COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Italy 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: Italy, 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) 51 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River  Basin Management Plans - Member State: Italy Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 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} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 
Acronyms and definitions ............................................................................................................. 5 

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

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

Status of second river basin management plan reporting ......................................................... 10 

Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s)
.................................................................................................................................................... 11 

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 22 

Topic 1

  Governance and public participation ....................................................................... 26 

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

1.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 31 

1.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 31 

Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District............................................................. 35 

2.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 35 

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 50 

2.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 50 

Topic 3
bodies 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water 

 ................................................................................................................................... 52 

3.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
RBMPs ................................................................................................................................... 52 

3.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs ................... 76 

3.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 77 

Topic 4

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................... 82 

4.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle  82 

4.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 100 

4.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 101 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 5
bodies 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater 

 ................................................................................................................................. 105 

5.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 105 

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

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

Topic 6

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 

117 

6.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 117 

6.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 124 

6.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 126 

Topic 7
  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 
Ecological Potential ................................................................................................................. 128 

7.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle for designation ............................................................................................................. 128 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 130 

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

Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions .............................................................. 133 

8.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 133 

8.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 145 

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

Topic 9

  Programmes of measures ........................................................................................ 147 

9.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 147 

9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 159 

9.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 160 

Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity .......................................... 164 

2 

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

10.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 169 

10.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 169 

Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture................................................... 172 

11.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 172 

11.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 173 

11.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 174 

Topic 12

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture ..................... 178 

12.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 178 

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

12.3 

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

Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology ................................................................ 183 

13.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 183 

13.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 185 

13.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 185 

Topic 14

Economic analysis and water pricing policies .................................................... 187 

14.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 187 

14.2 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 188 

  Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives 

Topic 15
and measures) .......................................................................................................................... 193 

15.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second RBMP ....................................................................................................................... 193 

15.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP ............... 198 

15.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 198 

Topic 16

Adaptation to drought and climate change .......................................................... 200 

3 

 
 
 
 
16.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second RBMP ....................................................................................................................... 200 

16.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP ............... 201 

16.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 201 

4 

 
 
Acronyms and definitions 

EQS Directive 

Environmental Quality Standards Directive 

FD 

Km 

km2 

KTM 

PoM 

RBD 

RBMP 

WFD 

WISE 

Annex 0 

Floods Directive 

Kilometre 

Kilometre squared 

Key Type of Measure 

Programme of Measures 

River Basin District 

River Basin Management Plan 

Water Framework Directive 

Water Information System for Europe 

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

information, 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Foreword 

The  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  (2000/60/EC)  requires  in  its  Article  18  that  each 
Member  State  (MS)  reports  its  River  Basin  Management  Plan(s)  (RBMPs)  to  the  European 
Commission. The second RBMPs were due to be adopted by the Member States in December 
2015 and reported to the European Commission in March 2016. 

This  Member  State  Assessment  report  was  drafted  on  the  basis  of  information  that  was 
reported  by  Member  States  through  the  Water  Information  System  for  Europe  (WISE) 
electronic reporting.  

The  Member  State  Reports  reflect  the  situation  as  reported  by  each  Member  State  to  the 
European Commission in 2016 or 2017 and with reference to River Basin Management Plans 
(RBMP) prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States may have changed since then. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
General Information 

Italy (Map A) has a population of 60 million  and a total surface area greater than 300 000 km2. 
A large proportion of the territory is upland or mountainous: in mainland Italy, the Alps spread 
as an arc across the northernmost part of the country, while the Apennines stretch through the 
centre of the country. Most of the population lives in lowland areas, which as a result have a 
high population density. 

Map A  

Map of River Basin Districts 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

  International River Basin Districts (within European Union 

and Switzerland) 

  International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) 

  National River Basin Districts (within European Union) 

  Countries (outside European Union) 

  Coastal Waters 

Italy has eight River Basin Districts (RBDs) (Table A). The largest, the Padan, is 74 000 km2 
and covers almost 1-quarter of the country’s territory. Six RBDs cover mainland Italy, while 
one each covers Italy’s two large islands, Sardinia and Sicily. 

7 

ITMediterranean SeaTyrrhenian SeaAdriatic SeaLigurian SeaHRBARSRSMEALITBITFITAITEITCITHITGITCITDFRDHU1000AT1000CHFRESI_RBD_1SI_RBD_2MTMALTAMC0200400km 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The information on areas of the national RBDs including sharing countries is provided in the 
following table: 

Table A 

Overview of Italy‘s River Basin Districts  

RBD 

Name 

Size (km2) 

Countries sharing RBD 

ITA 

ITB 

ITC 

ITD 

ITE 

ITF 

ITG 

ITH 

Eastern Alps 

Padan 

38 187 

AT, CH, SI 

70 274 (71 057)  CH, FR 

North Apennines  

40 099 (38 131)  FR 

Serchio 

Central Apennines  

South Apennines 

Sardinia 

Sicily 

16 29 

37 616 

71 037 

30 265 

28 036 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE 

Italy subsequently clarified that there was an error in the reported information (corrected values in brackets) 

Three Italian RBDs share catchments with other Member States, and two with Switzerland: 

  The  Eastern  Alps  RBD  shares  catchments  with  Slovenia  and  small  catchments  with 

Austria and Switzerland; 

  The  Padan  RBD  shares  catchments  with  Switzerland  and  a  small  catchment  with 

France; 

  The North Apennines RBD shares catchments with France. 

Table  B  provides  information  for  several  key  shared  catchments  (note  that  the  data  for  the 
Danube  refers  to  Italy’s  share  of  the  whole  international  RBD;  for  the  others,  data  refers 
specifically to the catchment). 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
Table B 

Transboundary river basins by category and % share in Italy 

Name international 
river basin 

National 
RBD 

Countries 
sharing RBD 

Coordination category 

1 
km²  % 

2 

4 

km² 

% 

km² 

% 

AL, AT, 
BA,BG, CH, 
CZ, DE, HR, 
HU, IT, MN, 
ME, MK, PL, 
RO, RS, SL, 
SK, UA 
AT, BE, CH, 
DE, FR, IT, LI, 
LU, NL 

565 
(613) 

<0.1 

60 (52)  <0.1 

Danube 

ITA 

Rhine 

Po 

ITB 

ITB 

CH, FR 

Ticino/Lago Maggiore 
(Sub--basin Po) 

ITB 

CH 

Adda/Lake Como 
(Sub--basin Po) 

(Dora riparia) 
(Sub basin Po) 

Isonzo/Soca 

Adige/Etsch 

Roia 

ITB 

ITB 

ITA 

ITA 

ITC 

CH 

FR 

SI 

CH 

FR 

94.8 

48.9 
(no 
value) 

94.0 
(no 
value) 

70 153 
(70274) 

3 229 
(3270) 

7 448 
(437) 

(144) 

1 133 
(1072) 

33.3 
(31,7) 

(67) 

(67) 

(10) 

(10) 

(12049) 

(98.9) 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Italy subsequently clarified that there was an error in the reported information (corrected values in brackets) 

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

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Status of second river basin management plan reporting 

A  total  of  eight  RBMPs  of  Italy  (Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  North  Apennines,  Serchio,  Central 
Apennines, South Apennines, Sardinia, Sicily) were published between 17 December 2015 and 
29  June  2016.  Documents  are  available  from  the  European  Environment  Agency  EIONET 
Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/.  

10 

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

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

 

Governance and public consultation 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Italy  has  taken  steps  to  strengthen  the  role  of  the  RBD  authorities  and  improve 
coordination among regions within each RBD, setting a more clear hierarchy between 
RBMPs  and  regional  plans.  Italy  has  strengthened  international  coordination,  notably 
on cross-border catchments with Slovenia and France, although further steps could be 
taken. 

The reporting of sub-plans does not appear to be consistent across Italy’s RBDs. 

Italy  did  not  adopt  and  publish  the  RBMPs  in  accordance  with  the  timetable  in  the 
Water Framework Directive. 

Several  of  the  national  types  for  Italy  in  all  of  the  RBDs  do  not  appear  to  have 
corresponding intercalibration types. It is unclear  how the intercalibration process has 
been translated to these national types1. 

For the majority of types, type specific reference conditions have not been established 
for physicochemical or hydromorphological quality elements. 

The characterisation of groundwater bodies was not complete for some RBDs (as stated 
in  Annex  0).  Information  on  the  linkages  of  groundwaters  with  surface  water  and 
terrestrial  ecosystems  is  missing  for  several  RBDs,  although  Italy  stated  that  work  is 
underway to improve this. 

A  number  of  significant  pressures  were  not  assessed  for  surface  waters  and 
groundwaters. The reasons for this were unclear from the RBMPs.  

The  North  Apennines  RBD  and  Sicily  RBD  reported  to  WISE  that  the  definition  of 
significance of pressures was not linked to the potential failure of objectives for surface 
waters.  Similarly,  for  groundwater  the  North  Apennines  RBD  and  the  Serchio  RBD 
reported to WISE that the definition of significance of pressures was not linked to the 

1 Italy subsequently clarified that Italian legislation defined broad types (intercalibration macro-types) which are 
homogenous  from  the  abiotic  and  ecological  point  of  view.  Such  broad  types  are  identified  within  the 
intercalibration exercises run between 2005 and 2017 and they comprise all national types. Italy believes that 
this approach guarantees that intercalibration results are extended to all national types.  

11 

 
 
                                                      
 

 

potential  failure  of  objectives.  In  addition,  the  tools  for  defining  significant  pressures 
varied between RBDs and were not adequately described in all RBMPs. 

Priority  Substances  and  other  substances  causing  the  failure  of  good  chemical  status 
were reported for five of the eight RBDs. However the gaps have not been identified to 
tackle  these  substances  to  achieve  good  status  by  2021  (or  2027),  indicating  the 
pressures not having been adequately apportioned. 

Italy  reported  inventories  of  emissions  for  five  of  the  eight  RBDs.  The  number  of 
substances  included  ranged  from  10  to  41.  Tier  1  of  the  methodology  was  used  for 
several  of  the  substances  deemed  relevant  at  RBD  level,  which  does  not  follow  the 
recommendation of the CIS Guidance Document n°28. The data quality was variable, 
from uncertain to medium, or was not reported. 

 

Characterisation of the RBD 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the majority of types, type specific reference conditions have not been established 
for physicochemical or hydromorphological quality elements2. 

The characterisation of groundwater bodies was not complete for some RBDs (as stated 
in Annex 0).  

There was an improvement in the assessment of pressures since the first RBMPs, but a 
number of significant pressures were not assessed for surface waters and groundwaters. 
In some cases, the reasons for this were unclear from the RBMPs.  

The Sicily RBD reported to WISE that the definition of significance of pressures was 
not linked to the potential failure of objectives for surface waters. In addition, the tools 
for  defining  significant  pressures  varied  between  RBDs  and  were  not  adequately 
described in some RBMPs. 

Priority  Substances  and  other  substances  causing  the  failure  of  good  chemical  status 
were reported for all eight RBDs. However the gaps have not been identified to tackle 
these substances to achieve good status by 2021 (or 2027). 

In the RBMPs, Italy reported inventories of emissions for five of the eight RBDs3. The 
number  of  substances  included  ranged  from  10  to  41.  Tier  1  and  Tier  2  of  the 

2   Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  for  river  types  type-specific  reference  conditions  for  hydromorphological 

quality elements have been established. 

12 

 
 
                                                      
methodology  were  used  for  several  of  the  substances  deemed  relevant  at  RBD  level. 
The data quality was variable, from uncertain to medium, or was not reported. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In  the  six  RBDs  for  which  information  is  available  for  both  the  first  and  second 
RBMPs, there were significant increases in the number of monitoring sites in all water 
categories, even if some gaps remain in several RBDs.  

The required biological quality elements are generally monitored in rivers but not all of 
them are monitored in lakes, transitional and coastal waters. 

There are significant gaps in the monitoring of hydromorphological quality elements.  

All  the  relevant  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  were  monitored  in  coastal 
waters in most RBDs but there are gaps in the monitoring of lakes, rivers and coastal 
waters in some RBDs. 

All biological quality elements used for surveillance monitoring were sampled at least 
at  the  minimum  recommended  frequency  at  all  sites.  However,  for  operational 
monitoring this is the case for only two of the seven biological quality elements used. 

At least 289 different River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored in 
Italy.  However,  there  are  issues  relating  to  the  reporting  of  this  information  to  WISE 
and it is unclear what the exact number is. 

Biological quality element  methods have  been  developed, for the second RBMPs, for 
all  relevant  biological  quality  elements  in  all  water  categories,  with  the  exceptions  of 
fish in transitional waters and phytobenthos in lakes. 

The  classification  boundaries  for  all  hydromorphological  quality  elements  and 
physicochemical  quality  elements  in  all  water  categories  were  not  related  to  the  class 
boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements4. 

3   Italy subsequently explained that the remaining inventories, even if not reported in the RBMPs, were prepared 
and  submitted  through  Reportnet  where  they  were  uploaded  in  an  envelope  under  the  reporting  of  the  1st 
RBMPs. 

4   Italy subsequently clarified that it is currently checking the consistency between the physico-chemical quality 
element standards (LIMeco, LTLeco, TRIX) in relation to good-moderate boundaries for sensitive biological 
quality  elements  for  lakes  rivers  costal  and  transitional  water  following  the  indications  from  the  draft  CIS 
guidance “Best practice for establishing nutrient concentrations to support good ecological status”. 

13 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
 

 

 

Environmental  Quality  Standards  were  reported  for  at  least  110  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants,  including  27  substances  in  sediment  and  89  in  water.  However,  not  all 
Standards have been derived in accordance with the Technical Guidance no. 27. 

There  was  an  increase  in  the  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  at  good  or  better 
ecological status/potential, from 25 % in the first RBMPs to 42 % in the second. At the 
same time, there was a significant reduction in the proportion of surface water bodies 
with unknown status/potential, from 56 % to 18 %.  

The confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential has improved due to 
increased monitoring and assessment of biological quality elements. 

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

 

 

 

Approximately  two  thirds  of  all  lake  monitoring  sites  have  been  used  for  monitoring 
chemical status and just under half of river and transitional water monitoring sites are 
used. Of the coastal monitoring sites, 41 % were monitored for chemical status. Over 
two thirds of transitional  water bodies were  monitored for chemical status.  Territorial 
waters  are  not  monitored  and  assessed  for  chemical  status  under  the  WFD.  Italy 
mentioned that their status has been assessed under the MSFD, but it is unclear whether 
this assessment was based on the same criteria as the ones required for the WFD. 

59  %  of  water  bodies  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  were  reported  to  be 
monitored as part of the operational programme in Italy as a whole. A quarter of river 
water bodies, around a third of coastal water bodies and a less than half of lake water 
bodies were monitored for chemical status. 

For status assessment, monitoring was reported for more than 3241 Priority Substances 
at  a  site  level  across  the  RBDs.  A  higher  proportion  (up  to  100  %)  of  coastal  and 
transitional waters was monitored for more than 10 Priority Substances than for lakes 
and  rivers  (up  to  70  %).  Monitoring  frequencies  in  water  meet  the  minimum 
recommended  frequency  in  the  Directive  at  some  sites  but  not  in  others.  Italy  has 
indicated that reduces frequencies are justified according to the European and national 
legislation however no detailed explanation was provided. Mercury, hexachlorobenzene 
and hexachlorobutadiene were monitored in biota for status assessment in four RBDs. 
Monitoring  frequencies  in  biota  meet  the  recommended  minimum  frequency  of  the 
Directive in each site monitored. 

14 

 
 
 

 

 

 

For trend assessment, arrangements are reported to be in place in two RBDs but not in 
three RBDs. Italy monitors up to 10 of the 14 Priority Substances for trend assessment 
in  sediment  and/or  biota  in  four  of  the  eight  RBDs.  Each  of  the  10  substances  is 
monitored at some monitoring sites in coastal and transitional waters across all RBDs 
monitored.  Almost  all  sites  for  trend  assessment  were  monitored  at  a  frequency  of  at 
least once every three years which meets the minimum requirements of the Directive. 

In five of the eight RBDs in Italy, almost all of the Priority Substances discharged into 
the RBDs are monitored. For the remainder, while inventories have been produced and 
submitted to the Commission through Reportnet, they have not all been reported in the 
RBMPs and therefore in performing the current assessment it was not always possible 
to identify which substances are discharged into the RBDs and compare with the list of 
monitored priority substances.  

For Italy in general, between the two cycles there was a large increase in the proportion 
of surface water bodies with good chemical status from 18 % to 72 % and an increase 
in the proportion with poor status from 4.8 % to 8.5 %. The proportion with unknown 
status has reduced significantly from 78 % to 20 %. 

25  %  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Italy  were  classified  for  chemical  status  with  high 
confidence, 29 % with medium confidence and 46 % with low confidence. 

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 

bodies 

 

 

 

Overall, half of all groundwater bodies are not monitored for quantitative status.  Yet, 
there are considerable differences in the monitoring  coverage of quantitative status of 
groundwater  bodies  at  river  basin  district  level  (coverage  ranging  between  18  and  96 
%).  

Approximately  25  %  of  all  groundwater  bodies  have  no  clear  status  with  differences 
amongst the different river basin districts. 

 Relevant  environmental  objectives  for  surface  waters  and  groundwater  dependent 
terrestrial ecosystems have only partially been considered in all river basin districts but 
measures are included in the river basin management plans to improve the knowledge 
base.  

15 

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

 

 

 

 

Around  50  %  of  groundwater  bodies  are  not  subject  to  surveillance  monitoring,  with 
considerable variations between RBDs. Not all groundwater bodies at risk were subject 
to  operational  monitoring  and  not  all  substances  causing  risk  were  monitored. 
Threshold values are not established for all substances causing risk in all RBDs. 

The number of groundwater bodies with unclear status has declined (from 263 to 183 
groundwater bodies) although a significant proportion of groundwater bodies have no 
clear  status  and  the  confidence  in  status  results  is  low  or  unknown  (with  range 
variations among districts and regions). 

The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  chemical  status  and  the  related 
groundwater  body  area  has  increased  (from  23  %  to  25  %  in  terms  of  number  of 
groundwater  bodies).  However,  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  taken  into 
consideration differs from first and second cycle reporting. 

Groundwater  dependent  ecosystems  were  considered  in  status  assessment  where  they 
were  related  to  risk.  Groundwater  associated  surface  waters  were  not  considered  in 
status assessment in some river basin districts where they were related to risk. 

 

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

 

 



Progress  has  been  made  since  the  first  RBMPs  in  developing  the  methodology  for 
designating  heavily  modified  water  bodies  and  artificial  water  bodies.  A  common 
national  methodology  has  been  in  place  since  2013.  In  some  RBDs,  however, 
implementation  of  the  methodology  for  heavily  modified  water  body  designation 
remains  ongoing  and  the  designations  are  preliminary.  According  to  information 
provided by Italy, the evaluation of significant adverse effects and better environmental 
options for designation of heavily modified water bodies is currently being carried out. 

A  national  methodology  for  good  ecological  potential  has  not  been  included  in  the 
second  RBMPs.  According  to  information  provided  by  Italy,  a  national  methodology 
for good ecological potential has been developed and approved with a Decree of 2016. 



16 

 
 
Environmental objectives and exemptions 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental  objectives  for  ecological  and  chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies 
were  reported  in  all  RBDs  as  well  as  for  chemical  and  quantitative  status  of 
groundwater  bodies.  Information  is  also  provided  on  when  it  is  expected  that  the 
objectives will be achieved. 

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

Overall the number of exemptions under Article 4(4) has significantly increased in all 
RBDs. 

The RBMP for the Padan RBD, which was assessed in more detail, provided a list of 
water bodies and the indication of when they were expected to reach good status. For 
some water bodies expected to reach good status in 2021 or 2027 also Article 4(5) was 
applied, which requires detailed assessments as Article 4(5) allows for lower objectives 
than good status. 

The  level  of  information  provided  behind  the  justification  of  exemptions  varies  a) 
depending on the reason, and b) depending on the different RBDs. 

Italy  did  not  report  the  application  of  exemptions  under  Article  4(7)  in  the  second 
RBMPs.  However,  from  the  information  reported  and  assessed  it  appears  that  the 
impacts on the status of planned new modifications have not been assessed in full detail 
and the requirements set out by Article 4(7) have not been fully followed. 

 

Programme of Measures 

 

 

Progress has been made by identifying significant pressures and defining KTMs in all 
RBDs except Sicily, and carrying out gap analyses in four of the eight RBDs. 

The level of implementation of the measures set in the first RBMPs has been limited to 
full application of only some measures.  Notably the governance aspects are reported as 
an obstacle in seven RBDs in the second cycle. A new law, adopted in December 2015, 
reformed  the  institutional  structure  of  the  river  basin  authorities  in  order  to  address 
these problems. 

 

No clear overall financial commitment has been secured for the implementation of the 
second Programme of Measures for all of the RBDs. 

17 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

New  legislation  or  regulations  to  implement  the  Programme  of  Measures  in  the  first 
RBMPs  was  reported  necessary  and  was  reported  as  already  being  adopted  in  the 
Eastern  Alps,  Northern  Appenines  and  Serchio  RBDs  and  in  progress  in  the  Padan, 
Central  Apennines  and  Southern  Apennines  RBDs.  There  was  no  information  for  the 
Sicily RBD. 

For surface water, KTMs were reported for all significant pressure types causing failure 
of  objectives  reported  in  all  RBD.  For  groundwater,  KTMs  were  reported  for  all 
significant  pressure  types  causing  failure  of  objectives  in  the  Eastern  Alps,  Padan, 
Serchio, Northern Appennines, Southern Appennines, Sicily and Sardinia RBDs. 

KTMs  have  been  mapped  against  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  and  substances, 
respectively in surface water and groundwater, for two RBDs5 only (the Eastern Alps, 
and Central Appennines) 

Similarly,  KTMs  have  been  mapped  against  priority  substances  in  surface  water  for 
three  RBDs6  only  (the  Eastern  Alps,  Central  Appennines  and  Southern  Appennines), 
whilst  the  number  of  water  bodies  failing  objectives  due  to  priority  substances  in 
surface water has been reported for the same RBDs plus Sardinia. 

A  large  number  of  national  basic  and  supplementary  measures  have  been  mapped 
against a wide range of KTMs. Many of the measures apply in all RBDs. 

In terms of indicators of the gaps to be filled by Key Types of Measure and indicators 
for  the  scale  and  progress  with  implementation  of  measures  until  2027,  significant 
progress  has  been  made  in  four  of  the  eight  RBDs,  the  Eastern  Alps,  Central 
Apennines, Southern Apennines and Sardinia. No progress has been made in the other 
four RBDs. 

 

The  RBMPs  and  Floods  Directive  and  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  have  been 
coordinated in all RBDs. 

5   Italy subsequently clarified that KTMs have been mapped against RBSP for all RBDs.  However, this is not 

reported in WISE. 

6   Italy subsequently clarified that KTMs have been mapped against priority substances in surface water for all 

RBDs.  However, this is not reported in WISE. 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 

  Water  abstraction  pressures  were  reported  as  relevant  for  several  river  basin  districts. 
The Water Exploitation Index + is calculated in all river basin districts, showing water 
stress for instance in Padan, North Apennines, and Sicily.  

 

 

 

 

 

Data  were  reported  for  the  uses  of  water  consumption  but  are  in  general  based  on 
estimates, surveys, assimilated from statistics, or from other undefined or not described 
methods. 

There is a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime in place to control surface 
and groundwater abstractions and water impoundment in all river basin districts. 

Nearly  all  river  basin  management  plans  include  a  water  resource  allocation  and 
management plan. 

Italy  has  put  in  place  a  national  policy  framework  to  extend  metering  to  irrigation; 
implementation  on  the  ground  has  recently  started,  according  to  the  information 
provided by Italy. 

Funding sources and budgets for specific measures are not outlined in all the RBMPs, 
and the overview figures for addressing abstraction control and concessional appear to 
be relatively low. 

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 A  gap  assessment  for  pressure  reductions  for  nutrients  was  reported  only  in  the 
Southern Apennines RBD. 

Safeguard measures for drinking water have been established. 

Financing of measures is secured in all RBDs except the North Apennines RBD where 
financing has not been reported as secured. 

It is not clear from the assessed RBMP what part mandatory or voluntary measures will 
play in achieving the WFD objectives, although some regions do state this.  

19 

 
 
 
  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 

 

 

 

A large range of KTMs relevant to non-agricultural sources of pressures causing failure 
of  WFD  objectives  were  reported  for  Italy.  However,  for  several  of  the  RBDs,  these 
were not linked in WISE to specific substances causing failure. 

A  register  of  wastewater  discharges  was  available  in  seven  out  of  eight  RBDs  for 
surface and groundwater. No such register was reported in the Sicily RBD. 

Information  available  in  the  RBMPs  reviewed  showed  that  the  measures  described 
there were generally not explicitly linked to individual substances causing failure.  

  Measures  are  planned  to  better  control  discharges  from  urban  wastewater  treatment 
plants, some RBMP but not all contain an assessment of the anticipated impact of the 
measures. 

  Measures related to hydromorphology 

 

 

 

In  the  first  RBMPs,  few  water  bodies  were  reported  as  being  subject  to  significant 
hydromorphological pressures. In the second RBMPs, as the effect of a more rigorous 
analysis  of  pressures,  the  share  of  surface  water  bodies  reported  as  affected  by 
significant  hydromorphological  pressures  has  significantly  increased.  In  general,  the 
significant  hydromorphological  pressures  are  assigned  to  specific  sectors  with  few 
exceptions. Operational KTMs to tackle significant hydromorphological pressures were 
reported for all RBDs.  

In six out of eight RBDs, ecological flows have not yet been derived. However, in the 
majority  of  RBDs,  there  are  plans  to  do  so  before  the  third  RBMPs.  According  to 
information  subsequently  provided  by  Italy,  new  Directives  for  calculating  the 
ecological flow have been approved in the end of 2017 in the continental RBDs, which 
will entail the transition from minimum vital flows to e-flows, in accordance with the 
CIS Guidance number 31. This should be reflected in the third RBMPs.  

Natural water retention measures are clearly planned in some RBDs and the RBMPs of 
further RBDs may include references to green infrastructure and natural water retention 
measures.  There  is  also  evidence  that  priority  is  given  to  the  use  of  natural  water 
retention measures and green infrastructure measures in the planning process, at least in 
some RBDs. 

20 

 
 
 

Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

 

 

 

RBDs have applied the provisions of Ministerial Decree 39/2015 and have carried out 
an analysis of services and uses that exert significant pressures on water resources; this 
implies that services and uses taken into consideration in each RBD may differ. 

It is not clearly explained in some RBMPs if the cost recovery rates per water service 
are disaggregated to contributions from different water users. 

A methodology for calculation of environmental and resource costs is given at national 
level. 

 

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

 

 

 

Objectives  have  generally  been  developed  for  Protected  Areas  on  a  site  by  site  basis 
rather than using a broad generic approach.  

For some most of the protected nature areas, the additional measures required to meet 
specific objectives are not known.  

The monitoring of protected areas show some gaps. Some of these gaps may appear due 
to errors in the WISE reporting. 

 

Adaptation to drought and climate change 

 

 

 

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

Drought management plans were reported for Italy for the Eastern Alps, Padan, North 
Apennines,  Serchio,  Central  Apennines  and  Sardinia  RBDs.  According  to  the 
information provided by Italy, "Permanent Observatories on water uses" at district level 
have been set up in 2016 in the country, whose role has not been specified. 

No  such  plan  was  reported  for  the  Sicily  RBD  in  spite  of  the  relevance  of  drought 
acknowledged in the 2012 Topic report. 

21 

 
 
 
 
Recommendations  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The preparation of the next RBMPs should be carried out in accordance with the WFD 
timetable, to ensure the third RBMPs are adopted timely. 

Italy should include clear information in national RBMPs on international coordination 
efforts in order to increase transparency.  

Italy  should  continue  to  improve  international  cooperation,  including  coordinated 
assessments of the technical aspects of the Water Framework Directive such as ensuring 
a harmonized approach for status assessment and a coordinated Programme of Measures 
in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. 

Italy has made good progress in the delineation of water bodies and in the definition of 
significant  pressures.  However,  further  work  is  still  needed  to  harmonise  different 
regional approaches, in particular for the definition of the significance of pressures. 

Italy  should  continue  to  improve  monitoring  of  surface  waters  by  covering  all  relevant 
quality elements in all water categories. Hydromorphological quality elements should be 
monitored at a sufficient number of sites for a reliable assessment of status/potential. The 
monitoring  of  physicochemical  quality  elements  should  also  be  strengthened  to  fill  the 
remaining gaps. 

Italy  should  continue  the  efforts  for  improving  the  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. 

Italy should complete a comprehensive gap assessment for diffuse pollutant loads  from 
agriculture  (nutrients,  agri-chemicals,  sediment,  organic  matter)  across  all  waters  in  all 
RBDs  and  link  it  directly  to  mitigation  measures    in  the  third  RBMPs  (as  per  WFD 
Article 11(3)(h)), to facilitate the achievement of WFD objectives. 

Italy  should  base  the  classification  of  water  bodies  on  complete  assessment  methods, 
including  all  biological  quality  elements.  The  classification  boundaries  of 
hydromorphological  quality  elements  should  be  related  to  the  classification  boundaries 
for the sensitive biological quality elements, and all the relevant physicochemical quality 
elements should be used in the assessment of ecological status/potential. 

22 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The monitoring for status assessment should continue to be improved to reach sufficient 
confidence  and  spatial  coverage  for  all  the  Priority  Substances  (including  territorial 
waters  whose  status  should  be  also  be  reported  in  the  RBMPs)  and  the  proportion  of 
unknown status further reduced.  

Trend  monitoring  should  be  performed  in  all  RBDs,  for  all  substances,  in  a  way  that 
provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage. 

The  high  percentage  of  groundwater  bodies  in  unknown  status  (especially  in  some 
RBDs)  prevents  effective  planning  and  comparability  with  other  Member  States.  Italy 
should  implement  methods  for  the  quantitative  and  chemical  status  assessment  of 
groundwater bodies. 

 Additional efforts are needed to take into account quantitative aspects for groundwater  
during monitoring and assessment phases, especially in some RBD 

Efforts  need  to  be  continued  for  the  designation  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  by 
implementing  a  WFD  compliant  methodology  in  all  RBDs.  All  the  requirements  of 
Article  4(3)  need  to  be  complied  with,  including  the  assessment  of  significant  adverse 
effects  on  their  use  or  the  wider  environment  and  the  lack  of  significantly  better 
environmental options. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process. 
Ecological potential needs to be defined and applied in all RBDs. 

Progress  needs  to  be  continued  to  further  reduce  uncertainties  regarding  the  timeframe 
for the achievement of the WFD objectives. The significant number and increase of the 
application of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions is an issue of concern. Italy needs to take 
all possible measures in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. 
The  application  of  exemptions  needs  to  be  reviewed  in  a  more transparent  manner and 
the reasons for the exemptions and detailed results of the related assessments need to be 
clearly demonstrated in the RBMPs, in particular in relation to technical infeasibility and 
disproportionate costs. The individual logic, related justifications and criteria for Article 
4(4) and 4(5) exemptions need to be clearly distinguished. 

Italy  needs  to  ensure  WFD  compliance  in  relation  to  the  application  and  reporting  of 
Article 4(7). An ex-ante evaluation of the expected effects of a proposed new project on 
water  body  status  /  potential  at  quality  element  level  is  required  in  line  with  the 
requirements of the WFD and as further specified by the Judgment of the Court in case 
C-461/13.  In  case  deterioration  /  non-achievement  of  good  status/potential  can  be 

23 

 
 
expected, the project can only be authorised in case all the requirements of Article 4(7) 
are met. 

Clear links between pressures identified and measures to be taken should be established 
for all RBDs. 

Italy  should  provide  cost-effectiveness  analysis  and  improve  information  on  cost  of 
measures for the Sicily RBD. 

 

 

  Meaningful  information  regarding  the  scope  and  the  timing  of  the  measures  should  be 
clearly shown in the Programme of Measures so the approach to achieving the objectives 
is clear and the ambition in the Programme of Measures is more transparent. In addition, 
the RBMPs should provide information on a systematic prioritisation of measures. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gap analyses should be comprehensive and gap indicators linked to the status of water 
bodies. 

Italy should ensure that information on funding sources of the Programme of Measures is 
more clearly described in the third RBMPs. 

Italy should continue reinforcing metering for all abstractions, and reviewing abstraction 
permits  systems.  It  should  ensure  that  action  is  taken  to  address  illegal  abstractions 
especially in RBDs with relevant water scarcity problems (e.g. Sicily).   

Italy  should  continue  to  review  and  develop  the  strategy  for  the  delivery  of  WFD 
objectives,  in  cooperation  with  the  farming  community  and  Italian  CAP  delivery 
authorities, to ensure the third RBMP is technically feasible and that all relevant policies 
and instruments (e.g. RDP, CAP Pillar 1, Nitrates Directive etc.) contribute significantly 
to RBMPs. 

In the third RBMPs, it should be stated clearly for all RBDs to what extent, in terms of 
area covered and pollution risk mitigated, basic measures (minimum requirements to be 
complied  with)  or  supplementary  measures (designed  to  be implemented  in  addition  to 
basic  measures)  will  contribute  to  achieving  the  WFD  objectives.  Sources  of  funding 
should be identified (e.g. CAP Pillar 1, RDP), as appropriate. 

Italy should ensure that KTMs are reported for all significant pressures causing failure of 
objectives,  in  all  RBDs.  In  particular,  all  Priority  Substances  and  River  Specific 
Pollutants identified as causing failure should be associated with KTMs, to clearly show 
whether  the  measures  are  sufficient  to  reach  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  (both  the 

24 

 
 
objectives  of  reaching  good  status,  but  also  the  objective  to  suppress  emissions  for 
priority hazardous substances). 

Italy should continue their efforts to tackle urban waste water discharges, and make sure 
that  the  measures  planned  are  sufficient  to  meet  the  WFD  objectives  (as  well  as  the 
UWWTD) in all RBDs. 

Italy should ensure that the necessary measures to tackle hydromorphological pressures 
are  included  in  the  Programmes  of  Measure  and  properly  implemented  in  all  RBDs. 
Furthermore,  Italy  needs  to  complete  the  transition  from  the  minimum  vital  flows  to 
ecological flows.  

Italy  should  apply  cost recovery  for  water  use  activities  having  a  significant impact on 
water  bodies  or  justify  any  exemptions  using  Article  9(4)  and  ensure  a  harmonised 
implementation  across  the  RBDs.  It  should  continue  to  present  transparently  how 
financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate 
contribution of the different users is ensured. Italy should also transparently present the 
water-pricing  policy  and  provide  a  transparent  overview  of  estimated  investments  and 
investment needs. 

Additional  measures  to  reach  additional  objectives  for  Protected  Areas  have  been 
identified and included within the PoM. Italy should further work to include all Protected 
Areas where measures have not been identified yet. 

Italy should ensure that a drought management plan is adopted also for the Sicily RBD, 
especially  in  light  of  the  fact  that  abstraction  is  identified  as  a  significant  pressure  on 
groundwater bodies. 

 

 

 

 

 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 1

  Governance and public participation 

1.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

Only  three  of  Italy's  eight  RBMPs  were  published  in  December  2015  as  per  the  schedule 
required under the WFD. The RBMPs for the North Apennines, Central Apennines and South 
Apennines  RBDs  were  published  on  this  date.  The  RBMPs  for  the  Eastern  Alps,  Padan, 
Sericho and Sardinia RBDs were published in March 2016, and the RBMP for Sicily RBD was 
published in June 2016. 

1.1.1 Administrative arrangements – river basin districts 

Italy  designated  eight  RBDs.  Of  these,  Italy  reported  that  the  Eastern  Alps  RBD  and  Padan 
RBD  and  the  Northern Apennines  are  part  of  international  RBDs.  Italy  shares  catchments  in 
the Eastern Alps RBD with Austria, Switzerland and Slovenia. Italy shares catchments in the 
Padan  RBD  with  France  and  Switzerland.  In  addition,  Italy  shares  a  small  catchment  in  the 
Northern  Apennines  RBD  with  France:  the  Roja  or  Roya  River.  This,  however,  is  not 
acknowledged in Italy’s reporting.  

In  late  2015,  Italy  has  approved  the  Governance  reform  (Law  221/2015)  establishing  seven 
RBDs    Among  its  provisions,  this  law  incorporated  the  small  Serchio  RBD,  into  the  North 
Apennines  RBD.  Consequently,  Italy  now  has  seven  RBDs  (this  change  occurred  in  2017, 
when a 2016 decree by the Ministry of Environment was published on the Official Journal n. 
27 February second, 2017). Italy has informed that Art. 64 details the new delimitation of the 
boundaries of each River Basin District with identification of the river basins which are part of 
the new RBDs.  

1.1.2 Administrative arrangements – competent authorities 

Italy has identified (in the second cycle when the River Basin District Authorities’ reform had 
not been completed) competent Authorities at national, river catchment and regional levels.  

At  national  level,  the  Ministry  of  Environment  has  main  roles  for  the  coordination  of 
implementation  and  reporting  to  the  European  Commission,  and  a  secondary  role  for  the 
implementation of measures. The national Institute for Environmental Protection and Research 
(ISPRA) has a main role for WISE reporting to the European Commission. 

Italy  lists  seven  river  basin  authorities.  It  can  be  noted  that  only  two  of  these  correspond  to 
RBDs (Padan and Serchio): the five others were authorities for major rivers within their RBDs, 

26 

 
 
and (as noted in the 2012 assessment), were provisional authorities for their respective RBDs. 
These  authorities  had  main  roles  for  pressure  and  impact  analysis,  economic  analysis, 
preparation  of  RBMPs  and  Programme  of  Measures,  public  participation,  implementation  of 
measures and reporting to the European Commission.  

Italy lists 19 regions and two autonomous provinces (Bolzano and Trento) as authorities. The 
regions and autonomous provinces are in accordance with the WISE reporting responsible for 
monitoring  and  assessment  of  groundwater  and  surface  water,  pressure  and  impact  analysis, 
economic  analysis,  enforcement  of  regulations,  preparation  of  RBMPs  and  Programme  of 
Measures,  public  participation,  implementation  of  measures,  and  reporting  to  the  European 
Commission. Two regions – Sardinia and Sicily – are also RBD authorities.7 

1.1.3 River  Basin  Management  plans  –  structure  and  Strategic  Environmental 

Assessment  

Italy's  RBMPs  have  sub-plans.  For  Padan  RBD,  the  sub-plans  cover:  agriculture,  chemical 
industry, chemical pollution, hydropower, nutrient enrichment, urban planning, water scarcity 
and droughts and water balances.  

For  the  Northern  Apennines  RBD,  sub-plans  cover  climate  change,  rural  planning  and  water 
scarcity and droughts. The Water Protection Plan (Piano di Tutela delle Acque) for the region 
of Liguria is also listed as a sub-plan.  

