COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Czech Republic 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: Czechia, 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) 35 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Czech Republic 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) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - 
 
 
Table of contents 
Acronyms and definitions ............................................................................................................. 4 

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

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

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

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

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

Topic 1

  Governance and public participation ....................................................................... 23 

1.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 23 

1.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ............................. 25 

1.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 26 

Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District............................................................. 28 

2.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 28 

2.2  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 40 

Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies
.................................................................................................................................................... 42 

3.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
RBMPs.................................................................................................................................... 42 

3.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first RBMPs ......................... 59 

3.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 59 

Topic 4 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies62 

4.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 62 

4.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ............................. 76 

4.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 77 

Topic 5 Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies
.................................................................................................................................................... 81 

5.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 81 

5.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ............................. 87 

5.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 87 

Topic 6 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 88 

6.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 88 

1 

 
 
 
6.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ............................. 93 

6.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 94 

Topic 7 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 
Ecological Potential................................................................................................................... 95 

7.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle for designation ............................................................................................................... 95 

7.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ............................. 97 

7.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 98 

Topic 8 Environmental objectives and exemptions .................................................................. 100 

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

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

8.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 106 

Topic 9 Programme of measures ............................................................................................. 109 

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

9.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 120 

9.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 121 

Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity ............................................... 125 

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

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

10.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................ 126 

10.3. 

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

Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture ....................................................... 128 

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

 ................................................................................................................................. 128 

11.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................ 130 

11.3. 

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

Topic 12 Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture.......................... 133 

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

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

12.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................ 134 

12.3. 

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

Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology ..................................................................... 136 

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

 ................................................................................................................................. 136 

2 

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

13.3. 

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

Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies ......................................................... 140 

14.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second 
cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ...................... 140 

14.2. 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 140 

Topic 15 Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and 
measures) ................................................................................................................................. 143 

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

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

15.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................ 146 

15.3. 

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

Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change ............................................................... 147 

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

 ................................................................................................................................. 147 

16.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle ........................ 147 

16.3. 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 148 

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 River Basin Management Plans 

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

5 

 
 
 
 
 
General Information 

Map A 

Map of River Basin Districts in the Czech Republic 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

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

The total area of the Czech Republic is 78,866 kilometres squared (km²) and the population is 

10.5  m.  Manufacturing  is  still  a  major  economic  activity,  especially  the  production  of  cars, 
machine tools, and engineering products. Iron and steel industries are important in Moravia in 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the east of the country. Arable land, other agricultural land and forests cover approximately 39 

%,  15  %  and  33  %  of  the  country  area,  respectively.  The  main  crops  are  maize,  sugar  beet, 
potatoes, wheat, barley and rye. The territory of the Czech Republic lies in three international 

river basin districts (RBDs): Danube River basin, Elbe River basin and Oder River basin. 

The  information  on  areas  of  the  national  river  basin  districts  including  sharing  countries  is 

provided in Table A. 

Table A 

Overview of the Czech Republic’s River Basin Districts 

RBD 

Name 

Size (km2) 

Countries 
sharing borders 

CZ_1000  Dunaj (Danube) 

CZ_5000  Labe (Elbe) 

CZ_6000  Odra (Oder) 

21681 

49936 

7248 

AT, PL, SK 

AT, DE, PL 

DE, PL 

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE 2016  

The share of the Czech Republic in the respective international RBDs is 2.7 % (Danube), 33.7 

% (Elbe) and 5.9 % (Oder) (Table B).  

Table B Transboundary river basins by category and % share in the Czech Republic 

Name 
international 
river basin 

Danube 
Elbe 
Oder 

National RBD 

Countries 
sharing 
borders 

CZ_1000 
CZ_5000 
CZ_6000 

AT, PL, SK 
AT, DE, PL 
DE, PL 
Source: WISE electronic reports  

Co-ordination Category 
1 

km² 
21681 
49936 
7248 

% 
2.7 
33.7 
5.9 

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

7 

 
 
 
 
Status of second river basin management plan reporting 

All  three  RBMPs  of  the  Czech  Republic  (National  Danube  River  Basin  Management  Plan, 

National  Elbe  River  Basin  Management  Plan,  National  Odra  River  Basin  Management  Plan) 
were  published  on  22  December  2015.  Documents  are  available  from  the  European 

Environment Agency (EEA) EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/. 

8 

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

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

 

Governance and public consultation 

 

 

An  important  degree  of  international  coordination  has  been  followed  for  all  three 
RBDs.  It  is  also  noted  that  all  river  monitoring  sites  are  part  of  an  international 

monitoring network of a river convention. 

Public  participation  has  been  strengthened  as  well  as  the  active  engagement  of 
stakeholders in preparing the RBMPs compared to the first planning cycle. 

 

A national advisory body, the Commission for Water Planning, supports coordination 

and harmonisation among the Czech Republic’s RBDs. 

 

Characterisation of the RBD 

 

Type  specific  reference  conditions  have  been  established  for  all  relevant  biological 
quality elements in 32 out of 35 water types, for all relevant physicochemical quality 

elements  in  all  river  types,  but  only  for  some  relevant  hydromorphological  quality 
elements  for  rivers.  For  lakes,  type-specific  reference  conditions  have  not  been 
established  in  any  type  for  any  of  the  hydromorphological  quality  elements1.  The 
typology was directly tested for one biological quality element: fish2. 

 

For groundwater bodies, further characterisation work has been undertaken since the 

first  planning  cycle  with  the  inclusion  of  the  assessment  of  linkages  with  surface 
water bodies. 

1  The  Czech  Republic  has  no  natural  lakes  designated  as  individual  water  bodies.  All  water  bodies  in  category 
lake  were  designated  as  HMWB  (=  dams  and  ponds)  and  AWB  (mining  pits).    Type  specific  reference 
conditions  (=  maximal  ecological  potential)  were  established  within  the  relevant  methodology  for  physico-
chemical parameters and BQEs phytoplankton, fish and macrophytes. 

2 The Czech Republic highlighted that for other biological quality elements the typology was modified within the 
development  of  updated  assessment  methodologies  to  best  match  the  distribution  of  biological  communities. 
Furthermore,  the  typology  was  modified  (merging  types  or  dividing  into  sub-types)  for  all  biological  quality 
elements in rivers in the second RBMPs, to best match the distribution of biological communities. 

9 

 
                                                      
 

For  both  surface  and  groundwater  bodies,  the  significance  of  pressures  has  been 

defined  in  terms  of  thresholds  and  is  linked  to  the  potential  failure  of  objectives 
(surface waters) and to the verified failure of good status (groundwater). Nonetheless, 

it is noted that the largest share of surface water bodies are reported to be affected by 
unknown significant anthropogenic pressures. 

 

There are also gaps in the apportionment of pressures, as no information was found in 

the RBMPs on which activities/sectors are contributing significantly to the failure of 
good chemical status in surface waters and to the different impacts causing failure of 

good ecological status/potential. 

 

Inventories of emissions including all 41 Priority Substances have been established in 
9 of the 10 subunits. The other subunit (CZDUN covering 16 surface water bodies), 

does not have an inventory for any of the Priority Substances). In accordance with the 
Guidance  Document, Tier 1 of the methodology was applied  for substances deemed 

not  relevant  at  sub unit level,  and higher tiers (Tier 1+2 or 1+2+3) were applied for 
relevant substances. The data quality was very uncertain or not reported. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status  

 

A change in the monitoring strategy led to a higher proportion of surface water bodies 

and  a  higher  number  of  sites  in  operational  monitoring  and  lower  number  in 
surveillance monitoring, compared to the first RBMPs. The reduction of the coverage 

of  surveillance  monitoring  is  particularly  notable  for  water  bodies  in  good  and  high 
ecological status, which are especially under-represented. 

 

In river water bodies, all biological quality elements and all general physico-chemical 

quality  elements  are  monitored.  In  lake  water  bodies,  some  biological  quality 
elements are not monitored. Hydromorphological quality elements are not monitored 

at all.  

 

85  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  reported  to  be  monitored,  but  no  specific 

methodology for their selection has been reported. The frequency of surveillance and 

operational  monitoring  for  some  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  was  less  than  the 
minimum  recommended  frequency  at  some  sites.  Environmental  Quality  Standards 

for  90  substances  have  been  derived,  but  not  in  accordance  with  the  Technical 
Guidance n° 27. 

10 

 
  Monitoring  data  has  been  used  to  assess  the  ecological  status/potential  of  the  vast 
majority  of  surface  water  bodies.  However,  classification  is  not  based  on  the  full 
range of quality elements and no methodology was developed to implement the non-

deterioration  principle.  Up  to  11  %  of  surface  water  bodies  were  classified  with  no 
biological  quality  elements.  No  surface  water  body  was  classified  on  the  basis  of 

for 
hydromorphological  quality 
hydromorphological  quality  elements  are  only  partly  developed  for  rivers  and  not 

assessment  methods 

elements 

and 

the 

developed  for  lakes.  Standards  have  been  reported  for  the  relevant  general 
physicochemical quality elements in lakes and rivers and are reported to be linked to 

the  good‐moderate  status  boundary  of  the  relevant  sensitive  biological  quality 
elements in lakes, but not in rivers. 

 

Especially  for  lakes,  the  Czech  Republic  has  not  developed  fully  compliant 

assessment  methods  (but  it  is  noted  that  there  are  no  natural  lakes,  only  heavily 
modified water bodies and artificial lakes). 

 

There may be an issue with comparability of ecological status/potential classification 

for  a  large  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  due  to  the  lack  of  intercalibration  of 
national water body types, as around 50 % of river water bodies (mostly natural) are 
reported not to have a corresponding intercalibration type3. 

 

Concerning  the  achievement  of  objectives,  all  lake  water  bodies  are  expected  to 

achieve good ecological status/potential by 2027, but a significant share of river water 

bodies are not.  Approximately 20 % of rivers and lakes are not  expected to  achieve 
good chemical status until after 2027. 

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

 

Between  the  two  RBMPs,  there  was  a  small  decrease  in  the  proportion  of  surface 
water bodies with good chemical status (from 70 to 69 %). 

 

This  change  in  status  may  at  least  partly  result  from  a  more  accurate  assessment: 

between the two RBMPs, there has been an increase in the number of sites and water 
bodies  monitored  for  Priority  Substances  and  an  increase  in  the  number  of  Priority 

3  This  is  linked  to  the  conclusion  of  the  Central  Baltic  Geographical  Intercalibration  Group  that  some  very 
common  medium  river  national  types  in  higher  altitudes  than  lowland  could  not  be  assigned  to  any  CB  GIG 
type. 

11 

 
                                                      
Substances monitored. Metals are now monitored in the dissolved fraction, as required 

by the directive, and biota standards have been applied. 

 

However, the number of monitoring sites still appears very limited for some Priority 

Substances.  The  Czech  Republic  highlighted  that  priority  substances  were  only 

monitored in surface water bodies subject to the corresponding pressure. However it is 
unclear  whether  all  relevant  pressures  have  been  sufficiently  characterised,  as 

unknown  anthropogenic  pressures  are  the  most  significant  pressures  on  river  water 
bodies failing to achieve good chemical status in all three RBDs. 

 

50-60  %  of  monitoring  sites  and  water  bodies  were  monitored  for  chemical  status. 

Expert  judgment  was  used  to  classify  a  significant  proportion  of  water  bodies  (only  
0.4 % are in unknown status). Most of the classifications are given a medium level of 

confidence. The basis for this expert judgement is not entirely clear, as it seems not all 
significant pressures have been identified for all water bodies (see paragraph above).  

 

41 Priority Substances were monitored in water (but not in all RBDs). All substances 

identified  as  discharged  were  monitored  in  each  RBD.  The  monitoring  frequencies 
met  the  recommended  minimum  frequencies  for  surveillance  and  operational 
monitoring  at  some  but  not  all  sites.  It  is  not  entirely  clear  how  compliance  was 

assessed for non-monitored substances. 

  Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  were  monitored  in  biota  in 
rivers only, at the recommended minimum frequency. The number of sites monitored 

appeared 
benzo(a)pyrene were also monitored in biota. 

to  be  very 

limited.  Fluoranthene,  Pentabromodiphenylether  and 

 

The Czech Republic did not report any monitoring for long-term trend assessment.  

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 

bodies 

 

Concerning  the  assessment  of  groundwater  bodies,  the  number  of  quantitative 
monitoring sites increased significantly, now covering almost the entire country area.  

 

The number of groundwater chemical monitoring sites has increased significantly.  

12 

 
 

However,  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  with  unknown  quantitative  status  has 

increased  since  the  first  RBMPs,  which  is  related  to  the  change  in  methodology  for 
calculating available groundwater resources.  

 

Only water balance assessment has been considered in quantitative status assessment, 

thus not all environmental objectives have been taken into account.  

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

 

Concerning  chemical  status  assessments,  some  pesticides  have  now  more  stringent 
threshold values than 0.1 micrograms per litre.  

 

Although  several  groundwater  bodies  are  linked  to  surface  waters,  no  groundwater 

body  is  linked  to  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems.  Groundwater 
associated aquatic ecosystems and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were 
not  reported  to  be  considered  in  the  status  assessment.  Czech  Republic  clarified 
however,  that  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  had  been  reported  as 

protected areas.  

 

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

 

A national methodology on heavily modified water bodies’ designation is in place for 

rivers  and  reservoirs.  However,  it  is  not  detailed  enough  on  all  relevant  aspects. 
Especially, for the assessment of significant adverse effects, no criteria are provided. 

Most  of  heavily  modified  rivers  are  designated  due  to  flood  protection  and  for  this 
use,  it  is  reported  that  there  is  currently  no  better  environmental  option.  A  better 

environmental option was not applied for reservoirs due to the multiple water uses. 

 

Good  ecological  potential  is  reported  as  defined  using  the  Common  Implementation 

Strategy  approach  (approach  based  on  biological  quality  elements  as  illustrated  in 

Common  Implementation  Strategy  approach  Guidance  No  4)  and  new  methods  for 
good  ecological  potential  have  been  developed  at  national  level  for  rivers  and 

reservoirs.  Although  good  ecological  potential  is  reported  as  defined  in  terms  of 
biology, details on the biological quality elements used are provided for rivers but not 

explicitly for reservoirs.  

13 

 
 

Environmental objectives and exemptions 

 

Environmental objectives for ecological  and  chemical  status  of surface  water bodies 

have  been  reported  in  all  RBDs  as  well  as  for  chemical  and  quantitative  status  of 
groundwater. A significant share of water bodies is expected to achieve its objectives 

beyond 2027. 

 

 

Drivers, pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions are reported. 

Justifications  for  exemptions  have  been  provided  at  water  body  level.  Criteria  have 
been developed for the application of  exemptions with regard to technical feasibility 

and disproportionate costs. A significant number of Article 4(5) exemptions is applied 
for the first time, whereas the distinction between the difference in the criteria used to 

justify Article 4(4) and Article 4(5) exemptions are not clear. 

 

Article  4(7)  exemptions  have  not  been  applied  in  the  second  RBMP,  indicating  that 
the  impacts  of  all  new  modifications  on  water  status  have  been  assessed  and  no 

potential deterioration of the status of water bodies was identified. Further information 
is needed to evaluate whether all the required WFD assessments relevant in relation to 

Article 4(7) have been performed. 

 

Programme of Measures 

 

Concerning  the  achievement  of  measures  so  far,  it  is  noted  that  a  large  number  of 
measures  from  the  first  RBMPs  were  not  implemented  due  to  lack  of  funds,  land 

property  issues,  technical,  legal  or  natural  conditions.  New  legislation  required  to 
implement the Programme of Measures in the first cycle has now been adopted for the 

second cycle. In the second RBMPs, however, only a limited number of pressures are 
reported  to  be  tackled  by  Key  Types  of  Measures  (KTMs)  and  a  clear  financial 
commitment has not been secured for the implementation of the measures from three 
of the five relevant sectors identified. 

 

Although  a  combination  of  a  qualitative  and  quantitative  cost-effectiveness  analysis 

has  been  carried  out,  concrete  information  of  this  assessment  was  only  found  for 
measures related to wastewater plants and sewage systems. 

14 

 
 

A  major  gap 

is 

the 

lack  of  reporting  of  operational  KTMs 

to  address 

hydromorphological pressures. National measures are mapped against KTMs relevant 
to  hydromorphology,  but  it  is  not  clear  why  such  measures  are  not  reported  as 

operational for the second planning cycle; this might be an indication that no actions 
the  assessment  of  significant 
are  going 

implemented.  In  addition, 

to  be 

hydromorphological  pressures  seems  incomplete,  as  pressures  from  water  flow 
regulation and morphological alterations are reported as not assessed. 

 

No KTMs have been reported as linked to individual River Basin Specific Pollutants 

or Priority Substances.  However KTMs have been reported to tackle several chemical 
pressures. 

 

In the case of diffuse agricultural pollution which affects 61 % of groundwater bodies 

and  22  %  of  surface  water  bodies,  only  two  national  supplementary  measures  are 
identified  to  tackle  this  pressure.  Basic  measures  are  applied  but  there  are 

differentiated  general  binding  rules  (Article  11(3)(h)  of  the  WFD)  for  addressing 
diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  at  source  in  different  parts  of  the  RBDs.  No 

information  was  available  in  the  RBMPs  on  the  use  of  mandatory  or  voluntary 
measures. 

  Management objectives for nutrient pollution and a gap assessment for nitrogen have 

been undertaken in all RBDs, but for phosphorus only in some RBDs. 

 

The overall level of ambition and expected progress resulting from the Programme of 

Measures  of  the  second  RBMPs  is  low  with  only  small  reductions  in  the  gaps  to 

achievement of objectives in the second cycle. No analysis of the gap to reach good 
chemical status has been made and consequently it is not clear if and how measures to 

address pollution, beyond basic measures, have been identified (or if they should have 
been identified). 

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 

  Water  quantity  pressures  were  not  reported  as  relevant  for  the  Czech  Republic.  The 
RBMP does not include a water resource allocation and management plan. Yet, some 
river  basins  have  been  reported  to  be  affected  by  significant  abstractions.  No 

information was provided on uses responsible for water consumption. 

15 

 
 

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

groundwater abstractions and water impoundment. 

  Measures  on  Article  11(3)(c)  and  11(3)(f)  have  been  implemented  in  the  previous 

cycle. 

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture 

 

Only two national supplementary measures are identified to tackle diffuse agricultural 

pollution, which affects 61 % of groundwater bodies and 22% of surface water bodies. 
Basic measures are applied but there are differentiated general binding rules (Article 

11(3)(h)  of  the  WFD)  for  addressing  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  at  source  in 
different parts of the RBDs. No information was available in the RBMPs on the use of 

mandatory or voluntary measures. According to information subsequently provided by 
the Czech Republic, both mandatory and voluntary measures related to pollution from 

agriculture were introduced within the national supplementary measure CZE208002. 

  Management  objectives  for  nutrient  pollution  have  been  set  in  all  RBDs,  but 

quantification was only done in the Elbe RBD. 

 

 

Safeguard zones have been established for abstractions.  

Implementation  of  basic  measures  according  to  Article  11(3)(h)  for  the  control  of 

diffuse pollution from agriculture at source is ensured in all RBDs. 

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 

 

The  Czech  Republic  reported  the  application  of  more  than  one  thousand  basic 
measures linked to KTM1 to construct or upgrade urban waste water treatment plants. 

 

The Czech Republic reported only a limited number of pressures related to chemical 

pollution to be tackled by KTMs. Measures were linked to KTMs, in particular KTM 
15 and KTM16. KTMs 15 and 16 were not among them, and no KTMs were linked to 

individual pollutants. 

 

Little progress has been achieved in analysing the gap to achieve WFD objectives, nor 
in identifying supplementary measures.  

16 

 
  Measures related to hydromorphology 

 

National  hydromorphological  measures  have  been  linked  to  KTMs.  However,  these 

KTMs  have  not  been  reported  as  explicitly  tackling  specific  types  of  pressures.  The 
Czech Republic also explained it was not able to quantify and report the gap indicators 

for this type of measures. At the same time, according to information provided by the 
Czech authorities during the assessment, the reported hydromorphological measures are 

planned  for  implementation  in  the  second  cycle  and  they  are  funded  from  the  EU's 
Operational Programme Environment.  

 

Ecological  flows  have  been  derived  and  implemented  for  some  water  bodies.  A  new 
methodology for ecological flow should have been finished at the end of 2016, thus the 

setting of the ecological flow is in progress. A minimum flows methodology exists and 
is  implemented  and  measures  related  to  the  present  minimum  flows  are  applied; 

however,  the  minimum  flows  methodology  does  not  cover  all  relevant  biological 
aspects. 

 

Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

 

Concerning  the  economic  analysis  and  water  pricing  policies,  little  progress  has  been 

noted since the first  planning cycle. Cost  recovery  calculations remain limited. Water 
pricing  policies  have  not  been  modified  to  show  how  ‘adequate  incentives’  are 
provided. 

 

 

 

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

A narrow definition of water services has been used.  

Article 9(4) has not been used.  

 

Considerations  specific  to  Protected  Areas  (identification,  monitoring,  objectives 

and measures) 

 

The Czech Republic has not set objectives for the different types of protected areas, and 

there are some gaps in the monitoring reported.  

  Monitoring sites are specifically reported as associated with protected areas only for the 
Habitats  and  the  Nitrates  Directives.  For  the  other  protected  areas  (Birds,  Urban 

17 

 
Wastewater  Treatment  and  Bathing  Water  Directives),  no  associated  monitoring  sites 

are reported. 

 

No  data  are  reported  on  monitoring  sites  of  groundwater  associated  with  Protected 

Areas, except for nutrient sensitive areas under the Nitrates Directive. 

 

Adaptation to drought and climate change 

 

 

Climate change has been assessed and taken into account in the RBMPs.  

A National Climate Change Strategy has been developed and adopted in October 2015, 

but it could not be fully included in the second RBMPs. 

18 

 
 
 
 
Recommendations  

 

The  Czech  Republic  should  further  ensure  good  coordination  between  the  public 

administration  and  other  stakeholders  to  improve  the  planning  and  implementation  of 

Programmes of Measures and to monitor their effectiveness. 

 

The  Czech  Republic  should  continue  to  improve  international  cooperation,  including 

inter alia to  ensure that information  is  provided regarding how designation of heavily 
modified  water  body  has  been  coordinated,  ensure  that  the  definition  of  ecological 

potential  and  the  approach  to  exemptions  is  harmonised  as  well  as  ensure  that 
coordination  of  river  basin  specific  pollutants  and  setting  of  environmental  quality 

standards is further improved. 

 

Further work is needed for the apportionment of all pressures/impacts among different 

sources. 

 

The  Czech  Republic  needs  to  continue  its  work  on  inconsistencies  between  the 

measures  that  are  planned  and  the  significant  pressures  identified  at  the  water  body 

level.  

  Monitoring should be strengthened to ensure that the number of water bodies monitored 
is  sufficient  and that  there is  appropriate  coverage of  all relevant  quality  elements.  In 
particular,  operational  monitoring  of  lakes  should  be  improved  and  better  linked  with 

the  pressures  and  impacts  analysis.  Hydromorphological  quality  elements  should  be 
monitored in all water categories. 

 

The  Czech  Republic  should  use  a  clear  and  transparent  method  for  the  selection  of 
River Basin Specific Pollutants and ensure that Environmental Quality Standards meet 

the  minimum  requirements  for  the  protection  of  freshwater  and  marine  ecosystems 
from possible adverse effects, as well as of human health, following the requirements of 

the WFD and the Directive on Environmental Quality Standards. 

 

The reliability of the assessment  of ecological  status/potential should be  improved by 

developing WFD compliant assessment methods for all quality elements in all types of 
water bodies. In particular, further work is needed to develop assessment methods for 

hydromorphological  elements,  and  to  link  physico-chemical  boundaries  to  the 
good/moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements in 

rivers. 

19 

 
  Monitoring should be performed in  a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution 
and  spatial  coverage  in  particular  in  biota,  to  reach  sufficient  confidence  in  the 
assessment for all water bodies, in combination with a robust methodology to assess the 

status of non-monitored water bodies. This methodology should be based on a thorough 
assessment  of  pressures.  If  a  different  matrix  or  reduced  frequencies  are  used,  the 

corresponding explanations should be provided. 

 

Trend monitoring should be performed in sediment and/or biota, to ensure that all the 

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

 

The Czech Republic needs to continue improving the monitoring and status assessment 

of  groundwater,  and  further  establish  links  with  associated  aquatic  ecosystems  and 
dependent terrestrial ecosystems, which affect the degree of confidence in assessments. 

It should ensure that all core parameters are monitored and that operational monitoring 
is applied to groundwater bodies at risk. 

 

 

 

The  Czech  Republic  should  ensure  that  in  those  river  basins  affected  by  significant 
abstractions (e.g. Danube, Elbe) key measures are applied to tackle pressures. 

The  improvement  and  subsequent  application  of  the  approach  for  the  designation  of 
HMWB should be completed focusing, inter alia, on the establishment of clear criteria 

and  a  transparent  assessment  framework  for  significant  adverse  effects  of  restoration 
measures and better environmental options for all relevant water categories and uses.  

The Czech Republic should  complete the improvement and subsequent application of 
the  methodology  for  the  definition  of  ecological  potential  for  the  different  relevant 

water  categories  and  uses,  including  a  clear  set  of  mitigation  measures,  assessment 
framework for significant adverse effects of mitigation measures and the establishment 

of objectives for the biological quality elements. 

 

A significant number of water bodies are expected to achieve the WFD objectives only 

beyond 2027 and  exemptions  according to  Article 4(5)  are widely applied. This  is  an 

issue of concern unless a thorough justification of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions is 
ensured.  Criteria  need  to  be  further  developed  and  made  transparent  in  the  RBMPs, 

clearly distinguishing between the justifications for Article 4(4) and 4(5).  

 

A thorough assessment of planned new modifications in line with the requirements of 

the WFD and as further specified by the Judgment of the European Court of Justice in 

20 

 
case C-461/13 should be ensured. The use of exemptions under Article 4(7) needs to be 

based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD. Information 
on the application of Article 4(7) needs to be reported in the RBMPs. 

 

The  Czech  Republic  should  ensure  that  the  RBMPs  clearly  identify  the  gap  to  good 
status,  and  that  the  Programmes  of  Measures  are  designed  and  implemented  to  close 

that gap. In particular, it should ensure that gaps are filled for all significant pressures, 
especially  for hydromorphological  pressures, and that KTMs are reported for tackling 

Priority  Substances,  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  and  significant  abstraction 
pressures. 

 

The  Czech  Republic  should  demonstrate  that  a  clear  financial  commitment  exists  for 
the implementation of the measures. 

 

In the third RBMPs, the basin-wide impact on ecological status of mitigation measures 

aimed  at  agricultural  water  pollution  sources  (nutrients,  agri-chemicals,  particulate 
matter) should be quantified. RBMPs should identify:  

 

 

the reduction in pollutant load needed to achieve WFD objectives; 

the  extent  to  which  the  measures  already  taken  under  the  ND  and  UWWTD 

contribute to the load reduction;  

  which additional measures should be taken to achieve fully the objectives. 

