an intercalibration type. The exceptions are two river 
types in the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD32 and six types of reservoirs and one artificial river type in 

32 Belgium subsequently indicated the Brussels RBD did not participate in the intercalibration exercise but linked 
the three waterbodies to the results in Flanders and Wallonia for the same types of river. 

61 

 
 
                                                      
the Meuse RBD, as well as three brackish lake types and four small river types (polders) in the 

Scheldt RBD. It is not clear how the class boundaries have been set for the biological quality 
elements in these national types that are not linked to any intercalibration type33. 

The  two  RBMPs  of  the  Flanders  Region  indicate  that  the  class  boundaries  for  lakes  for 
chlorophyll A are fixed within the 2008 EU intercalibration exercise, except for the type Bzl 

which have been taken from the Netherlands type M30. 

Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements 

Assessment  methods  are  developed  for  all  relevant  hydromorphological  quality  elements  in 

rivers  and  for  morphological  conditions  in  transitional  waters.  The  methods  are  stated  to  be 
related  to  the  sensitive  biological  quality  elements,  but  there  is  some  uncertainty  about  this. 

The  hydromorphological  quality  elements  are  not  classified  in  rivers  in  the  Escaut,  Scheldt 
(Brussels),  Meuse,  Rhine  and  Seine  RBDs,  nor  in  lakes  in  the  two  RBDs  which  have  lakes 

(Maas and Scheldt RBDs).  

Assessment methods for general physicochemical quality elements 

Methods for the assessment of the general physicochemical quality elements are developed for 
most of the relevant quality elements for the different water categories found in the different 

RBDs. The methods are stated to be related to the sensitive biological quality elements, but it 
should  be  noted  that the  nutrient  standards  are  close  to  or  higher  than  the  nutrient  saturation 

level for nutrient sensitive biological quality elements.  

Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of environmental quality standards 

For Flanders the selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants is based upon monitoring of all 

polluting chemical substances that are being emitted by point and diffuse sources in significant 
amounts.  The  Flemish  list  of  substances  (in  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Decree)  is 

subsequently examined for relevance of the chemicals based upon emission data. There was no 
specific  information  on  the  selection  of  substances  in  the  Meuse  (Wallonia)  and  Scheldt 

(Brussels) RBMPs other than that the lists used will be revised in this cycle.  

Environmental  Quality  Standards  have  been  established  for  approximately  104  River  Basin 

Specific  Pollutants  in  water  (the  total  number  is  uncertain  because  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants  have  been  reported  as  “rbspOther”  in  the  electronic  reporting,  with  the  risk  that 

some  pollutants  reported  differently  may  be  the  same  substance).  In  addition,  a  number  of 

33  Belgium  subsequently  stated  that  the  establishment  of  reference  conditions  was  described  in  detail  in  the 
various scientific reports that document the development of the biological assessment methods. 

62 

 
                                                      
 
standards were set for copper and zinc depending on water temperature. Environmental quality 

standards for nine substances in sediment were also set.  

As previously described, 79 River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored but 

this  was  based  on  only  three  of  the  eight  RBDs  in  Belgium,  as  the  Wallonia  RBDs  and  the 
Brussels  RBD  did  not  report  which  specific  chemical  substances  were  monitored  at  the  site 

level.  Environmental  Quality  Standards  were  reported  by  all  eight  RBDs.  The  difference 
between the number of RBDs reporting on monitoring and on standards may explain why there 

are  differences  in  the  numbers  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  for  which  Environmental 
Quality Standards were established compared to the number monitored. 

The  Environmental  Quality  Standards  have  been  derived  in  accordance  with  the  Technical 
Guidance  Document  No  2734  for  nearly  all  standards  and  substances  in  water,  with  the 
exception of four substances in the Brussels RBD. The technical guidance was reported to be 
used for those same substances in other RBDs.  

For  97  %  of  the  reported  standards  the  analytical  methods  used  meet  the  minimum 
performance  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  4.1  of  the  QA/QC  Directive35  for  the  strictest 
standard applied and for 2 % the analytical method complies with the requirements laid down 

in Article 4.2.  

Concerning  sampling  in  sediments,  Technical  Guidance  Document  No.  27  was  not  used  to 

derive the standards but  the analytical  methods  used meet  the minimum performance criteria 
laid down in Article 4.1 of the QA/QC Directive. 

Environmental  quality  standards  for  both  annual  average  and  maximum  allowable 
concentration  are  given  for  water  for  the  vast  majority  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants, 

while  environmental  quality  standards  are  given  for  sediment  for  copper,  zinc  and 
polychlorinated biphenyls in the coastal water body (the North Sea RBD).  

Six of the eight RBDs in Belgium reported exceedances of Environmental Quality Standards in 
surface waters. 35 River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported for which status or potential is 

less than good: the largest proportion of surface water bodies at less than good status was for 
cobalt (19%), followed by uranium (8%) and arsenic (7%). 

34  https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0cc3581b-5f65-4b6f-91c6-433a1e947838/TGD-environmental quality 
standard%20CIS-WFD%2027%20EC%202011.pdf 
35 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:201:0036:0038:EN:PDF 

63 

 
                                                      
Use of monitoring results for classification 

Figure3.8  illustrates  the  basis  of  the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  of  rivers  and 

lakes in Belgium for the second RBMPs. The classification of the individual quality elements 
is illustrated in Figure 3.9.  

Figure 3.8 

The classification of the ecological status or potential of surface water bodies 
in Belgium using 1, 2, 3 or 4 types of quality element  

Note:  The  four  types  are:  biological;  general  physico-chemical  and  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants, hydromorphological. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

64 

 
 
 
Figure 3.9 

Basis  of  the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  in  Belgium.  The 
percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Mostly in Belgium, the results of monitoring are used to classify the ecological status/potential 
of coastal, lake, river, and transitional water bodies. Grouping was used for a few water bodies. 

65 

 
 
 
All lake water bodies monitored for the different biological quality elements are subsequently 

classified using the biological quality element. This is also the case for the physico-chemical 
quality elements. The hydromorphological quality elements were not monitored or used in the 

assessment/classification of the status of lakes. 

In  terms  of  rivers,  the  quality  elements  predominantly  used  to  classify  water  bodies  are 

invertebrates,  and  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants.  Fish  and 
phytobenthos,  benthic 
macrophytes are also used to a large extent but in general hydromorphological quality elements 

and  physico-chemical  quality  elements  are  used  to  a  much  lesser  extent  than  the  biological 
quality elements (for example, 490 river water bodies classified by benthic invertebrates, 170 

by  morphological  conditions  and  171  by  phosphorus  conditions).  However,  both 
hydromorphological  quality  element  and  physico-chemical  quality  elements  are  directly 

monitored  in  more  water  bodies  than  have  been  subsequently  used  for  classification:  for 
example, 516 river water bodies monitored for phosphorus conditions and 173 classified, 519 
river  water  bodies  monitored  for  morphological  conditions,  and  170  subsequently  classified. 

Generally when monitored the results for biological quality elements are used to classify river 
water bodies. 

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

The  proportion  of  water  bodies  for  which  the  classification  included  no  biological, 
hydromorphological or general physicochemical elements is shown in Figure3.10. 

The one-out-all-out principle is reported to have been used in all RBDs. 

66 

 
Figure 3.10  The percentage of river and lake water bodies in Belgium where no biological 

quality element  or no hydromorphological  or no general  physicochemical  or 
no  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutant  has  been  used  in  the  classification  of 

ecological status or potential 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

3.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

Overall there appears to  have been a reduction in  surveillance monitoring and an increase in 
operational monitoring. 

There  were  decreases  in  surveillance  sites  between  the  two  cycles  for  lakes,  rivers,  and 
transitional  waters.  Proportionally  the  largest  decrease  was  in  lakes  where  11  sites  had  been 

used for the first RBMPs and only one for the second RBMPs with one RBD (Maas RBD) no 
longer monitoring any of its three lakes for surveillance purposes. In terms of rivers there was 

an increase in numbers between the cycles in one RBD, a reduction in two, and no change in 
four: overall there was a 9 % decrease in Belgium. The number of surveillance sites halved in 
transitional waters between the two cycles.  

Overall  in  Belgium  there  was  a  7  %  increase  in  the  number  of  sites  used  for  operational 
monitoring  between  the  two  cycles.  Proportionally,  the  largest  increase  (75  %)  was  in  lakes. 

There was also an increase for rivers, but a 23 % decrease in transitional waters.  In terms of 
rivers,  there  were  increases  in  two  RBDs  (those  in  the  Flanders  region),  a  decrease  in  the 

Meuse RBD and no changes in the other four RBDs with rivers. 

Hydromorphological  quality  elements  were  reported  to  be  monitored  in  lakes  in  the  first 

RBMPs, whereas in the second RBMPs they were not. All required biological quality elements 
and  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  were  reported  to  be  monitored  in  both  cycles. 

67 

 
 
All  required  biological  quality  elements  and  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  were 

also reported to be monitored in rivers in all 7 RBDs with rivers for the first and second cycles. 
However, only three of the seven RBDs – Scheldt and Maas (all three elements) and Scheldt 

(Brussels)  (only  hydrological  regime)  -  indicated  that  they  monitored  hydromorphological 
quality  elements  in  the  first  RBMPs.  In  the  second  RBMPs,  six  of  the  seven  RBDs  reported 

that these elements  were now monitored, indicating some progress.  In the Scheldt (Brussels) 
RBD only hydrological  regime was still monitored, leaving  gaps  in  terms  of river continuity 

and morphological conditions. 

In terms of transitional waters, the same biological quality elements and hydromorphological 

quality elements were reported for both cycles.  

River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  reported  in  the  first  RBMPs  to  be  monitored  in  rivers, 

transitional  and  coastal  waters.  In  the  second  RBMPs  this  has  been  extended  to  lakes  and 
territorial waters. 

For  the  second  RBMPs,  only  one  lake  out  of  18  in  Belgium  was  included  in  surveillance 

monitoring, while for the first RBMPs, five had been included in surveillance monitoring.  

There was also a small increase of river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring, from 

90 for the first RBMPs to 92 in the second RBMPs. 

The only change in the numbers of water bodies included in operational  monitoring between 

the  two  cycles  was  for  rivers.  Overall  there  was  a  small  increase,  from  69%  of  river  water 
bodies in the first RBMPs to 71 % in the second RBMPs. In three RBDs (all in the Wallonia 

region)  there  were  small  increases  in  numbers  included  in  operational  monitoring  and  small 
reductions in the two RBDs in the Flanders region. 

In the first RBMPs there was no information on confidence in ecological status classification, 
but now the confidence is given as high in almost all classified water bodies (medium for seven 

water bodies).  

The proportion of unknowns has changed from 7 % of all water bodies in the first RBMPs to 3 

% in the second RBMPs.  

All biological quality elements methods are developed for all types in all water categories and 

RBDs,  except  macroalgae  and  angiosperms  in  coastal  waters  which  are  considered  to  be  not 
applicable in Belgium. For transitional waters, macrophytes are used instead of the macroalgae 

and angiosperms.  

General physicochemical methods are developed for most of the relevant quality elements for 
the  different  water  categories  found  in  the  different  RBDs,  except  transparency  conditions, 

68 

 
which is missing in lakes, transitional and coastal waters. The methods are stated to be related 

to the sensitive biological quality elements.  

Hydromorphological methods are developed for all relevant quality elements in rivers and for 

morphological  conditions  in  transitional  waters.  The  methods  are  stated  to  be  related  to  the 
sensitive biological quality elements.  

River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  are  classified  in  all  water  bodies  in  all  the  relevant  water 
categories in all the RBDs and exceedances are given for a large number of substances in most 

of the RBDs. The environmental quality standards are set based on the technical guidance and 
analytical methods given in Article 4(1) of the Technical specifications for chemical analysis 
and monitoring of water status36.  

A  consistent  quality  element-change  was  reported  for  some  quality  elements  in  some  water 

bodies in the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD and a few water bodies in the Scheldt RBD, but there is 
no clear pattern towards better or worse. In the Escaut, Scheldt and Maas RBDs information on 
change was reported for many water bodies, but the vast majority show no change. For those 

that show a change some are to the better and some to the worse with no clear pattern and there 
is no information about the reason for change. For the other water bodies and quality elements 

and RBDs the change is either unknown or there is no information. 

3.3. 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation: Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation 
of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to 

be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place 
before the next cycle. 

Assessment:  Almost  all  water  bodies  have  been  classified  in  Belgium  in  the  second 
RBMPs. The proportion of water bodies  with  unknown status/potential has  decreased 

from 7 % in the first RBMPs to 3 % in the second. The confidence in the classification 
of  ecological  status/potential  is  given  as  high  for  almost  all  water  bodies,  which  is  a 

major  improvement  since  the  first  RBMP,  where  no  information  was  given  on 
confidence. 

In terms of this aspect, the recommendation has been fulfilled.  

36  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  

69 

 
                                                      
  Recommendation:  Improve  the  methods  for  the  status  assessment  of  water  bodies  to 
reduce  the  degree  of  uncertainty  in  status  classification  and  thus  support  the  gap 
analysis required to identify measures. 

Assessment: All  relevant  biological  quality elements  were reported to  be used for the 
second RBMPs though not all the required biological quality elements were monitored 

in all water bodies included in surveillance monitoring.  

The confidence in classification is now reported as high for almost all water bodies and 

as medium for a few, while in the first RBMPs there was no information on confidence. 
The proportion of unknowns has decreased from 7 % to 3 % of all water bodies from 

the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs.  Now  only  15  water  bodies  out  of  a  total  of  553  have 
unknown ecological status. In total 13 of these are heavily modified rivers in the Meuse 

RBD. There is a minor improvement in ecological status of river water bodies from 123 
(24 %) river water bodies in good or better status in the first RBMPs to 145 (28 %) in 

the second RBMPs.  

Assessment  methods  are  complete  for  all  biological  quality  elements  in  all  water 

categories and RBDs. Most national types are linked to an intercalibration type. 

All the biological quality elements with methods developed are used for classification 

in most of the water bodies in all water categories and RBDs. General physicochemical 
methods are developed for most of the relevant quality elements for the different water 

categories  found in  the  different  RBDs. The methods are claimed to  be  related to  the 
sensitive  biological  quality  elements.  Hydromorphological  methods  are  developed  for 

all  relevant  hydromorphological  quality  elements  in  rivers  and  for  morphological 
conditions in transitional waters. The methods are claimed to be related to the sensitive 

biological quality elements.  

There has been progress on this recommendation and it has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  The  identification  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  needs  to  be 
more  transparent,  with  clear  information  on  how  pollutants  were  selected,  how  and 

where  they  were  monitored,  where  there  are  exceedances  and  how  such  exceedances 
have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status. It is important that 

there  is  an  ambitious  approach  to  combatting  chemical  pollution  and  that  adequate 
measures are put in place.  

Assessment:  Information  on  how  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  selected  is 
included  in  the  RBMPs  for  the  RBDs  in  Flanders,  while  there  was  no  specific 
information  on  the  selection  of  substances  in  the  Meuse  (Wallonia)  and  Scheldt 

70 

 
(Brussels) RBMPs. Exceedances are given for a large number of substances in most of 

the RBDs. The one-out, all-out principle is reported to have been applied in all RBDs. 
The Environmental Quality Standards for almost all River Basin Specific Pollutants in 

water have been derived in accordance with the Technical Guidance Document No 27. 
The  analytical  methods  used  for  the  vast  majority  of  substances  meet  the  minimum 

performance criteria laid down in Article 4.1 of the QA/QC Directive for the strictest 
standard  applied.  In  most  cases  where  the  methods  do  not  meet  the  requirements  of 

Article 4.1, Article 4.2 is complied with.  

Environmental  quality  standards  for  both  annual  average  and  maximum  allowable 

concentration  are  given  for  water  for  the  vast  majority  of  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants,  while  environmental  quality  standards  are  given  for  sediment  for  copper, 

zinc and polychlorinated biphenyls in the coastal water body (the North Sea RBD). 

This recommendation is partly fulfilled. 

71 

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

4.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and 

compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in second cycle 

4.1.1.  Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters 

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

Member  States  have  to  implement  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  programmes  in 

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

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

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

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

Section  3.1.1of  this  report  summarises  the  characteristics  of  the  surveillance  and  operational 
monitoring programmes in Belgium 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 Agency37.  

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

72 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.1 

Proportion  of  sites  used  for  monitoring  of  chemical  status  and,  for 
comparison, ecological status, in Belgium.38 The number  in parenthesis next 
to  the  category  is  the  total  number  of  monitoring  sites  irrespective  of  their 

purpose 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The  extent  of  monitoring  for  chemical  status  is  incompletely  described  in  Figure  4.2,  which 

partly results from  inconsistencies between different  parts of the reporting. Belgium clarified 
that all transitional water monitoring sites and 26 % of lake monitoring sites were used for the 

assessment  of  both  chemical  and  ecological  status.  Article  2(1)  of  the  WFD  indicates  that 
chemical  status  applies  to territorial  waters. For the second cycle, Member States are able to 

report any relevant information for the part of territorial waters which extend beyond coastal 
waters. Belgium monitors both of the monitoring sites in territorial waters for chemical status. 

Figure  4.2 summarises the proportion of water bodies monitored for chemical status in lakes 
and rivers for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used for 

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

The  extent  of  surface  water  bodies  monitored  for  chemical  status  and  ecological  status  is 
underestimated in Figure 4.2. Belgium clarified that all lake and transitional water bodies are 

monitored for chemical status in the Maas and Scheldt RBDs.  For the remaining of the water 
categories, two-thirds of the river water bodies, half of the coastal waters bodies and all of the 
territorial  water  bodies  are  monitored  for  chemical  status.  In  addition,  it would  seem  that  all 

38 Belgium subsequently clarified that in the Maas and Scheldt RBDs, seven operational monitoring sites and three 
surveillance monitoring sites in transitional water bodies are used for chemical status and that 22 operational and 
one surveillance monitoring sites in the 18 lake water bodies are used for chemical status. The same sites are used 
for the monitoring and assessment of ecological status.  