For the Central Apennines RBD, sub-plans cover agriculture, the chemical industry, chemical 
pollution,  coastal  erosion,  hydropower,  nutrient  enrichment,  rural  planning,  transport,  urban 
planning and water scarcity and droughts. 

Sub-plans  (water  protection  plans,  water  balance  plans,  rural  development  plans)  are  part  of 
each  RBMP.  For  example  the  review  of  Programme  of  Measures  shows  many  measures  are 
shared with Italy’s Rural Development Programmes (RDPs). This appears to be the case across 
the whole country.  

Italy reported to WISE that Strategic Environmental Assessments were carried out for five of 
Italy's eight RBMPs8.  

7   The  competences  of  the  River  Basin  District  Authorities  and  the  regions  are  defined  by  Legislative  Decree 

152/2006 and Legislative Decree 219/2010.  

8   Italy subsequently clarified that for the Padan RBMP, a Strategic Environmental Assessment was carried out, 
while  for  the  other  7  RBDs,  a  Strategic  Environmental  Assessment  screening was  carried out that led  to  an 
opinion not to prepare a Strategic Environmental Assessment. 

27 

 
 
                                                      
1.1.4 Public consultation 

The mechanisms to inform the public and interested parties varied across Italy’s eight RBDs.  

In  all  of  Italy's  RBDs,  the  public  and  interested parties  were  informed  by  direct  mailing  and 
internet.  Invitations  to  stakeholders  were  made  in  all  RBDs  but  the  Eastern  Alps  RBD.  The 
public  and  interested  parties  were  informed  by  meetings  in  all  RBDs  except  Sardinia.  Local 
authorities provided information in five RBDs; media (such as papers, television or radio) were 
used  in  three  RBDs  (Serchio,  Central  Apennines  and  South  Apennines);  printed  material  in 
two (Padan and Central Apennines); and social networks (for example, Twitter, Facebook) in 
one  RBD  (North).  Documents  were  available  for  download  in  all  RBDs;  in  addition,  direct 
mailing (via email) was carried out in four RBDs (Padan, the Central Apennines, Sardinia and 
Sicily),  paper  copies  were  available  at  local  authorities  in  municipal  buildings  in  two  RBDs 
(South  Apennines  and  Sardinia),  paper  copies  were  distributed  at  exhibitions  in  the  Central 
Apennines  RBD, and  were  available at the RBD authority in  the Eastern Alps. Across  all  of 
Italy’s RBDs, documents were available for the requisite six months.  

The  stakeholder  groups  actively  involved  in  the  development  of  the  RBMPs  as  well  as  the 
mechanisms for their involvement also varied across the RBDs.  

The stakeholder groups actively involved in the development of the RBMPs were as follows: 
agriculture/farmers,  energy/hydropower,  industry,  local/regional  authorities  and  water  supply 
and  sanitation  (in  all  RBDs);  NGOs/nature  protection  (in  all  RBDs  but  Sicily);  consumer 
groups  (in  all  RBDs  but  Padan,  the  North  Apennines  and  Serchio);  universities  and  research 
centres  (in  the  Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  Central  Apennines  and  South  Apennines  RBDs); 
fisheries/aquaculture (in Eastern Alps, Padan and Sardinia RBDs only); and navigations/ports 
(in  Eastern  Alps,  Padan  and  Sardinia  RBDs  only).  Professional  associations  were  actively 
involved  in  the  Padan  and  Sardinia  RBDs,  while  expert  associations  were  reported  for  the 
Central  Apennines  RBD.  The  Sardinia  RBD  also  reported  that  scientific  associations  were 
actively  involved.  The  Eastern  Alps  RBD  reported  that  the  consorzi  di  bonifica  (bodies  in 
charge of irrigation) were actively involved, and the Central Apennines RBD cites "territorial 
contracts"  ("contratti  territoriali")  that  bring  together  interest  groups.  The  South  Apennines 
RBD  also  reports  as  stakeholder  groups  the  national  Ministry  of  Cultural  Heritage  and 
Activities  and  Tourism,  the  Ministry  of  Infrastructure  and  Transport,  and  the  Ministry  of 
Agricultural, Food and Forest Policies.  

The  mechanisms  for  active  involvement  of  stakeholders  were:  establishment  of  advisory 
groups in three RBDs (Eastern Alps, Padan and Central Apennines involvement of drafting in 
three  RBDs  (Eastern  Alps,  Padan  and  Sardinia);  regular  exhibitions  in  three  RBDs  (Eastern 

28 

 
 
Alps,  Central  Apennines  and  South  Apennines);  and  formation  of  alliances  in  three  RBDs 
(Padan, South Apennines and Sicily). In addition, the Eastern Alps RBD refers to coordination 
with  the  consultation  on  the  Water  Protection  Plan  under  preparation  in  the  Friuli  Venezia 
Giulia Region and also to a SWOT analysis as other forms of outreach. In the North Apennines 
RBD, updated information on the plan was sent to stakeholders, which were directly involved 
in  conferences  on  the  presentation  of  the  plan.  The  Serchio  RBD  refers  to  meetings.  In  the 
Central  Apennines  RBD,  a  web  instrument  was  activated  after  each  regional  meeting  with 
interest  groups.  For  Sardinia  RBD,  there  were  direct  invitations  and  the  establishment  of  a 
public  relations  office.  For  Sicily  RBD,  a  blog  was  reported  as  a  mechanism  for  ongoing 
stakeholder involvement.  

For  all  of  Italy's  RBMPs,  public  consultation  led  to  the  addition  of  new  information.  Public 
consultation  led  to  adjustments  to  specific  measures  in  five  RBMPs  (Eastern  Alps,  Padan, 
Serchio,  Central  Apennines  and  the  South  Apennines  RBDs).  There  were  changes  to  the 
selection  of  measures  in  five  RBMPs  (Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  South  Apennines,  Sardinia  and 
Sicily).  In  four  RBMPs,  there  was  a  commitment  to  further  research  (Eastern  Alps,  Padan, 
Sardinia  and  Sicily).  In  four  RBMPs,  there  was  a  commitment  to  action  in  the  next  RBMP 
cycle  (Padan,  North  Apennines,  Serchio  and  South  Apennines).  In  the  Central  Apennines 
RBD, a further impact was the integration of the RBMP into territorial contracts underway. 

1.1.5 Integration  with  the  Floods  Directive  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 

Directive 

Italy has reported to WISE that one of its eight RBMPs (North Apennines) is integrated with 
the  relevant  Floods  Directive9  Flood  Risk  Management  Plan  into  a  single  plan.  In  seven  of 
eight RBDs, there was joint consultation of the RBMP and Flood Risk Management Plan (no 
information was found for Sicily RBD).  

For two RBDs (the Eastern Alps and Padan), reporting on integration with the Marine Strategy 
Framework  Directive10  refers  to  the  Programme  of  Measures  of  the  RBMPs,  suggesting  that 
measures were  coordinated. Nonetheless, none of Italy's RBMPs organised joint consultation 
with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 

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

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

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

29 

 
 
                                                      
1.1.6 International coordination 

Italy  has  reported  that  the  two  international  RBDs,  Eastern  Alps  and  Padan,  have  an 
international agreement and a permanent cooperation body in place (designated as category 2 
cooperation).  

As indicated in the 2012 Commission Staff Working Document, the Eastern Alps RBD shares 
the Isonzo/Soča catchment with Slovenia, but also a section of the Etsch catchment (a tributary 
of the Adige river basin in Italy) is found in Switzerland and Italy has a small catchment that is 
part of the Danube International RBD (part of  the Drava River basin and Slizza river basin). 
For  the  Padan  RBD,  Italy  shares  several  catchments  with  Switzerland,  a  small  catchment  is 
found in France and Italy also has a small territory that is part of the Rhine International RBD; 
and cooperation varies across these catchments. A small catchment in the Northern Apennines 
RBD is shared with France. 

Italy  does  not  participate  in  any  international  river  basin  agreements11,  though  Italy  has 
bilateral agreements on water management with Slovenia and Switzerland. 

The  1975  Treaty  of  Osimo  between  Italy  and  Yugoslavia  set  up  what  is  now  the  Italian-
Slovenian Commission for Water Management12. The Treaty, in place before the WFD, now 
provides  the  forum  for  cooperation  between  Italy  and  Slovenia  on  the  WFD  and  Floods 
Directive13,  according  to  the  RBMP  for  the  Eastern  Alps  RBD.  The  Commission  meets 
regularly  (generally  twice  a  year)  to  discuss  implementation  of  the  two  Directives  and  of 
cooperation  activities  for  water  management.  Its  work  covers  the  Isonzo/Soča  catchment  as 
well  as  smaller  shared  catchments.  Among  its  activities,  the  Commission  and  expert  groups 
working  under  it  exchanged  information  about  the  development  of  the  second  RBMPs, 
cooperated on monitoring and developed transboundary projects to support implementation of 
the WFD and Flood Directive.  

The  agreement  between  Switzerland  and  Italy  concerning  the  protection  of  Italian-Swiss 
waters  against  pollution  was  concluded  on  20  April  1972.  With  this  agreement,  the  Swiss 
Federal Council and the Italian Government decided to work together to protect Italian-Swiss 
surface and groundwater from pollution.  

11   Italy  was  represented  at  the  2008  Drava  River  Vision  Symposium  in  Maribor,  Slovenia,  which  adopted  the 
non-binding  “Declaration  concerning  common  approaches  to  water  management,  flood  protection, 
hydropower utilisation and nature and biodiversity conservation in the Drava River Basin”. 

12  Commissione  Italo-Slovena  sull’idroeconomia  in  Italian;  Stalna  slovensko-italijanska  komisija  za  vodno 

gospodarstvo in Slovenian 

13   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 

30 

 
 
                                                      
No international commissions are in place between Italy and France for management of shared 
catchments.  Nonetheless,  for  the  Padan  RBMP,  as  part  of  the  Strategic  Environmental 
Assessment, institutional representatives of France and of Swiss cantons have been consulted 
with  regard  to  the  cross-border  portions  of  the  RBD14.  In  addition,  a  small  share  of  the 
Northern Apennines  RBD is  shared with  France, the Roya/Roja River  catchment (for further 
information see the reports on international coordination on the Water Framework Directive).  

1.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Since the adoption of the first RBMPs, the District Basin Authorities have undertaken actions 
to  improve  coordination  among  authorities  within  their  District  (see  section  1.3  for  further 
details).  Moreover,  Italy  has  strengthened  international  coordination,  for  example  in  the 
Isonzo/Soča River basin shared with Slovenia.  

1.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation: Improve coordination between regions and RBD authorities and 
improve reporting to make it more integrated at RBD level (it is essential to clarify 
the respective roles of the Regions and RBD authorities and give further detail on 
the  integration  and  coordination  of  regions,  RBD  and  the  national  level  for 
reporting).  

  Methods…  [should  be] effectively  coordinated  between  the  regions  at  the  level  of 
the RBD in order to achieve water management at the river basin level instead of 
management according to administrative boundaries. 

Assessment:  Italy reported to  WISE that both RBD authorities and Italy’s regions 
(plus  the  two  autonomous  provinces  of  Bolzano  and  Trento)  have  main  roles  for 
pressure  and  impact  analysis,  economic  analysis,  preparation  of  RBMPs  and 
Programme  of  Measures,  public  participation,  implementation  of  measures  and 
reporting  to  the  European  Commission.  Consequently,  there  was  a  need  in  the 
second cycle to ensure coordination between these two levels15.   

14   Italy has subsequently informed that measures are also coordinated. 

15   Italy  has  informed  that  the  coordination  role  is  assigned  to  the  RBD  Authorities  by  Legislative  Decree 
219/2010 and that each RBD authority drafted the RBMP and carried out coordination activities accordingly.  

31 

 
 
                                                      
National  reforms  in  the  institutional  structure  to  establish  permanent  RBD 
authorities  are  expected  to  further  strengthen  coordination  between  regions  and 
RBD authorities (this is described under the following recommendation). 

In  conclusion,  in  the  period  of  the  preparation  of  the  second  RBMPs,  Italy  took 
recommendation.  The 
important 
implementation of this recommendation was partially fulfilled.  

the  Commission’s 

implement 

steps 

to 

  Recommendation:  The  transition  of  the  RBD  authorities  from  a  provisional  to  a 
permanent  system  should  be  completed  and  it  should  be  ensured  that  these  cover 
the entire area of the relevant RBD. 

Assessment:  Italy’s  reporting  to  WISE  indicates  that  the  provisional  system  was 
still in place through the preparation of the RBMPs. For example, Italy reported the 
Tevere  (Tiber)  Basin  Authority  for  the  Central  Apennines  RBD:  the  Tevere 
Authority was the provisional authority for this RBD.  Two “bridge laws” – Law 13 
of  2009  and  Legislative  Decree  219/2010  –  assigned  to  the  existing  basin 
authorities  (such  as  the  Tiber  Basin  Authority)  a  coordination  role  for  the 
implementation  of  the  WFD  on  the  territory  defined  by  Legislative  Decree 
152/2006 [i.e. within the RBDs]. Therefore, during the second cycle, the river basin 
authorities were coordinating the Regions belonging to the RBDs. Nonetheless, at 
the time of the preparation of the second RBMPs, the provisional system continued, 
though with a stronger legal basis.  

In December 2015, however, Law 221/2015 reformed the institutional structure of 
the  basin  authorities,  establishing  permanent  authorities  for  each  RBD  (the  Law 
also  introduced  some  changes  in  RBD  boundaries).  A  subsequent  Ministerial 
Decree16  in  October  2016  and  a  Decree  of  the  President  of  the  Council  of 
Ministers17  provided  the  implementing  legislation  for  the  changes  set  out  in  Law 
221/2015, thus establishing the permanent RBD authorities.  

The  Commission’s  recommendation  has  therefore  been  fulfilled  (however,  the 
fulfilment  of  this  recommendation  occurred  after  the  publication  of  the  second 
RBMPs). 

16 DM 294 of 25 October 2016 
17 DPCM of 4 April 2018  

32 

 
 
                                                      
Recommendation: Many measures in the Programmes of Measures originate from 

other  existing  plans  and  no  clear  link  between measures  and  status  assessment  is 
made.  

Assessment:  This  recommendation  addresses  several  points  (see  chapter  9  for 
further assessment).  

In  the  first  RBMPs,  many  measures  derived  from  other  plans,  in  particular  the 
regional water protection plans (Piani di tutela delle acque) . A review of the second 
RBMPs  for  Padan  RBD  and  for  the  South  Apennines  RBD  show  that  both  refer 
frequently  to  information  in  and  work  under  the  regional  Water  Protection  Plans 
(Piani di tutela delle acque). In the RBMP of the South Apennines RBD there is a 
chapter that lists all the regional programming documents (and their modifications) 
that are relevant for the governance of water resources as established by the WFD. 
Among  these,  the  Water  Protection  Plans  are  indicated  as  being  very  important 
(they  are  closely  linked/very  relevant  -  "strettamente  correlati").  Similarly,  the 
RBMP for the Padan RBD refers to the regional Water Protection Plans as the main 
reference documents for the preparation of the RBMP and notes that the content of 
such regional plans and the RBMP overlaps in some instances. This RBMP states 
that  the  principle  of  vertical  subsidiarity  should  be  respected  when  implementing 
such  plans.  In  order  to  increase  the  level  of  coordination  between  these  two 
planning  documents  on  23  December  2013, the  regions  in  the  Padan  RBD  signed 
the document ‘Guiding Act for the preparation of the Water Protection Plans’ and 
the  regional  planning  documents  in  coordination  with  the  RBMP  with  the 
Management Plan of the river Po. 

At the time of preparation of the RBMP, the regional Water Protection Plans were 
being  updated  in  both  the  Padan  RBD  and  the  South  Apennines  RBD,  although 
with  different  time  frames  depending  on  the  regions.  It  particular,  for  the  Padan 
RBD,  Liguria  and  the  Province  of  Trento  updated  their  Water  Protection  Plans  in 
parallel  with  the  preparation  of  the  RBMP,  while  the  other  regions  started  the 
review of their plans only after the adoption of the RBMP. Here, again, arises the 
problem regarding the coordination of the work of the different regions18.  

18  Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  the  timescale  foreseen  for  the  update  of  Water  Protection  Plans  was  revised 
under Law 221/2015, which established that Water Protection Plan are updated one year after the RBMPs (i.e. 
by  31.12.2016).  This  provision  has  its  justification  also  in  the  fact  that  Water  Protection  Plans  have  to  be 
coherent  with  the  RBMPs.  Before  the  approval  of  Law  221/2015,  prior  legislation  set  the  review  of  Water 
Protection  Plans  by  December  2015;  some  regions  updated  the  Water  Protection  Plans  in  parallel  with  the 
activities  carried  out  together  with  the  River  Basin  Authorities  for  the  update  of  the  RBMPs.  Other  regions 

33 

 
 
                                                      
As noted above, Italy passed Law 221/2015 in December 2015. In addition to the 
provisions  noted  above  for  RBD  authorities,  this  law  also  addressed  the  links 
between  RBMPs  and  Water  Protection  Plans.  This  law  establishes  a  clearer 
hierarchy, indicating that the RBDs are the competent authorities and that regions 
have competence for the Water Protection Plans, which are sectoral plans that have 
to  be  drafted in  coherence  with  the RBMP:  the RBMPs are the overarching plans 
with respect to regional Water Protection Plans. To this end, each RBD Authority 
now has to release a formal opinion on the Water Protection Plans, for the regions 
in its territory. 

Consequently, Italy has partially fulfilled this recommendation. 

chose not to proceed to an overall update of their Water Protection Plan but to update only single topics to be 
approved by specific regional acts with the aim of reviewing only singular aspects of direct competence to be 
included in the RBMP and in the Water Protection Plans. 

34 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District 

2.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle  

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

bodies 

Overall,  there  was  an  increase  in  the  number  of  water  bodies  between  the  first  and  second 
RBMPs (Table 2.1). There was a similar increase in lake water bodies and coastal water bodies 
of 16 % and 15 %, respectively. The most significant increase was for groundwater bodies of 
24  %  (Table  2.2).  Sicily  RBD  did  not  report any  groundwater  bodies  in  the  first  RBMP  and 
there  were  82  in  the  second  RBMP.  For  river  water  bodies  however  there  was  an  overall 
decrease  of  about  2  %  and  a  decrease  of  4  %  for  transitional  water  bodies.  Eight  territorial 
water bodies were reported in the second RBMP and there were none in the first RBMP. The 
RBD with the most significant change in the number of water bodies was the South Apennines 
RBD with an average increase of 41 %. There was also a significant increase in the number of 
lake water bodies specifically in Sardinia RBD from 1 to 32 lake water bodies19.  

In  the second RBMP, 78 %  of identified surface water  bodies were natural with  15 %  being 
designated  as  heavily  modified  and  8  %  as  artificial  water  bodies.  In  the  first  RBMP,  the 
situation was similar but the proportion of heavily modified water bodies (10 %) was slightly 
less overall (Figure 2.1). The RBMP for the Northern Apennines RBD noted that the technical 
criteria for the identification of artificial water bodies and heavily modified water bodies were 
published  in  November  2013  (Ministerial  Decree  n.  156  of  17  Nov.  2013)  and  entered  into 
force in January 2014.  

The changes to water bodies have taken place at regional level within the RBDs, which may 
also account for the differences between  RBMPs.  The  RBMP for the North  Apennines RBD 
notes that the Emilia-Romagna region updated its list of water bodies, in particular with regard 
to  artificial  water  bodies,  while  the  Tuscany  region  divided  a  couple  of  coastal  water  bodies 
based  on  monitoring  results.  In  addition,  several  water  bodies  at  regional  boundaries  were 
united.  

The  RBMP  for  the  Southern  Apennines  RBD  noted  that  2009  national  legislation  (D.  Lgs 
30/2009) included steps for the identification of groundwater bodies which was likely to have 
been implemented for the second RBMPs.  

19   Italy subsequently clarified that there were already 32 lake water bodies in Sardinia in the 1st cycle.  

35 

 
 
                                                      
Table 2.1 

Number  and  area/length  of  delineated  surface  water  bodies  in  Italy  for  the 
second and first RBMPs  

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Number 

of water 
bodies 

Total 
area 
(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

Number 

of water 
bodies 

Total 
length 

of water 
body 
(km) 

Number 

of water 
bodies 

Total 
area 

(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

Number 

of water 
bodies 

Total 
area 

(km2) of 
water 
bodies 

40 

106 

33 

2 

36 

66 

32 

32 

49 

963 

14 

8 

362 

122 

93 

48 

1 812 

14 053 

2 034 

23 569 

1 297 

13 139 

51 

493 

824 

726 

256 

574 

6 975 

10 907 

7 560 

4 273 

49 

13 

11 

1 

6 

17 

57 

18 

667 

226 

55 

1 

15 

175 

116 

19 

24 

2 

51 

1 

25 

176 

217 

65 

1 517 

286 

1 917 

6 

1 279 

3 501 

6 216 

2 290 

Year 

RBD 

2016 

ITA 

2016 

ITB 

2016 

ITC 

2016 

ITD 

2016 

ITE 

2016 

ITF 

2016 

ITG 

2016 

ITH 

2016 

Total 

347 

1 658 

7 493 

81 050 

172 

1 272 

561 

17 012 

2010 

ITA 

2010 

ITB 

2010 

ITC 

2010 

ITD 

2010 

ITE 

2010 

ITF 

40 

116 

33 

2 

38 

38 

2010 

ITG 

1 (32) 

2010 

ITH 

32 

2010 

Total 

300 

49 

1 853 

14 428 

14 

8 

362 

83 

0 

48 

1 906 

2 356 

1 304 

13 865 

578 

7 112 

4 217 

51 

501 

1 018 

755 

256 

7 644 

49 

14 

11 

1 

6 

12 

57 

31 

664 

226 

55 

1 

15 

171 

78 

24 

24 

2 

48 

1 

22 

110 

217 

65 

1 519 

255 

1 902 

6 

1 173 

2 709 

6 212 

5 154 

181 

1 234 

489 

18 930 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Table 2.2 

Number  and  area  of  delineated  groundwater  bodies  in  Italy  for  the  second 
and first RBMPs  

Year 

RBD 

Number 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

ITA 

ITB 

ITC 

ITD 

118 

167 

222 

11 

Area (km2) 

Minimum  Maximum  Average 

1.2 

4.12 

0.22 

15.8 

7,818.02 

427.34 

5,703.06 

503.83 

3,144.61 

133.86 

358.38 

103.7 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

ITE 

ITF 

ITG 

ITH 

128 

210 

114 

82 

Total 

1,052 

3.95 

2.08 

2.89 

0.94 

1,355.23 

209.41 

3,843.00 

216.96 

3,234.28 

169.42 

1,083.45 

147.39 

0.9 

4 

7,822.00 

310.56 

9,192.22 

574.09 

0.15 

3,208.80 

134.98 

43.63 

3,208.80 

444.5 

3.95 

2.35 

3,208.80 

260.38 

1,461.00 

135.75 

123 

141 

186 

11 

133 

139 

114 

ITA 

ITB 

ITC 

ITD 

ITE 

ITF 

ITG 

ITH 

Total 

847 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.1 

Proportion of surface water bodies in Italy 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 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

38 

 
The  RBMP  emphasises  that  the  main  changes  were  made  in  the  number  of  groundwater 
bodies. Better monitoring data appears to have been a key factor for many of the changes. No 
changes were reported for the Basilicata, Calabria and Lazio Regions, but updates are seen for 
the  Campania,  Molise  and  Puglia  Regions.  For  Puglia,  for  example,  the  number  of 
groundwater bodies increased from 10 to 29. For the Abruzzo Region in the South Apennines 
RBD, for example, further knowledge about hydrogeology and better monitoring data were the 
main  factors.  The  RBMP  for  the  South  Apennines  RBD  also  states  that  several  groundwater 
bodies  lie  at  the  boundary  between  the  Central  Apennines  RBD  and  the  South  Apennines 
RBD, and further coordination is needed to assign them definitively to one or the other RBD. It 
can  be  noted  that  further  updates  to  the  characterisation  of  water  bodies  and  in  particular 
groundwater bodies were underway or may occur. 

The RBMPs do not describe how the changes to water bodies might have led to differences in 
the analysis of pressures, status or measures. 

Table  2.3  shows  the  size  distribution  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Italy  in  the  second  and  first 
RBMPs (note that missing values are denoted by -9 999.00). It can be seen that the minimum 
and maximum sizes of rivers and lakes have decreased and the maximum size of coastal water 
bodies  has  also  decreased.  Table  2.4  summarises  the  information  provided  by  Italy  on  how 
water bodies have evolved between the two cycles.  

39 

 
 
 
 
Table 2.3 

Size  distribution  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Italy  in  the  second  and  first 
RBMPs  

Year 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

R

B
D 

IT

A 

IT
B 

IT

C 

IT
D 

IT

E 

IT
F 

IT

G 

IT
H 

IT

A 

IT
B 

IT

C 

IT
D 

IT
E 

IT
F 

IT

G 

IT
H 

River length (km2) 

Lake area (km2) 

Transitional (km2) 

Coastal (km2) 

Min  Max 

Averag
e 

Min  Max 

Avera
ge 

Min 

0.06 

97.31 

7.76 

0.04 

7.17 

1.22 

0.01 

Ma
x 

134.

66 

Avera
ge 

Min  Max 

13.61 

0.8 

0.14 

108.6
4 

11.59 

0.46 

59.59 

10.13 

0 

0 

277.0
5 

9.09 

0.4 

118 

17.35 

137.2
9 

2.85 

0.44 

0 

16.2

3 

4.98 

1.1 

Avera
ge 

63.22 

142.78 

37.59 

365.7

3 

148.2
7 

214.7

4 

2.06 

41.67 

11.25 

1.05 

6.82 

3.94 

0.88 

0.88 

0.88 

5.54 

5.54 

5.54 

1.94 

59 

14.15 

0.02 

121.6

2 

10.06 

0.48 

4.05 

2.54 

9.97 

190.8

3 

51.17 

0.17 

201.5 

13.24 

0 

15.64 

1.84 

0.07 

0.25 

59.3 

10.41 

0.03 

21.87 

2.89 

0.1 

2.35 

48.66 

16.69 

0.11 

6.92 

1.48 

0.01 

0.06 

97.25 

7.79 

0.04 

7.18 

1.22 

0.01 

-9 999 

109.7
4 

1.24 

-9 999 

362.7
4 

-72.45 

0.4 

0.4 

85.72 

10.63 

0 

2.85 

0.43 

0 

65.2
3 

20.2

3 

14.9
1 

134.

77 

117.
72 

16.2

3 

10.27 

1.45 

99.92 

19.89 

2.04 

0.11 

355.6 

28.65 

1.07 

6.83 

13.56 

0.81 

16.17 

106.7
7 

4.98 

2.64 

110.8
7 

366.1

1 

148.4
3 

424.1

4 

35.22 

63.3 

127.6 

39.62 

2.06 

41.66 

11.34 

1.05 

6.82 

3.93 

0.88 

0.88 

0.88 

5.6 

5.6 

5.6 

1.24 

59.02 

14.19 

0.02 

121.7
1 

9.52 

0.49 

4.06 

2.55 

10 

-9 999 

202.3
7 

-
2 692.5
0 

0.01 

12.37 

2.19 

0.08 

-9 999 

59.29 

-400.62 

0.29 

0.29 

0.29 

0 

1.99 

49.16 

16.47 

0.11 

6.95 

1.49 

0.01 

65.6
8 

20.2

1 

14.9
3 

14.22 

1.88 

1.38 

0.11 

0.78 

8.79 

191.0
1 

101.2
9 

355.3

2 

303.5
2 

53.31 

24.62 

28.63 

79.3 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.4 

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

Italy between the second and first RBMPs  

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Territorial  Groundwater 

Type of water body 
change for second 
RBMP  

Aggregation 

Splitting 

Change 

Aggregation and 
splitting 

1 

2 

26 

18 

368 

210 

275 

5 

8 

5 

11 

Change in code 

3165 

151 

130 

314 

Extended Area 

Reduced Area 

Creation 

Deletion 

No change 

Total water bodies 
before deletion 

Delineated for second 
RBMP (after deletion 
from first RBMP ) 

607 

767 

2850 

29 

17 

138 

10 

39 

19 

136 

87 

95 

8260 

364 

211 

648 

7493 

347 

172 

561 

8 

8 

8 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

26 

36 

104 

12 

292 

28 

21 

238 

48 

295 

1100 

1052 

2.1.2 Identification of transboundary water bodies  

Transboundary river water bodies have been identified in three RBDs (the Eastern Alps, Padan 
and the North Apennines) and transboundary lake water bodies have been identified in Padan. 
Eight transboundary groundwater bodies have been identified in the Eastern Alps District but 
not in other RBDs. 

2.1.3 Typology of surface water bodies 

The number of water body types per RBD and water body category remained largely the same 
between the first and second RBMPs, with only a slight increase (Table 2.5). No information 
was found in the RBMPs assessed about whether the typology was made biologically relevant.  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.5 

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

RBD 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Territorial 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

ITA 

ITB 

ITC 

ITD 

ITE 

ITF 

ITG 

ITH 

88 

90 

63 

5 

64 

84 

88 

71 

7 

67 

107 

112 

12 

15 

10 

12 

8 

13 

7 

1 

7 

5 

6 

4 

8 

12 

7 

2 

11 

13 

6 

4 

TOTAL 

373 

364 

24 

29 

10 

10 

6 

7 

1 

4 

7 

10 

1 

27 

6 

7 

1 

4 

14 

10 

6 

40 

4 

2 

7 

1 

6 

4 

1 

9 

1 

8 

10 

25 

5 

5 

5 

5 

22 

39 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

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

Member  States  were  asked  to  report  “Not  applicable”  if  there  is  no  corresponding 
intercalibration  type  for  national  types.  Many  national  types  (heavily  modified,  artificial  and 
natural) have been intercalibrated. Several of the national types for Italy in all of the RBDs do 
not appear to have corresponding intercalibration types20. 

2.1.4 Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies 

Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Italy with reference conditions 
established. Type specific reference conditions have been established for all relevant biological 
quality  elements  and  none  have  been  established  for  physicochemical  quality  elements  or 
hydromorphological quality elements21,22. The only exceptions were for six transitional water 
body  types  in  Sicily  RBD,  where  all  reference  conditions  have  been  established  for 

20   Italy subsequently clarified that sectoral legislation, namely Ministerial Decree DM 260/2010, defined broad 
types  (intercalibration  macro-types)  which  are  homogenous  from  the  abiotic  and  ecological  point  of  view. 
Such broad types are the ones identified within the intercalibration exercises run between 2005 and 2017. In 
accordance  with  the  provisions  defined  by  national  legislation  it  is  possible  to  comprise  within  these  broad 
intercalibration types all national types. Italy stated that this approach guarantees that intercalibration results 
are extended to all national types.  

21   Italy subsequently stated that the process is on-going. 
22   Italy subsequently highlighted that for river hydromorphological quality elements the reference conditions are 
type specific. Italy also stated that regarding the hydromorphological aspects of the lakes, the distinction by 
type  was  made  with  regard  to  the  hydrological  aspects,  while  for  morphological  conditions  there  is  no 
subdivision by type. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
physicochemical  quality  elements  and  only  some  established  for  relevant  biological  quality 
elements.  

Table 2.6 

Percentage  of  surface  water  body  types  in  Italy  with  reference  conditions 
established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and 
physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of 
types in each category 

Water category 

Water 
types 

Biological quality 
elements 

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 

Physicochemical 
quality elements 

Lakes (29) 

Rivers (364) 

Coastal (39) 

Transitional (40) 

All 

Some 

None 

All 

Some 

None 

All 

Some 

None 

All 

Some 

None 

97 %  

3 %  

100 %  

100 %  

85 %  

15 %  

100 %  

100 %  

100 %  

100 %  

100 %  

100 %  

15 %  

100 %  

85 %  

2.1.5 Characteristics of groundwater bodies 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The geological formation of the aquifer types in which groundwater bodies reside, along with 
details  of  whether  groundwater  bodies  are  layered  or  not,  are  generally  reported.  There  are 
some geological formations were no information was reported about whether it was layered or 
not. Further characterisation work has been reported since the first RBMP with the inclusion of 
the  assessment  of  linkages  to  surface  water  bodies  and  terrestrial  ecosystems.  The  further 
characterisation of groundwater bodies was not complete: for some RBDs this information was 
reported as an Annex 0 for the South Apennines RBD, Sardinia RBD and Sicily RBD and only 
for some water bodies in the Central Apennines RBD23.  

23   Italy subsequently clarified that for the Eastern Alps RBD this task is going to be carried out within the next 
cycle. For the Southern Apennines RBD a working group has been established in order to further strengthen 
characterization of groundwater bodies, in particular for the linkages between surface water bodies. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
2.1.6 Significant pressures on water bodies 

In the second RBMP, the significant pressures reported to affect the most surface water bodies 
were Diffuse - Agricultural (37 %), and then Point - Urban waste water (20 %) (Figure 2.2). 
“No significant pressures” was reported for 26 % of surface water bodies overall. In the first 
RBMP,  Italy  reported  on  significant  pressures  as  aggregated  pressures  making  direct 
comparison  with  data  from  the  second  cycle  difficult.  There  appears  to  be  a  significant 
decrease  in  the  number  of  water  bodies  with  “No  significant  pressures”  reported,  with  an 
increase  in  the  reporting  of  all  other  categories  of  significant  pressures  (diffuse,  point, 
abstractions and flow and physical changes) (Figure 2.3). This is an indication that there have 
been improvements made in the definition of significant pressures and changes between cycles.  

44 

 
 
 
 
Figure 2.2 

The  most  significant  pressures  on  surface  water  bodies  and  groundwater 
bodies in Italy for the second RBMP  

Source:  WISE electronic reporting 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.3 

Comparison  of  pressures  on  surface  water  bodies  in  Italy  in  the  first  and 
second RBMPs. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note there were 
8581 identified surface water bodies for the second RBMP and 8641 for the 
first RBMP 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. 

In 2016, the significant pressures reported to affect the most groundwater bodies were Diffuse 
- Agricultural (30 %), and then Abstraction or flow diversion - Other (19 %). “No significant 
pressures” were reported for 25 % of groundwater bodies.  

For 2016, a total of 49 significant pressures were not assessed for surface waters. The numbers 
varied  in  each  RBD  ranging  from  1  (Sardinia  RBD)  to  39  (the  South  Apennines  RBD) 
pressures. A total of 52 significant pressures were not assessed for groundwaters. The numbers 
varied  in  each  RBD  ranging  from  7  to  50  pressures.  Whilst  many  of  the  pressures  were  not 
relevant  to  groundwater  some  were,  such  as  Groundwater  -  Recharges  and  Groundwater  - 
Alteration  of  water  level  or  volume  were.  In  some  cases  the  RBMPs  do  not  describe  why 
certain  pressures  have  not  been  assessed.  The  RBMP  for  the  Northern  Apennines  RBD 
indicates  that  for  the  second  RBMPs,  the  list  of  pressures  set  out  in  the  Commission's  WFD 
Reporting  Guidance  2016  was  used  across  the  whole  RBD,  based  on  agreements  with  the 
regions. This implies an update to the list of pressures used previously - however, the RBMP 
does not set out the changes.  

2.1.7 Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater 

For  surface  waters  the  tools  used  to  define  significant  pressures  varied  between  RBDs. 
Generally, a combination of both expert judgement and numerical tools were used for defining 

46 

 
 
 
point  and  diffuse  source  pressures  and  pressures  from  water  flow  for  surface  water.  In  some 
instances just numerical tools were used, for example in the Northern Apennines and Sardinia 
RBDs they were used for point and diffuse pressures on surface water.  

For  surface  water  bodies  significance  of  pressures  was  reported  to  be  defined  in  terms  of 
thresholds and generally linked to the potential failure of objectives for all RBDs. Two RBDs 
(the  Northern  Apennines  and  Sicily)  reported  to  WISE  that  the  definition  of  significance  of 
pressures  was  not  linked  to  the  potential  failure  of  objectives.  The  RBMP  for  the  Northern 
Apennines  RBD  notes  that  the  assessment  of  significance  in  the  first  RBMP  was  carried  out 
without indicators  and without threshold  values  defined  for  significance:  both  elements  were 
introduced for the second RBMP. The RBMP notes that the new system was agreed with the 
regions in  the RBD  but in  practice was undertaken by the regions in  a partial  manner, using 
data  available  and  thresholds  for  significance  that  were  "not  necessarily  homogenous"; 
however,  preliminary  results  in  the  draft  RBMP  were  closely  reviewed  and  verified,  in 
particular in terms of threshold values. The RBMP for the Southern Apennines RBD notes that 
the  methodology  has  been  "refined"  for  the  second  RBMPs.  The  RBMP  describes  a  step-
process using indicators for different types of pressures, alongside estimates of the importance 
of different pressures on water status; the results were then refined by analysis of "test" areas 
and by expert judgement. 

For  groundwaters,  the  tools  used  to  define  significant  pressures  varied  between  RBDs. 
Generally, a combination of both expert judgement and numerical tools were used for defining 
point and diffuse source pressures and pressures from water flow. However there were some 
differences  for  example,  only  numerical  tools  were  used  in  the  North  Apennines  RBD  and 
Serchio  RBDs.  Pressures  from  artificial  recharge  were  only  assessed  in  Sicily  RBD  using 
numerical tools.  

For  groundwater, significance  of  pressures  was  reported  to  be  defined in  terms  of  thresholds 
and generally linked to the potential failure of objectives for all RBDs.  

The RBMPs assessed do not describe specific tools used for the assessment of significance of 
different pressures for surface waters or groundwaters.  

2.1.8 Significant impacts on water bodies  

In  the  second  RBMP,  the  most  significant  impacts  on  surface  water  bodies  were  organic 
pollution, chemical pollution and nutrient pollution which were reported to affect 25-26 % of 
surface water bodies (Figure 2.4). 

47 

 
 
Figure 2.4 

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

48 

 
 
  
 
 
 
For groundwaters, the most significant impacts  were classified as chemical pollution (34 %), 
nutrient pollution (29 %), and abstraction exceeding available groundwater resource (lowering 
water table) (26 %) (Figure 2.4). Italy did not report on impacts in the first RBMPs.  

2.1.9 Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 

Across the RBDs the proportion of groundwater bodies reported to be at risk of failing to meet 
good chemical status ranged from 24 to 64 %. The pollutants causing groundwater bodies to be 
at risk from failing good chemical status were reported. Groundwater bodies reported to be at 
risk of failing to meet good quantitative status, ranged from 6 to 46 %. 

2.1.10  Quantification of the gap and apportionment of pressures  

The Priority Substances and other substances causing the failure of good chemical status were 
reported for all eight RBDs. The measures to tackle these substances to achieve good status by 
2021 (or 2027) were only reported for 3 of the RBDs.  

2.1.11  Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances 

Article  5  of  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  (EQS  Directive)24  requires 
Member  States  to  establish  an  inventory  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  all  Priority 
Substances and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I EQS Directive for each 
RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States 
to further target measures to tackle pollution from priority substances. It should also inform the 
review  of  the  monitoring  networks,  and  allow  the  assessment  of  progress  made  in  reducing 
(respectively  suppressing)  emissions,  discharges  and 
losses  for  priority  substances 
(respectively priority hazardous substances). 