 

The Czech Republic should continue to review and develop the strategy for the delivery 

of  WFD  objectives,  in  cooperation  with  the  farming  community  and  Czech  CAP 
delivery  authorities,  to  ensure  the  third  RBMP  is  technically  feasible  and  all  relevant 

policies and instruments  (e.g. RDP,  CAP  Pillar 1, ND etc.) contribute significantly to 
RBMPs.  It  should  ensure  measures  to  address  agricultural  hydromorphological 

pressures,  including  a  gap  assessment,  are  considered  in  the  strategy.  An  expert  and 
effective  advisory  service  should  support  the  implementation  of  the  measures  in  the 

strategy. 

  Work towards an ambitious approach to combat chemical pollution should continue, by 
ensuring that adequate measures are in place. This means that basic measures to combat 
pollution  should  be  clearly  identified  to  allow  accurate  assessment  of  the  need  for 

supplementary measures. For instance, information should be provided on the level of 
compliance  and  on  the  time  needed  to  reach  full  compliance  with  the  Urban 

21 

 
Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC Article 15 and following), and, based on 

this, on any supplementary measures required to reach good status. 

 

The Czech Republic should ensure that the methodology to define the ecological flows 

covers all relevant biological aspects and is hence compatible with the WFD objectives 
of good ecological status or potential. 

 

The Czech Republic should continue the work on restoration of river continuity in all 
RBDs. More detailed information should be provided on the specific measures to tackle 

hydromorphological  pressures.  Quantification  and  reporting  of  the  gap  indicators  for 
the hydromorphological measures is also needed. 

 

The Czech Republic should continue prioritising the use of green infrastructure and/or 

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

economic benefits compared to grey infrastructure. 

 

Cost  recovery  for  water  use  activities  having  a  significant  impact  on  water  bodies 

should  be  applied  or  any  exemptions  using  Article  9(4)  justified.  It  should  be 
transparently  presented  how  financial,  environmental  and  resource  costs  have  been 

calculated  and  how  the  adequate  contribution  of  the  different  users  is  ensured.  The 
water-pricing policy should also be transparently presented and a transparent overview 

provided of estimated investments and investment needs. 

 

The Czech Republic should continue its work on Protected Areas and make sure to set 

objectives  for  the  different  types  of  Protected  Areas.  Moreover,  it  should  expand 
monitoring sites to cover 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 – river basin districts 

In the Czech Republic three different levels of plans were prepared: (i) international plans for 
the Danube, Elbe and Oder RBDs (A Plans), co-ordinated by the respective International River 

Basin  Commissions,  (ii)  national  plans  for  the  national  Danube,  Elbe  and  Oder  RBDs  (B 
Plans), co-ordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment, and (iii) 

10 sub-basin plans (C Plans), co-ordinated by the River Boards, state enterprises and Regional 
Authorities. 

The Czech Republic is situated within three international river basin districts. Due to the state 
border  geography,  small  parts  of  basin  districts  (Danube  and  Oder  RBDs)  are  located 

separately from the main catchment area and in the first cycle plans they were subjoined to the 
Elbe  RBD,  which  resulted  in  preparation  of  eight  sub-basin  plans  (C  Plans).  However,  the 

national  plans  (B  Plans)  include  all  relevant  parts  of  RBDs,  including  these  small  separate 
areas.  

1.1.2  Administrative arrangements – competent authorities 

The  following  competent  authorities  are  reported:  Ministry  of  Agriculture  of  the  Czech 
Republic,  Ministry  of  Environment  of  the  Czech  Republic  (both  responsible  for  status 

assessments and monitoring, preparation of Programme of Measures and RBMPs, pressure and 
impact analysis, public participation and reporting to the European Commission) as well as 14 

regional authorities, which are responsible for the implementation of measures, preparation of 
Programme of Measures and preparation of the RBMP.  

1.1.3  River Basin Management plans – structure (subplans, SEA)    

Strategic Environmental Assessments were carried out for all three RBMPs. 

Sub-plans have been prepared for all three RBDs covering the following issues, illustrated in 

Figure  1.1:  Agriculture,  Chemical  industry,  Chemical  pollution,  Climate  change,  Nutrient 
enrichment, Hydromorphology and migration permeability, Rural planning, Water Scarcity and 
droughts. 

23 

 
Figure 1.1 

Issues,  sectors,  sub-basins  or  water  categories  supplemented  by  more  detailed  sub-

plans for the second cycle.  

RBD 

CZ1000 

CZ5000 

CZ6000 

e
r
u
t
l
u
c
i
r
g
A

 

 

 

y
r
t
s
u
d
n
i

l
a
c
i
m
e
h
C

 

 

 

r
e
w
o
p
o
r
d
y
H

t
r
o
p
s
n
a
r
T

s
t
h
g
u
o
r
d
d
n
a

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

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

n
o
i
s
o
r
e

l
a
t
s
a
o
C
n/r 

n/r 

n/r 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

:
r
e
h
t
O

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

 

 

Source: WISE electronic reports.  

Key: 
  Covered by sub-plans 
n/r  Not relevant in Member State 

1.1.4 

Public consultation 

For  all three RBDs, the  RBMPs were available for consultation  for the requisite six months. 

Stakeholders were actively involved by authorities in all three RBDs. This appears to include 
stakeholders in the following areas: agriculture, consumer groups, energy, fisheries, industry, 

local/regional  authorities,  navigation  (and  ports),  Non-Governmental  Organisations/nature 
protection and water supply. 

The  mechanisms  used  for  active  involvement  of  stakeholders  in  the  development  of  the 
RBMPs were via the establishment of advisory groups and involvement in drafting. 

In all three RBDs, issues raised by stakeholders and impacts on the RBMPs included changes 
to selection of measures, adjustment of specific measures, addition of new information and few 
other changes which are not specified. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.1.5 

Integration  with  the  Floods  Directive  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive 

Joint consultation was held  on the RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans (the latter being 
established under the Floods Directive (FD)4). 

It can be noted that the fact that RBMPs reviewed refer to the objective of reducing pollution 

flows to marine waters and meeting international objectives in the area of nutrient reduction, is 
a positive step for a land-locked country. 

1.1.6 

International coordination and co-operation  

All three Czech RBDs are part of international  RBDs. For all three, international agreements 
are  in  place  and  RBMPs  and  Programme  of  Measures  have  been  prepared  for  the  overall 

international RBD. Moreover, there was international co-ordination on public participation. 

The Czech Republic cooperated under the international commissions for these three IRBDs as 

well  as  bilaterally  with  neighbouring  Member  States.  For  example,  the  ecological  status 
assessment of transboundary surface water bodies between the Czech Republic and Germany is 
coordinated  by  experts  of  the  bilateral  German-Czech  boundary  water  commission  and  its 

standing  committees  for  Transboundary  Waters  (for  further  information  see  the  reports  on 
international coordination on the WFD). 

1.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

Stakeholders  were  more  actively  involved  in  the  preparation  of  the  second  RBMPs:  via 

advisory groups and also in drafting. A broad range of stakeholder groups appear to have been 
involved.  This  active  engagement  was  not  reported  for  the  first  planning  cycle.  The  active 

engagement  of  stakeholders  indicates  that  the  Czech  Republic  has  responded  to  the 
Commission  recommendation  for  good  coordination  between  the  public  administration  and 

other stakeholders. 

The list of competent authorities in the second RBMP is somewhat different from the previous 
plan  (according  to  information  from  the  Pressures  &  Measures  study5).  The  Pressures  & 
Measures study is  more  detailed than the information  on competent  authorities in  the second 

RBMP and therefore a direct comparison with the first cycle plan has not been possible. 

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  See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/water/implrep2007/background.htm  

25 

 
                                                      
1.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programme  of  Measures 

requested action on the following: 

 

Recommendation:  Different  levels  of  plans  should  be  better  harmonized  and  cross-

referenced in the second RBMP cycle. 

Assessment:  The  assessment  of  the  second  RBMPs  did  not  provide  information  on 
improved  harmonization  and  cross-referencing  among  different  levels  (international 

RBMPs,  national  RBMPs,  and  regional  sub-plans).  The  Czech  Republic  informed 
however  that  coordination  and  harmonization  at  the  national  level  was  done  via  a 

special  advisory  committee,  the  Commission  for  Water  Planning  (Komise  pro 
plánování v oblasti vod). Moreover, a background document reported to WISE outlines 

the  approach  for  the  coordination  of  water  body  typology  in  each  of  the  three 
international RBDs. Consequently, this recommendation has been fulfilled.  

 

Recommendation: Ensure good coordination between public administration and other 
stakeholders  to  improve  the  planning  and  implementation  of  the  Programme  of 

Measures and to monitor their effectiveness. 

Assessment: Stakeholders were more actively engaged in the preparation of the second 
RBMPs:  stakeholders  were  actively  engaged  via  advisory  groups  and  were  also 

involved  in  drafting.  A  broad  range  of  stakeholder  groups  appear  to  have  been 
involved.  This  active  engagement  was  not  reported  for  the  first  planning  cycle.  No 

information  was  found in the second RBMPs regarding coordination for the planning 
and  implementation  of  the  Programme  of  Measures  and  monitoring  of  their 

effectiveness. The requirements of this recommendation were partially fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation: Responsibilities for the implementation of the measures including its 

financing,  is  identified  for  some  specific  measures  (building  and  reconstruction  of 
urban wastewater treatment plants and specific hydromorphology measures). However, 

other types of measures are not linked to any responsible authority. More transparency 
is needed in this field. 

Assessment: There are two competent authorities whose main roles are reported to be 

the implementation of measures and the preparation of the Programme of Measures: the 
Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic.  

26 

 
The  Czech  Republic  informed  that  competent  authorities  for  implementation  of 

measures are listed in the RBMPs and in the detailed summaries of the measures (listy 
opatření).  The  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  the  Ministry  of  Environment  are  the 

competent  authorities  for  implementation  of  national-level  measures.  Other  bodies  – 
including municipalities, regional authorities, river boards and private companies – are 

identified as responsible for implementation of local measures. 

With  regard  to  financing,  a  clear  financial  commitment  (e.g.  approved  budget  or 

financial  mechanism  by  the  Parliament,  Ministry  of  Finance  or  other  financial 
responsible authority) was reported not to have been secured for the implementation of 

all  components  of  the  Programme  of  Measures.  In  all  RBDs,  a  clear  financial 
commitment had been secured for flood protection and urban development, but not for 

agriculture 
hydromorphological  measures  are 

and 

industry  measures.  The  Czech  Republic 

funded 

from 

that 
the  Operational  Programme 

informed 

Environment, under the EU Cohesion Policy. 

It is concluded that this recommendation has been fulfilled. 

27 

 
 
 
 
Topic 2

 Characterisation of the River Basin District 

2.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in second cycle  

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

bodies 

There has been a reduction in the number of river water bodies in the Danube and Oder RBDs 
(12 % and 5 %) and an increase (3 %) in the Elbe (Table 2.1). Fewer lakes were delineated in 

the second cycle in the Oder (seven instead of eight, 13 %) and more in the two other RBDs 
(increases by 31 % and 4 %). All but four of the 77 identified lakes were designated as heavily 

modified: the other four were artificial, three more than had been designated in the first cycle 
(Figure  2.1).  There  has  been  a  significant  decrease  in  the  number  of  river  water  bodies 

designated as heavily modified from 16 % in the first to 9 % in the second cycle (especially in 
two of the three RBDs) accompanied by increases in the number of natural river water bodies. 

Data on the uses and physical alterations of heavily modified water bodies was not part of the 
first cycle reporting but the uses and alterations extracted from the first RBMPs are included in 

those reported in the second RBMPs; more uses and physical alteration types were reported in 
2016 than had been the case previously. All designated heavily modified water bodies had at 

least one water use and at least one physical alteration reported. 

The minimum size criteria for rivers in the first RBMPs were tributaries with a Strahler order 
of greater than four and for lakes a minimum surface area of 0.5 km2. The criteria used in the 
second RBMPs were 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and 0.5 km2 surface area for lakes. 

Table 2.1 

 Number  and  area/length  of  delineated  surface  water  bodies  for  the  second 
(2016) and first (2010) cycles.  

Year 

RBD 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

CZ1000 

CZ5000 

CZ6000 

Total 

2010 

CZ1000 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Number of 
water 
bodies 

Total area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

Number of 
water 
bodies 

Total length 
of water 
body (km) 

21 

49 

7 

77 

16 

60 

196 

19 

275 

51 

277 

636 

131 

1,044 

4,905 

11,358 

1,879 

18,142 

316 

5,207 

28 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Year 

RBD 

2010 

2010 

2010 

CZ5000 

CZ6000 

Total 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Number of 
water 
bodies 

47 

8 

Total area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

178 

20 

Number of 
water 
bodies 

Total length 
of water 
body (km) 

615 

138 

11,418 

1,971 

18,596 

249 
71 
Source: WISE electronic reports 

1,069 

Figure 2.1 

Proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the  Czech  Republic  designated  as 
artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first RBMPs. Note 

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

Table 2.2 

Size distribution of surface water bodies in the second (2016) and first (2010) 
RBMPs.  

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Year  RBD 

2016  CZ1000 

2016  CZ5000 

2016  CZ6000 

2016 

CZ 

2010  CZ1000 

2010  CZ5000 

2010  CZ6000 

2010 

CZ 

Lake area (km2) 

River length (km) 

Minimum  Maximum  Average  Minimum  Maximum  Average 

0.45 

0.36 

0.51 

0.36 

0.45 

0.28 

0.47 

0.28 

14.69 

45.03 

8.51 

45.03 

14.68 

45.04 

8.4 

2.86 

4 

2.75 

3.58 

3.2 

3.79 

2.46 

1.84 

1.69 

1.83 

1.69 

0.1 

0.21 

0.1 

45.04 
Source: WISE electronic reports. 

3.51 

0.1 

69.05 

69.89 

45.84 

69.89 

87.64 

105.5 

45.83 

105.5 

17.71 

17.86 

14.34 

17.38 

16.48 

18.57 

14.28 

17.4 

29 

5%1%0.4%0.3%95%99%9%16%0%0%91%83%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Lakes 2016(77)Lakes 2010(71)Rivers 2016(1044)Rivers 2010(1069)% of water bodiesArtificialHeavily ModifiedNatural 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.3 

Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies for the second (2016) and 
first (2010) RBMPs. 

Year 

RBD 

Number 

Area (km2) 
Minimum  Maximum  Average 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

CZ1000 

CZ5000 

CZ6000 

Total 

CZ1000 

CZ5000 

CZ6000 

Total 

54 

100 

20 

174 

54 

99 

20 

173 

25.07 

12.47 

20.69 

12.47 

25.07 

12.5 

20.7 

12.5 

2569.40 

5832.37 

2775.71 

5832.37 

2568.94 

5786.70 

2776.20 

5786.70 

434.91 

564.72 

406.14 

506.21 

435.75 

570.41 

406.27 

509.4 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Table 2.4 summarises the information  provided  by the Czech Republic  on how water bodies 
have evolved between the two cycles. The majority of changes were changes in the codes of 

groundwater, lake and river water bodies but there were also aggregation, creation and deletion 
of water bodies. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.4 

Type  of  change  in  delineation  of  groundwater  and  surface  water  bodies 
between the two cycles 

Type of water body change for second 
cycle 

Groundwater 
Body 

Lake Water Body  River Water Body 

Aggregation 

Splitting 

Aggregation and splitting 

Extended area 

Creation 

Deletion 

Change in code 

Total water bodies before deletion 

Delineated for second cycle (after deletion 
from first cycle) 

2 

172 

174 

174 

1 

23 

1 

6 

1 

46 

78 

77 

61 

125 

30 

1 

5 

16 

822 

1060 

1044 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

173 groundwater bodies were identified in the first cycle. One of these (in the Elbe RBD) was 
subsequently  split  into  two  giving  174  groundwater  bodies  for  the  second  cycle.  There  have 

been  some  changes  in  the  reported  characteristics  of  groundwater  bodies  in  that  they  were 
reported to be layered in the first but not in the second cycle. The other reported characteristics 

of groundwater bodies (main geological formation of the aquifer type and linkages to terrestrial 
ecosystems) were the same as reported in the first cycle. However, in 2010 no linkages were 

reported with surface water bodies whereas in the second cycle, 40 % of groundwater bodies 
were  reported  to  be  linked  with  surface  water  bodies.  Therefore,  further  groundwater 

characterisation  work  has  been  undertaken  since  the  first  cycle;  this  is  further  discussed  in 
Chapters 5 and 6. 

2.1.2 

Identification of transboundary water bodies  

Transboundary river water bodies have been identified in all international RBDs. However, no 

transboundary groundwater bodies have been identified. 

2.1.3  Typology of surface water bodies 

There has been a significant decrease in the number of types of rivers and lakes reported in the 
second  compared  to  the  first  cycle;  for  example  54  river  types  were  reported  in  the  Danube 

RBD  in  the  first  cycle  compared  to  11  in  the  second  cycle  (Table  2.5).  Though  there  were 
shared  lake  types  between  the  three  RBDs  in  the  second  cycle,  the  river  type  codes  were 

specific to each RBD. An assessment of the description of the types shows that there may be 
51 different types of rivers and lakes. In the first cycle, the typology had been derived using 

31 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
abiotic criteria which had not been validated against biological data, and it was expected that 
the typology  would be revised and WFD  compliant type-specific  reference  conditions  would 

be used for the second RBMPs. 

Table 2.5 

Number  of  Surface  water  body  types  at  RBD  level  for  the  first  and  second 

cycles.  Note  that  the  total  is  not  the  sum  of  the  types  in  each  RBD  as  some 
types are shared by RBDs 

RBD 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional  Coastal 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

CZ_1000 

CZ_5000 

CZ_6000 

TOTAL 

54 

35 

31 

89 

11 

15 

9 

35 

10 

22 

8 

33 

7 

13 

5 

16 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Source: WISE electronic reports.  

The Czech Authorities indicated during bilateral meetings with the European  Commission on 
the  first  RBMPs  that  they  would  be  refining  their  typology  for  the  second  cycle,  including 
making  it  biologically  relevant.  Assessment  of  the  second  RBMPs  and  relevant  background 

documents showed that the typology has been made biologically relevant for some, but not for 
all. Types and the typology were only tested for one biological quality element: fish6. 

2.1.4  Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies 

For rivers, type specific reference conditions have been established for  all relevant biological 

quality elements in 32 out of 35 water types (Table 2.6). Only three river water body types had 
some  biological  quality  elements  established.  Type  specific  reference  conditions  have  been 

established  for  all  relevant  physicochemical  quality  elements  in  all  river  types  but  only  for 
some of the relevant  hydromorphological  quality  elements. For lakes, type-specific reference 

conditions  have  not  been  established  in  any  type  for  any  of  the  hydromorphological  quality 
elements. Most lakes are heavily modified water bodies as they are reservoirs/impoundments 
which  were  originally  rivers7;  this  is  discussed  further  in  Chapter  7  of  this  report.  The 
remainder are artificial, and type specific reference conditions for hydromorphological quality 

elements would be required for the definition of maximum and good ecological potential. Type 

6 The Czech Republic highlighted that for other biological quality elements the typology was modified within the 
development  of  updated  assessment  methodologies  to  best  match  the  distribution  of  biological  communities. 
Furthermore,  the  typology  was  modified  (merging  types  or  dividing  into  sub-types)  for  all  biological  quality 
elements in rivers in the second RBMPs, to best match the distribution of biological communities. 

7 The Czech Republic has no natural lakes designated as individual water bodies. All water bodies in the category, 
lake,  were  designated  as  HMWB  (=  dams  and  ponds)  and  AWB  (mining  pits).    Type  specific  reference 
conditions  (=  maximal  ecological  potential)  were  established  within  the  relevant  methodology  for  physico-
chemical parameters and BQEs phytoplankton, fish and macrophytes. 

32 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
specific  reference  conditions  for  some  but  not  all  biological  quality  elements,  and  for  all 
relevant physicochemical quality elements, have been established. 

Table 2.6 

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

physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of 
types in each category 

Water 
category 

Water 
types 

Biological quality 
elements 

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 

Physicochemical quality 
elements 

Lakes (16) 

Rivers (35) 

All 

Some 

None 

All 

Some 

None 

100% 

91% 

9% 

100% 

100% 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

100% 

100% 

Most national types (heavily modified and natural) have been intercalibrated. However, around 
50 % of river water bodies are reported not to have a corresponding intercalibration type: most 
of these are natural river water bodies8. A question arises as to if and how the ecological status 
of  these  water  bodies  has  been  intercalibrated  (this  is  discussed  further  in  Chapter  3  of  this 

report on the assessment and classification of ecological status/potential).  

In  terms  of  type-specific  reference  conditions  for  the  first  RBMPs,  there  were  no  reliable 

reference  conditions  available  and  they  had  only  been  established  in  a  few  cases  for  rivers, 
using expert judgment, and had a limited scope. 

2.1.5 

Significant pressures on water bodies 

It  was  reported  that  significant  pressures  from  water  flow  regulation  and  morphological 
alterations  and  from  water  abstractions  were  not  assessed  in  terms  of  surface  waters,  due  to 

sufficient  legislation  and  control  of  abstractions.  In  terms  of  pressures  from  water  flow 
regulation  and morphological  alterations  this  seems  to  be inconsistent,  as many water bodies 

have been designated as heavily modified and water bodies were reported to be subject to this 
type of significant pressure. The only other significant pressure was “natural background”.  

The most significant pressures in the second cycle in terms of proportion of affected surface of 
water bodies were Anthropogenic pressure – Unknown (70% of surface water bodies), Point - 

8  The  Czech  Republic  subsequently  stated  that  these  river  water  bodies  (mainly  in  Elbe  RBD)  could  not  be 

intercalibrated due to lack of corresponding intercalibration types. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
Urban  waste  water  (38  %),  Diffuse  Agricultural  (22  %)  and  Diffuse  Atmospheric  deposition 
(22  %).  31  different  pressure  types  were  reported  for  surface  water  bodies:  the  “top  10” 

pressures in relation to the largest proportion of affected water bodies are illustrated in Figure 
2.2. 

Seven  different  significant  pressure  types  were  reported  to  be  affecting  groundwater  in  the 
Czech  Republic  for  the  second  cycle:  Diffuse  –  Agricultural  (61  %  of  groundwater  bodies), 

Anthropogenic pressure – Unknown (49 %), Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition (30 %), Point -  
Contaminated sites  or abandoned industrial sites  (24 %)  and Abstraction  or flow diversion  – 

Public water supply (9 %). 

Because of the changes in the reporting of pressures between the two cycles, it is difficult to 

compare the pressures, and the numbers of affected water bodies. In general terms, for surface 
waters, similar point source, diffuse source pressures and pressures from hydromorphological 

alterations  were  reported  in  both  cycles  (Figure  2.3).  Pressures  from  abstraction  or  flow 
diversion for Agriculture were reported to be significant for one water body in one RBD (the 

Elbe). Abstractions were not identified as significant pressures for any surface water bodies in 
the Czech Republic in the first cycle. Figure 2.3 shows an apparent decrease in the number of 

water  bodies  affected  by  hydromorphological  pressures.  The  reason  for  this  is  unclear  and 
could  relate  to  differences  in  the  aggregation  of  the  data  between  cycles  or  changes  to  the 

methodology for defining significant pressures. 

As for surface waters, it is difficult to compare the pressures on groundwater bodies, and the 

number affected, between the two  cycles, also  because in  the first  cycle  pressures were only 
reported at an aggregated level. But in general terms the same broad types of pressures seem to 

have been reported for both cycles.  

34 

 
Figure 2.2 

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

Source: WISE electronic reports 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.3  Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in the first and second 
cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note there were 1121 

identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 1140 for the first 
cycle. 

Comparison of aggregated pressures in 2016 and 2010 

42% 

44% 

50% 

51% 

76% 

20% 

2016

2010

i

s
e
d
o
b
r
e
t
a
w
e
c
a
f
r
u
s

f
o
%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Point sources

Diffuse sources

Hydromorphology

Source: WISE electronic reports 

2.1.6  Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater 

In  the  first  cycle,  the  tools  that  were  used  to  define  significant  pressures  from  water  flow 
regulation  and  morphological  alterations,  point  sources  and  water  abstractions  were  a 

combination of numerical tools and expert judgment. Expert judgment was used for agriculture 
and  transport  diffuse  sources  and  a  combination  of  numerical  tools  and  expert  judgment  for 

abandoned  industrial  sites  and  atmospheric  deposition.  Expert  judgment  was  used  for  other 
significant pressures e.g. introduced species and fishing.  

The assessment of the second RBMPs and linked background documents provided information 
on  the  exclusion  of  pressures  from  the  risk  assessment  of  surface  water  bodies.  Abstractions 

and  flow  diversions  were  not  identified  as  significant  pressures  for  surface  water  due  to 
sufficient  legislation and control of abstractions. Also morphological  alterations could  not  be 

identified  as  a  significant  pressure  (but  an  inventory  of  barriers  and  other  morphological 
alterations was prepared) because of the unclear link between the pressures  and the status  of 

the biological quality elements. 

In 

terms  of  groundwater,  most  pressures  were  considered  as  not  relevant  (e.g. 

hydromorphological alterations) or were assessed as non-significant (e.g. direct discharges to 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
groundwater). Diffuse pollution from  transport is  a significant  pressure,  which is  included in 
the atmospheric deposition pressure category. 

For the assessment of significant pressures on groundwater bodies, a combination of numerical 
tools  and  expert  judgment  was  used  for  point  source,  diffuse  source  and  water  abstraction 

pressures,  and  expert  judgment  for  artificial  recharge  and  “other”  pressures.  There  was  no 
information available on these aspects from the first RBMPs. 

For  both  surface  water  bodies  and  groundwater  bodies  significance  of  pressures  has  been 
defined  in  terms  of  thresholds  and  is  linked  to  the  potential  failure  of  objectives  (surface 

waters) and to the verified failure of good status (groundwater). 

2.1.7 

Significant impacts on water bodies 

The reporting of impact  types also changed between reporting cycles and as a result it is not 
possible to compare quantitatively the reporting of the impacts on groundwater bodies for the 

two cycles (Figure 2.4). 