73 

 
 
                                                      
transitional  and  lake  water  bodies,  and  half  of  the  coastal  water  bodies  were  monitored  for 

ecological status. 

For the second RBMP, for surface water bodies across all RBDs in Belgium, there appears to 

be a higher proportion of sites monitored for Priority Substances under operational monitoring 
(48  %  of  total  sites  monitored)  than  under  surveillance  monitoring  (10  %  of  total  sites 

monitored)  but  for  waterbodies,  the  percentages  are  70  and  16  %  for  operational  and 
surveillance  monitoring,  respectively.  In  comparing  the  number  of  sites  and  waterbodies 

monitored  for  operational  and  surveillance  purposes  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs, 
there  appears  to  be  a  net  increase  (from  the  first  to  second  RBMP)  in  monitoring  sites  and 

surface  water  bodies  monitored  for  operational  purposes  (an  increase  of  48  sites  and  two 
waterbodies)  both  due  to  a  relatively  large  increase  in  river  monitoring.  For  surveillance 

monitoring,  the  number  of  sites  has  decreased  by  22  and  the  number  of  water  bodies  has 
decreased  by  one  since  the  first  RBMP  While  the  increase  in  the  number  of  sites  and  water 
bodies monitored from the first cycle represents some progress, the proportion of surface water 

bodies monitored for surveillance purposes (16 %) is low. 

Figure 4.2 

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

monitored  for  chemical  status  and  monitored  for  ecological  status,  in 
Belgium39. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number 
of water bodies in that category 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

39 Belgium subsequently clarified that all transitional and lake water bodies have been monitored for chemical and 
ecological status. 

74 

 
 
                                                      
A  total  of  98  %  of  water  bodies  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  were  reported  to  be 

monitored in  Belgium as a whole. All  surface water bodies failing to  achieve  good chemical 
status  were  monitored  in  four  RBDs  (the  Scheldt  (Brussels),  Maas,  North  Sea  and  Rhine 

RBDs). In the remaining RBDs, this was the case for between 96 and 99 % of water bodies. 
Rivers were the predominant type of water body monitored.  

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

Monitoring for status assessment 

Requirements 

Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes in order to 
provide  inter  alia  a  coherent  and  comprehensive  overview  of  water  status  within  each  RBD. 

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

(version 

force 

in 

hexachlorobutadiene  have  to  be  monitored  in  biota  for  status  assessment,  unless  Member 
States  derived  a  standard  for  another  matrix,  which  is  at  least  as  protective  as  the  biota 

standard.  

Spatial coverage  

All river water bodies in four RBDs in Belgium (the Scheldt (Brussels), Maas, Rhine and Seine 
RBDs) were monitored for more than 10 Priority Substances in water. This was also the case 

for  96  %  of  river  water  bodies  in  L’Escaut  RBD,  99  %  in  the  Meuse  RBD  and  82  %  in  the 
Schelde  RBD.  The  remainder  of  river  water  bodies  in  L’Escaut  and  Meuse  RBDs  were  not 

monitored  for  any  Priority  Substances.  However,  for  the  Schelde  RBD,  the  majority  of  the 
remaining  river  water  bodies  were  monitored  for  four  Priority  Substances.  All  lake  water 

bodies  in  the  Maas  RBD  and  53  %  in  the  Schelde  RBD  were  monitored  for  four  Priority 
Substances,  with  the  remaining  monitored  for  more  than  10  Priority  Substances.  All  water 
bodies  (coastal  and  territorial)  in  the  North  Sea  RBD  were  monitored  for  six  to  10  Priority 
Substances40.  None  of  the  coastal  water  bodies  in  the  Schelde  RBD  were  monitored  for  any 

40  Belgium  subsequently  clarified  the  approach  to  identifying  substances  for  monitoring.  It  was  for  example 
clarified that priority first  was given to the  monitoring of the 14 substances required for trend analysis because 
these substances tend to accumulate in sediment and/or biota. For Cadmium and Lead, measurements ceased in 
the  1990s  since  they  are  a  factor  of  10  to  80  lower  than  the  environmental  quality  standard.  Phtalates  were 
considered  not  to  pose  a  risk  as  concentrations  are  already  lower  than  the  standard  in  the  Scheldt  estuary. 
Quantification limits are not adequate yet for pentachlorobenzene (see explanation p.41, 46-47 in RBMP for the 
North  Sea  RBD).  Screening  for  a  whole  range  of  other  priority  substances  is  currently  ongoing;  the  risk  of 
exceedance of standards in seawater is however estimated to be low. 

75 

 
                                                      
Priority  Substances.  In  contrast  83  %  of  transitional  water  bodies  were  monitored  for  more 

than 10 Priority Substances, with the remainder monitored for four Priority Substances. 

Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene are monitored in biota in coastal, river 

and  transitional  water  bodies  in  most  RBDs  for  status  assessment.  All  three  substances  are 
monitored in all RBDs except that hexachlorobenzene and hexabutadiene is not  monitored in 

biota in the Maas, Schelde and North Sea RBDs.  The majority of the monitoring is undertaken 
in  river  biota  except  in  the  North  Sea  RBD  (where  only  coastal  waters  are  present)  and  the 

Schelde  RBD  (also  undertaken  in  transitional  waters).  Monitoring  is  undertaken  in  between 
one (Maas (7%) and Seine (50%) RBD) and 43 (17 %) (Meuse RBD) river water bodies and in 

the one coastal (North Sea RBD) and one (17 %) transitional (Schelde RBD) water body. 

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. 

Monitoring frequencies were reported for 41 Priority Substances in water for status assessment 

at the site level in the Scheldt Brussels RBD, 38 in four Wallonian RBDs (L’Escaut, Meuse, 
Rhine  and  Seine  RBDs),  36  substances  in  two  RBDs  (Maas  and  Schelde  RBDs)  and  seven 

substances in the North Sea RBD.  

In the Scheldt Brussels RBD, the reported intra-annual frequency in water was reported as 12 

and in each year in the cycle for each substance; this meets the minimum guideline frequencies 
in  the  Directive  for  operational  and  surveillance  monitoring.  In  the  Wallonia  RBDs, 

frequencies  ranged  from  6  to  12  times  per  year  and  from  every  year  to  once  per  cycle.  The 
required minimum frequencies for operational monitoring were met for each substance at some 

sites.  In the Maas and Schelde RBDs,  reported frequencies ranged from  4 to  12 and from at 
least  once  per  cycle  to  three  times  per  cycle.  The  recommended  minimum  frequencies  for 

surveillance  monitoring  were  met  at  some  sites  but  at  none  for  operational  monitoring. 
Belgium clarified that an adapted monitoring strategy was used for operational monitoring, but 

no  detail  was  provided.  In  the  North  Sea  RBD,  reported  frequencies  for  six  of  the  seven 

76 

 
substances at all sites met the requirements for operational and surveillance monitoring but for 
tributyltin in water monitoring was undertaken only five times per year41. 

With  regards  to  the  monitoring  of  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  in 

biota for status assessment, the frequency reported in all RBDs met the requirements of once 
every year in at least some sites.  

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  substances42  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  are  in  place  for  the  long-term  trend  analysis  in  sediment  and/or  biota.  No 
information was provided in WISE for the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD.43  

Belgium has monitored all 14 of the Priority Substances required for the monitoring of long-
term trend in sediment and/or biota in sediment in river water bodies in four RBDs (L’Escaut , 

Meuse, Rhine and Seine RBDs) at nine sites, 13 substances in river water bodies in the Scheldt 
(Brussels)  RBD  at  five  site  and  one  group  of  substances  -  Total  Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene  + 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene  –  and  mercury  in  a  coastal  water  body  in  the  North  Sea  RBD. 
Mercury was monitored in the Maas or Schelde RBDs at three sites. 

The RBMPs reveal a range of approaches in the regions of Belgium regarding the monitoring 
of sediments and biota for the assessment of long-term trends. In addition to the variations in 

the  number  and  frequency  of  Priority  Substances  monitored  in  different  water  categories 
described above, the background documents indicate that in general the monitoring takes place 
at fixed locations as part of a highly stable monitoring networks with locations selected on the 
basis  of  representativeness  for  the  RBD  as  well  as  the  presence  of  the  target  biota  (where 

relevant) (perch and eel). 

41  Belgium  mentioned  that  these  reduced  frequencies  were  justified  by  the  fact  that  the  concentrations  of 
tributyltin are very high and the substance is persistent. 
42  Anthracene,  brominated  diphenylether, 
hexachlorobenzene,  hexabutadiene,  hexachlorocyclohexane, 
Tributyltin. 
43  Belgium  subsequently  clarified  that  all  biota  monitoring  data  from  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  RBD  was  used  for 
both status and trend assessment. 

fluoranthene, 
lead,  mercury,  pentachlorobenzene,  PAH, 

chloroalkanes,  DEHP, 

cadmium,  C10-13 

77 

 
                                                      
Frequencies 

The sampling frequency in sediment and biota is at least once every three years which meets 
the guideline in the Directive. 

Monitoring of Priority Substances that are discharged in each RBD  

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  states,  in  Section  1.3.1  (Design  of  surveillance  monitoring),  that 
“Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year 

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.  

In all RBDs in Belgium, except for the North Sea RBD where no information was reported, 41 
Priority  Substances  have  been  included  in  inventories,  though  not  all  are  discharged  or 
monitored44. 

In  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  and  L’Escaut  RBDs,  all  substances  discharged  (19  and  34, 

respectively) are monitored. In the Meuse, Rheine and Seine RBDs, 34, 28 and 20 substances 
are discharged respectively, with all priority substances monitored  

In the Schelde RBD, 30 substances are discharged and 36 substances are monitored. However 
of  those  discharged  brominated  diphenylethers  (congener  numbers  28,  47,  99,  100,  153  and 

154), chloroalkanes C10-13, 4-nonylphenol, octylphenol (4-(1,1',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol) 
are not monitored.  

Similarly  in  the  Maas  RBD,  23  substances  are  discharged  and  36  substances  are  monitored. 
However of those discharged chloroalkanes C10-13, 4-nonylphenol, octylphenol (4-(1,1',3,3'-

tetramethylbutyl)-phenol) are not monitored. 

44  Belgium  mentioned  that  no  inventory  of  emissions  have  been  established  in  the  North  Sea  RBD,  because 
discharges are forbidden in coastal waters, and losses come through rivers. However, from a formal point of view, 
an  inventory  of  emission  should  be  established  for  all  RBDs,  for  all  substances,  if  anything  to  clarify  that 
substances are not discharged. In addition, it is unclear whether other sources of emissions that may be relevant 
(eg atmospheric deposition and run-off from agricultural or urban areas), have been considered. 

78 

 
                                                      
 
Performances of analytical methods used  

In  Belgium,  for  33  Priority  Substances  the  analytical  methods  used  meet  the  minimum 
performance  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  4(1)  of  Directive  2000/60/EC45  for  the  strictest 
standard were applied in  all RBDs;  but  for a  further six Priority Substances this was not  the 

case  in  all  RBDs.  For  eight  Priority  Substances  monitored  in  five  RBDs,  the  analytical 
methods complied with the requirements laid down in Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC 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 for all eight RBDs.  

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  Belgium,  the  assessment  of  chemical  status  was  undertaken  between  2010  and 

2014. 

The  chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Belgium  for  the  first  and  second  RBMPs  is 

given in Table 4.1. The chemical status for the second RBMP is illustrated in  

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

Table 4.1 

Chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Belgium  for  the  second  and  first 
RBMPs.  Note:  the  number  in  parenthesis  next  to  the  water  category  is  the 

number  of  water  bodies.  Note:  Chemical  status  assessment  is  based  on  the 
standards  laid  down  in  EQS  Directive  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 

Good 

Number 

% 

Failing to achieve good 
Number 

% 

Unknown 

Number 

% 

527 

100% 

Category 

second RBMP 

Rivers (527) 

45  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  

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Lakes (18) 

Transitional (6) 

Coastal (2) 

Territorial (1) 

Total (554) 

first RBMP 

Rivers (534) 

Lakes (18) 

12 

67% 

12 

2% 

193 

36% 

Transitional (6) 

1 

17% 

6 

6 

1 

1 

541 

162 

1 

5 

1 

33% 

100% 

50% 

100% 

98% 

30.00% 

6.00% 

83.00% 

50.00% 

30% 

1 

1 

179 

18 

1 

198 

50% 

0.2% 

34% 

100% 

50% 

35% 

Coastal (2) 

Total (560) 

Map 4.1 

194 

35% 

168 

WISE electronic reporting  

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Belgium  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) 

Overall  between  the  two  cycles  there  was  a  large  decrease  in  proportion  of  surface  water 
bodies with good chemical status from 35 % to 2 % and a significant increase in the proportion 

of  water  bodies  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  from  30  %  to  98  %.  This  pattern 
occurred  across  all  RBDs,  except  those  that  had  all  their  water  bodies  fail  to  achieve  good 

chemical status after both the first and second cycles. However, the proportion with unknown 
status has reduced from 35 % to less than 1 %. In terms of natural/heavily modified/artificial 

water  body  categorisation,  the  largest  decreases  in  the  proportions  of  water  bodies  with  the 
status of good occurred for those designated as heavily modified (from 14 to 0 %) and natural 

81 

GoodFailing to achieve to goodUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
(from 50 to 0%). However, significant increases in the proportions of water bodies failing to 

achieve good chemical status occurred for all categories of water body.  

The  assessment  of  chemical  status  for  the  second  RBMP  was  expected  to  be  based  on  the 
standards laid down in EQS Directive (version in force on 13 January 200946). 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. More information on the chemical status in 
each  RBD  and  water  category  can  be  found  on  the  website  of  the  European  Environment 
Agency47. 

With regards to the basis of the classification of chemical status, monitoring was used for all 

classifications of water bodies in Belgium apart from river and transitional water bodies in the 
Schelde RBD where it was used for 93 and 83 % of water bodies, respectively. The remaining 

water bodies were classified by grouping. Territorial and coastal water bodies in the North Sea 
RBD were monitored and assessed together. The RBMPs indicated that, where monitoring data 
is used for classification, that the one-out-all-out principle is used. 

Figure 4.3 shows the confidence in the classification of chemical status for the second RBMP. 
Overall 43 % of surface water bodies in Belgium were classified for chemical status with high 

confidence and 57 % with medium confidence. For rivers 41 % of surface water bodies were 
classified with high confidence and 59 % with medium confidence. For the other categories of 

surface  water  all  water  bodies  were  classified  with  high  confidence.  Confidence  in  the 
classification of chemical status for the first RBMPs was not reported. 

Figure 4.3  Confidence in the classification of chemical status of surface water bodies in 

Belgium based on the most recently assessed status/potential  

46  It  is  to  be  noted  that  following  Directive  2013/39/EU,  which  amended  the  EQS  Directive,  introduced  a  less 
stringent annual average environmental quality standard for naphthalene in transitional waters. This less stringent 
environmental  quality  standard  should  be  taken  into  account  for  the  determination  of  surface  water  chemical 
status by the 2015 deadline laid down in Article 4 of the WFD.  
47 https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
i

s
e
d
o
b
r
e
t
a
w
e
c
a
f
r
u
s

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

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

No information

High

Medium

Low

Good

Failing to
achieve good

Chemical status 

Unknown

WISE electronic reporting 

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

with that for the second cycle (based on the most recent assessment of status) and that expected 
by 2015. A significant reduction in the proportion of surface water bodies in good status was 

reported  for  the  second  cycle  with  the  remaining  water  bodies  all  classified  as  failing  to 
achieve good chemical status except for a single water body with unknown status in the second 

cycle.  Belgium  subsequently  clarified  that  enhanced  monitoring  of  substances  identified  as 
ubiquitous  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  and  the  extrapolation  of  these  monitoring 

results  to  unmonitored  water  bodies  were  partly  responsible  for  these  changes.  This  change 
was consistent with expectations in 2015. 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.4  Chemical status of surface water bodies in Belgium for the second RBMP, for 

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

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

Expected status in 2015

2% 

2nd cycle (554)

2% 

1st cycle (560)

35% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of surface water bodies 

Good

Failing to achieve good

Unknown

Failing to achieve good and Unkown

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Directive  2013/39/EU  amended  the  EQS  Directive.  In  particular,  it  sets  more  stringent 
environmental  quality  standards  for  seven  substances48.  Member  States  were  required  to 
indicate if the new standard caused the status of the surface water body to appear to deteriorate. 
This was the case for 16 % surface water bodies in terms of nickel in Belgium as a whole, and 

in  terms  of 8 % of surface water bodies for  fluoranthene. Water bodies were affected by the 
following  substances  in  a  smaller  way:  anthracene,  polycyclic  aromatic  hydrocarbons,  lead, 

and brominated diphenylethers. 

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 Belgium is shown in Figure 4.5.  

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

84 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.5  Expected  date  of  achievement  of  good  chemical  of  surface  water  bodies  in 

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

It is unknown when good chemical status of surface water bodies is expected to be achieved in 

99.5% of all water bodies in Belgium and in seven out of eight RBDs. In the Scheldt (Brussels) 
RBD, good chemical status is expected by 2027 in all water bodies (three river water bodies)49. 
No  data  on  the  expected  achievement  of  good  status  was  provided  in  the  first  RBMPs.  The 
expected or actual improvement in the chemical status of surface water bodies at the end of the 

first  planning  cycle  was  reported  to  be  as  described  in  the  RBMP  for  two  RBDs  (Maas  and 
Schelde). However, it is  greater than described in the RBMP in  the North Sea RBD but  less 

than described in the RBD for five RBDs (Schelde, Scheldt (Brussels), Meuse, Rhine and the 
Seine). 