Italy  reported  inventories  of  emissions  for  five  of  the  eight  RBDs25.  For  three  of  the  RBDs 
there were 41 substances or groups of substances (Padan, the Central Apennines and Sardinia), 
for the Eastern Alps RBD there were 29, and for the Serchio RBD 10.  

The two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 
has been followed for almost all substances considered in the inventories. Tier 1 (point source 

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

25   Italy subsequently explained that the remaining inventories, even if not reported in the RBMPs, were prepared 
and  submitted  through  Reportnet,  where  they  were  uploaded  in  an  envelope  under  the  reporting  of  the  1st 
RBMPs. 

49 

 
 
                                                      
information) and Tier 2 (riverine load) of the methodology was implemented for many of the 
substances included in the inventories, including for some of the substances deemed relevant at 
RBD level. The data quality was assessed as uncertain, medium or was not reported. 

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Overall,  there  was  an  increase  in  the  number  of  water  bodies  between  the  first  and  second 
RBMP. There was a similar increase in lake water bodies and coastal water bodies of 16 % and 
15  %  respectively.  The  most  significant  increase  was  for  groundwater  bodies  of  32  %. 
Furthermore, the Sicily RBD did not report any groundwater bodies in the first RBMP while 
there  were  82  reported  in  the  second  RBMP.  For  river  water  bodies  however  there  was  an 
overall  decrease  of  about  2  %  and  a  decrease  of  4  %  for  transitional  water  bodies.  Eight 
territorial  water  bodies  were  reported  in  the  second  RBMP  and  there  were  none  in  the  first 
RBMP.  

The  technical  criteria  for  the  identification  of  artificial  water  bodies  and  heavily  modified 
water  bodies  changed  since  the  first  RBMP  and  there  were  slightly  more  heavily  modified 
water bodies (15 %) in the second RBMP. 

In  the  first  RBMP,  Italy  reported  on  significant  pressures  as  aggregated  pressures  making 
direct  comparison  with  data  from  the  second  RBMP  difficult.  There  appears  to  have  been  a 
considerable decrease in the number of water bodies with “No significant pressures” reported, 
with  an  increase  in  the  reporting  of  all  categories  of  significant  pressures  (diffuse,  point, 
abstractions  and  flow  and  physical  changes).  This  provides  an  indication  that  there  was  an 
improvement in the definition of significant pressures. 

2.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  Where 

there  are  currently  high  uncertainties 

in 

the 

characterisation  of  the  RBDs  these  need  to  be  addressed  in  the  current  cycle,  to 
ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle.  

Assessment:  In  the  first  RBMP,  Italy’s  regions  appeared  to  take  different 
approaches  to  characterisation.  In  some  cases  characterisation  was  not  completed 
and  it  did  not  take  on  board  intercalibration  work.  Notably,  groundwater  bodies 
were not designated in Sicily. 

50 

 
 
In  the  second  cycle,  groundwater  bodies  were  delineated  in  all  RBDs  including 
Sicily,  which  shows  that  this  part  of  the  recommendation  has  been  fulfilled.  Italy 
subsequently  clarified  how  the  intercalibration  process  has  been  translated  to 
national  types.  There  have  been  improvements  on  the  definition  of  significant 
pressures,  although  there  are  still  regional  approaches  to  characterisation  used 
particularly  for  the  definition  of  the  significance  of  pressures26.  Therefore,  this 
recommendation has been partially fulfilled.  

26 Italy subsequently clarified that there were already 32 lake water bodies in Sardinia in the first cycle.  

51 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 3

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological 

status in surface water bodies 

3.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second RBMPs 

3.1.1 Monitoring of ecological status/potential 

Monitoring programmes 

Article  8.1  of  the  WFD  requires  Member  States  to  establish  monitoring  programmes  for  the 
assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and 
comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD.  

Italy reported 134 different monitoring programmes covering all four surface water categories 
and groundwater.  

Monitoring  methods  for  ecological  status  have  been  updated  to  fully  implement  national 
legislation  (Ministerial  Decree  56/2009,  which  covers  monitoring  and  classification  of  water 
bodies, and Ministerial Decree 260/2010, on technical criteria for the classification of surface 
water bodies27). 

Monitoring  programmes  in  place  in  the  first  RBMPs  followed  more  limited  national 
approaches  and  were  not  aligned  with  the  WFD  requirements:  for  example,  appropriate 
biological assessment methods were essentially not in place in any RBD. The introduction of 
the  two  Ministerial  Decrees  mentioned  above  greatly  improved  the  monitoring  of  ecological 
status/potential  in  Italy  in  line  with  WFD  requirements,  even  if  the  second  RBMPs  do  not 
describe explicitly the changes since the first plans28.  

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

27   Italy subsequently clarified that there were already 32 lake water bodies in Sardinia in the 1st cycle.  
28   Italy  clarified  that  for  some  RBDs  the  changes  in  methodology  and  classification  were  described  in  the 

RBMPs. This is for example the case for the Eastern Alps RBMP. 

52 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
52 

18 

201 

1 

14 

129 

24 

439 

48 

12 

189 

14 

Table 3.1 

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

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

second RBMP  

IT_A 

IT_B 

IT_C 

IT_D 

IT_E 

IT_F 

IT_G 

679 

389 

66 

13 

184 

278 

38 

241 

618 

159 

8 

111 

277 

80 

50 

75 

5 

1 

12 

23 

0 

10 

92 

8 

1 

20 

16 

23 

6 

34 

Total by type of site 

1 647 

1 494 

166 

170 

40 

211 

48 

13 

1 

15 

140 

428 

1 

22 

264 

17 

304 

3101 

329 

453 

673 

Total number of 
monitoring sites 

first RBMP 

IT_A 

IT_B 

IT_C 

IT_D 

IT_E 

IT_F 

298 

365 

217 

32 

115 

111 

470 

259 

149 

5 

68 

277 

14 

38 

7 

2 

9 

0 

10 

45 

13 

2 

16 

0 

86 

93 

33 

9 

32 

20 

1 

2 

2 

Total by type of site 

1 138 

1 228 

70 

4 

135 

53 

263 

Total number of 
monitoring sites 

2 288 

176 

139 

316 

Sources: Member States electronic reporting to WISE. 

53 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
Table 3.2 

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

Monitoring Purpose 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

BWD - Recreational or bathing water - WFD 
Annex IV.1.iii 

CHE - Chemical status 

DWD - Drinking water - WFD Annex IV.1.i 

ECO - Ecological status 

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

INV - Investigative monitoring 

MSF - Marine Strategy Framework Directive 
monitoring network 

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

OPE - Operational monitoring 

QUA - Quantitative status 

REF - Reference network monitoring site 

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

SOE - EIONET State of Environment 
monitoring 

SUR - Surveillance monitoring 

TRE - Chemical trend assessment 

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

Total sites irrespective of purpose 

1 918 

48 

2 875 

81 

141 

381 

1 494 

42 

53 

5 

1 528 

1 647 

26 

75 

4 038 

250 

18 

301 

10 

3 

11 

170 

182 

166 

6 

387 

243 

406 

33 

96 

74 

428 

54 

111 

40 

102 

64 

506 

24 

381 

537 

13 

39 

38 

439 

23 

269 

304 

39 

35 

934 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

In  seven  of  the  eight  RBDs,  information  was  reported  on  the  sites  used  for  surveillance  and 
operational  monitoring.  The  Sicily  RBD  only  reported  whether  sites  were  for  ecological  or 
chemical status purposes. All eight RBDs have identified all four categories of surface waters. 

There are significant gaps in some of the RBDs in terms of surveillance monitoring, with none 
being  undertaken  in  five  of  the  seven  RBDs  (not  including  Sicily,  as  explained  above)  for 
transitional waters, three of the seven RBDs for coastal waters and one of the seven RBDs for 
lakes. At the national level 37 % of the total sites reported were used for surveillance and 43 % 
for operational monitoring. Operational monitoring was not reported for transitional waters in 
the Central Apennines RBD, but surveillance monitoring was in place.  

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Information is only available for seven RBDs (Eastern Alps, Padan, North Apennines, Serchio, 
Central Apennines, South Apennines and Sardinia) on the monitoring sites reported in the first 
RBMPs. Overall in these six RBDs there were significant increases in the number of sites in 
each water category from the first to the second RBMPs. There was a 45 % increase in river 
surveillance sites though there was a decrease in numbers in the North Apennines and Serchio 
RBDs. The decreases in site numbers for these two RBDs affected all water categories. 

Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) 

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

Table 3.3 

Quality elements  monitored  for the  second  RBMPs  in  Italy (excluding  River 
Basin  Specific  Pollutants).  Note:  quality  elements  may  be  used  for 
surveillance and/or operational monitoring  

Biological quality elements 

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

s
e
t
y
h
p
o
r
c
a
M

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

c
i
h
t
n
e
B

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

h
s
i
F

s

m
r
e
p
s
o
i
g
n
A

e
a
g
l
a
o
r
c
a
M

Lakes 

Rivers 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

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

a
r
o
l
f

No 

No 

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

r
e
h
t
O

Yes 

Transitional  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  No 

Coastal 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes  Yes  No 

Yes 

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 

y
t
i
u
n
i
t
n
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

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

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

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

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

General physicochemical quality elements 

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

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

l
a
m
r
e
h
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

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 

Yes 

Yes 

y
t
i
n
i
l
a
S

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

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

s
u
t
a
t
s

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

n
e
g
o
r
t
i

N

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

s
u
r
o
h
p
s
o
h
P

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
C

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

r
e
h
t
O

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

t
n
e
i
r
t
u
n

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

e
t
a
c
i
l
i
S

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional 

Coastal 

55 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No biological quality elements were reported to be monitored in coastal and transitional waters 
in  the  Serchio  RBD29.  Phytoplankton  was  monitored  in  the  other  seven  RBDs  and  benthic 
invertebrates  in  six  RBDs.  Macroalgae  and  angiosperms  were  only  monitored  in  four  RBDs 
with coastal waters. Phytoplankton was reported to be monitored in lakes in all eight RBDs but 
there were significant gaps in the monitoring of the other relevant biological quality elements. 
Macrophytes and fish were monitored in lakes in only three RBDs, phytobenthos and benthic 
invertebrates  in  two  RBDs.  Only  in  the  Eastern  Alps  RBD  are  all  the  expected  biological 
quality elements monitored in lakes. 

The monitoring of the expected biological quality elements in rivers was much more complete 
than for the other water categories. Fish was the only missing quality element in the Serchio 
and Sicily RBDs. 

The  biological  quality  elements  monitored  in  transitional  waters in  most  RBDs  were  benthic 
invertebrates  (seven  RBDs),  followed  by  phytoplankton  and  macroalgae  (four  RBDs), 
angiosperms  (two  RBDs)  and  fish  (two  RBDs).  Macrophytes  were  also  reported  for 
transitional waters in four RBDs and phytobenthos in one RBD. 

In two RBDs none of the coastal water bodies in surveillance monitoring were sampled for all 
required  biological  quality  elements.  The  proportions  in  the  other  two  RBDs  in  which 
surveillance  monitoring  was  reported  were  6  %  and  53  %.  None  of  the  lakes  included  in 
surveillance  monitoring  were  sampled  for  all  required  biological  quality  elements  in  five 
RBDs; in the 6th (Eastern Alps RBD) 22 % were. In one RBD none of the river water bodies 
were  sampled  for  all  required  biological  quality  elements;  the  proportion  sampled  for  all 
required  biological  quality  elements  in  the  other  six  RBDs  in  which  surveillance  monitoring 
was  reported  ranged  from  2  %  to  44  %.  None  of  the  transitional  water  bodies  included  in 
surveillance monitoring were sampled for all required biological quality elements. 

There were significant  gaps  in  the monitoring of hydromorphological quality elements. Only 
two RBDs (the Eastern Alps and Padan RBDs) monitored morphological conditions in coastal 
waters;  tidal  regimes  were  not  monitored  in  any  RBD.  In  transitional  waters,  the  only 
hydromorphological  quality  element  which  was  monitored  was  morphological  conditions  in 
three  of  the  eight  RBDs  (Eastern  Alps,  Padan  and  North  Apennines  RBDs)30.    Hydrological 
regime was only monitored in lakes in the Padan RBD and morphological conditions only in 

29   Italy subsequently stated that biological quality elements are monitored in coastal water in the Serchio RBD. 

This might be a reporting error. 

30   Italy  subsequently  stated  that  hydrological  regime  was  monitored  in  transitional  water  in  the  Eastern  Alps 

RBD. 

56 

 
 
                                                      
the Central Apennines RBD31. Continuity was also reported for lakes in the Central Apennines 
RBD. All three required hydromorphological quality elements were monitored in rivers in only 
one RBD (Sardinia)32. In three other RBDs, hydrological regime and morphological conditions 
were monitored in rivers, and in another RBD continuity was monitored. 

Only  one  water  body  (a  river)  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  was  monitored  for  all 
required hydromorphological quality elements. Overall, 33 % of the river water bodies 23 % of 
the lake water bodies and 22 % of the coastal water bodies included in surveillance monitoring 
were  monitored  for  all  required  physicochemical  quality  elements.  None  of  the  transitional 
water bodies was monitored for all required physicochemical quality elements. All the relevant 
physicochemical  quality  elements  were  monitored  in  coastal  waters  in  most  RBDs.  The 
exceptions  were  transparency  conditions,  salinity  conditions  and  acidification  status  in  the 
South  Apennines  RBD  and  salinity  conditions  in  the  Sicily  RBD33.  There  were  gaps  in  the 
monitoring  of  physicochemical  quality  elements  in  lakes  in  several  RBDs.  Oxygenation  and 
nutrient  conditions  were  monitored  in  lakes  in  all  RBDs.  In  rivers,  nutrient  and  oxygenation 
conditions  were  monitored  in  all  RBDs.  However,  only  two  RBDs  monitored  transparency 
conditions,  six  monitored  thermal  conditions,  five  monitored  salinity  conditions  and  six 
monitored  acidification  status.  Thermal,  oxygenation  and  nutrient  conditions  were  monitored 
in  transitional  waters  in  all  RBDs,  transparency  was  monitored  in  four  RBDs,  salinity  in  six 
and acidification status in seven.  

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  six  years  period  covered  by  a  RBMP.  For  phytoplankton  this 
should be done twice during the monitoring year and for the other biological quality elements 
once during the year. As a guideline, operational monitoring should take place at intervals not 
exceeding once every six months for phytoplankton and once every three years during the six 
year cycle for the other biological quality elements. Greater intervals may be justified on the 
basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. 

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

31   Italy subsequently stated that morphological conditions were also monitored in lakes in the Padan RBD. 
32   Italy subsequently stated that all 3 required hydromorphological quality elements are monitored in rivers in the 

Padan and North Appennine RBDs.  

33   Italy  subsequently  stated  that  transparency  conditions,  salinity  conditions  and  acidification  status  were  not 

monitored in coastal waters in the Sardinia and Sicily RBDs. 

57 

 
 
                                                      
Two  biological  quality  elements  (macroalgae  and  angiosperms)  used  for  operational 
monitoring were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites at which 
they were monitored. For macrophytes and benthic invertebrates this was done at 96 % of the 
sites, for phytobenthos at 92 % of the sites and for phytoplankton at 68 % of the sites. 

River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored 

River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  monitored  in  five  of  the  eight  RBDs  in  coastal  waters, 
lakes, and rivers, but only in four RBDs in transitional waters (the missing RBD is the Central 
Apennines RBD). 

River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  reported  to  be  monitored  in  five  of  the  eight  RBDs  in 
coastal waters, lakes, and rivers34  and in four RBDs in transitional waters. 

427 

reported 

A  total  of  289  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  reported  by  Italy  in  schema  element 
element 
substances  were 
“chemicalSubstanceCode”. 
“chemicalSubstanceOther”, which should include all River Basin Specific Pollutants for which 
a code was not one of the choices available under “chemicalSubstanceCode”. However, there 
was a significant duplication of substances because there were often slight differences in how 
the  same  substance  had  been  reported,  for  example,  misspellings  and  Chemical  Abstracts 
Service  numbers  reported  without  a  name.  It  is,  therefore,  not  clear  how  many  River  Basin 
Specific Pollutants in total have been identified in Italy35. This assessment is based on the 289 
chemical substances which have been clearly reported. 

schema 

in 

Table 3.4 shows the number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants in Italy in 
the first and second RBMPs. 

Table 3.4 

Number  of  sites  used  to  monitor  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  reported  in 
the second RBMPs and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national 
pollutants reported in the first RBMPs in Italy. Note the data from both cycles 
may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used in the first one 

RBMP 

first  

Sites used to monitor non-priority specific 
pollutants and/or other national pollutants 
(Data from six RBDs) 

367 

41 

second  

 Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific 

1256 

101 

32 

129 

60 

134 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional  Coastal 

34  Italy  subsequently  stated  that  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  monitored  in  all  RBDs  in  coastal  waters, 

lakes and rivers. 

35 Italy acknowledged that there are problems with the information reported to WISE in these schema elements 
and work is under way to determine how many River Basin Specific Pollutants are in fact monitored in Italy.  

58 

 
 
 
                                                      
Pollutants – reported at the quality element 
level (Data from five RBDs) 

Sources: WISE electronic reporting  

A  total  of  12509  monitoring  sites  for  all  purposes  were  reported  for  Italy  (all  eight  RBDs). 
1620 (13 %) of these sites were monitored for River Basin Specific Pollutants (reported at the 
generic  level  by  five  RBDs).  211  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  monitored  in  coastal 
waters,  247  in  lakes,  273  in  rivers  and  162  in  transitional  waters.  Five  substances  were 
monitored in biota (without further discrimination), 37 in biota other than fish, 65 in sediment, 
five in settled sediments and 285 in water. 

The River Basin Specific Pollutants monitored at most sites was arsenic (2098 sites), followed 
by  chromium  (2094  sites),  terbuthylazine  (1294  sites)  and  copper  (1087  sites).  There  were 
inconsistencies in the reporting in WISE which complicate this assessment: the number of sites 
reported  to  be  monitoring  each  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutant  (reported  in  schema  element 
chemicalSubstance) is greater than the number of sites reported to be monitoring River Basin 
Specific  Pollutants  at  the  generic  level  (schema  element  qeCode).  The  former  was  based  on 
data from eight RBDs and the latter from five RBDs. As Italy has subsequently acknowledged, 
there  are  problems  with  the  reporting  of  the  relevant  elements  to  WISE.  Therefore  this 
assessment should be treated with caution. 

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 six year period covered by a river basin management plan. For river basin specific 
pollutants  this  should  be  done  four  times  for  the  surveillance  year,  and  for  operational 
monitoring four times a year for each year of the cycle. 

Of  the  236  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  included  in  surveillance  monitoring,  103  were 
sampled  at  least  at  the  minimum  recommended  frequency  at  all  sites  where  they  were 
monitored  and  three  substances  at  none  of  the  sites.  Of  the  240  substances  included  in 
operational monitoring, 51 were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at 
all sites where they were monitored and 32 substances at none of the sites. 

Annex  V,  section  1.3.4  of  the  WFD  does  not  explicitly  define  the  matrices  to  which  the 
minimum  recommended  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 EQS Directive 2008/105/EC: this is once 
per  year  for  operational  and  surveillance  monitoring  purposes.  For  consistency  this 

59 

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

In terms of the frequency of monitoring of River Basin Pollutants in biota and other biological 
matrices,  3  of  the  40  pollutants  were  monitored  at  all  sites  where  they  were  monitored  at  a 
frequency of at least once a year. There were no substances for which no sites were sampled at 
less than the minimum recommended frequency. 13 of the 67 pollutants monitored in sediment 
or suspended sediment were monitored at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all 
sites  where  they  were  monitored  and  for  five  pollutants  no  sites  met  this  minimum 
recommended frequency.   

Surveillance monitoring of surface water bodies 

Figure  3.1  shows  the  percentage  of  water  bodies  object  of  surveillance  and  operational 
monitoring in both the first and second RBMPs. Figure 3.2 shows that the proportion of water 
bodies in each class that were included in surveillance monitoring varied between water body 
categories. 

Figure 3.1 

Percentage  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  and  operational 
monitoring  in  Italy  for  the  first  RBMPs  (2010)  and  second  RBMPs  (2016). 
Note  no  differentiation  is  made  between  water  bodies  included  in  ecological 
and/or chemical monitoring  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

60 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3.2 

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

In  rivers,  21  %  of  water  bodies  were  included  in  surveillance  and  18  %  in  operational 
monitoring  and  in  coastal  waters  27  %  were  included  in  surveillance  compared  to  26  %  for 
operational  monitoring.  In  lakes  and  transitional  waters  there  were  fewer  water  bodies 
monitored for surveillance purposes than for operational. There were large differences between 
RBDs in the proportions included in either purpose: for example 5 % of river water bodies in 
surveillance  monitoring  in  the  North  Apennines  RBD,  and  36  %  in  the  Central  Apennines 
RBD. Information was only available for six RBDs for the first RBMPs. In these six RBDs, 12 
% of surface water bodies were included in surveillance monitoring and 10 % in operational. In 
the  same  six  RBDs,  for  the  second  RBMPs,  25  %  of  surface  water  bodies  were  included  in 
surveillance  and  22  %  in  operational.  There  were  also  increased  proportions  for  the  second 
RBMPs for the four water categories, and for surveillance and operational monitoring. 

Operational monitoring of surface water bodies  

All  four  relevant  biological  quality  elements  are  used  in  operational  monitoring  of  coastal 
waters in Italy as a whole: the predominant biological quality element is phytoplankton (76 % 
of  coastal  water  bodies  in  operational  monitoring)  followed  by  benthic  invertebrates  (60  %), 
angiosperms  (33  %)  and  macroalgae  (25  %).  The  most  commonly  used  biological  quality 
element for operational monitoring in lakes was phytoplankton (77 % of lake water bodies in 
operational monitoring), followed by macrophytes (9 %), fish (7 %), phytobenthos (2 %) and 
benthic  invertebrates  (1  %).  The  four  relevant  biological  quality  elements  were  used  for 

61 

 
 
 
operational  monitoring  of  rivers  in  Italy:  benthic  invertebrates  (55  %  of  river  water  bodies 
included in operational monitoring), phytobenthos (46 %), macrophytes (21 %) and fish (8 %). 
Benthic  invertebrates  were  used  to  monitor  87  %  of  transitional  water  bodies  included  in 
operational  monitoring,  followed  by  phytoplankton  (39  %),  macroalgae  (20  %),  fish  (19  %) 
and angiosperms (14 %).  

Transboundary surface water body monitoring 

Italy  reported  23  river,  four  lake  and  eight  groundwater  transboundary  bodies,  but  did  not 
report any monitoring sites that were part of international networks. 

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

Ecological Status or potential of surface water bodies 

The  ecological  status/potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Italy  in  the  second  RBMPs  is 
illustrated in Map 3.1.  

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

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

62 

 
 
 
Map 3.1 

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

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

High 

Good 

Moderate 

Poor  

Bad 

Unknown 

River Basin Districts 

Countries outside the European Union 

63 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.3  Ecological status or  potential  of surface  water bodies in Italy 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  2009  to  2015. 
The year of the assessment of status for first RBMPs is not known  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Figure 3.4  Expected  date  of  achievement  of  good  ecological  status/potential  of  surface 
water  bodies  in  Italy.  The  number  in  parenthesis  is  the  number  of  water 
bodies in each category  

Source: WISE electronic report 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
Ecological status/potential has been classified for the majority of water bodies, in contrast to 
the  first  RBMPs,  where  most  of  the  water  bodies  were  unclassified.  The  exceptions  are  the 
Sicily and Southern Apennines RBDs, where the majority of water bodies still have unknown 
ecological status/potential. It is not clear why there are still some natural river and lake water 
bodies with unknown ecological status in all RBDs.  

There  was  an  increase  in  the  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  at  good  or  better  ecological 
status/potential from 25 % in the first RBMPs to 42 %   in the second. There was a significant 
reduction in the proportion of surface water bodies with unknown status/potential from the first 
to the second RBMPs, from 56 % to 18 %. It should be noted that there has been a small (0.5 
%)  reduction  in  the  number  of  surface  water  bodies  delineated  from  the  first  to  the  second 
RBMP. 

In  the  South  Apennines  and  Sicily  RBDs  (as  mentioned  above)  the  ecological  status  is 
unknown for the majority of water bodies. This is particularly noted for artificial and heavily 
modified  water  bodies,  which  is  explained  in  Annex  0  as  being  due  to  lack  of  methods  to 
assess  ecological  potential.  However,  for  natural  water  bodies,  the  proportion  with  unknown 
status is also important in those RBDs. 

Ecological  status/potential  is  less  than  good  for  65  %  of  lakes,  50  %  of  rivers  and  95  %  of 
transitional waters.36 By contrast, only 25 % of coastal waters are in less than good ecological 
status. This is in line with the exemptions, except in the South Apennines and Sardinia RBDs, 
where  the  expected  date  for  achieving  the  objectives  is  unknown  for  a  large  proportion  of 
water bodies.  

The overview report for the Padan RBD states that in the second RBMP, in comparison with 
the first RBMP, "for the first time, an overview of the ecological status and chemical status of 
all surface water bodies is provided". This statement suggests that a comparison of ecological 
status/potential with the first RBMP would be at best limited as information was not available 
for all surface water bodies at the time. An annex to the main RBMP provides an overview of 
current ecological status. However, only a preliminary analysis of the changes with respect to 
the first RBMP was presented.  

For  the  South  Apennines  RBD,  the  RBMP  provides  an  overview  of  the  ecological  status  by 
region. For a few regions and water body types, comparisons are made with the first RBMP: 
for example, in Puglia, 16 % of transitional waters were reported to have seen an improvement 

36   See “European waters - Assessment of status and pressures 2018”, 

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

65 

 
 
                                                      
in ecological status and 17 % saw a decline, with the rest not changing; in Lazio, 3 % of river 
water bodies saw an improvement in ecological status, 33 % a decline, 31 % were stationary, 
and 33 % were not monitored for the first RBMP. 

Confidence in ecological status assessment 

Figure 3.5 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. 

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

water bodies in Italy  

Source: WISE electronic report  

There was a significant improvement in the confidence  in the classification of the ecological 
status/potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Italy  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMP.  1  %  of 
water  bodies  were  classified  with  high  confidence  for  the  first  RBMPs  and  26  %  for  the 
second. This was due to more monitoring and assessment of biological quality elements 

Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element 

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

66 

 
 
 
Figure 3.6  Ecological  status/potential  of  the  biological  quality  elements  used  in  the 
classification  of  lakes  and  rivers  in  Italy.  Note  that  water  bodies  with 
unknown  status/potential,  and  those  that  are  monitored  but  not  classified  or 
not applicable, are not presented. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  
Figure  3.7  compares  the  classification  of  biological  quality  elements  in  terms  of  ecological 
status/potential for the first and second RBMPs. It should be noted that this comparison should 
be treated with caution as there are differences between the numbers of surface water bodies 
classified for individual elements from the first to the second RBMPs. 

67 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3.7  Comparison  of  ecological  status/potential  in  Italy  according  to  classified 
biological  quality  elements  in  rivers  and  lakes  from  the  first  to  the  second 
RBMP. The numbers in parentheses are the numbers of surface water bodies 
with a classification for that element 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Figure  3.8  illustrates  the  basis  of  the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  of  surface 
water bodies in Italy for the second RBMPs. 

Several biological quality elements were reported as unknown status/potential or not applicable 
in  the  large  majority  of  water  bodies,  for  example,  macroalgae  and  angiosperms  in  coastal 
waters, all biological quality elements except phytoplankton in lakes, macrophytes and fish in 
rivers, and all biological quality elements except benthic invertebrates in transitional waters. 

The change in status/potential at the quality element level is unknown for most water bodies 
and most quality elements. Almost all the changes which were reported are due to changes in 
monitoring and/or assessment systems, and only very few were reported as consistent changes. 

68 

 
 
 
Figure 3.8 

The  classification  of  the  ecological  status  or  potential  of  rivers  and  lakes  in 
Italy  using  1,  2,  3  or  4  types  of  quality  element.  Note:  The  four  types  are: 
biological;  hydromorphological,  general  physicochemical  and  River  Basin 
Specific Pollutants 

Assessment methods for the biological quality elements 

Source: Extracted from WISE 

Assessment  methods  have  been  developed  for  all  biological  quality  elements  in  all  water 
categories except for fish in transitional waters and phytobenthos in lakes.  

The  sensitivity  of  several  of  the  biological  quality  element  methods  to  different  impacts  was 
reported, and appears to be rather general, ranging across most impacts. 

Annex 1 to the RBMP for the Padan RBD states that judgements on ecological status for some 
water  bodies  may  change  as  not  all  biological  quality  elements  have  been  used;  it  is  further 
noted  that  a  process  of  validation  is  still  under  development  for  a  few  biological  quality 
elements, in particular for fish in rivers. 

Intercalibration of biological quality element methods 

Some river types overlap several of the common intercalibration types, therefore it is not clear 
which of the intercalibrated class boundaries are used for classification of water bodies in those 
national types37.  

37   Italy subsequently stated that in the Ministerial Decree 260/2010 there are tables showing the links between 

national and common IC types. 

69 

 
 
 
                                                      
The Annex to the RBMP for the Padan RBD states that the analysis of ecological status was 
based  on  the  biological  quality  elements  set  out  in  Decision  2008/915/EC38,  but  not  those in 
Decision 2013/480/EU - these will be addressed in the next RBMP. 

Assessment of hydromorphological quality elements  

The  relevant  hydromorphological  quality  elements  are  assessed  in  terms  of  ecological 
status/potential in all water categories but the classification boundaries for all of the elements 
in  all  categories  are  not  related  to  the  class  boundaries  for  the  sensitive  biological  quality 
elements.  

Hydrological conditions (for example, flow levels) are not used for classification (except for 5 
% of rivers in the Eastern Alps RBD). Classification of the other hydromorphological quality 
elements is not carried out in any water category, except morphological conditions in 13 % of 
the river water bodies in the Padan RBD and 28 % of the river water bodies in the Eastern Alps 
RBD, and river continuity and morphology in most of the rivers in the Sardinia RBD. These 
quality elements are not used at all in the South Apennines and Sicily RBDs.  

Annex 1 of the second RBMP for the Padan RBD indicates that in 2009 and 2010, monitoring 
protocols were established in all regions in the RBD for ecological status monitoring, including 
hydromorphological  quality  elements.  The  Annex  refers  to  the  use  of  the  IDRAIM  system, 
developed by ISPRA, and the IQM index, as well as other indices (IARI, IQH): these indices 
are referenced in Ministerial Decree 260/2010. 

The RBMP for the South Apennines RBD contains little information on hydromorphological 
quality elements; it is explicitly stated that they were monitored in some regions (for example, 
for river water bodies in Campania), while for others they are not mentioned at all.  

The  second  RBMPs  do  not  explain  the  changes  relative  to  the  first  RBMPs.  However,  the 
assessment of the first RBMPs indicated that, while hydromorphological quality elements were 
established in the 2009 decree, they had not been used. Consequently, these quality elements 
are extensively used for the first time for the second RBMPs.  

Annex 1 of the RBMP for the Padan RBD notes that hydromorphological quality elements are 
assessed  on  the  basis  of  common  hydromorphological  methods.  However  it  is  noted  that  in 
some specific conditions, the methods do not provide reliable results as further validation and 

38   Commission Decision 2008/915/EC, of 30 October 2008 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 the intercalibration exercise, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2008/915/oj 

70 

 
 
                                                      
calibration needed. The Annex indicates that several administrative areas in the RBD did not 
use  hydromorphological  quality  elements:  Valle  d'Aosta  Region,  Veneto  Region  and  Trento 
Autonomous  Province  (it  is  not  clear  if  this  is  because  the  methods  were  not  considered 
reliable  for  their  conditions).  Specific  details  with  regard  to  which  methods  and  quality 
elements need further validation and calibration were not provided.  

Italy subsequently clarified that this is only the case for regulated rivers, but that in the general 
cases the methods are considered to be reliable. Italy subsequently clarified that the reason was 
in some cases a lack of data, and in some cases that the information was not reported. 

Classification methods for general physicochemical quality elements  

The  relevant  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  are  assessed  in  terms  of  ecological 
status/potential in all water categories (except for acidification status in transitional and coastal 
waters).  

Common  standards  were  reported  for  all  types  of  water  bodies  in  all  water  categories  for 
oxygenation conditions and nutrient conditions. For lakes, the standards are set on the basis of 
a  trophic  state  index  and  are  likely  to  be  consistent  with  the  good-moderate  boundaries  for 
sensitive  biological  quality  elements.  For  rivers,  the  index  used  is  based  on  different 
parameters, for which standards have not been set to be individually related to the biological 
response for each class, but that are used in combination as indicator of water quality and as a 
distance to an expected condition. Italy subsequently clarified that they are currently checking 
the  consistency  between  the  physico-chemical  quality  element  boundaries  and  the  sensitive 
biological quality elements boundaries for lakes, rivers, coastal and transitional waters. 

The  national  decree  specifying  technical  methods  related  to  ecological  status  (Ministerial 
Decree 260/2010)  sets out  status  levels for physicochemical standards. It contains tables  that 
intersect  between  the  results  of  the  physicochemical  standards  and  those  of  the  biological 
quality elements to identify ecological status. A more detailed analysis of the different methods 
is presented below. 

The LIMeco multimetric index is used for rivers and consists of the following physicochemical 
parameters: oxygen, ammonium, nitrate and total phosphorus. In Ministerial Decree 260/2010, 
class  boundaries  are  given  for  each  parameter,  as  well  as  for  the  combined  multimetric.  The 
Good-Moderate status boundary (standard) for total phosphorus is 100 µg/l, which is close to 
the saturation level for nutrient sensitive biology, such as phytobenthos. The class boundaries 
for all the four parameters represent a mathematical doubling of the value for each class (for 
example, for total phosphorus 50 µg/l for the High-Good status boundary to 100 µg/l for Good-

71 

 
 
Moderate status to 200 µg/l for Moderate-Poor status and 400 µg/l for Poor-Bad status), which 
is  very  unlikely  to  be  related  to  the  biological  responses.  The  points  scored  for  each  of  the 
single  parameters  are  combined  into  the  overall  LIMeco  value  (ranging  from  High-Good  = 
0.66, Good-Moderate = 0.50, Moderate-Poor = 0.33 and Poor-Bad = 0.17). This value appears 
to  be  a  mean  value,  but  it  is  unclear  whether  each  of  the  four  parameters  is  given  an  equal 
weighting or whether the limiting nutrient is assigned a higher weighting than the others. Italy 
subsequently  clarified  that  the  boundary  between  High  and  Good  status  has  been  fixed  in 
correspondence to the 10th percentile observed at reference samples and the remaining range 
cut into equal ranges for the other categories. 

The LTLeco index is used for lakes to assess the trophic state in relation to ecological status. It 
has three parameters - total phosphorus, transparency and dissolved oxygen  - each parameter 
having High-Good and Good-Moderate boundaries, which are different for two major groups 
of  lake  types:  one  group  includes  the  national  lake  types  L1,  L2,  I1,  I2,  whereas  the  second 
group  includes  the  types  L3,  L4,  I3,  I4,  the  latter  having  higher  boundary  values  for  total 
phosphorus, with Good-Moderate boundary of 15 µg/l for the first group and 20 µg/l for the 
second group. The reference values are also given. The Good-Moderate boundaries are quite 
low  and  are  probably  well  aligned  with  the  Good-Moderate  boundaries  for  phytoplankton  in 
lakes,  according  to  the  relevant  intercalibration  technical  report.  The  Good-Moderate 
boundaries given  for  the  transparency  and  oxygen  parameters  also seem  relevant  in  terms  of 
relationship  with  nutrient  sensitive  biology.  The  calculation  used  to  derive  the  combined 
LTLeco metric value is unclear, but seems to be the sum of the points given for each parameter 
depending on the class achieved for each parameter.  

The  TRIX  index  is  used  for  coastal  and  marine  waters.  While  it  is  referenced  in  Ministerial 
Decree  260/2010,  the  decree  does  not  specify  the  boundaries  for  its  parameters.  A  separate 
ISPRA  report  on  water  monitoring  explains  that  TRIX  is  based  on:  chlorophyll,  the 
concentration of macronutrients (dissolved inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus), and dissolved 
oxygen (percentage of saturation compared to 100 %). This report also underlines that TRIX 
supports the assessments based on EQS: if the TRIX result is higher than the EQS result, then 
the  EQS  result  is  used;  however,  if  the  TRIX  result  is  lower  than  the  EQS  result,  then  the 
TRIX result is used. The report also suggests that, based on the experience so far, this approach 
should be reconsidered when such mismatches are observed, as then further monitoring should 
be carried out. A definitive set of class boundaries for the TRIX parameters was not found (a 
set of boundaries was found in a 2002 paper prepared by ISPRA, but it is likely that these have 
since been modified as the paper was prepared before Italy's transposition of the WFD).  

72 

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

in 

the  decree 

National legislation (Ministerial Decree 260/2010) sets out a list of pollutants to be considered 
as  specific  pollutants  (according  to  Annex  1  to  the  RBMP  for  the  Padan  RBD).  The  list  of 
pollutants  given 
includes  51  substances,  which  are  mainly  organic 
micropollutants,  as  well  as  some  pesticides,  but  no  metals  except  arsenic39.  A  review  of  the 
Ministerial  Decree  260/2010  indicates  that  monitoring  is  obligatory  for  a  substance  if 
significant  quantities  (defined  as  quantities  that  could  compromise  the  achievement  of  WFD 
objectives) are discharged or released in the river basin or sub-basins, or are identified there; 
the choice of River Basin Specific Pollutants to be included in surveillance monitoring should 
be carried out on the basis of the pressures and impacts present. 

Standards  were  reported  for  110  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  excluding  those  reported 
under schema element" RBSP-Other (see above explanation of why these “other” substances 
could  not  be  included  in  the  assessment).  Standards  were  reported  for  27  substances  in 
sediment and 89 in  water. It was reported that none of the environmental quality  standards40 
has  been  derived  in  accordance  with  the  Technical  Guidance  Document  No  2741.  The 
analytical methods used for the substances are reported to be in line with either Article 4(1) or 
Article 4(2) of Directive (2009/90/EC)42.  

Another  199  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  monitored  in  water  but  had  no 
Environmental Quality Standards established and the same applies to 41 River Basin Specific 
Pollutants  monitored  in  sediment.  All  the  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  for  which 
Environmental Quality Standards have been established are monitored. 

A long list of River Basin Specific Pollutants was reported in each RBD along with the number 
of water bodies failing for each substance. Only a few water bodies were reported to exceed 
the  Environmental  Quality  Standard  values,  except  in  the  Padan  RBD,  where  about  23  %  of 
water  bodies  were  failing  good  status  for  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants,  mainly  due  to 
arsenic, chromium and pesticides.  