The types of impacts are more comparable between the two cycles in terms of surface water 

bodies  (Figure  2.4).  In  terms  of  chemical  pollution,  there  was  an  apparent  increase  in  the 
second cycle in the number of impacted surface water bodies in all three RBDs, although in the 

first cycle the “equivalent” impact type was defined as “Contamination by Priority Substances 
or other specific pollutants”. The reasons for this apparent increase is not clear but could relate 

to  improved monitoring or changes in  the methodology  for defining impacts.  In contrast,  the 
number  of  surface  water  bodies  impacted  by  Nutrient  pollution  and  Organic  pollution 

decreased  between  the  first  and  second  cycles  in  all  three  RBDs.  The  most  significant 
difference  between  the  two  cycles  was  in  terms  of  ‘altered  habitats  due  to  hydrological 

changes’  and  ‘altered  habitats  due  to  morphological  changes  (includes  connectivity)’  which 
were  not  reported  as  an  impact  at  all  in  the  second  RBMPs:  in  the  first  RBMPs,  56  %  of 

surface  water  bodies  were  reported  to  be  impacted  by  ‘altered  habitats  as  a  result  of 
hydromorphological alterations.’ The data for the second cycle does not seem consistent with 
the degree of designation of heavily modified water bodies or with the reporting of significant 
hydromorphological pressures.9 

9  The  Czech  Republic  subsequently  clarified  that  the  reported  data  on  impacts  related  to  altered  habitats  due  to 
hydrological  and  morphological  changes  is  correct,  as  they  could  not  identify  cases  in  which  surface  water 
bodies  were  not  in  good  status  for  biological  quality  elements  due  only  to  hydrological  and/or  morphological 
changes (and not other pressures). 

37 

 
                                                      
Figure 2.4 

Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies for the second 
cycle. Percentage of numbers of water bodies. 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

2.1.8  Quantification and apportionment of pressures  

For  the  first  RBMPs,  quantitative  source  apportionment  was  used  mainly  for  nutrients  and 

organic pollutants from point (discharges) and diffuse sources. It was not clear if quantitative 
apportionment was used for other types of impacts/pressures. For the second cycle, there was 

no  information  in  the  RBMPs  on  the  apportionment  of  impacts/pressures  between  the 

38 

0.2%4%8%12%21%41%48%0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%Saline pollution/intrusionAcidification Elevated temperaturesUnknown impact typeOrganic pollutionNutrient pollutionChemical pollution% of surface water bodiesSignificant impacts on surface water bodies 
 
 
 
 
responsible  activities/sectors  that  are  causing  failure  of  good  ecological  status/potential10  or 
good  chemical  status  in  surface  water  bodies,  nor  for  failure  to  reach  good  status  for 

groundwater  status;  there  was  a  reported  lack  of  data,  implying  that  a  quantitative  source 
apportionment has not been undertaken for the second RBMPs. 

2.1.9  Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 

In the second RBMPs, almost all groundwater bodies in all RBDs were reported to be at risk. 

The  pollutants  putting  groundwater  bodies  at  risk  of  failing  good  chemical  status  have  been 
reported for all RBDs. 

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

The links between the pressures for which measures are planned and the significant pressures 
reported  at  the  water  body  level  are  not  always  clear11.  For  example,  in  the  Danube  RBD, 
“abstraction  or  flow  diversion  –  public  water  supply”  has  been  reported  at  the  groundwater 

body  level,  but  this  pressure  does  not  seem  to  have  been  tackled  in  the  programme  of 
measures.  Also  in  the  Danube  RBD,  for  surface  waters,  pressures  Point  -  Storm  overflows, 

Point - Non IED plants, Point – Other, Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - 
Flood  protection  and  Physical  alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian  area/shore  –  Other  were 

reported at the water body level but they also do not seem to be addressed in the programme of 
measures. There are similar examples in the other two RBDs. 

Similarly,  20  Priority  Substances  are  reported  as  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status  of 
surface water bodies in the Czech Republic, and 41 River Basin Specific Pollutants as causing 

failure  to  achieve  good  ecological  status/potential.  No  measures  to  tackle  these  substances 
causing failure seem to have been reported.  

2.1.11  Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances 

Article  5  of  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  2008/105/EC12  (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 

10 The Czech Republic subsequently stated that the quantitative apportionment was used for nutrients and organic   

pollutants in the same way as in the first cycle. 

11The  Czech  Republic  subsequently  explained  that  the  significant  pressures  on  surface  water  were  defined  as 
linked  to  the  potential  failure  of  objectives.  Therefore,  not  all  of  them  were  reasons  for  failure  and  measures 
were not necessarily included in the programme of measures. This indicates that measures have been identified 
only to address pressures that are already causing failure of objectives and not all significant pressures. 

12 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 

39 

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

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

In  the  first  RBMPs,  the  Czech  Republic  had  prepared  an  inventory  of  sources,  including  E-
PRTR  and  non-E-PRTR  facilities  and  diffuse  sources  of  priority  pollutants  (e.g.  pesticides, 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals).  

For the second RBMPs, the Czech Republic reported that all Priority Substances were included 

in  inventories  for  9  of  the  10  sub-units  in  the  Czech  Republic.  The  other  sub-unit  (CZDUN 
Other  tributaries  of  the  Danube),  covering  only  16  surface  water  bodies,  does  not  have  an 

inventory for any of the Priority Substances.  

The two-step approach defined in the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document 

n°28 has been followed for all substances considered in the inventories. In accordance with the 
Guidance Document, Tier 1 of the methodology was implemented for substances assessed as 

not  relevant  at  subunit  level.  Higher  tiers  of  the  methodology  were  applied  for  substances 
relevant at sub-unit level (either a combination of Tier 1 (point source information) and Tier 2 

(riverine load) or a combination of Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 (pathway-oriented approach)). The 
data quality was assessed as very uncertain for substances relevant at sub-unit level, and it was 

not reported for the other substances. 

2.2 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programme  of  Measures 

requested action on the following: 

 

Recommendation:  Links  between  status  and  responsible  specific  pressures  should  be 

made clear.  

Assessment:  The  Czech  Republic  has  reported  that  for  both  surface  water  bodies  and 
groundwater bodies significance of pressures has been defined in terms of thresholds and 

is linked to the potential failure of objectives (surface waters) and to the verified failure 
of  good  status  (groundwater).  The  gaps  to  be  filled  to  achieve  objectives  have  been 

reported for some (but not all) pressures and the apportionment between different sources 
has  not  been  carried  out  for  all  pressures/impacts.  There  is  also  no  clear  link  between 

measures  and  individual  substances  causing  failure.  This  recommendation  has  been 
partially fulfilled.  

40 

 
 

Recommendation:  Ensure  that  the  RBMPs  clearly  identify  the  gap  to  good  status,  and 
that  the  Programme  of  Measures  is  designed  and  implemented  to  close  that  gap.  The 

identified 
the  sources  and 
sectors/drivers responsible for the pressures for all significant water management issues. 

to  be  clearly  apportioned  between 

impacts  have 

Assessment:  The  gaps  to  be  filled  to  achieve  objectives  have  been  quantified  for  some 

but not all pressures, and the Key Types of Measures to be made operational to fill the 
gaps  have  been  reported.  However,  there  are  some  inconsistencies  in  the  pressures  for 

which  measures  are  planned  and  the  significant  pressures  reported  at  the  water  body 
level13. Examples are discussed in Section 2.1.10. Therefore, it can be concluded that this 
part of the recommendation has been partially fulfilled.  

The  apportionment  of  impacts  to  all  responsible  pressures/sectors  is  missing:  it  is  not 

clear whether all responsible pressures have been identified as some of the impacts could 
arise from more than one pressure. Information has not been found in any of the RBMPs 

assessed on which activities/sectors are contributing significantly to  the failure of good 
chemical  status  in  surface  waters  and  to  the  different  impacts  causing  failure  of  good 

ecological status/potential. This part of the recommendation has not been fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation:  Present  in  the  second  RBMPs  a  clear  assessment  of  the  number  of 

water bodies failing to reach good status due to agriculturally derived pressures because 
diffuse  sources  of  pollution  from  nitrogen  and  pesticides  were  identified  as  the  main 

significant pressures from agriculture in the Czech Republic.  

Assessment:  Measures  including  “Reduce  nutrient  pollution  from  agriculture”  and 
“Reduce  pesticides  pollution  from  agriculture”  have  been  reported  to  tackle  significant 

diffuse pressures from agriculture. The indicator of the gap to be filled has been reported 
in terms of number of water bodies failing environmental quality standards for pesticides 

originating from diffuse agricultural sources, for nitrogen or pesticides originating  from 
diffuse agriculture sources and the load of nitrogen to be reduced to achieve objectives. 
This recommendation has been fulfilled. 

13  The  Czech  Republic  subsequently  explained  that  the  significant  pressures  on  surface  water  were  defined  as 
linked  to  the  potential  failure  of  objectives.  Therefore,  not  all  of  them  were  reasons  for  failure  and  measures 
were not necessarily included in the programme of measures. This indicates that measures have been identified 
only to address pressures causing failure of objectives and not all significant pressures. 

41 

 
                                                      
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.  

The Czech Republic reported separate operational and surveillance monitoring programmes for 
surface waters (lakes and rivers) in each RBD. 

Monitoring sites 

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

purposes between the first and second RBMPs and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for 
different purposes for the second RBMPs. 

There  has  been  a  decrease  in  the  number  of  surveillance  monitoring  sites  from  the  first  to 
second RBMP in rivers and lakes in the Danube and the Elbe: there are only small differences 

in the Oder. The number of sites in operational monitoring of rivers in the Danube has almost 
doubled  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMP  with  a  smaller  increase  in  the  Elbe  and  a  small 

decrease  in  the  Oder.  There  are  fewer  surveillance  monitoring  sites  in  the  second  RBMP 
compared  to  the  first  in  lakes  in  Danube  and  Elbe,  and  fewer  sites  used  for  operational 

monitoring in all three RBDs. Overall in the Czech Republic there has been an increase from 
885 to 999 monitoring sites in rivers from the first to second RBMPs and a decrease from 76 to 

62 sites in lakes.  

There  has  been  a  decrease  in  the  number  of  identified  river  water  bodies  and  an  increase  in 

number  of  identified  lake  water  bodies  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs.  In  the  first 
RBMPs,  10  %  of  river  water  bodies  in  the  Czech  Republic  were  included  in  surveillance 
monitoring,  this  decreased  to  8  %  in  the  second  RBMPs.  38  %  of  lake  water  bodies  were 

included  in  surveillance  monitoring  in  the  first  RBMPs  and  only  10  %  for  the  second.  For 
operational monitoring, 65 % of river water bodies in the Czech Republic were included in the 

first  RBMPs,  increasing  to  95  %  in  the  second:  the  biggest  increase  occurred  in  the  Danube 
where the number increased from 127 (40 %) in the first RBMPs to 271 (98 %) in the second. 

42 

 
92 % of lakes were included in operational monitoring in the first RBMPs, decreasing to 78 % 
for the second (Figure 3.1). 

Table 3.1 

Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring for the 
second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data 

reported in 2010, the 2016 data does not take into account whether sites are 
used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring. 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

second RBMP  

CZ_1000 

CZ_5000 

CZ_6000 

Total by type of site 

26 

48 

11 

85 

Total number of monitoring sites 

999 

first RBMP 

CZ_1000 

CZ_5000 

CZ_6000 

Total by type of site 

32 

67 

12 

111 

272 

596 

129 

997 

137 

528 

170 

835 

62 

0 

3 

5 

8 

6 

16 

5 

27 

16 

39 

7 

62 

22 

41 

13 

76 

Total number of monitoring sites 

885 

76 

Source WISE electronic reports 

Table 3.2 

Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different 

purposes in the Czech Republic. 

Monitoring Purpose 

CHE - Chemical status 

ECO - Ecological status 

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

INT - International network of other international convention 

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

OPE - Operational monitoring 

QUA - Quantitative status 

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

SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring 

SUR - Surveillance monitoring 

Total sites irrespective of purpose 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Lakes 

Rivers 

35 

62 

12 

62 

8 

62 

589 

999 

278 

81 

326 

999 

69 

134 

85 

999 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.1 

Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational 
monitoring for the first RBMPs (2010) and second RBMPs (2016). Note no 

differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or 
chemical monitoring. 

Source: WISE electronic reports  
Surveillance  monitoring  should  include  “sufficient  surface  water  bodies  to  provide  an 

assessment of the overall surface water status within each catchment or sub-catchments within 
the  river  basin  district”.  Overall  in  the  Czech  Republic,  only  2  %  of  the  river  water  bodies 

classified as good ecological status/potential are included in surveillance monitoring compared 
to  22  %  at  bad  status/potential  (Figure  3.2).  The  four  river  water  bodies  classified  as  high 

status/potential are not included in surveillance monitoring.  

44 

38%10%10%8%92%78%64%95%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%LW 2010LW 2016RW 2010RW 2016% of water bodies SurveillanceOperational 
 
 
 
Figure 3.2  Proportion  of  water  bodies  in  each  ecological  status/potential  class  that  are 
included  in  surveillance  monitoring.  Note:  Standard  colours  and  class  descriptors  for 

ecological status based on WFD Annex V, Article 1(4)2(I) used for illustration purposes.  

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Transboundary surface water body monitoring 

All three RBDs reported that there are river monitoring sites that are part of the international 
network  of  a  river  convention  (including  bilateral  agreements)  and/or  of  the  international 

network of other international conventions. 

Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) 

Ecological status or potential is assessed on the basis of the results from the monitoring of a 
range  of  quality  elements.  These  are  primarily  biological  quality  elements  with  supporting 

hydromorphological  and  chemical  and  physico-chemical  quality  elements.  This  latter  group 
comprises  some  general  physico-chemical  parameters  and  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants. 

Some  of  the  quality  elements  are  specific  to  the  different  surface  water  categories  (rivers, 
lakes, transitional and coastal waters). 

Table  3.3  illustrates  the  quality  elements  used  for  the  monitoring  of  lakes  and  rivers  for  the 

second RBMP: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. 

In terms of surveillance monitoring, none of the lakes included in surveillance monitoring were 

monitored  for  all  the  required  biological  quality  elements  nor  for  all  the  general  physico-
chemical  quality  elements.  No  lakes  in  the  Danube  RBD  are  included  in  surveillance 

45 

0%0%11%2%25%8%10%11%7%22%0%0%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%LWRW% of water bodies in each class that are included in surveillance monitoringHighGoodModeratePoorBadUnknown 
 
monitoring. Phytoplankton is sampled for surveillance purposes in lakes in both the Elbe and 
the Oder RBDs, and fish is sampled in lakes in the Oder RBD. Aquatic flora, phytobenthos and 

benthic invertebrates are not monitored for surveillance purposes in lakes: this is a significant 
gap in the surveillance monitoring of lakes.  

In  contrast,  all  of  the  required  biological  quality  elements  are  included  in  some  river  water 
bodies  in  all  three  RBDs.  All  required  biological  quality  elements  were  included  in 

surveillance monitoring in 73 % of river water bodies in the Danube, 59 % in the Elbe and 55 
% in the Oder. All required general physico-chemical quality elements were monitored in all 

river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring in the Danube and the Elbe, but only in 
73  %  of  river  water  bodies  in  the  Oder.  In  terms  of  operational  monitoring,  the  biological 

quality  element  phytoplankton  is  predominantly  used  in  lakes:  100  %,  92  %  and  100  %  of 
lakes used it in operational monitoring in the Danube, the Elbe and the Oder, respectively. The 

only other biological quality element to be used in operational monitoring of lakes is fish, in 38 
%,  35  %  and  29  %  of  lakes  used  it  for  operational  monitoring  in  the  Danube,  the  Elbe  and 

Oder,  respectively.  All  the  relevant  biological  quality  elements  are  used  in  operational 
monitoring of rivers with benthic invertebrates being the most used (95 %, 84 % and 95 % in 

the Danube, the Elbe and the Oder, respectively). The least applied biological quality element 
(of those relevant) for operational monitoring of rivers was macrophytes (17 %, 22 % and 13 

%  of  rivers  included  in  operational  monitoring  in  the  Danube,  the  Elbe  and  the  Oder, 
respectively). This may reflect the distribution of the different types of pressures on rivers but 

may  also  indicate  the  predominance  of  biological  quality  elements  that  were  used  in 
monitoring before WFD implementation i.e. phytoplankton in lakes and benthic invertebrates 

in rivers. 

Hydromorphological  quality  elements  are  not  monitored  in  the  second  RBMP  in  any  water 

body and unknown status is reported for each water body for these quality elements: this is a 
major  gap  in  the  monitoring  and  status  assessment  methods.  Hydromorphological  quality 

elements  were  reported  to  be  monitored  in  the  first  RBMP  though  there  was  no  status 
assessment  method  developed.  Information  found  in  the  RBMPs  and  linked  background 
documents indicated that the methods for hydromorphological quality element monitoring and 

assessment was finished at the end of first cycle, but had not been used yet: the reason for this 
is not known.  

46 

 
 
 
Table 3.3 

Quality elements monitored for the second RBMPs in the Czech Republic 
(excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). Note: quality elements may be 

used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring.  

Biological quality elements 

Hydromorphological quality elements 

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

s
e
t
y
h
p
o
r
c
a
M

Lakes 

Rivers 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

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

No 

Yes 

c
i
h
t
n
e
B

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

No 

Yes 

h
s
i
F

Yes 

Yes 

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

e
m
i
g
e
r

l
a
d
i
t

No 

No 

y
t
i
u
n
i
t
n
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

No 

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

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

No 

No 

General physico-chemical quality elements 

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

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

l
a
m
r
e
h
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

n
o
i
t
a
n
e
g
y
x
O

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Lakes 

Rivers 

y
t
i
n
i
l
a
S

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

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

s
u
t
a
t
s

n
e
g
o
r
t
i

N

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

s
u
r
o
h
p
s
o
h
P

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
C

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 
Yes 
Source: WISE electronic reports  

Yes 

Yes 

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

period of one year during the period covered by a RBMP i.e. six years. For phytoplankton, this 
equates  to  twice  during  the  monitoring  year  and  the  other  biological  quality  elements  once 

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

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

Of  the  seven  biological  quality  elements  used  for  the  surveillance  monitoring  of  rivers  and 
lakes, all but phytoplankton in lakes, were sampled at least at the minimum guidance frequency 

at  all  of  the  sites  where  they  were  monitored.  In  contrast,  of  the  seven  biological  quality 
elements used for operational monitoring of rivers and lakes, none was sampled at least at the 

recommended minimum frequency at all of the sites where they were monitored. The category 
with the smallest proportion of water bodies sampled at least at the minimum frequency is fish 

in rivers (18 % of sites) and that with the largest proportion is phytoplankton in lakes (86 % of 
sites).  

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored 

85  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  reported  to  be  monitored  in  water  in  the  Czech 

Republic.  

44 River Basin Specific Pollutants cause failure of good ecological status/potential in at least 

one water body.  In lakes, 59 River Basin  Specific Pollutants are monitored, 9 of these cause 
failure  of  good  ecological  status/potential  in  at  least  one  lake  water  body.  Bisphenol-A  is 

causing failure in one lake water body though it seems it is not monitored. 

Copper was monitored in the largest number of water bodies in the Czech Republic (141 in the 

Elbe and 112 in the Danube). All substances were measured in water for status assessment. 

69 % of river water bodies and 62 % of lake water bodies in the Czech Republic are monitored 

for at least one River Basin Specific Pollutant. In more than half of lake and river water bodies 
in the Danube and in the Oder, more than 11 River Basin Specific Pollutants are monitored.  

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  provides  guidance  on  the  frequency  of  monitoring  of  the  different 
quality elements: once every three months is recommended for river basin specific pollutants. 

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

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

Of  the  85  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  included  in  surveillance  monitoring,  66  were 
sampled at least  at the  recommended minimum frequency at all of the sites where they were 

monitored. Of the 85 River Basin Specific Pollutants included in operational monitoring, two 
were sampled at least at the recommended minimum frequency at all of the sites where they 

were monitored, and five pollutants at none. 

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

recommended  minimum  frequency  of  monitoring  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  (“Other 
Pollutants”)  applies.  Recommended  monitoring  frequencies  are  specified  for  Priority 

Substances in biota and sediment in Article 3(2)(c) of the EQS Directive:  this is once per year 
for operational  and surveillance monitoring purposes. For consistency this frequency of once 
per  year  has  been  applied  to  the  monitoring  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  in 

biota/sediment.  

Table  3.4  compares  the  number  of  sites  used  for  the  monitoring  of  River  Basin  Specific 

Pollutants for the two RBMPs. On the face of it, it would seem that there has been a decrease 

48 

 
in  the number of sites  used in  lakes and rivers for the second RBMPs compared to the first.  
However, the data from both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions of the 

substances  to  be  considered  were  used  (in  the  first  RBMP,  some  Member  States  sometimes 
reported more than just the river basin specific pollutants). 

Table 3.4 

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

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

RBMP 
second   Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants  

first  

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

Sources: WISE electronic reports  

Lakes  Rivers 

48 

76 

718 

869 

3.1.2.  Ecological Status/potential of surface water  

The  ecological  status/potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the  Czech  Republic  for  the  second 

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

49 

 
  
 
 
Map 3.1 

Ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface  water  bodies  based  on  the  most 
recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies.  Note: Standard 

colours for ecological status based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).  

High status or maximum potential 

Good status or potential 

Moderate status or potential 

Poor status or potential 

Bad status or potential 

Unknown 

River Basin Districts 
Countries  outside  the  European 
Union 

A  detailed  breakdown  of  ecological  status/potential  in  each  RBD  and  water  category  can  be 
viewed in the WISE electronic reports.   

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders).  

Figure 3.3 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. Most of the 
classifications are given a medium level of confidence. For the first RBMP, all classifications 

were  given  a  low  confidence  indicating  an  improvement  in  assessment  and  classification  for 
the second RBMPs. 

50 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Figure 3.3  Confidence  in  the  classification  of  ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface 
water bodies based on the most recently assessed status/potential.  

B
W
S
f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

No information

High

Mediium

Low

Ecological status or potential 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Figure 3.4 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in the Czech Republic in the 

first RBMP with that in the second RBMP, and that expected by 2015 according to the second 
RBMP. 

Figure 3.4  Ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the  Czech  Republic 
for  the  second  RBMPs,  for  the  first  RBMPs  and  expected  in  2015.  The 

number in parenthesis  is the number of surface water bodies for each cycle. 
Note: the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2006 

to  2013.  The  period  of  the  assessment  of  status  for  the  first  RBMPs  is  not 
known.  

Source: WISE electronic reports  

51 

17%18.8%21%0%20%40%60%80%100%First plan (1140)Second plan (1121)Expected good status in 2015Percentage of SWBHighGoodModeratePoorBadUnknownNot good 
 
 
 
 
 
In the second RBMP, 19.2 % of surface water bodies were at good (18.8 %) or high status (0.4 
%). In the first RBMP, 17 % of surface water bodies were at good or high status. Note that in 

the first RBMP 1140 surface water bodies were delineated compared to 1121 in the second and 
assessment methods changed: this adds some uncertainty to the validity of the comparison. 

Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological 
status/potential. The information for the Czech Republic is shown in Figure 3.5. 

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

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

Lakes (77)

27 

Rivers (1044)

209 

0%

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of water bodies 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Less stringent objectives
already achieved

2015

2016--2021

2022--2027

Beyond 2027

Unknown

Around  20  %  of  rivers  are  expected  to  be  at  least  good  status/potential  by  2015  but  100  % 
achievement is not expected until after 2027. For lakes, 35 % are expected to be at least good 

by 2015 with full achievement expected by the end of 2027. 

Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element 

The  classification  is  mainly  based  on  a  few  quality  elements:  biological  quality  elements 
(benthic invertebrates and phytobenthos), general physico-chemical quality elements and River 

Basin Specific Pollutants in rivers; biological quality element phytoplankton, general physico-
chemical  quality elements  and River  Basin  Specific Pollutants in  lakes.  Figure 3.6 illustrates 
the biological quality elements used in the classification of ecological status/potential. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.6  Ecological  status/potential  of  the  biological  quality  elements  used  in  the 
classification of lakes and rivers in the Czech Republic. Note that water bodies 

with unknown status/potential, and those that are monitored but not classified 
or not applicable, are not presented 

Lakes

Phytoplankton

Fish

Rivers

Phytoplankton

Macrophytes

Phytobenthos

Benthic invertebrates

Fish

High

Good

Moderate

Poor

Bad

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage of water bodies 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

A differentiated presentation of this data between ecological status and potential and including 

all types of quality element can be viewed here   

Figure  3.7  compares  the  classification  of  biological  quality  elements  in  terms  of  ecological 
status/potential for water bodies that have not changed from the first to the second RBMPs. It 

should  be  noted  that  this  comparison  should  be  treated  with  some  caution  as  there  are 
differences between the numbers of surface water bodies classified for individual elements and 

because the assessment methods changed.  

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

of rivers and lakes in the Czech Republic for the second RBMP. 88 % of rivers and 68 % of 
lakes  are  classified  using  three  of  the  four  types  of  quality  elements  (biological; 
hydromorphological, general physico-chemical and River Basin Specific Pollutants) that might 
be  used  in  the  classification  (Figure  3.8):  no  water  body  was  classified  according  to 

hydromorphological quality elements (Figure 3.9). 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.7  Comparison  of  ecological  status/potential  according  to  classified  biological 
quality elements in rivers and lakes water bodies that have not changed from the first to the 

second  RBMPs.  Note  that  water  bodies  with unknown  status/potential  have  been  excluded 
from the presentation. 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Figure 3.8 

The  classification  of  the  ecological  status  or  potential  of  rivers  and  lakes  in 
the  Czech  Republic  using  one,  two,  three  or  four  types  of  quality  element. 

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

s
B
W

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

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

88% 

68% 

22% 

10% 

0% 

11% 

2% 

0% 

Lakes

Rivers

1 types

2 types

3 types

4 types

Source: WISE electronic reports 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.9 

The percentage of river and lake water bodies where no biological quality 
element  or  no  hydromorphological  (HYMO)  or  no  general  physico-

chemical (PHYSCHEM) or no River Basin Specific Pollutant (RBSP) has 
been used in the classification of ecological status or potential 

100%

100% 

100% 

s
B
W

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

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

26% 

26% 

10% 

3% 

2% 

3% 

Lakes

Rivers

No BQEs

No HYMO

No PHYSCHEM

No RBSP

Source: WISE electronic reports 

None of the biological quality elements were used in the classification of ecological status of 
26 % of lakes and 10 % of rivers indicating weaknesses in the assessment methods for these 

water categories. 

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

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.10 

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

Source: WISE electronic reports  
Overwhelmingly,  the  results  of  monitoring  have  been  used  in  the  classification  of  rivers  and 

lakes. Expert judgement was only used for the classification of River Basin Specific Pollutants 
in lakes and rivers. In lakes grouping has only been used for River Basin Specific Pollutants in 

one water body. Grouping has been used in classification to a small extent in rivers. 

Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements 

There are now biological quality element assessment methods developed for lakes (reservoirs) 
for  phytoplankton,  macrophytes  and  fish,  but  not  for  benthic  invertebrates.  Reference 

conditions are only available for some water bodies in each type of lake (reservoir). However, 
even though it was reported that an assessment method for macrophytes was developed for all 
lake  types,  this  quality  element  is  not  monitored  in  lakes  and  not  used  for  the  subsequent 
classification  of  lakes.  The  Czech  Republic  therefore  has  not  developed  fully  compliant 

assessment  methods  for  lakes.  The  new  lake  biological  quality  element  assessment  methods 
should  be  checked  for  compliance  concerning  intercalibration,  as  the  information  was  not 

reported. There are no lake assessment methods for macroinvertebrates. 