Priority substances causing the failure of good chemical status 

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). 

Priority  Substances  were  reported  to  be  causing  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  in 
surface  water  bodies  in  Belgium.  The  “top-10”  in  terms  of  the  proportion  of  water  bodies 

49 Belgium clarified that two of the three river water bodies are expected to reach good chemical status by 2027. 

85 

 
 
 
                                                      
failing  because  of  the  substance  is  shown  in  Figure  4.6.  In  terms  of  surface  water  bodies  in 

Belgium,  the  substances  causing  the  greatest  proportion  to  fail  good  chemical  status  in  the 
second cycle were mercury (98 %) and total benzo(g,h,i)-perylene + indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene 

(57 %). 

Information on Priority  Substances causing failure of good chemical status for the first cycle 

was reported. While total benzo(g,h,i)-perylene + indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene was responsible for 
a similarly large proportion of environmental quality standard failures as in the second cycle, 

mercury is causing a greater proportion of failures in the second cycle. 

Figure 4.6 

The  top-10  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical 

status in surface water bodies in Belgium  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Overall for surface water bodies in the Belgium, the largest proportion of exceedances were for 
total  benzo(g,h,i)-perylene  + 
the  annual  average-environmental  quality  standard  for 

indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene  (57  %  or  water  bodies).  Exceedances  of  maximum  allowable 
concentration  environmental  quality  standards  were  largest  for  mercury  (97  %  of  water 

bodies).  In  terms  of  exceedance  of  both  types  of  standard,  the  largest  proportion  was  for 
isoproturon (9% of water bodies). 

86 

 
 
Ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances 

According  to  Article  8(a)  of  the  EQS  Directive50,  eight  priority  substances  and  groups  of 
priority  substances  are  behaving  like  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic 
substances51.  These  substances  are  generally  expected  to  cause  widespread  exceedances,  and 
their emissions can be challenging to tackle (e.g. due to long-range atmospheric transport and 
deposition). In order to show the progress made in tackling other priority substances, Member 

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

At least one ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substance occurs in each 
of  the  surface  water  bodies  (in  all  categories)  failing  to  achieve  good  status  in  Belgium. 

Moreover,  these  substances  alone  are  the  cause  of  failure  to  achieve  good  status  in  61  %  of 
surface water bodies. Consequently, ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority 

Substances appear to have a significant influence on surface water bodies that fail to achieve 
good  chemical  status.  This  is  illustrated  in  the  2018  State  of  Water  report  of  the  European 
Environment Agency52. 

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

All 41 Priority Substances are both monitored and used in the classification of chemical status 
for the following four RBDs: L’Escaut, the Meuse, the Rhine, and the Seine. In the Maas and 

Schelde  RBDs,  36  out  of  41  Priority  Substances  are  both  monitored  and  used  in  the 
classification of chemical status but four Priority Substances are not monitored nor used for the 

assessment. One priority substance, hexachlorobutadiene, was not monitored even though it is 
used in the assessment of chemical status. 

In the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD, 35 of the 41 Priority Substances are both monitored and used in 
the assessment. The following six Priority Substances are monitored but are not included in the 

assessment of chemical status: endosulfan, trifluralin, tributyltin-cation, chloroalkanes C10-13, 
brominated diphenylethers and total benzo(g,h,i)-perylene + Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene). 

In the North Sea RBD, just 10 out of 41 Priority Substances are both monitored and used in the 
hexachlorobutadiene, 
including 
assessment 

benzo(a)pyrene, 

chemical 

status, 

of 

50 Amended by Directive 2013/39/EU 
51 Brominated diphenylether, Mercury and its compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), Tributyltin,  PFOS, 
dioxins, hexabromocyclodecane and heptachlor 
52  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/SWB_F
ailing_Good_Chemical_Status_RBD?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&:display
_count=no&:showVizHome=no 

87 

 
                                                      
hexachlorobenzene,  anthracene, 

fluoranthene,  mercury, 

tributyltin-cation,  brominated 

diphenylethers,  total  benzo(b)fluoranthene  +  benzo(k)fluoranthene  and  total  benzo(g,h,i)-
perylene + indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene. The following three Priority Substances are not monitored 

even  though  they  are  included  in  the  assessment  of  chemical  status  hexachlorocyclohexane, 
pentachlorobenzene and chloroalkanes C10-13.  

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. 

In  L’Escaut,  the  Meuse,  Rhine  and  Seine  RBDs,  all  of  the  environmental  quality  standards 

were applied and used in the assessment of chemical status.  

However,  in  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  RBD,  35  of  the  environmental  quality  standards  were 
applied  and  used  in  the  assessment  of  chemical  status  but  the  standards  for  endosulfan, 

trifluralin,  tributyltin-cation,  chloroalkanes  C10-13,  brominated  diphenylethers  and  total 
benzo(g,h,i)-perylene + indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene were not used in the assessment of chemical 

status. 

In  the  Maas  and  Schelde  RBDs,  37  of  the  environmental  quality  standards  were  applied  and 

used in the assessment of chemical status but the standards for 4-nonylphenol, Octylphenol (4-
(1,1',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol),  chloroalkanes  C10-13  and  brominated  diphenylethers 

were not used in the assessment of chemical status.  

In the North Sea RBD, only 13 of the environmental quality standards were applied and used 

in the assessment of chemical status. 

Belgium  reported  that  in  some  RBDs  alternative  and/or  additional  standards  for  particular 
Priority Substances had not been applied. It is therefore unclear what standards have been used 
in  the  assessment  of  chemical  status  for  those  Priority  Substances  where  the  EQS  Directive 

laid down in Part A of Annex I of the EQS Directive have not been used. 

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 

88 

 
not affect the compliance of the rest of the surface water body with those standards. Member 

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

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

Mixing zones have not been designated in Belgium. 

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 
quality  standard  in  one  RBD  in  Belgium  (the  Meuse  RBD)  but  not  in  three  RBDs.  No 

their  compounds  are 

taken 

information  was  provided  for  the  following  RBDs:  Scheldt  (Brussels),  Maas,  Schelde  and 
North Sea RBDs. 

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

RBDs in Belgium but not in one RBD (the Seine RBD). No information was provided for the 
following RBDs: the Scheldt (Brussels), Maas, Schelde and North Sea RBDs. 

4.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

In comparing the number of sites and waterbodies monitored for operational and surveillance 

purposes (though not specific to chemical status) between the first and second RBMPs, there 
appears  to  be  a  net  increase  in  monitoring  sites  and  surface  water  bodies  monitored  for 

operational  purposes  (an  increase  of  48  sites  and  two  water  bodies)  both  due  to  a  relatively 
large  increase  in  river  monitoring.  For  surveillance  monitoring  the  number  of  sites  has 
decreased by 22 and the number of water bodies has decreased by one since the first RBMP.  

Overall  between  the  two  RBMPs  there  was  a  large  decrease  in  proportion  of  surface  water 
bodies with good chemical status from 35 % to 2 % and a significant increase in the proportion 
that fail to achieve good chemical status from 30 % to 98 %. This pattern occurred across all 

89 

 
RBDs, except those that had all their water bodies fail to achieve good chemical status in both 

the  first  and  second  RBMPs  (Scheldt  Brussels  and  North  Sea  RBDs).  Belgium  subsequently 
clarified  that  enhanced  monitoring  of  substances  identified  as  ubiquitous  persistent, 

bioaccumulative  and  toxic  and  the  extrapolation  of  these  monitoring  results  to  unmonitored 
water bodies were partly responsible for these changes.  The proportion with unknown status 

has  reduced  from  35  %  to  less  than  1  %.  There  is  a  mix  of  approaches  to  the  assessment  of 
unmonitored water bodies with the use of grouping similar water bodies in two RBDs and the 

classification of these as unknown in one RBD.  

Overall  in  Belgium,  17  Priority  Substances  were  reported  to  have  improved  from  failing  to 

achieve good chemical status to good chemical status since the first RBMP e.g. diuron (14 %), 
isoproturon (10%), total benzo(b)fluor-anthene + benzo(k)fluor-anthene (6 %), benzo(a)pyrene 

(5 %) and atrazine (3 %). The improvements predominantly occurred in river water bodies in 
L’Escaut , Meuse/Maas and the Schelde RBDs.  

4.3. 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation: Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation 
of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to 

be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place 
before the next cycle. 

  Assessment: With respect  to  chemical  status,  overall 43 % of surface water bodies in 
Belgium  were  classified  for  chemical  status  with  high  confidence  and  57  %  with 

medium confidence. For rivers, 41 % of surface water bodies were classified with high 
confidence  and  59  %  with  medium  confidence.  For  the  other  categories  of  surface 

water  all  water  bodies  were  classified  with  high  confidence.  Confidence  in  the 
classification  of  chemical  status  for  the  first  RBMPs  was  not  reported.  This 

recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  are  not  the 
only Priority Substances for which monitoring in non-water matrix (biota in these three 
instances, with reference to the biota standards in the Environmental Quality Standard 

Directive)  is  appropriate.  Biota  environmental  quality  standard  should  also  be 
considered  for  the  other  substances  where  analysis  in  water  is  problematic.  The 

requirement for trend monitoring in sediment or biota specified for several substances 

90 

 
in  Article  3(3)  of  the  Environmental  Quality  Standard  Directive  will  also  need  to  be 

reflected in the next RBMPs.  

Assessment:    Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  are  monitored  in 

biota in coastal, river and transitional water bodies in most RBDs for status assessment. 
All  three  substances  are  monitored  in  all  RBDs  except  that  hexachlorobenzene  and 

hexabutadiene  is  not  monitored  in  biota  in  the  Maas,  Schelde  and  North  Sea  RBDs.  
The  majority  of  the  monitoring  is  undertaken  in  river  biota  except  in  the  North  Sea 

RBD (where only coastal waters are present) and the Schelde RBD (also undertaken in 
transitional waters). Monitoring is undertaken in a limited number of water bodies. The 

frequency  reported  in  all  RBDs  met  the  requirements  of  once  every  year  in  at  least 
some sites. 

Belgium  has monitored all 14 of the Priority Substances required for the monitoring of 
long-term trend in sediment and/or biota in sediment in river water bodies in 4 RBDs 
(L’Escaut , Meuse, Rhine and Seine RBDs) at nine sites, 13 substances in river water 

bodies in the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD at five site and one group of substances - Total 
Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene + Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene – and mercury in a coastal water body 

in the North Sea RBD. Mercury was monitored in the Maas or Schelde RBDs at three 
sites. The sampling frequency in sediment and biota is at least once every three  years 

which meets the guideline in the Directive. 

The  reported  information  indicates  that  environmental  quality  standards  laid  down  in 

Part  A  of  Annex  I  of  the  EQS  Directive  had  been  applied  but  not  for  all  Priority 
Substances in all RBDs. It is unclear what standards have been used in the assessment 

of  chemical  status  for  those  Priority  Substances  where  the  environmental  quality 
standard laid down in Part A of Annex I of the EQS Directive has not been used. 

This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

91 

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

5.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in second cycle 

5.1.1. Monitoring of quantitative status in groundwater 

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Belgium  is  80  (Table  2.3).  Two  groundwater 

bodies are not subject to monitoring for quantitative status (Table 5.1, Table 5.2). This means 
that  2.5  %  of  groundwater  bodies  are  not  monitored.  Investigation  of  the  RBMP  and 

background documents found no indications that grouping was applied and no indication why 
not all groundwater bodies are subject to monitoring. Belgium subsequently clarified that the 

two  water  bodies  which  are  not  monitored  for  quantitative  status  have  no  significant 
groundwater uses and are therefore considered to be in good quantitative status. 

The number of groundwater bodies did not change since the first RBMP. 

The number of monitored groundwater bodies increased from 75 in the first RBMP to 78 in the 
second RBMP. The number of monitoring sites for quantitative status is listed in Table 5.3 and 

shows a slight increase from 275 in the first RBMP to 287 in the second RBMP. 

52 of 80 groundwater bodies, located in all RBDs, are identified as Drinking Water Protected 

Areas.  

Table 5.1 

Proportion of groundwater bodies in Belgium monitored for quantitative 
status 

 RBD 

BEEscaut_RW 

BEEscaut_Schelde_
BR 

BEMAAS_VL 

BEMeuse_RW 

BERhin_RW 

BESCHELDE_VL 

No of groundwater 
bodies with 
quantitative monitoring 

Total No. 
groundwater 
bodies 

Percentage of total groundwater 
bodies monitored for quantitative 
status 

9 

5 

10 

20 

2 

32 

10 

5 

10 

21 

2 

32 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

90% 

100% 

100% 

95% 

100% 

100% 

92 

 
Table 5.2 

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

RBD 

Total 
ground-
water bodies 
directly 
monitored 

AGR – 
Ground-
water 
abstract-
tion site 
for 
irrigation 

CHE – 
Chemi-
cal status 

DRI – 
Ground-
water 
abstraction 
site for 
human 
consump-
tion 

DWD - 
Drinking 
water - 
WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.i 

HAB - 
Protection 
of habitats 
or species 
depending 
on water - 
WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.v 

Monitoring Purpose 

IND - 
Groundw
ater 
abstracti
on site 
for 
industria
l supply 

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

OPE – 
Operatio
-nal 
monitor-
ing 

QUA – 
Quantita
-tive 
status 

SOE - 
EIONET 
State of 
Environ-
ment 
monitor-
ing 

SUR – 
Surveil-
lance 
monitor-
ing 

TRE – 
Chemi-
cal 
trend 
assess-
ment 

BEEscaut_RW 

BEEscaut_Schelde_BR 

BEMAAS_VL 

BEMeuse_RW 

BERhin_RW 

BESCHELDE_VL 

10 

5 

10 

21 

2 

32 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

10 

5 

0 

20 

2 

32 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

1 

0 

15 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

10 

1 

7 

14 

0 

17 

10 

1 

10 

19 

2 

32 

9 

5 

10 

20 

2 

32 

10 

0 

10 

21 

2 

32 

10 

5 

10 

20 

2 

32 

10 

5 

0 

20 

2 

0 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

93 

 
  
 
 
 
Table 5.3 

Number of groundwater monitoring sites in Belgium and their purpose  

 RBD 

Total 
ground-
water 
monito-
ring sites 

AGR – 
Ground-
water 
abstract-
tion site 
for 
irrigation 

CHE – 
Chemi-
cal 
status 

146 

DRI – 
Ground-
water 
abstraction 
site for 
human 
consump-
tion 

DWD – 
Drink-
ing 
water - 
WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.i 

HAB - 
Protection 
of habitats 
or species 
depending 
on water - 
WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.v 

Monitoring Purpose 

IND – 
Ground-
water 
abstract-
tion site 
for 
industrial 
supply 

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

OPE – 
Operatio
-nal 
monitor-
ing 

QUA – 
Quanti-
tative 
status 

SOE - 
EIONET 
State of 
Environ-
ment 
monitor-
ing 

SUR – 
Surveil-
lance 
monitor-
ing 

TRE – 
Chemi-
cal 
trend 
assess-
ment 

BEEscaut_RW 

BEEscaut_Schelde_BR 

BEMAAS_VL 

BEMeuse_RW 

BERhin_RW 

BESCHELDE_VL 

212 

98 

10 

327 

15 

32 

5 

32 (33) 

15 

239 

13 

32 

9 

16 

33 

21 

49 

3 

99 

8 

7 

141 

17 

89 

10 

10 

148 

10 

32 

69 

66 

10 

107 

3 

32 

153 

10 

276 

14 

32 

146 

33 

239 

13 

146 

23 

10 

239 

13 

32 

The number in brackets was subsequently provided by Belgium and does not match the data reported to WISE

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.1.2. Assessment and classification of quantitative status for groundwater 

Map 5.1 and Figure 5.1 displays the most recently assessed quantitative status of groundwater 
bodies. It shows that 72 of 80 groundwater bodies (90 %) were in good quantitative status and 

eight (10 %) were failing good status. In terms of area, this means that about 29 % were failing 
good  quantitative  status.  Figure  5.2    shows  the  confidence  in  status  classifications. 

Approximately half of the groundwater bodies have high confidence in status classification and 
half have medium confidence. All groundwater bodies had and still have a known status, in the 

first and second RBMP. 

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) 

95 

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

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

assessment of status for the second RBMP was 1990 to 2013. The year of the 
assessment of status for the first cycle RBMP is not known 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

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

in Belgium based on the most recent assessment of status  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  quantitative  status  (all  in  the  Scheldt 

RBD)  decreased  significantly  from  15  groundwater  bodies  (19  %  of  the  total)  in  the  first 

96 

 
 
 
RBMP to eight (10 %) in the second RBMP. In terms of groundwater body area the decrease 

was from 45.1 % of the total groundwater body area failing good quantitative status in the first 
RBMP to 29.3 % in the second RBMP. 

The reasons for the failure of good quantitative status of the eight  groundwater bodies in the 
Scheldt RBD are shown in Figure 5.3. Six groundwater bodies are failing good status due to 

failing  the  water  balance  test,  which  means  that  the  long-term  annual  average  rate  of 
the  available  groundwater  resource,  and  five 
groundwater  abstraction 

is  exceeding 

groundwater bodies are failing due to saline intrusions. The expected date of achievement of 
good quantitative status in these groundwater bodies is unknown as shown in Figure 5.4.  

Figure 5.3  Reasons for the failure of good quantitative status of groundwater in Belgium 

based on the most recent assessment of status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

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. 