39   Italy subsequently stated that chromium is also included in the list. 
40   Italy  subsequently  stated  that  several  environmental  quality  standards  have  been  derived  according  to  the 

Technical Guidance Document No 27, but this was not reported nor described explicitly in the RBMPs.  

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

WFD%2027%20EC%202011.pdf 

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

73 

 
 
                                                      
Use of monitoring results for classification 

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

Figure 3.9  Basis  of  the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  in  Italy.  The 

percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

74 

 
 
 
Coastal  water  bodies  were  classified  by  four  biological  quality  elements  (mainly 
phytoplankton),  oxygenation,  nutrient conditions and  River Basin  Specific Pollutants, largely 
using monitoring results. More water bodies were directly monitored for the biological quality 
elements  than  were  subsequently  classified.  Several  coastal  water  bodies  were  monitored  for 
morphological conditions but this element was not used in the classification. 

The  classification  of  the  biological  quality  elements  in  lakes  is  almost  solely  based  on 
phytoplankton though macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish are used for a small number 
of lakes. The classification was only based on monitoring results and more lakes were directly 
monitored 
for 
hydromorphological  quality  elements  but  these  elements  were  not  used  in  the  classification. 
Physicochemical  quality  elements  and  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  also  used  in  the 
classification of lakes. 

than  were  subsequently  classified.  A 

lakes  were  monitored 

few 

All relevant biological quality elements were used in the classification of river water bodies in 
Italy. Whilst the results of monitoring were primarily used in the classification, grouping and 
expert  judgment  were  also  used.  More  river  water  bodies  were  monitored  for  the  biological 
quality elements than were subsequently classified using monitoring results, perhaps indicating 
a  lack  of  confidence  in  the  monitoring  and  assessment  system  for  the  biological  quality 
elements. Hydrological regime and morphological conditions were used in the classification of 
rivers using monitoring results, expert judgment and grouping. Continuity was also monitored 
in a few river water bodies but not used in the classification. Also more river water bodies were 
directly monitored for hydromorphological quality elements than were subsequently classified 
using  monitoring  results.  Physicochemical  quality  elements  and  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants were also used in the classification of rivers. 

Benthic  invertebrates  and  macrophytes  were  reported  to  be  the  main  biological  quality 
elements used in the classification of transitional waters (although macrophytes are generally 
associated with rivers and lakes), though phytoplankton and macroalgae were used for a small 
number of transitional water bodies. The classification was solely based on monitoring results, 
though  more  water  bodies  were  directly  monitored  for  the  biological  quality  elements  than 
were subsequently classified. Morphological conditions were monitored in transitional waters 
but  not  used  in  the  classification.  Oxygenation,  nutrient  conditions  and  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants  were  used  in  the  classification  of  transitional  water  bodies  solely  based  on 
monitoring results.  

In  most  RBDs,  several  biological  quality  elements  and  supporting  physicochemical  quality 
elements were monitored and classified in some water bodies. Hydrological regime, however, 

75 

 
 
is ignored in most RBDs and water categories, and very few water bodies were monitored and 
classified for fish, in spite of assessment methods being available.  

Overall classification of ecological status 

Figure 3.10 illustrates the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers and 
lakes in Italy for the second RBMPs. 

Figure 3.10 

The percentage of river and lake water bodies in Italy where no biological 
quality  element  or  no  hydromorphological  (HYMO)  or  no  general 
physicochemical  (PHYSCHEM)  or  no  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutant 
(RBSP) has been used in the classification of ecological status or potential 

Source: Member State reporting to WISE 

Italy reported that the one-out, all-out principle has been used in all RBDs, but the details on 
combination  rules  applied  for  the  biological  quality  elements  versus  the  supporting  quality 
elements are not clear43.  

3.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 

Information is only available from six RBDs (Eastern Alps, Padan, North Apennines, Serchio, 
Central  Apennines  and  South  Apennines)  on  the  monitoring  sites  reported  in  the  first 

43   Italy subsequently stated that they applied the rules described in the CIS Guidance n°13. 

76 

 
 
 
                                                      
RBMPs.44 Overall in these six RBDs there were significant increases in the number of sites in 
each water category from the first to the second RBMPs. There was a 45 % increase in river 
surveillance sites though there was a decrease in numbers in the North Apennines and Serchio 
RBDs. The decreases in site numbers for these two RBDs affected all water categories. 

In those six RBDs, 12 % of surface water bodies were included in surveillance monitoring and 
10  %  in  operational.  In  the  same  six  RBDs,  for  the  second  RBMPs,  25  %  of  surface  water 
bodies  were  included  in  surveillance  and  22  %  in  operational.  There  were  also  increased 
proportions  for  the  second  RBMPs  for  the  four  water  categories,  and  for  surveillance  and 
operational monitoring. 

Ecological status has been classified for the large majority of water bodies, in contrast to the 
first RBMPs, where a very large proportion of water bodies were unclassified. The biological 
quality element methods have been reported to be developed for all relevant biological quality 
elements  in  all  water  categories,  except  for  fish  in  transitional  waters  and  phytobenthos  in 
lakes45. 

3.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  Where 

there  are  currently  high  uncertainties 

the 
characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and 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 

in 

Assessment: There have been significant reductions in the level of uncertainties in 
the  assessment  of  status  resulting  from  improvements  in  monitoring  and  the 
development  of  assessment  methods  for  all  relevant  biological  quality  elements. 
The reduction of uncertainty is evidenced by significant reductions in the number of 
water bodies with unknown status/potential and an increase in the number of water 
bodies classified with high or medium confidence. 

44   Italy  subsequently  stated  that  information  for  Sardinia  RBD  in  the  first  RBMP  is  available  at  the  following 
: 

link 
http://www.regione.sardegna.it/index.php?xsl=509&s=1&v=9&c=10456&tb=6695&st=7&tb=6695&st=7 
45   Italy subsequently  stated  that  methods  have  been  developed  for  each  biological  quality element  in  all water 
categories  and  these  results  are  published  in  the  Commission  Decision  2018/229  which  therefore  includes 
methods for fish in transitional waters and for phytobenthos in lakes.  

77 

 
 
                                                      
The recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  The  high  percentage  of  water  bodies  that  have  an  unknown 
status  prevents  effective  planning  and  comparability  with  other  Member  States. 
WFD  compliant  assessment  methods  should  be  used  taking  into  account  the  work 
on intercalibration. 

  Recommendation:  Complete the development of methods for the status assessment 
of  water  bodies  and  apply  them  through  the  implementation  of  robust  monitoring 
programmes. 

Assessment:  Ecological  status  has  now  been  classified  for  the  large  majority  of 
water  bodies,  in  contrast  to  the  first  RBMPs,  where  a  very  large  proportion  of 
water bodies were unclassified: for Italy as a whole, the proportion of unclassified 
water bodies has decreased from 50 % in the first RBMPs to 18 % in the second 
RBMPs  for  rivers  and  lakes  and  from  90  %  to  27  %  for  coastal  and  transitional 
waters. 

The  biological  quality  element  methods  (reference  conditions,  class  boundaries) 
have been developed and intercalibrated for all relevant biological quality elements 
in all types and all water categories. This is a major improvement with respect to 
the first RBMPs. 

The confidence in classification of ecological status has improved for rivers from 
around 25 % of all classified water bodies in medium or high confidence in the first 
RBMPs to 50 % in the second RBMPs. The confidence in classification is high or 
medium for 80-90 % of classified lakes and transitional waters bodies. 

The recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Monitoring  is  an  important  part  of  river  basin  planning  and 
affects  the  quality  and  effectiveness  of  subsequent  steps.  The  current  monitoring 
gaps  for  BQEs,  supporting  quality  elements  and  priority  substances  should  be 
addressed. 

Assessment:  In  its  reporting  of  the  first  RBMPs,  Italy  did  not  indicate  any 
monitoring sites for two RBDs (the Sardinia and Sicily RBDs) and only a few for 
the South Apennines RBD; moreover, different information, including some details 
for these three RBDs, had been reported previously to the Commission.  

78 

 
 
The  South  Apennines  RBD  and  the  Sardinia  RBD  have  now  reported  monitoring 
sites  for  all  four  water  categories.  However,  the  Sardinia  RBD  did  not  report 
surveillance  sites  for  lakes  and  transitional  waters.  The  Sicily  RBD  reported 
monitoring  sites  but  did  not  indicate  whether  they  were  for  surveillance  or 
operational purposes, only whether they were for ecological and/or chemical status 
monitoring. 

There  has  therefore  been  some  progress  on  this  aspect.  However,  there  are  still 
significant  gaps  in  the  monitoring  programmes  for  the  second  RBMPs.  For 
example, no surveillance monitoring was undertaken in five of the seven RBDs for 
transitional waters and in three of the seven RBDs for coastal waters. In addition, 
lakes  were  not  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  in  one  of  the  seven  RBDs. 
Macrophytes  were  monitored  in  lakes  in  only  three  RBDs,  phytobenthos  in  two, 
benthic  invertebrates  in  two  and  fish  in  three  RBDs.  Only  in  one  RBD  (Eastern 
Alps RBD) are all the expected biological quality elements monitored in lakes. 

There  are  also  significant  gaps  in  the  monitoring  of  hydromorphological  quality 
elements.  Only  two  RBDs  (Eastern  Alps  RBD  and  the  Padan  RBD)  monitor 
morphological conditions in coastal waters and tidal regime is not monitored in any 
RBD46.  In  transitional  waters  the  only  hydromorphological  quality  element 
monitored  is  morphological  conditions  in  three  of  the  eight  RBDs  (Eastern  Alps, 
Padan and North Apennines)47. Hydrological regime is only monitored in lakes in 
one  RBD  (Padan  RBD)  and  morphological  conditions  only  in  one  RBD  (Central 
Apennines). In only one RBD (Sardinia) are all three required hydromorphological 
quality elements monitored in rivers.  

Status has been monitored and classified for at least two biological quality elements 
in  the  majority  of  rivers  and  coastal  waters,  including  fish  in  a  few  river  water 
bodies.  Physicochemical  quality  elements  (mainly  oxygen  and  nutrients)  are  also 
classified  in  most  water  bodies  in  most  RBDs.  Monitoring  is  the  basis  for 
classification  for  most  of  the  water  bodies  classified  for  the  biological  quality 
elements. 

Progress has been made but this recommendation is considered as partially fulfilled. 

46 Italy subsequently stated that tidal regime is monitored in coastal waters in the Eastern Alps RBD. 
47 Italy subsequently stated that hydrological or tidal regime is also monitored in transitional waters in the Eastern 

Alps RBD. 

79 

 
 
                                                      
  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,  and  where  there  are  exceedances  how  such 
exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status.  

Assessment:  Though  some  information  was  found  in  RBMPs  on  River  Basin 
Specific Pollutants, the information was unclear on  how specific substances were 
selected.  At  least  289  chemical  substances  that  are  not  Priority  Substances  or 
Certain  Other  Pollutants,  and  were  therefore  assumed  to  be  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants, were reported to be monitored in Italy, covering all eight RBDs and all 
four  water  categories.  However,  there  are  issues  relating  to  the  reporting  of  this 
information  to  WISE and it is  unclear how  many River Basin  Specific Pollutants 
have  actually  been  monitored.  A  long  list  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  was 
reported along with the number of water bodies failing for each RBD. 

Environmental  Quality  Standards  were  reported  for  110  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants. However, it has been reported that the CIS technical guidance n°27 has 
not been used to set any of them. Italy subsequently stated that it was the case for 
some  substances  even  though  it  was  not  reported.  The  analytical  methods  were 
reported  to  be  in  line  with  Article  4(1)  of  Directive  2009/90/EC48  for  most 
substances, while for the remaining ones (mainly pesticides), the analytical methods 
were reported to be in line with Article 4(2) of the same Directive.  

Overall,  progress  has  been  made  and  the  recommendation  has  been  partially 
fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Quantitative  aspects  for  surface  and  groundwater  should  be 

properly taken into account during the monitoring and assessment phases.  

Assessment: The hydrological regime of rivers was only reported to be monitored 
in four RBDs, and for lakes in one RBD. If this is indicative of monitoring of river 
flows, then there are significant gaps in the monitoring of the flow of rivers in Italy. 
Hydrological regime was used in the classification of rivers in two RBDs, though 
expert  judgement  was  used  for  more  water  bodies  than  the  results  of  monitoring. 
This again indicates some potential weaknesses in the assessment methods for this 
element. 

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

80 

 
 
                                                      
There  has  been  some  progress  on  this  aspect  but  it  is  likely  that  there  are  still 
significant gaps. Bearing in mind these gaps, the recommendation has been partially 
fulfilled. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 4

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical 

status in surface water bodies 

4.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle  

4.1.1 Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters 

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

Member  States  have  to  implement  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  programmes  in 
accordance with the requirements of the WFD and of the EQS Directive, for the assessment of 
ecological status/potential and chemical status. 

Surveillance monitoring programmes should allow Member States to supplement and validate 
the  impact  assessment  procedure,  to  efficiently  and  effectively  review  the  design  of  their 
monitoring programmes, and to  assess the long-term  changes in  natural conditions and those 
resulting  from  widespread  anthropogenic  activity.  For  operational  purposes,  monitoring  is 
required to establish the status of waterbodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their 
environmental objectives, and to assess any changes in the status of such waterbodies resulting 
from the programme of measures. 

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

Figure  4.1  summarises  the  proportion  of  sites  used  for  the  monitoring  of  chemical  status  in 
surface  waters  for  the  second  RBMP.  Data  on  chemical  status  of  territorial  waters  are  not 
reported. Italy mentioned that their status has been assessed under the MSFD, but it is unclear 
whether  this  assessment  was  based  on  exactly  the  same  criteria  as  the  ones  required  for  the 
WFD.  For  the  purposes  of  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 Agency49.  

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

82 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.1 

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 4.2 summarises  the proportion of water bodies monitored  for chemical status in lakes 
and rivers for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used for 
surveillance  and/or  operational  purposes.  Also  given  is  the  proportion  of  water  bodies 
monitored  for any purpose  and, for comparative purposes, those for ecological status.  Figure 
4.2  shows  that  almost  two  thirds  of  all  lake  water  bodies  are  used  for  monitoring  chemical 
status and just under half of river and transitional water bodies are used. Of the coastal water 
bodies, 41 % were monitored for chemical status. No monitoring of territorial water bodies was 
reported. Comparatively more water bodies were monitored for ecological status. 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.2 

Proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category  monitored,  monitored  for 
chemical status and, for comparison, monitored for ecological status, in Italy. 
The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of water 
bodies in that category  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

As part of the operational monitoring programme, 59 % of the water bodies failing to achieve 
good chemical status were reported to be monitored in Italy as a whole. For individual RBDs 
this  percentage  varies  between  40  %  and  50  %  for  RBDs  the  North  Apennines,  Serchio  and 
South  Apennines  RBDs;  between  59  %  and  72  %  for  the  Padan  and  Sardinia  RBDs;  and 
between 86 and 95 % for the Eastern Alps, the Central Apennines and Sicily RBDs. In terms of 
water  body  categories,  50  %  of  river  and  72  %  of  coastal  water  failing  to  achieve  good 
chemical status in Italy as a whole were monitored. In contrast 89 % of transitional and 91 % 
of lake water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status were monitored. 

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

Monitoring for status assessment 

Requirements 

Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes in order to 
provide  inter  alia  a  coherent  and  comprehensive  overview  of  water  status  within  each  RBD. 
The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of priority substances, frequency and numbers 

84 

 
 
 
of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of status. According to 
the  EQS  Directive  (version 
in  2009),  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 
hexachlorobutadiene  have  to  be  monitored  in  biota  for  status  assessment,  unless  Member 
States  derived  a  standard  for  another  matrix,  which  is  at  least  as  protective  as  the  biota 
standard.  

in  force 

Spatial coverage 

Monitoring was reported for 40 priority substances in water at the site level in the Eastern Alps 
RBD,  41  substances  for  the  Padan,  North  Apennines  and  the  Central  Apennines  RBDs,  35 
substances for the Serchio RBD, 39 substances for the South Apennines RBD, 38 substances 
for the Sardinia RBD and 32 substances for the Sicily RBD. 

Priority substances monitored in the territorial water bodies in Italy are not reported. More than 
10 priority substances were monitored in all coastal water bodies in four RBDs (Eastern Alps, 
Padan,  North  Apennines  and  Serchio)  and  88  %  of  coastal  water  bodies  in  the  Central 
Apennines  RBD.  However,  between  20  and  27  %  of  coastal  water  bodies  in  the  South 
Apennines, Sardinia and Sicily RBDs were monitored for 10 or more priority substances with 
the remainder not monitored for any. Between 50 and 60 % of lake water bodies in the Eastern 
Alps, Padan and Serchio RBDs were not monitored for any priority substances50. This was the 
case for 22 % of lake water bodies in the Central Apennines RBD and between 81 and 85 % of 
lake water bodies in the South Apennines, Sardinia and Sicily RBDs. A large proportion of the 
remaining lake water bodies in six out of eight RBDs were monitored for more than 10 priority 
substances. However, in the Padan and Sardinia RBDs there was a variation in the number of 
priority substances monitored in the remaining lake water bodies from 4 to  more than 10. In 
four RBDs (Eastern Alps, Padan, North Apennines and Serchio) between 64 and 76 % of river 
water bodies were not monitored for any priority substances51. This was also the situation for 
52 % of river water bodies in the Central Apennines RBD, 80 % in the Sicily RBD and 93 % in 
both the South Apennines and Sardinia RBDs. A high proportion of the remaining river water 
bodies in seven out of eight RBDs were monitored for more than 10 priority substances but in 
the Sardinia RBD the highest proportions of the remaining river water bodies were monitored 
for  either  4,  or  six  to  10  priority  substances.  In  three  RBDs  (Padan,  Serchio  and  Central 
Apennines) all transitional water bodies were monitored for more 10 substances. This was the 
case  for  between  70  and  82  %  transitional  water  bodies  in  four  RBDs  (Eastern  Alps,  North 
Apennines, South Apennines and Sardinia) and 33 % in the Sicily RBD. The majority of the 

50   Italy subsequently clarified this percentage varies between 40 and 60 % in these RBDs. 
51   Italy subsequently clarified this percentages varies between 57 and 76 % in these RBDs. 

85 

 
 
                                                      
remaining  transitional  water  bodies  in  these  five  RBDs  were  not  monitored  for  any  priority 
substances. 

Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  were  monitored  in  biota  for  status 
assessment in 5 RBDs (Padan, North Apennines and South Apennines for all three substances, 
Serchio  for  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  and  Central  Apennines  for 
hexachlorobenzene and mercury). According to Italy, monitoring was undertaken in from 1 to 
57  sites  in  coastal  waters  in  these  RBDs,  as  well  as  in  transitional  waters  in  the  South 
Apennines  and  Padan  RBD.  Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  up  until  2015  Italian  regulation 
only required the monitoring of Priority Substances in water with no specific requirement for 
the monitoring of biota for status assessment.  

Frequencies 

The WFD indicates that, for the surveillance and operational monitoring of Priority Substances 
in water, the frequency of monitoring should be at least monthly for one year during the RBMP 
cycle and at least monthly every year, respectively. Monitoring in biota for status assessment 
should take place at least once every year according to the EQS Directive. In all cases greater 
intervals can be applied by Member States if justified on the basis of technical knowledge and 
expert judgement. 

Monitoring frequencies in water were reported for seven of the eight RBDs; frequencies were 
not  reported  in  the  Sicily  RBDs.  In  each  of  these  seven  RBDs,  monitoring  frequencies  of  at 
least 12 times per year and every year in the cycle were reported for the majority of Priority 
Substances at some sites; these frequencies meet the recommended minimum frequencies for 
operational and surveillance monitoring. Conversely, there are some substances and some sites 
that are monitored less frequently in each RBD.  

Monitoring frequencies in biota meet the once every year requirements of the Directive in each 
site monitored.  

Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  according  to  Italian  regulations,  monitoring  frequencies  of 
chemical substances lower than 12 times per year are normally expected for specific pollutants 
(for  which  the  frequency  both  in  operational  and  surveillance  monitoring  is  four  times  per 
year) and moreover allowed: 

 

in the operational monitoring, if justified on the basis of expert technical knowledge; 

86 

 
 
 

 

in the surveillance monitoring, if no exceedance were found during the first monitoring 
cycle;   

following  the  implementation  of  Directive  2013/39/EC,  for  ubiquitous  persistent 
bioaccumulative  and  toxic  substances,  provided  that  monitoring  is  representative  and 
providing statistical references; 

 

for priority substances assessed in biota/sediment matrices, which should be monitored 
once per year; 

 

for biota/sediments trend analysis, requiring a triennial monitoring plan. 

Monitoring for long term trend assessment 

Requirements 

Article 3.3 of the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009) requires Member States to monitor 
14  priority  substances52  that  tend  to  accumulate  in  sediment  and/or  biota,  for  the  purpose  of 
long-term  trend  assessment.  Monitoring  should  take  place  at  least  once  every  three  years, 
unless technical knowledge and expert judgment justify another interval.  

Spatial coverage 

Arrangements  are  reported  to  be  in  place  for  the  long-term  trend  analysis  in  two  RBDs 
(Eastern Alps and North Apennines) in Italy but not in three other RBDs (Central Apennines, 
South  Apennines  and  Sardinia).  No  information  is  reported  for  the  Sicily  RBDs.  The  Padan 
and Serchio RBD reported to WISE that arrangements were not in place, but this was probably 
a reporting mistake as some monitoring for trends is reported in sediment. 

Italy monitors up to 10 of the 14 Priority Substances for trend assessment in sediment and/or 
biota  in  four  of  the  eight  RBDs  (Eastern  Alps,  Padan53,  North  Apennines  and  Serchio); 
tributyltin  is  not  monitored  in  the  Serchio  RBD.  Each  of  the  10  substances  is  monitored  at 
between  48  and  223  monitoring  sites  in  coastal  and  transitional  waters  across  all  RBDs 
monitored. No monitoring for trend assessment is carried out in surface freshwaters. 

52  Anthracene,  brominated  diphenylether,  cadmium,  C10-13  chloroalkanes,  DEHP, 

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

53   Italy subsequently clarified that individual measures associated with KTM14 have been reported in WISE and 
in the Programme of Measures to address the knowledge gaps in the Padan RBMP, including arrangements for 
long-term trend analysis. 

87 

 
 
                                                      
Frequencies 

Almost all sites for trend assessment were monitored at a frequency of at least once every three 
years which meets the minimum requirements of the Directive. 

Monitoring of priority substances that are discharged in each RBD 

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  states,  in  Section  1.3.1  (Design  of  surveillance  monitoring),  that 
“Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year 
during  the  period  covered  by  a  river  basin  management  plan  for  [inter  alia]:  priority  list 
pollutants  which  are  discharged  into  the  river  basin  or  sub-basin.”  Section  1.3.2  (Design  of 
operational  monitoring)  of  the  Directive  states  that  “In  order  to  assess  the  magnitude  of  the 
pressure  to which  bodies  of  surface  water  are  subject  Member  States  shall  monitor  for  those 
quality elements which are indicative of the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject. 
In order to assess the impact of these pressures, Member States shall monitor as relevant [inter 
alia]:  all  priority  substances  discharged,  and  other  pollutants  discharged  in  significant 
quantities.” 

Member States are therefore required to monitor all Priority Substances which are discharged 
into the river basin or sub-basin.  

In the Eastern Alps RBD, 24 Priority substances are reported to WISE as in an inventory54. 23 
of  these  are  discharged  and  monitored. 
  Endosulfan,  Chlorpyrifos  and  Brominated 
diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154) were also monitored but not 
discharged.  

In the Padan and Central Apennines RBD, 41 Priority Substances were in an inventory and 25 
and eight of these were discharged, respectively. All 41 Priority Substances in the inventory, 
therefore  including  those  discharged,  were  monitored.  41  Priority  Substances  were  also 
reported  in  an  inventory  in  the  Sardinian  RBD;  however,  none  were  reported  as  being 
discharged though 3855 were monitored. 

In the Serchio RBD, seven Priority Substances were reported in an inventory and five of these 
were discharged. Of the five discharged, four were monitored: cyclodiene pesticides were not 
monitored either as individual substances or as the group of substances. Information was not 

54   Italy subsequently clarified that 33 Priority Substances have been included in this inventory – this may have 

been a reporting error. 

55   Italy subsequently clarified that 41 Priority Substances have been monitored in the Sardinia RBD. 

88 

 
 
                                                      
provided for Priority Substances included in inventories and discharged into three RBDs (the 
North Apennines, the South Apennines and Sicily).56 

Analytical methods used meet the minimum performance 

For the majority of Priority Substances in Italy, the analytical methods used meet the minimum 
performance  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  4(1)  of  Directive  2009/90/EC57  for  the  strictest 
standard applied. This was the case for all 41 priority substances in the North Apennines RBD, 
Serchio  RBD,  the  South  Apennines  RBD  and  Sardinia  RBDs.  11  substances  in  the  Eastern 
Alps, Padan RBDs and one substance in the Eastern Alps RBD were reported not to have met 
the  criteria  in  Article  4(1)  but  the  analytical  methods  were  reported  to  comply  with  the 
requirements laid down in Article 4(2) of the Directive 2009/90/EC (best available techniques 
not exceeding excessive costs were used).  

The Central Apennines RBD reported partial reporting to WISE due to lack of data. The Sicily 
RBD  indicated  that  confirmation  of  whether  the  analytical  methods  used  met  the  required 
criteria was awaited from the laboratories.   

The  method  of  dealing  with  measurements  of  priority  substances  lower  than  the  limit  of 
quantification was reported to be as specified in Article 5 of the Directive 2009/90/EC for all 
eight RBDs for Italy. 

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.  The  majority  of  chemical  status  assessments  were  carried  out  in  years  between  2009 
and  2014  (70  %  of  water  bodies)  with  the  rest  of  the  assessments  being  carried  out  during 
either 2014 or 2015. 

The chemical status of surface water bodies in Italy for the second RBMP is illustrated in Map 
4.1.  This  is  based  on  the  most  recent  assessment  of  status.  For  Italy  overall,  72  %  of  water 

56   Italy subsequently clarified that, although inventories for these RBDs had not been reported with the RBMPs, 
they had been reported to the Commission under the requirements of Directive 2008/105/EU. The inventories 
were uploaded to the EEA’s Central Data Repository in envelopes under the 2010 WFD reporting. 

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

89 

 
 
                                                      
bodies  are  at  good  status,  around  8  %  are  failing  to  achieve  good  status  and  20  %  are  at 
unknown status.  

The Ministerial Decree “260/2010” states that good status is indicated when the concentrations 
of  all  priority  substances  are  below  the  corresponding  environmental  quality  standard, 
implying that the “one-out, all-out” principle is in place in Italy. 

Map 4.1 

 Chemical status of surface water bodies in Italy based on the most recently 
assessed status of the surface water bodies 

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

The chemical status of surface water bodies in Italy for the first and second RBMPs is given in 
Table 4.1. 

90 

GoodFailing to achieve to goodUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
For Italy in general, between the two RBMPs there was a large increase in the proportion of 
surface  water  bodies  with  good  chemical  status,  from  18  %  to  72  %,  and  an  increase  in  the 
proportion failing to achieve good status, from 4.8 % to 8.5 %. The proportion with unknown 
status has decreased significantly from 78 % to 20 %. The increase in the proportion of water 
bodies  with  good  chemical  status  occurred  in  all  RBDs  (such  as  from  12  %  to  82  %  for  the 
Eastern Alps RBD and from 4 % to 64 % for Serchio RBD) and this was also the case for the 
decreases  in  the  proportion  with  unknown  status.  The  increase  in  the  proportions  failing  to 
achieve  good  status  occurred  in  five  RBDs  (the  North  Apennines,  Serchio,  the  South 
Apennines, Sardinia and Sicily) with the largest increases for Serchio RBD (from 11 % to 25 
%)  and  the  North  Apennines  RBD  (from  10  to  18  %).  In  terms  of  Natural/Heavily 
Modified/Artificial water body categorisation, the increases in the proportion of water bodies 
with good status and decreases with unknown status occurred across all categories.  

In  the  Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  North  Apennines  and  Sicily  RBDs,  the  status  of  surface  water 
bodies  not  monitored  for  chemical  status  has  been  derived  or  extrapolated  from  monitoring 
available for comparable water bodies. The remaining four RBDs reported that surface water 
bodies  not  monitored  for  chemical  status  are  reported  as  unknown  status.  Territorial  waters 
have not been monitored and have been assigned unknown status. 

Table 4.1 

Chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Italy  for  the  second  and  first 
RBMPs. Note: the number in parenthesis next to the water category is the number 
of  water  bodies.  Note:  Chemical  status  assessment  is  based  on  the  standards  laid 
down in EQS Directive 2008/105/EC (version in force on 13 January 2009). Some 
Member  States  did  not  implement  the  Directive  in  the  first  RBMPs  as  the 
transposition deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMPs 

Category 

second RBMP 

Good 

Failing to achieve good 

Unknown 

Number  %  

Number 

%  

Number  %  

Rivers (7493) 

5 636 

75 %  

167 

56 

293 

48 %  

33 %  

52 %  

513 

35 

64 

121 

7 %  

10 %  

37 %  

22 %  

1 344 

145 

52 

147 

8 

18 %  

42 %  

30 %  

26 %  

100 %  

6152 

72 %  

733 

9 %  

1696 

20 %  

Lakes (347) 

Transitional (172) 

Coastal (561) 

Territorial (8) 

Total (8581) 

first RBMP 

Rivers (7644) 

1 397 

18 %  

Lakes (300) 

Transitional (181) 

39 

34 

13 %  

19 %  

397 

10 

4 

5  %  

5 850 

3 %  

2 %  

251 

143 

77 %  

84 %  

79 %  

91 

 
 
   
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
Coastal (489) 

Total (8614) 

51 

1521 

10 %  

18 %  

411 

5 %  

438 

6682 

90 %  

78 %  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 4.3 shows the confidence in the classification of chemical status for the second RBMP. 
For Italy in general, 25 % of surface water bodies were classified for chemical status with high 
confidence, 29 % with medium confidence and 46 % with low confidence. For lakes and rivers 
between 24 %  and 34 %  were  classified with high  confidence,  and between 43 %  and 45 % 
with  low  confidence.  For  coastal  and  transitional  waters  27  and  20  %,  respectively,  were 
classified  with  high  confidence,  and  64  and  41  %,  respectively,  with  low  confidence. 
Confidence in the classification of chemical status for the first RBMPs was not reported. 

Confidence in the classification is linked to the extent to which it is based on monitoring and 
use of grouping and expert judgement. In the Sicily RBD all river water bodies were monitored 
and classified and  for the South Apennines  RBD this was the case for almost  all  river  water 
bodies (98 %). However for three RBDs (Padan, Serchio and Central Apennines) between 40 
and  66  %  of  this  type  of  water  bodies  were  monitored  and  classified  and  for  three  RBDs 
(Eastern Alps, North Apennines and Sardinia) it was between 17 and 33 %. The majority of the 
remaining river water bodies were not monitored but were still classified.  

All  transitional  water  bodies  in  Italy  were  monitored  and  classified.  Monitoring  was  used  to 
classify  all  coastal  water  bodies  in  six  out  eight  RBDs  and  for  92  and  19  %  for  the  Central 
Apennines  and  Sardinia  RBDs,  respectively.  The  remainder  of  coastal  water  bodies  in  the 
Central  Apennines  RBD  were  classified  by  expert  judgement  and  grouping  in  equal 
proportions.  The  remainder  of  coastal  water  bodies  in  the  Sardinia  RBD  were  classified  by 
grouping.  All  lake  water  bodies  in  five  out  of  eight  RBDs  were  classified  by  monitoring, 
whereas  50,  81  and  89  %  of  lake  water  bodies  were  classified  by  monitoring  in  the  Eastern 
Alps, Padan and Central Apennines RBDs, respectively. The remaining lake water bodies were 
classified  by  both  expert  judgement  and  grouping.  All  river  water  bodies  in  the  Sicily  RBD 
were classified by monitoring and this was for 99 % of water bodies in the South Apennines 
RBD. The proportion of river water bodies classified by monitoring across the remaining six 
RBDs ranged between 17 and 66 %. The remaining river water bodies were classified by both 
expert judgement and grouping. 

Further specific information has been reviewed in the RBMP for the North Apennines RBD, 
which  stated  that  the  regions  in  the  RBD  have  grouped  water  bodies  and  monitored 
representative  water  bodies  for  each  group.  The  RBMP  stated  that  this  has  been  carried  out 
according to the requirements of “Decree 260/2010”.  

92 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.3 

Confidence in the classification of chemical status of surface water bodies in 
Italy based on the most recently assessed status/potential  

i

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

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

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

No information

High

Medium

Low

Good

Failing to
achieve good

Chemical status 

Unknown

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure  4.4  compares  the  chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Italy  for  the  first  RBMP 
with  that  for  the  second  RBMP  (based  on  the  most  recent  assessment  of  status)  and  that 
expected by 2015. The percentage of water bodies at good status reported in the second RBMP 
was as expected in 2015. 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.4 

Chemical status of surface water bodies in Italy for the second RBMP, for the 
first  RBMP  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in  the  parenthesis  is  the 
number  of  surface  water  bodies  for  both  cycles.  Note  the  period  of  the 
assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2009 to 2015. The year of the 
assessment of status for first RBMP is not known  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

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 200958). 
Some Member States did not implement the Directive in the first RBMPs as the transposition 
deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMPs. 

More information on the chemical status in each RBD and water category can be found on the 
website of the European Environment Agency59. 

Directive  2013/39/EU  amended  the  EQS  Directive.  In  particular,  it  sets  more  stringent 
environmental  quality  standards  for  seven  substances60.  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 several substances in two of the RBDs (Eastern Alps and Sardinia) with 

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

59   https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water 
60   Anthracene,  Brominated  diphenylether,  Fluoranthene,  Lead  and  its  compounds,  Naphthalene,  Nickel  and  its 

compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 

94 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
benzo(a)pyrene having the most influence in coastal and transitional waters in the Eastern Alps 
RBD and lead having the most influence in Sardinia RBD. 

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

Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good chemical 
status.  The  information  for  Italy  is  shown  in  Figure  4.5.  In  Italy,  good  chemical  status  of 
surface  water  bodies  is,  in  general,  expected  to  be  achieved  by  the  end of  the  third planning 
cycle (2027). However there were several exceptions, for example 9 % of transitional waters in 
the North Apennines RBD were not expected to achieve good status and also 4 % of coastal 
waters  in  the  Central  Apennines  RBD.  The  Eastern  Alps  RBD  appears  to  have  applied  less 
stringent objectives which have already been achieved for 29 % of coastal water bodies and 16 
%  of  transitional  waters.  There  appears  to  be  a  number  of  unknown  dates  for  expected 
achievement  of  good  chemical  status,  particularly  for  the  South  Apennines  RBD  for  of  all 
surface  water  body  categories.  The  date  for  achieving  good  chemical  status  for  all  territorial 
water bodies was also unknown. 

95 

 
 
Figure 4.5 

Expected date of achievement of good chemical status of surface water bodies 
in Italy. The number in the parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each 
category 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Priority substances causing the failure of good chemical status 

Member States were expected to report exceedances for individual substances on the basis of 
the  most  relevant  Environmental  Quality  Standard  for  each  substance. For  the  seven  Priority 
Substances with more stringent 2013 Environmental Quality Standards, exceedance of either or 
both of the 2008 and 2013 standards (as appropriate) should have been reported (see above).  

The  “top-10”  Priority  Substances  causing  water  bodies  to  fail  chemical  status  are  shown  in 
Figure 4.6. 

96 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.6 

The  top-10  priority  substances  causing  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical 
status in surface water bodies in Italy 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

For  surface  water  bodies  in  Italy,  the  largest  proportion  of  exceedances  was  for  the  annual 
average environmental quality standard for mercury (18 %) and cadmium (12 %). Exceedances 
of maximum allowable concentration environmental quality standards were largest for mercury 
(16  %).  In  terms  of  exceedance  of  both  types  of  standards,  the  largest  proportion  was  for 
mercury (7 %).  

Ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic priority substances 

According  to  article  8(a)  of  the  EQS  Directive61,  eight  priority  substances  and  groups  of 
priority  substances  are  behaving  like  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic 
substances62.  These  substances  are  generally  expected  to  cause  widespread  exceedances,  and 

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

PFOS, dioxins, hexabromocyclodecane and heptachlor 

97 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
their emissions can be challenging to tackle (e.g. due to long-range atmospheric transport and 
deposition). In order to show the progress made in tackling other priority substances, Member 
States have the possibility to present the information related to chemical status separately for 
these substances.  

Overall in Italy 9 % of surface water bodies are failing to achieve good chemical status. If the 
exceedances  of  environmental  quality  standards  from  these  substances  are  disregarded,  the 
proportion of surface water bodies failing to achieve good status reduces to 3 %. The influence 
of  these  substances  on  the  assessment  of  chemical  status  in  the  second  RBMP  is  therefore 
moderate. However, 20 % of surface water bodies have unknown status and are not monitored. 
Consequently, the true extent of the effect of ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic 
substances is not known. This is illustrated in the 2018 State of Water report of the European 
Environment Agency63. 

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

In  seven  out  of  the  eight  RBDs,  all  of  the  Priority  Substances  monitored  were  used  in  the 
assessment of chemical status.  The substances not  monitored and not  used  in  the assessment 
were:  chloroalkanes  (Eastern  Alps,  Serchio,  Southern  Apennines  and  Sicily  RBDs), 
octylphenol  (4-(1,1',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol)  (Serchio  and  Sicily  RBDs),  tributyltin-
cation (Southern Apennines RBD) and brominated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 
99, 100, 153 and 154) (South Apennines and Sicily RBDs).  

Further  information  is  provided  in  the  RBMP  for  the  North  Apennines  RBD  (as  an  Annex) 
which states that individual regions chose which substances to  monitor,  based on knowledge 
about pressures and about the typology of waters (no further explanation was provided). This 
annex provides lists of substances monitored by region.  

The Central Apennines RBD has partially reported data to WISE due to a lack of data, so a full 
assessment of priority substances used in the assessment of chemical status cannot be made for 
this RBD. The situation also differs amongst its regions. 

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 

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

interactive format at :  

https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_SWB_Chemical_Status_Maps/SWB_F
ailing_Good_Chemical_Status_RBD?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&:dis
play_count=no&:showVizHome=no 

98 

 
 
                                                      
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  Sardinia  RBD  reported  that  all  of  the  environmental  quality  standards  had  been  applied 
and used in the assessment of chemical status. The Eastern Alps, Padan, the North Apennines, 
Serchio,  the  Central  Apennines,  the  South  Apennines  RBDs  reported  that  38  of  the  41 
environmental quality standards were used for assessment of the chemical status of bodies of 
surface  water  had  been  applied  and  used  in  the  assessment  of  chemical  status.  These  RBDs 
reported 
for  hexachlorobenzene,  mercury  and 
hexachlorobutadiene in Article 3(2) of the 2008 Environmental Standards Directive in biota as 
alternative standards64. The Central Apennines RBD have partially reported to WISE due to a 
lack  of  data,  so  it  is  unknown  which  environmental  quality  standards  were  used  in  the 
assessment of chemical status. 

the  use  of 

the  biota 

standards 

The Eastern Alps, North Apennines, Serchio, Central Apennines, South Apennines and Sicily 
RBDs  reported  that  alternative  and/or  additional  standards  for  particular  Priority  Substances 
had  been  applied  for  10  substances  predominantly  in  sediment  (plus  biota  and  water65  for 
hexachlorobenzene,  mercury  and  hexachlorobutadiene)  primarily  across  coastal  and 
transitional surface water categories and applied at the National scale.  