56 

 
 
Intercalibration of biological assessment methods and national classification systems 

Information in WISE indicates that most national surface water body types (heavily modified 

and  natural)  have  been  intercalibrated.  However,  around  54  %  of  river  water  bodies  in  the 
Czech Republic are reported not  to  have a corresponding intercalibration type:  most of these 

are  natural  river  water  bodies.  Most  water  bodies  of  the  non-intercalibrated  types  have  an 
ecological  status  classification  and  so  the  question  arises  as  to  how  the  status  of  these  water 

bodies  has  been  intercalibrated.  The  second  RBMPs  and  background  documents  were 
examined  for  any  information  on  how  the  results  from  the  intercalibrated  types  have  been 

translated  to  all  other  national  types.  The  documents  indicate  that  the  national  classification 
systems  were  checked  against  the  intercalibration  results  and  if  necessary,    updated  (update 

was necessary only for fish in Central Baltic lakes). However, 42 % of rivers are not included 
in any intercalibration type (50 % calculated from reported data), but it was expected that the 

national  methodologies  were  compliant  with  the  intercalibration  results  also  for  the  other 
Czech Republic rivers. The conclusion is that there may be a serious lack of comparability of 

ecological  status/potential  classification  for  a  large  proportion  of  water  bodies  in  the  Czech 
Republic14. 

Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements 

The assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements are only partly developed in 

rivers, and not at all in lakes (reservoirs); no hydromorphological quality elements have been 
classified. 

Assessment methods for general physico-chemical quality elements 

Standards  have  been  reported  for  the  relevant  general  physico-chemical  quality  elements  in 

lakes  and  are  consistent  with  the  good‐moderate  status  boundary  of  the  relevant  sensitive 
biological quality elements. Standards have also been reported for all relevant general physico-

chemical  quality  elements  in  rivers  but  are  reported  not  to  be  consistent  with  the  good‐

moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. For rivers this is 
an  important  issue  as  standards  should  be  linked  to  the  good-moderate  status/potential 

classification boundaries of the biological quality elements. 

14  The  Czech  Republic  subsequently  stated  that  water  bodies  with  missing  intercalibration  type  have  no 
corresponding type. 

57 

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

According to the second RBMPs, the list of River Basin Specific Pollutants was elaborated by 

the Czech Republic on the basis of the pollutants in WFD Annex VIII that could be potentially 
discharged  into  or  have  entered  the  aquatic  environment,  but  no  details  on  the  specific 

methodology could be found in the second RBMPs. 

The Czech Republic reported Environmental Quality Standards for more substances than those 

monitored.  None  of  the  standards  are  reported  to  be  derived  in  accordance  with  the  2011 
Technical Guidance Document N° 2715. For the large majority of the substances the analytical 
methods used met the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the QA/QC 
Directive (2009/90/EC)16. For the remaining substances, the analytical method met the criteria 
from article 4.2.  

Use of monitoring results for classification 

Overwhelmingly in the Czech Republic, monitoring data has been used to classify the status of 
the  quality  elements  used  to  assess  the  overall  ecological  status/potential  of  surface  water 

bodies: at least 94 % for all quality elements except for River Basin Specific Pollutants in lakes 
(77  %).  Expert  judgement  and  grouping  was  also  used  to  classify  21  %,  and  2  %  of  lakes, 

respectively, for River Basin Specific Pollutants. Grouping has at most been used for 6 % of 
water  bodies  classified  according  to  the  different  quality  elements.  A  comparison  has  been 

made  between  the  numbers  of  water  bodies  classified  using  monitoring  results  with  those 
directly  monitored.  By  and  large  there  is  good  agreement  between  the  two,  other  than  for 

macrophytes  where 195  surface water bodies were directly monitored  and subsequently only 
90 classified. 

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

The  one-out-all-out  principle  has  been  used  for  assessing  the  overall  classification  of 

ecological  status in  all  RBDs (information reported to  WISE). The second RBMPs indicated 
that  no  methodology  was  developed  for  applying  the  no-deterioration  principle,  but  that  it 

would  be  prepared  for  the  third  RBMPs,  if  necessary.  Also  there  is  no  information  in  the 
second  RBMPs  on  how  the  spatial  extent  of  any  ecological  impacts  within  water  bodies  has 
been taken into account when deriving the overall status of a water body. 

15https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0cc3581b-5f65-4b6f-91c6-433a1e947838/TGD-EQS%20CIS-

WFD%2027%20EC%202011.pdf 

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

58 

 
                                                      
3.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first RBMPs 

In the first RBMP, there were no assessment methods for biological quality elements in lakes 
(reservoirs),  but  now  methods  have  been  developed  for  phytoplankton,  macrophytes  (though 

macrophytes are not monitored in lakes and are not used in the classification of status of lakes) 
and fish in lakes (reservoirs), although reference conditions have only been set for some water 

bodies.  

The confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential has improved since the first 

RBMP.  For  the  first  RBMP,  all  classifications  were  given  a  low  confidence  whereas  for  the 
second RBMP most of the classifications are given a medium level of confidence. 

Overall ecological status has improved in all the RBDs since the first RBMP with considerably 
fewer water bodies in poor/bad status and more water bodies in moderate status. In the Danube 

there is also an increase in the number of good status water bodies, but only a minor increase is 
seen in the Elbe and a decrease in good status water bodies in the Oder. For biological quality 

element status, however, change is reported mainly for a few water bodies concerning benthic 
invertebrates  and  fish  in  rivers,  and  these  changes  are  not  consistent,  due  to  changes  in 

monitoring and assessment methods. 

3.3. 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programme  of  Measures 

requested action on the following: 

 

Recommendation:  Status  assessment  should  be  reliable.  (The  assessment  of  ecological 

status  was  simplified  in  the  first  plans  with  only  benthic  invertebrates  and  sometimes 

fish,  and  chlorophyll  a  used  as  biological  quality  elements  in  rivers.  There  were  no 
biological assessment methods for lakes.)  

Assessment: Concerning the reliability of status assessment, there has been little progress 
on these recommendations for lakes which still do not have WFD compliant assessment 

methods.  There  has  been  progress  in  terms  of  the  biological  assessment  methods  but  a 
major gap exists in  terms  of monitoring and  assessment  of hydromorphological  quality 

elements. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation:  Focus  better  the  operational  monitoring  of  water  bodies  on 

verification  of  results  from  the  pressures  and  impacts  analysis,  e.g.  the  link  between 
impacts  on  water  bodies  and  hydromorphological  pressures  should  be  addressed.  A 

clear  description  should  be  provided  on  how  the  biological  quality  elements  were 

59 

 
selected  in  relation  to  all  potential  pressures  and  impacts  in  both  rivers  and  lakes 
(reservoirs), and in particular those arising from hydromorphological alterations where 

fish might be considered as one of the most sensitive biological quality elements to this 
pressure in rivers and lakes (reservoirs).  

Assessment: Some of the information to assess this recommendation is not available in 

WISE  and  would  have  to  be  sought  from  the  RBMPs.  Fish  have  been  included  in  the 
indicating  some  progress.  No 
monitoring  of 

rivers  and 

for  a 

lakes 

few 

hydromorphological quality elements have been assessed in view of classification. This 
recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation:  Base the assessment  of  measures for  River Basin  Specific Pollutants 
on  appropriate  Environmental  Quality  Standards  (EQS)  in  the  second  RBMPs  cycle. 

(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) 

Assessment:  There  is  still  a  lack  of  detailed  information  on  how  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants  have  been  selected.  However,  progress  is  indicated  by  the  reporting  of 

monitored  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  and  related  exceedances  and  also  because 
River Basin Specific Pollutants have been used in the classification of rivers and lakes. 

The Czech Republic reported Environmental Quality Standards for more substances than 
those monitored, but none of the standards are reported to be derived in accordance with 

the  2011  Technical  Guidance  Document  No  27.  The  analytical  methods  used  for  most 
substances  meet  the  minimum  performance  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  4(1)  of  the 

QA/QC  Directive  (2009/90/EC),  and  for  the  others  in  Article  4(2).  The  one-out-all-out 
principle has been used for assessing the overall classification of ecological status in all 

RBDs. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation: Czech Republic should report quality of lakes. 

Assessment: There were no biological  assessment  methods  for lakes for the first  plans. 

For  the  second  RBMPs  57  lake  water  bodies  were  classified  for  phytoplankton  and  18 
using fish: no other biological quality elements were used. In the first RBMPs, 71 lake 

water  bodies  were  identified,  one  of  which  was  artificial  and  the  remaining  70  were 
heavily  modified  water  bodies.  In  the  second  RBMPs,  77  lake  water  bodies  were 
identified, four artificial  and the remaining 73 heavily modified water bodies that were 

60 

 
created by damming a river. Lakes were characterised into 17 types which were reported 
in  the  second  RBMPs  as  being  intercalibrated  against  three  common  intercalibration 

types.  For  the  common  intercalibration  types  given  in  the  second  intercalibration 
decision17 (2013), L-CB1 and L-CB2, Czech Republic is not listed as a country sharing 
these types which have not been intercalibrated in the Czech Republic and L-CB3 is not 
included at all. 60 of the 77 lakes were classified in terms of good ecological potential, 

17  had  unknown  status.  In  terms  of  this  recommendation,  the  status  of  lakes  has  been 
reported  for  most  lakes  but  potential  has  not  been  intercalibrated.  The  Czech  Republic 

has made some progress but has not yet fulfilled this recommendation. 

17   Commission Decision of 20 September 2013 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of 
repealing  Decision  2008/915/EC.  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
the 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013D0480 

intercalibration  exercise  and 

61 

 
 
                                                      
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  of  surface  waters.  Section  3.1.1  of  this  report 

summarises  the characteristics of the surveillance and operational  monitoring programmes in 
the Czech Republic for the second RBMP. 

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 water bodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their 
environmental objectives, and to assess any changes in the status of such water bodies resulting 

from the programme of measures. 

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

Figure  4.1  summarises  the  proportion  of  sites  used  for  the  monitoring  of  chemical  status  in 

lakes and rivers for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used 
for  surveillance  and/or  operational  purposes.  More  detailed  information  can  be  found  on  the 
website of the European Environment Agency18. 

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

62 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.1 

Proportion  of  sites  used  for  monitoring  of  chemical  status  and,  for 
comparison,  ecological  status,  in  the  Czech  Republic.  The  number  in 

parenthesis  next  to  the  category  is  the  total  number  of  monitoring  sites 
irrespective of their purpose.  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

All sites are used for the monitoring of ecological status of rivers and lakes but only 59 % and 
56 %, respectively, are used for the monitoring of chemical status. For the first RBMP, 57 sites 

in lakes and 520 sites in rivers were monitored for Priority Substances: the respective numbers 
for the second RBMP were 35 and 589.  

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

and rivers for the second RBMPs. 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 comparison, those for ecological status. 

63 

56%59%100%100%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Lakes (62)Rivers (999)% of total sitesChemicalEcological 
 
 
 
Figure 4.2 

Proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category  monitored,  monitored  for 
chemical  status  and,  for  comparison,  monitored  for  ecological  status,  in  the 

Czech  Republic.  The  number  in  parenthesis  next  to  the  category  is  the  total 
number of water bodies in that category.  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

78  %  of  lake  water  bodies  and  95  %  of  river  water  bodies  were  monitored  for  the  second 
RBMPs. All of these were included in the monitoring of ecological status. For chemical status 

45 % of lake and 56 % of river water bodies were monitored. 

In two of the three RBDs almost all of the water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status 
are monitored for Priority Substances as part of operational monitoring; in the other (the Elbe 

RBD)  far  fewer  are  monitored;  38  %  of  rivers  and  14  %  of  the  lake  water  bodies  failing  to 
achieve good chemical status.  

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 for the 

assessment  of  the  status  of  surface  water  in  order  to  provide  a  coherent  and  comprehensive 
overview of water status within each RBD. The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of 

priority substances, frequency and numbers of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and 
robust  assessment  of  the  chemical  status  of  all  water  bodies  in  the  RBD.  In  terms  of 

64 

78%95%45%56%78%95%0%20%40%60%80%100%Lakes (77)Rivers (1044)% of water bodies in categoryMonitoredChemicalEcological 
 
surveillance monitoring, Member States are required to monitor all priority substances which 
are  discharged  into  the  river  basin  or  sub-basin.  For  operational  purposes,  monitoring  is 

required  for  those  bodies  of  water  into  which  priority  list  substances  are  discharged  and/or 
where there is a risk of not achieving good chemical status for a substance.  

Spatial coverage 

All  priority  substances  (apart  from  Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene)  were  monitored  in  the  Elbe  and 
Oder  RBD.  In  the  Danube  RBD,  Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene,  Endosulfan,  tributyltin  cation  and 

Chloroalkanes  C10-13  were  not  monitored,  but  all  other  substances  were  monitored.  The 
Czech Republic subsequently clarified that Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene was actually monitored. 

The number of sites monitored for each substance ranged from 7 to about 80 for surveillance 

monitoring and from 8 to about 500 for operational monitoring.  

The  Czech  Republic  subsequently  clarified  that  priority  substances  were  only  monitored  in 
surface water bodies subject to the corresponding pressure. However, a significant number of 

water  bodies  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  are  subject  to  unknown  anthropogenic 
pressures  (from  a  quarter  of  water  bodies  to  about  half,  depending  on  the  RBDs),  so  it  is 
unclear how far all relevant pressures have been thoroughly identified. 

Five  priority  substances  were  reported  to  be  monitored  in  biota  (fish)  in  rivers  (only): 

Hexachlorobenzene;  Fluoranthene;  Benzo(a)pyrene;  Pentabromodiphenylether;  Mercury  and 
Hexachlorobutadiene. The Czech Republic reported to have monitored them in biota for status 

assessment. The highest number of sites monitored for biota in the Czech Republic as a whole 
is 21 for Benzo(a)pyrene and Fluoranthene, and the lowest number of sites (15) for Mercury, 

Hexachlorobutadiene and Hexachlorobenzene.   

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. 

65 

 
Only  one  substance  (Chloroalkanes  C10-13)  was  monitored  at  the  minimum  recommended 
frequency  for  surveillance  monitoring.  30  substances  were  monitored  at  the  recommended 

frequency at 80 % of the sites, cadmium at only 6 % of sites. 

None  of  the  substances  monitored  for  operational  monitoring  were  monitored  at  the 
recommended minimum  frequency at all sites: the largest compliance rate (88 % of sites) was 

for Tributyltin and the lowest (no site) was for Chloroalkanes C10-13. The proportion of sites 
monitored at least at the recommended minimum frequency ranged from 25 % to 39 % of sites 

for 31 other substances. In general, fewer sites used for operational monitoring were sampled 
with the recommended minimum frequency compared to surveillance monitoring. 

The  Czech  Republic  subsequently  mentioned  that  for  the  assessment  of  chemical  status, 
monitoring frequencies in water ranged from 6 to 12 samples per year. Approximately 40 % of 

the  results  are  evaluated  for  parameters  with  a  frequency  of  6  –  11  samples  per  year. 
Parameters monitored less than six times a year were used to assess status. The assessment of 

the chemical status for parameters monitored between 6 and 11 times per year was marked as 
moderately reliable. No explanation could be found for these reduced frequencies. 

The  sampling  frequency  in  biota  is  once  every  year  which  is  the  recommended  minimum 

frequency from the EQS Directive.   

Monitoring for long-term trend assessment 

Requirements 

Article 3(6) of Directive 2013/39/EU (amending Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/105/EC) states 
that “Member States shall arrange for the long-term trend analysis of concentrations of those 

priority substances listed in Part A of Annex I that tend to accumulate in sediment and/or biota, 
giving particular consideration to the substances numbered 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 
26,  28,  30,  34,  35,  36,  37,  43  and  4419  listed  in  Part  A  of  Annex  I,  on  the  basis  of  the 
monitoring  of  surface  water  status  carried  out  in  accordance  with  Article  8  of  Directive 

2000/60/EC.  Substances numbered 34, 35, 36, 37, 43 and 44 are new priority substances and 
as  such  information  on  trends  for  them  would  not  be  expected  to  be  reported  in  the  second 

RBMPs. There are therefore 14 priority substances for which monitoring for long-term trends 
is expected. 

19  (2)  Anthracene,  (5)  Brominated  diphenylether,  (6)  cadmium,  (7)  C10-13  chloroalkanes,  (12)  DEHP,  (15) 
fluoranthene,  (16)  hexachlorobenzene,  (17)  hexabutadiene,  (18)  hexachlorocyclohexane,  (20)  lead,  (21) 
mercury, (26) pentachlorobenzene, (28) PAH, (30) Tributyltin, (34) Difocol, (35) PFOS, (36) quinoxyfen, (37) 
dioxins, (43) hexabromocyclodecane and (44) heptachlor. 

66 

 
                                                      
Spatial coverage  

The Czech Republic did not report long-term trend monitoring in WISE. The situation is not 
entirely clear, as following the reporting of the first RBMP, the Czech Republic clarified that 

sediment  and  biota  were  monitored  in  the  surveillance  monitoring  network  and  the 
international  monitoring  network.  In  addition,  the  background  documents  for  the  second 

RBMP  mentioned  that  monitoring  of  biota  and  sediment  could  be  used  for  long-term  trend 
analysis in the future, but they also highlighted that this trend assessment could not be carried 

out in the second RBMP, because the methodology for this assessment was not finalised at the 
time of their adoption. 

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  the  Czech  Republic,  all  41  priority  substances  and  certain  other  pollutants  were  in  an 
inventory in all three RBDs.  

In the Danube RBD and in the Elbe RBD, 10 and 14 substances were identified as discharged 
respectively  and  all  were  monitored.20  In  the  Odra  RBD,  all  13  discharged  substances  were 
monitored21.  Monitoring  extended  covered  more  than  priority  substances  identified  as 
discharged, as described in the above section. 

20  Benzo(g,h,i)perylene,  Benzo(k)fluoranthene,  Benzo(b)fluoranthene  were  identified  as  discharged  and 
monitoring sites were reported for these substances, however monitoring frequencies were not reported. These 
substances are then considered as monitored, and the missing information is understood as a reporting mistake. 

21   See footnote above. 

67 

 
                                                      
Performance of analytical methods used  

In  the  Czech  Republic,  for  29  priority  substances  the  analytical  methods  used  meet  the 

minimum  performance  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  4(1)  of  the  Directive  on  technical 
specifications  for  chemical  analysis  and  monitoring  of  water  status  2009/90/EC22.  For  the 
remaining  12  reported  substances,  the  analytical  methods  complied  with  Article  4(2)  of 
Directive 2009/90/EC for the strictest standard applied.  

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 most (~70%) rivers and lakes in all three RBDs, the assessment of chemical status 
was  undertaken  between  2010  and  2012.  The  most  recent  assessment  year  was  2013  but  for 

only  at  most  1.5  %  of  river  water  bodies  in  the  Oder.  The  chemical  status  of  surface  water 
bodies in the Czech Republic for the second RBMP is illustrated in Map 4.1. This is based on 
the most recent assessment of status. 

22   Commission  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/?uri=CELEX%3A32009L0090  

68 

 
                                                      
Map 4.1 

Chemical status of surface water bodies based on the most recently assessed 
status of the surface water bodies. Note: Standard colours based on WFD 

Annex V, Article 1.4.3.  

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

The chemical status of lakes and rivers in the Czech Republic for the first and second RBMPs 

is given in Table 4.1. 

69 

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

Chemical status of surface water bodies 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 was supposed to be reported 
based on the standards from the EQS Directive, version in force in 2009, but 

the Czech Republic used the standards laid down in Directive 2013/39/EU, 
which amended the EQS Directive. Some Member States did not implement 

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

Category 

second RBMP 

Lakes (77) 

Rivers (1044) 

Total (1121) 

first RBMP 

LW (71) 

RW(1069) 

Total (1140) 

Good 

Failing to achieve good 

Unknown 

Number 

% 

Number 

% 

Number 

% 

52 

716 

768 

59 

744 

803 

68% 

69% 

69% 

83.1% 

69.6% 

70% 

21 

328 

349 

12 

318 

330 

27% 

31% 

31% 

16.9% 

29.7% 

29% 

4 

0 

4 

0 

7 

7 

5% 

0% 

0.4% 

0% 

0.7% 

1% 

Expert  judgment  has  been  used  significantly:  non-monitored  water  bodies  were  generally 
considered to be without pressures and were classified in good status (this was the case for 41 

% of all surface water bodies). However it is not clear whether all significant pressures have 
been identified for all water bodies, as a significant proportion of river water bodies monitored 

and failing to achieve good chemical status are subject to unknown anthropogenic pressures.  

Figure 4.3 shows the confidence in the classification of chemical status for the second RBMP. 
Most  of  the  classifications  are  given  a  medium  level  of  confidence.  Confidence  in  the 

classification of chemical status for the first RBMPs was not reported.  

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.3  Confidence  in  the  classification  of  chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies 

based on the most recently assessed status/potential.  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Figure 4.4 presents the chemical status of surface water bodies in the Czech Republic for the 
first RBMP, that for the second RBMP (based on the most recent assessment of status) and that 

expected by 2015. The Czech Republic highlights that a direct comparison is not meaningful, 
in  particular  because  of  the  re-delineation  of  water  bodies  between  the  first  and  second 

RBMPs, because of the increase in monitoring, and the use of the biota standard in particular 
for mercury, and the use of the 2013 standards. 

The  assessment  of  chemical  status  for  the  second  RBMP  was  expected  to  be  based  on  the 
standards laid down in  EQS Directive 2008/105/EC  (version in  force on 13 January 200923). 
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. 

23   Please  note  that  Directive  2013/39/EU,  which  amended  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive, 
introduced a less stringent annual average environmental quality standard for Naphthalene in transitional and 
coastal  waters.  This  less  stringent  environmental  quality  standard  should  be  taken  into  account  for  the 
determination of surface water chemical status by the 2015 deadline laid down in Article 4 of the WFD.  

71 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.4 

Chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the  Czech  Republic  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  2006  to 

2013. The year of the assessment of status for the first RBMP is not known.  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Directive  2013/39/EU  amended  the  EQS  Directive.  In  particular,  it  sets  more  stringent 
environmental  quality  standards  for  seven  substances24.  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 fluoranthene in 21 % of surface water bodies in the Czech Republic as a 

whole, and for nickel and benzo(a)pyrene in 15 % of surface water bodies. The new standards 
for  lead,  brominated  diphenylethers  and  anthracene  also  lead  to  failure  in  a  more  limited 

proportion of water bodies.  

Good  chemical  status  should  be  reached  by  2021  in  relation  to  the  revised  environmental 
quality  standards,  unless  Member  States  apply  exemptions  under  WFD  Article  4(4)  or  less 
stringent objectives under WFD Article 4(5). 

The expected date for the achievement of good chemical status is shown in Figure 4.5. 73 % of 

lakes and 60 % of rivers were expected to be at good chemical status by the end of 2015. 19 % 
of  lakes  and  24  %  of  rivers  are  not  expected  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  until  beyond 

2027. 

24    Anthracene,  Brominated  diphenylether,  Fluoranthene,  Lead  and  its  compounds,  Naphthalene,  Nickel  and  its 

compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 

72 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.5 

Expected date of achievement of good chemical status of surface water bodies 
in the Czech Republic The number in the parenthesis is the number of water 

bodies in each category.  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Priority substances causing the failure of good chemical status 

Member  States  were  expected  to  report  exceedances  based  on  the  revised,  more  stringent 
standards from directive 2013/39/EU. 

20 Priority Substances were reported to be causing failure to achieve good chemical status in 
surface water bodies in the Czech Republic. The “top-ten” in terms of the proportion of water 

bodies failing because of the substance are shown in Figure 4.6.  

73 

566310%20%40%60%80%100%Lakes (77)Rivers (1044)Percentage of WBsLess stringent objectivesalready achieved20152016--20212022--2027Beyond 2027Unknown 
 
Figure 4.6 

The  top-ten  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical 
status in surface water bodies.  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Overall for surface water bodies in the Czech Republic, the largest proportion of exceedances 
were  for  the  annual  average  environmental  quality  standard  for  benzo(a)pyrene  (16  %), 

fluoranthene  (15  %)  and  nickel  (14  %).  Exceedances  of  maximum  allowable  concentration 
environmental  quality  standards  were  largest  for  total  benzo(g,h,i)-perylene  +  indeno(1,2,3-

cd)-pyrene (18 %) and total benzo(b)fluor-anthene + benzo(k)fluor-anthene (12 %). In terms of 
overall exceedances (of either type of standards), the largest proportion was for fluoranthene (6 

%).  

Ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances 

Article 8(a) of Directive 2013/39/EU16 allows Member States to provide additional maps that 
present the chemical status information for one or more of the following substances separately 

from  the  information  for  the  rest  of  the  substances  identified  in  Part  A  of  Annex  I  to  this 
Directive:  these  are  the  substances  numbered  5,  21,  28,  30,  35,  37,  43  and  4425  which  are 
substances behaving like ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances. 

The  effect  of  ubiquitous  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  priority  substances  on  the 
classification of chemical status was identified as minimal in the Czech Republic. In lakes, 21 

% of water bodies are failing if all 41 substances are taken into account, while 20 % are failing 

25 (5) Brominated diphenylether, (21) Mercury and its compounds, (28) Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), (30) 

Tributyltin, (35) PFOS, (37) dioxins, (43) Hexabromocyclodecane and (44) Heptachlor 

74 

 
 
                                                      
if  the  ubiquitous  persistent  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  substances  are  omitted.  For  rivers,  the 
difference is slightly higher (4 % of water bodies are failing because of ubiquitous, persistent 

bioaccumulative and toxic substances only). 

This  is  illustrated  in  the 2018  State  of Water  report  of  the  European  Environment  Agency26. 
The low impact of these substance on the overall status might partly result from what appears 

to be a very limited spatial coverage of biota monitoring for mercury. 

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

All priority substances are taken into account in the assessment of chemical status. Endosulfan, 
Tributyltin-cation and Chloroalkanes C10-13 are monitored in the Elbe and the Oder RBD, but 

not in the Danube RBD. Indeno(1,2,3,-cd)pyrene is not reported to be monitored in any of the 
RBDs, however the Czech Republic clarified this substance was actually monitored.  All other 

substances are reported to be monitored. 

It is unclear how the non-monitored substances were taken into account  in the assessment of 
status. 

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

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

standards  for  another  matrix  than  the  one  specified  in  the  directive  for  a  given  substance.  If 
they do so, they have to ensure the environmental quality standard they set in the other matrix 

(or  matrices)  offers  at  least  the  same  level  of  protection  as  the  standard  established  in  the 
directive. 

The Czech Republic has applied all of the environmental quality standards laid down in Annex 
I of Directive 2008/105/EC (version in force on 13 January 2009)27.  