97 

 
 
 
Figure 5.4  Expected date of achievement of good quantitative and good chemical status 

of  groundwater  bodies  in  Belgium.  80  groundwater  bodies  delineated  for 
second RBMP 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

For all six RBDs which have groundwater bodies a water balance method was reported to have 

been  applied.  In  one  RBD  water  balance  was  assessed  by  a  comparison  of  annual  average 
groundwater  abstraction  against  the  ‘available  groundwater  resource’  for  every  groundwater 

body  and  in  five  RBDs  water  balance  was  assessed  by  using  reliable  information  on 
groundwater levels across the groundwater body. 

In two of six RBDs the criterion of ‘available groundwater resource’ has been fully applied in 
accordance with WFD Article 2(27). In the other four RBDs the criterion has not been applied 

in accordance with WFD Article 2(27). 

There  are  no  RBDs  where  all  environmental  objectives  have  been  considered  in  status 

assessment. Surface water ecosystems have not been considered at all, but they are not related 
to risk. Saline intrusion and terrestrial ecosystems have only been considered in the two RBDs 
of the Flanders region. Water balance has been considered in all RBDs. 

In  total,  12  groundwater  bodies  (15  %)  are  at  risk  of  failing  good  quantitative  status  due  to 
harm to actual or potential legitimate uses or functions of groundwater. 

98 

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

dependent ecosystems 

In 34 groundwater bodies in four of the six RBDs, groundwater associated surface waters have 

been  reported  to  exist.  They  are  not  related  to  any  risk  and  groundwater  associated  surface 
waters have not been considered in status assessment in any RBD.  

In total, 53 groundwater bodies in all RBDs are linked with groundwater dependent terrestrial 
ecosystems  and  they  are  not  related  to  any  quantity-related  risk.  Groundwater  dependent 

terrestrial  ecosystems  and  their  needs  have  only  been  considered  in  status  assessment  in  the 
two RBDs of the Flanders region and for Scheldt (Brussels). 

5.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

The RBMP and background documents assessment found that there are summaries of changes 
and  updates  in  all  the  assessed  RBMPs.  Only  in  the  Scheldt  RBD  is  it  mentioned  that  the 

quantitative status assessment is expanded with an ameliorated water balance test, an intrusion 
test,  and  a  test  for  groundwater  dependent  ecosystems.  In  the  other  assessed  RBMPs  no 

changes were mentioned.  

However,  the  monitoring  situation  has  improved.  The  number  of  monitored  groundwater 

bodies increased from 75 to 78 and the number of monitoring sites also increased slightly. The 
number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  status  almost  halved  from  15  to  8.  In  terms  of 

groundwater body  area,  the area failing good status  decreased from  45.1  % to  29.3 % of the 
total area. 

5.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

topic. 

99 

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

6.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in second cycle 

6.1.1. Monitoring of chemical status in groundwater 

The total  number of  groundwater bodies in  Belgium  is  80 (Table 2.3).  This  has not  changed 

since  the  first  RBMP.  Only  one  groundwater  body  is  not  subject  to  surveillance  monitoring 
(Table  3.2)  and  all  groundwater  bodies  at  risk  (66  %)  are  subject  to  operational  monitoring. 

The  RBMP  and  background  documents  assessment  found  no  indication  that  grouping  of 
groundwater bodies for monitoring and assessment of chemical status was applied. This means 

that groundwater monitoring is almost complete. 

The number of groundwater bodies with surveillance monitoring increased from 78 in the first 

cycle RBMP to 79 in the second RBMP. The number of monitoring sites is listed in Table 3.4 
and  shows  an  increase  from  456  in  the  first  cycle  RBMP  to  463  in  the  second  RBMP.  The 
number of operational monitoring sites has been increased significantly since the first RBMP, 

from 264 to 299 in 74 groundwater bodies. 

Not all substances at risk of causing deterioration in chemical status are subject to surveillance 

and operational monitoring in relevant groundwater bodies. All WFD core parameters (nitrate, 
ammonium, electrical conductivity, oxygen, and pH) are monitored in only one RBD. In one 

RBD none of the parameters are monitored, and in  the remaining  four it is  mainly dissolved 
oxygen that is missing. 

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.  Map  6.1  shows  that  33  of  80  groundwater  bodies  (41  %)  were  of  good 
chemical  status,  and  the  remaining  47  groundwater  bodies  (59  %)  are  failing  good  chemical 

status. In terms of area this means that about 63 % are failing good chemical status. 

100 

 
Map 6.1 

Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies in Belgium 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) 

101 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
Figure 6.1  Chemical status of groundwater bodies in Belgium for the second RBMP, for 

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

assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2009 to 2013. The year of the 
assessment of status for the first cycle RBMP is not known 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

The number of groundwater bodies failing good status increased since the first RBMP from 44 
(55 %) to 47 (59 %) groundwater bodies (Figure 6.1). In terms of groundwater body area, the 

percentage of groundwater bodies at poor chemical status has increased from 61 % in the first 
RBMP to 63 % in the second RBMP. There were no groundwater bodies in unknown status in 

the first RBMP and there are still none in the second RBMP. Figure 6.2 shows the confidence 
in status classifications. The expected date of achievement of good chemical status in Belgium 

is shown in Figure 3.4. 

The reasons for the failure of good chemical status of groundwater bodies are shown in Figure 

6.3.  For  47  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. Five groundwater bodies are failing the drinking water test which means 

that the requirements  of  drinking water protected areas have not  been met.  One groundwater 
body is failing the groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystem test which means that there is 

damage  to  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems.  Figure  6.4  shows  the  top  10 
pollutants causing failure of status and the top 10 causing a sustained upward trend.  

102 

 
 
Figure 6.2 

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

Figure 6.3   Reasons  for  failing  good  chemical  status  in  Belgium  for  the  most  recent 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

assessment of status 

Notes: 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

‘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. 

103 

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

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

Groundwater threshold values have been established for all Groundwater Directive53 Annex II 
substances, but not for all pollutants or indicators of pollution causing a risk of failure of good 

chemical  status.  The  RBMP  and  background  documents  investigations  did  not  reveal  any 
explanation for this. In all but one RBD natural background levels have been considered in the 

groundwater  threshold  value  establishment.  In  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  RBD  they  have  been 
considered in status assessment.  

A trend methodology is available and assessments have been performed in all RBDs. 

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

dependent ecosystems 

Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were identified in six RBDs. These were related 
to  risk  in  four  RBDs  (not  those  in  the  Flanders  region).  One  groundwater  body  was  failing 
good chemical status. Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were considered in status 

assessments in the two RBDs in the Flanders region and the one RBD in Brussels, but not the 
other RBDs.  

In  four  RBDs  (not  those  in  the  Flanders  region)  surface  water  bodies  are  associated  with 
groundwater  bodies  and  related  risks  are  indicated.  Except  for  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  RBD, 

these aquatic ecosystems have not been considered in status assessments.  

Groundwater  associated  aquatic  ecosystems  have  been  considered  in  the  establishment  of 

groundwater  threshold  values  in  those  RBDs  where  such  ecosystems  exist,  but  groundwater 
dependent terrestrial ecosystems have not been considered at all. However, they do exist in six 

RBDs and are related to risk in four RBDs. 

According to the RBMP and background documents assessment, there is no explanation given 

in the RBMPs why ecosystems have not been considered. 

53  Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection 
of groundwater against pollution and deterioration    
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006L0118-20140711 

104 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 6.4 

Top  10  groundwater  pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status  in 

Belgium  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Figure 6.5  Top 10 pollutants with upward trends in groundwater bodies in Belgium  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.6   Percentage of groundwater bodies in Belgium at risk of failing good chemical 

status and good quantitative status for the second RBMP 

6.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The RBMP and background documents assessment found a summary of changes and updates 
in some of the assessed RBMPs. For the Scheldt RBD it is mentioned that the monitoring data 

of  one  reference  year  (2012)  was  used  for  the  chemical  status  assessment.  Contrary  to  the 
previous reporting period, chemical and groundwater body specific thresholds were effectively 

used as thresholds to determine if a groundwater body is at risk of failing good chemical status. 
The  list  of  examined  chemical  components  and  indicators  was  regularly  updated  using 

additional knowledge. Chemical-specific trend assessment for groundwater bodies was carried 
out for the first time.  

The Scheldt (Brussels) RBD did not report changes and for the Meuse RBD no information on 
modifications of the current RBMP compared to the previous plan could be found54. 

The monitoring situation has improved slightly since the first cycle: the number of operational 
monitoring  sites  has  increased  by  about  15  %.  However,  the  status  situation  has  slightly 

deteriorated: the groundwater body area failing good chemical status increased from 61 % to 
63 % of the total groundwater body area55. 

54 Belgium subsequently clarified that the assessment of the risk of not reaching good status was improved and the 
threshold values had been adapted. 
55 Belgium subsequently clarified that this is due to adjustments in the area. 

106 

 
 
 
                                                      
6.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  On  the  assessment  of  groundwater  status  in  the  Flemish  region, 

trend assessments should be carried out from the second cycle of RBMPs. 

Assessment: Trend assessments have now been performed in all RBDs of Belgium. The 
recommendation is fulfilled. 

107 

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

7.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in second cycle 

7.1.1. Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies 

In  the  second  RBMPs,  heavily  modified  water  bodies  and/or  artificial  water  body  were 

designated in five out of eight RBDs. No heavily modified water bodies or artificial water body 
were designated in the North Sea, Rhine or Seine RBDs. The situation was similar in the first 

cycle RBMPs (Figure 7.1). No coastal water bodies are designated as heavily modified water 
bodies or artificial water body. 

Figure 7.1 

Proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category  in  Belgium  that  has  been 
designated as heavily modified or artificial  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

In the Meuse RBD, there are 12 heavily modified water bodies which are reservoirs and were 
originally rivers. These are correctly designated as heavily modified rivers. 

108 

 
 
The  main  water  uses  for  which  river  water  bodies  are  designated  as  heavily  modified  water 

bodies  are  urban  development,  agriculture  and  flood  protection.  Hydropower  and  navigation 
are  important  uses  for  several  river  heavily  modified  water  bodies  in  specific  RBDs 

(hydropower in the Meuse RBD, and navigation in the Scheldt RBD). 

The  transitional  heavily  modified  water  bodies  in  the  Scheldt  RBD  are  designated  due  to 

navigation and flood protection. The lake heavily modified water body in the Scheldt RBD is 
designated due to flood protection. 

In  most  RBDs  the  main  physical  alterations  of  river  heavily  modified  water  bodies  are 
channelization/straightening/bed  stabilisation/bank  reinforcement.  In  single  RBDs,  land 

drainage  and  dredging/channel  maintenance  are  key  alterations  of  designated  river  heavily 
modified water bodies. For the lake water heavily modified water bodies, the main alterations 

are bank reinforcement  and dredging.  For the transitional heavily modified water bodies, the 
main  alterations  are  channelization/straightening/bed  stabilisation/bank  reinforcement  and 

dredging/channel maintenance. 

The methodology for heavily modified water bodies’ designation is described in the RBMPs or 
in additional background documents. Belgium has chosen to give the competence to designate 

heavily modified water bodies to the regions, and no formal “national methodology” has been 
developed. The methods are developed at the regional levels, but they seem to be fairly similar. 

Information is provided on criteria for the identification of substantial change in character, the 
types  of  physical  alterations  and  the  water  uses  which  are  considered  for  the  designation  of 

heavily  modified  water  bodies. However, no information  could  be found on criteria used  for 
the assessment of significant  adverse effect  of restoration measures on the use and the wider 

environment or an explanation of how better environmental options have been assessed. 

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

Bodies 

Good ecological potential was reported as defined using different approaches for the definition. 

In the four RBDs of the Wallonia region, the Prague approach (based on the identification of 
mitigation  measures)  is  being  applied,  while  in  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  basin  the  Common 

Implementation Strategy Guidance approach (approach based on biological quality elements as 
illustrated  in  Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  No.  4)  is  used.  In  the  two  other 

RBDs in the Flanders region, a hybrid approach is used combining elements of the other two 
methods. 

109 

 
A methodological document on the definition of good ecological potential is available for the 

regions of Flanders and Brussels, but not yet for Wallonia. 

In  the  four  RBDs  in  the  Wallonia  region,  which  apply  the  mitigation  measures  (Prague) 

approach,  good  ecological  potential  is  defined  for  groups  of  heavily  modified  water 
bodies/artificial water bodies of the same use/physical modification.  In the other three RBDs 

which  use  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  or  a  hybrid  approach,  good 
ecological potential is defined at water body level.  

Good  ecological  potential  is  also  reported  as  defined  in  terms  of  biology.  The  biological 
quality element for which biological values have been derived to define maximum ecological 

potential and good ecological potential are phytoplankton, phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates 
and fish. In three RBDs, biological values have been derived also for macrophytes. The values 

for biological quality elements are estimated using methods, which are similar to the methods 
used for ecological status. From the documents available for the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD, it is 

concluded  that  the  estimation  of  biological  values  of  biological  quality  elements  is  based  on 
historical  data,  statistical  analysis  and  expert  judgment.  In  RBDs  in  the  Flanders  region, 
estimation  of  values  for  biological  quality  elements  is  based  on  available  data  from  similar 

water bodies, excluding elements/indicators for pressures that cannot be reversed. 

Mitigation measures for defining good ecological potential have been reported in WISE, but no 

description  of  the  ecological  changes  that  these  measures  are  designed  to  achieve  could  be 
found in the RBMPs. 

In  the  four  RBDs  of  the  Wallonia  region  which  apply  the  mitigation  measures  (Prague) 
approach, a comparison between good ecological potential and good ecological status has not 

been  made.  Such  a  comparison  has  been  made  in  the  three  RBDs  that  use  the  Common 
Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  or  a  hybrid  approach  for  good  ecological  potential 

definition. 

Biological  quality  element  assessment  methods  (11  different  methods  in  total)  that  are 

sensitive to hydrological and/or morphological changes were reported for all water categories:  

  For rivers, there  are methods that are sensitive to altered habitats  due to  hydrological 
and morphological changes for fish, benthic invertebrates, macrophytes, phytobenthos, 
and  phytoplankton.  One  method  for  benthic  invertebrates  in  rivers  is  sensitive  to 

morphological, but not to hydrological changes.  

110 

 
  For  lakes,  four  methods  were  reported,  which  are  sensitive  to  altered  habitats  due  to 
morphological changes for fish, benthic invertebrates, macrophytes, and phytobenthos.  

  For coastal waters, one method was reported, which is sensitive to altered habitats due 

to hydrological and morphological changes for benthic invertebrates.  

  For  transitional  waters,  three  methods  were  reported,  which  are  sensitive  to  altered 
habitats due to morphological changes for benthic invertebrates, fish, and macrophytes. 

The method for macrophytes is also sensitive to hydrological changes. 

7.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

There have been no changes in the number of lake and transitional water bodies designated as 
heavily  modified  water  bodies  or  artificial  water  body  since  the  first  cycle.  For  rivers,  some 
small changes in the designations are noted. In the Scheldt and Meuse RBDs, there are 12 and 

2,  respectively,  additional  designations  of  river  heavily  modified  water  bodies  in  the  second 
cycle. In the Maas RBD, there are three river heavily modified water bodies fewer than in the 

first cycle.  

In  the  four  RBDs  of  the  Flanders  region,  the  methodology  for  heavily  modified  water  body 

designation has been modified since the first  RBMPs by including two additional uses, namely 
land drainage and water regulation. The additional uses considered for designation have led to 

additional water bodies being designated in the Scheldt RBD. Other changes noted are mainly 
due to the merging of water bodies. No further references to changes in methodology since the 

first RBMPs have been found. 

Concerning the definition of  good  ecological  potential  for the Wallonia region,  there was no 

information  in  WISE  on  the  methodology  to  define  good  ecological  potential  for  heavily 
modified  water  bodies  in  the  first  RBMPs.  The  WISE  reporting  for  the  second  RBMPs 

indicates that good ecological potential is defined in the Wallonia region, but a methodological 
document is still not available. 

Concerning the definition of good ecological potential in the other regions, a methodological 
document  is  available.  According  to  information  found,  some  changes  (additional  criterion) 

have been made to the method concerning the biological quality element phytoplankton for the 
good ecological potential of river heavily modified water bodies. 

111 

 
7.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  The process  of  designation of heavily modified water bodies in  the 
Flemish region should be brought in line with the requirements of Article 4(3) WFD. In 

particular,  the  method  used  in  Flanders  should  further  analyse  the  link  between  the 
physical modifications and the failure to achieve good ecological status and develop an 

assessment of alternative means to achieve the beneficial objectives served by the use. 
This assessment should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This indeed needed to 

ensure transparency of the designation process. 

Assessment: Although the methods developed for the designation of heavily modified 

water  bodies  at  the  regional  levels  provide  clear  criteria  for  the  identification  of 
substantial  change  in  character,  the  types  of  physical  alterations  and  the  water  uses 

which are considered for the designation of heavily modified water bodies, no detailed 
information  is  given  on  criteria  used  for  the  assessment  required  under  WFD  articles 

4(3)(a)  and  4(3)(b),  i.e.  the  assessment  of  significant  adverse  effect  of  restoration 
measures  on  uses  or  the  wider  environment  or  an  explanation  of  how  better 

environmental  options  to  deliver  the  beneficial  objectives  served  by  the  heavily 
modified  water  body  have  been  assessed.  Therefore,  this  recommendation  is  partially 

fulfilled. 

112 

 
 
 
Topic 8 Environmental objectives and exemptions 

8.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and 

compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in second cycle 

8.1.1 Environmental objectives 

The  environmental  objectives  are  defined  in  Article  4  of  the  WFD.  The  aim  is  long-term 
sustainable water management based on a high level of protection of the aquatic environment. 

Article 4(1) defines the WFD general objective to be achieved in all surface and groundwater 
bodies,  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 201556), groundwaters (good chemical and quantitative status by 2015) and 
for Protected Areas (achievement of the objectives of the associated Directive by 2015 unless 
otherwise specified). 

Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status for surface waters and quantitative 
and  chemical  status  for  groundwater  have  been  reported,  although  a  significant  number  of 

unknowns remain. 

Assessments of the current status of surface and groundwater bodies in Belgium are provided 

elsewhere  in  this  report:  for  ecological  status/potential  of  surface  waters  in  Chapter  3;  for 
chemical status of surface waters in Chapter 4; for quantitative status of groundwater bodies in 

Chapter 5; for chemical status of groundwater bodies in Chapter 6; and for the status of surface 
and groundwater bodies associated with Protected Areas in Chapter 15. 

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  Belgium  elsewhere  in  this  report:  for  ecological  status/potential  of  surface 
waters in Chapter 3; for chemical status of surface waters in Chapter 4; for quantitative status 

of  groundwater  bodies  in  Chapter  5;  and  for  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in 
Chapter 6.  

8.1.2. Exemptions 

Where  environmental  objectives  are  not  yet  achieved  exemptions  can  be  applied  in  case  the 
respective conditions are met and the required justifications are explained in the RMBP. Figure 

56 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. 

113 

 
                                                      
8.3 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  Belgium  for  the  four  main  sets  of  environmental 
objectives. 

Figure 8.3  Water bodies in Belgium expected to be in at least good status in 2015 and use 
of exemptions. 1 = Surface water body ecological status/potential; 2 = Surface 

water body chemical status; 3 = Groundwater body quantitative status; 4 = 
Groundwater body chemical status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. For some water bodies the date for achievement of good status is unknown  
Note: some figures missing in the reported information  

Article  4  of  the  WFD  allows  under  certain  conditions  for  different  exemptions  to  the 

objectives:  extension  of  deadlines  beyond  2015,  less  stringent  objectives,  a  temporary 
deterioration,  or  deterioration  /  non-achievement  of  good  status  /  potential  due  to  new 

modifications, provided a set of conditions are fulfilled. The exemptions under WFD Article 4 
include the provisions in Article 4(4)  - extension of deadline, Article 4(5) - lower objectives, 

Article 4(6) - temporary deterioration, and Article 4(7) - new modifications / new sustainable 
human  development  activities.  Article  4(4)  exemptions  may  be  justified  by:  disproportionate 

cost,  technical  feasibility,  or  natural  conditions,  and  Article  4(5)  by  disproportionate  cost  or 
technical feasibility. 

Figure 8.4 summarises the percentage of water bodies subject to each type of exemption (and 
reason) in relation to the four types of environmental objectives in Belgium. 

114 

 
 
Figure 8.4 

Type of exemptions reported to be applied to surface water and groundwater 

bodies for the second RBMP in Belgium. Note: Ecological status and 
groundwater quantitative status exemptions were reported at the water body 

level. Chemical exemptions for groundwater were reported at the level of each 
pollutant causing failure of good chemical status, and for surface waters for 

each Priority Substances that is causing failure of good chemical status  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Application of Article 4(4) 

The number of cases in which Article 4(4) in surface waters and groundwater has been applied 

has changed slightly in all RBDs (both increases and decreases). In the Rhine, Seine and North 
Sea RBDs, Article 4(4) is applied newly for surface waters.  

115 

 
 
 
In  the  first  RBMP  the  justification  for  surface  waters  in  relation  Article  4(4)  referred  to 

technical  feasibility,  disproportional  costs  and  natural  conditions.  The  reasons  used  in  2015 
were the same.  

For  RBDs  in  Flanders  and  Wallonia,  there  is  also  a  methodology  available  that  describes 
'technical  feasibility'.  The  justifications  are  elaborated  and  demonstrated  in  the  background 

documents.  For  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  RBD  the  reasons  for  technical  infeasibility  are 
explained, by e.g. delays, numerous diffuse sources that are difficult to tackle or slow response 

time of the water system. 

Disproportional costs are justified by affordability, cost-benefit analysis, and cost-effectiveness 

analysis. Both, for RBDs in Flanders and Wallonia, detailed calculations were made.  

In  relation  to  exemptions  due  to  natural  conditions,  a  brief  summary  was  only  provided  for 

RBDs in the Wallonia region, with explanations of the reasons for exemptions due to natural 
conditions  in  groundwater.  The  Wallonia  RBDs  also  provide  arguments  for  technical 

infeasibility.  The  groundwater  is  influenced  to  a  large  extent  by  seeping  from  mining 
groundwater with high sulphate levels over a large region. 

The main pressures to  surface waters and  groundwaters are stemming  from  a broad range of 

activities  including  urbanism,  industry,  agriculture,  mining,  and  atmospheric  deposition  and 
activities  causing  changes  in  hydromorphology.  The  main  drivers  were  agriculture,  industry, 

urban  development,  and  transport.  The  main  impacts  to  groundwater  were  chemical  and 
nutrient  pollution.  In  surface  waters  the  main  impacts  are  organic,  chemical  and  nutrient 

pollution, as well as hydromorphological impacts.  

116 

 
 
 
Table 8.6 

Pressure responsible for Priority Substances in Belgium failing to achieve 
good chemical status and for which exemptions have been applied 

Significant pressure on surface 
water bodies 

1.1 - Point - Urban waste water 
1.3 - Point - Industrial Emissions Directive 
plants 
1.4 - Point - Non Industrial Emissions 
Directive plants 
1.6 - Point - Waste disposal sites 

1.8 - Point - Aquaculture 

2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off 

2.10 - Diffuse – Other 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.4 - Diffuse - Transport 

2.7 - Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition 

2.8 - Diffuse – Mining 

7 - Anthropogenic pressure - Other 

8 - Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown 
9 - Anthropogenic pressure - Historical 
pollution 

Failing 
Priority 
Substances 

Number 

Article 
4(4) - 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 
Number 

Article 4(4) - 
Disproportionate 
cost 

Number 

Article 
4(4) - 
Natural 
condition
s 
Number 

Article 4(5) 
- Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 

Number 

9 

9 

10 

7 

4 

5 

10 

7 

8 

7 

1 

3 

10 

5 

652 

78 

139 

34 

8 

180 

302 

377 

335 

703 

1 

26 

78 

10 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 

0 

6 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
2 

0 

0 

0 

10 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

117 

 
 
Table 8.7 

Pressure  responsible  for  pollutants  in  Belgium  failing  to  achieve  good 
chemical  status  in  groundwater  and  for  which  exemptions  have  been 
applied 

Significant pressure on 
groundwater 

Number 
of failing 
pollutants 

Article 
4(4) - 
Technical 
feasibility 

Number of exemptions 

Article 4(4) - 
Disproportionate 
cost 

Article 4(4) - 
Natural conditions 

1.1 - Point - Urban 
waste water 

1.2 - Point - Storm 
overflows 

1.3 - Point - Industrial 
Emissions Directive 
plants 

1.4 - Point - Non 
Industrial Emissions 
Directive plants 

1.5 - Point - 
Contaminated sites or 
abandoned industrial 
sites 

1.6 - Point - Waste 
disposal sites 

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 

9 - Anthropogenic 
pressure - Historical 
pollution 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

1 

7 

10 

1 

1 

5 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

1 

3 

2 

1 

2 

1 

3 

4 

10 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

9 

10 

1 

1 

5 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Application of Article 4(5) 

Article 4(5) was not applied in the first cycle and also not applied in the second cycle. 

Application of Article 4(6) 

No exemptions according to Article 4(6) have been applied. 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Application of Article 4(7) 

No exemptions according to Article 4(7) have been applied. 

Application of Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive 

No exemptions according to Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive57 have been applied. 

8.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

In those RBDs where Article 4(4) was already applied in the first cycle there are slight changes 

in the number of exemptions applied under Article 4(4) (small reductions or small increases). 
In the Rhine, Seine, and North Sea RBDs Article 4(4) is applied newly for chemical status of 

surface waters. 

8.3. 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation: There have been a large number of exemptions 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. In particular, a complete justification of technical feasibility and 
disproportionate costs should be included in the RBMPs58.   

  Assessment: The recommendation has been implemented to some extent. The level of 
information provided behind the justification of exemptions varies a) depending on the 

reason, and b) depending on the different regions. For Belgium overall, the number of 
exemptions is not decreasing. 

Recommendation:  The  high  number  of  exemptions  applied  in  these  first  RBMPs  is  a 
cause  for  concern.  Flanders  should  take  all  necessary  measures  to  bring  down  the 

number  of  exemptions  for  the  next  cycle,  including  the  needed  improvements  in  the 

57  Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection 
of groundwater against pollution and deterioration    
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006L0118-20140711 
58 This recommendation refers to the Commission assessment of two RBMPs; the Flemish Region and the Federal 
plan on the coastal water 

119 

 
                                                      
characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well 
as reducing significantly the degree of uncertainties59. 

Assessment: For Belgium overall, the number of exemptions is not decreasing. For the 

assessment of the characterisation process, monitoring networks and status assessment 
methods,  as  well  as  reducing  significantly  the  degree  of  uncertainties  please  see 

Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. 

  Recommendation:  Exemptions  should  be  adequately  justified  at  water  body  level. 
Reduce  considerably  the  application  of  exemptions  in  the  second  RBMPs  and  better 
justify the exemptions applied based on a calculation of the measures needed to reach 

good  status  and  a  proper  assessment  of  alternative  solutions  and  all  necessary 
mitigation measures for exemptions for new infrastructure.   

Assessment: The recommendation has been implemented to some extent. The level of 
information provided behind the justification of exemptions varies a) depending on the 

reason, and b) depending on the different regions. For Belgium overall, the number of 
exemptions is not decreasing. 

59 This recommendation refers to the Commission assessment of two RBMPs; the Flemish Region and the Federal 
plan on the coastal water 

120 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 9 Programme of measures  

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the PoM reported by Member States; more 

specific  information  on  measures  relating  to  specific  pressures  (for  example  arising  from 
agriculture) is provided in subsequent chapters. 

The  Key  Types  of  Measure  (KTM)  referred  to  in  this  section  are  groups  of  measures 
identified  by  Member  States  in  the  Programme  of  Measures,  which  target  the  same 

pressure  or  purpose.  The  individual  measures  included  in  the  Programme  of  Measure 
(being  part  of  the  RBMP)  are  grouped  into  Key  Types  of  Measure  for  the  purpose  of 

reporting.  The  same  individual  measure  can  be  part  of  more  than  one  Key  Types  of 
Measure because it may be multi-purpose, but also because the Key Types of Measure 

are  not  completely  independent  silos.  Key  Types  of  Measure  have  been  introduced  to 
simplify  the  reporting  of  measures  and  to  reduce  the  very  large  number  of 

Supplementary Measures reported by some Member States (WFD Reporting Guidance 
2016).  

A Key Type of Measure may be one national measure but it would typically comprise 
more than one national measure. The 25 predefined Key Types of Measure are listed in 

the WFD Reporting Guidance 2016. 

The Key Types of Measure should be fully implemented and made operational within 

the  RBMP  planning  period  to  address  specific  pressures  or  chemical  substances  and 
achieve the environmental objectives. 

9.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and 

compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in second cycle 

9.1.1.  General issues 

An  indication  as  to  whether  or  not  measures  have  been  fully  implemented  and  made 

operational is when they have been reported as being planned to tackle significant pressures (at 
the  KTM  level).  Significant  pressures  are  also  reported  at  the  water  body  level.  It  would 

therefore  be  expected  that  there  would  be  measures  planned  in  the  RBMP  to  tackle  all 
significant  pressures.  In  general,  the  reported  significant  pressures  are  well  covered  with 

operational KTMs, for example, all pressures are covered for the Meuse RBD in Flanders. Not 
all pressures are covered with KTMs. There are for example no KTMs for diffuse atmospheric 

deposition, abstraction and flow diversion for public water supply and other, and alteration of 

121 

 
 
 
water level or volume, related to  groundwater of the L’Escaut RBD. There are no KTMs for 

diffuse  pressure  from  agriculture  for  groundwater  in  the  Rhine  RBD,  although  for  surface 
water all point and diffuse pressures seem to be covered by KTMs for individual substances.  

Belgium has mapped a total of 155 basic measures against 20 predefined KTMs, eight KTMs 
related to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive60, and eight nationally developed KTMs. It 
has also mapped a total of 112 supplementary measures against 19 predefined KTMs and four 
regionally  developed  KTMs.  In  total,  there  are  22  predefined  KTMs,  8  Marine  Strategy 

Framework Directive KTMs and 10 regionally defined KTMs. The measures are applicable to 
variable  numbers  of  RBDs;  those  related  to  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  are 

applicable to one RBD only. The basic measure types are indicated for all eight RBDs (none of 
them relate to Article 11(3)(f)).  

KTMs mapped against measures and tackling significant pressures have been reported for four 
RBDs only (Schelde, Scheldt (Brussels), Maas and the North Sea), none have been reported for 

RBDs in the Wallonia region (L’Escaut, Meuse, Rhine and Seine). Some measures have been 
mapped  which  do  not  seem  to  have  been  made  operational,  for  example,  natural  water 
retention measures in the Scheldt (Brussels), although this issue was included in relation to the 
FD61 in  the subunit.  

KTMs  used  to  address  failures  of  good  status  caused  by  individual  chemical  pollutants  in 

groundwater bodies and by River Basin Specific Pollutants in surface water bodies have been 
reported by RBDs in the Flanders region only for groundwater and surface water (Schelde and 

Maas); the number of groundwater bodies failing to be of good chemical status as a result of 
individual  pollutants  have  also  been  reported  for  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  RBD,  including  the 

reference  to  KTMs  3  –  “Reduce  pesticides  pollution  from  agriculture“  and  13  –  “Drinking 
water protection measures“ as measures to tackle this pressure. The highest numbers of failures 

are for nutrients and pesticides. Where failures have been reported (groundwater in the Schelde 
and  Maas  RBDs)  the  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  are  covered  by  measures.  There  is  no 

information on River Basin Specific Pollutants in terms of the number of surface water bodies 
causing failure of WFD objectives.  

KTMs  used  to  tackle  Priority  Substances  in  surface  water  have  been  reported  only  by  the 
Schelde and Maas RBDs, whereas the number of water bodies failing to be of good status as a 

60  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  
61  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  

122 

 
                                                      
result  of  pollution  from  specific  Priority  Substances  have  been  reported  for  these  RBDs  and 

also  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  and  North  Sea  RBDs.  Where  reported,  most  of  the  substances 
causing  failure are covered by KTMs, except  some of the polycyclic  aromatic hydrocarbons. 

The highest numbers of failures are due to mercury in the Schelde RBD; this is being tackled 
with several KTMs.  

Information  on  gap  analyses  reported  electronically  to  WISE  is  very  limited.  Only  for  the 
North Sea RBD are a few gap indicators, KTMs and gap values for diffuse pollution (transport, 

atmospheric deposition, and other) included, with the gap values in terms of number of water 
bodies affected and number of substances or water bodies requiring restrictions in 2015, 2021 

and  2027  remaining  the  same,  that  is,  indicating  no  expected  improvements.  For  some  point 
pollution issues (nitrogen and phosphorus) in the North Sea RBD, indicators and KTMs have 

been  provided  but  no  gap  values,  commenting  that  the  issues  need  to  be  dealt  with  by 
competent authorities upstream.  

For some RBDs (for example, Schelde, Scheldt (Brussels) and Maas) KTMs to deal with the 
pressures  have  been  listed,  but  no  gap  indicators  or  gap  values.  Belgium  explains  that  the 
information is not available because of the complex multi-pressure environments which do not 

allow disaggregation of the pressure-measure relationship. 

Cost-effectiveness  analysis  is  an  appraisal  technique  that  provides  a  ranking  of  alternative 

measures  on  the  basis  of  their  costs  and  effectiveness,  where  the  most  cost-effective  has  the 
highest ranking. A combination of qualitative and quantitative cost-effectiveness analysis was 

carried out in the Scheldt (Brussels and Flanders) and Maas RBDs; only a qualitative analysis 
only  was  carried  out  in  the  Wallonia  region  (L’Escaut,  Meuse,  Rhine  and  Seine  RBDs).  No 

separate information was included for the North Sea RBD. In the first cycle cost-effectiveness 
analysis had been limited; in RBDs of the Flanders region the analysis was developed based on 

supplementary measures and in  RBDs in  the Wallonia region,  it was completed using expert 
judgement. 

A critical factor in the success of the implementation of the PoM is the availability of funding 
to support the investments required.  

Investment costs for the first cycle have been reported at RBD level for those in the Wallonia 
Region  separately  for  Article  11(3)(a)  requirements  (measures  required  to  implement 

Community legislation for the protection of water) and Articles 11(3)(b-l), 11(4) and 11(5) (all 
other measures): for L’Escaut  €407 m and €67 m, the Meuse €689 m and €67 m, the Rhine 
€21  m  and  €15  m,  and  the  Seine  €0.008  m  and  €0.1  m,  respectively.  RBDs  in  the  Flanders 

123 

 
region reported no investments for Article 11(3)(a) for the Schelde and the Maas RBDs; and 

€2 419 m for the Schelde RBD and €297 m for the Meuse RBD for Articles 11.3(b-l), 11.4 and 
11.5 investments. For the North Sea RBD, investments have been reported as €5.8 m for the 

total of Articles 11(3)(a-l), 11(4) and 11(5).   