Use of mixing zones  

Article 4 of the EQS Directive provides Member States with the option of designating mixing 
zones adjacent to points of discharge in surface waters. Concentrations of priority substances 
may exceed the relevant environmental quality standard within such mixing zones if they do 
not affect the compliance of the rest of the surface water body with those standards. Member 
States that designate mixing zones are required to include within their RBMPs a description of 
the  approaches  and  methodologies  applied  to  define  such  zones,  and  a  description  of  the 
measures taken to reduce the extent of the mixing zones in the future. 

Mixing zones have not been designated in Italy. 

64   In  case  of  the  Padan  RBD  it  is  highlighted  that  biota  standards  for  transitional  waters  are  used  for  trend 

assessment and not for classification (for which water and sediment standards are used). 

65 Italy subsequently clarified that alternative standards for hexachlorobenzene, mercury and hexachlorobutadiene 
in  water  achieving  the  same  level  of  protection  as  the  environmental  quality  standard  for  biota  have  been 
derived and implemented through national legislation. 

99 

 
 
                                                      
Background Concentrations and Bioavailability 

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

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

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

Natural  background  concentrations  for  metals  and  their  compounds  are  taken  into 
consideration where such concentrations prevent compliance with the relevant environmental 
quality standards in four of the RBDs in Italy but not in two RBDs. Information has not been 
provided  for the Padan RBD and the Sicily RBD. Italy subsequently  clarified that individual 
measures  have  been  reported  in  the  Programme  of  Measures  (associated  with  KTM14)  to 
address the knowledge gaps in the Padan RBMP including consideration of natural background 
concentrations. 

Water quality parameters that affect the bioavailability of metals have been taken into account 
in three RBDs in Italy but not in three other RBDs. Information has not been provided for the 
Serchio RBD and the Sicily RBD. 

4.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

In comparing the number of sites and water bodies monitored (though not specific to chemical 
status) between the first and second RBMPs, there appears to be a net increase in monitoring 
sites and surface water bodies monitored for operational purposes (an increase of 819 sites and 
832 water bodies) both due to a relatively large increase in river and coastal monitoring. For 
surveillance  monitoring  the  number  of  sites  has  increased  by  892  and  the  number  of  water 
bodies has increased by 836 since the first RBMP. The RBMP for the North Apennines RBD 
notes  that  for  the  first  RBMP,  in  the  face  of  major  gaps,  attempts  at  status  assessment  were 
made (for both ecological and chemical status) using existing data and expert judgement. 

It should be noted that there has been a re-delineation of water bodies between the first and the 
second RBMPs and that therefore a strict comparison of status between the two cycles should 
be  treated  with  some  caution.  Between  the  two  RBMPs  there  was  a  large  increase  in  the 
proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  with  good  chemical  status  from  18  %  to  72  %  and  an 
increase in the proportion failing to achieve good status from 4.8 % to 8.5 %. Importantly, the 

100 

 
 
proportion with unknown status has reduced significantly from 78 % to 20 %; this reflects the 
greater spatial extent of monitoring reported in the second RBMP. 

There were eight Priority Substances that were reported to have resulted in the improvement of 
surface water bodies from failing to achieve good to good status since the first RBMPs. Water 
bodies  showed  improvements  as  a  result  of  reductions  of  tributyltin-cation  (0.9  %)  and 
mercury (0.8 %). All the improvements were in water bodies located in the Eastern Alps RBD 
and the North Apennines RBD, for all surface water categories apart from territorial waters. 

4.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation: Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of 
the RBDs, identification of pressures, and assessment of status, these need to be addressed 
in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next 
cycle. 

Assessment:  With  respect  to  chemical  status,  for  Italy  in  general,  25  %  of  surface  water 
bodies  were  classified  for  chemical  status  with  high  confidence,  29  %  with  medium 
confidence and 46 % with low confidence. For lakes and rivers, between 24 % and 34 % 
were classified with high confidence and between 43 % and 45 % with low confidence. For 
coastal  and  transitional  waters,  27  and  20  %,  respectively,  were  classified  with  high 
confidence,  and  64  and  41  %,  respectively,  with  low  confidence.    Confidence  in  the 
classification of chemical status for the first RBMPs was not reported. Moreover, an effort 
has been made to increase the proportion of water bodies with good chemical status (from 
18 % to 72 %) and to reduce the proportion of water bodies with unknown status (from 78 
% to 20 %). This recommendation is partially fulfilled.  

  Recommendation:  The  high  percentage  of  water  bodies  that  have  an  unknown  status 
prevents  effective  planning  and  comparability  with  other  Member  States.  Assessment 
methods  should  be  used  taking  into  account  the  work  on  intercalibration.  Complete  the 
development of methods for the status assessment of water bodies and apply them through 
the implementation of robust monitoring programmes. 

  Assessment:  With respect to chemical status, the proportion of surface water bodies with 
unknown  status  has  reduced  significantly  from  78  %  to  20  %  since  the  first  RBMPs.  In 

101 

 
 
both RBMPs, unknown status was assigned to surface water bodies where monitoring was 
not  undertaken  (and  where  grouping  and  expert  judgement  could  not  be  applied).  This 
reflects  the  greater  spatial  extent  of  monitoring  reported  in  the  second  RBMP.  There  has 
been a net increase in monitoring sites and surface water bodies monitored for operational 
purposes  (an  increase  of  819  sites  and  832  water  bodies)  both  due  to  a  relatively  large 
increase  in  river  and  coastal  monitoring  reported  in  the  second  RBMPs.  For  surveillance 
monitoring, the number of sites has increased by 892 and the number of water bodies has 
increased  by  836  since  the  first  RBMPs.  Monitoring  was  reported  for  40  priority 
substances in water at the site level in the Eastern Alps RBD, 41 substances for the Padan, 
North Apennines and the Central Apennines RBDs, 35 substances for the Serchio RBD, 39 
substances  for  the  South  Apennines  RBD,  38  substances  for  the  Sardinia  RBD  and  32 
substances  for  the  Sicily  RBD.  A  high  proportion  of  water  bodies  in  these  RBDs  were 
monitored  for  more  than  10  Priority  Substances.  Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 
hexachlorobutadiene were monitored in biota for status assessment in four RBDs in coastal 
and transitional waters but not in surface freshwaters. Monitoring was undertaken at a low 
proportion  of  monitoring  sites.  Monitoring  frequencies  in  water  met  the  minimum 
requirements  of  the  Directive  at  some  sites.  Conversely,  there  are  some  substances  and 
some sites that are monitored less frequently in each RBD. Monitoring frequencies in biota 
meet  the  once  every  year  requirements  of  the  Directive  in  each  site  monitored.  Italy 
clarified  that  reduced  monitoring  frequencies  are  specified  in  national  legislation.  With 
respect  to  the  development  of  methods  for  status  assessment  with  regards  to  chemical 
status,  seven of  the eight  RBDs used  the  majority  of the environmental quality standards 
laid down in Part A of Annex I of the Directive 2008/105/EC.66  This recommendation is 
partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Monitoring is an important part of river basin planning and affects the 
quality  and  effectiveness  of  subsequent  steps.  The  current  monitoring  gaps  for  BQEs, 
supporting quality elements and priority substances should be addressed.  

Assessment: In five of the eight RBDs almost all of the priority substances discharged into 
the  RBDs  are  monitored.  For  the  remainder,  while  inventories  have  been  produced  and 
submitted  to  the  Commission  through  Reportnet,  they  have  not  all  been  reported  in  the 
RBMPs and therefore in performing the current assessment it was not always possible to 

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

102 

 
 
                                                      
identify  which  substances  are  discharged  into  the  RBs  and  compare  with  the  list  of 
monitored  priority  substances.  Developments  in  the  monitoring  programmes  to  support 
status assessment have been described in response to the previous recommendation. With 
respect  to  monitoring  for  long-term  trend  assessment,  Italy  monitors  up  to  10  of  the  14 
Priority  Substances  in  sediment  and/or  biota  in  four  of  the  eight  RBDs  (Eastern  Alps, 
Padan,  North  Apennines  and  Serchio);  tributyltin  is  not  monitored  in  the  Serchio  RBD. 
Each of the 10 substances is monitored at between 48 and 223 monitoring sites in coastal 
and transitional waters across all RBDs monitored. No monitoring for trend assessment is 
carried out in surface freshwaters. Almost all sites for trend assessment were monitored at a 
frequency of at least once every three years which meets the minimum requirements of the 
Directive. This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  The  plans  should  state  clearly  which  priority  substances  have  been 
measured where, and in which matrix, and monitoring should be extended where necessary 
to  ensure  that  the  chemical  status  of  all  water  bodies  can  be  assessed.  The  assessment 
should be based on the environmental quality standard in the EQS Directive, including the 
for  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 
biota 
hexachlorobutadiene  unless  environmental  quality  standard  for  water  that  provide  an 
equivalent level of protection have been derived. Trend monitoring in sediment or biota for 
at least the substances specified in EQS Directive Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected 
in the next RBMP. 

environmental  quality 

standards 

Assessment:  Italy  has  reported  the  Priority  Substances  monitored  in  water,  sediment  and 
biota to underpin both status assessment and long-term trend monitoring. These have been 
described  in  the  assessment  of  the  recommendations  above.  The  spatial  extents  of  the 
monitoring programmes in surface waters have been extended since those reported in the 
first RBMPs and have resulted in the classification of 80 % of water bodies; the proportion 
of water bodies in unknown status has reduced from 78 to 20 %. 

Seven  of  the  eight  RBDs  used  the  majority  of  the  environmental  quality  standards  laid 
down  in  Part  A  of  Annex  I  of  the  Directive  2008/105/EC.  Reporting  to  WISE  was 
incomplete for the remaining RBD (Central Apennines). Where alternative standards have 
been  used,  these  have  been  included  in  national  legislation  and  communicated  to  the 
Commission. 

Arrangements  are  reported  to  be  in  place  for  the  long-term  trend  analysis  in  two  RBDs 
(Eastern  Alps  and  North  Apennines)  but  not  in  three  other  RBDs  (Central  Apennines, 
South  Apennines  and  Sardinia).  No  information  is  reported  for  the  Serchio  and  Sicily 

103 

 
 
RBDs. The Padan and Serchio RBD reported to WISE that arrangements were not in place, 
but  this  was  probably  a  reporting  mistake  as  some  monitoring  for  trends  is  reported  in 
sediment.  Trend  monitoring  in  sediment  and/or  biota  has  been  implemented  in  coastal 
waters in four of the eight RBDs, but has not been implemented in surface freshwaters. 

This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

104 

 
 
 
 
Topic 5

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative 

status of groundwater bodies 

5.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

5.1.1 Monitoring of quantitative status in groundwater 

The total number of groundwater bodies in Italy is 1052 (Table 2.2). 512 groundwater bodies 
are  not  subject  to  monitoring  for  quantitative  status  (Table  5.1).  This  means  that  49  %  of 
groundwater bodies are not monitored for quantitative status. The percentage of groundwater 
bodies per RBD without monitoring for quantitative status ranges between 4 % and 82 % with 
variations  among  Districts  (Table  5.3).  A  review  of  selected  RBMPs  and  supporting 
background  documents  did  not  find  any  indication  that  grouping  was  applied  for  the 
assessment of quantitative status.  

The number of groundwater bodies increased from 847 (in seven reported RBDs) in the first 
RBMPs  to  1052  (in  eight  reported  RBDs)  in  the  second  cycle.  Since  the  first  RBMPs 
information  for  the  Sicily  RBD  was  now  also  reported  (82  groundwater  bodies).  691 
groundwater  bodies  remained  unchanged  since  the  first  RBMPs.  The  total  reported 
groundwater  body  area  increased  by  about  24  %.  The  groundwater  body  area  increased 
considerably in the Eastern Alps, Padan, North Apennines and Sicily RBDs compared to the 
first RBMPs.  

The number of monitoring sites is listed in Table 5.2 and shows that the number of monitoring 
sites for quantitative status in the second RBMP is 3538. A comparison with the first RBMPs 
cannot be drawn since this information is not available. 

591  of  1052  groundwater  bodies,  located  in  all  RBDs,  are  identified  as  drinking  water 
protected areas. 

105 

 
 
Table 5.1 

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

RBD 

Total 
groundwater 
bodies 
directly 
monitored 

AGR – 
Ground-
water 
abstrac-
tion site 
for 
irrigatio
n 

CHE – 
Chemical 
status 

DRI – 
Ground-
water 
abstrac-
tion site 
for 
human 
consump
-tion 

DWD - 
Drinking 
water - 
WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.i 

ITA 

ITB 

ITC 

ITD 

ITE 

ITF 

ITG 

ITH 

105 

140 

179 

8 

15 

70 

140 

146 (178) 

26 

26 

55 

77 (93) 

71 

164 (184) 

10 

29 (49) 

12 

109 

55 

109 

52 

Monitoring Purpose 

HAB - 
Protectio
n of 
habitats 
or 
species 
dependin
g on 
water - 
WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.v 

17 

IND – 
Ground-
water 
abstrac-
tion site 
for 
industria
l supply 

1 

16 

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

33 

43 

39 

15 

19 

OPE – 
Operatio
-nal 
monitor-
ing 

QUA – 
Quantita
-tive 
status 

SOE - 
EIONET 
State of 
Environ-
ment 
monitor-
ing 

SUR – 
Surveil-
lance 
monitor-
ing 

TRE - 
Chemical 
trend 
assess-
ment 

23 

55 

85 

5 

19 

81 

47 

43 

127 

151 

2 

45 

46 

109 

17 

33 

140 

90 

37 

105 

136 

80 

4 

26 

111 

62 

70 

23 

29 

47 

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

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5.2 

Number of groundwater monitoring sites in Italy and their purpose  

Monitoring Purpose 

RB
D 

Total groundwater monitoring 
sites 

ITA 

ITB 

ITC 

ITD 

ITE 

ITF 

ITG 

ITH 

823 

1 578 

1 084 

43 

897 

1 148 

630 

441 

AGR – 
Ground-
water 
abstrac-
tion site 
for 
irrigatio
n 

43 

52 

DRI – 
Ground-
water 
abstrac-
tion site 
for 
human 
consump
-tion 

261 

52 

CHE – 
Chemi
-cal 
status 

490 

1 405 
(1413) 

750 
(896) 

670 

267 
(307) 

620 

393 

HAB – 
Protec-
tion of 
habitat
s or 
species 
depend
-ing on 
water - 
WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.v 

DWD - 
Drinkin
g water 
- WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.i 

60 

283 

51 

IND – 
Ground-
water 
abstrac-
tion site 
for 
industri
al supply 

2 

56 

NID - 
Nutrien
t 
sensitiv
e area 
under 
the 
Nitrates 
Directiv
e - 
WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.iv 

305 

203 

153 

213 

118 

OPE – 
Operatio
-nal 
monitor-
ing 

QUA – 
Quanti-
tative 
status 

SOE - 
EIONE
T State 
of 
Environ
-ment 
monitor
-ing 

SUR – 
Surveil
-lance 
moni-
toring 

TRE – 
Chemi
-cal 
trend 
assess-
ment 

225 

688 

433 

26 

250 

596 

431 

446 
(460) 

865 
(878) 

646 

6 (7) 

526 

385 

616 
(630) 

48 

305 

650 

490 

1 468 

1 389 

452 

222 

288 

10 

173 

654 

403 

267 

189 

431 

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

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5.3 

Proportion of groundwater bodies in Italy monitored for quantitative status 

RBD 

No of groundwater bodies 
with quantitative monitoring 

Total No. 
groundwater 
bodies 

 % of total groundwater bodies 
monitored for quantitative status 

ITA 

ITB 

ITC 

ITD 

ITE 

ITF 

ITG 

ITH 

43 

127 

151 

2 

45 

46 

109 

17 

118 

167 

222 

11 

128 

210 

114 

82 

36.44 %  

76.05 %  

68.02 %  

18.18 %  

35.16 %  

21.90 %  

95.61 %  

20.73 %  

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  642  in  1052  groundwater  bodies  (61  %)  were  in  good  quantitative  status,  151 
groundwater  bodies  (14  %)  were  failing  good  status  and  259  (25  %)  had  unknown  status 
(Figure 5.1). In terms of area this means that about 9 % were failing good quantitative status. 
Figure 5.2 shows the confidence in status classifications. 

The total number of groundwater bodies failing good quantitative status increased significantly 
by  15  %  from  115  in  the  first  RBMP  to  151  in  the  second  RBMP.  This  increase  is  also 
reflected  in  terms  of  groundwater  body  area  failing  good  status.  One  main  reason  for  this 
increase is the fact that information from the Sicily RBD was not available for the first cycle. 
The total  number of groundwater bodies with  unknown status increased slightly  from 252 in 
the first  cycle to  259 in the second cycle.  The number of groundwater bodies with  unknown 
status  decreased  in  the  Eastern  Alps,  Padan  and  Sardinia  RBDs,  but  increased  in  the  North 
Apennines67, Central Apennines68 and South Apennines RBDs69. 

67   Italy subsequently clarified that in the Northern Apennines RBD the new groundwater bodies are mainly non 
alluvial, and are located in the Liguria Region.  The concerned groundwater bodies are being monitored and 
will be classified in the third RBMP. 

68   Italy subsequently clarified that this increase in the Central Apennines RBD is due to the fact that, in the first 
cycle, some Regions (e.g. Marche, Lazio) assessed groundwater bodies’ status through expert judgment due to 
the limited availability of data.  

69   Italy subsequently clarified that for the South Apennines RBD this slight increase is linked to the identification 
of new groundwater bodies, and, in particular for Basilicata and Calabria, improved monitoring programmes. 
In some cases the groundwater body was monitored but the quantitative data were not available. Nonetheless, 
the  South  Apennines  RBMP  provides  quantitative  status  for  each  groundwater  body,  based  on  available 
monitoring data and on expert judgement using pressures analysis. 

108 

 
 
                                                      
 
For all eight RBDs a water balance method was reported to have been applied to assess status. 
In three RBDs the water balance was assessed by a comparison of annual average groundwater 
abstraction against the ‘available groundwater resource’ for every groundwater body, in three 
RBDs  this  assessment  was  done  for  a  subset  of  all  groundwater  bodies.  In  two  RBDs  water 
balance  was  assessed  by  using  reliable  information  on  groundwater  levels  across  the 
groundwater body.  

Map 5.1 

Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies based on the most recently 
assessed status of the groundwater bodies 

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

109 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
  
 
 
Figure 5.1  Quantitative status of groundwater bodies in Italy for the second RBMP, for 
the  first  RBMP  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in  the  parenthesis  is  the 
number  of  groundwater  bodies  for  both  cycles.  Note  the  period  of  the 
assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2007 to 2012. The year of the 
assessment of status for first RBMP is not known 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Note: values in figure for the first RBMP are those originally reported to WISE and do not 
reflect changes after the 2012 report, with the exception of the total number of waterbodies, 
which includes Sardinian groundwater bodies. 

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

in Italy based on the most recent assessment of status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
There are several reasons for failing good quantitative status of groundwater bodies as shown 
in Figure 5.370: 195 groundwater bodies are failing good status due to failing the water balance 
test  which  means  that  the  long-term  annual  average  rate  of  groundwater  abstraction  is 
exceeding the available groundwater resource. 27 groundwater bodies are failing due to saline 
intrusions and 12 groundwater bodies are failing due to diminution of the status of associated 
surface  waters.  The  expected  date  of  achievement  of  good  quantitative  in  Italy  is  shown  in 
Figure 5.4. One groundwater body is expected to achieve good status beyond 2027. For nine 
groundwater  bodies  in  the  Central  Apennines  RBD  and  six  groundwater  bodies  in  Sardinia 
RBD the date of achievement of good quantitative is unknown. 

In  two  RBDs  (the  North  Apennines  and  the  Central  Apennines)  the  criterion  of  ‘available 
groundwater  resource’  has  been  fully  applied  in  accordance  with  WFD  Article  2(27),  in  two 
RBDs  (the  Eastern  Alps  and  Sardinia)  the  criterion  has  been  partly  applied.  In  three  RBDs 
(Padan,  Serchio  and  Sicily)  the  criterion  of  ‘available  groundwater  resource’  has  not  been 
applied  in  accordance  with  WFD  Article  2(27).71  The  RBMP  of  the  South  Apennines  RBD 
indicates that data needed for the application of the method were not available. 

Not  all  relevant  environmental  objectives  have  been  considered  in  all  RBDs  in  status 
assessment. The Eastern Alps RBD has groundwater bodies at risk of failing good quantitative 
status  due  to  deterioration  or  damage  to  linked  ecosystems  (associated  surface  water  bodies 
and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems) but these ecosystems were not considered 
in  status  assessment.  In  six  of  eight  RBDs  saline  intrusions  have  been  considered  for  status 
assessment but not in the Sicily RBD, even if it is an island. 

In total 227 (22 %) groundwater bodies are at risk of failing good quantitative status. Risk is 
mainly  related  to  harm  caused  by  actual  or  potential  legitimate  uses  or  functions  of 
groundwater (208 groundwater bodies). 

70  Italy  subsequently  corrected  these  figures:  145  groundwater  bodies  are  failing  good  status  due  to  failing  the 
water balance, 29 groundwater bodies are failing due to saline intrusions and 4 groundwater bodies are failing 
due to diminution of the status of associated surface waters. 

71   Italy subsequently clarified that a national guideline (guideline ISPRA n. 157/2017) was published in 2017 to 

follow the recommendations of the European Commission.  

111 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 5.3  Reasons  for  the  failure  of  good  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  in  Italy 

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. 

112 

 
 
 
 
Figure 5.4  Expected date of achievement of good quantitative and good chemical status 
of  groundwater  bodies  in  Italy.  1052  groundwater  bodies  delineated  for 
second RBMP 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

5.1.3 Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

Groundwater  associated  surface  waters  were  considered  in  status  assessment  except  for  the 
Eastern Alps RBD. In total 241 groundwater bodies were associated with surface water bodies. 
They were partly related to a risk.  

In  the  Eastern  Alps  and  Padan  RBDs  for  a  total  of  30  groundwater  bodies,  groundwater 
dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  were  identified.  They  are  partly  related  to  a  risk.  In  the 
Eastern  Alps  RBD,  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  were  not  considered  in  the 
status  assessment,  in  the  Padan  RBD  they  were  considered.  In  both  RBDs  the  needs  of 
terrestrial ecosystems were assessed. 

5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The number of groundwater bodies increased from 887 (in seven reported RBDs) in the first 
RBMP  to  1052  (in  eight  reported  RBDs)  in  the  second  cycle.  Since  the  first  RBMPs 
information  for  the  Sicily  RBD  was  now  also  reported  (82  groundwater  bodies).  691 
groundwater bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP. The total reported groundwater 

113 

 
 
 
body  area  increased  by  about  24  %.  The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  with  unknown 
status increased slightly from 252 in the first RBMP to 259 in the second cycle.72 

The  groundwater  body  area  increased  considerably  in  the  Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  North 
Apennines  and  Sicily  RBDs  compared  to  what  was  reported  for  the  first  RBMPs.  The 
assessment  of  selected  RBMPs  (Padan  and  South  Apennines)  found  a  summary  of  changes 
since the first RBMPs. It reported that the identification of groundwater bodies was updated for 
the second RBMPs – for the Padan RBD it refers in particular to the Lombardy Region, which 
reviewed the structure of its aquifers and redefined its groundwater bodies in its regional Water 
Protection Plan (Piano di Tutela delle Acque). In total, 167 groundwater bodies were identified 
in the Padan RBD. In the South Apennines RBD73 some groundwater bodies were divided and 
others  merged  (while  other  regions  -  Basilicata,  Calabria  and  Lazio  -  did  not  change  the 
number  of  groundwater  bodies).  The  RBMP  lists  the  changes  in  the  number  of  groundwater 
bodies  by  region.  The  RBMP  of  the  South  Apennines  RBD  nonetheless  states  that  the 
delineation  of  groundwater  bodies  needs  further  refinement,  including  in  terms  of  the 
assignment  of  groundwater  bodies  lying  between  neighbouring  RBDs  (i.e.  the  Central 
Apennines RBD). 

The  monitoring  situation  is  not  fully  representative,  with  only  about  half  of  the  groundwater 
bodies in Italy being monitored for quantitative status. The percentage of groundwater bodies 
per  RBD  without  monitoring  ranges  between  18  %  and  96  %  and  varies  amongst  different 
districts.74 

The RBMP for the South Apennines RBD describes for example the strengthened monitoring 
of  nitrates  and  pesticides  in  several  regions.  Also  monitoring  and  research  on  groundwater-
dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  was  carried  out  via  a  LIFE  project  in  Abruzzo  Region.  In 
general,  the  regions  have  worked  to  bring  their  groundwater  monitoring  programmes  in  line 

72   Italy  subsequently  provided  additional  information  on  the  changes  between  both  cycles.  For  the  Northern 
Apennines RBD, additional groundwater bodies (particularly non alluvial) have been added. For Sardinia the 
total number of groundwater bodies with unknown quantitative status changed from 20 (18 % of the total) in 
2010 to 11 (10 % of the total, representing 1 % of the total area of groundwater bodies) in 2015. For South 
Apennines  an  update  on  groundwater  bodies  was  made  by  a  deeper  analysis  carried  out  based  on  new  and 
more  detailed  hydrogeological  data  and  monitored  data,  improving  the  information  acquired  for  the  1st 
RBMP. 

73   Italy subsequently  clarified  that a  deeper  analysis  has resulted  in  merging or  dividing previous groundwater 
bodies.  In  particular,  those  located  across  different  Regions  have  been  divided  in  order  to  assign  the 
corresponding portion of the groundwater body to the competent Region. Technical working groups have been 
established at District level and regional level to investigate the hydrogeological aspects of shared aquifers and 
if necessary coordinate monitoring activities. 

74   Italy subsequently clarified that a national methodology has been developed and a national guideline published 
(ISPRA GUIDELINE. 157/2017 “Technical Criteria for the analysis of quantitative status and monitoring in 
Groundwater bodies”). For Sardinia 95 % of the groundwater bodies are monitored for quantitative status.   

114 

 
 
                                                      
with  the  WFD's  requirements:  for  example,  the  Abruzzo  Region  "defined  and  activated"  a 
monitoring programme as per these requirements in the first RBMP, implying that it was not in 
place  previously;  other  regions  brought  their  monitoring  programmes  in  line  with  the 
requirements;  The  Basilicata  Region  developed  its  monitoring  system  (it  is  not  clear  if 
monitoring was carried out); and Calabria Region "completed the definition"  of a project for 
monitoring, which started in 2015, implying that full results were not in place for the second 
RBMP, though 211 monitoring sites are indicated. The RBMP briefly describes the monitoring 
programmes  of  the  regions  -  it  does  not  compare  these  to  monitoring  in  place  for  the  first 
RBMP, except where the number of sites has not changed (for example, for Lazio Region). 

The  RBMP  for  the  South  Apennines  RBD  also  notes  that  several  actions  are  needed  to 
strengthen  groundwater  monitoring,  extending  the  monitoring  network  in  some  regions  and 
strengthening coordination for groundwater bodies crossing RBD and regional boundaries. 

Based  on  the  reported  information,  the  status  situation  has  deteriorated.  The  number  of 
groundwater bodies failing good quantitative status has changed from 115 in the first RBMP to 
83 in the second RBMP75.  

The  RBMP  for  the  South  Apennines  RBD,  provides  data  for  the  quantitative  status  of 
groundwater  bodies  across  nearly  all  regions  -  however,  these  refer  to  92  out  of  201 
groundwater  bodies  identified,  and  the  period  refers  to  2005  to  2014,  so  it  does  not  show 
relevant changes between cycles.  

The  RBMP  and  supporting  background  documents  concluded  that  the  changes  in  the  status 
were  mainly  resulting  from  the  re-delineations  of  groundwater  bodies  and  probably  due  to 
further development of the assessment methodology.  

5.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  The  high  percentage  of  water  bodies  that  have  an  unknown 
status  prevents  effective  planning  and  comparability  with  other  Member  States. 
Complete the development of methods for the status assessment of water bodies. 

75   Italy subsequently indicated that a comparison between cycles might not be meaningful due to the difference 

in the number of groundwater bodies.  

115 

 
 
                                                      
Assessment:  The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  with  unknown  status  has 
increased  and  therefore  in  terms  of  quantitative  status  for  groundwaters,  this 
recommendation has not been fulfilled.   

  Recommendation:  Monitoring  is  an  important  part  of  river  basin  planning  and 

affects the quality and effectiveness of subsequent steps.  

Assessment: Overall, only 540 of 1 052 groundwater bodies (49 %) are subject to 
quantitative monitoring. The coverage of monitoring varies at RBD level between 
18 and 96 %. The recommendation has therefore been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Quantitative  aspects  for  surface  and  groundwater  should  be 

properly taken into account during the monitoring and assessment phases. 

Assessment:  On  the  basis  of  the  information  that  was  found  in  the  RBMPs  and 
supporting  background  documents,  there  has  been  progress,  in  particular  for 
groundwater  monitoring  in  Padan  RBD.  However,  further  work  is  needed  in  both 
RBDs  and  especially  in  the  South  Apennines  RBD.  Moreover,  based  on 
information  provided,  further  work  is  needed  at  national  level  for  applying 
methodologies  for  quantitative  monitoring  of  groundwater.  As  stated  for  the 
recommendation above, overall in Italy, only 540 of 1052 groundwater bodies (49 
%) were reported in the second RBMPs to be subject to quantitative monitoring and 
the total number of groundwater bodies with unknown quantitative status remained 
approximately unchanged at a level of 25 % of all groundwater bodies, although the 
number of water bodies increased in the second cycle. 

116 

 
 
 
 
Topic 6

 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical 
status of groundwater bodies 

6.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

6.1.1 Monitoring of chemical status in groundwater 

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Italy  is  1052  (Table  2.2).  In  total  524  (50  %) 
groundwater  bodies  are  not  subject  to  surveillance  monitoring  (Table  5.1).  364  (35  %) 
groundwater bodies are at risk of failing to meet good chemical status (Figure 6.1) and 315 (30 
%) are subject to operational monitoring.76  

Figure 6.1 

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

The RBMPs and supporting background documents for the South Apennines and Padan RBDs 
were reviewed in more detail. Therein it is mentioned that national criteria for grouping are set 
in  the Italian Ministerial  Decree 260/2010  but  there is  no indication in the assessed RBMPs, 
that  grouping  of  groundwater  bodies  was  applied  for  monitoring  and  the  assessment  of 
quantitative status where monitoring was not undertaken. 

76   Italy clarified subsequently that the monitoring coverage varies widely among RBDs (e.g. in the Sardinia RBD 
the coverage is about 95 % of groundwater bodies and 99 % of the groundwater body area). In several RBDs 
new groundwater bodies had been delineated recently and monitoring sites had not been identified by the time 
of reporting of the second RBMPs. 

117 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Article 6 of the Groundwater Directive77 provides for exemptions from implementing measures 
to prevent or limit inputs of pollutants into groundwater where surveillance monitoring or other 
appropriate  monitoring  is  being  carried  out.  The  South  Apennines  and  Padan  RBMPs  and 
supporting  background  documents  reviewed  provided  no  indication  that  this  exemption  was 
accompanied by the required monitoring. 

The number of groundwater bodies increased from 847 (in seven reported RBDs) in the first 
RBMP  to  1052  (in  eight  reported  RBDs)  in  the  second  RBMP.  691  groundwater  bodies 
remained unchanged since the first RBMP. The total reported groundwater body area increased 
by around 24 %. The groundwater body area increased considerably in the Eastern Alps RBD, 
the Padan RBD and the North Apennines RBD, and the Sicily RBD in comparison to the area 
reported for the first RBMPs78. 

A comparison with the first RBMP cannot be made as detailed information on monitoring was 
not  available  in  the  first  RBMPs.  The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  with  surveillance 
monitoring  in  the  second  RBMPs  was  524  with  3353  monitoring  sites  and  the  number  of 
operational  monitoring  sites  is  2649  in  315  groundwater  bodies.  The  number  of  monitoring 
sites is listed in Table 5.2. 

Not  all  substances causing  risk  of  deterioration  in  chemical status  are subject to  surveillance 
monitoring. All WFD core parameters, nitrate, ammonium, electrical conductivity, oxygen and 
pH  were  monitored  in  six  RBDs  (Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  North  Apennines,  Serchio,  Central 
Apennines and South Apennines), except for pH in the Padan RBD. There is no monitoring of 
WFD core parameters at all in Sardinia and Sicily RBDs79. 

6.1.2 Assessment and classification of chemical status in groundwater 

Map 6.1 and Figure 6.2 display the chemical status of groundwater bodies for the most recently 
assessed status. It shows that 606 of 1052 groundwater bodies (58 %) were of good chemical 
status, 263 groundwater bodies (25 %) are failing good status and 183 groundwater bodies (17 
%)  are  of  unknown  status.  In  terms  of  area  this  means  that  about  34  %  are  failing  good 
chemical  status.  Figure  6.3  shows  the  confidence  in  status  classifications.  The  number  of 

77   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 

78   Italy subsequently clarified that since the 1st cycle a considerable number of groundwater bodies, particularly 
non  alluvial,  had  been  added,  especially  by  Regione  Liguria.  The  concerned  groundwater  bodies  are  being 
monitored and will be classified in the 3rd RBMP. 

79   Italy subsequently clarified that in Sicily new data from 2016 shows that monitoring is carried out on the basis 
of  national  Legislative  Decree  30/2009  and  that  core  parameters  are  taken  into  account  to  assess  chemical 
status. 

118 

 
 
                                                      
 
groundwater  bodies  in  unknown  status  declined  from  263  in  the  first  to  183  in  the  second 
cycle. 

Map 6.1 

Map  of  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Italy  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) 

119 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.2  Chemical status of groundwater bodies in Italy for the second RBMP, for the 
first  RBMP  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in  the  parenthesis  is  the 
number  of  groundwater  bodies  for  both  cycles.  Note  the  period  of  the 
assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2007 to 2015. The year of the 
assessment of status for first RBMP is not known  

Source: WISE electronic reporting   

Note: values in figure for the first RBMP are those originally reported to WISE and do not 
reflect changes after the 2012 report, with the exception of the total number of waterbodies, 
which includes Sardinian groundwater bodies. 

Figure 6.3  Confidence  in the  classification of  chemical  status of  groundwater bodies in 

Italy based on the most recent assessment of status  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

120 

 
 
 
 
 
The total number of groundwater bodies failing good chemical status increased since the first 
RBMPs  from  204  (23  %)  to  263  (25  %)  (Figure  6.2)  (from  16.9  %  to  34.1  %  of  the  total 
groundwater body area). It is difficult to compare both RBMPs as the number of groundwater 
bodies  increased  by  19  %  as  well  as  the  total  reported  groundwater  body  area  increased  by 
about  24  %.  When  comparing  only  the  691  unchanged  groundwater  bodies,  the  number  of 
groundwater  bodies  failing  good  chemical  status  increased  from  181  to  191  and  the  related 
groundwater body area increased from 20 % to 30 % of the total groundwater body area. 

The reasons for the failure of good chemical status of groundwater bodies are shown in Figure 
6.4.  For  242  groundwater  bodies  the  general  assessment  of  the  chemical  status  for  the 
groundwater  body  as  a  whole  was  failed.  This  assessment  considers  the  significant 
environmental risk from pollutants across a groundwater body and a significant impairment of 
the ability to support human uses. 35 groundwater bodies are failing good chemical status due 
to saline or other intrusion. Figure 6.5 shows the top 10 pollutants causing failure of status and 
Figure 6.6 shows the pollutants causing a sustained upward trend.  

In five RBDs the calculation of the extent of exceedance of a groundwater quality standard or a 
groundwater  threshold  value  was  based  on  the  number  of  monitoring  sites  in  a  groundwater 
body.  In  two  RBDs  the  calculation  was  based  on  the  groundwater  body  area.  For  the  Sicily 
RBD no method was reported. 

In  three  RBDs  groundwater  threshold  values  were  not  established  for  all  pollutants  or 
indicators  of  pollution  causing  a  risk  of  failure  of  good  chemical  status.  The  review  of  the 
selected  RBMPs  and  supporting  background  documents  did  not  find  any  indication  that  the 
Groundwater Directive Annex II substances have been considered; it was mentioned that only 
some substances were considered. 

121 

 
 
Figure 6.4  Reasons  for  failing  good  chemical  status  in  Italy  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. 

122 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6.5 

Top  10  groundwater  pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status  in 
Italy 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Figure 6.6 

Top 10 pollutants with upward trends in groundwater bodies in Italy 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

In three RBDs natural background levels were considered in the development of groundwater 
threshold  values.  In  three  RBDs  natural  background  levels  were  considered  in  status 
assessment.  The  RBMP  for  the  Padan  RBD  noted  that  national  methodologies  needed  to  be 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
developed  for  the  identification  of  natural  background  concentrations  of  substances;  in  the 
RBD two methods were used, one developed by the Piemonte Regional Environmental Agency 
and the other by the Agency in Emilia-Romagna Region.  

A trend methodology is available and assessments have been performed in three of the eight 
RBDs. A trend reversal methodology was reported to be available in two RBDs80. 

6.1.3 Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/  or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

In  five  RBDs  (the  Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  the  North  Apennines,  Serchio  and  the  Central 
Apennines  RBDs)  surface  water  bodies  were  reported  to  be  associated  with  groundwater 
bodies  and  they  were  considered in  status  assessment  (except  for  the  Eastern  Alps RBD).  In 
total  241  groundwater  bodies  were  reported  to  be  associated  with  surface  water  bodies.  69 
groundwater  bodies  at  risk  in  these  five  RBDs  related  to  these  ecosystems.  Diminution  of 
status  was  considered  in  three  of  the  five  RBDs  with  groundwater  associated  surface  waters 
and in one RBD where such ecosystems had not been identified in reporting.81 

In  two  of  the  eight  RBDs  (the  Eastern  Alps  and  Padan)  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 
ecosystems  were  identified  (for  in  total  30  groundwater  bodies)  and  a  related  risk  was 
identified.  In  both  RBDs  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  were  considered  in 
status assessment.  

Groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems 
have been partially considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values (in six of 
eight RBDs).  

6.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The number of groundwater bodies increased from 847 (in seven reported RBDs) in the first 
RBMP  to  1052  (in  eight  reported  RBDs)  in  the  second  RBMPs.  691  groundwater  bodies 
remained  unchanged  since  the  first  RBMPs.  The  total  reported  groundwater  body  area 
increased by about 24 %. 