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

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

27   Except  for  the  annual  average  environmental  quality  standard  for  Naphthalene  in  transitional  and  coastal 
waters, for  which the revised standards from Directive  2013/39/EU was  used, as requested by the Guidance 
Document on Reportin g.  

75 

 
                                                      
Use of mixing zones  

Article  4  of  Directive  2008/105/EC  provides  Member  States  with  the  option  of  designating 

mixing  zones  adjacent  to  points  of  discharge.  Concentrations  of  substances  may  exceed  the 
relevant  environmental  quality  standards  within  such  mixing  zones  if  they  do  not  affect  the 

compliance of the rest of the body of surface water 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  of  measures  taken  with  a 
view to reducing the extent of the mixing zones in the future. 

Mixing zones have not been designated in the Czech Republic. 

Background Concentrations and Bioavailability 

Directives  2008/105/EU  and  2013/39/EU  stipulate  that  Member  States  may,  when  assessing 

the monitoring results against the environmental quality standard, 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. 

In all three RBDs, natural background concentrations for metals were considered where such 

concentrations prevented compliance with the relevant environmental quality standard.  

None of the RBDs took into account bioavailability when assessing compliance for metals.  

4.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

Between the two RBMPs, there has been an increase in the number of sites and water bodies 
monitored  for  priority  substances  and  an  increase  in  the  number  of  priority  substances 

monitored.  In  the  second  RBMPs,  the  Czech  Republic  also  used  the  biota  standards  and  the 
more  stringent  standards  from  Directive  2013/39/EU,  and  metals  were  monitored  in  the 

dissolved phase, as required by the Directive.  

Some  information  given  in  the  second  RBMP  did  not  seem  consistent  with  the  information 
reported  in  the  WISE  e.g.  on  whether  the  assessment  was  based  on  monitoring  data  only  or 

76 

 
also  on expert judgement.  For  the first  RBMP the assessment of status  was based mainly on 
pressure data.  

There  was  a  re-delineation  of  surface  water  bodies  between  the  two  RBMP  (with  a  slight 

decrease  in  the  overall  number  of  water  bodies,  from  1140  to  1121).  Because  of  this  re-
delineation,  and  of  the  other  main  changes  mentioned  above,  a  direct  comparison  of  status 

between the first and second RBMP is difficult. 

The  Czech  Republic  reported  some 

improvements  for  22  priority  substances  (the 

concentrations  of  these  substances  were  previously  above  the  relevant  standards,  but  have 
decreased below this standards in the second RBMP in at least some water bodies). This was 

the  case  for  example  for  cadmium  (12  %  of  all  water  bodies),  mercury  (12  %),  lead  (7  %), 
nickel (7 %) and total benzo(g,h,i)-perylene + indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene (3 %).   

4.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programme  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

The two following recommendations are assessed jointly 

 

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. 

And 

 

Recommendation:  Ensure  in  the  second  RBMPs  that  measures  adopted  in  the 

Programme of Measures are based on a reliable status assessment of water bodies (clear 
setting  of  the  scale  of  pressures,  measures  needed  to  fully  address  the  pressures  and 

proportion of these measures) and are linked to the relevant pressures. The explanation 
of the links between pressures and status and respective measures should be included in 

the update of the RBMPs.   

Assessment:  These  recommendations  apply  to  a  number  of  topics.  The  assessment  of 

chemical  status  in  the  second  RBMPs  is  based  on  improved  knowledge,  in  particular 
thanks  to  the  increase  in  the  number  of  sites  and  water  bodies  monitored  for  priority 

77 

 
substances, and thanks to the increase in the number of priority substances monitored. In 
the  second  RBMPs,  metals  are  assessed  based  on  dissolved  concentrations,  as  required 

by the directive,  and biota standards were used,  which also  represents  an improvement 
compared to the first RBMPs.  

However,  a  large  proportion  of  water  bodies  are  classified  as  being  in  good  chemical 

status  based  on  expert  judgment  and  the  basis  for  this  expert  judgment  is  not  entirely 
clear as it seems that not all significant pressures were properly identified. A significant 

proportion of water bodies has been assessed as failing to achieve good chemical status 
based  on  monitoring  results  yet  identified  as  being  subject  to  unknown  anthropogenic 

pressures.  

Most  but  not  all  priority  substances  used  in  the  assessment  of  chemical  status  are 

monitored.  It  is  not  entirely  clear  how  status  was  assessed  for  the  non-monitored 
substances. 

Therefore,  as  regards  the  assessment  of  chemical  status,  these  recommendations  have 

been partially met. 

 

Recommendation:  “Present  in  the  second  RBMPs  a  clear  assessment  of  the  number  of 

water bodies failing to reach good status due to agriculturally derived pressures because 

diffuse  sources  of  pollution  from  nitrogen  and  pesticides  were  identified  as  the  main 
significant pressures from agriculture in the Czech Republic. The Czech Republic should 

start  measures  to  control  diffuse  sources  of  pollution  outside  of  NVZs  [Nitrates 
improve  controls  of 
Vulnerable  Zones]  and 

the  Czech  Republic 

should 

hydromorphological  pressures  from  agriculture.  The  Czech  Republic  should  report 
quality of lakes.” 

Assessment: The Czech Republic has reported diffuse source pollution from agriculture 
as  a  significant  pressure.  Though  there  is  not  necessarily  a  one-to-one  link  between  a 
pressure and chemical substances causing failure of objectives, the Czech Republic has 
reported pesticides which are either a priority substance or a river basin specific pollutant 

as  causing  failure  of  objectives.  Nutrients  were  not  reported  as  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants in this context, but they were considered under the general physico-chemical 

quality  elements  for  the  ecological  status.  The  Czech  Republic  has  also  reported  the 
relevant  Key  Types  of  Measure  (KTM2  -  Reduce  nutrient  pollution  from  agriculture, 

KTM3 -  Reduce pesticides pollution from  agriculture, Reduce nutrient  and/or pesticide 
pollution  from  agriculture)  to  tackle  diffuse  agricultural  pressures  and  has  given 

78 

 
indicators  of  the  gaps  to  be  filled  to  achieve  the  objectives,  these  are:  Load  (tonne  per 
year)  of  nitrogen  to  be  reduced  to  achieve  objectives;  Number  of  surface  water  bodies 

failing environmental quality standards for nitrogen or pesticides originating from diffuse 
agriculture sources; and Number of water bodies failing environmental quality standards 

for pesticides originating from diffuse agricultural sources. 

The chemical quality of lakes was monitored and the status assessed in both the first and 
the second RBMPs.  

This information indicates that this recommendation has been met. 

 

Recommendation:  More  clarity  is  needed  as  to  which  priority  substances  were 
monitored  in  which  water  bodies  and  in  the  event  that  some  substances  were  not 

analysed  because  they  were  considered  as  not  relevant,  based  on  the  pressures  and 
impacts analysis, a justification should be added.  

Assessment:  The  Czech  Republic  has  reported  information  at  the  site  and  water  body 

level  on  which  chemical  substances  are  monitored  for  surveillance  and  operational 
purposes.  

According to further information provided by the Czech Republic, all priority substances 
were monitored in the Elbe and Oder RBD. In the Danube RBD, endosulfan, tributyltin 

cation and chloroalkanes C10-13 were not  monitored, but  all other substances were.  In 
particular, all priority substances identified as discharged were monitored in each RBD.  

The Czech Republic highlighted that priority substances were only monitored in surface 
water  bodies  subject  to  the  corresponding  pressure.  However,  it  seems  that  significant 

pressures may not always have been identified properly, as a significant number of water 
bodies  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  are  subject  to  unknown  anthropogenic 

pressures 

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation:  Focus  better  the  operational  monitoring  of  water  bodies  on 
verification  of  results  from  the  pressures  and  impacts  analysis,  e.g.  the  link  between 

impacts  on  water  bodies  and  hydromorphological  pressures  should  be  addressed. 
Furthermore,  the  Czech  Republic  should  clarify  the  link  between  the  pollution  by 

hazardous substances and their sources. The Czech Republic should consider necessary 
changes in operational monitoring to pick up potential polluting loads. 

79 

 
Assessment: In two of the three RBDs almost all of the water bodies failing to achieve 
good chemical status  are covered by operational  monitoring, in  the remaining RBD far 

less are monitored (38 % of rivers and 14 % of the lake water bodies). It is not clear why 
the spatial extent of monitoring is more limited in the third RBD. 

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation:  Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  should  be 

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

derived.  Trend  monitoring  in  sediment  or  biota  for  the  substances  specified  in  EQS 
Directive Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMP. 

Assessment: All 3 substances are reported to be monitored in fish for status assessment, 
in what appears to be a very limited number of sites. The sampling frequency meets the 
recommended minimum frequency.  

No  monitoring  of  trend  was  reported  in  WISE.  From  the  RBMP  and  background 
document, it is unclear whether the Czech Republic performed any monitoring for long-

term trend analysis. 

This recommendation is partially fulfilled.  

80 

 
 
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  the  Czech  Republic  is  174  (Table  2.3).  Only  11 
groundwater  bodies  are  not  subject  to  monitoring  for  quantitative  status  (Table  5.1).  This 

means that 6 % of groundwater bodies are not monitored and in terms of area this equates to 
about 1 %. For each RBD, more than 90 % of groundwater bodies are monitored, with 96 % 

monitoring  in  the  Elbe  (Table  5.2).  The  number  of  monitored  groundwater  bodies  has 
increased from 75 in the first cycle to 163 in the second. No grouping of groundwater bodies 

for monitoring and assessment of quantitative status was applied.  

The number of monitoring sites is listed in Table 5.3 and shows that the number of monitoring 

sites for quantitative status was 1,559 in the second cycle. This has increased significantly from 
268  in  the  first  cycle.  In  the  Danube  and  the  Oder  the  number  of  sites  is  now  almost  three-

times higher and in the Elbe it increased by nearly 20-times (from 49 to 938) compared to the 
first cycle.  

Table 5.1 

Number of water bodies directly monitored and the purpose of monitoring  

European 
Union 
RBD Code 

Total 
groundwater 
bodies 
directly 
monitored 

Monitoring Purpose 

CHE - 
Chemical 
status 

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

OPE - 
Operational 
monitoring 

QUA – 
Quantita-
tive status 

SOE - 
EIONET 
State of 
Environment 
monitoring 

SUR - 
Surveillance 
monitoring 

CZ1000 

CZ5000 

CZ6000 

49 

96 

18 

45 

96 

18 

45 

96 

18 

45 

96 

18 

49 

96 

18 

45 

96 

18 

45 

96 

18 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Table 5.2 

Proportion of groundwater bodies monitored for quantitative status 

European Union 
RBD Code 

No of groundwater bodies 
with quantitative 
monitoring 

Total No. 
groundwater bodies 

% of total groundwater bodies monitored 
for quantitative status 

CZ1000 

CZ5000 

CZ6000 

49 

96 

18 

54 

100 

20 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

90.74% 

96.00% 

90.00% 

81 

 
 
 
Table 5.3 

Number of groundwater monitoring sites and their purpose  

European 
Union 
RBD Code 

Total 
ground-
water 
monitoring 
sites 

CHE - 
Chemical 
status 

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

Monitoring Purpose 

OPE – 
Operatio-
nal 
monitor-
ing 

QUA – 
Quantitative 
status 

SOE - 
EIONET 
State of 
Environ-
ment 
monitoring 

SUR – 
Surveil-
lance 
monitoring 

CZ1000 

CZ5000 

CZ6000 

468 

1,047 

186 

180 

529 

61 

152 

409 

50 

180 

529 

61 

444 

938 

177 

165 

497 

55 

180 

529 

61 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

5.1.2. Assessment and classification of quantitative status for groundwater 

Map  5.1  displays  the  most  recently  assessed  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies.  It 
shows  that  69  %  of  groundwater  bodies  overall  were  in  good  quantitative  status,  10  %  are 

failing  good status  and 21 % have unknown status (Figure 5.1).  In terms  of area, this  means 
that about 5 % are failing good quantitative status and 6 % are of unknown status. Figure 5.2 

shows  the  confidence  in  status  classifications,  with  all  the  unknown  status  classifications  at 
low confidence.  

In the Danube and the Oder, the number of groundwater bodies in good status decreased since 
the first cycle from 39 to 36 and 16 to 14 respectively. Only in the Elbe RBD did the number 

of groundwater bodies at good status increase  since the first cycle from  57 to 70. In the first 
cycle, 61  groundwater bodies were  reported to  be at  poor status  and in  the second cycle this 

number decreased to 17. However, in all RBDs there is a considerable number of groundwater 
bodies reported to be of unknown quantitative status and this has increased from 0 in 2010 to 
37 in the second cycle.  

82 

 
Map 5.1 

Map of the most recently assessed quantitative status of groundwater bodies s. 
Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.  

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

83 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
  
 
Figure 5.1  Quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in  the  Czech  Republic  for  the 
second  RBMP,  for  the  first  RBMP  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in 

parenthesis is the number of groundwater bodies for both cycles. Note that the 
period of the assessment of status for the second plan was 2007 to 2012. The 

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

A water balance method was applied in each RBD to assess quantitative status. However, only 

the water balance has been considered in quantitative status assessment which means that not 
all environmental objectives have been taken into account. 

The  reasons  for  the  failure  of  good  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  are  shown  in 
Figure 5.3. It is shown that water balance is the only reason for not achieving good quantitative 

status.  This  means  the  long-term  annual  average  rate  of  abstraction  exceeds  the  available 
groundwater resource which may result in a decrease of groundwater levels. The expected date 
of achievement of good quantitative status in the Czech Republic is shown in Figure 5.3, with 

less than 1 % (one water body) expected to achieve good status beyond 2027.  

84 

65%69%90%0%20%40%60%80%100%First plan (173)Second plan (174)Expected good status in 2015Percentage of GWBGoodPoorUnknownNot good 
 
 
 
Figure 5.2  Confidence in the classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 

based on the most recent assessment of status.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 5.3  Expected date of achievement of good quantitative and good chemical status 
of  groundwater  bodies  in  the  Czech  Republic.  174  groundwater  bodies 

delineated for the second RBMP.  

Source: WISE electronic report 

85 

 
 
 
 
Figure 5.4  Reasons  for  the  failure  of  good  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  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. 

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

dependent ecosystems 

Groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems 

were  not  considered  at  all  in  quantitative  status  assessments.  In  the  first  RBMPs  some 
groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were identified, but they are now not referred to 
in the second RBMPs28.  

70  groundwater  bodies  are  linked  to  surface  waters  but  the  related  risk  is  not  indicated. 

Associated  surface  waters  are  only  considered  in  the  chemical  status  assessment.  No 

28    Czech  Republic  subsequently  clarified,  that  groundwater  bodies  linked  to  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 
ecosystems  were  reported  in  the  second  RBMP  as  protected  areas,  because  they  were  identified  based  on 
NATURA  2000  sites  with  link  to  groundwater.  However,  they  were  not  used  for  groundwater  status 
assessment because of lack of a methodology. 

86 

 
 
 
                                                      
information  was  found  in  the  RBMPs  or  supporting  information  as  to  why  they  were  not 
considered in quantitative status assessment. 

5.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

The monitoring situation has improved: The number of quantitative monitoring sites increased 

significantly from 268 to 1559 as did the number of groundwater bodies which are covered by 
monitoring. Still 11 groundwater bodies, representing 1 % of the Czech Republic area, are not 

subject to quantitative monitoring, but no explanation of the reasons was found.  

The status changes show slight improvements but also drawbacks: the number of groundwater 

bodies in good status increased from 112 to 120 and the number of groundwater bodies in poor 
status drastically dropped from 61 to 17. But most of these groundwater bodies, where the poor 

status changed, are now of unknown status (37 groundwater bodies). The changes are mainly 
caused by changed values for the available groundwater resources.  

The  methodology  of  status  assessment  changed,  but  no  information  was  found  on  what  has 
been  done  in  detail.  Groundwater  associated  aquatic  ecosystems  and  groundwater  dependent 
terrestrial  ecosystems  are  still  not  considered  at  all  in  status  assessment29.  It  was  mentioned 
that  due  to  amending  the  methodology,  the  values  for  the  available  groundwater  resources 

changed  which  led  to  the  considerable  changes  in  status,  in  particular  the  number  of 
groundwater bodies of unknown status which increased from 0 to 37. 

5.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

There  were  no  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programme  of 
Measures. 

29 Even if groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems are reported as protected areas, as mentioned before. 

87 

 
 
 
                                                      
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  the  Czech  Republic  is  174  (Table  2.3).  Only  15 
groundwater  bodies  are  not  subject  to  surveillance  monitoring  (Table  5.1)  and  not  all 

groundwater bodies at risk are subject to operational monitoring. No grouping of groundwater 
bodies for the monitoring and assessment of chemical status was applied. Grouping was used 

for groundwater body delineation, whereby groundwater bodies with similar natural conditions 
were  grouped  into  larger  units,  but  for  chemical  status  assessment  they  were  split  to  smaller 

units and each unit was assessed separately.  

The number of monitoring sites is listed in Table 5.3 and shows that the number of monitoring 

sites  for  chemical  status  was  730  in  2015  which  was  the  same  number  of  surveillance 
monitoring  sites.  The  number  of  monitoring  sites  for  chemical  status  of  groundwater  has 

increased  significantly  since  2010.  In  the  Danube  and  the  Oder  the  number  of  sites  almost 
doubled  and  in  the  Elbe  the  number  of  sites  increased  by  nearly  18-times  (from  38  to  529) 

compared to 2010. 

Not all substances at risk of causing deterioration in chemical status are subject to surveillance 
monitoring30. The WFD core parameters oxygen, conductivity and pH are not covered at all by 
surveillance monitoring sites.  

6.1.2. Assessment and classification of chemical status in groundwater 

Map  6.1  and  Figure  6.1  display  the  chemical  status  of  groundwater  chemical  status  of 

groundwater  bodies  based  on  the  most  recently  assessed  status.  It  shows  that  27  %  of 
groundwater  bodies  overall  were  in  good  chemical  status,  and  the  remaining  63  %  in  poor 
status.  In  all  three  RBDs  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  in  poor  status  decreased  since 
2010 but still nearly 127 of 174 groundwater bodies (73 %) are in poor status.  

Figure 6.1 also shows that the percentage of groundwater bodies in good status has increased 

from 21 % in 2010 to 27 % in 2015. There were no groundwater bodies in unknown status in 

30  The  Czech  Republic  subsequently  highlighted  that  pesticides  (in  general)  and  some  individual  pesticide 
substances  in  particular  (e.g.  acetochlor  or  metalochlor)  were  subject  to  risk  assessment  and  35  individual 
pesticides or their metabolities were subject to surveillance and operational monitoring.  

88 

 
                                                      
2010 and there are still none in 2016. Figure 6.2 shows the confidence in status classifications, 
with 9 % of good and poor status classifications of low confidence. 

The reasons for the failure of good chemical status of groundwater bodies are shown in Figure 
6.3. The main reason (127 groundwater bodies) is the failing of the general quality test and the 

surface  water  body  test  (53  groundwater  bodies).  Figure  6.4  shows  the  top  10  pollutants 
causing  failure  of  status  (e.g.  nitrate)  and  Figure  6.5  shows  the  top  10  causing  a  sustained 

upward trend (e.g. nickel).  

Map 6.1 

Map  of  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  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) 

89 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.1  Chemical status of groundwater bodies in the Czech Republic for the second 
plan, for the first plan 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  plan  was  2007  to  2012.  The  year  of  the 

assessment of status for first plan is not known.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 
Figure 6.2  Confidence  in  the  classification  of  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies 

based on the most recent assessment of status. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

90 

21%27%27%0%20%40%60%80%100%120%First plan (173)Second plan (174)Expected status in 2015Percentage of GWBGoodPoorUnknownNot good 
 
 
Figure 6.3  Reasons  for  failing  good  chemical  status  for  the  most  recent  assessment  of 

status.  

Source WISE electronic reporting 

Notes: 
‘Surface water’ = Failure to achieve Environmental Objectives (Article 4 WFD) in associated surface water 
bodies or significant diminution of the ecological or chemical status of such surface water bodies. 

‘Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems’ = Significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems which depend 
directly on the groundwater body. 

‘Saline or other intrusion’ = Regional saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced 
sustained changes in flow direction. 

‘Drinking Water Protected Area’ = Deterioration in quality of waters for human consumption. 

‘General water quality assessment’ = Significant impairment of human uses; significant environmental risk from 
pollutants across the groundwater body. 

An  updated  methodology  for  chemical  status  assessment  was  described  in  the  RBMPs.  The 

number of pollutants assessed increased from 35 to 55. In addition, new receptors were added 
(surface  water  and  drinking  water)  and  their  associated  threshold  values  which  were  more 

stringent. The aggregation method for assessing groundwater chemical status was described in 
the RBMPs as using the arithmetic mean and median for most of the pollutants and maximum 

concentrations were used for pesticides and their metabolites. In all RBDs, natural background 
levels have been considered in the status assessment. 

A trend methodology is available and assessments have been performed in all RBDs but not in 
all  groundwater  bodies  at  risk31.  The  trend  reversal  methodology  was  developed,  but  trend 

31    The  Czech  Republic  subsequently  clarified  that  trend  assessment  has  been  performed  for  all  groundwater 

bodies with existing monitoring data 

91 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
reversal has not been performed, due to short time series data after implementation of measures 
- the last data was from 2012. 

Figure 6.4 

Top ten groundwater pollutants causing failure of good chemical status in the 
Czech Republic 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Figure 6.5 

Top  ten  pollutants  with  upward  trends  in  groundwater  bodies  in  the  Czech 
Republic 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.6   Percentage of groundwater bodies at risk of failing good chemical status and 

good quantitative status for the second RBMP 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

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

dependent ecosystems 

Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were not identified and hence not considered at 
all  in  status  assessments.  Even  in  the  first  RBMP  some  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 

ecosystems were identified which do not appear in the second RBMPs. 

70  groundwater  bodies  are  linked  to  surface  waters  but  the  related  risk  is  not  indicated. 

Associated surface waters have been considered in threshold values establishment. 

6.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

The  monitoring  situation  has  improved.  The  number  of  chemical  monitoring  sites  increased 
significantly  from  167  to  770  as  well  as  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  which  are  now 

covered by the increased monitoring. Still, 15 groundwater bodies are not subject to chemical 
monitoring but no explanation of the reasons was found in the RBMPs. There was no grouping 

applied for monitoring purposes.  

The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  of  good  chemical  status  slightly  improved  (by  10).  The 

main  reasons  of  the  low  progress  are  the  increased  monitoring,  the  consideration  of  new 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
pressures,  a  changed  assessment  methodology,  more  stringent  threshold  values  and 
additionally considered assessment tests.  

Methodologies  for  chemical  status  assessment  were  updated  and  changed,  the  number  of 
assessed pollutants increased from 35 to 55. New receptors were considered (surface water and 

drinking water) in the status assessment.  

6.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programme  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

 

Recommendation: Ensure proper assessment of the chemical status of its groundwater 
and assess whether the quality standards in Annex I of the Groundwater Directive32 
are  insufficient  to  achieve  the  environmental  objectives  for  groundwater-dependent 
ecosystems. 

         Assessment:  The  consideration  of  relevant  factors  (protection  of  aquatic  ecosystems 

and  uses  and  functions  of  groundwater)  in  the  establishment  of  threshold  values  is 
reported.  This  means  that  this  recommendation  has  been  partially  fulfilled  as 

groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were not considered yet. 

 

Recommendation:  The  Czech  Republic  should  establish  more  stringent  nitrates  and 

pesticides threshold values (point 3 of Annex I of Directive 2006/118/EC). 

Assessment:  Threshold  values  for  nitrates  are  now  all  below  50  mg/l  (between  15.5 
and  19.92  mg/l  in  all  RBDs).  Some  pesticides  now  have  more  stringent  threshold 

values than 0.1 micrograms per litre, as relevant. The recommendation has therefore 
been fulfilled.  

32   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  

94 

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

7.1.  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in second cycle for designation  

7.1.1. Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies 

There  are  some  significant  changes  in  the  percentage  of  designated  heavily  modified  water 
bodies since the first cycle, especially for rivers in the Danube and in the Elbe, where there is 

an  approximate  19  %  and  3  %  decrease  respectively  of  designated  heavily  modified  water 
bodies (Figure 7.1). 

Overall,  it  is  noted  that  the  assessment  basis  for  the  designation  of  heavily  modified  water 
bodies  is  not  entirely  clear,  because  according  to  the  WISE  reporting,  significant  pressures 

from  water  flow  regulation,  morphological  alterations  and  water  abstractions  have  not  been 
assessed for all relevant water bodies.  

Several of the designated heavily modified water bodies are reservoirs. Specifically, all water 
bodies  designated  as  heavily  modified  lakes  in  the  three  RBDs  are  reservoirs  which  were 

originally rivers. According to Common Implementation Strategy guidance on this issue, it is 
recommended to designate such water bodies as heavily modified river water bodies. 

For heavily modified river water bodies, flood protection is the main designated use. For lakes 
(which are in fact rivers turned into reservoirs), the main uses for the heavily modified water 

body designation include the wider environment, flood protection, hydropower or other uses. 
to  heavily  modified  river  water  bodies  are 
The  main  physical  alterations  related 

channelisation/straightening/bed  stabilisation/bank  reinforcement.  For  heavily  modified  lake 
water bodies, the main alterations are weirs/dams/reservoirs. 

Information  on  how  significant  adverse  effects  of  restoration  measures  on  the  use  and  wider 
environment  are  defined  is  found  in  methodological  documents  applicable  at  national  or 

regional level. However, significant adverse effects are not quantified and the information on 
the approach is general only. No criteria are provided.  

No  information  is  found  in  the  RBMP  about  beneficial  objectives  of  other  means.  A  better 

environmental  option  (other  means)  was  not  applied  for  reservoirs  due  to  the  multiple  water 
uses. Most of heavily modified rivers were designated due to flood protection and for this use, 
it is reported that there is currently no better environmental option. This seems to be a case of 

95 

 
clear-cut  decision  on  heavily  modified  water  bodies’  designation  without  fully  applying  the 
designation test required under Article 4(3)(b). 

Figure 7 

Proportion of total water bodies in each category in the Czech Republic that 
has been designated as heavily modified or artificial 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

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

Bodies 

Good  ecological  potential  is  reported  as  defined  in  all  RBDs  using  the  Common 
Implementation  Strategy  approach  (approach  based  on  biological  quality  elements  as 

illustrated  in  Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  No  4).  Good  ecological  potential 
has not been defined at  water body level or for groups of heavily modified water bodies and 

AWBs  but  another  approach  has  been  followed  defining  ecological  potential  for  rivers  and 
reservoirs. 

In  the  second  RBMP,  new  methods  for  good  ecological  potential  have  been  developed  at 
national level for rivers and reservoirs.  