In the second RBMP, investment (€837 m) and annual costs (€10 m) have been provided for 

Article  11(3)(a)  at  Regional  level  for  the  four  RBDs  in  the  Wallonia  Region,  as  were 
investment  (€263  m)  and  annual  costs  (€5  m)  for  Articles  11(3)(b-l),  11(4)  and  11(5).  For 

RBDs  in  the  Flanders  region  (Schelde  and  Maas  RBDs)  and  the  North  Sea  RBD,  Article 
11(3)(a) investment and annual costs were reported as zero, and for Articles 11(3)(b-l), 11(4) 

and 11(5) as follows: the Schelde RBD €2 569 m and €12 m, the Maas RBD €156 m and €0.7 
m,  and  the  North  Sea  RBD  €3  m  and  €0.5  m,  respectively.  The  Brussels  Region  reported 

investment costs of €1.3 m for Article 11(3)(a), and annual operation and maintenance costs of 
€446.81 m. For Articles 11(3)(b-l), 11(4) and 11(5) investment costs were reported as €30 m 

and  annual  operation  maintenance  costs  as  €7  m.  Depreciation  has  not  been  included  in  any 
calculations. 

European Union investment expenditure for the first cycle has been provided by the Wallonia 

Region separately for L’Escaut (€0.3 m), Meuse (€3.3 m), Rhine (€3.1 m) and the Seine RBDs 
(zero); whilst estimates for the second cycle are €3.6 m for each of the four RBDs (this may be 

a  total  Regional  figure).  For  RBDs  in  the  Flanders  Region,  the  following  figures  have  been 
provided: the Schelde RBD €36 m and €31 m, the Maas RBD €3.6 m and €3.1 m for 2009-15 

and 2015-21, respectively. For the North Sea RBD, zero European Union investment has been 
reported for both cycles. The Brussels region reported that no EU funds had been received in 

the Schelde RBD in the first cycle but that €3.34 m is anticipated for the second cycle. 

Links to further information have been provided.  

No clear financial commitments have been secured for the implementation of PoM in any of 
the eight RBDs. On a sectoral basis, very few commitments have been secured, that is, three 

commitments for Agriculture (Walloon only: Escaut, Meuse and Rhin RBDs); two for Urban 
(Flanders: Schelde and Maas RBDs); one for recreation (Brussels: Escaut_Schelde), and three 

for  flood  protection  (Brussels:  Escaut_Schelde;  and  Flanders:  Schelde  and  Maas).  No  other 
commitments  have  been  reported,  even  where  considered  applicable,  for  example  no 

commitments for industry in any RBD, although considered applicable in all, and none for any 
applicable sectors for the North Sea and the Seine RBDs.  

124 

 
No  coordination  of  the  preparation  of  all  RBMPs  and  PoM  with  the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework  Directive62  has  been  reported  for  any  of  the  seven  RBDs  (Belgium  does  not 
consider it relevant for the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD, which is land-locked). Joint consultation 

on the RBMPs and the Marine Strategy, as well as consideration of the need for additional or 
more  stringent  measures  beyond  those  required  by  the  WFD  in  order  to  contribute  to  the 

achievement  of  the  relevant  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  objectives  in  coastal  and 
marine environments, has been indicated for the North Sea RBD only, with required additional 

measures  given  in  relation  to  “litter”  and  “others”.  KTMs  that  are  relevant  to  the  Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive have been listed for all seven relevant RBDs, with an indication 

of the type of measure, but not indicating the pressures they are addressing. For the North Sea 
RBD,  eight  other  KTMs  have  also  been  listed,  specific  to  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 

Directive (no other details provided).  

Whilst joint consultation of RBMPs and FD63 Flood Risk Management Plans has been carried 
out in all except the North Sea RBD, the RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans have been 
integrated  into  a  single  plan  for  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  and  Schelde  RBDs,  and  for  the  Maas 
RBD, and these include (i) Consideration of the objectives and requirements of the FD in the 

second  RBMPs  and  PoM,  (ii)  Win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the 
WFD and FD, (iii) Drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures, as well 

as (iv) financial commitments for the implementation of PoM in the flood protection area.  

The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and 

tidal  barriers,  have  been  adapted  to  take  account  of  WFD  Environmental  Objectives  in  all 
(except  the  North  Sea  RBD).  WFD  Article  9(4)  has  been  applied  to  impoundment  for  flood 

protection in the Scheldt (Brussels), L’Escaut, Meuse, Rhine and Seine RBDs, and as such it 
would  be  an  activity/use  which  should  be  subject  to  cost  recovery  under  Article  9  in  the 

Schelde and Maas RBDs). 

9.1.2.  Measures related to other significant pressures 

Only one other significant pressure has been reported (anthropogenic - historic pollution) for 1 
RBD (North Sea). Indicator values in terms of number of water bodies failing environmental 

quality  standard  are  provided  for  2015,  2021  and  2027  (with  the  gap  value  as  one  in  every 
case)  and  KTM  14  –  “Research,  improvement  of  knowledge  base  reducing  uncertainty”  was 

reported  as  dealing  with  this  pressure,  with  indicator  values  as  number  of  water  bodies 

62  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  
63  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 

125 

 
                                                      
requiring  the  measure,  and  gap  values  also  at  one  for  2015,  2021  and  2027,  indicating  no 

expected improvement. There is no information on any of the other RBDs.  

9.1.3.  Mapping of national/RBD measures to Key Types of Measure 

It  was  expected  that  Member  States  would  be  able  to  report  their  PoM  by  associating  their 
measures with predefined KTMs. KTMs are expected to deliver the bulk of the improvements 

through  reduction  in  pressures  required  to  achieve  WFD  Environmental  Objectives.  A  KTM 
may be one measure, but would typically comprise more than one measure. Member States are 

required  to  report  on  the  national  measures  associated  with  the  KTMs,  and  whether  the 
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 measures that have been mapped to the relevant KTMs in 
Belgium64. Also shown is the number of RBDs for which the KTM has been reported.  

Table  9.2  then  summarises  the  type  of  basic  measures  associated  with  the  national  measures 
mapped against the KTMs. 

Table 9.1 

Mapping of the types of measures to KTMs in Belgium  

KTM 

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 

KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (for 
example, establishment of safeguard zones, buffer 
zones etc.) 

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base 
reducing uncertainty 

KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, 
discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous 
Substances or for the reduction of emissions, 
discharges and losses of Priority Substances 

KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial 
wastewater treatment plants (including farms). 

KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil 
erosion and surface run-off 

KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number of 
RBDs where 
reported 

3 

1 

2 

25 

1 

5 

3 

8 

1 

7 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

7 

1 

7 

7 

6 

6 

6 

1 

64 Due to different interpretations and implementation of KTMs in the different regions, aggregations such as in 
the tables in chapter should be interpreted with care. 

126 

 
 
                                                      
 
KTM 

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 

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 

KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change 

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 (for 
example, establishing fish passes, demolishing old 
dams) 

KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions 
of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity 

KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or 
establishment of ecological flows 

KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for 
irrigation, industry, energy and households 

KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the 
implementation of the recovery of cost of water 
services from households 

KTM – Communication 

KTM – Ensure coordinated implementation of water 
policy and exchange experiences and information 

KTM – Improving ecological conditions 

KTM – Improving enforcement 

KTM – Improving hydrological conditions 

KTM – Improving hydromorphological conditions 

KTM26 Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

KTM28 Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

KTM29 Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

KTM31 Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

KTM35 Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

KTM36 Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number of 
RBDs where 
reported 

1 

4 

18 

9 

4 

6 

4 

10 

5 

6 

2 

3 

1 

5 

7 

1 

4 

3 

6 

2 

7 

7 

4 

8 

7 

7 

1 

4 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

8 

6 

7 

2 

3 

1 

2 

2 

3 

2 

6 

2 

1 

5 

2 

1 

2 

2 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
KTM 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number of 
RBDs where 
reported 

KTM37 Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

KTM38 Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

KTM – Legal framework 

KTM – Measures to improve water quality 

KTM – National coordination 

KTM – Water pricing policy measures for the 
implementation of recovery of cost of water services 

Total Mapped Measures 

2 

3 

8 

1 

1 

155 

1 

5 

112 

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

1 

1 

1 

2 

4 

2 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9.2 

Type of basic measure mapped to KTMs in Belgium  

KTM 

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 
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 
KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution 
from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure 
KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 
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) 

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
p
l
a
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
A

r
e
t
a
w
s
l
o
r
t
n
o
C

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

r
e
t
a
w
y
r
e
v
o
c
e
r

t
s
o
C

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

6 

4 

1 

1 

129 

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

4 

e
s
u
f
f
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

t
c
e
r
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

r
e
t
a
w
n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
P

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

e
g
r
a
h
c
e
R

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
u
a

s
r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
P
e
c
a
f
r
u
S

s
e
c
n
a
t
s
b
u
S

r
e
t
a
W

e
t
s
a
W
n
a
b
r
U

4 

1 

6 

1 

1 

2 

1 

8 

1 

3 

6 

2 
2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation 
of the recovery of cost of water services from households 
KTM99 - Other KTM reported under PoM 

1 

6 

1 

2 

2 

5 

10 

4 

1 

1 

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

Key 
‘Urban Waste Water’ = Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) . 
‘Nitrates’ = Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) . 
‘Habitats or Birds’ = Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)  or Birds Directive (2009/147/EC)  
‘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. 
‘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. 
‘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. 
‘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. 

‘Hydromorphology’ = Article 11(3)(i): Measures to control any other significant adverse impact on the status of water, and in particular hydromorphological impacts. 
‘Pollutants direct groundwater’ = Article 11(3)(j): Prohibition of direct discharge of pollutants into groundwater. 
‘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. 
‘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. 
‘Other’ = Other Directives mentioned in Part A of Annex VI of the WFD. 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9.1.4.  Pressures  for  which  gaps  to  be  filled  to  achieve  WFD  objectives  and  the  KTM 

planned to achieve objectives 

Member  States  are  required  to  report  the  gaps  that  need  to  be  filled  to  achieve  WFD 

environmental  objectives  in  terms  of  all  significant  pressures  on  surface  waters  and 
groundwaters, in  terms  of Priority Substances causing  failure of  good  chemical  status  and in 

terms  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  ecological  status/potential. 
Member  States  were  asked  to  report  predefined  indicators  of  the  gaps  to  be  filled  or  other 

indicators where relevant. Values for the gap indicators were required for 2015 and 2021, and 
were optional for 2027. This information was not reported by Belgium. 

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 0 
is  comparable  with  100  %  good  ecological  status  or  potential  or  good  chemical  status.  This 

information was not reported by Belgium. 

Belgium did not provide sufficient information to WISE to allow a meaningful summary of the 

significant  pressures  on  surface  waters  and  the  chemical  substances  causing  failure  of  good 
chemical  status  or  good  ecological  status/potential of surface  water  bodies for which  gaps to 

the achievement of WFD environmental objectives to be presented.  

9.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

Progress for the first cycle of PoM in Belgium was reported as “some measures completed” for 
7  RBDs  and  “all  measures  started”  for  the  North  Sea  RBD.  Obstacles  were  reported  for  all 

except  the  North  Sea  RBD.  The  main  obstacles  included  “Governance”,  “Lack  of  finance”, 
“Lack  of  measures”,  and  “Lack  of  mechanisms”.  The  RBDs  in  the  Wallonia  Region  also 

reported “Other obstacles” as “Difficult to answer in terms of Yes or No” for all four RBDs, 
and  the  two  RBDs  in  the  Flanders  region  as  “More  investigations  and  time  needed”.  Brief 

descriptions of progress were provided by the Federal Government authority for the North Sea 
RBD and by the Flanders region for the Schelde and Maas RBDs65. According to this, none of 
the water bodies in the Flanders region have good ecological status or potential, and the only 

65 Belgium (Brussels Region) subsequently clarified that they had provided a summary in their RBMP. However, 
a  specific  reference  was  not  provided  in  the  appropriate  part  of  the  electronic  reporting  to  WISE  and  this 
information was therefore not assessed. 

131 

 
                                                      
clear  impact  of  measures  seems  to  be  a  slight  improvement  in  the  quantitative  status  of 

groundwater bodies.  

Some progress seems to have been made in carrying out cost-benefit analyses and linking some 

measures  to  pressures.  The  RBMP  and  background  documents  assessment  indicated  that  for 
the Schelde and Scheldt (Brussels) RBDs: (i) actions were formulated in a more specific and 

detailed  manner  compared  with  the  first  cycle,  and,  (ii)  the  public  consultation  proposed  6 
different scenarios with measures at different levels of ambition. 

9.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  the  RBMPs  clearly  identify  the  gap  to  good  status  for 
individual pressures and water bodies, and that PoM are designed and implemented to 
close  that  gap  since  none  of  the  three  Regions  carried  out  an  assessment/analysis  of 

how far pressures (and their corresponding sources) have to be reduced to achieve the 
WFD objectives. 

Assessment:  No  gap  analyses  were  carried  out,  except  for  three  diffuse  pressures 
(Diffuse  -  transport,  -  atmospheric  deposition,  and  -  other)  in  the  North  Sea  RBD  in 

terms  of  number  of  water  bodies  affected  and  number  of  substances  or  water  bodies 
requiring restrictions, with no improvements expected by 2027 (Belgium explained that 

it was “not possible to identify gaps in terms of specific pressures due to multi-pressure 
environment” and that other tools and models were used to identify pressures and select 
the  appropriate  measures  to  deal  with  the  difficulties  to  set  up  a  gap  analysis  in  a 

multiple pressure environment).  

It is unclear whether this recommendation has been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Establish  a  quantitative  source  apportionment  and  a  link  between 
pressures/impacts  and  their  sources.  Belgium  should  use  these  as  a  basis  for 
determining Programmes of Measures. 

Assessment:  With  respect  to  the  measures  aspect  of  this  recommendation,  there  are 
some  links  between  pressures  and  implemented  measures,  although  not  all  pressures 

seem to be covered by measures and it is not clear how these were prioritised.  

132 

 
This recommendation has not been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  cost-effectiveness  analyses  are  conducted  in  the 
Brussels and Walloon Regions to inform their next RBMPs (only Flanders has carried 

it out). 

Assessment:  A  combination  of  qualitative  and  quantitative  cost-benefit  analysis  of 

measures  has  now  been  conducted  by  the  Brussels  Region,  and  a  qualitative  analysis 
only  in  the  Walloon  Region,  and  no  details  of  prioritisation  of  measures  have  been 

provided (RBMP and background documents).  

This recommendation has been partly fulfilled. 

133 

 
 
 
 
Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

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

10.1.1. Water exploitation and trends  

Water abstraction pressure is relevant for a few RBDs in Belgium, namely the Maas, Scheldt 

and  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  RBDs.  The  Water  Exploitation  Index  is  only  reported  for  RBDs 
within  the  Wallonia  region  with  a  value  of  6.4  %  (2011);  and  not  for  RBDs  in  the  other 

regions. However, water quantity data have been reported to support the European State of the 
Environment Report in relation to Water Quantity. Water scarcity is not considered an issue at 

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

10.1.2. Main uses for water consumption  

The  uses  of  water  consumption  were  reported  to  be  households  and  industry  for  the  Scheldt 

(Brussels)  RBD  but  no  data  were  reported  for  other  RBDs.  However,  water  abstraction 
information  has  previously  been  reported  to  support  the  European  State  of  the  Environment 

Report in relation to Water Quantity for the RBDs for pressures  related to water quantitative 
that are significant. 

10.1.3. Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

The management of basic measures (Article 11(3)(e)) in  Belgium varies. In the RBDs of the 
Wallonia region there is a concession, authorisation, and/or permitting regime to control water 

impoundment and a register of impoundments; and small abstractions are not exempted from 
these controls. Measures in relation to abstractions and water scarcity have been implemented 

in  the  previous  cycle  and  new  measures  and/or  significant  changes  are  not  planned  for  the 
period of the second cycle. In the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD there is a concession, authorisation, 

and/or permitting regime to control water impoundment, but no register of impoundments; and 
small abstractions are exempted from these controls, even though 33 % of surface water bodies 

face  significant  abstraction  pressures.  Such  a  system  also  applies  to  RBDs  in  the  Flanders 
region (Scheldt and Maas RBDs), with the Scheldt RBD having 25 % of groundwater bodies in 

bad quantitative status, 15 % of surface water bodies facing significant abstraction pressures, 
and  11  %  of  surface  water  bodies  of  the  Maas  RBD  facing  such  abstraction  pressures.  In 

summary,  those  RBDs  which  face  significant  abstraction  pressures  and  inconsistency  with 

134 

 
WFD-objectives (the Scheldt (Brussels), Maas and Scheldt RBDs)  have  a permitting systems 

in place which differs depending on the quantity of the abstraction (varying from a permit to 
general binding rules following a registration system). It should be noted that in these RBDs 

new  measures  or  significant  changes  are  foreseen  in  the second  RBMPs.  The  North  Sea  and 
Scheldt RBDs have no  control system in  place, but  no significant  abstraction  pressures  were 

reported for them. 

Regarding measures under Article 11(3)(c), it should be noted that in 2 of the RBDs that face 

water abstraction pressures (the Maas and Scheldt RBDs), new measures or significant changes 
are  foreseen  in  the  second  RBMPs.  In  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  RBD,  no  new  measures  are 

foreseen, but previous measures are expected to be taken forward. 

Measures  for  the  prior  authorisation  of  artificial  recharge  or  augmentation  of  groundwater 

bodies - Article 11(3)(f) - have been implemented in the previous cycle, and new measures or 
significant changes are planned for the next period for the Maas and the Scheldt RBDs. 

Complementary  measures  are  planned  to  be  implemented  in  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  RBD 
associated with urban water abstractions and KTM13 – “Drinking water protection measures” 
(for example, establishment of safeguard zones or buffer zones). In the Maas RBD, KTM8  – 

“Water  efficiency,  technical  measures  for  irrigation,  industry,  energy  and  households” 
addresses urban and industrial uses, and in the Scheldt RBD agricultural, urban and industrial 

uses. However, the reported information does not detail the expected achievements in terms of 
closing existing gaps. 

The re-use of water has been included as a measure in terms of managing water resources in 
the RBMPs of the Scheldt (Brussels), Maas and Scheldt RBDs. 

10.2. Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

topic. 