The  groundwater  body  area  increased  considerably  in  the  Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  North 
Apennines and Sicily RBDs compared to the first RBMPs54. Assessment of the second RBMPs 

80   Italy subsequently clarified that new national guidelines were adopted (n 161/2017) to assess trend and trend 

reversal. These guidelines will be implemented in the next RBMPs. 

81   Italy clarified that the reason for not considering associated ecosystems in the status assessment is the fact that 

the status of these ecosystems is still unknown. 

124 

 
 
                                                      
(Padan and South Apennines RBDs) shows that there have been a number of changes since the 
first RBMPs (see Section 5.2).  

A  comparison  of  the  level  of  monitoring  between  the  two  cycles  cannot  be  made  due  to 
missing data from the first RBMPs. A considerable percentage of groundwater bodies are still 
not monitored for surveillance and operational purposes and not all substances posing risk are 
subject to monitoring. The coverage varies considerably between RBDs. 

In the RBMPs and supporting background documents reviewed, the methods for monitoring of 
the  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  were  reported  to  be  based  on  those  set  out  in 
national legislation (D.Lgs 30/2009, which transposes the Groundwater Directive). The RBMP 
for  the  Padan  RBD  states  that  methodologies  for  groundwater  monitoring  have  been  further 
developed within individual regions and across the RBD; nonetheless, it also states that further 
development is needed82. 

The RBMP for the South Apennines RBD describes, for example the strengthened monitoring 
of  nitrates  and  pesticides  in  several  regions.  Also  monitoring  and  research  on  groundwater-
dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  was  carried  out  via  a  LIFE  project  in  Abruzzo  Region.  In 
general,  the  regions  have  worked  to  bring  their  groundwater  monitoring  programmes  in  line 
with the WFD's requirements. 

The  RBMP  for  the  South  Apennines  RBD  includes  specific  measures  for  the  groundwater 
monitoring,  extending  the  monitoring  network  in  several  regions  and  strengthening 
coordination for groundwater bodies crossing RBD and regional boundaries. 

Regarding  methodologies  on  the  identification  of  natural  background  concentrations  of 
substances several Districts and pertaining Regions have developed a compliant methodology, 
for  example  the  Piemonte  Region  Emilia-Romagna  Region,  Sardinia  Region,    Val  d’Aosta 
Region, Veneto Region, Province of Bolzano, Molise Region etc. 

In Italy the overall groundwater chemical status has slightly deteriorated. The total number of 
groundwater bodies failing good chemical status has increased since the first RBMPs from 204 
(23  %)  to  263  (25  %)  groundwater  bodies  (from  16.9  %  to  34.1  %  of  the  total  groundwater 
body area). It is difficult to compare the first and second RBMPs as the number of groundwater 
bodies increased by 19 % and the total reported groundwater body area increased by about 24 

82   Italy  subsequently  highlighted  that  in  the  Padan  RBD  there  are  measures  to  improve  the  knowledge  and 
understanding and that there is a working group to improve the coordination and monitoring carried out by the 
regional Agencies, the risk analysis and the identification of substances that may put at risk the achievement of 
good status. 

125 

 
 
                                                      
%.  The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  with  unknown  status  declined  from  263  to  183 
groundwater  bodies.  There  was  a  significant  improvement  of  status  in  the  South  Apennines 
RBD, from 19 % to 50 % 83 of the groundwater bodies achieving good status. The RBMP and 
supporting  background  documents  did  not  provide  any  explanation  on  that,  but  it  can  be 
assumed that the reduction of the number of groundwater bodies with unknown status as well 
as the re-delineation of groundwater bodies (increase of number of groundwater bodies by 50 
%) and the further development of the status assessment methodology appears to be a reason, 
although this is not clearly stated. The increase of the percentage of GWBs with good status is 
partially due to reduction of the GWBs with unknown status. 

6.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  The  high  percentage  of  water  bodies  that  have  an  unknown  status 
prevents effective planning and comparability with other Member States. WFD compliant 
assessment methods should be used taking into account the work on intercalibration.  

Assessment: The total number of groundwater bodies of unknown status declined from 263 
to 183 groundwater bodies, with differences amongst districts and regions55. For around 28 
% of the groundwater bodies the confidence in status results is low or unknown. Therefore 
the recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Monitoring is an important part of river basin planning and affects the 
quality  and  effectiveness  of  subsequent  steps.  The  current  monitoring  gaps  for  BQEs, 
supporting quality elements and priority substances should be addressed. 

  Assessment:  There  has  been  progress,  including  the  introduction  of  new  methods  for 
monitoring  of  chemical  status  at  national  level  and  their  application  in  both  RBMPs 
assessed;  however,  further  work  for  groundwater  chemical  monitoring  is  needed.  A 
considerable  number  of  groundwater  bodies  are  still  not  monitored  for  operational  and 
surveillance purposes (grouping was applied) and not all substances posing risk are subject 
to monitoring.84 Italy subsequently clarified that work is being done in the Sicily RBD to 
establish the monitoring of the groundwater bodies that, when completed, will lead to the 

83   Italy subsequently clarified that contrary to the WISE electronic report in fact 70 % of the groundwater bodies 

are achieving good chemical status in the South Apennines RBD. 

84   Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  according  to  Legislative  Decree  30/2009  operational  monitoring  is 

compulsory for all groundwater bodies at risk and for all substances posing risk. 

126 

 
 
                                                      
definition of surveillance and/or operational monitoring sites. Still 183 groundwater bodies 
have unknown chemical status. Therefore the recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

127 

 
 
 
Topic 7

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

7.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle for designation  

7.1.1 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies 

In  the  second  RBMPs,  approximately  14.8  %  of  surface  water  bodies  were  designated  as 
heavily  modified  water  bodies  and  7.6  %  as  artificial  water  bodies  (Figure  7.1).  In  the  eight 
RBDs there were several designated lake heavily modified water bodies which are reservoirs, 
created  by  damming  rivers  i.e.  they  were  originally  rivers.  According  to  Common 
Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  Document  No.  485  these  should  have  been  designated  as 
river  heavily  modified  water  bodies.  In  the  Eastern  Alps  RBD,  there  is  one  lake  heavily 
modified water body (reservoir) which was originally a lake. 

The majority of river heavily modified water bodies were designated due to flood protection, 
hydropower, urban development and agricultural land drainage. The water uses for which lake 
water  bodies  were  designated  as  heavily  modified  are  mainly  hydropower,  irrigation  for 
agriculture, drinking water supply for urban use and industry supply. The most frequent uses 
for designating transitional heavily modified water bodies were storage for aquaculture, urban 
development or unknown uses. Some coastal waters were designated as heavily modified due 
to  flood protection and navigation/ports, but  for the  majority there was a lack of data on the 
relevant uses reported. 

The  main  physical  alterations  of 
river  heavily  modified  water  bodies  were 
channelisation/straightening/bed stabilisation/bank reinforcement, weirs/dam/reservoirs and, in 
some  cases,  land  drainage  and  land  reclamation.  Lake  heavily  modified  water  bodies  are 
mainly  connected  to  weirs/dam/reservoirs  and  transitional  heavily  modified  water  bodies  to 
locks, weirs/dam/ reservoirs and other alterations not listed in WISE. The majority of coastal 
heavily modified water bodies were affected by land reclamation/coastal modifications/ports. 

85   https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/f9b057f4-4a91-46a3-b69a-e23b4cada8ef/Guidance%20No%204%20-

%20heavily%20modified%20water%20bodies%20-%20HMWB%20(WG%202.2).pdf  

128 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 7.1 

Proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category  in  Italy  that  has  been 
designated as heavily modified or artificial  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

A national methodology for the identification of heavily modified water bodies/artificial water 
bodies  has  been  developed  at  national  level  (Ministerial  Decree  156/2013),  and  is  being 
implemented  at  regional  level.  In  some  RBDs  (for  example,  the  South  Apennines  RBD)  the 
2013  national  methodology  for  the  identification  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies/artificial 
water bodies is in the process of being implemented and the designations of heavily modified 
water bodies and artificial water bodies are still preliminary. 

The  national  methodology  includes  criteria  for  identifying  "significant  hydromorphological 
modifications",  also  with  reference  to  the  Index  of  Morphological  Quality.  The  national 
methodology  (Ministerial  Decree  156/2013)  refers  to  an  assessment  of  significant  adverse 
effects,  but  no  further  specific  definition  of  "significant  adverse  effects"  was  found.  The 
national  methodology  also  includes  steps  for  assessing  whether  there  are  "other  means"  to 
achieve  the  beneficial  objectives  of  the  modifications  linked  to  the  heavily  modified  water 
bodies, but no further specific information of the assessment was found in the RBMPs. 86 

86 The Ministerial Decree 156/2013 does not contain criteria to define “significant adverse effects” nor criteria to 
assess  “other  means”.  Competent  authorities  have  to  carry  out  this  evaluation.  Italian  authorities  stated  that 
this evaluation is currently being carried out and will be defined with a better degree of confidence after the 
measures on the improvement of the knowledge basis will be implemented and the current work on the Good 
Ecological Potential methodology that is being carried out at national level will be completed. 

129 

 
 
 
                                                      
7.1.2 Definition of  Good Ecological  Potential for Heavily  Modified and Artificial  Water 

Bodies 

Good  ecological  potential  was  reported  as  not  being  defined  in  the  eight  RBDs.  Also,  the 
RBMPs  state  that  a  national  methodology  for  good  ecological  potential  has  not  yet  been 
published. Assessments of ecological status have been used in the place of ecological potential 
(at least this is explicitly stated for some RBDs, for example, Padan) and, consequently, when 
a  national  methodology  for  good  ecological  potential  is  developed,  status  assessments  of 
heavily  modified  water  bodies  and  artificial  water  bodies  could  change.  The  development  of 
national  methods  for  the  definition  of  good  ecological  potential  is  expected,  but  the  RBMPs 
reviewed do not specify the relevant timeframe.  

The  Italian  authorities  informed  the  Commission  of  improvements  after  the  adoption  of  the 
second RBMPs that a national methodology for good ecological potential has been developed 
and  approved  with  Decree  of  the  General  Director  341/STA  of  2016.  It  is  currently  been 
applied  to  all  HMWBs.  Italian  authorities  foresee  to  end  the  implementation  of  the 
methodology for good ecological potential by December 2019 at national level. 

For rivers, methods for assessing fish, macrophytes and benthic invertebrates were reported as 
sensitive  to  altered  habitats  due  to  morphological  and  hydrological  changes.  In  addition,  one 
method for assessing benthic invertebrates in large wadable rivers was reported as sensitive to 
hydrological  changes  only.  For  lakes,  methods  for  assessing  fish  and  macrophytes  and  for 
coastal  and  transitional  waters,  methods  for  assessing  angiosperms,  macroalgae  and 
phytoplankton  were  reported  as  sensitive  to  altered  habitats  due  to  morphological  and 
hydrological  changes.  In  addition,  two  further  methods  for  assessing  invertebrates  and 
macrophytes in transitional waters were reported as sensitive to morphological changes only. 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Several  changes  are  noted  in  the  numbers  of  designations.  The  number  of  river  heavily 
modified  water  bodies  has  substantially  increased  in  several  RBDs  (especially  the  North 
Apennines,  Serchio,  Central  Apennines  and  South  Apennines  RBDs).  In  the  Sicily  RBD,  no 
river  heavily  modified  water  bodies  were  designated  in  the  first  RBMP  but  have  been 
designated  for  the  second  RBMP.  The  numbers  of  river  artificial  water  bodies  have  also 
changed  with  an  increasing  or  decreasing  trend  in  different  RBDs.  In  the  Sardinia  RBD,  no 
river artificial water bodies were designated in the first RBMP but are now designated for the 
second RBMP. Lake heavily modified water bodies have increased in the Central Apennines 
and  Eastern  Alps  RBDs.  In  three  RBDs  (South  Apennines,  Sardinia  and  Sicily),  no  lake 
heavily modified water bodies were designated in the first RBMPs, but have been designated 

130 

 
 
for  the  second  RBMPs.  In  the  South  Apennines  RBD,  no  coastal  heavily  modified  water 
bodies were designated in the first RBMP, but have been designated for the second RBMP.  

A detailed explanation for the changes in designation since the first RBMPs is not provided but 
it is mentioned that the 2013 national methodology for the identification of heavily modified 
water bodies/artificial water bodies (Ministerial Decree 156/2013) has led to a redefinition of 
heavily modified water bodies/artificial water bodies. In addition, a new national approach for 
assessing  hydromorphological  pressures  has  been  used  both  for  natural  water  bodies  and  for 
designating  heavily  modified  water  bodies.  In  the  first  RBMPs,  there  was  no  national 
methodology in place and each region used its own approach for designating heavily modified 
water bodies. 

As  mentioned  above,  although  the  second  RBMPs  do  not  include  a  new  methodology  for 
defining  GEP,  Italian  authorities  informed  the  Commission  that  a  national  methodology  for 
good  ecological  potential  has  been  developed  and  approved  with  Decree  of  the  General 
Director 341/STA of 2016.  

7.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  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:  There  has  been  progress  since  the  first  RBMPs  in  terms  of  the 
methodology for designating heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies. 
A  common  national  methodology  has  been  in  place  since  2013  (Ministerial  Decree 
156/2013)  and  implemented  in  the  RBMPs  (although  in  some  RBDs,  implementation 
of this methodology is still ongoing and the designations are preliminary). The national 
methodology refers to the assessment of significant adverse effects and of other means 
to achieve the beneficial objectives of the modifications linked to the heavily modified 
water bodies. However, no information was found on the details of the outcome of the 
designation  tests  of  significant  adverse  effects  on  the  use  and  other  means  for 
individual  water  bodies.    The  Italian  authorities  have  informed  that  this  evaluation  is 

131 

 
 
currently being carried out and will be defined with a better degree of confidence after 
the measures on the improvement of the knowledge basis will be implemented and the 
current work on the GEP methodology that is being carried out at national level will be 
completed. 

Concerning the methodology of good ecological potential, a national methodology for 
good  ecological  potential  was  not  included  in  the  second  RBMPs.  However,  Italian 
authorities informed the Commission that a national methodology for good ecological 
potential  has  been  developed  and  approved  with  Decree  of  the  General  Director 
341/STA of 2016. 

Therefore,  the  recommendation  has  been  partially  fulfilled  based  on  information 
included  in  the  second  RBMPs.  Further  improvements  were  communicated  to  the 
Commission, e.g. on a new national methodology for good ecological potential, which 
have  not  been  assessed  yet.  These  new  developments  may  be  addressing  the 
recommendation to a greater extent during the third cycle. 

132 

 
 
 
Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions 

8.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

8.1.1 Environmental objectives 

The  environmental  objectives  of  the  WFD  are  defined  in  Article  4.  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 201587), groundwaters (good chemical and quantitative status by 2015) and 
for Protected Areas (achievement of the objectives of the associated Directive by 2015 unless 
otherwise specified).  

Environmental  objectives  for  ecological  and  chemical  status  were  reported  for  surface  water 
bodies in all RBDs as well as for chemical and quantitative status of groundwater bodies.  

Member States are also required to specify additional environmental objectives and standards 
in  Protected Areas, where they are required to ensure that the requirements of the associated 
Directive are met. An assessment of such additional objectives for Italy is provided in Chapter 
15 of this report. 

Assessments  of  the  current  status  of  surface  and  groundwater  bodies  in  Italy  are  provided 
elsewhere in this report: for ecological status/potential of surface waters (Chapter 3); chemical 
status  of  surface  waters  (Chapter  4);  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  (Chapter  5); 
chemical status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 6); status of surface and groundwater bodies 
associated with Protected Areas (Chapter 15). 

For the second RBMPs, Member States are required to report the date when they expect each 
surface  and  groundwater  body  to  meet  its  environmental  objective.  This  information  is 
summarised for Italy 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).  

87   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. 

133 

 
 
                                                      
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  Italy  for  the  four  main  sets  of  environmental 
objectives. Exemptions are most widely applied in relation to ecological status/potential. 

Figure 8.1  Water bodies in Italy expected to be in at least good status in 2015 and use of 
exemptions.  1  =  Surface  water  body  ecological  status/potential;  2  =  Surface 
water  body  chemical  status;  3  =  Groundwater  body  quantitative  status;  4  = 
Groundwater body chemical status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. For some water bodies the date for achievement of good status is unknown. 

Article  4  of  the  WFD  allows  under  certain  conditions  for  different  exemptions  to  the 
objectives:  extension  of  deadlines  beyond  2015,  less  stringent  objectives,  a  temporary 
deterioration,  or  deterioration  /  non-achievement  of  good  status  /  potential  due  to  new 
modifications, provided a set of conditions are fulfilled. The exemptions under WFD Article 4 
include the provisions in Article 4(4) - extension of deadline, Article 4(5) - lower objectives, 
Article 4(6) - temporary deterioration, and Article 4(7) - new modifications / new sustainable 
human  development  activities.  Article  4(4)  exemptions  may  be  justified  by:  disproportionate 

134 

 
 
 
cost,  technical  feasibility  or  natural  conditions,  and  Article  4(5)  by  disproportionate  cost  or 
technical feasibility. 

Figure 8.2 summarises the percentage of water bodies subject to each type of exemption (and 
reason) in relation to the four types of environmental objectives in Italy. 

Figure 8.2  Type of exemptions applied to surface water and groundwater bodies for the 
second RBMP in Italy. Note: Ecological status and groundwater quantitative 
status exemptions were reported at the water body level. Chemical exemptions 
for groundwater were reported at the level of each pollutant causing failure of 
good chemical status, and for surface waters for each priority substances that 
is causing failure of good chemical status  

135 

 
 
 
Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Application of Article 4(4) 

Overall the number of exemptions under Article 4(4) has significantly increased in all RBDs88.  
In the South Apennines, Sardinia and Sicily RBDs no exemptions related to Article 4(4) were 
reported in surface water in the first RBMP (Table 8.1). This has changed in the second cycle 
and  all  the  RBDs  were  also  subject  to  Article  4(4)  exemptions.  The  reasons  given  for 
exemptions  under  Article  4(4)  were  technical  feasibility  (all  RBDs),  natural  conditions 
(Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  Central  Apennines  and  Sardinia)  and  disproportionate  costs  (Padan, 
North Apennines, Serchio, and Central Apennines RBDs). 

Related to groundwater in the South Apennines, Sardinia, Sicily and Central Apennines RBDs 
no exemptions were reported related to Article 4(4) in the first RBMP (Table 8.2). Article 4(4) 
is now applied in all RBDs related to groundwater in Italy with an increase in Padan RBD and 
the North Apennines RBD. The reasons given for exemptions under Article 4(4) were technical 
feasibility  (all  RBDs),  natural  conditions  (Eastern  Alps,  Central  Apennines  and  Sardinia 
RBDs) and disproportionate costs (Central Apennines RBD). 

The RBMP for the Padan RBD, which was reviewed in more detail, provided a list of water 
bodies and the indication of when they are expected to reach good status. For those expected to 
reach  good  status  in  2021  or  2027,  an  exemption  (Article  4(4)  or  Article  4(5))  was  applied. 
"Technical  infeasibility"  and  “natural  conditions”  were  indicated  in  many  cases,  but  further 
details  are  not  provided.  Technical  infeasibility  was  often  assessed  by  expert  judgement.  No 
details  were  found  in  the  RBMP  for  the  North  Apennines  RBD,  which  was  also  assessed  in 
more detail. 

The justification for disproportionate costs in surface waters and groundwaters in all RBDs are 
based  on  cost  benefit  analysis/cost  effectiveness  analysis  in  all  RBDs.  In  addition,  the 
distribution  of  costs  was  used  as  an  argument  in  the  Padan  and  North  Apennines  RBDs. 
Affordability and social and sectoral impacts were also used in the Central Apennines RBD. 

The  impacts  leading  to  exemptions  under  Article  4(4)  were  acidification  (Sardinia  RBD), 
chemical  pollution  (all  RBDs),  damage  to  groundwater-dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  for 
chemical/quantitative  reasons  (Padan  RBD),  altered  habitats  (all  RBDs),  litter  (the  South 
Apennines  RBD),  microbiological  pollution  (all  RBDs  except  Sicily  RBD),  nutrient  and 
organic  pollution  (all  RBDs),  saline  pollution/intrusion  (North  Apennines,  Serchio,  South 

88   Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  this  is  a  result  of  more  accurate  monitoring  activities  and  the  definition  of 

clearer criteria to apply exemptions on the basis of the Commission’s recommendations. 

136 

 
 
                                                      
Apennines, Sardinia RBDs) and elevated temperatures (North Apennines, Central Apennines, 
South  Apennines,  Sardinia  RBDs).  For  groundwater  the  impacts  of  the  exemptions  under 
Article  4(4)  were  Chemical  pollution  (all  RBDs),  alterations  in  flow  directions  resulting  in 
saltwater  intrusion  (Sardinia  RBD),  abstraction  exceeds  available  groundwater  resource 
(lowering water table) (all RBDs), microbiological pollution (Padan RBD), nutrient pollution 
(all RBDs except Serchio RBD), organic pollution (Padan, Serchio, Central Apennines RBDs) 
and  saline  pollution/intrusion  (Padan,  North  Apennines,  Central  Apennines  and  South 
Apennines RBDs).  

The  main  drivers  behind  exemptions  are  agriculture,  urban  development  and  industry  (all 
RBDs),  climate  change  (the  North  Apennines  RBD,  Serchio  RBD,  the  Central  Apennines 
RBD,  Sicily  RBD),  energy  production  (all  RBDs  except  the  South  Apennines  RBD,  Sicily 
RBD), fisheries and aquaculture (Eastern Alps RBD, Padan RBD , the North Apennines RBD, 
Serchio  RBD,  and  Sardinia  RBD),  flood  protection  (all  RBDs  except  Sicily  RBD),  forestry 
(the North Apennines RBD), tourism (Padan RBD , the North Apennines RBD, Serchio RBD) 
and transport (all RBDs except the South Apennines RBD and Sardinia RBD). 

137 

 
 
Table 8.1 

Pressures on surface water bodies responsible for priority substances  in Italy failing to achieve good chemical status 
and for which exemptions have been applied 

Significant pressure on surface water 
bodies 

1.1 - Point - Urban waste water 

1.2 - Point - Storm overflows 

1.3 - Point - IED plants 

1.4 - Point - Non IED plants 

1.5 - Point - Contaminated sites or abandoned 
industrial sites 

1.6 - Point - Waste disposal sites 

1.7 - Point - Mine waters 

1.9 - Point - Other 

2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off 

2.10 - Diffuse - Other 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.3 - Diffuse - Forestry 

2.4 - Diffuse - Transport 

2.5 - Diffuse - Contaminated sites or 
abandoned industrial sites 

2.6 - Diffuse - Discharges not connected to 
sewerage network 

2.7 - Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition 

2.8 - Diffuse - Mining 

2.9 - Diffuse - Aquaculture 

3.1 - Abstraction or flow diversion - 

Failing Priority 
Substances 

Number 

Article 4(4) - 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 

Article 4(4) - 
Disproportionate 
cost exemptions 

Article 4(4) - 
Natural 
conditions 
exemptions 

Article 4(5) - 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions  

Article 4(5) - 
Disproportionate 
cost exemptions  

6 

2 

1 

5 

2 

6 

26 

11 

17 

12 

20 

10 

2 

9 

24 

12 

27 

4 

9 

12 

2 

7 

4 

8 

2 

14 

10 

2 

28 

29 

2 

8 

3 

11 

3 

161 

38 

89 

57 

117 

35 

3 

44 

152 

31 

164 

3 

59 

49 

5 

18 

56 

33 

10 

138 

40 

12 

38 

23 

28 

26 

3 

29 

58 

10 

13 

1 

17 

56 

33 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Significant pressure on surface water 
bodies 

Agriculture 

3.2 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Public 
water supply 

3.3 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Industry 

4.1.1 - Physical alteration of 
channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Flood 
protection 

4.1.2 - Physical alteration of 
channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Agriculture 

4.1.3 - Physical alteration of 
channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Navigation 

4.1.4 - Physical alteration of 
channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Other 

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

4.2.3 - Dams, barriers and locks - Drinking 
water 

4.2.4 - Dams, barriers and locks - Irrigation 

4.2.9 - Dams, barriers and locks - Unknown 
or obsolete 

4.3.2 - Hydrological alteration - Transport 

4.3.4 - Hydrological alteration - Public water 
supply 

4.3.6 - Hydrological alteration - Other 

4.4 - Hydromorphological alteration - 
Physical loss of whole or part of the water 
body 

Failing Priority 
Substances 

Number 

Article 4(4) - 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 

Article 4(4) - 
Disproportionate 
cost exemptions 

Article 4(4) - 
Natural 
conditions 
exemptions 

Article 4(5) - 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions  

Article 4(5) - 
Disproportionate 
cost exemptions  

2 

7 

3 

3 

6 

3 

7 

18 

7 

4 

8 

2 

10 

56 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

7 

2 

10 

1 

139 

7 

7 

3 

2 

56 

1 

7 

1 

10 

2 

5 

3 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Significant pressure on surface water 
bodies 

Failing Priority 
Substances 

Number 

Article 4(4) - 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 

Article 4(4) - 
Disproportionate 
cost exemptions 

Article 4(4) - 
Natural 
conditions 
exemptions 

Article 4(5) - 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions  

Article 4(5) - 
Disproportionate 
cost exemptions  

4.5 - Hydromorphological alteration - Other 

7 - Anthropogenic pressure - Other 

8 - Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown 

9 - Anthropogenic pressure - Historical 
pollution 

No significant pressure 

7 

6 

14 

8 

2 

14 

27 

123 

1 

5 

14 

9 

5 

7 

5 

15 

6 

Source: WISE electronic reporting   

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8.2 

Pressures  responsible  for  pollutants  in  Italy  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  in  groundwater  and  for  which 
exemptions have been applied  

Significant pressure on 
groundwater 

Number of 
failing 
pollutants 

Article 4(4) - 
Disproportionate cost 

Article 4(4) - 
Natural 
conditions 

Article 4(4) - 
Technical 
feasibility 

Article 4(5) - 
Disproportionate cost 

Article 4(5) - 
Technical 
feasibility 

Number of exemptions 

1.1 - Point - Urban waste 
water 

1.3 - Point - IED plants 

1.5 - Point - Contaminated 
sites or abandoned industrial 
sites 

1.6 - Point - Waste disposal 
sites 

1.9 - Point - Other 

2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off 

2.10 - Diffuse - Other 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.4 - Diffuse - Transport 

2.5 - Diffuse - Contaminated 
sites or abandoned industrial 
sites 

2.6 - Diffuse - Discharges not 
connected to sewerage 
network 

3.1 - Abstraction or flow 
diversion - Agriculture 

3.2 - Abstraction or flow 
diversion - Public water 
supply 

3.3 - Abstraction or flow 

4 

24 

67 

39 

19 

54 

30 

53 

8 

29 

2 

6 

5 

12 

6 

6 

8 

1 

3 

44 

2 

2 

49 

45 

1 

14 

5 

18 

141 

5 

66 

350 

71 

35 

246 

121 

315 

4 

52 

1 

23 

9 

25 

25 

20 

40 

25 

8 

10 

2 

5 

11 

12 

2 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Significant pressure on 
groundwater 

diversion - Industry 

3.5 - Abstraction or flow 
diversion - Hydropower 

3.6 - Abstraction or flow 
diversion - Fish farms 

3.7 - Abstraction or flow 
diversion - Other 

6.1 - Groundwater - 
Recharges 

8 - Anthropogenic pressure - 
Unknown 

9 - Anthropogenic pressure - 
Historical pollution 

Number of 
failing 
pollutants 

Article 4(4) - 
Disproportionate cost 

Article 4(4) - 
Natural 
conditions 

Article 4(4) - 
Technical 
feasibility 

Article 4(5) - 
Disproportionate cost 

Article 4(5) - 
Technical 
feasibility 

Number of exemptions 

3 

4 

12 

2 

37 

1 

2 

2 

23 

2 

1 

2 

3 

31 

89 

7 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

5 

1 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Application of Article 4(5) 

There was an increase in Article 4(5) exemptions in the Eastern Alps and Central Apennines 
RBDs for surface water.  

In the second RBMP Article 4(5) was also newly applied to surface water bodies in the Padan, 
North Apennines, Serchio, Central Apennines and South Apennines RBDs. The reasons given 
for  Article  4(5)  were  technical  feasibility  (Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  North  Apennines,  Central 
Apennines,  South  Apennines  RBDs)  and  disproportionate  costs  (Padan,  North  Apennines, 
Serchio, and Central Apennines RBDs).  

The  RBMP  for  the  Padan  RBD,  which  was  assessed  in  more  detail,  provided  a  list  of  water 
bodies  and  the  indication  of  when  they  were  expected  to  reach  good  status.  For  some  water 
bodies reaching good status in 2021 or 2027 Article 4(5)) was also applied, which requires a 
more detailed assessment as Article 4(5) allows for lower objectives than good status. 

Article 4(5) exemptions in relation to groundwater were only reported in the North Apennines 
and  Serchio  RBDs  in  the  first  RBMP.  In  the  second  RBMP  Article  4(5)  exemptions  to 
groundwater good chemical status were applied in Eastern Alps, Padan, North Apennines and 
South Apennines RBDs. The reasons given for Article 4(5) were technical feasibility Eastern 
Alps,  Padan  and  South  Apennines  RBDs)  and  disproportionate  costs  (Padan  and  North 
Apennines RBDs).  

In  the  RBMP  for  the  North  Apennines  RBD  for  surface  water  bodies  disproportionate  costs 
were  the  main  justification  for  an  exemption  under  Article  4(5).  For  the  definition  of 
disproportionate costs, the methodology used followed the national guidelines89.  

The impacts causing exemptions under Article 4(5) were acidification (Padan RBD), chemical 
pollution (all RBDs except Sardinia and Sicily), damage to groundwater-dependent terrestrial 
ecosystems for chemical/quantitative reasons (Padan RBD ), altered habitats (all RBDs except 
Sardinia  and  Sicily),  litter  (South  Apennines  RBD),  microbiological  pollution  (Padan,  North 
Apennines,  Serchio  and  South  Apennines  RBDs),  nutrient  and  organic  pollution  (all  RBDs 
except  Sardinia  and  Sicily),  saline  pollution/intrusion  (North  Apennines,  Serchio  and  South 
Apennines  RBDs)  and  elevated  temperatures  (Eastern  Alps,  North  Apennines  and  South 
Apennines  RBDs).  For  groundwater  the  impacts  of  the  exemptions  under  Article  4(5)  were 
chemical  pollution  (Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  North  Apennines  RBDs),  abstraction  exceeds 

89  “Linee  guida  per  la  definizione  del  costo  ambientale  e  del  costo  della  risorsa  per  i  vari  settori  di  impiego 
dell’acqua, in attuazione degli obblighi di cui agli articoli 4,5 e 9 della Direttiva comunitaria 2000/60/CE” 

143 

 
 
                                                      
table) 

resource 

available  groundwater 
(North  Apennines  RBD), 
(lowering  water 
microbiological  pollution  (Padan  RBD),  nutrient  pollution  (Padan  and  North  Apennines 
RBDs), organic pollution (Padan RBD) and saline pollution/intrusion (Padan, North Apennines 
and South Apennines RBDs). The main drivers were agriculture (Eastern Alps, Padan, North 
Apennines,  Serchio,  Central  Apennines  and  South  Apennines  RBDs),  urban  development 
(Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  North  Apennines,  Serchio,  Central  Apennines  and  South  Apennines 
RBDs) industry (Eastern Alps, Padan, North Apennines, Serchio and South Apennines RBDs), 
climate  change  (North  Apennines,  Serchio,  Central  Apennines  RBDs),  energy  production 
(Eastern Alps, Padan, North Apennines and South Apennines RBDs), fisheries and aquaculture 
(Eastern  Alps,  North  Apennines  RBDs),  flood  protection  (all  RBDs  except  Sardinia  and 
Sicily), forestry (North Apennines RBD), tourism (North Apennines, Serchio RBDs), transport 
(Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  North  Apennines  and  Serchio  RBDs).  These  drivers  lead  to  pressures 
such  as  point  and  diffuse  pollution,  over  abstraction,  physical  alterations,  hydrological 
alterations in surface water and point and diffuse pollution in groundwater. Also, abstraction in 
groundwater was reported as a pressure.  

Application of Article 4(6) 

Article 4(6) exemptions were not applied.  

Application of Article 4(7) 

Article  4(7)  exemptions  were  not  reported.  The  RBMP  for  Padan  RBD  includes  an  Annex 
(Allegato 5.1 dell'Elaborato 5) on the application of Article 4(7). Almost all of this short annex 
represents a textbook presentation of the requirements under the WFD, but the last page briefly 
discusses  the  procedures  followed  in  the  RBD  for  this  cycle.  It  indicates  that  projects  for 
"difesa  del  suolo"  -  strictly  translated  as  soil  protection  and  often  referring  to  anti-sprawl 
measures,  but  also  used  in  Italy  as  a  broad  concept  that  can  include  flood  and  landslide 
protection among other actions - would have been assessed under Article 4(7). However, only 
projects in Metropolitan Area Plans and those agreed between regional and national level were 
considered.  Drinking  water  and  commercial  navigation  projects  would  also  have  been 
considered  -  the  latter  only  when  included  in  national  or  regional  plans.  According  to  this 
Annex, Article 4(7) was not applied for tourism navigation, road and railroad infrastructure or 
hydroelectric  projects  for  the  second  RBMP.  The  information  does  not  indicate,  however, 
whether any projects were actually assessed under Article 4(7). 

144 

 
 
Application of Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive 

In the North Apennines RBD Groundwater Directive90 Article 6(3) exemptions were reported 
in WISE, but Italy subsequently clarified that this was a reporting error, as this exemption has 
not been applied. 

8.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Overall the number of exemptions under Article 4(4) has significantly increased in all RBDs. 
Also related to Article 4(5) exemptions there is an increase in the Eastern Alps RBD and the 
Central  Apennines  RBD  for  surface water.  In  the  South  Apennines  RBD,  Sardinia RBD  and 
Sicily  RBD  no  exemptions  related  to  Article  4(4)  and  Article  4(5)  were  reported  in  surface 
water in the first RBMP. This situation changed in the second cycle plans with all RBDs also 
subject to Article 4(4) exemptions. In the second cycle Article 4(5) has now been applied in the 
Padan, North Apennines, Serchio, Central Apennines and South Apennines RBDs. 

Related to groundwater in the South Apennines, Sardinia, Sicily and Central Apennines RBDs 
no exemptions were reported related to Article 4(4) and Article 4(5) in the first RBMP. Article 
4(4)  is  now  applied  in  all  RBDs  related  to  groundwater  in  Italy.  Article  4(5)  in  relation  to 
groundwater was only reported in the North Apennines and Serchio RBDs in the first RBMP. 
In  the  second  RBMP,  Article  4(5)  has  now  been  applied  in  the  Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  North 
Apennines and South Apennines RBDs. 

8.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation: Apply exemptions in a more transparent manner and the reasons for 
the exemptions should be clearly justified in the second RBMPs cycle, in particular in 
relation  to  the  technical  infeasibility  and  the  disproportionate  costs.  The  absence  of 
objectives in some RBDs is problematic and should be addressed. 

Assessment:  The  recommendation  has  been  partly  implemented.  The  reasons  for 
exemptions  are  shown  at  the  water  body  level.  However,  the  level  of  information 
provided behind the justification of exemptions varies a) depending on the reason, and 
b) depending on the different RBDs. 

90   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 

145 

 
 
                                                      
 
  Recommendation:  Provide  in  the  RBMPs  information  on  the  actual  application  of 
Article  4(7)  (there  is  no  instance  of  application  reported)  because  a  high  number  of 
new hydropower projects have been authorised in Italy during the past five years and 
the RBMPs have included some general explanations about how a few regions would 
apply Article 4(7). The effects of new hydropower plants on ecological status should be 
properly  assessed.  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. 

  Recommendation: It is unclear whether there are new physical modifications planned. 
Ensure proper implementation of the exemption under Article 4(7) for projects liable to 
cause status deterioration or prevent the achievement of good status. The effects of new 
hydropower plants on ecological status should be properly assessed and, if relevant, all 
conditions of Article 4(7) should be met. 

Assessment: The recommendations have not been implemented in the second RBMPs. 
Italy did not report the application of Article 4(7) in its second plans. However, from 
the  information  reported  it  seems  that  there  were  cases  in  which  Article  4(7)  should 
have been applied. It is apparent that the requirements set out by Article 4(7) have not 
been followed and potential impacts on the status of water have not been assessed.  

Italy  subsequently  informed  the  Commission  that  new  Directives  for  the  ex-ante 
evaluation of the water derivations and for the transition from Minimum Vital Flow to 
Ecological Flows have been adopted to address the Commission’s recommendations on 
the  first  RBMPs.  These  guidelines  also  include  guidance  on  the  assessment  of  new 
hydropower plants on the ecological status.  

146 

 
 
 
Topic 9

  Programmes 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  1  Key  Type  of 
Measure because it may be multi-purpose, but also because the Key Types of Measure 
are  not  completely  independent  silos.  Key  Types  of  Measure  have  been  introduced  to 
simplify  the  reporting  of  measures  and  to  reduce  the  very  large  number  of 
Supplementary Measures reported by some Member States (WFD Reporting Guidance 
2016).  

A Key Types 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 

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. For surface water and groundwater, KTMs were reported for all 
significant  pressure  types  causing  failure  of  objectives.  However,  for  the  Padan  RBD,  the 
North Apennines RBD, Serchio RBD, the Sardinia RBD and Sicily RBD the KTMs were not 

147 

 
 
 
 
linked to specific substances causing failure neither in surface waters nor in groundwaters in 
the reporting in WISE. 

Italy  has  mapped  2 351  national  basic  measures  against  21  of  the  pre-defined  KTMs  and  16 
nationally  derived  KTMs.  28  %  of  the  national  basic  measures  have  been  mapped  against 
KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants with a further 17 % mapped 
against KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty. Some, but 
not all, measures apply in all eight RBDs. Italy has also mapped 824 national supplementary 
measures against 23 pre-defined KTMs and 10 nationally derived KTMs. 25 % of the national 
supplementary  measures  have  been  mapped  against  KTM14  -  Research,  improvement  of 
knowledge base reducing uncertainty. All the types of basic measures required by Article 11(3) 
have been covered. 

Links  to  documents  on  Article  11(3)(c-k)  basic  measures  are  provided  in  WISE,  including 
several  regional  documents  for  the  Central  Apennines  RBD.  The  inventory  of  national  basic 
measures  is  provided  in  WISE.  Both  of  these  provide  information  for  all  RBDs,  including 
Sicily. 

KTMs  are  mapped  against  national  measures  in  all  eight  RBDs;  some  nationally  derived 
KTMs are included in the Padan, Serchio, Central Apennines, and a large number in the Sicily 
RBD.  