Good  ecological  potential  is  reported  to  be  defined  in  terms  of  biology,  using  the  biological 
quality  elements  phytoplankton,  macrophytes,  fish  and  benthic  invertebrates.  According  to 

information  in  the  second  RBMP,  good  ecological  potential  for  rivers  was  assessed  only  for 
three biological quality elements sensitive to hydromorphology (benthic invertebrates, fish and 

phytoplankton).  The  assessment  of  phytobenthos  and  macrophytes  is  the  same  as  for  natural 
water bodies. Good ecological potential of reservoirs was defined based on a combination of 

96 

 
 
 
expert judgement and approaches from other countries but no specific information is provided 
on the biological quality elements used.  

Some  biological  quality  element  assessment  methods  in  use  for  both  lakes  and  rivers  are 
reported  as  sensitive  to  hydrological  and  morphological  changes.  For  lakes,  the  assessment 

methods  used  for  macrophytes  and  fish  are  reported  to  be  sensitive  to  hydrological  and 
morphological changes, but not the methods used for phytoplankton. For rivers, the assessment 

methods  used  for  benthic  invertebrates  are  reported  to  be  sensitive  to  hydrological  and 
morphological  changes,  the  methods  for  fish  only  to  morphological  changes  and  the  method 

for  phytoplankton  only  to  hydrological  changes.  The  assessment  methods  used  in  rivers  for 
macrophytes and phytobenthos are reported to be insensitive to hydromorphology. 

Mitigation measures for defining good ecological potential have been reported as existing in all 
RBDs.  Concerning  the  ecological  changes  expected  due  to  mitigation  measures,  these  are 

briefly  described  in  a  qualitative  way.  The  second  RBMP  briefly  states  that  mitigation 
measures  for  rivers  aim  at  improving  living  conditions  for  fish  and  other  relevant  biological 

components. 

A comparison between good ecological potential and good ecological status has been done in 

all RBDs. For rivers, the good ecological potential boundaries are about one class lower than 
good ecological status for fish, phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates. The class boundaries 

are  the  same  between  good  ecological  potential  and  good  ecological  status  for  macrophytes 
and phytobenthos. 

7.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

There  are  some  significant  changes  in  the  percentage  of  designated  heavily  modified  water 
bodies since the first cycle, especially for rivers in the Danube and in the Elbe, where there is a 

ca.  19  %  and  3  %  decrease  respectively  of  designated  heavily  modified  water  bodies.  The 
reasons  for  changes  are  explained  only  briefly.  The  main  reasons  for  these  changes  are  i) 

redelineation of surface water bodies, ii) changes of methodology and iii) experience from the 
first RBMP (for all RBDs). 

The national methodology for designation (reported for rivers and reservoirs) has changed and 
the  present  approach  is  explained,  although  no  details  about  the  specific  methodological 

changes are provided. 

Progress  is  made  concerning  the  methodology  for  defining  good  ecological  potential.  In  the 
first cycle, the assessment of good ecological potential for reservoirs was not WFD compliant, 

97 

 
because it did not cover all relevant biological quality elements; assessment of good ecological 
potential for rivers was  missing. The methodology was not clear and very preliminary. Good 

ecological potential was defined using expert judgement. In the second cycle, new methods for 
good ecological potential have been developed at national level for rivers and reservoirs. Good 

ecological potential is reported to be defined in terms of biology and details on the biological 
quality elements used are provided for rivers.  

In the first cycle, no reference was found to mitigation measures for good ecological potential 
or  their  expected  effects.  In  the  second  cycle,  the  mitigation  measures  to  define  good 

ecological potential are reported as existing for the three RBDs.  

7.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programme  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

 

Recommendation:  The  Czech  methodologies  for  provisional  and  final  heavily  modified 
water body designation in the first planning cycle were not  applied to  their full  extent. 

The  designation  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  should  comply  with  all  the 
requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or 

the  environment  and  the  lack  of  significantly  better  environmental  options  should  be 
specifically  mentioned  in  the  RBMPs.  This  is  needed  to  ensure  transparency  of  the 

designation process. 

Assessment:  A  national  methodology  on  heavily  modified  water  body  designation  is 
reported  for  rivers  and  reservoirs  but  it  is  not  detailed  enough  on  all  relevant  aspects. 
Criteria  used  for  the  identification  of  substantial  change  in  character,  type  of  physical 

alterations  and the  water uses behind the designated heavily modified water bodies  are 
explained  in  detail.  Significant  adverse  effects  were  not  quantified  and  the  information 

on the approach is general only. No criteria are provided. A better environmental option 
was not applied for reservoirs due to the multiple water uses. Most of heavily modified 

rivers were designated due to flood protection and for this use, it is reported that there is 
currently no better environmental option.   

No  information  is  reported  on  the  details  of  the  outcome  of  the  designation  tests  of 
significant  adverse  effects  on  the  use  and  better  environmental  options  for  individual 

water bodies. 

Therefore, this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

98 

 
 

Recommendation: Assessment of good ecological potential for reservoirs was not WFD 
compliant, because it did not cover all biological quality elements.  

Assessment:  In  the  second  RBMP,  a  national  methodology  is  reported  for  rivers  and 

reservoirs.  In  the  first  cycle,  the  assessment  of  good  ecological  potential  for  reservoirs 
was  not  WFD  compliant,  because  it  did  not  cover  all  relevant  biological  quality 

elements. In the second cycle, although good ecological potential is reported as defined 
in  terms  of  biology,  details  on  the  biological  quality  elements  used  are  provided  for 

rivers  but  not  explicitly  for  reservoirs.  It  is  reported  that  good  ecological  potential  of 
reservoirs was defined based on a combination of expert judgement and approaches from 

other  countries.    Furthermore,  even  though  mitigation  measures  for  defining  good 
ecological  potential  are  reported, no information  could  be found on the way mitigation 

measures  were  used  to  define  moderate  ecological  potential/good  ecological  potential. 
The ecological  changes  expected due to  mitigation measures  are described only briefly 

and in a qualitative way. Therefore, this recommendation has not been fulfilled. 

99 

 
 
 
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 201533), 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).  

In the Czech Republic, environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface 
water  have  been  reported  in  all  RBDs  as  well  as  for  chemical  and  quantitative  status  of 

groundwater.  A  significant  share  of  water  bodies  is  expected  to  achieve  its  objectives  only 
beyond 2027. 

Member States are also required to specify additional environmental objectives and standards 
in  Protected  Areas  where  these  are  required  to  ensure  the  requirements  of  the  associated 

Directive  are  met.  An  assessment  of  such  additional  objectives  for  the  Czech  Republic  is 
provided in Chapter 15 of this report. 

Assessments of the current status of surface and groundwater bodies in the Czech Republic are 

provided elsewhere in this report: for ecological status/potential of surface waters (Chapter 3); 
chemical  status  of  surface  waters  (Chapter  4);  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies 

(Chapter  5);  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  (Chapter  6);  status  of  surface  and 
groundwater bodies associated with Protected Areas (Chapter 15). 

For  the  second  cycle  plans,  Member  States  are  required  to  report  the  date  when  they  expect 
each  surface  and  groundwater  body  to  meet  its  environmental  objective.  This  information  is 

summarised for the Czech Republic elsewhere in this report: for ecological status/potential of 

33 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. 

100 

 
                                                      
surface waters (Chapter 3); chemical status of surface waters (Chapter 4); quantitative status of 
groundwater bodies (Chapter 5); chemical status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 6).  

8.1.2.  Exemptions 

Where  environmental  objectives  are  not  yet  achieved  exemptions  can  be  applied  in  case  the 
respective conditions are met and the required justifications are explained in the RBMP. 

Figure 8.1 summarises the percentage of water bodies expected to be at least in good status in 
2015  and  the  use  of  at  least  one  exemption  in  the  Czech  Republic  for  the  four  main  sets  of 

environmental objectives. 

Figure 8.1  Water bodies expected to be in at least good status in 2015 and use of 

exemptions. 1 = Surface water body ecological status/potential; 2 = Surface 

water body chemical status; 3 = Groundwater body quantitative status; 4 = 
Groundwater body chemical status.  

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Article  4  of  the  WFD  allows  under  certain  conditions  for  different  exemptions  to  the 
objectives:  these  include  the  provisions  in  Article  4(4)  -  extension  of  deadline,  4(5)  -  lower 

objectives,  4(6)  -  temporary  deterioration  and  4(7)  -  new  modifications  /  new  sustainable 

101 

1230%20%40%60%80%100%4Expected good in 2015At least one exemption 
 
 
human  development  activities.  Article  4(4)  exemptions  may  be  justified  by:  disproportionate 
cost,  technical  feasibility  or  natural  conditions,  and  Article  4(5)  by  disproportionate  cost  or 

technical  feasibility.  In  addition,  Article  6(3)  of  Directive  2006/118/EC  on  the  protection  of 
groundwater  against  pollution  and  deterioration  allows  Member  States  to  exempt  from  the 

measures required to achieve the objective under Art 4(1)(b)(i), certain inputs of pollutants to 
groundwater under certain specified circumstances. 

Figure 8.2 summarises the percentage of water bodies subject to each type of exemption (and 

reason) in relation to the 4 types of environmental objectives in the Czech Republic. 

Figure 8.2 

Type of exemptions applied to surface water and groundwater bodies for the 

second plan. Note: Ecological status and groundwater quantitative status 
exemptions are reported at the water body level. Chemical exemptions for 

groundwater are reported at the level of each pollutant causing failure of 
good chemical status, and for surface waters for each priority substance that 

is causing failure of good chemical status 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

102 

 
 
Application of Article 4(4) 

As in the first cycle, the Czech Republic applied Article 4(4) exemptions in the second cycle. 

In the first cycle, the justification for surface waters in relation to Article 4(4) exemptions only 
referred  to  technical  feasibility.  The  same  is  the  case  in  the  second  RBMP.  However,  in  the 

second  plan  the  Czech  Republic  indicates  that  natural  conditions  for  surface  water  bodies 
might be used in the next cycle. For groundwater, technical feasibility and natural conditions 

are used as the justifications for exemptions under Article 4(4). Exemptions are applied at the 
water body level.  

Technical feasibility is further justified in the RBMP by:  

  Unknown technical solution 

  measures that would lead to a good status are not prepared or they are too large to be 

implemented within three years, 

  The measures proposed are expected to become effective in the course of time of the 

next planning cycle, 

 

the  causes  of  failure  are  not  known  to  achieve  a  non-conforming  state  (part  of  the 

effects will be eliminated by measures, but the targets are still not achieved). 

For each water body exemptions have been set and justifications (there could be more than one 

exemption  for  one  water  body  and  ecological/chemical  status  if  different  pressures  are 
responsible for not achieving good status) are provided. 

The  main  drivers  causing  exemptions  related  to  Article  4(4)  in  groundwater  in  all  RBDs  are 

agriculture, industry, transport and urban development. For surface waters in  all RBDs these 
are agriculture, energy production, flood protection, industry, tourism and recreation, transport, 

urban  development  and  unknown  drivers.  In  the  Elbe  also  fisheries  and  aquaculture  are 
reported as drivers. 

The  significant  pressures  responsible  for  exemptions  to  good  ecological  status  under  Article 
4(4)  in  surface  waters  are  stemming  from  a  broad  range  of  activities  including  urbanisation, 

industry,  agriculture,  mining,  atmospheric  deposition  and  activities  causing  changes  in 
hydromorphology.  A  similar  range  of  significant  pressures  are  responsible  for  exemptions 

under  Article  4(4)  in  relation  to  chemical  status  (Table  8.1).  For  groundwater,  the  main 

103 

 
pressures responsible for exemptions under Article 4(4) in relation to chemical status are point 
and diffuse pollution from atmospheric deposition, industry and agriculture (Table 8.2).  

Table 8.1 

Pressures on surface waters responsible for priority substances 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 - IED plants 

1.4 - Point - Non IED plants 

1.5 - Point - Contaminated sites or 
abandoned industrial sites 

1.7 - Point - Mine waters 

2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.7 - Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition 

2.8 - Diffuse - Mining 

8 - Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown 

Failing Priority 
Substances 

Article 4(4) - 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 

Number 

Number 

Article 4(5) - 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 

Number 

1 

12 

4 

9 

1 

1 

3 

11 

2 

16 

0 

28 

0 

36 

2 

1 

8 

275 

6 

354 

1 

21 

4 

23 

1 

1 

0 

328 

0 

238 

Table 8.2 

Pressure responsible for pollutants failing to achieve good chemical status in 
groundwater and for which exemptions have been applied  

Significant pressure on groundwater 

Number of 
failing 
pollutants 

Number of exemptions 

Article4(4) 
- Natural 
conditions 

Article4(4) 
- Technical 
feasibility 

Article4(5) 
- Technical 
feasibility 

1.5 - Point - Contaminated sites or abandoned 
industrial sites 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.7 - Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition 

8 - Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown 

20 

25 

13 

11 

58 

359 

68 

113 

191 

19 

52 

22 

45 

1 

16 

The  impacts  causing  exemptions  under  Article  4(4)  in  surface  water  and  groundwater  in  all 

RBDs  are  acidification,  chemical  pollution,  nutrient  pollution.  Hydromorphological  impacts 
are not identified in the case of surface water. In the Odra, saline intrusion is also reported as 
an impact responsible for exemptions in surface water.  

104 

 
 
 
 
For  groundwater,  in  addition  abstraction  exceeding  available  groundwater  resource  and 
diminution  of  quality  of  associated  surface  water  are  also  mentioned  as  impacts,  as  well  as 

organic pollution for the Odra. 

Application of Article 4(5) 

In the second cycle the Czech Republic applied Article 4(5) exemptions for both surface and 

groundwater for the first time and to a significant extent. For both technical feasibility is used 
as a justification.  

The  pressures  behind  exemptions  under  Article  4(5)  are  similar  to  the  one  related  to  Article 
4(4) as shown in the Table 8.1  and Table 8.2. The impacts  related to Article 4(5) on surface 

water are acidification, chemical pollution, nutrient pollution, organic pollution, and elevated 
temperatures. In the Odra also saline intrusion is reported as an impact.  

For groundwater the reported impacts are acidification, chemical pollution, nutrient pollution, 

the diminution of quality of associated surface waters for chemical / quantitative reasons and 
abstraction exceeding available groundwater resource (lowering water table).  

Application of Article 4(6) 

Article 4(6) exemptions were not applied in the Czech Republic. 

Application of Article 4(7) 

The Czech Republic did  not  report the  application of Article 4(7) in  the second RBMP. The 
impact of new modifications on water status was indicated to be assessed and deterioration of 

water bodies is not expected for any of them. However, a more detailed justification for each 
project  that  may  or  may  not    fall  under  Article  4(7)  is  not  provided  in  the  RBMP  but 

background  documents  provide  further  information,  indicating  that  no  project  has  been 
identified so far, which would require the application of Article 4(7). A number of navigation 

projects  are  planned  (e.g.  Decin  locks,  Danube-Odra-Elbe  canal,  etc.)  together  with  an 
extension of the nuclear plant at Temelin. So far, no exemptions relating to these developments 

have been applied under Article 4(7). 

105 

 
 
Application of Article 6(3) GWD 

Exemptions  to  ground  water  under  Article  6(3)  of  the  Groundwater  Directive  have  not  been 

applied. 

8.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

In  the  first  cycle,  the  Czech  Republic  set  environmental  objectives  for  all  surface  and 

groundwater  bodies  what  is  also  the  case  for  the  second  cycle.  The  situation  with  respect  to 
additional objectives for Protected Areas is summarised elsewhere in this report (Chapter 15).  

Changes in status and the dates by when surface and groundwater bodies are expected to meet 
their environmental objective are summarised for the Czech Republic elsewhere in this report: 

for ecological status/potential of surface waters (Chapter 3); chemical status of surface waters 
(Chapter  4);  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  (Chapter  5);  chemical  status  of 

groundwater bodies (Chapter 6). 

The main changes relate to the use of exemptions in the second cycle. In the first cycle, only 
Article  4(4)  exemptions  were  applied  on  the  grounds  of  technical  feasibility  for  surface  and 

groundwater.  In  the  second  cycle,  Article  4(4)  exemptions  continue  to  be  applied  but  with 
natural  conditions  as well as technical  feasibility as a reason for  groundwater bodies. Article 

4(5)  exemptions  are  applied  for  the  first  time  for  ecological  and  chemical  status  in  surface 
waters  and  for  quantitative  and  chemical  status  for  groundwater  bodies  on  the  grounds  of 

technical feasibility and to a significant extent. 

Significant  pressures  were  reported  in  the  first  cycle,  and  in  the  second  one  these  have  been 

reported  when  causing the applications of exemptions.  Impacts  were not reported in  the  first 
cycle but have been reported in the second cycle. 

8.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programme  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

Recommendation:  It  is  unclear  whether  there  are  new  physical  modifications  planned  in 
RBMPs.  If  this  is  the  case,  the  use  of  exemptions  under  Article  4(7)  should  be  based  on  a 

thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD, in particular an assessment of 
whether  the  project  is  of  overriding  public  interest  and  whether  the  benefits  to  society 

106 

 
outweigh the environmental degradation, and regarding the absence of alternatives that would 
be a better  environmental option. Furthermore, these projects  may only be carried out  when 

all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water. All 
conditions  for  the  application  of  Article  4(7)  in  individual  projects  must  be  included  and 

justified in the RBMPs as early in the project planning as possible.  

Assessment:  Article  4(7)  exemptions  are  not  applied  in  the  second  RBMPs.  Background 
documents  indicate  that  the  impacts  of  all  new  modifications  on  water  status  have  been 

assessed and no potential deterioration of the status of water bodies was identified. Therefore 
further  assessments  and  justifications  according  to  Article  4(7)  were  not  required.  Further 

information  is  needed  to  assess  whether  all  the  required  assessments  relevant  in  relation  to 
Article 4(7) have been performed and whether the recommendation has been fulfilled. 

Recommendation:  The  Czech  Republic  RDP  proposes  significant  investment  in  drainage 
measures,  with  the  potential  to  lead  to  deterioration  of  status.  Compliance  with  Article  4(7) 

must be ensured.  

Assessment: See assessment above.  

Recommendation:  Justify  adequately  new  hydromorphological  modifications  (e.g.  new 

hydropower  plants,  new  drainage,  etc.),  support  them  by  a  proper  assessment  of  alternative 
solutions and include all necessary mitigation measures. 

Assessment: See assessment above   

Recommendation:  Indicate  clearly  in  the  second  RBMP  when  WFD  objectives  will  be 

achieved.  

Assessment: Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface water have 

been  reported  in  all  RBDs  as  well  as  for  chemical  and  quantitative  status  of  groundwater. 
Information is also provided on when the objectives will be achieved. The recommendation is 

fulfilled, although a significant share of water bodies is expected to achieve its objectives only 
beyond 2027. 

Recommendation:  Exemptions  should  be  adequately  justified  at  water  body  level  and,  in 

particular for new modifications, compliance with Article 4(7) of the WFD has to be ensured 
in the second RBMPs. 

107 

 
Assessment: Exemptions are justified at water body level based on information provided in the 
improved  WISE  reporting.  Further  details  on  the  justification  are  provided  in  background 

documents  accompanying  the  RBMP.  Compared  to  the  first  RBMP  a  significant  number  of 
Article  4(5)  exemptions  has  been  applied  for  the  first  time  in  the  second  RBMP  based  on 

technical feasibility, whereas  the distinction between the criteria applied for Article 4(4) and 
Article 4(5) is not clear. This recommendation has therefore been partly fulfilled. In regard to 

Article 4(7) see assessment above. 

Recommendation:  More  details  about  pressures  and  pollutants  leading  to  exemptions, 
especially  for  surface  water  bodies,  should  be  provided  in  the  next  planning  cycle.  (The 

measures needed to achieve good status/potential should be fully assessed and used as a basis 
for  the justification  of  exemptions on the basis  of  disproportionate costs/technical feasibility. 

This justification has to be clearly explained in the second RBMP). 

Assessment: Information on some pressures leading to exemptions is provided in the improved 

WISE reporting. The role of hydromorphological pressures and their impacts is partly lacking 
in the reported information. This recommendation is therefore partially fulfilled. 

108 

 
 
 
Topic 9 Programme of measures  

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the Programme of Measures 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 Type of Measure because it may be multi-purpose, but also 

because  the  Key  Types  of  Measure  are  not  completely  independent.  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 the second cycle 

9.1.1.  General issues 

There are indications of insufficient implementation of the WFD for some aspects of this Topic 
in all RBDs. 

An  indication  as  to  whether  or  not  measures  have  been  fully  implemented  and  made 
operational is when they have been reported as being planned to tackle significant pressures (at 

the  Key  Types  of  Measure  level).  Significant  pressures  are  also  reported  at  the  water  body 
level.  It  would  therefore  be  expected  that  there  would  be  measures  planned  in  the  RBMP  to 

tackle all significant pressures. In terms of groundwater Key Types of Measures have not been 
reported  to  tackle  diffuse  mining  pressures  in  the  Elbe  and  abstraction  or  flow  diversion  for 

109 

 
public water supply in the Danube and the Elbe. On the other hand, Key Types of Measures 
have  been  reported  to  tackle  pressures  not  reported  at  the  water  body  level:  groundwater 

recharges in all three RBDs and alteration of water level or volume in the Danube and the Oder 
(the latter was reported as a significant pressures in the Elbe).  

A  similar  picture  emerges  for  surface  waters  where  no  measures  are  reported  to  tackle 

pressures from the following sources:  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

point source storm overflows;  

point sources from IED and non-IED plants; 

point sources from waste disposal sites (one RBD); 

point source from mine waters; 

point source aquaculture (one RBD); 

other point sources; 

diffuse transport sources;  

diffuse source discharges not connected to sewers (three RBDs); 

diffuse mining sources; and  

all of the 13 different hydromorphological pressures (three RBDs).  

50 % of the national measures mapped to Key Types of Measures were associated with KTM1 
- construction of upgrades of waste water treatment plants, and all of these are reported to be 

basic measures.  In contrast only two national measures, both supplementary, are reported for 
diffuse  agricultural  pollution  (Reducing  pollution  from  agriculture  and  protecting  the  aquatic 

environment and agrotechnical measure): 22 % and 61 % of surface and groundwater bodies, 
respectively, are reported to be subject to diffuse agricultural pressures: 38 % of surface water 
bodies are subject to significant point source pressures from urban waste water. Remediation of 

contaminated sites is another pressure for which KTM4 has been reported: This Key Type of 
Measure is associated with 275 national measures all of which are supplementary. The Czech 

Republic  reported  10  other  Key  Types  of  Measures,  one  of  which  is  "Measures  to  reduce 
pollution  from  atmospheric  deposition"  which  has  been  reported  as  significant  pressure  on 

surface water bodies: there is only one national (supplementary) measure reported: "Reduction 
of pollution in atmospheric deposition". National measures have been mapped against the Key 

Types of Measure which have not been made operational.  

49  %  of  groundwater  bodies  and  70  %  of  surface  water  bodies  are  subject  to  unknown 
anthropogenic  pressures.  KTM14  -  Research,  improvement  of  knowledge  base  reducing 
uncertainty has been reported to reduce this pressure in both surface and groundwater.  

110 

 
 
There are many chemical substances causing failure of objectives but no specific measures to 
tackle  them  have  been  reported  by  the  Czech  Republic.  However  there  are  other  measures 

planned: for these significant pressures such as for example remediation of contaminated sites. 

The level of ambition and expected progress resulting from the Programme of Measures for the 
second cycle is low with only small reductions expected in many of the gaps to achievement of 

objectives at the end of the second cycle. It is reported that there will only be small increases in 
the proportion of surface water bodies achieving  good status by the end of the second cycle: 

5%  in  terms  of  ecological  status/potential  and  1  %  in  terms  of  chemical  status.  The  Czech 
Republic  also  expects  that  17  %  of  surface  water  bodies  will  be  less  than  good 

ecological/status potential by 2027 and 24 % at poor chemical status. There seems to be less 
investment  funds  (including  European  Union  funds)  for  measures  in  the  second  cycle 

compared to the first cycle perhaps reflecting a low level of ambition. 

The RBMPs and FD Flood Risk Management Plans have not been integrated into a single plan 

in  the Czech Republic, however joint  consultation was carried out  on the RBMPs and  Flood 
Risk Management Plans, and the objectives and requirements of the FD have been considered 

in the second RBMP and Programme of Measures. The Czech Republic indicated that specific 
win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  FD  -  drought 

management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) - have been included in 
the Programme of Measures. However, whilst KTM23 - Natural water retention measures- has 

been  mapped  to  national  measures  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  measure  has  been  made 
operational and as to the pressures it is aimed at tackling. Clear financial commitment has been 

secured for the implementation of the Programme of Measures in the flood protection sector. 
WFD  Article  9(4)  has  not  been  applied  to  impoundment  for  flood  protection  and  as  such  it 

would be an activity/use which should be subject to cost recovery under Article 9. 

9.1.2.  Measures related to other significant pressures 

No other significant pressures were reported in the Czech Republic. 

9.1.3.  Mapping of national measures to Key Types of Measures 

It was expected that Member States would be able to report their programme of measures by 

associating  their  national  measures  with  predefined  Key  Types  of  Measures.  Key  Types  of 
Measures are expected to deliver the bulk of the improvements through reduction in pressures 

required  to  achieve  WFD  Environmental  Objectives.  A  Key  Type  of  Measure  may  be  one 
national  measure  but  it  would  typically  comprise  more  than  one  national  measure.  Member 

States  are  required  to  report  on  the  national  measures  associated  with  the  Key  Types  of 

111 

 
Measures, and whether the national measures are basic (Article 11(3)(a) or Article 11(3)(b-l)) 
or supplementary (Article 11(4)).  

Table 9.1 summarises the number of national measures that have been mapped to the relevant 

Key Types of Measures in the Czech Republic. Also shown is the number of RBDs for which 
the  Key  Type  of  Measure  has  been  reported.  Table  9.2  then  summarises  the  type  of  basic 

measures associated with the national measures mapped against the Key Type of Measure. 