135 

 
 
 
Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture  

11.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and 

compliance  with  WFD 
requirements in second cycle and main changes in implementation and 
compliance since first cycle  

Pressures related to agriculture are clearly identified, both for surface and groundwater in the 
River Basin Management Plans. Nitrogen and phosphorus from diffuse sources and pesticides 

from  point  and  diffuse  sources  are  impacting  water  quality  in  surface  waters  in  all  RBDs. 
Altered  habitats  due  to  morphological  changes  resulting  from  agricultural  practice  were 

reported in L’Escaut RBD and the Meuse RBD. Acidification in surface waters was reported in 
Maas  and  Scheldt  RBDs.  Impacts  due  to  agriculture  on  groundwater  from  nutrient  and 

chemical  pollution  were  reported  in  the  Scheldt,  Rhine,  Meuse,  Maas,  and  L’Escaut  RBDs. 
Organic pollution is also reported in the Maas and Scheldt RBDs.  

An  assessment  of  the  gap  to  the  achievement  of  the  WFD  objectives  is  presented  in  the 
Wallonian  RBMPs  and  in  a  background  document  from  Flanders.  The  gap  assessment  of 

Wallonia  quantifies  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  loads,  including  quantifications  for  different 
polluters (industry, agriculture, urban wastewater) based on the PEGASE-model. For the North 

Sea, the area of agricultural land to be covered by measures to achieve environmental objective 
was reported.  

KTM  2  -  “Reduce  nutrient  pollution  from  agriculture“  and  KTM  3  -  “Reduce  pesticides 
pollution from agriculture“, are applied in all RBDs except the North Sea RBD where KTM 2 - 
“Reduce  nutrient  pollution  from  agriculture“  is  applied.  Supplementary  measures  to  reduce 

nutrient  pollution  are  applied  in  all  RBDs.  In  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  RBD,  these  are  only 
applied in drinking water zones and in the vulnerable zones, the area of which, are almost the 

same  as  the  drinking  water  safeguard  zones  in  Brussels.  KTM  12  –  “Advisory  services  for 
agriculture“  is  applied  in  L’Escaut,  Scheldt  (Brussels),  Maas,  Meuse,  North  Sea,  Rhine, 

Scheldt,  and  Seine  RBDs.  KTM  13  –  “Drinking  water  protection  measures“  (for  example, 
establishment  of  safeguard  zones,  buffer  zones  etc.)  are  applied  in  L’Escaut,  Scheldt 

(Brussels), Maas, Meuse, North Sea, Rhine, Scheldt, and Seine RBDs. There is no indication in 
the RBMPs that the drinking water protection zones have been changed compared to the  first 

RBMP.  There  is  no  indication  that  any  additional  control  measures  on  land  have  been 
introduced  (not  just  in  safeguard  zones  but  in  the  wider  catchment)  to  prevent  nitrogen, 

phosphorus, or pesticides from entering drinking water sources. 

136 

 
KTM 17 – “Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off“ is applied in 

L’Escaut, Scheldt (Brussels), Maas, Meuse, North Sea, Rhine, Scheldt, and Seine RBDs. KTM 
23  –  “Natural  water  retention  measures“  is  applied  in  L’Escaut,  Scheldt  (Brussels),  Maas, 

Meuse, North Sea, Rhine, Scheldt, and Seine RBDs. It is unclear from the RBMPs whether the 
above-mentioned measures are voluntary or mandatory. 

No  information  on  the  area  of  agricultural  land  to  be  covered  by  measures  to  achieve  WFD 
environmental objectives is  provided, except  for the North  Sea RBD. The implementation  of 

basic measures (the minimum requirement to be complied with) under Article 11(3)(h) for the 
control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at source is included for the Seine, Scheldt, Rhine, 

Meuse, Maas, and L’Escaut RBDs. For these RBDs, there are differentiated rules for different 
parts of the RBDs. Issues covered by the general binding rules to control diffuse pollution from 

agriculture are nitrates, organic pollution, pesticides, and phosphorus except in the North Sea 
RBD, where no information is provided. 

Farmers/Farmers'  Unions  have  been  consulted  under  the  Public  Consultation  process  in  all 
RBDs. 

Financing  of  measures  is  only  secured  in  the  Wallonia  RBDs  using  Rural  Development 

programmes.  Financing  of  agricultural  measures  is  partially  secured  in  the  RBDs:  it  is  not 
secured in the Maas or Scheldt RBDs. 

11.2. Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

following: 

  Recommendation: The baseline for water protection in the agriculture sector needs to 
be very clear, so that all farmers know the rules, and the authorities in charge of the 
CAP  funds  can  adequately  set  up  Rural  Development  programmes  and  cross 

compliance water requirements. In particular, information on how the measures will be 
funded through the Rural Development programmes should be in the PoM.   

Assessment: The recommendation has been partially fulfilled as there is no information 
on  the  area  of  agricultural  land  to  be  covered  by  measures  to  achieve  environmental 

objectives  except  for  the  North  Sea  RBD.  However,  the  implementation  of  basic 
measures,  Article  11(3)(h),  for  the  control  of  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  at 
source are set in the Seine RBD, Scheldt, Rhine, the Meuse, Maas, and L’Escaut RBDs. 
Issues covered by the general binding rules to control diffuse pollution from agriculture 

137 

 
are nitrates, organic pollution, pesticides, and phosphorus except in the North Sea RBD 

(no information) For these RBDs there are differentiated rules for different parts of the 
RBDs. Supplementary measures in relation to agricultural pressures can be found in all 

RBDs. Financing of agricultural measures is secured in Wallonia.  

  Recommendation: Review the degree to which the existing measures to implement the 
Nitrates  Directive  (ND)  are  sufficient  to  address  agricultural  pressures  to  allow  the 
more stringent nutrient conditions for the WFD and MSFD to be met.   

Assessment: A gap assessment was performed in Wallonia and Flanders but it remains 
unclear how much of the gap to the achievement of the WFD objectives is expected to 

be  achieved  by  the  measures  under  the  Nitrates  Directive.  The  recommendation  is 
partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Additionally,  Belgium  should ensure  basic  measures  as  per  Article 
11.3.h are put in place to control other diffuse pollutants  – e.g. phosphate, pesticides, 
particulate  matter.  These  measures  should  be  specific,  have  a  clear  legal  basis,  and 
include appropriate advice, monitoring and inspection regimes to ensure their effective 

implementation.  

Assessment: The implementation of basic measures, Article 11(3)(h), for the control of 

diffuse pollution from agriculture at source are set in the Seine, Scheldt, Rhine, Meuse, 
Maas,  and  L’Escaut  RBDs.  Issues  covered  by  the  general  binding  rules  to  control 

diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  are  nitrates,  organic  pollution,  pesticides,  and 
phosphorus  except  in  the  North  Sea  RBD  (no  information)  For  these  RBDs  there  are 

differentiated rules for different parts of the RBDs. 

  Recommendation: In addition to the basic measures, it should be set out clearly what 
supplementary measures will be needed to bridge the gap to good status and which of 
these measures will be included in the second PoMs and what funding sources will be 

used to deliver these.   

Assessment:  Funding  will  only  be  secured  in  Wallonia  using  Rural  Development 

Funds. This recommendation is almost fulfilled.  

  Recommendation:  Clear  references  to  expectations  for  the  Rural  Development 

Programmes in this regard (and to other funding sources) are expected.   

Assessment:  This  recommendation  has  been  partially  fulfilled  as 

the  Rural 

Development  Programme  is  clearly  mentioned  as  a  funding  source  in  the  RBMPs  of 
Wallonia. Other aspects of funding are also mentioned. 

138 

 
 
Topic  12  Measures  related  to  pollution  from  sectors  other  than 
agriculture  

12.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and 

compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in second cycle 

In  the  context  of  this  topic,  pollution  is  considered  in  terms  of  nutrients,  organic  matter, 
sediment,  saline  discharges  and  chemicals  (Priority  Substances,  River  Basin  Specific 

Pollutants,  groundwater  pollutants  and  other  physico-chemical  parameters)  arising  from  all 
sectors  and  sources  apart  from  agriculture.  KTMs  are  groups  of  measures  identified  by 

Member States in their Programmes of Measures which target the same pressure or purpose. A 
KTM  could  be  limited  to  one  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. 

KTMs relevant to non-agricultural sources of pollution causing failure of WFD objectives have 
been reported for all Belgian RBDs. These KTMs include: 

KTM1 - “Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants”,  

KTM4  -  “Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical  pollution  including  sediments, 
groundwater, soil)” 

KTM6  -  “Improving  hydromorphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than  longitudinal 
continuity” 

KTM8 - “Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households” 

KTM9  -  “Water  pricing  policy  measures  for  the  implementation  of  the  recovery  of  cost  of 

water services from households” 

KTM10  -  “Water  pricing  policy  measures  for  the  implementation  of  the  recovery  of  cost  of 

water services from industry” 

KTM13 - “Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer 

zones etc.)” 

KTM16  –  “Upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial  wastewater  treatment  plants  (including 

farms)” and 

139 

 
KTM21  -  “Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas,  transport 

and built infrastructure”.  

However, no information was provided on the links between KTMs and significant pressures 

or substances causing failure of good status for the Escaut RBD, the Meuse RBD, the Rhine 
RBD or the Seine RBD. 

The  WFD  specifies  that  the  PoM  shall  include,  as  a  minimum,  “basic  measures”  and,  where 
necessary  to  achieve  objectives,  “supplementary  measures”  when  basic  measures  are  not 

enough to address specific significant pressures (see the chapter 9 in this report). Quantitative 
information  on  basic  and  supplementary  measures  used  to  tackle  pollution  from  non-

agricultural sources (number of measures per KTM) has been provided for the 4 Belgian RBDs 
first mentioned above. Quantitative information on types of basic measures to tackle pollution 

from non-agricultural sources is provided for nine measure types for those RBDs.  

Belgium provided more targeted information on basic measures required under Article 11(3)(c 

to k):  

Authorisation and/or permitting regimes to control waste water point source discharges are in 
place  in  seven  out  of  eight  Belgian  RBDs  for  surface  and  groundwater.  There  is  no 

authorisation and/or permitting regime in the North Sea RBD.  

Registers of waste water discharges - basic measures Article 11(3)(g) - are available in all but 

one Belgian RBD (the Schelde and Maas RBDs for surface and groundwater; the other 5 RBDs 
for surface water only). There is no register of waste water discharges in the North Sea RBD, 

apparently because it includes only coastal SWB. Small wastewater discharges do not require 
permits but are all registered in the Escaut, Meuse, Rhine and Seine RBDs. Small discharges 

are  exempted  from  controls  in  the  Schelde  and  Maas  RBDs.  Belgium  clarified  that  the 
discharge  conditions  in  permits  in  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  RBD  include  values  not  to  be 

exceeded. Legislative adaptations with changes in emission standards for industry, or specific 
sectoral emission standards, are planned. There is no permitting regime in the North Sea RBD.  

There is prohibition of all direct discharges to groundwater in the Schelde and Maas66. Some 
direct  discharges  are  authorised  in  accordance  with  Article  11(3)(j)  in  the  other  five  Belgian 

RBDs. 

There are measures in place to eliminate/reduce pollution from Priority Substances and other 

substances in all RBDs in Belgium. 

66 Belgium subsequently stated that a prohibition is also in place in the Escaut-Schelde (Brussels) RBD 

140 

 
                                                      
12.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

In the first RBMP most of the measures related to chemical pollution were general rather than 
substance specific. The intention was that the existing inventories would  serve  as a basis for 

defining more substance specific measures in the next RBMP. 

Information reported to WISE indicates that KTMs have been reported for significant pressures 

from Priority Substances causing inconsistency with WFD-objectives in 4 RBDs. For example 
in Flanders, the Priority Substances are being monitored and a detailed emissions inventory is 
being compiled, with concentrations in the water column, sediment and some substances also 

in  the  biota.  In  addition,  the  following  measures  are  included  under  group  7B  “pollution  of 
surface waters”:  legislative adaptations with  changes in  emission standards for industry, new 

specific sectoral emission standards for Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control industries, 
and  implementation  of  the  2013  Directive  on  Priority  Substances67.  In  principle,  all  Priority 
Substances  are  covered  in  Flanders.  This  is  the  same  for  Wallonia  and  Brussels,  where  all 
Priority Substances have been covered/considered in the measures. 

The  Schelde  RBMP  contains  specific  measures  to  reduce  the  emissions  of  all  River  Basin 
Specific  Pollutants;  an  overview  is  available  linking  the  pollutants  and  measures  available. 

This overview and linkage is not presented in the RBMPs for the Escaut-Scheldt RBD or the 
RBDs  in  the  Wallonia  region,  but  close  examination  of  the  Programmes  of  Measures  shows 

that there are measures to reduce the emissions of all identified pollutants (this is formulated in 
a generic way, thus covering Priority Substances and River Basin Specific Pollutants) in those 

RBDs. 

Measures  for  all  those  pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status  in  groundwater  are 

planned  in  the  Schelde  RBMP.  General  measures  are  included  in  the  Escaut-Scheldt  RBMP 
and those for the Wallonia region, probably covering groundwater pollutants. For example, for 

the Wallonia region, two groundwater bodies are in bad chemical status due to past or present 
industrial  activities;  measures  to  reduce  groundwater  pollution  with  focus  on  preventing 

leakage from installations and activities, and on surveillance. This is supported by legislative 

67  Directive 2013/39/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 amending Directives 
2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards priority substances in the field of water policy   
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32013L0039 

141 

 
                                                      
actions  in  Wallonia,  for  example,  in  the  decree  «  permis  d’environnement  »,  and  under  the 
Industrial Emissions Directive.68 

12.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  made  one  relevant  recommendation  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  first 
Programmes of Measures for this topic. 

  Recommendation:  “The  identification  of  river  basin  specific  pollutants  needs  to  be 

more  transparent,  with  clear  information  on  how  pollutants  were  selected,  how  and 

where  they  were  monitored,  where  there  are  exceedances  and  how  such  exceedances 

have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status. It is important that 

there  is  an  ambitious  approach  to  combatting  chemical  pollution  and  that  adequate 

measures are put in place.” 

Assessment:  Since  no  KTMs  are  reported  for  four  of  the  eight  RBDs  in  BE,  it  is  not 
possible  to  fully  assess  the  level  of  ambition.  In  those  RBDs  for  which  KTMs  are 

reported,  they  are  quite  wide  ranging  and  include  efforts  to  control  storm-water 
overflows. Thus, this recommendation is considered as partially fulfilled.   

68  Directive  2010/75/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  November  2010  on  industrial 
emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)   
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0075  

142 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology  

13.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and 

compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in second cycle 

Significant  hydromorphological  pressures  were  reported  in  5  out  of  8  RBDs  (no  significant 

hydromorphological  pressures  were  reported  for  the  North  Sea,  Rhine  or  Seine  RBDs  in 
Wallonia).  

For  the  majority  of  water  bodies  reported  to  have  significant  hydromorphological  pressures, 
the driver is unknown/obsolete or indicated as "other", that is, not specified as one of the key 

sectors  indicated  in  the  WISE  reporting.  For  few  water  bodies,  the  sectors  related  to  the 
significant  hydromorphological  pressures  are  clearly  indicated  (navigation,  flood  protection, 

hydropower). 

Operational  KTMs  were  reported  in  all  five  RBDs  with  significant  hydromorphological 

pressures.  The  main  KTMs  made  operational  to  reduce  hydromorphological  pressures  are 
KTM  5  –  “Improving  longitudinal  continuity  (for  example,  establishing  fish  passes, 

demolishing old dams)”, KTM 6 – “Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies 
other  than  longitudinal  continuity”,  and  KTM  7  –  “Improvements  in  flow  regime  and/or 

establishment of ecological flows”.  

Overall  management  objectives  and  quantitative  objectives  in  terms  of  river  continuity  have 

been set in six out of eight RBDs. However, KTM 5 – “Improving longitudinal continuity (for 
example, establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams)” was only reported for three RBDs, 

as indicated above. 

The  types  of  specific  hydromorphological  measures  planned  include  fish  ladders  and  bypass 

channels, sediment management, setting of ecological flows as well as other measures such as 
research. 

In  terms  of  basic  measures,  there  is  an  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  in  place  to 
control  physical  modifications  in  all  RBDs,  according  to  WFD  Article  11(3)(i).  This  regime 
covers  changes  to  the  riparian  area  of  water  bodies  in  seven  of  the  eight  RBDs.  There  is  a 

register of physical modifications of water bodies only in two of the eight RBDs. 

The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and 

tidal barriers, were reported to have been adapted to take into account WFD objectives in seven 
out of eight RBDs (not adapted in the RBD North Sea).  

143 

 
Win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  FD69,  drought 
management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures were reported to be included in the 
PoM of three out of eight RBDs. However, the specific KTM 23 – “Natural Water Retention 

Measures” is not applied to tackle significant pressures in any RBD. 

In  the  Scheldt  (Brussels)  RBD,  ecological  flows  have  been  derived  for  some  relevant  water 

bodies, but the work is still ongoing. This is seen as progress from the first cycle, where it was 
announced  that  a  study  of  base  flow  values  would  be  done.  Ecological  flows  that  have  been 

derived have not been implemented, but there are plans to do this during the second cycle. For 
the  other  seven  RBDs,  ecological  flows  have  not  been  derived  for  the  relevant  water  bodies 

according to WISE, but there are plans to do it during the second cycle. 

Indicators  on  the  gap  to  be  filled  for  significant  hydromorphological  pressures  by  2021  and 

2027  are  not  reported,  why  it  is  not  possible  to make  any  conclusions  regarding  the  level  of 
ambition in closing the gap. Also, for the KTMs, no indicator values were reported. 