Where information is available on tackling significant pressures, all  pressures are covered by 
KTMs  mapped  against  national  measures.  A  small  number  of  measures  are  mapped  in  the 
Eastern Alps, Central Apennines and Southern Apennines even if they are not reported to be 
tackling  significant  pressures.  Therefore  it  is  not  clear  if  these  are  relevant  or  will  be  made 
operational.  

The  percentage  of  water  bodies  not  expected  to  achieve  good  status/  potential  by  2027  has 
been marked with “no information” for all significant pressure types and individual substances 
on  groundwaters  and  surface  waters  in  the  Eastern  Alps,  Padan  and  Sardina  RBDs.  For  the 
other four RBDs percentages ranging from 0, 0-10, 10-20 % and in a few cases >50 % were 
reported (mainly for diffuse agricultural pollution in the Central Apennines RBD groundwater 
and surface water),  

148 

 
 
KTMs have been mapped against River Basin Specific Pollutants and substances respectively 
in  surface  water  and  groundwater  for  two  RBDs91  only  (the  Eastern  Alps  and  Central 
Apennines).  

The  number  of  water  bodies  failing  objectives  due  to  substances  in  groundwater  has  been 
reported  for  the  Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  Central  Appenines,  Northern  Appennines,  Sicily  and 
Sardinia  RBDs,  whilst  the  number  of  water  bodies  failing  objectives  due  to  River  Basin 
Specific  Pollutants  in  surface  water  has  been  reported  for  Eastern  Alps,  Central  Appennines 
and Sardinia.  

Similarly,  KTMs  have  been  mapped  against  priority  substances  in  surface  water  for  three 
RBDs  only92  (the  Eastern  Alps,  Central  Apennines  and  Southern  Apennines),  whilst  the 
number of water bodies failing objectives due to priority substances in surface water has been 
reported for the same RBDs plus Sardinia. 

Several priority substances causing failure of objectives have not been mapped against KTMs, 
i.e. two of a total of 13 in the Eastern Alps RBD, four of eight in the Central Apennines RBD 
and five of 15 in the Southern Apennines RBD; and there is no information for the 13 priority 
substances causing failure of objectives in Sardinia. 

Italy reported quantitative indicators and gap values, as well as KTM indicators and values for 
significant pressures (including individual chemical / priority substances) on groundwater and 
surface  water  for  four  RBDs  (the  Eastern  Alps,  Central  Apennines,  Southern  Apennines  and 
Sardinia)  with  variable  levels  of  information.  Whilst  the  pressures  are  listed,  including 
chemical  substances  on  groundwater  and  surface  water  for  the  other  four  RBDs  (Northern 
Appenines, Padan, Serchio and Sicily), no gap analyses were reported for these. The Annex 0 
document for the Padan RBD states that the reason for this is “insufficient knowledge and no 
standard methodology”. The Annex 0 for the Serchio RBD states “Pressure indicators used by 
Regione Toscana in updating pressures - impacts are different from those required” and for the 
KTM indicators “the Plan did not identify any KTM indicators”.  

For the Eastern Alps RBD for groundwater and surface water bodies, all gap indicators were 
provided  as  the  number  of  water  bodies  affected  by  pressures,  and  measure  indicators  were 

91   Italy subsequently clarified that KTMs have been mapped against RBSP for all RBDs.  However, this is not 

reported in WISE. 

92   Italy subsequently clarified that KTMs have been mapped against priority substances in surface water for all 

RBDs.  However, this is not reported in WISE. 

149 

 
 
                                                      
given  as  the  number  of  water  bodies  requiring  measures;  gap  values  were  reported  for  2015 
and 2021 (none for 2027) and expected gap reductions were modest or negligible.  

For  the  Northern  Apennines  RBD  for  groundwater  and  surface  water  the  gap  indicator  was 
“Estimation indicator of the ecological gap defined for the PdG Appennino Settentrionale, with 
reference to the water bodies affected by the selected pressure that causes the non-achievement 
of the good state”. Gap values were reported for 2015, 2021 and 2027 – for most pressures the 
expected gap reduction is greatest in the 3rd cycle. The gap is not expected to be closed for any 
pressure by 2027. 

For the Central Apennines RBD for groundwater and surface water gap indicators were mainly 
provided as the number of water bodies failing environmental quality standards and measure 
indicators  as  the  number  of  water  bodies  requiring  measures;  gap  values  were  reported  for 
2015,  2021  and  2027;  expected  gap  reductions  were  modest  or  negligible  by  2021,  but  all 
closed  by  2027  for  groundwaters, but  for  surface  waters many  gaps  were  not  expected to  be 
closed by 2027. Some pressures had no gap analyses.  

For  the  Southern  Apennines  RBD  for  groundwater  and  surface  water  bodies,  various  gap 
indicators were used, for example, number of contaminated sites, biological oxygen demand, 
nitrogen or phosporous reductions in tonnes/year; and for measure indicators for example, area 
of agricultural land requiring to be covered by measure,  %  reduction in water consumption. 
Gap values were reported for 2015, 2021 and 2027; some but not all gaps were expected to be 
closed by 2027. Some pressures had no gap analyses. 

For  the  Sardinia  RBD  for  groundwaters  and  surface  waters  all  gap  indicators  were  given  as 
number  of  water  bodies 
for 
hydrological/hydromorphological  issues)  and  measure  indicators  were  given  as  number  of 
water  bodies  requiring  measures;  gap  values  were  reported  for  2015  only,  with  some  gap 
values  set  at  0  in  2015,  no  gap  analyses  were  reported  for  some  pressures,  including  all 
chemical substances. 

environmental  quality 

standards 

failing 

(even 

Cost-effectiveness  analysis  is  an  appraisal  technique  that  provides  a  ranking  of  alternative 
measures  on  the  basis  of  their  costs  and  effectiveness,  where  the  most  cost-effective  has  the 
highest ranking. For the first Programme of Measures no information was found on the use of 
cost  effectiveness  analysis  in  the  selection  of  measures.  For  the  second  Programme  of 
Measures no information on the use of cost-effectiveness analysis was reported for the Sicily 
RBD. Italy reported that qualitative cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out in the Eastern 
Alps  and  Central  Apennines  RBDs  and  that  a  combination  of  qualitative  and  quantitative 

150 

 
 
analyses was used in the Padan, Northern Apennines and Serchio93 RBDs. Cost-effectiveness 
analysis  was  reported  not  to  have  been  used  in  the  Southern  Apennines  and  Sardinia  RBDs. 
Links to several documents were provided for each RBD which were reviewed in the RBMP 
and  background  documents  to  gain  further  information  on  how  measures  have  been  selected 
and  prioritised.  The  conclusion  of  this  assessment  is  that  the  RBMPs  and  Programme  of 
Measures assessed do not provide information on a systematic prioritisation of measures. The 
RBMPs and Programme of Measures assessed do indicate that measures were identified on the 
basis of an analysis of pressures, but they do not provide details on the methods.  

A  critical  factor  in  the  success  of  the  implementation  of  the  Programme  of  Measures  is  the 
availability  of  funding  to  support  the  investments  required.  There  is  no  information  on  the 
costs of measures for the Sicily RBD. Investment costs for the first Programme of Measures 
were  reported  separately  for  Article  11(3)(a)  requirements  (measures  required  to  implement 
Community  legislation for  the  protection of  water)  and  Articles  11(3)(b-l),  Article  11(4)  and 
Article 11(5) (all other measures) for the Padan RBD (2009-14) and Sardinia RBD (2009-15); 
for Article 11(3)(a) only for the Serchio RBD (2009-15); and for the total of all measures for 
the Eastern Alps, Northern Apennines  and  Central  Apennines  RBDs (2009-15); costs for the 
Southern Apennines RBD were reported as “0”.94  

For  the  second  RBMP  investment  and  annual  costs  were  presented  separately  for 
Article11(3)(a)  and  Articles  11(3)(b-l),  11(4) and  11(5)  for the  Eastern Alps  RBD  (2015-21) 
and  Sardinia  RBD  (2016-21);  depreciation  was  not  included  in  any  calculations.  For  the 
Serchio  RBD  investment  and  annual  costs  were  presented  for  Article  11(3)(a),  and  “0”  for 
Articles 11(3)(b-l), 11(4), and 11(5); and for the Central Apennines RBD only Article 11(3)(a) 
investment  costs  were  reported  (2015-21  no  depreciation  costs  for  both).  The  Southern 
Apennines RBD did not report any investment or annual costs – in the Annex 0 document for 
this  RBD  it  stated  that  the  data  were  not  available.  The  Padan  RBD  and  the  Northern 
Apennines RBD have some figures reported but not all, and they also refer to Annex 0.  

European Union investment funding figures were presented for the first RBMPs as follows: 0 
for the Eastern Alps and Serchio RBDs; while figures were provided for the Central Apennines 
(for the Umbria Region), for the Southern Apennines RBD and for Sardinia. No information 
was  provided  for  the  Padan  and  Northern  Apennines  RBDs  –  in  the  Annex  0  documents  for 
these RBDs it was stated that the data were not available. Some of the figures reported seem 

93  Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  also  for  the  Southern  Appennines  RBD  a  combination  of  qualitative  and 

quantitative analyses has been used. 

94  Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  cost-effectiveness  analyses  have  been  performed  in  6  RBDs  (not  in  the 

Southern Appennines and no information for Sicily). 

151 

 
 
                                                      
erroneous in that the order of magnitude (i.e. millions of Euro) seems to be missing. Links to a 
large number of documents were provided for each RBD.  

No clear overall financial commitment has been secured for the implementation of the second 
Programme  of  Measures  in  any  of  the  RBDs95.  On  a  sectoral  basis,  commitments  have  been 
secured for agriculture in all RBDs except the Northern Apennines RBD (and is considered not 
to  be  relevant  in  Serchio);  for  urban  in  all  except  the  Northern  Apennines,  and;  for  flood 
protection in the Eastern Alps and Southern Apennines (not relevant in Serchio or Sardinia). 
All others are marked “no” or “not applicable”. 

There has been no joint consultation on the RBMPs and the Marine Strategy in any of the eight 
RBDs; but coordination of the preparation of the RBMPs and Programme of Measures with the 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive96 was reported for the Eastern Alps and Sardinia RBDs, 
and an assessment of the need for additional measures was reported for the Padan and Northern 
Apennines  RBDs,  where  additional  measures  for  chemicals  and  nutrients  were  considered 
necessary (“others” also in the Northern Apennines RBD). There was no information on any of 
the other issues relating to the  Marine Strategy Framework Directive. National/RBD specific 
measures  that  are  relevant  to  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive,  the  relevant  basic 
measure types and numbers of basic  measures were  listed for seven RBDs (none for Sicily). 
Links to documents are available for seven RBDs (none for Sicily). 

There is no information for Sicily on the integration or coordination between the RBMP and 
the  Flood  Risk  Management  Plan.  The  RBMPs  and  Floods  Directive97  Flood  Risk 
Management  Plans  have  been  integrated  in  one  RBD  (the  Northern  Apennines);  (i)  a  joint 
consultation of RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans was carried out in all other RBDs 
except Sardinia; (ii) the objectives and requirements of the Floods Directive were considered in 
the second RBMPs and Programme of Measures in the seven RBDs; (iii) win-win measures in 
terms of WFD objectives, drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures  
have been included in the Programme of Measures of the seven RBDs; (iv) the design of new 
and  existing  structural  measures,  such  as  flood  defences,  storage  dams  and  tidal  barriers  has 
been  adapted  to  take  account  of  WFD  environmental  objectives  in  all  RBDs  except  the 

95   Italy  subsequently  stated  that  most  RBDs  have  clear  financial  commitments  to  ensure  coverage  for  the 
implementation  of  the  second  Programmes  of  Measures.  The  RBDs  Eastern  Alps,  Northern  Apennines  and 
Sardinia identify funding sources, sectorial planning, public funds (European and national) and tariffs. Other 
RBDs identified the main public funds (European and national) and the most relevant planning tools. 

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

97  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 

152 

 
 
                                                      
Northern  Apennines;  (v)  financial  commitments  have  been  secured  in  the  Eastern  Alps  and 
Central Apennines RBDs (marked “not relevant” in the Serchio and Sardinia RBDs); and (vi) 
WFD  Article  9(4)  has  not  been  applied  to  impoundment  for  flood  protection  in  any  of  the 
seven  RBDs.  Links  to  documents  with  further  information  have  been  provided  for  the  seven 
RBDs. 

9.1.2 Measures related to other significant pressures 

Information  on  “Other  significant  pressures”  has  been  reported  for  three  RBDs  only,  i.e.  for 
groundwater and surface water in the Eastern Alps and Central Apennines RBDs, for surface 
water only in the Northern Apennines RBD. 

Other  pressures  relate  to  “Anthropogenic  pressures  -  unknown  in  groundwater  and  surface 
water in the Eastern Alps and Central Apennines RBDs, “Anthropogenic pressures - historical 
pollution  in  the  Eastern  Alps,  and  Anthropogenic  pressures  -  other  in  the  Eastern  Alps  and 
Northern  Apennines  RBD.  Introduced  species  and  diseases  and  exploitation  of  animals  and 
plants were reported for surface water in the Eastern Alps and Northern Apennines RBDs.  

Measures  involve  mainly  KTM14  –  Research,  improvement  of  knowledge  base  reducing 
uncertainty, but in the Eastern Alps RBD also KTM18 - Control of alien species, and KTM6 - 
Improve hydromorphological conditions.  

Gap indicators and measure indicators were reported for 2015 and 2021 (none for 2027) for the 
Eastern Alps, with  modest improvements by 2021. For the Central  Apennines gap indicators 
and measure indicators were  reported for 2015, 2021 and 2027, with  all gaps expected to  be 
closed by 2027. For the Northern Apennines gap indicators were also reported for 2015, 2021 
and  2027,  but  no  measure  indicators  were  provided  and  with  no  information  on  expected 
improvements (no gap closures). 

9.1.3 Mapping of national measures to Key Types of Measure 

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  Measure.  Key  Types  of 
Measure are expected to deliver the bulk of the improvements through reduction in pressures 
required  to  achieve  WFD  environmental  objectives.  A  Key  Type  of  Measure  may  be  one 
national  measure  but  it  would  typically  comprise  more  than  one  national  measure.  Member 
States  are  required  to  report  on  the  national  measures  associated  with  the  Key  Types  of 
Measure, and whether the national measures are basic (Article 11(3)(a) or Article 11(3)(b-l)) or 
supplementary (Article 11(4)).  

153 

 
 
Table 9.1 summarises the number of national measures that have been mapped to the relevant 
Key Types of Measure in Italy. 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. 

154 

 
 
 
 
Table 9.1 

Mapping of the types of national measures to Key Types of Measure in Italy  

Key Type of Measure 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment 
plants 

KTM10 - Water pricing policy measures for the 
implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from 
industry 

KTM11 - Water pricing policy measures for the 
implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from 
agriculture 

KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture 

KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (for example, 
establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc) 

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing 
uncertainty 

KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, 
discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for 
the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority 
Substances 

KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater 
treatment plants (including farms). 

KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and 
surface run-off 

KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts 
of invasive alien species and introduced diseases 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 

KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts 
of fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal and plants 

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution 
from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure 

KTM22 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution 
from forestry 

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 

KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 

KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical 
pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil) 

KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (for example, 
establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams) 

155 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number of 
RBDs where 
reported 

649 

27 

43 

20 

58 

392 

115 

30 

48 

11 

78 

72 

80 

35 

89 

31 

43 

19 

7 

10 

33 

14 

204 

5 

10 

22 

6 

58 

1 

4 

11 

21 

31 

38 

6 

11 

8 

7 

8 

8 

7 

8 

8 

7 

7 

4 

8 

1 

7 

2 

7 

7 

8 

8 

8 

 
 
 
 
National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number of 
RBDs where 
reported 

Key Type of Measure 

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 

KTM100 - Regolamentazione - Attività istituzionali 

KTM101 - Regolamentazione - Misure per ridurre i prelievi 

KTM102 - Regolamentazione - Misure di tutela ambientale 

KTM103 - Strutturali - Attività istituzionali 

KTM104 - Strutturali - Misure per ridurre i prelievi 

KTM105 - Strutturali - Misure di tutela ambientale 

KTM106 - Strutturali - Monitoraggio 

KTM107 - Strutturali - Misure per ridurre i carichi diffusi 

KTM108 - Studi e ricerche - Misure per ridurre i prelievi 

KTM109 - Studi e ricerche - Misure di tutela ambientale 

KTM110 - Studi e ricerche - Monitoraggio 

KTM111 - Vigilanza e controllo - Misure di tutela ambientale 

KTM112 - Vigilanza e controllo - Monitoraggio 

KTM113 - Campagna informative - Misure di tutela 
ambientale 

KTM114 - Campagne informative - Monitoraggio 

KTM115 - Incentivazione - Misure di tutela ambientale 

KTM116 - Monitoraggio 

KTM26 - Governance 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme 
of Measures - Misure a salvaguardia delle aree protette 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme 
of Measures - Misure per fronteggiare eventi climatici 
eccezionali 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under Programme 
of Measures - Normativa governo uso del territorio per 
limitazione rischio, norme PGRA-AC - Gestione deflussi con 
sistemi naturalistici, potenziando capacità di laminazione dei 
tratti naturali - Interventi di riqualificazione e potenziamento 
funzione naturale delle ar 

182 

90 

198 

28 

3 

2 

3 

1 

4 

6 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

86 

41 

90 

13 

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

6 

3 

1 

65 

Total number of Mapped Measures 

2351 

824 

Source: Member States reporting to WISE 

156 

8 

8 

8 

7 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9.2 

Type of basic measure mapped to Key Type of Measures in Italy  

Basic Measure Type 

Key Type of Measure 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment 
plants 
KTM10 - Water pricing policy measures for the 
implementation of the recovery of cost of water services 
from industry 
KTM11 - Water pricing policy measures for the 
implementation of the recovery of cost of water services 
from agriculture 
KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture 
KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. 
establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc) 
KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base 
reducing uncertainty 
KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, 
discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or 
for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of 
Priority Substances 
KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial 
wastewater treatment plants (including farms). 
KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and 
surface run-off 
KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts 
of invasive alien species and introduced diseases 
KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 
KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of 
pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure 
KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
p
l
a
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
A

1 

1 

2 

4 

79 

38 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

10 

54 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

6 

r
e
t
a
w
s
l
o
r
t
n
o
C

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

r
e
t
a
w
y
r
e
v
o
c
e
r

t
s
o
C

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

22 

38 

1 

6 

e
s
u
r
e
t
a
w

t
n
e
i
c
i
f
f

E

4 

4 

6 

2 

9 

s
d
r
i
B
r
o

s
t
a
t
i
b
a
H

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

3 

2 

8 

s
e
t
a
r
t
i

N

1 

3 

1 

10 

5 

D
E
I
C
P
P
I

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

8 

25 

59 

9 

103 

24 

22 

25 

4 

10 

5 

2 

1 

1 

3 

27 

2 

3 

43 

3 

11 

7 

68 

3 

3 

1 

9 

9 

8 

3 

9 

38 

12 

3 

12 

1 

6 

2 

3 

2 

7 

9 

157 

r
e
h
t
O

s
e
g
r
a
h
c
s
i
d
e
c
r
u
o
s

t
n
i
o
P

e
s
u
f
f
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

t
c
e
r
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

r
e
t
a
w
n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
P

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

e
g
r
a
h
c
e
R

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
u
a

s
r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
P
e
c
a
f
r
u
S

s
e
c
n
a
t
s
b
u
S

2 

44 

88 

1 

r
e
t
a
W

e
t
s
a
W
n
a
b
r
U

526 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

5 

80 

11 

20 

10 

3 

3 

11 

3 

2 

3 

1 

16 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

8 

35 

40 

4 

3 

2 

7 

20 

1 

1 

2 

13 

8 

25 

7 

5 

3 

37 

24 

2 

1 

14 

5 

4 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 
KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical 
pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil) 
KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing 
fish passes, demolishing old dams) 
KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of water 
bodies other than longitudinal continuity 
KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment 
of ecological flows 
KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, 
industry, energy and households 
KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the 
implementation of the recovery of cost of water services 
from households 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM 

2 

1 

1 

1 

6 

9 
1 

1 

2 

19 

14 

3 

9 

6 

26 
4 

7 

1 

2 

21 

166 

5 

4 

9 

7 

20 

1 

7 
7 

1 

33 

158 

49 

7 

1 

2 

5 

3 

10 

15 

1 

3 

2 

8 

8 

8 

2 

22 

1 

50 

2 

9 

3 

4 

10 

1 

20 

4 

9 

7 

9 

8 

7 
13 

1 

2 

18 

21 

4 

3 

8 

2 

1 

3 

3 

8 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

7 

7 

2 

Source: Member States reporting to WISE 

Key 

‘Accidental pollution’ = Article 11(3)(l): Any measures required to prevent significant losses of pollutants from technical installations and to prevent and/or reduce the impact of 
accidental pollution incidents. 
‘Controls water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(e): Controls over the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater and impoundment of fresh surface waters including a register or 
registers of water abstractions and a requirement for prior authorisation of abstraction and impoundment. 
‘Cost recovery water services’ = Article 11(3)(b): Measures for the recovery of cost of water services (Article 9). 
‘Efficient water use’ = Article 11(3)(c): Measures to promote efficient and sustainable water use. 
‘Habitats or Birds’ = Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)  or Birds Directive (2009/147/EC)  
‘Hydromorphology’ = Article 11(3)(i): Measures to control any other significant adverse impact on the status of water, and in particular hydromorphological impacts. 
‘IPPC IED’ = Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC) and the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) . 
‘Nitrates’ = Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC). 
‘Other’ = Other Directives mentioned in Part A of Annex VI of the WFD. 
‘Point source discharges’ = Article 11(3)(g): Requirement for prior regulation of point source discharges liable to cause pollution. 
‘Pollutants diffuse’ = Article 11(3)(h): Measures to prevent or control the input of pollutants from diffuse sources liable to cause pollution. 
‘Pollutants direct groundwater’ = Article 11(3)(j): Prohibition of direct discharge of pollutants into groundwater. 
‘Protection water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(d): Measures for the protection of water abstracted for drinking water (Article 7) including those to reduce the level of purification 
required for the production of drinking water. 
‘Recharge augmentation groundwaters’ = Article 11(3)(f): Controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies. 
‘Surface Priority Substances’ = Article 11(3)(k): Measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters by Priority Substances and to reduce pollution from other substances that would 
otherwise prevent the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 4. 
‘Urban Waste Water’ = Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
9.1.4 Pressures for which gaps to be filled to achieve WFD objectives and the Key Types 

of Measure planned to achieve objectives 

Member  States  are  required  to  report  the  gaps  that  need  to  be  filled  to  achieve  WFD 
environmental  objectives  in  terms  of  all  significant  pressures  on  surface  waters  and 
groundwaters, in  terms  of Priority Substances causing  failure of good chemical status  and in 
terms  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  ecological  status/potential. 
Member  States  were  asked  to  report  predefined  indicators  of  the  gaps  to  be  filled  or  other 
indicators where relevant. Values for the gap indicators were required for 2015 and 2021, and 
were optional for 2027. 

The  information  reported  in  WISE  on  the  gaps  to  fulfil  to  achieve  good  ecological  status 
include detailed data on the significant pressures on surface and groundwaters that may cause 
failure on the environmental objectives.  For chemical status, the Member  States  reported the 
specific chemical substances causing failure. 

This information is reported at the sub-unit level. Sub-units are smaller geographic areas within 
particular  RBDs  identified  by  Member  States.  Not  all  Member  States  have  defined  and 
reported sub-units. 

Member States were required to report which KTMs are to be made operational to reduce the 
gaps to levels compatible with the achievement of WFD environmental objectives. A number 
of  indicators  were  predefined  for  each  KTM.  Values  of  the  indicators  for  the  second  and 
subsequent  planning  cycles  were  also  to  be  reported  to  give  an  indication  of  the  expected 
progress and achievements: the values for 2027 could be optionally reported. This means that 
the value of the indicator will be reduced with time as measures are implemented. A value of 
zero is comparable with 100 % good ecological status or potential or good chemical status.  

This  information  was  reported  at  sub-unit  level,  or  at  RBDs  level  if  sub-units  have  not  been 
reported by the Member State. 

9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  level  of  implementation  of  the  first  Programmes  of  Measures  was  reported  as  ‘some 
measures  completed’  for  seven  of  the  eight  RBDs  (no  information  for  Sicily).  Progress  has 
been made by identifying significant pressures and reporting KTMs in all RBDs, and carrying 
out gap analyses in 7 RBDs.  

159 

 
 
 
One of the RBMPs examined in more detail, the Southern Apennines, provides a summary of 
changes  and  updates  regarding  the  Programme  of  Measures.  Also  the  Eastern  Alps  RBD 
provides a summary explaining the relationship between the first and second Programmes of 
Measures. Sicily also carried out an overview of the changes implemented in the 2nd cycle. 

For the Central Apennines RBD, the RBMP does not provide a summary of changes, but the 
documents  do  explain  that  one  key  change  regards  the  analysis  of  effectiveness,  which  will 
take place after the approval of the RBMP itself, when the results of the 2015 monitoring will 
be available to give better indications of the actual impacts and on the effectiveness of specific 
actions. For the Southern Apennines RBD, the new Programme of Measures explains briefly 
that  there  has  been  a  reorganisation  of  the  measures  set  out  in  the  previous  cycle,  with  the 
introduction of a limited number of measures that were originally not foreseen, to better link 
the measures to the pressures identified. 

Most RBMPs include an analysis of pressures and gaps for the development of the Programme 
of Measures - this is an important change compared to the first RBMP - several RBDs reported 
gap analyses to WISE but three RBDs did not report any information to WISE and their Annex 
0s indicated that the information was not available. 

9.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  Many  measures  in  the  Programmes  of  Measures  originate  from 
other existing plans and no clear link between measures and status assessment is made. 

Assessment:  This  issue  may  have  been  addressed  in  new  legislation  in  five  RBDs, 
though it is reported as “not started” in the Northern Apennines and Serchio, even if it 
is considered necessary. The Annex 0 for Sicily states that the Programme of Measures 
has not been included in the RBMP. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled98. 

  Recommendation: Ensure that the Programme of Measures are designed on the basis 
of  robust  information  on  pressures  and  status.  Uncertainties  in  the  identification  of 
pressures should be addressed in the second RBMP to ensure adequate measures are in 
place.  Clear  links  between  pressures  identified  and  measures  to  be  taken  should  be 
established. 

98   Italy subsequently clarified that a clear link between the PoM and the status assessment has been made in all 

RBDs, including Sicily. 

160 

 
 
                                                      
Assessment:  This  issue  has  been  addressed  to  some  extent  by  identifying  significant 
pressures  causing  failure  of  objectives  and  mapping  measures  for  these  (in  all  RBDs 
except  Sicily),  and  to  a  limited  extent  by  listing  KTMs  tackling  significant  pressures 
(three RBDs only) and limited gap analyses (four RBDs only)99. This recommendation 
has been partially fulfilled in the Eastern Alps, Central Apennines, Southern Apennines 
and Sardinia RBDs. It has not been fulfilled in the other RBDs. 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  improved  information  on  costs  of  measures  in  the  second 
RBMPs cycle. The selection of measures should be based on a cost-effective analysis. 
Transparent  information  should  be  reported  in  the  second  RBMPs  on  the  expected 
effectiveness of the measures in terms of status improvements. 

information 

Assessment: Some cost information for basic measures has been provided for all except 
the  Sicily  RBD,  and  some  cost-effectiveness  analyses  have  been  performed  in  five 
RBDs  (none  in  the  Southern  Apennines  and  Sardinia,  no  information  for  Sicily). 
Limited 
link  between  measures  and  status 
the 
improvements,  although  gap  analyses  have  been  carried  out  for  four  RBDs.  This 
recommendation  has  been  partially  fulfilled  in  the  Eastern  Alps,  Central  Apennines, 
Southern  Apennines  and  Sardinia  RBDs.  No  progress  has  been  made  in  Sicily  and 
some steps towards progress have been made in the other RBDs100. 

is  provided  on 

  Recommendation:  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: There is no clear information on scope, timing and funding of measures, 
except  very  limited  information  through  gap  analyses  (in  the  Eastern  Alps,  Central 
Apennines, Southern Apennines and Sardinia only). This was further examined in the 
RBMP  and  background  documents,  where 
the 
RBMPs/Programme of Measures assessed contained information on the timelines and 
funding for specific measures. The Programme of Measures for the Eastern Alps RBD 

it  was  found 

that  none  of 

99   Italy subsequently stated that this issue has been addressed by identifying significant pressures causing failure 
of objectives and mapping measures for these, and by listing KTMs tackling significant pressures in all RBDs. 
100  Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  cost-effectiveness  analyses  have  been  performed  in  6  RBDs  (not  in  the 

Southern Apennines, no information for Sicily). 

161 

 
 
                                                      
has  a  chapter  on  the  economic  analysis,  which  presents  the  estimated  investment, 
management  and  maintenance  costs  for  broad  groups  of  measures,  the  estimated 
funding needs and the sources of financing available. Sources of funding were divided 
into  three  categories:  European  Union,  national  and  local  (presumably  government) 
funding; and tariffs. The Programme of Measures for the Central Apennines contained 
some funding data in the detailed Programme of Measures by region: for example, the 
Programme  of  Measures  for  the  Tuscany  Region  set  out  ‘financing  assigned’  for 
existing plans, such as relevant measures under the RDP for Tuscany (for example, in 
Table 3.2 of the Programme of Measures for Tuscany). An overview of funding sources 
and priorities for the RBD was not found, however. The Programme of Measures of the 
Southern  Apennines  only  mentioned  funding  with  regard  to  some  measures  being 
financed  through  European  Union  Funds101.  Some  progress  has  been  made,  but  this 
recommendation has yet to be fully addressed. 

  Recommendation: Ensure that the Programme of Measures are adequately funded and 
will be implemented to ensure reaching the objectives of good status. Italy should look 
into and rely on all available sources of funding, including European Union funds. 

Assessment:  No  clear  overall  financial  commitment  has  been  secured  for  the 
implementation of Programme of Measures in any of the RBDs, although some sectoral 
commitments  have  been  secured  in  some  RBDs.  Estimated  European  Union  funding 
figures were reported for six RBDs (0 for Serchio and no information for Sicily). This 
recommendation has been partially addressed.102 

  Recommendation: Set out in the second RBMPs cycle which basic and supplementary 
measures are necessary to achieve good status. This gap analysis can then be used to 
justify exemptions where necessary. 

Assessment: Basic and supplementary measures have been included in all RBMPs. The 
Eastern  Alps,  Central  Appennines,  Southern  Appennines  and  Sardinia  have  made 

101  Italy  subsequently  informed  that  progress  has  been  made  through  gap  analysis  (Eastern  Alps,  Central 
Apennines,  Southern Apennines, Sardinia  and  Padan  RBDs), with  a  specific  methodology developed by  the 
Northern Apennines RBD. The Northern Apennines, Padan and Sardinia RBDs describe for each measure the 
planning process and the tools that ensure clear cost coverage and timing of the sectorial European and local 
funded programmes. Therefore measures are associated with sources of funding.  

102 Italy subsequently explained that most of the RBDs have clear financial commitments to ensure coverage for 
the implementation of the 2nd Programme of Measures. The Eastern Alps, Northern Apennines and Sardinia 
RBDs  identify  funding  sources,  sectorial  planning,  public  funds  (European  and  national)  and  tariffs.  Other 
RBDs listed the main public funds (European and national) and most relevant planning tools. 

162 

 
 
                                                      
progress  in  the  use  of  gap  analysis  and  links  between  measures  and  significant 
pressures103. This recommendation has been partially addressed. 

103  Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  the  Northern  Apennines  RBD  applies  a  complete  gap  analysis,  with  links 

between pressures, status and clear indicators of improvement. 

163 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

10.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

10.1.1  Water exploitation and trends  

Water  abstraction  pressure  was  reported  as  relevant  for  several  RBDs  in  Italy,  namely  the 
Padan,  Central  Apennines,  South  Apennines,  Sardinia  and  Sicily  RBDs;  and  a  proportion  of 
groundwater bodies face water quantity-related issues for achieving good quantitative status of 
groundwater bodies in several RBDs, including the North Apennines RBD (25 %) and Serchio 
RBD (9 %).  

Water  abstraction  pressures  were  reported  to  affect  surface  water  bodies  in  different  RBDs, 
including the North Apennines RBD (28 %) and Serchio RBD (10 %). The Water Exploitation 
Index + is calculated for all RBDs. For Sicily RBD, two different figures are provided (18.7 
and  35.1  %)  for  the  2009-2013  period  (for  this  indicator,  the  warning  threshold  of  20  % 
distinguishes  a  non-stressed  from  a  water  scarce  region,  with  severe  scarcity  occurring  it 
exceeds  40  %).  The  Padan  RBD  reports  July  2010  as  the  worst  month  regarding  Water 
Exploitation Index +104. No water quantity data were reported to support the European State of 
the  Environment  Report  in  relation  to  Water  Quantity.  Water  scarcity  is  not  considered  an 
issue  at  the  international  level.  The  RBMPs  include  a  water  resource  allocation  and 
management plan, in all RBDs except Sicily RBD, which is the RBD with the highest Water 
Exploitation Index +.  

10.1.2  Main uses for water consumption  

Data were reported for the uses of water consumption, and they vary significantly throughout 
the  RBDs.  It  should  be  noted  that  in  particular  for  groundwater  use,  there  were  only  a  few 
metered  uses;  and  in  general  the  data  submitted  are  based  on  estimates,  surveys,  assimilated 
from statistics, other methods not defined or are not available. Given the significant pressure 
from water abstraction, the provided datasets would appear to be lacking. In the Sicily RBD, 
the RBD with the highest Water Exploitation Index +, agricultural groundwater use (46 %) and 
surface water use (9.2 %) was reported as the most significant pressure.  

104  Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  reporting  mistakes  had  taken  place  and  indicated  that  WEI+  values  reflect 

water stress also in the Padan and North Apennines RBDs, especially during the summer period.  

164 

 
 
                                                      
10.1.3  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

Regarding basic measures (Article 11(3)(e)), in Italy there is a concession, authorisation and/or 
permitting  regime  to  control  surface  and  groundwater  abstractions  and  water  impoundment; 
and a register of impoundments exists in all RBDs except Sicily, thus adding uncertainty to the 
data being used for analysing pressures. Small abstractions are exempted from controls in the 
Eastern Alps RBD, and do not require permits but are registered in the North Apennines and 
Serchio  RBDs105.  It  should  be  noted  that  both  RBDs,  and  in  particular  the  North  Apennines 
RBD presented a large number of water bodies (both groundwater and surface water) that do 
not achieve the WFD objectives due to water quantity-related pressures.  

Measures related to Article 11(3)(c) for efficient and sustainable water use were implemented 
in most of the RBDs (the Eastern Alps, Padan, the North Apennines, Serchio RBD, the South 
Apennines  RBD,  and  Sardinia  RBD)  in  the  previous  cycle,  and  new  measures  and/or 
significant  changes  have  been  planned  for  the  2016-2021  period.  For  the  Central  Apennines 
RBD however, no new measures or significant changes were reported to be planned. In Sicily 
RBD  no  measures  were  implemented  in  the  previous  cycle,  which  might  reflect  non-
compliance  with  the  requirements  of  the  WFD  to  take  appropriate  measures  to  reduce  the 
pressures. However, new measures have been planned for the 2016-2021 period.  

According to the Central Apennines RBMP, there are three measures promoting efficient and 
sustainable  water  use  in  the  Programme  of  Measures  of  Central  Apennines.  However,  they 
only address the mechanisms and not necessarily water management practices: 

 

Implementation  and  strengthening  of  the  water  accounting  system  (following 
Ministerial Decree 39/2015) 

  Definition of homogeneous criteria for regulating the quantification of the volumes of 

water used for irrigation by end users (following Ministerial Decree 31/07/2015) 

  Definition of specific water use targets (per capita and per unit of product) for different 

uses in order to incentivise savings and efficiency at different territorial scales. 

According to the Sicily RBMP, all measures adopted in the first RBMP have been confirmed 
for the second cycle (i.e., they are being continued); however, this statement is in contradiction 
with  the  reporting,  which  refers  to  no  measures  having  been  implemented  during  the  first 

105 Italy subsequently clarified that only small groundwater abstractions for single household’s uses do not require 
permits  but  must  be  registered  (Royal  Decree  n.1775/1933,  art.93).  In  addition,  in  the  Northern  Apennines 
RBD  the  Water  Balance  Plan  foresees  an  additional,  more  restrictive  measure  which  imposes  further 
abstraction limits for the above described small abstractions. 

165 

 
 
                                                      
RBMP.  In  the  Programme  of  Measures,  there  are  several  measures  planned  to  control 
abstractions (withdrawals). The majority of measures fall within the 'regulation' typology:  

Measures linked to KTM7- "Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological 
flows":  

  Definition of the Minimum Vital Flow for all RBDs to ensure an acceptable ecological 

flow 

  Definition  and  application  of  management  practices  for  the  regulation  of  outflows  in 

dry periods, including through the revision of existing plans 

  Review of the procedures for granting or renewing abstraction concessions, taking into 

account the definitions of water balance and the Minimum Vital Flow 

  Management of water withdrawal and release systems in surface water bodies, through 
the monitoring network and through the reduction of volumes granted with the aim to 
ensure protection of the environment and optimisation of production processes.  

Measures  linked  to  KTM8  -  "Water  efficiency,  technical  measures  for  irrigation,  industry, 
energy and households": 

 

Identification  of  a  gradual  reduction  of  groundwater  withdrawals  for  integrated  water 
supply systems  

  Management of land use aimed at increasing effective infiltration in the recharge areas 

of aquifers.  

  Application  of  best  agricultural  practices,  including  crop  substitution  with  more 

resistant species, and the application of more efficient irrigation techniques.  

Measures  linked  to  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" and KTM11- 
"Water  pricing  policy  measures  for  the  implementation  of  the  recovery  of  cost  of  water 
services from agriculture": 

166 

 
 
 

Introduction  of  economic  and  financial  mechanisms  and  definition  of  procedures  for 
the  review  of  concession  fees,  in  order  to  reduce  resource  waste  and  incentivize  the 
installation and maintenance of meters  

Other measures:  

  Review  and  update  of  the  business  plan  of  Siciliacque  (water  supply  company)  to 

comply with Legislative Decree 152/2006 and adapt it to the RBMP. 

Three  measures  under  the  'supervision  and  control'  typology  are  planned,  linked  to  KTM13- 
"Drinking  water  protection  measures  (for  example,  establishment  of  safeguard  zones,  buffer 
zones etc.)": 

  Strengthening controls on groundwater abstractions in risk areas;  

  Strengthening controls over public water abstractions;  

  Strengthening  controls  over  abstractions  from  private  wells  for  domestic  use,  with 

reference to the annual water balance. 