112 

 
 
 
Table 9.1 

Mapping of the types of national measures to Key Types of Measures in the 
Czech Republic 

Key Type of Measure 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number 
of RBDs 
where 
reported 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment 
plants 

1209 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 

KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical 
pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil) 

KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing 
fish passes, demolishing old dams) 

KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of water 
bodies other than longitudinal continuity 

KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment 
of ecological flows 

KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, 
industry, energy and households 

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) 

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 

KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts 
of fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal and 
plants 

1 

96 

13 

6 

5 

1 

11 

2 

3 

8 

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of 
pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure 

43 

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 

KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change 

113 

4 

275 

438 

18 

1 

16 

5 

2 

1 

77 

5 

7 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

1 

1 

4 

6 

3 

2 

3 

2 

1 

5 

3 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key Type of Measure 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number 
of RBDs 
where 
reported 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme 
of Measures 

Control of geothermal boreholes application 

Disposal of old boreholes in protected areas 

Improvement of legislation and monitoring modification 

Limitation of mine water impact 

Limitation of mining impact to groundwater 

Limitations of chloride pollution in groundwater 

Limitations of sulphate pollution in groundwater 

Measures to control groundwater abstractions 

2 

Measures to reduce pollution from atmospheric deposition 

3 

6 

3 

1 

4 

3 

2 

5 

3 

1 

1 

2 

3 

1 

3 

2 

1 

3 

3 

1 

Negotiation of transboundary measures 

Total number of mapped measures 

1400 

868 

Source: Member State reports to WISE 

Table 9.2 

Type of basic measure mapped to Key Type of Measures in the Czech 

Republic 

Key Type of Measure 

Basic measure type 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment 
plants 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 

KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing 
fish passes, demolishing old dams) 

1209 

1 

94 

KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of 
ecological flows 

12 

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 

1 

KTM10 - Water pricing policy measures for the 
implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from 
industry 

1 

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 

114 

1 

11 

1 

1 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key Type of Measure 

KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater 
treatment plants (including farms). 

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution 
from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure 

Basic measure type 

6 

7 

8 

9 

2 

3 

4 

1 

1 

2 

5 

7 

41 

Measures to control groundwater abstractions 

2 

Source: Member State reports to WISE 

Key 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Accidental pollution - Article 11(3)(l): Any measures required to prevent significant losses of 
pollutants from technical installations and to prevent and/or reduce the impact of accidental 
pollution incidents. 
Controls water abstraction - Article 11(3)(e): Controls over the abstraction of fresh surface 
water and groundwater and impoundment of fresh surface waters including a register or 
registers of water abstractions and a requirement for prior authorisation of abstraction and 
impoundment. 
Cost recovery water services - Article 11(3)(b): Measures for the recovery of cost of water 
services (Article 9). 
Hydromorphology - Article 11(3)(i): Measures to control any other significant adverse impact 
on the status of water, and in particular hydromorphological impacts. 
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. 
Protection 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. 
Recharge augmentation groundwater - Article 11(3)(f): Controls, including a requirement for 
prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies. 
Surface Priority Substances - Article 11(3)(k): Measures to eliminate pollution of surface 
waters by Priority Substances and to reduce pollution from other substances that would 
otherwise prevent the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 4. 

9.1.4.  Pressures for which gaps are to be filled to achieve WFD objectives and the Key 

Type of Measures 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 

groundwater,  in  terms  of  priority  substances  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status  and  in 
terms  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  ecological  status/potential. 

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. 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  information  reported  in  WISE  on  the  gaps  to  fulfil  to  achieve  good  ecological  status 
include detailed data on the significant pressures on surface and groundwaters that may cause 

failure on the environmental objectives. For chemical  status,  the Member States reported the 
specific chemical substances causing failure. 

This information is reported at the sub-unit level. Sub-units are smaller geographic areas within 

particular  RBDs  identified  by  Member  States.  Not  all  Member  States  have  defined  and 
reported sub-units. 

Member States were required to report which KTMs are to be made operational to reduce the 
gaps to levels compatible with the achievement of WFD environmental objectives. A number 

of  indicators  were  predefined  for  each  KTM.  Values  of  the  indicators  for  the  second  and 
subsequent  planning  cycles  were  also  to  be  reported  to  give  an  indication  of  the  expected 

progress and achievements: the values for 2027 could be optionally reported. This means that 
the value of the indicator will be reduced with time as measures are implemented. A value of 

zero is comparable with 100 % good ecological status or potential or good chemical status.  

This  information  was  reported  at  sub-unit  level,  or  at  RBDs  level  if  sub-units  have  not  been 
reported by the Member State. 

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

In general, the amount and quality of readily available information has improved between the 

two cycles because of the revised reporting schema. Often there is no equivalent information 
for  the  first  cycle  and  it  is  difficult,  therefore,  to  make  direct  comparisons  between  the  two 

cycles on what has changed significantly.  

In terms of an update of the progress to reflect the actual and expected situation at the start of 
the  second  planning  cycle,  a  clear  financial  commitment  (e.g.  approved  budget  or  financial 

mechanism  by  the  Parliament,  Ministry  of  Finance  or  other  financial  responsible  authority) 
was reported not to have been secured for the implementation of the Programme of Measures 

in any of the RBDs. In all RBDs, a clear financial commitment had not been secured for the 
implementation  of  the  Programme  of  Measures  in  agriculture  and  industry  but  had  for  flood 

protection and the urban development sectors. The aquaculture, energy, hydropower, recreation 
and  transport  sectors  were  reported  to  be  not-relevant  in  any  of  the  RBDs:  note  there  are 

operational measures for aquaculture. 

116 

 
A summary of the changes from the first RBMP obtained from the second RBMP includes an 
overview  of  non-implemented  measures  and  the  main  reasons  for  their  non-implementation. 

For example, 668 non-implemented measures are mentioned in the Elbe. 15 % of them are for 
construction  or  upgrades  of  wastewater  treatment  plants,  66  %  for  the  improvement  of 

hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity, 9 % for the 
establishment of fish passes and 10 % for remediation of contaminated sites. The main reasons 

for non-implementation  were financial (e.g. lack of funds), land proprietary issues, technical, 
legal or natural conditions.  

The total investment expenditure for the Programme of Measures for the first planning cycle 

and expected for the second planning cycle, which were/are to be financed by European Union 
funds is reported to have decreased from €2054 to €751 m. In the first planning cycle European 

Union funds represented 49% of the investment costs for Article 11(3)(a) and Article 11(3)(b-
l),  Article  11(4)  and  11(5)  measures.  However,  the  Czech  Republic  reported  “0”  for  the 

expected  investment  costs  for  Article  11(3)(a)  measures  for  the  second  cycle  and  it  is  not 
possible  to  make  a  full  comparison  between  the  two  cycles  on  the  proportion  of  European 
Union  funds  will  contribute  to  investment  costs  for  all  measures34.  The  investment  costs  of 
Article 11(3)(b-  l), Article 11(4) and 11(5) measures for the second cycle are expected to  be 
€4226 m compared to €2308 m for the first cycle. It is likely that the proportional contribution 

of European Union funds to measures will decrease between the two cycles. 

New legislation or regulations were required to implement the Programme of Measures in the 
first cycle in all three RBDs: it was reported that progress had been made in adopting the new 

requirements in the second cycle. 

9.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programme  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

 

Recommendation:  Ensure  in  the  second  RBMPs  that  measures  adopted  in  the 

Programme of Measures are based on a reliable status assessment of water bodies (clear 
setting  of  the  scale  of  pressures,  measures  needed  to  fully  address  the  pressures  and 

proportion of these measures) and are linked to the relevant pressures. 

34    The  Czech  Republic  has  clarified  that  it  has  not  included  basic  measures  adopted  under  other  Directives 
covered  by  Article  11(3)(a)  in  the  second  RBMP.  The  costs  of  measures  adopted  for  other  Directives  have 
been reported under the reporting requirements for those Directives and have therefore not been reported for 
the WFD. 

117 

 
                                                      
Assessment:  For  there  to  be  a  reliable  assessment  of  status  there  should  be  fully 
developed  assessment  methods  for  all  relevant  biological  quality  elements  and  other 

quality elements in rivers and reservoirs. In terms of monitoring it should be clear how 
the  quality  elements  were  selected  for  operational  monitoring  i.e.  in  relation  to  all 

significant pressures on water bodies. There has been some progress here in that there are 
now  some  biological  assessment  methods  for  lakes  (reservoirs)  but  the  methods  used 

have  not  been  intercalibrated  leading  to  some  uncertainty  in  the  comparability  of  the 
ecological potential of lakes. Hydromorphological quality elements are neither monitored 

nor classified in rivers or lakes. In short the lake and river ecological assessment methods 
are still not fully satisfactory in the Czech Republic. 

The  Czech  Republic  has  shown  some  progress  in  that  gaps  to  be  filled  for  the 
achievement of objectives have been quantified for some but not all significant pressures, 

most notably not for hydromorphological pressures. 

 Please  see  chapter  4  for  an  evaluation  of  how  reliable  status  is.  Although  the  Czech 

Republic reported to have planned measures to control emissions of Priority Substances, 
no  measures  were  reported  for  tackling  individual  priority  substances.  Based  on  the 

above reasons, the judgment is that there has been no progress in the second RBMP on 
this recommendation in terms of chemical status. 

 

Recommendation:  Ensure  that  the  RBMPs  clearly  identify  the  gap  to  good  status,  and 
that the Programme of Measures are designed and implemented to close that gap. 

Assessment:  The  gaps  to  be  filled  to  achieve  objectives  have  been  quantified  for  some 

but not all pressures, and the Key Types of Measures (KTMs) to be made operational to 
fill the gaps have been reported. However, there are some inconsistencies in the pressures 

for which measures are planned and the significant pressures reported at the water body 
level. For example, in the Danube, “abstraction or flow diversion – public water supply” 

has been reported at the groundwater body level but this pressure has not been reported 
as  being  tackled  in  the  programme  of  measures.  Similarly,  pressure  “groundwater  – 
recharges” and “groundwater – alteration of water level or volume” have been reported 
in the programme of measures but not as a significant pressure at the groundwater body 
level.  

For surface waters in the Danube, pressures 1.2 - Point - Storm overflows, 1.4 - Point - 

Non  IED plants, 1.9  - Point  – Other, 4.1.1  -  Physical  alteration of  channel/bed/riparian 
area/shore  -  Flood  protection,  4.1.4  -  Physical  alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian 
area/shore  –  Other  were  reported  at  the  water  body  level  but  were  not  included  in  the 

118 

 
programme  of  measures  as  pressures  to  be  tackled.  There  are  similar  examples  in  the 
other two RBDs. In conclusion, the recommendation has been partially met. 

 

Recommendation:  The  Programme  of  Measures  should  be  made  more  specific. 

Meaningful information regarding the scope, the timing and the funding of the measures 
should  be  included  in  the  Programme  of  Measures  so  the  approach  to  achieve  the 

objectives  is  clear  and  the  ambition  in  the  Programme  of  Measures  is  transparent.  All 
the relevant information on basic and supplementary measures should be included in the 

summary of the Programme of Measures to ensure transparency on the planned actions 
for the achievement of the environmental objectives set out in the WFD. 

Assessment:  The  Czech  Republic  reported  indicators  of  progress  in  implementing 

measures for some but not all measures. In addition, there are also potential gaps in the 
reporting  of  operational  measures  to  tackle  hydromorphological  and  some  others 

pressures.  Furthermore,  no  specific  measures  (KTM)  have  been  reported  for  the  many 
chemical  substances  causing  failure  of  WFD  objectives.  The  level  of  ambition  and 
expected progress resulting from the Programme of Measures for the second cycle is low 

with only small reductions expected in the many of the gaps to achievement of objectives 
at the end of the second cycle. In all RBDs, a clear financial commitment had not been 

secured  for  the  implementation  of  the  Programme  of  Measures  in  agriculture  and 
industry  but  had  for  flood  protection  and  the  urban  development  sectors.  The 

aquaculture,  energy,  hydropower,  recreation  and  transport  sectors  were  reported  to  be 
not-relevant  in  any  of  the  RBDs:  note  there  are  operational  measures  for  aquaculture. 

Information  was  reported  on  whether  or  not  national  measures  were  basic  or 
supplementary, and on the type of basic measure. 

The total  investment  expenditure for the Programme of Measures  for the  first  planning 

cycle  and  expected  for  the  second  planning  cycle,  which  were/are  to  be  financed  by 
European Union funds is reported to have decreased from €2054 to €751 m. In the first 

planning  cycle  European  Union  funds  represented  49  %  of  the  investment  costs  of  for 
Article 11(3)(a) and Article 11(3)(b-l), Article 11(4) and 11(5) measures. 

The RBMP for the Elbe RBD summarises the main reasons for the non-implementation 
of measures: 668 planned measures have not been implemented, 103 are construction or 

upgrades  of  wastewater  treatment  plants,  438  improvement  of  hydromorphological 
conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than  longitudinal  continuity,  57  establishment  of  fish 

passes  and  70  remediation  of  contaminated  sites.  The  main  reasons  for  non-

119 

 
implementation  of  measures  were  financial  (e.g.  lack  of  funds),  land  proprietary, 
technical, legal and natural conditions issues. 

In summary, there has been significant progress on this recommendation. 

 

Recommendation:  Carry  out  a  cost  effectiveness  analysis  of  potential  measures 

(voluntary or  obligatory), for  achieving  the environmental objectives. The effectiveness 
of  the  implemented  measures  will  have  to  be  demonstrated  by  the  assessment  of  the 

status/potential  of  water  bodies  in  the  second  RBMPs.  Available  funding,  in  particular 
the  European  Union  funds  (e.g.  RDP  funds,  Structural  and  Investment  funds,  LIFE 

Integrated Projects and Horizon 2020) needs to be exploited as much as feasible in order 
to implement Programme of Measures. Consequently, appropriate priorities shall be set 

in the programming documents (PA, OPs and RDPs) of the new European Union funding 
policy 2014-2020. 

Assessment: A combination of a qualitative and quantitative cost-effectiveness analysis 
has been carried out in all three RBDs for supporting the selection of measures proposed 

under the 2015-2021 Programme of Measures, and the general type of assessment carried 
out. The second RBMP indicated that CEA was used for measures related to wastewater 

plants  and  sewage  systems  for  four  indicators:  biological  oxygen  demand,  nitrate, 
ammonia and phosphorus. These measures and indicators were assessed in a quantitative 

way (for the four parameters). No information was found on how other types of measures 
or measures for other pollutants were selected.  

It has also been reported that funding has been secured for measures for some but not all 

sectors causing pressures. However, the information reported to WISE indicates that it is 
likely  that  the  proportional  contribution  of  European  Union  funds  to  measures  will 

decrease  between  the  two  cycles  which  seems  contrary  to  this  recommendation.  This 
recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

120 

 
 
Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

10.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in second cycle 

10.1.1.  Water exploitation and trends  

Water quantitative pressures (as consumptive use) are not reported as significant in the Czech 

Republic and no information is reported on the Water Exploitation Index +. It can be noted that 
since  the  first  cycle,  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  in  poor  quantitative  status  has 

significantly  decreased  but  the  number  with  unknown  quantitative  status  has  increased.  It  is 
unclear whether this change is due to management or changes in the assessment35. Regarding 
the remaining 9-12 % of groundwater bodies in bad quantitative status, it might be necessary to 
extend  the  abstraction  controls  to  smaller  abstractors  in  the  corresponding  basins.  As  the 

authorisations  are  time  limited  and  could  be  reviewed,  such  review  might  also  be  necessary. 
The existing authorisations could be cancelled or changed if it is necessary for the achievement 

of environmental objectives in the RBMP. 

Separate water resource allocation and management plans have not been developed in relation 

to abstractions and ecological flows though there are sub-plans relating to water scarcity and 
droughts in each RBD. Water scarcity is reported as a future issue in the international RBD the 

Elbe, but not in the Danube and the Oder. 

10.1.2.  Main uses for water consumption  

No  information  is  provided  on  uses  responsible  for  water  consumption,  as  water  quantity 
pressures (as consumptive use or net consumption) are not reported as significant. 

10.1.3.  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

In the Czech Republic, permits are required and a register exists for groundwater and surface 

water abstractions, but small abstractions are exempted from controls in all RBDs. There is a 
concession,  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  water  impoundment  and  a 

register of impoundments (under Article 11(3)(e))  in  all RBDs. These activities have existed 
for a long time and no new measures of abstraction control (except for ecological flows) are 

planned. Minimum flows are used as a significant part of the authorisation regime. However, it 
is  not  clear,  if  the  minimum  flows  are  in  line  with  ecological  flows  -  they  should  be 

implemented after 2016. 

35    The  Czech  Republic  subsequently  clarified  that  these  changes  are  mainly  due  to  changed  values  for  the 

available groundwater resource. 

121 

 
                                                      
 
There is also a register of water consumption by user for all sectors. The register has existed 
from  1979  and  is  updated  regularly,  but  no  further  specific  information  was  found  in  the 

second RBMPs. 

Under  Article  11(3)(c),  measures  promoting  efficient  and  sustainable  water  use  (e.g.  water 

metering  and  allocations)  were  implemented  in  the  previous  cycle  but  new  measures  and/or 
significant changes are planned in all RBDs. Water metering is used. The RBMP for the Elbe 

also  includes  the  following  additional  tools:  i)  regular  water  balance,  and  ii)  inventory  of 
abstracted  volume,  regular  review  of  abstraction  permits,  minimum  flows  and  minimal 

groundwater  level.  No  significant  increase  of  water  consumption  is  expected  in  the  second 
RBMP. 

Under  Article  11(3)(f),  controls,  including  a  requirement  for  prior  authorisation  of  artificial 
recharge  or  augmentation  of  groundwater  bodies  (Article  11(3)(f)),  were  implemented  in  the 

previous cycle and no new measures nor significant changes are planned in any of the RBDs. 

Although  abstractions  for  public  water  supply  are  reported  as  a  significant  pressure  for 

groundwater  in  the  Danube  and  the  Elbe,  as  well  as  abstractions  for  agriculture  for  surface 
water in the Elbe, no operational Key Types of Measures are applied to tackle these pressures. 

Specifically, KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and 
households is not applied to tackle any significant pressures, and this might be revised. 

In  all  RBDs,  reuse  of  water  (e.g.  from  waste  water  treatment  or  industrial  installations)  has 
been  considered  to  have  a  lower  environmental  impact  than  other  alternative  water  supplies 

(e.g. water transfers). Reuse of water has been included in the RBMP as a measure in terms of 
managing water resources in all RBDs. 

10.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

Very significant changes have been detected by comparing the data from this exercise with the 
first cycle information regarding the number of groundwater bodies in bad quantitative status, 

with changes reflected in the following statistics: the Danube from 27 to 9 %, the Elbe from 42 
to 12 % and the Oder from 20 to 0 %. Furthermore, in a self-assessment from 2011 on water 

scarcity and drought, all RBDs were reported by the Czech Republic to have RBD-wide water 
scarcity challenges36. As there is no information on the measures taken, there is no explanation 
for  it.  Only  recent  data  (without  detailed  information  about  year  or  period)  about  water 
abstraction/consumption  are  part  of  the  second  RBMP,  but  no  past  data  or  comparison  was 

provided. In this sense, abstraction pressures cannot be related over time to status. 

36   http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/cz/eu/wfd2016/documents/  

122 

 
                                                      
10.3. Progress with Commission recommendations 

There  were  no  relevant  Commission  recommendations  on  this  topic  requesting  action,  based 

on the first RBMPs and Programme of Measures. 

123 

 
 
 
Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture  

11.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in second cycle 

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

Management objectives have been set for nutrient pollution and a gap assessment was done for 

nitrogen in all three basins. Quantitative objectives for nutrient load reduction have only been 
set in the Elbe. For phosphorus, quantitative management objectives have only been set in the 

Elbe and a gap assessment was only done in the Oder.  

In all RBDs, supplementary measures for reducing pollution from  agriculture are reported as 

well  as  measures  to  reduce  sedimentation  from  soil  erosion  and  surface  runoff.  Financing  of 
measures  is  not  secured.  Advisory  services  are  not  reported  to  be  used  as  a  measure  in  all 

RBDs.  

In terms of the level of ambition, for groundwater, the number of groundwater bodies failing to 

achieve good status due to nitrates is expected to decrease from 26 to 24 in the Danube, from 
47 to 35 in the Elbe and from 8 to 2 in the Oder by 2021. The number of groundwater bodies 

failing  to  achieve  good  status  due  to  pesticides  is  expected  to  decrease  from  30  to  14  in  the 
Danube, from 50 to 25 in the Elbe and from 13 to 8 in the Oder by 2021. For surface waters, 

nitrogen loads are expected to decrease by about 50 % in the Danube and the Elbe and 75 % in 
the Oder by 2021. For surface waters, the number of water bodies failing environmental quality 

standards for pesticides originating from diffuse agricultural sources are expected to decrease 
from  five  to  three  in  the  Danube  and  remain  unchanged  in  the  Oder  (three  water  bodies)  by 

2021.  

The  estimated  percentage  of  groundwater  bodies  for  which  it  is  expected  that  less  stringent 

objectives (Article 4(5)) will be set because of agriculture in the third cycle is 10-20 % in the 
Danube RBD and 0-10% in the Elbe and the Oder RBDs.  

The  estimated  percentage  of  surface  water  bodies  for  which  it  is  expected  that  less  stringent 
objectives (Article 4(5)) will be set because of agriculture in the third cycle is 0-20 % in the 

Danube and the Elbe RBDs and 0-10 % in the Oder RBD. These rates vary along the different 
sub-basins.  

Safeguard zones have been established for all abstractions above 10,000 m3/year, but there is a 
possibility to establish safeguard zones for smaller abstractions.  

124 

 
Controls  or  general  binding  rules  (Article  11(3)(h)  of  the  WFD)  for  addressing  diffuse 
pollution from agriculture at source are applied and implemented, but there are differentiated 

rules for different parts of the RBDs. Financing of measures is not secured.  

Some  control  measures  are  implemented  in  the  whole  area  of  the  Czech  Republic  -  mainly 

focused on fertilization and pesticide management.  It  is  not  clear from  the second RBMPs if 
these measures are additional or not. 

Controls or binding requirements at farm level to address diffuse sources of nutrients (nitrates 
and/or  phosphates)  are  established  under  the  Nitrates  Directive37  and  have  been  adopted  via 
cross compliance (standard DZES1) inside and outside of nitrate vulnerable zones.  

No  information  about  specific  controls  or  binding  requirements  at  the  farm  level  to  address 

diffuse sources of pesticides was provided in the second RBMPs. However, regular revision of 
the list of prohibited pesticides (in the whole area) and pesticides with limited or prohibited use 

in  safeguard  zones  or  other  pesticides  vulnerable  areas  occurs.  The  revision  is  based  on 
monitoring results and changes in pesticide use. 

No information  on specific controls  or binding requirements at  the farm level  to  address  soil 
erosion  and  pollution  of  water  bodies  with  sediment  was  found  in  the  second  RBMPs. 

However,  there  is  cross  compliance  (standard  DZES5)  with  binding  requirements  for  plants 
(e.g. maize) that are associated with erosion in areas with high erosion risk.  

No  information  was  found  in  the  second  RBMP  as  to  whether  the  Key  Type  of  Measures 
reported to address agricultural pollution were mandatory or voluntary measures or both. 

The  RBMPs  or  Programmes  of  Measures  indicate  that  the  measures  have  already  been 
implemented  in  the  first  cycle  in  all  RBDs  and  will  be  continued  during  the  second  cycle. 

There is also information indicating that some measures could not be implemented in the first 
cycle  but  were  included  in  the  second  cycle  Programme  of  Measures.  It  is  not  clear  if  these 

measures  refer  to  pollution  pressures  from  agriculture  (these  measures  were  not  specifically 
mentioned).  

The source of funding for KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture, was stated to be 
Rural  Development  and  national  funds  and  for  KTM3  -  Reduce  pesticides  pollution  from 
agriculture, and KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off, 

to be the budgets of the ministries.  

37   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  

125 

 
                                                      
 
The polluter pays principle in the farming community seems not to be fully applied. 

Farmers/Farmers Unions have been consulted when developing the Programme of Measures. 

11.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

Management objectives have been set for nutrient pollution and a gap assessment was done for 

nitrogen in all three basins. Quantitative objectives for nutrient load reduction have only been 
set in the Elbe. For phosphorus quantitative management, objectives have only been set in the 

Elbe and a gap assessment was only done in the Oder. This was not the case in the first cycle.  

For all other aspects described in the first implementation report, no change has been detected.  

11.3. Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programme  of  Measures 

requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  Review the degree to which the existing measures to implement the 

Nitrates Directive (ND) are sufficient to address agricultural pressures. 

Assessment:  KTM2  -  Reduce  nutrient  pollution  from  agriculture  (basic  and 
supplementary)  and  KTM3  -  Reduce  pesticides  pollution  from  agriculture  have  been 
reported to tackle significant diffuse pressures from agriculture. In all RBDs measures 

to  reduce  sedimentation  from  soil  erosion  and  surface  runoff  are  reported.  The 
recommendation has been implemented. 

  Recommendation:  Agriculture  is  indicated  as  exerting  a  significant  pressure  on  the 
water resources in the Czech Republic. This should be translated into a clear strategy 
that  defines  the  basic/mandatory  measures  that  all  farmers  should  adhere  to  and  the 

additional  supplementary  measures  that  can  be  financed.  This  should  be  developed 
with the farming community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. There needs 

to be a very clear baseline so that any farmer knows the rules this can be adequately 
advised  and  enforced  and  so  that  the  authorities  in  charge  of  the  CAP  funds  can 

adequately  set  up  Rural  Development  programmes  and  cross  compliance  water 
requirements. 

The  above  recommendation  is  considered  together  with  that  below  due  to  the  high 
degree of overlap between them. 

126 

 
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.  Clear  references  to  expectations  for  the  Rural  Development 

Programmes  (RDPs)  in  this  regard  (and  to  other  funding  sources)  are  expected.  The 
Czech  Republic  RDP  proposes  significant  investment  in  drainage  measures,  with  the 

potential  to  lead  to  deterioration  of  status.  Compliance  with  Article  4(7)  must  be 
ensured.   

Assessment:  Controls  or  general  binding  rules  (Article  11(3)(h)  of  the  WFD)  for 

addressing  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  at  source  are  applied  and  implemented, 
but  there  are  differentiated  rules  for  different  parts  of  the  RBDs.    Farmers/Farmers 

Unions have been consulted when developing the Programme of Measures. However, it 
remains  unclear  if  a  full  strategy  to  tackle  diffuse  agricultural  pressures  has  been 

developed.  Measures  are  funded  under  the  Rural  Development  regime.Therefore,  this 
recommendation is assessed as partially fulfilled.  

 

Recommendation:  Present  in  the second RBMPs a clear assessment  of  the number of 

water  bodies  failing  to  reach  good  status  due  to  agriculturally  derived  pressures 

because diffuse sources of pollution from nitrogen and pesticides were identified as the 
main significant pressures from agriculture in the Czech Republic.  

The  above  recommendation  is  considered  together  with  that  below  due  to  the  high 
degree of overlap between them.  

  Recommendation: The Czech Republic should start measures to control diffuse sources 
of  pollution  outside  of  NVZs  and  the  Czech  Republic  should  improve  controls  of 
hydromorphological pressures from agriculture.  

Assessment:  The  RBMPs  include  estimation  of  the  amount  of  water  bodies  failing  to 
reach  good  status  due  to  agriculturally  derived  pressures.  Some  control  measures 
related to fertilization and pesticide management are implemented in the whole area of 

the  Czech  Republic.  It  is  not  clear  from  the  second  RBMPs  if  these  measures  are 
additional or not. National measures have been mapped against Key Types of Measures 

relevant  to  hydromorphology.  However,  Key  Types  of  Measures  have  not  been 
reported as  explicitly tackling specific types of hydromorphological  pressures and the 

Czech Republic was not able to quantify and report the gap indicators for this type of 
measures. So these recommendations have been partially fulfilled. 