13.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

The links between measures, pressures, and uses have been made more obvious, because of the 
improved  WISE  reporting.  Nevertheless,  as  in  the  first  cycle,  for  the  majority  of 

hydromorphological  pressures,  the  driver  is  unknown/obsolete  or  indicated  as  "other"  that  is 
not specified for the sectors given in the WISE reporting.  

Concerning progress since the first cycle, in the RBDs of the Flanders region, successes have 
included measures related to fish migration for eel and solutions for several migration barriers. 

In the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD no measures to improve hydromorphology have been taken so 
far, so no conclusion is drawn. For RBDs in the Wallonia region, no specific information on 

success achieved in terms of hydromorphological measures is provided. 

Concerning ecological flows, these have been derived in the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD for some 

relevant water bodies but the work is still ongoing. This is seen as progress from the first cycle, 
where  it  was  announced  that  a  study  of  base  flow  values  would  be  done.  According  to  the 

reporting, no ecological flows have been derived for relevant water bodies in the other regions. 

69  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 

144 

 
                                                      
13.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  All  three  regions  (Brussels,  Flanders,  Wallonia):  Include  in  the 
second  RBMP  the  necessary  hydromorphological  measures  to  achieve  good  status, 

including those targeting the  good  ecological  potential  for  heavily  modified  water  
bodies  (to  broaden  the  scope,  make  the  designation  process  clearer  and ensure 

the necessary budget).   .  

Assessment:  Operational  KTMs  to  address  the  significant  hydromorphological 

pressures were reported in all five RBDs with significant hydromorphological pressures 
(RBD  Scheldt  in  all  three  regions,  and  RBD  Maas/Meuse  in  Wallonia  and  Flanders). 

Mitigation  measures  for  defining  good  ecological  potential  have  been  reported  in 
WISE, but no description of the ecological changes that these measures are designed to 

achieve could  be  found  in  the RBMPs. Concerning the funding of  relevant  measures, 
no complete assessment has been carried out; however, for the Meuse RBD (Wallonia), 

the costs of the measures are mentioned in the RBMP but it is unclear if the funding is 
secured to implement/operationalise them in the Wallonia region. 

Therefore, based on the information found, this recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

145 

 
 
 
Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

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

Water  services  are  defined  differently  in  the  Belgian  RBDs.  Information  reported  to  WISE 
indicates that Article 9(4) is used, but very differently among the RBDs. 

Summary  cost  recovery  rates  per  water  service  are  provided,  even  if  the  water  services 
considered are different.  

With  the  exception  of  Scheldt  (Brussels),  where  agriculture  is  a  marginal  sector,  industry, 
households and agriculture are defined as  water  users in  each RBMP and the contribution  of 

each user group to the cost recovery rates is provided. 

The  calculation/consideration/internalisation  of  environmental  and  resource  costs  also  varies 

among the RBDs. For the two RBDs in the Flanders region, it was reported that environmental 
and  resource  costs  are  being  covered  by  the  taxes  on  groundwater  abstraction  and  drinking 

water supply, but without further information on the calculation or level of environmental and 
resource  costs.  For  the  Scheldt,  Maas  and  Scheldt  (Brussels)  RBDs,  there  is  no  explicit 

reference  in  the  RBMPs  on  environmental  and  resource  costs  recovery,  and  no  data  on 
environmental and resource costs. 

The economic analysis was reported as updated. 

14.2. Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

following: 

  Recommendation:  Integrate  environmental  and  resource  costs  into  cost  recovery 

calculations for the second RBMPs. 

Assessment:  The  calculation/consideration/internalization  of  environmental  and 
resource costs varies among the RBDs. For those in the Flanders region, it was reported 

that environmental and resource  costs are being  covered by the taxes on groundwater 
abstraction  and  drinking  water  supply,  but  without  further  information  on  the 
calculation  or  level  of  environmental  and  resource  costs.  For  the  Scheldt,  Maas  and 

146 

 
Scheldt (Brussels) RBDs, there is no explicit reference in the RBMPs on environmental 

and resource costs recovery, and no data on environmental and resource costs. 

  Recommendation:  As  per  Article  9  requirements,  Flanders  should  present  the 
calculation  of  contribution  of  different  water  uses  disaggregated  at  least  into 
households,  industry  and  agriculture  to  cost  recovery  of  water  services.  The  cost-

recovery should address a broad range of water services, as specified in the definition, 
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 rates of cost recovery 

should be transparently presented by user sector, and environment and resource costs 
should be included in the costs recovered. 

Assessment:  Water  services  are  defined  differently  in  the  Belgian  RBDs.  Some  have 
water  supply  and  sewage  services  combined,  others  separated.  In  Flanders,  the  water 

services are categorized as "others" in WISE. In the RBMPs, they are defined as public 
water  supply,  public  sewage  treatment,  self-service  water  supply,  and  self-service 

sewage  treatment.  Self-services  are  not  included  in  most  RBDs,  except  in  Flanders, 
where  self-services  for  the  treatment  of  waste  water  and  for  production  are  included, 

but  without  financial  costs  and  environmental  and  resource  costs  (but  indicating  a 
financial cost recovery of 100 %). 

Information  reported  to  WISE  indicates  that  Article  9(4)  is  used,  but  very  differently 
among the RBDs. 

Summary cost recovery rates per water service are provided, even if the water services 
considered are different.  

With  the  exception  of  Scheldt  (Brussels),  where  agriculture  is  a  marginal  sector, 
industry, households and agriculture are defined as water users in each RBMP, and the 

contribution of each user group to the cost recovery rates is provided. 

  Recommendation:  Flanders  should  provide  precise  information  concerning  the 
incentive  function  of  water  pricing  policy,  especially  in  the  respect  of  application  of 
metering,  volumetric  charging  or  efficiency  promoting  tariffs  within  different  water 

uses. 

In  WISE,  it  is  stated  for  Flanders  that  volumetric  charging  is  applied  to  all  water 

services, except for self-service sewage treatment. 

147 

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

15.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and 

compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in second cycle 

Belgium  identified  Protected  Areas  of  all  types  associated  with  surface  and  groundwaters  in 
the  second  second  RBMPs,  except  sensitive  areas  designated  under  the  Urban  Waste  Water 

Treatment Directive, which is justified as Belgium has applied the whole territory approach in 
the implementation of this Directive, and no specific protected area needs to be reported in this 
case70,71. Belgium did not report any protected areas for economically significant species (fish 
or shellfish).  

Belgium also identified RAMSAR72 sites in the Protected Area category ‘other.’ The number 
of Protected Areas is shown in Table 15.1. 

70  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  
71  Belgium  subsequently  informed  the  Commission  that  a  whole  territory  approach  was  taken  to  designation 
under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. The entire territory of Flanders is designated as sensitive area 
(urban wastewater) and vulnerable zone (Nitrates directive) so no specific protected areas needed were reported 
for specific areas. 
72  Sites 
https://www.ramsar.org/about/the-ramsar-convention-and-its-mission  

the  Ramsar  Convention  on  Wetlands  of 

identified  under 

International 

Importance 

- 

148 

 
                                                      
Table 15.1  Number  of  Protected  Areas  of  all  types  in  Belgium  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 the Bathing Water 
Directive74 

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 the Birds 
Directive75 

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 
Habitats Directive76 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including 
areas designated as vulnerable 
zones under the Nitrates 
Directive77  
Areas designated for the protection 
of economically significant aquatic 
species 
Other 

Number of Protected Areas associated with 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional73 

Coastal 

Groundwater 

223 

37 

2 

2 

352 

202 

1 

3 

172 

241 

1 

1 

235 

Whole 
territory 

Whole 
territory 

Whole territory 

Whole 
territory 

Whole territory 

5 

5 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

73  Belgium  subsequently  clarified  that  Flanders  have  reported  protected  area’s  designated  under  the  Bird  and 
habitat directive for transitional water  
74  Directive  2006/7/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  February  2006  concerning  the 
management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC    
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0007  
75  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  
76  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  
77  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  

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
An overview of the status assessment of all water bodies within Protected Areas is shown in 

Figure  15.1.  A  high  proportion  of  the  classifications  of  ecological  status  have  been  assigned 
high confidence with widespread use of monitoring as the basis for the classification.  

Figure 15.1  Status of water bodies associated with the Protected Areas report for Belgium. 
Note: based on status/potential aggregated for all water bodies associated with 

all Protected Areas 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

For additional objectives, the situation differs depending on the type of the Protected Area. For 

the  Habitats  Directive,  additional  objectives  have  been  set  for  approximately  25  %  of  the 
Protected Areas. For two-thirds of the Protected Areas, no specific water objectives have been 

set  to  protect  dependent  habitats  and  species,  because  the  achievement  of  WFD  good 
ecological  status  is  sufficient  to  achieve  favourable  conservation  status.  For  the  remaining 

Protected Areas, no objectives have been set because the additional needs are not known. 

150 

 
 
 
For the Birds Directive, no specific objectives have been set because additional needs are not 

known for around half of the Protected Areas, for 21 % objectives have been set and, for the 
remaining 23 %, the achievement of the WFD objective is sufficient also to reach favourable 

conservation status.  

For drinking water Protected Areas, the picture differs between surface water and groundwater 

abstraction.  Specific  objectives  have  only  been  set  for  14  %  of  the  surface  water  Protected 
Areas, whereas for groundwater areas it is 62 %.  

For  the  other  types  of  Protected  Area,  no  information  is  provided  on  whether  additional 
objectives  have  been  set.  Belgium  reports  some  instances  where  additional  objectives  have 

been met and some where they have reported no information  or where they  were considered 
not-relevant.  

Monitoring of surface waters has only been reported in relation to Article 7 for drinking water, 
Habitats, Nitrate and Urban Waste Water Directive related Protected Areas; and then only in 
rivers  and  not,  for  the  few  Protected  Areas,  in  lakes  and  coastal  waters78.  No  specific 
monitoring  for  Drinking  Water,  Bathing  Water  or  Birds  Protected  Areas  has  been  reported. 
Monitoring of Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive related Protected Areas was reported.  

Monitoring of groundwaters was reported in relation to Article 7 drinking water, Nitrates and 
Habitats related Protected Areas; none was reported for Birds related Protected Areas. 

Where  monitoring  is  undertaken,  the  extent  of  the  monitoring  programme,  in  terms  of  the 
number of monitoring sites compared to the number of Protected Areas, is limited for drinking 

water in groundwaters and for habitats-related Protected Areas in rivers. 

Table 15.2  Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas in Belgium - 

Wallonia (reported information only available for the Walloon region) 

Protected Area type 

Abstraction of water intended 
for human consumption under 
Article 7 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, 
including areas designated as 
vulnerable zones under the 
Nitrates Directive 

Nutrient sensitive area under 
the Urban Waste Water 

Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas in 

Groundwater 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

107 

NR 

NR 

NR 

272 

43 

426 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

78 Belgium subsequently informed the Commission that this has been the case only for the Walloon region. 

151 

 
 
 
                                                      
Treatment Directive - WFD 
Annex IV.1.iv79 

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 Habitats 
Directive 

11 

204 

NR 

NR 

NR 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 
 NR – Not reported to WISE 

In the Scheldt and the Maas RBDs, safeguard zones are in place but there will be significant 
changes  made  as  a  result  of  the  second  RBMP.  In  the  other  four  RBDs,  there  are  safeguard 

zones, but there are no plans to change the regulations as a result of the second RBMP. Very 
little  information  can  be  found  in  the  RBMPs  about  measures  to  be  implemented  in  the 

safeguard zones – only some initiatives to reduce the impact of abstraction on habitats (reduce 
the abstracted amount of water). 

No information was found in the RBMPs regarding measures to reach the additional objectives 

according to, for example, the Habitat or Birds Directives. 

Exemptions to additional objectives have been applied for approximately 12 % of the habitat 

areas  related  to  surface  waters.  Exemptions  are  justified  by  either  disproportionate  costs, 
natural conditions or technical feasibility.  

For  groundwaters,  very  few  exemptions  to  additional  objectives  (<2  %  of  Article  7  drinking 
water Protected Areas) have been applied, these are justified by either disproportionate costs or 

natural conditions. 

15.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

Belgium  reported  Protected  Areas  of  all  types  in  the  first  cycle  including  those  for  sensitive 
areas designated under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and those for economically 

significant species (fish or shellfish) which were not reported for the second cycle.  

Belgium subsequently informed the Commission that the spatial data of protected areas under 

other  Directives  (UWWTD,  Habitats,  etc.)  had  not  been  reported.  However,  Belgium  has 

79  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 

152 

 
                                                      
included  in  the  reporting  of  surface  and  groundwater  bodies  whether  these  are  associated  to 

any protected area. 

For the Protected Areas common to both cycles, there was a significant increase in the number 

of  Protected  Areas  reported  for  Article  7  Drinking  Water  (from  379  to  587),  Habitats  (from 
263  to  499)  and  for  Birds  (from  218  to  386).  For  the  remaining  types,  the  numbers  were 

similar. 

In  the  second  cycle,  a  groundwater  monitoring  programme  for  nitrate  sensitive  areas  was 

reported  for  the  first  time.  For  the  reported  monitoring  programmes  common  to  both  cycles, 
the scale of monitoring of groundwater Article 7 drinking water areas is reduced by half with 
the remainder at a comparable scale in terms of the number of monitoring sites80. 

Additional  objectives for surface  water Drinking  Water Protected Areas  and Protected  Areas 

under  the  Habitats  and  Birds  Directives,  and  the  RAMSAR  Convention  were  set  in  some 
RBDs  in  the  first  cycle  and,  for  drinking  water  and  Habitats  areas,  these  are  also  set  in  the 

second cycle.  In  both  cycles,  for  some  Habitats  areas,  the  default  objective  of  good  status  is 
considered sufficient, although it has not been assessed in detail. 

The  use  of  additional  measures  in  relation  to  Article  7  Drinking  Water  Protected  Areas  is 

comparable between  cycles with  indications for some areas that safeguard zones will change 
and in others that they will not in both cycles. 

Exemptions to additional objectives for Protected Areas have been applied for the first time in 
the second cycle. 

15.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

following: 

  Recommendation:  Include  in  the  second  RBMPs  additional  objectives  for  protected 

areas and measures to achieve these objectives. 

Assessment:  For  all  Protected  Areas  related  to  the  Habitats  Directive  (both  surface 

water  and  groundwater  dependent  areas),  it  has  been  reported  that  either  specific 
objectives have been set, or that the good ecological status is assumed to be sufficient 

80 Belgium subsequently informed the Commission that this has been the case only for the Walloon region. 

153 

 
                                                      
to meet the objectives of other Directives. For a few areas, objectives have not been set 

because the needs are not known. 

For  surface  water  Protected  Areas,  related  to  the  Birds  Directive  more  than  90%  of 

Protected  Areas  do  not  have  specific  objectives  because  the  additional  needs  are  not 
known.  

For  Drinking  Water  Protected  Areas  (abstraction  from  surface  water),  specific 
objectives have only been set in second RBDs representing approximately 15% of the 

total number of drinking water areas. For the remaining areas, no objectives have been 
set. 

For  groundwater  dependent  Birds  and  Habitats  related  Protected  Areas,  the  same 
differentiated approach as for surface water has been applied. It should be noted that for 

all areas with a specific objective, the objective is also met. 

No information was reported about specific objectives for the Bathing Water Directive. 

The RBDs have not reported any information about the implementation of measures to 
reach the additional objectives set81. 

The recommendation has been partially fulfilled as objectives have been set, but not for 

all  Protected  Areas  (needs  not  known)  or  have  been  set  but  work  is  still  on-going  to 
determine the needs. This is probably also the reason why no additional measures have 

been included. 

81 Belgium subsequently clarified that no additional objectives have been set but in some cases measures specific 
to  protected  areas  are  in  place,  as  detailed  in  the  RBMP  for  Scheldt  Brussels  and  the  Flemish  Programme  of 
Measures which contains measures for both groundwater and surface water. 

154 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change 

16.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and 

compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in second cycle 

Climate change was considered only in the Scheldt (Brussels), Maas, and Scheldt RBDs but it 

is  stated  that  the  guidance  on  how  to  adapt  to  climate  change  (Common  Implementation 
Strategy  Guidance  Document  No.  2482)  was  only  used  in  the  Maas  and  the  Scheldt  RBDs. 
Climate change aspects have been considered in flood risk management in all RBDs. Climate 
change in relation to drought management and water scarcity has been considered in the Maas 

and Scheldt RBDs. Detecting climate change signals is an issue in the Scheldt (Brussels) RBD. 
KTM 24 – “Adaptation to climate change” is not applied83. No specific sub-plans addressing 
climate  change  were  reported  for  Belgium84.  According  to  the  2012  Topic  report  on: 
Assessment  of  Water  Scarcity  and  Drought  aspects  in  a  selection  of  European  Union 
RBMPs85,  droughts  are  not  relevant  for  Belgium  and  no  exemptions  have  been  applied 
following Article 4(6) due to prolonged droughts. 

Even though there is no legal obligation to prepare Drought Management Plans, many Member 
States have prepared them in order to cope with droughts. No Drought Management Plan has 

been reported for Belgium in the second cycle.  

16.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

For climate change, no significant changes have been identified. 

The situation on whether Drought Management Plans are in place in Belgium is unclear. These 
were not reported to WISE for the second cycle. 

16.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

this topic. 

82  https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/a88369ef-df4d-43b1-8c8c-
306ac7c2d6e1/Guidance%20document%20n%2024%20-
%20River%20Basin%20Management%20in%20a%20Changing%20Climate_FINAL.pdf  
83 Belgium subsequently clarified, that Wallonia did use the KTM 24 for its 4 RBMPs. 
84  Member  State  Belgium  subsequently  clarified,  that  Energy  Air  Climate  Plan  was  applicable  in  Brussels,  but 
was not reported in the WFD context. 
85  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Assessment%20WSD.pdf  

155