127 

 
 

Recommendation: Additionally the Czech Republic should ensure basic measures as per 
Article  11(3)(h)  of  the  WFD  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:  Controls  or  general  binding  rules  (Article  11(3)(h)  of  the  WFD)  for 
addressing  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  at  source  are  applied  and  implemented, 

but there are differentiated rules for different parts of the RBDs. Binding rules are set 
for  nutrients,  pesticides  and  other  pollutants  in  all  three  RBDs.  Advisory  services  are 

not  reported  to  be  used  as  a  measure  in  all  RBDs.  The  recommendation  has  been 
partially implemented.  

128 

 
 
 
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.  

The  WFD  specifies  that  the  Programme  of  Measures  shall  include,  as  a  minimum,  “basic 
measures” and, where necessary to achieve objectives, “supplementary measures” when basic 

measures  are  not  enough  to  address  specific  significant  pressures  (see  the  chapter  9  in  this 
report).  

The  Czech  Republic  has  reported  KTMs  relevant  to  non-agricultural  sources  of  pressures 
causing failure of WFD objectives, such as:  

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants  

KTM4  -  Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical  pollution  including  sediments, 
groundwater, soil).  

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty, and 

KTM  99  -  Other  key  type  measure  reported  under  Programme  of  Measures  (Historical 

pollution). 

The Czech Republic has stated that there are measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters 

caused  by  those  substances  specified  in  the  list  of  priority  substances  and  to  progressively 
reduce  pollution  by  other  substances  which  would  prevent  achieving  the  objectives  for  the 

bodies of surface waters as set out in Article 4 (Article 11(3)(k)).  

For second cycle reporting, Member States have been asked to report which KTM have been 
made  operational  to  reduce  significant  pressures  and  chemical  substances  causing  failure  of 

objectives to levels compatible with the achievement of objectives. This is different to the first 
cycle where Member States just had to indicate whether basic measures were implemented.  

129 

 
The Czech Republic has only reported a limited number of pressures which are to be tackled 
by KTM (i.e. measures made operational) and no chemical substances that are to be tackled by 
specific  KTM  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  chemical  substances  are  causing  many  failures38.  This 
means that not all pressures on chemical status would be tackled with KTMs. They have also 

reported far fewer KTMs against pressures than they mapped against national measures. They 
did  not  assign  KTM15  or  KTM16  to  any  pressure  or  chemical  substance.  This  may  indicate 
that these KTMs have not been made operational in the second RBMP39.  

Examination  of  the  second  RBMPs  and  background  documents  indicated  that  although  35 
measures  for  priority  substances  are  mentioned  for  the  Elbe,  no  details  about  specific 

substances were provided and some of these measures also included priority substances from 
agriculture. Similarly, many measures described in the second RBMP refer to pollution from 

point  and  diffuse  sources,  but  there  is  no  differentiation  between  general  physicochemical 
elements and specific substances (River Basin Specific Pollutants and groundwater pollutants) 

and no differentiation between surface and groundwater. 

The  register  of  waste  water  discharges  (Basic  measures  Article  11(3)(g))  is  available  in  all 

RBDs for surface and groundwater.  In all the Czech Republic RBDs, there are no thresholds 
below which waste water discharges do not require permits and are not subject to registration 

(Basic  measure  Article  11(3)(g)).  According  to  the  information  reported  electronically  to 
WISE, direct discharges to groundwater are prohibited in all RBDs. 

12.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle  

In the first RBMPs, there was no information about measures targeted to specific substances or 

groups  of  substances.  The  national  approach  to  implementation  of  measures  related  to 
chemical  pollution  in  general  followed  the  provisions  of  WFD  Article  11(3)(g,h,k,l),  but  it 

lacked  information  on  the  specific  measures  and  effectiveness  of  the  planned  measures.  The 
to 
information  reported 

the  second  RBMPs 

that  measures 

to  WISE  on 

indicates 

eliminate/reduce pollution from priority substances and other substances have been applied in 
all RBDs. However, there is still no link between individual substances and KTMs or between 

individual  substances  and  measures.  Thus,  no  significant  progress  can  really  be  identified  in 
the second cycle.  

38  The Czech Republic subsequently clarified that they reported the information for limited types of pressures and 

pollutants, and that quantification of remaining pressures and/or pollutants are rough estimations. 

39  The Czech Republic subsequently clarified that all reported measures are operational in the second cycle. 

130 

 
                                                      
12.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programmes  of  Measures 

requested action on the following: 

 

Recommendation: “The identification of river basin specific pollutants needs to be more 
transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they 

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

ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are 
put in place.”  

to 
Assessment:  The 
eliminate/reduce pollution from priority substances and other substances (Basic measures 

that  measures 

information 

to  WISE 

indicates 

reported 

Article 11(3)(k) have been applied in all RBDs. However, no link is established between 
individual  priority  substances  or  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  or  groundwater 

pollutants and KTMs. Neither is  there a link established between individual substances 
and measures. This recommendation has therefore been partially fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation: “Identify clearly in the second RBMPs Basic measures to allow for a 

clear  assessment  of  the  need  for  additional  measures,  e.g.  the  Czech  Republic  should 
provide all information on the level of  compliance and timing to reach  full compliance 

with  Directive  91/271/EEC  (Article  15  and  following)  and  what  measures  beyond  this 
are  necessary  to  reach  good  status  and  which  of  these  will  be  included  in  the  second 

RBMPs.” 

Assessment: An analysis of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives should have 
been undertaken, quantifying both the gap that will be filled by Article 11(3)(a-l) basic 
measures and, if needed, by supplementary measures40.  

There is no clear evidence that action has been taken to fulfil this recommendation. Two 
relevant  KTMs  (15  and  16)  have  been  mapped  to  national  measures  which  do  not 

explicitly  mention  Directive  91/271/EEC.  KTM15  and  16  have  not  been  reported  in 
terms of the (pressure) gaps required to reach WFD objectives. 

40 The Czech Republic subsequently confirmed that they were not able to quantify the indicator gap. 

131 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology  

13.1.  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in second cycle 

Significant hydromorphological pressures are identified in all RBDs. For the Danube and the 
Oder, these are reported as physical alterations, while for the Elbe these are more specifically 

reported  as  physical  alterations,  dams/barriers  and  hydrological  alterations.  It  is  worth 
mentioning though that according to the WISE reporting, significant pressures from water flow 

regulation and morphological alterations have not been assessed by the Czech Republic.  

Even  though  certain  significant  hydromorphological  pressures  are  identified  and  national 
measures are mapped to Key Types of Measures relevant to hydromorphology such Key Types 

of Measures have not been reported as explicitly tackling specific types of hydromorphological 
pressures.    The  information  in  the  RBMP  of  the  Elbe  indicates  that  hydromorphological 

measures  are  planned  for  the  second  cycle.  Most  measures  are  only  generally  described,  but 
they are mainly focused on restoration of river continuity and restoration of natural conditions 

of rivers. Minimum (ecological) flows are mentioned as are sediment management as well as 
measures related to erosion. 

The Czech Republic subsequently clarified to the Commission that even if it was not possible 
to quantify and report the gap indicators for the hydromorphological measures, these measures 

are indeed planned for their implementation in this second cycle. 

According  to  information  subsequently  provided  by  the  Czech  authorities,  the  reported 
hydromorphological measures are planned for implementation in the second cycle, and are to 

be funded from the EU's Operational Programme Environment.  

For  the  majority  of  water  bodies  reported  to  have  significant  hydromorphological  pressures 
(mainly physical alterations), the sector identified is "other", i.e. is not specified as one of the 

key sectors indicated in the WISE reporting. 

There is an authorisation and/or permitting regime in place to control physical modifications to 

the water bodies in all three RBDs, according to WFD Article 11(3)(i). 

Quantitative management objectives for river continuity are reported to have been set for all 3 
RBDs. 

132 

 
Win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  FD,  drought 
management  and  use  of  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  (NWRM)  are  reported  to  be 

included  in  the  Programme  of  Measures  of  the  three  RBDs.  Furthermore,  the  design  of  new 
and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, has 

not been adapted to take into account WFD objectives. 

Ecological flows have been derived and implemented for some water bodies but work is still 
ongoing.  Measures  related  to  the  present  minimum  flow  are  applied.  A  minimum  flows 

methodology  exists  and  is  implemented,  but  it  does  not  cover  all  biological  aspects.  A  new 
methodology for ecological flows should be finished in the end of 2016, thus the setting of the 

ecological  flow  is  in  progress.  No  reference  could  be  found  to  using  the  principles  of  the 
Common Implementation Strategy guidance on ecological flows. 

No  conclusion  can  be  reached  on  the  level  of  ambition  of  relevant  measures,  because 
information  on  indicators  for  hydromorphological  pressures  and  Key  Types  of  Measures 

relevant to hydromorphological pressures are not reported. 

13.2.  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

In the second cycle, many hydromorphological  measures have been carried forward from the 

first cycle, but some new measures for hydromorphology have also been added to the RBMPs. 

In the first cycle, it was not clear, if all relevant specific pressures were  identified because of 

missing  assessment  methods  for  biological  quality  elements.  In  the  second  cycle,  significant 
hydromorphological  pressures  are  identified  and  some  biological  quality  element  assessment 

methods  in  use  for  both  lakes  and  rivers  are  reported  to  be  sensitive  to  hydrological  and 
morphological changes. 

In  the  first  cycle,  ecological  flow  regimes  were  not  applied  as  a  measure  because  they  had 

already been implemented in current legislation and applied through the legal enforcement. In 
the  second  RBMPs,  it  is  indicated  that  ecological  flows  have  been  derived  for  some  water 

bodies but work is still ongoing.  

13.3.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programme  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

133 

 
Recommendation:  Ensure  that  the  Methodology  for  ecological  flows  (called  Minimum 
Residual Flow) is consistent with the WFD environmental objectives (good ecological status or 

potential). 

Assessment:  Measures  related  to  the  present  minimum  flow  are  applied.  A  minimum  flows 
methodology  exists  and  is  implemented,  but  it  does  not  cover  all  biological  aspects.  A  new 

methodology of ecological flow should have been finished in the end of 2016, thus the setting 
of the ecological flow is in progress. No reference could be found to using the principles of the 

Common  Implementation  Strategy  guidance  on  ecological  flows.  Thus,  not  enough 
information on progress regarding this recommendation could be found in the second plans and 

the recommendation is therefore partially fulfilled. 

Recommendation:  Provide 

information  on 

future  and  current  actions 

to  address 

hydromorphological  pressures  deriving  from  water  management,  hydropower,  private  users 
and  other  related  sectors,  and  to  put  in  place  adequate  measures  in  the  second  RBMPs  (in 

particular  to  develop  a  strategy  to  implement  fish  passes  and  ensure  connectivity)  and  by 
including other restoration measures. 

Assessment: For the majority of water bodies reported to have significant hydromorphological 

pressures (mainly physical alterations), the sector identified is  "other", i.e. is not specified as 
one of the key sectors indicated in the WISE reporting. National measures have been mapped 

against  Key  Types  of  Measures  relevant  to  hydromorphology.  However,  Key  Types  of 
Measures  have  not  been  reported  as  explicitly  tackling  specific  types  of  hydromorphological 

pressures and the Czech Republic was not able to quantify and report the gap indicators for this 
type  of  measures.  According  to  information  subsequently  provided  by  the  Czech  authorities, 

the reported hydromorphological measures are planned for implementation in the second cycle.  

Overall,  there  seems  to  be  progress  on  connectivity  issues,  as  quantitative  management 

objectives  are  reported  to  have  been  set  for  all  three  RBDs.  Hydromorphological  measures 
mentioned  in  the  second  RBMPs  are  mainly  focused  on  restoration  of  river  continuity  and 
restoration  of  natural  conditions  of  rivers.  Fish  ladders  and  by-pass  channels  are  specific 
measures mentioned to address the restoration of river continuity (at least in the Elbe). 

Based on the information available in the reporting, this recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

Recommendation: Consider and prioritise the use of green infrastructure and/or natural water 
retention  measures  that  provide  a  range  of  environmental  (improvements  in  water  quality, 

134 

 
flood  protection,  habitat  conservation  etc.),  social  and  economic  benefits  which  can  be  in 
many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. 

Assessment:  Win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  FD, 

drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) are reported to 
be included in the Programme of Measures of the three RBDs. National measures have been 

mapped  to  the  KTM23  on  Natural  water  retention  measures,  although  this  Key  Type  of 
Measure is not explicitly related in the reporting to tackling specific significant pressures.  

At national level, a proposed measure addresses "Drought and Deficiency of Water Resources" 
including actions for the second planning cycle related to the use of rainwater, water retention 

in the landscape and climate adaptation measures. The Czech Republic subsequently clarified 
to  the  Commission  that  nature-related  flood  protection  measures  and  elements  of  green 

infrastructure are also proposed in the regional (sub-basin) RBMPs. 

Therefore, this recommendation is considered to a large extent as fulfilled. 

135 

 
 
 
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 

Overall, no significant modifications have been observed regarding the economic analysis and 

the implementation of Article 9. The methodology for the economic analysis has remained the 
same as for the first RBMPs, and only the specific numbers/percentages of the cost recovery 

rates  for  the  two  identified  water  services  (drinking  water  abstraction,  treatment  and 
distribution and Sewage collection and wastewater treatment) have been updated. 

It seems that more or less similar information is reported on the scope of the economic analysis 

undertaken  (e.g.  the  gap  regarding  environmental  and  resource  costs  remains  the  same 
according to the reported data).  

The way cost recovery calculations are done has not been improved. 

Similarly,  no  improvements/better  justifications  have  been  reported  regarding  adequate 
incentives,  adequate  cost  recovery  contributions  and  the  consideration  of  the  polluter-pays 

principle.  

Hydropower and energy cooling are not included in the economic analysis and the calculation 
of cost recovery rates. 

Due  to  the  very  limited  modifications  in  comparison  to  the  first  RBMP,  no  major 
improvements in implementation are noted. 

No broad definition of water services.  

14.2.  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programme  of  Measures 

requested action on the following: 

Recommendation:  The  cost-recovery  should  address  a  broad  range  of  water  services, 

including  impoundments,  abstraction,  storage,  treatment  and  distribution  of  surface 
waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-
services",  for  instance  self-abstraction  for  agriculture.  The  cost  recovery  should  be 

136 

 
transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs 
should  be  included  in  the  costs  recovered.  Information  should  be  provided  on  the 

incentive  function  of  water  pricing  for  all  water  services,  with  the  aim  of  ensuring  an 
efficient use of water. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into 

account should be provided in the RBMPs. 

Assessment:  A  narrow  definition  of  water  services  was  used,  covering  only  drinking 
water  abstraction,  treatment  and  distribution  and  sewage  collection  and  wastewater 

treatment;  yet,  it is  not  clear why only these water services were identified (while also 
other  activities  create  significant  pressures,  e.g.  diffuse  pollution  and  physical 

alterations). Hydropower is not considered in the economic analysis/is not considered a 
water service.  

All the water uses identified in general in the RBMP are not mentioned in the economic 
analysis,  but  as  (potential  or  significant)  pressures  only.  The  economic  analysis  and 

relevant calculations concerns only water services.  

The way cost recovery has been calculated has not been improved from the first cycle. 
The  calculation  of  cost  recovery  was  done  only  at  aggregated  level  for  the  two  water 

services  defined  (separately  for  each  and  then  aggregated)  but  not  disaggregated  per 
(relevant) water uses. Cost recovery levels were calculated for each RBD using specific 

information from the RBD. Water supply and wastewater treatment fees were calculated 
from  the  most  important  water  service  companies  (due  to  the  high  number  of  water 

supply companies for small  numbers  of inhabitants), but  without quantification of how 
many inhabitants were covered by these selected companies. 

There has been no consideration of  environmental  and resource costs regarding diffuse 
and  point  sources.  Regarding  environmental  costs  and  the  water  services,  these  were 

calculated based on cost of abstracted surface water (before treatment) and existing fees 
(water abstraction fee, water supply fee and sewage and wastewater treatment fee). Since 

the  environmental  costs  are  below  10  %,  they  are  considered  as  non-significant.  Thus, 
even  if  the  environmental  costs  were  calculated  in  the  second  RBMP,  they  were  not 

included into the cost recovery calculation (also reported as "not included" in the WISE 
reporting). 

There  is  no  calculation/inclusion  of  resource  costs.  Subsidies  were  considered  in  the 
economic  analysis  and  two  different  cost  recovery  rates  calculated,  with  and  without 

subsidies;  yet,  the  reported  cost  recovery  rates  are  the  ones  without  consideration  of 
subsidies.  

137 

 
No  better  explanation  regarding  the  incentive  function  of  the  current  regime  was 
provided than in the first cycle. 

No  detailed  information  regarding  the  consideration  of  the  polluter  pays  principle  was 
two  water  services 
provided; 

is  only  mentioned  as  being  used  for 

the 

it 

identified/considered, but no further explanation is provided. 

Pricing policies have not been modified/explained better in order to show how "adequate 

incentives"  are  provided.  It  is  reported  that  an  assessment  of  incentive  pricing  was 
performed as a basis for the updated Water Act; yet, no results of this analysis or details 

were  found  in  reported  documents.  Suspension  of  billing  of  water  abstraction  for 
irrigation during drought periods is still in place. 

Regarding agriculture, even if the estimated costs of measures to counteract the impact of 
diffuse pollution are reported at about €289,301,000/cycle, no additional contribution of 

agriculture  for  e.g.  a  better  implementation  of  the  polluter  pays  principle  has  been 
proposed. 

Article 9(4) is reported as not used.  

Overall, there is no progress regarding this recommendation. 

Recommendation:  Develop  fully  the  economic  analysis  of  water  use,  including  the 
calculation of Environmental and Resource Costs. The Czech Republic should revise its 

approach  to  the  exemption  from  water  fees  during  scarcity  periods,  and  CZ  should 
elaborate on this issue in the second RBMP. 

Assessment:  There  is  no  information  provided  on  the  approach  to  the  exemption  from 
water fees during scarcity periods. Hence, there is no progress on this recommendation. 

138 

 
 
 
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 

The  Czech  Republic  has  reported  Protected  Areas  for  all  relevant  directives  in  the  second 

RBMPs (Table 15.1).  

Table 15.1  Number  of  Protected  Areas  of  all  types  in  each  RBD,  for  surface  and 

groundwater 

Protected Area type 

Abstraction of water intended for human 
consumption under Article 7 

Recreational waters, including areas designated 
as bathing waters under Directive 76/160/EEC41 

Protection of species where the maintenance or 
improvement of the status 
of water is an important factor in their 
protection, including relevant Natura 2000 sites 
designated under Directive 79/409/EEC 
(Birds)42 

Protection of habitats or species where the 
maintenance or improvement of the status 
of water is an important factor in their 
protection, including relevant Natura 2000 sites 
designated under Directive 92/43/EEC 
(Habitats)43 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas 
designated as vulnerable zones under Directive 
91/676/EEC and areas 
designated as sensitive areas under Directive 
91/271/EEC 

Number of Water Bodies Associated with 
Protected Areas in 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Groundwater 

165 

94 

18 

23 

48 

10 

168 

10 

578 

37 

389 

5761 

399 

5827 

Other 

739 

49 

13 

Source: Member State reports to WISE  

41   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  

42   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  

43   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  

139 

 
 
                                                      
A good overview of the status (chemical and ecological and for ground water also quantitative) 
of  water  bodies  associated  with  Protected  Areas  is  reported  (Figure  15.1)  with  the  status 

classification reported with three degrees of confidence. 

Figure 15.1  Status of water bodies associated with the Protected Areas reported for Czech 

Republic.  Note:  based  on  status/potential  aggregated  for  all  water  bodies 
associated with all Protected Areas 

Ecological status/potential

Chemical status SWB

Chemical status GWB

Quantitative status

High

Good

Moderate

Poor

Bad

Unknown

0%

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

% of water bodies associated with PAs 

Source: Member State reports to WISE  

  The  Czech  Republic  reported  that,  for  Protected  Areas  designated  under  the  Birds  and 
Habitats Directives, no specific water objectives have been set to protect dependent habitats or 

species because the additional needs are not known. It is not possible to judge if this refers to 
the  fact  that  it  is  not  known  if  the  objectives  according  to  the  WFD  will  also  cover  the 

objectives according to other European Union legislation. Overall, the additional needs which 
are unknown are unclear. For Drinking Water Protected Areas, no additional objectives are set 

either. 

Overall,  the  Czech  Republic  has  not  set  objectives  for  the  different  types  of  Protected  Area, 

despite  the  relevant  Commission  recommendation  from  the  first  RBMPs.  Therefore,  no 
exemptions have been reported either from relevant Protected Area objectives. 

As  objectives  for  Protected  Areas  have  not  been  set,  a  gap  analysis  to  assess  the  need  for 
additional measures is not mentioned (as assessed in the Elbe). 

140 

 
 
Monitoring sites of surface water associated with Protected Areas are only reported for those 
under  the  Habitats  and  the  Nitrates  and  Urban  Waste  Water44  Directives  (Table  15.2).  No 
specific  monitoring  sites  are  reported  as  associated  with  other  Protected  Areas  (those 
designated under Article 7 of the WFD, Bathing or Birds Directives). No data are reported on 

monitoring sites of groundwater associated with Protected Areas, except for nutrient sensitive 
areas under the Nitrates Directive. Further information on the purpose of monitoring sites for 

surface water and groundwater status assessment can be found in Chapters 3 and 4 (ecological 
and chemical status of surface waters) and Chapters 5 and 6 (quantitative and chemical status 

of groundwater) of this report. 

Table 15.2 

Number  of  monitoring sites  associated  with  Protected  Areas  in  the  Czech 

Republic 

Protected Area type 

Protection of habitats or species where the 
maintenance or improvement of the status of water 
is an important factor in their protection, including 
relevant Natura 2000 sites designated under 
Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats) 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas designated 
as vulnerable zones under Directive 91/676/EEC 
and areas 
designated as sensitive areas under Directive 
91/271/EEC 

Number of monitoring sites associated with 
Protected Areas in 

Groundwater 

Lakes 

12 

Rivers 

278 

611 

326 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

For Drinking Water Protected Areas, there are safeguard zones in the three RBDs and there are 
no  plans  to  change  the  regulations  as  a  result  of  this  RBMP.  Information  on  the  size  of  the 

safeguard  zones  and  criteria  for  their  establishment  are  provided.  While  measures  in  these 
zones are mandatory, it is not clear if the safeguard zones are sufficient to ensure the protection 

of the drinking water.  

For Birds and Habitats Protected Areas, no measures have been planned (assessed in the Elbe). 

For  Protected  Areas  related  to  bathing  waters,  additional  measures  are  applied  (to  reduce 
phosphorus/eutrophication),  but  no  information  was  found  in  the  second RBMPs  on  whether 

the additional measures will be sufficient to reach the objectives (as assessed in the Elbe). 

In general, as specific objectives are not set for Protected Areas, specific additional measures 

were not expected to be included.  

44  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  

141 

 
 
 
                                                      
15.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

A  significant  reduction  is  noted  in  the  number  of  Protected  Areas  related  to  Article  7  in  all 
RBDs, apparently both for drinking water abstraction45 from surface and ground water. There 
also seems to be a significant increase in the number of Habitats and Nitrates Protected Areas 

between the first and second cycle. 

The  reporting  of  monitoring  sites  associated  with  Protected  Areas  is  limited.  No  specific 

monitoring sites are reported as associated with Protected Areas designated under Article 7 of 
the WFD,  Birds or  Bathing Water Directives nor monitoring sites  of  groundwater associated 

with  Protected  Areas  (except  for  nutrient  sensitive  areas  under  the  Nitrates  Directive).  A 
comparison  with  the  first  cycle  is  not  possible,  as  no  information  was  available  in  the  first 

RBMPs. 

15.3. Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programme  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

 

Recommendation:  Assess  what  additional  objectives/measures  are  needed  for 

Protected  Areas  (Species  and  Habitats,  Drinking  Water,  Bathing  Water)  and  to 

include these additional objectives/measures in the second RBMPs. 

Assessment:  None  of  these  requirements  have  been  fulfilled  as  no  objectives  have 

been set because additional needs are not known. It seems as if this "explanation" has 
been  used  as  a  default  answer  -  indicating  that  no  assessment  of  the  individual 

Protected Areas in order to set an objective has been started. In consequence of this it 
is assumed that no measures are planned for the second cycle. 

45  The  Czech  Republic  later  clarified  that  the  reduction  appears  as  a  result  of  reporting  on  water  bodies  with 
drinking water abstractions, rather than individual drinking water abstractions as reported in the first RBMPs.  

142 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change 

16.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in second cycle 

The  Czech  Republic  mentioned  in  the  first  RBMP  that  climate  change  will  be  taken  into 
consideration in  the subsequent  cycles.  Indeed, in the second cycle,  climate change has been 

assessed and taken into account in all three RBDs for the second RBMPs. The specific climate 
change aspects considered are drought management/water scarcity and flood risk management.  

A National Climate Change Strategy has been developed and adopted in October 2015, but it 
could  not  be  fully  included  in  the  RBMP  (due  to  the  late  agreement).  The  National  Action 

Programme  (including  particular  measures,  responsibility  and  deadlines)  is  reported  to  be 
prepared later and will be used in the next cycle.  

Specific  climate  change  adaptation  measures  (KTM24)  have  not  been  applied  but  there  are 
specific sub-plans addressing climate change in all three RBDs, based on the WISE reporting. 

According to the assessment of the second RBMPs, no specific sub-plans on Climate Change 
Strategy  were  prepared  for  the  Elbe  and  Oder  RBDs,  but  the  regional  and  national  RBMPs 

include a chapter about the issue. The Climate Adaptation Strategy for the Danube RBD was 
developed in 2012. 

No maladaptation measures were identified (as assessed in the Elbe). 

The  Czech  Republic  reports  that  they  did  not  use  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy 

guidance  24.  No  information  about  climate  proofing  of  measures  was  found  in  the  second 
RBMPs.  

Even though there is no legal obligation to prepare Drought Management Plans, many Member 
States have prepared them in order to  cope with  droughts.  "Droughts and water scarcity"  are 

considered  as  relevant  aspects  in  the  climate  change  adaptation  strategies  in  all  three  RBDs. 
There is a sub-plan on water scarcity and droughts for all three RBDs. 

16.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

In  the  first  RBMPs,  all  RBDs  had  developed  a  drought  management  plan.  In  the  second 

RBMPs, the situation is similar as sub-plans on water scarcity and droughts are reported for all 
RBDs. 

143 

 
While in the first  cycle an impact  analysis of climate change was not  included, this has now 
been done in the second RBMPs. 

16.3. Progress with Commission recommendations 

There  were  no  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  Programme  of 

Measures. 

144