Four  measures  are  planned  under  the  'incentives'  typology,  linked  to  KTM  8  -  "Water 
efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households": 

 

 

Intervention  for  the  promotion  of  water  savings  in  agriculture,  including  through  the 
rationalisation  of  withdrawals,  reduction  of  leakages  in  the  irrigation  distribution 
network,  introduction  of  sustainable  irrigation  methods  and  introduction  of  advanced 
monitoring and remote control systems. 

Intervention for the promotion of water savings in industry through the rationalisation 
of withdrawals, through the issuance of restrictive opinions on the amount of flows that 
can be withdrawn or through the definition of voluntary actions. 

  Optimisation  of  the  use  of  resources  with  incentives  for  reuse  through  specific 

agreements. 

  Application  of  best  agricultural  practices,  including  crop-substitution  with  resistant 

species, and the application of more efficient irrigation techniques.  

Only  one  structural  measure  is  planned,  linked  to  KTM  8  -  "Water  efficiency,  technical 
measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households": 

167 

 
 
 

Interventions to reduce leakages and improve maintenance of distribution networks.  

Measures  for  the  prior  authorisation  of  artificial  recharge  or  augmentation  of  groundwater 
bodies (Article 11(3)(f)) were implemented in most of the RBDs (Eastern Alps, Padan, North 
Apennines,  Serchio,  South  Apennines  and  Sardinia  RBDs)  in  the  previous  cycle,  and  new 
measures  and/or  significant  changes  have  been  planned  for  the  2016-2021  period.  For  the 
Central Apennines RBD however, no new measures or significant changes were reported to be 
planned.  In  the  Sicily  RBD  no  measures  were  implemented  in  the  previous  cycle,  but  new 
measures have been planned for the 2016-2021 period. 

Complementary measures under KTMs were reported for addressing abstraction pressures, and 
refer  to  KTM  6  -  "Improving  hydromorphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than 
longitudinal  continuity",  KTM  7  -  "Improvements  in  flow  regime  and/or  establishment  of 
ecological  flows",  KTM  8  -  "Water  efficiency,  technical  measures  for  irrigation,  industry, 
energy and households", KTM 9 - "Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of 
the  recovery  of  cost  of  water  services  from  households",  KTM  10  -  "Water  pricing  policy 
measures  for  the  implementation  of  the  recovery  of  cost  of  water  services  from  industry", 
KTM 11  - "Water pricing policy measures  for the implementation of the recovery of cost of 
water  services  from  agriculture",  KTM  12  -  "Advisory  services  for  agriculture",  KTM  13  -" 
Drinking  water  protection  measures  (for  example,  establishment  of  safeguard  zones,  buffer 
zones etc.)" and KTM 14 - "Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty".  

However,  no  KTMs  were  reported  as  planned  for  the  Padan  RBD106,  the  North  Apennines 
RBD  and  Sicily  RBD,  with  the  North  Apennines  RBD  having  a  significant  number  of 
groundwater  bodies  in  poor  status  due  to  abstraction  pressures  and  Sicily  RBD  (again,  the 
reporting for Sicily RBD does not reflect the measures included in the RBMP). Water pricing 
(KTM  9  -  "Water  pricing  policy  measures  for  the  implementation  of  the  recovery  of  cost  of 
water  services  from  households",  KTM  10  -  "Water  pricing  policy  measures  for  the 
implementation  of  the  recovery  of  cost  of  water  services  from  industry",  KTM  11  -  "Water 
pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from 
agriculture")  addresses  urban,  industrial  and  agricultural  uses,  but  has  not  been  reported  as 
planned  for  the  North  Apennines  RBD  and  Sicily  RBD.  KTM  24  (Adaptation  to  Climate 
Change) was only included in the RBMP of Sardinia RBD.  

The  Programme  of  Measures  of  the  Central  Apennines  RBD  only  included  KTMs  related  to 
water use efficiency and Ecological Flows. 

106  Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  KTMs  were  reported  and  planned  for  the  Padan  RBD  and  are  linked  to  the 

measures of the Water Balance Plan (Pillar 3) that also concern groundwater bodies. 

168 

 
 
                                                      
Water  reuse  was  foreseen  as  a  measure  in  the  North  Apennines  RBD,  Serchio  RBD,  the 
Central  Apennines  RBD,  South  Apennines,  Sardinia  RBD  and  Sicily  RBD.  The  Central 
Apennines  RBD  is  also  an  important  water  exporter,  without  further  information  being 
provided on the benefiting RBD(s). The Sicily RBD also uses desalinised water. 

10.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

No major changes have been identified for Italy, except for the adoption of National guidelines 
to  the  Regions  on  the  methodologies  for  the  quantification  of  volumes  of  water  used  for 
irrigation.  Once  implemented,  these  can  be  used  as  a  mechanism  to  promote  knowledge  and 
better management of water abstraction pressures. 

10.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation: Enforce in the second RBMPs cycle the implementation of metering 
to  all  abstractions.  Users  should  report  consumption  regularly  to  river  basin 
authorities.  This  information  should  be  used  for  the  preparation  of  future  RBMP 
updates. 

Assessment: In the first RBMP, abstraction for agriculture was reported as a significant 
pressure for about 16 % of water bodies (though analysis was not complete): this is an 
issue in nearly all RBDs. Metering was not used extensively in irrigation. Unauthorised 
abstractions were an issue in some regions. The monitoring obligation is implemented 
in general by regional regulation but metering does not appear to be used regularly for 
fish  farming  or  hydropower107,  though  it  is  mandatory  for  household  uses  and  for 
industrial  uses.  The  RBMPs  themselves  did  not  provide  detailed  information  on  the 
extent  of  metering  in  different  sectors  or  services,  nor  on  inspections  and  other 
compliance actions related to metering.  

Whilst  the  RBMPs  assessed  refer  to  measures  to  strengthen  controls  of  abstractions, 
neither of the second RBMPs assessed (The Central Apennines RBD and Sicily RBD) 
provide explicit information on the extent to which metering is in place for users. The 
second RBMPs refer to national guidelines to the regions on the methodologies for the 
quantification  of  volumes  of  water  used  for  irrigation  ("Linee  guida  per  la 

107  Italy however clarified that large hydropower stations are being monitored. 

169 

 
 
                                                      
regolamentazione  da  parte  delle  Regioni  delle  modalità  di  quantificazione  dei  volumi 
idrici  ad  uso  irriguo,  issued  by  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  in  July  2015).  These 
guidelines call on the regions to measure volumes of water abstracted and to ensure the 
installation of metering where technically and economically feasible108.  

Moreover,  as  noted  above,  the  Programme  of  Measures  for  Sicily  RBD  includes  a 
measure  for:  "Introduction  of  economic  and  financial  mechanisms  and  definition  of 
procedures for the revision of concession fees, in order to reduce waste of the resource 
and to incentivise the installation and the maintenance of meters".  

Italy has put in place a national policy framework to address this recommendation, and 
the  Padan  RBMP  includes  a  measure  to  promote  metering.  However,  implementation 
on the ground is not yet reported. 

There  are  several  measures  planned  to  control  abstractions,  including  one  aimed  at 
strengthening  the  control  on  groundwater  abstractions  in  risk  areas;  one  aimed  at 
strengthening  the  control  over  public  water  abstractions;  and  another  one  aimed  at 
strengthening  control  over  abstraction  from  private  wells  for  domestic  use,  with 
reference to the annual water balance. 

In  the  Central  Apennines  RBD  there  are  two  potentially  relevant  measures:  a) 
identification and implementation of specific actions to reduce the impacts due to self-
provision of water resources in the district interest areas and in the Nitrate Vulnerable 
Zone and b) adjustment of the regime of concession fees, irrigation contributions and 
tariffs  to  self-provision,  irrigation  services  and  integrated  water  service  of  the 
adjustment, following the update of the economic analysis of water use.  

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Review  systematically  the  abstraction  permits  and,  if  necessary, 

revise them, to ensure they are consistent with the environmental objectives.   

Assessment: It cannot be assessed if this recommendation has been fully implemented. 
Abstraction permits  typically  have  a  duration  of  30-40  years  and  are  managed  by  the 
regions109.  National  legislation  does  not  contain  explicit  provisions  for  the  review  of 
existing  permits  and  concessions,  including  those  for  abstraction,  in  response  to  the 

108  Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  metering  obligations  for  agriculture  have  been  introduced  by  regional 

regulations in 2016.  

109  Italy subsequently clarified that the Italian Law (RD 1775/1933) establishes the length of authorisations (e.g. 

15 years for industrial authorisations). 

170 

 
 
                                                      
provisions of RBMPs or their objectives. Legislation does, however, include provisions 
to  review  permits  on  the  basis  of  “minimum  flows”  (as  set  out  in  national 
legislation)110.  

The RBMP for the Sicily RBD states that water permits are revised through decrees at 
the  regional  level  (decreti  di  concessione).  Information  could  not  be  found  regarding 
when  and  how  often  these  revisions  take  place.  Nonetheless,  the  RBMP  contains  a 
relevant measure: revision of the procedures for the granting or renewal of withdrawal 
authorisations,  in  consideration  of  the  definitions  of  water  balance  and  the  Minimum 
Vital Flow. There is no information about how, when and how often water permits will 
be revised in the Central Apennines RBD, but there is one relevant measure: revision of 
withdrawal authorisations in line with the defined water balance.  

However,  there  is  very  little  information  available  about  both  the  funding  source  and 
budget of the concerned specific measures, and the budget for larger measure packages 
seems  rather  short  for  addressing  concessional  reviews  on  a  larger  basis.  Therefore, 
concerns remain on implementation. 

The RBMPs include measures to review abstraction permits, and illustrate that progress 
towards implementing the Commission's recommendation has been made.111 

Furthermore, in the RBMPs for both Sicily RBD and the Central Apennines RBD, no 
information could be found on the conditions under which permits can be refused112. 

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled.  

110 Italy subsequently clarified that a specific measure, foreseen in the RBMPs, was carried out in this context for 
the transition from “minimum vital flows” to ecological flows. In this regard, new directives for the evaluation 
ex ante of the water concessions and for the calculation of Ecological Flows were approved in each RBD.  
111 Italy subsequently clarified that according to the RD 1775/1933, it is possible to review the authorisations to 

conform the abstractions to the preservation of ecological flows.  

112 Italy subsequently clarified that the Italian Law regulates when requests for derivations can be rejected, based 

on ex-ante evaluations of environmental sustainability.  

171 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture  

11.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

The main pressures from agriculture have not changed since the publication of the first RBMP. 
All  RBMPs  refer  to  agriculture  as  a  significant  pressure  due  to  diffuse  pollution113,  114  and 
abstractions.  Hydromorphological  pressures  from  agriculture  are  cited  in  some  RBMPs. 
Agricultural point sources have not been identified as an important pressure. A gap assessment 
for pressure reductions was only reported for nutrients in the Southern Apennines RBD.  

KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture, KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil 
erosion  and  surface  run-off,  KTM2  -  Reduce  nutrient  pollution  from  agriculture,  KTM23  - 
Natural water retention measures, KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture are in 
all  RBDs.  KTM13  -  Drinking  water  protection  measures  (for  example,  establishment  of 
safeguard  zones,  buffer  zones  etc.)  have  been  established  in  all  RBDs,  except  the  Northern 
Apennines RBD where this type of measure has not been reported115. Measures are of a basic 
(the minimum requirement to be complied with) and supplementary nature. In the Padan RBD 
(the  RBD  that  has  been  assessed  in  more  detail)  the  Programme  of  Measures  does  not 
explicitly  state  which  measures  are  mandatory  and  which  are  voluntary  at  a  district  level, 
although some regions do. The Programme of Measures refers to a database of measures where 
such information should be available, however, the link to the database is not provided in the 
Programme of Measures. 

In  relation  to  KTM  13,  "Drinking  water  protection  measures  (for  example,  establishment  of 
safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.)" in the Padan RBD a review of the rules on safeguard areas 
is reported as being planned, including a review of the methodology for defining the perimeter 
of  such  areas.  Moreover,  the  recharge  areas  of  aquifers  belonging  to  deep  and  intermediate 
hydro-structures  are  expected  to  be  re-delineated  at  greater  scale  in  order  to  improve  the 
cartographic reference base for the definition of measures to protect these groundwater bodies, 
which is particularly important in view of their use for drinking water. 

113  The RBMP for the Padan RBD, for example, includes a detailed estimate of the nutrient load in its analysis of 

pressures. 

114  In  the  Eastern  Alps  RBMP,  a  detailed  identification  of  pressures  and  impacts  and  a  rigorous  approach  for 
defining the significance of pressures is provided, as well as a clearer link between pressures and measures.  
115  Italy  subsequently  stated  that  these  KTMs  are  included  in  the  Northern  Apennines  RBD,  this  might  be  a 

reporting error. 

172 

 
 
                                                      
Legally  binding  measures  taken  under  Article  11(3)(h)  are  covered  in  all  RBDs.  The 
implementation  of  basic  measures  under  Article  11(3)(h)  for  the  control  of  diffuse  pollution 
from  agriculture  at  source  have  been  applied  only  in  Nitrate  Vulnerable  Zones  in  the  Sicily 
RBD,  the  Southern  Apennines  RBD,  the  Serchio  RBD  and  the  Eastern  Alps  RBD.  In  the 
Sardinia RBD and the Central Apennines RBD there are differentiated rules for different parts 
of the RBDs, and in the Northern Apennines RBD and the Padan RBD the same rules apply 
across the whole RBD. In all RBDs, in accordance with DM 7 April 2006 for example all the 
regions that fall within the river basin have regulations in place (binding controls/requirements 
at farm level) that address the problem of diffuse nutrient pollution (nitrates and phosphorus) 
outside  Nitrate  Vulnerable  Areas,  pesticides  pollution,  as  well  as  organic  pollution  and 
microbial contamination. 

Nitrates are covered by the general binding rules to control diffuse pollution from agriculture 
in  all  RBDs.  Phosphorus  is  covered  by  the  general  binding  rules  in  all  RBDs  except  in  the 
Serchio RBD and the Eastern Alps RBD. Pesticides are covered in the Eastern Alps RBD, the 
Padan  RBD,  the  Northern  Apennines  RBD,  the  Central  Apennines  RBD,  the  Southern 
Apennines  RBD,  and  Sardinia  RBD116.  Organic  Pollution  is  covered  in  the  Padan  RBD,  the 
Northern  Apennines  RBD,  the  Southern  Apennines  RBD  and  Sardinia  RBD.  Microbial 
pollution is covered in the Padan RBD, the Northern Apennines RBD, the Southern Apennines 
RBD and the Sardinia RBD.  

Farmers/Farmers' Unions have been consulted under the Public Consultation process.  

Financing of agricultural measures was reported as secured in all RBDs, except the Northern 
Apennines RBD117. Information on planned investments has been partly reported, as in the first 
RBMP.  

Information on past expenditure has only partly been reported. 

11.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Based on the information reviewed, Italy has made progress in introducing measures related to 
address  agricultural  pollution,  including  initiatives  at  national  level  as  well  as  specific 
measures taken at RBD and regional level.  

116  Italy  subsequently  informed  the  European  Commission  that  it  established  a  national  action  plan  for  the 

sustainable use of phytosanitary products (i.e. pesticides). 

117  Italy  subsequently  stated  that  the  Northern  Apennines  RBMP  includes  basic  measures  financed  by  the  CAP 
and supplementary measures financed both by the Regional and National Rural Development Programmes. 

173 

 
 
                                                      
11.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  Agriculture  is  indicated  as  exerting  a  significant  pressure  on  the 
water resource in most Italian RBDs, both from point and diffuse source pollution from 
livestock  raising,  as  well  as  abstractions,  hydro-morphological  pressures  and  diffuse 
source pollution for crops. 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 Common Agricultural Policy 
funds  can  adequately  set  up  Rural  Development  programmes  and  cross  compliance 
water requirements. 

Assessment:  Agriculture  is  one  of  the  four  fundamental  pillars  for  the  Padan  RMBP 
and  Programme  of  Measures.  Among  the  key  areas  of  focus  are  protection  against 
nitrates of agricultural origin (Directive 91/676118) and integration with the priorities set 
by  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  and  the  Rural  Development  Programmes.  The 
Programme  of  Measures  mentions  the  Commission  recommendation  and  the  bilateral 
meeting with the European Commission of September 2013 and explains that in March 
2014,  to  address  this  recommendation,  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture,  in  collaboration 
with  the  Ministry  of  Environment,  issued  an  ‘Agriculture  Action  Plan  -  Strategic 
guidelines  for  the  definition  and  implementation  of  the  programmes  of  measures 
relating  to  the  agricultural  sector  in  the  second  cycle  of  management  plans  ’  which 
constituted  a  general  strategic  approach  for  the  preparation  of  the  Programme  of 
Measures for the second RBMP.  

Consequently,  the  RBMP  and  Programme  of  Measures  indicate  that  they  are 
implementing the Action Plan; while the PoM includes a range of measures to address 
agricultural impacts it does not clearly specify the measures or actions directly related 

118  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  

174 

 
 
                                                      
 
to  this  Action  Plan119.  The  RBMP  also  reports  that  in  preparation  for  the  RBMP  and 
Programme  of  Measures,  the  Padan  RBD  Authority,  its  regions  and  the  Ministries  of 
Environment  and  Agriculture  developed  a  2013  document  on  the  ‘Integration  of  Po 
RBMP measures with the 2014-2020 RDP measures’: this was intended to harmonise 
the Programme of Measures and RDP actions related to agricultural pressures on water 
in  the  Padan  RBD120.  The  PoM  includes  measures  that  are  linked  to  national  and 
regional RDPs, for example for the mitigation of agricultural impacts, to be correlated 
with  RDP  measures  for  WFD  and  Habitats  Directive  payments121.  In  summary,  the 
RBMP and Programme of Measures for the Padan RBD indicate that priority was given 
and  a  strategic  approach  was  taken  to  address agricultural  pressures.  The  information 
does not indicate, however, whether this was developed with the farming community. 
Moreover,  a  baseline  is  not  presented,  nor  are  details  –  such  as  which  Programme  of 
Measures  and  which  RDP  measures  are  involved  –  that  would  show  that  a  complete 
this 
strategy 
recommendation has not been entirely fulfilled. 

in  place122.  Whilst  considerable  progress  has  been  made 

is 

A  gap  assessment  can  only  be  found  for  nutrients  in  the  Southern  Apennines  RBD. 
Legally  binding  measures  taken  under  Article  1(3)(h)  are  taken  in  all  RBDs.  In  the 
Padan  RBD,  there  are  both  basic  and  supplementary  measures  linked  to  KTM  2  - 
"Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture" and KTM 3 - "Reduce pesticides pollution 
from agriculture". 

Annex 7.5 to the Programme of Measures presents a “Methodological proposal for an 
ex-ante  evaluation  of  the  effectiveness  and  of  the  progress  of  the  plan”  (an 
experimental  approach  to  the  gap  analysis).  The  methodology  proposed  for  the  gap 
analysis was reported to be a starting point for future developments and to be applied 
during  the  preparation  of  the  third  cycle  Programme  of  Measures,  when  the 
implementation  of  individual  knowledge  and  governance  measures  of  the  second 
RBMP will have ensured a lower level of uncertainty for certain data. It is therefore not 
clear  what  contribution measures  to  implement  the  Nitrates Directive,  basic  measures 

119  Italy  subsequently  stated  that  to  ensure  that  the  PoM  also  included  the  actions  envisaged  by  this  Plan,  a 
consistency  analysis  was  carried  out  between  the  actions  integrated  in  the  Agriculture  Action  Plan  and  the 
individual measures of the PoM. 

120  http://pianoacque.adbpo.it/piano-di-gestione-e-agricoltura-integrazione-del-programma-di-misure/).  
121   All the measures of Pillar 2 of the PoM, but also some indicated for the other Pillars. 
122 Italy subsequently stated that to regulate and control widespread sources of pollutants of agricultural origin, a 
broader  strategic  framework  is  implemented  at  a  regional  level,  which  includes,  on  the  one  hand,  the 
implementation of the PAN ("Piano di azione nazionale per l'uso sostenibile dei prodotti fitosanitari") and, on 
the  other  hand,  the  implementation  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy,  through  the  regional  Rural 
Development Programmes. 

175 

 
 
                                                      
under Article 11(3) of the WFD, basic measures included in Pillar 1 (GAEC, greening) 
of the Common Agricultural Policy and supplementary measures under Pillar 2 of the 
Common Agricultural Policy can make to achieve good status.  

A gap analysis is included in the RBMPs and aims to:  

o  study  in  depth  the  relationships  between  the  significant  pressures  and  their 
magnitude,  according  to  the  percentage  of  water  bodies  yet  to  achieve  good 
status and the reference KTM measures; 

o  provide  an estimate  of the relevance of the planned KTMs with  respect  to  the 

number of bodies of water involved, and; 

o  provide  the  initial  scenario  of  the  financial  coverage  of  the  KTM  measures 
planned on the basis of which it will be possible to evaluate the progress of the 
measures and the capacity of the system responsible for the implementation of 
the DQA to overcome the present and reported obstacles. 

Further actions to  address  agricultural  impacts include the implementation  at regional 
level of the National action plan for the sustainable use of phytosanitary products (i.e. 
pesticides)123  and  the  Programme  of  Measures  for  the  Padan  RBD  to  implement  this 
action plan.  

Italy’s  RBMPs  also  include  measures  to  address  abstraction  by  agriculture,  including 
strengthening  controls  on  groundwater  abstractions,  promoting  water  savings  in 
agriculture  and  reviewing  abstraction  concessions  (see  Topic  10  for  further  details). 
Further  measures  address  the  measurement  and  pricing  of  water  in  agriculture, 
including  national  guidelines  on  methodologies  for  the  quantification  of  volumes  of 
water used and on water pricing (see Topic 14 for further details)124.  

Moreover,  Italy’s  RBMPs  include  an  overall  analysis  to  link  pressures  and  measures 
(see Topic 9). For the Padan RBMP, for example, this analysis is carried out at the level 
of individual water bodies.  

123  The  National  action  plan  was  developed  in  the  context  of  Directive  2009/128/EC  on  the  sustainable  use  of 

pesticides. For further information, see:  
http://www.minambiente.it/pagina/piano-dazione-nazionale-pan-luso-sostenibile-dei-prodotti-fitosanitari  
124  Italy subsequently informed the European Commission that a major effort has been undertaken to implement 
the  ex-ante  conditionality  of  the  Partnership  Agreement  (under  Cohesion  Policy)  on  metering  of  water  for 
agricultural  uses.  Italy  also  informed  the  European  Commission  that  the  Padan  RBMP  includes  several 
measures  in  this  area,  prepared  in  coordination  with  the  measures  of  the  national  and  regional  Rural 
Development Programmes.   

176 

 
 
                                                      
 
  Recommendation:  Introduce  binding  requirements  for  farmers  to  improve  nutrient 
balances  (measures  oriented  towards  manure  handling  and  recycling,  decrease 
nutrients discharges, etc.). 

Assessment:  A  gap  assessment  can  only  be  found  for  nutrients  in  the  Southern 
Apennines RBD. Legally binding measures taken under Article 1(3)(h) are taken in all 
RBDs. The implementation of basic measures Article 11(3)(h) for the control of diffuse 
pollution  from  agriculture  at  source  apply  only  in  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones125.  In  the 
Sardinia  RBD  and  the  Central  Apennines  RBD  there  are  differentiated  rules  for 
different parts of the RBDs and in the Northern Apennines RBD and the Padan RBD 
the  same  rules  apply  across  the  whole  RBD.  Farmers/Farmers'  Unions  have  been 
consulted  under  the  Public  Consultation  process.  This  recommendation  has  been 
partially fulfilled. 

125  Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  Italian  Regions  were  obliged  to  transpose  into  regional  legislation  the 
provisions of the national legislation that introduced compulsory obligations also in agricultural areas outside 
Nitrates  Vulnerable  Zones.  These  rules  are  as  stringent  as  the  rules  detailed  in  the  Action  Programmes  for 
Nitrates Vulnerable Zones. 

177 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 12

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than 

agriculture  

12.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

In  the  context  of  this  topic,  pollution  is  considered  in  terms  of  nutrients,  organic  matter, 
sediment, saline discharges and chemicals (priority substances, river basin specific pollutants, 
groundwater  pollutants  and  other  physico-chemical  parameters)  arising  from  all  sectors  and 
sources  apart  from  agriculture.  KTM  are  groups  of  measures  identified  by  Member  States  in 
their  Programmes  of  Measures  which  target  the  same  pressure  or  purpose.  A  KTM  could  be 
one national measure but would typically comprise more than one national measure. The same 
individual measure can also be part of more than one KTM because it may be multipurpose, 
but also because the KTMs are not completely independent of one another. 

A total of 14 KTMs relevant to non-agricultural sources of pressures causing failure of WFD 
objectives were reported for Italy. These KTMs include: 

KTM 1 - “Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants”126 

KTM4  -  "Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical  pollution  including  sediments, 
groundwater, soil)" 

KTM 14 - "Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty" 

KTM15  –  "Measures  for  the  phasing-out  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  Priority 
Hazardous  Substances  or  for  the  reduction  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  Priority 
Substances" 

KTM16  –  "Upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial  wastewater  treatment  plants  (including 
farms)" 

KTM17 – "Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off" and 

KTM 21 - “Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport 
and built infrastructure”.  

126  Italy  mentioned  that  since  2012  considerable  sums  both  from  national  and  European  funds  have  been 
programmed and allocated on sewerage and wastewater sectors at national level. The total amount is estimated 
at approximately 2 billion Euro.  

178 

 
 
                                                      
However, for the Padan RBD, the North Apennines RBD, Serchio RBD and Sicily RBD the 
KTMs were not linked to specific substances causing failure in the reporting in WISE. 

The  WFD  specifies  that  Programmes  of  Measures  shall  include,  as  a  minimum,  “basic 
measures” and, where necessary to achieve objectives, “supplementary measures” when basic 
measures are not enough to address specific significant pressures. Quantitative information on 
basic  and  supplementary  measures  used  to  tackle  pollution  from  non-agricultural  sources 
(number  of  measures  per  KTM)  has  been  provided  for  four  out  of  eight  RBDs  in  Italy,  and 
includes 10 types of basic measure. 

In  the  Programmes  of  Measures  for  the  Padan  and  the  North  Apennines  RBDs  (which  were 
reviewed in more detail), the measures were described in a general manner but there was not 
enough  detail  available  to  understand  if  all  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  to  reach 
environmental  objectives  were  being  addressed  by  these  measures.  The  assessment  showed 
that  the  most  relevant  measures  planned  to  address  Priority  Substances  were  those  linked  to 
KTMs 14 and 15127: 

Related to KTM 14, specific measures include: 

 

 

Increase knowledge about the natural background level of specific priority substances 
and specific pollutants; 

Increase  knowledge  about  the  pressures  and  loads  of  point  and  diffuse  pollutants  and 
their mechanisms of dispersal in surface and groundwater ; 

  Creation  of  an  organised  and  homogeneous  information  basis  at  district  level  for  the 

compilation of the inventory of priority substances, and; 

  Adaptation of water body monitoring plans for priority substances in accordance with 

Directive 2013/39128 and for the purposes of the inventory. 

For KTM15, linked measures include:  

  Adjustment of the limits of quantification for the determination of priority substances; 

127 Italy subsequently clarified that the lists provided for KTM 14 and 15 are not exhaustive, as they do not take 
into account the complexity of measures identified to address the issue and referred also to KTM 1, 4, 13, 15 
and 16.  

128 Directive 2013/39/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 amending Directives 

2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards priority substances in the field of water policy  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32013L0039  

179 

 
 
                                                      
 
  Control  of  major  hazard  accidents  associated  with  certain  hazardous  substances  as 

defined in Directive 2012/18, and; 

  Rules for discharges containing priority substances under Directive 2013/39. 

In both Programme of Measures for the Padan and the North Apennines RBDs, the measures 
addressing River Basin Specific Pollutants were described in a general manner129.  

Italy provided more targeted information on basic measures required under Article 11(3)(c to 
k).  Use  of  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regimes  to  control  wastewater  point  source 
discharges (Basic measures Article 11(3)(g)) was reported for all Italian RBDs for surface and 
groundwater.  A  register  of  wastewater  discharges  (Basic  measures  Article  11(3)(g))  was 
reported to be implemented in seven out of eight Italian RBDs for surface and groundwater. In 
the  Sicily  RBD  there  was  no  register  of  wastewater  discharges  reported.  There  are  no 
thresholds  below  which  wastewater  discharges  do  not  require  permits  and  are  not  subject  to 
registration  in  seven  out  of  eight  Italian  RBDs.  According  to  the  reporting  in  WISE,  small 
discharges do not require permits but are all registered in the North Apennines RBD. There is a 
prohibition of all direct discharges to groundwater (Article 11(3)(j)) in six out of eight Italian 
RBDs. Some direct discharges are authorised in accordance with Article 11(3)(j) in the Eastern 
Alps RBD and Sicily RBDs.  

There  are  measures  reported  to  be  in  place  to  eliminate/reduce  pollution  from  Priority 
Substances and other substances in all RBDs in Italy. 

12.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle  

In the first RBMPs substance-specific measures (directed at 16 substances) were listed only for 
the  North  Apennines  RBD,  whereas  for  the  second  RBMPs  KTMs  were  reported  for 
significant  pressures  from  specific  Priority  Substances  and  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants 
causing  non-compliance  for  the  Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  North  Apennines,  Serchio,  Central 
Apennines, South Apennines and Sardinia RBDs.  

12.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

129 Italy subsequently clarified that, for the North Apennines RBD, in addition to the RBMPs there are sub-plans 
(i.e.  Water  Protection  Plans,  Local  Integrated  Water  Service  Plans)  which  also  include  more  detailed 
information on measures. 

180 

 
 
                                                      
  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,  and  where  there  are  exceedances  how  such  exceedances 
have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status. It is important that 
there  is  an  ambitious  approach  to  combatting  chemical  pollution  and  that  adequate 
measures are put in place. 

Assessment:  In  terms  of  Topic  12,  the  second  RBMPs  reported  KTMs  tackling 
chemical pollution but the links between KTMs and specific substances causing failure 
were not reported for several RBDs. 

This recommendation is considered partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Include  substance-specific  as  well  as  general  measures  against 

chemical pollution in its second RBMPs. 

Assessment: In both RBMPs assessed (the Padan and North Apennines RBDs), general 
measures are planned to tackle chemical pollution (linked to KTM 15- "Measures for 
the  phasing-out  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  Priority  Hazardous  Substances 
or  for  the  reduction  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  Priority  Substances"  and 
KTM14- "Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty"). Annexed 
to the RBMP are a set of fact sheets for each water body where measures are listed and 
which also contain links to information on individual measures. From the information 
provided it has been concluded that this recommendation has been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Identify the extent of the problem from Urban Wastewater Directive 
in Article 5 analysis – pressures from discharge of urban wastewater - for the second 
RBMPs  cycle  (this  should  be  clearly  and  transparently  presented,  also  for  small 
agglomerations).  

Assessment:    Use  of  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regimes  to  control  wastewater 
point  source  discharges  (Basic  measures  Article  11(3)(g))  was  reported  for  all  Italian 
RBDs  for  surface  and  groundwater.  A  register  of  wastewater  discharges  (Basic 
measures Article 11(3)(g)) was reported to be implemented in seven out of eight Italian 
RBDs  for  surface  and  groundwater.  In  the  Sicily  RBD  there  was  no  register  of 
wastewater discharges reported.  

181 

 
 
The gap to good status for pressures from urban wastewater treatment, which would 
allow an assessment of the extent of the problem, was not reported to WISE, while it 
seems to have been done in some RBDs. This recommendation is partly fulfilled. 

182 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology  

13.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

Significant  hydromorphological  pressures  are  identified  in  all  RBDs.  The  significant 
hydromorphological  pressures  have  been  assigned  to  specific  sectors  and  the  dominating 
uses/sectors related to  such  pressures are  flood protection, agriculture and transport. In  some 
cases, hydromorphological pressures are not assigned to one of the specified sectors according 
to WISE (sector was reported as “other”). In a few RBDs (for example, the Padan RBD and 
Sardinia RBD), for the majority of water bodies affected by hydromorphological pressures, the 
specific  sector  linked  to  these  pressures  has  been  reported  as  either  unknown/obsolete  or 
“other”. 

Operational KTMs to tackle specific significant hydromorphological pressures are reported for 
seven of eight  all RBDs (the Eastern Alps, the Central Apennines, the South Apennines,  Po, 
North  Apennines,  Serchio  and  the  Sardinia  RBDs).  The  main  operational  KTMs  to  address 
significant hydromorphological pressures were KTM 5 – “Improving longitudinal continuity” 
(for  example,  establishing  fish  passes,  demolishing  old  dams),  KTM6  –  “Improving 
hydromorphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than  longitudinal  continuity”,  KTM7  – 
“Improvements  in  flow  regime  and/or  establishment  of  ecological  flows”  and  KTM14  – 
“Research, improvement of knowledge base”. 

Even if hydromorphological measures have been included in the RBMPs, these measures are 
not  described  in  depth  and  they  are  not  explicitly  linked  to  a  specific  hydromorphological 
pressure,  noting  that  it  was  difficult  to  gather  knowledge  on  hydromorphological  pressures, 
because  data  are  held  by  bodies  other  than  the  regional  governments  and  regional 
environmental  agencies  preparing  the  RBMPs.  Overall  management  objectives  in  terms  of 
restoring  river  continuity  have  been  set  in  most  of  RBDs  (the  Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  Serchio, 
Northern Apennines, the South Apennines, Sardinia RBD, Sicily RBD). In the Sardinia RBD, 
these objectives are also quantitative. No such objectives are set for the other RBD. 

In  terms  of  basic  measures,  there  is  an  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  in  place  to 
control  physical  modifications,  which  covers  changes  to  the  riparian  area  of  water  bodies 
according to WFD Article 11(3)(i) in all RBDs. A register of physical modifications of water 
bodies is  in  place  in  three  RBDs  (the  Central  Apennines,  the  South  Apennines,  and  Sardinia 
RBD). 

183 

 
 
Win-win  measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods  Directive130, 
drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) were reported as 
included  in  the  Programme  of  Measures  of  all  RBDs.  KTM23  –  “Natural  water  retention 
measures”  is  applied  for  flood  protection  pressures  in  the  Eastern  Alps  RBD  and  for 
agricultural  diffuse  pollution  (not  related  to  hydromorphological  pressures)  in  the  Central 
Apennines  RBD.  Also  the  RBMPs  of  further  RBDs  may  include  references  to  green 
infrastructure  and  natural  water  retention  measures.  For  example,  the  RBMP  for  the  Padan 
RBD  discusses  the  link  between  green  infrastructure  and  the  Floods  Directive  and  refers  to 
measures such as the creation of buffer strips/filter ecosystems along the natural and artificial 
network of plains. 

The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and 
tidal  barriers,  was  reported  to  have  been  adapted  to  take  into  account  WFD  objectives  in  all 
RBDs, except in the Sicily RBD. 

Ecological  flows  have  been  derived  for  all  relevant  water  bodies  only  in  two  RBDs  (the 
Eastern  Alps  and  Sardinia  RBD).  In  these  two  RBDs,  ecological  flows  which  have  been 
derived have been partly implemented and the work is still on-going. In the remaining RBDs, 
ecological  flows  have  not  been  derived.  However,  in  the  majority  of  them  (the  North 
Apennines, Serchio, the Central Apennines, the South Apennines and Sicily RBDs) there are 
plans  to  do  so  during  the  second  cycle.  In  one  other  RBD  (Padan  RBD),  the  analysis  of  the 
Programme of Measures shows that there is one measure aimed at defining the ecological flow: 
'Revision  of  the  Minimum  Vital  Flow,  definition  of  the  ecological  flow  and  control  of  its 
implementation on the territory'.  

However, the analysis of the RBMPs shows that there are measures related to the definition of 
criteria for the derivation and regulation of the releases to ensure a Minimum Vital Flow and 
measures for updating the Minimum Vital Flow. Minimum Vital Flow is defined by Italian law 
as the flow rate to be determined in each homogeneous part of the water body that guarantees 
the  protection  of  the  physical,  chemical-physical  and  ecological  characteristics  of  the  water 
body. Although the definition of the Minimum Vital Flow includes principles underlying the 
definition of ecological flow, it is not a concept identical to ecological flow. 131 

130 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 

131 Italy subsequently informed that new directives for the transition from Minimum Vital Flow to ecological flow 
have  been  approved  for  all  Italian  RBDs.  The  directives,  in  force  from  the  date  of  approval,  are  primarily 
aimed  at  ensuring  that  the  criteria  for  determining  ecological  flows  guarantee  full  compliance  with  the 
indications expressed in the CIS Guidance Document no. 31.   

184 

 
 
                                                      
Indicators on the gap to be filled for significant hydromorphological pressures and KTM value 
indicators were reported for 2015, 2021 and 2027 for four of the eight RBDs (the Eastern Alps, 
the  Central  Apennines,  the  South  Apennines,  and  Sardinia  RBD).  From  the  information 
available, it was reported that there is expected to be considerable progress in closing the gap 
by  2021  in  terms  of  all  types  of  significant  hydromorphological  pressures  (physical  and 
hydrological  alterations,  continuity  barriers).  The  gap  is  expected  to  be  fully  closed  by  2027 
except for certain continuity barriers in the Central Apennines RBD. 

13.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

In  the  first  RBMPs,  few  water  bodies  were  reported  as  being  subject  to  significant 
hydromorphological  pressures.  Although  measures  to  address  hydromorphological  pressures 
were  included  in  the  Programme  of  Measures  of  all  RBDs,  the  links  between  these  and  the 
water use or pressure they addressed were only described in broad terms, if at all. 

In the second RBMPs, as the effect of a more rigorous analysis of pressures, the proportion of 
surface water bodies reported to be affected by significant hydromorphological pressures has 
significantly increased. KTMs to tackle such pressures were reported as operational in seven of 
the  eight  RBDs.  The  Programmes  of  Measures  indicate  that  some  of  the  planned 
hydromorphological measures are amongst those that have been reviewed for the second cycle, 
to  ensure  consistency  with  other  processes  such  as  the  Rural  Development  Programmes,  the 
National  Action  Plan  for  sustainable  use  of  water  and  to  reinforce  the  synergies  with  the 
Operational  Programmes  financed  through  Cohesion  Policy.  Further  hydromorphological 
measures,  so  called  win-win  measures,  are  as  well  those  identified  in  the  Flood  Risk 
Management  Plan,  as  they  pursue  both  the  objectives  of  Directive  2000/60  and  those  of 
Directive 2007/60. 

13.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation: 

Improve  substantially 

the 

information  on  hydromorphological 

pressures  for  the  second  RBMPs.  Measures  should  be  included  in  the  Programme  of 
Measures to tackle hydromorphological pressures.  

to 

Assessment:  Due 
information  on  significant 
improved  WISE  reporting, 
hydromorphological  pressures  in  each  RBD  and  links  to  sectors  is  more  comprehensive 
with clear indications of the numbers of water bodies affected. The share of surface water 

the 

185 

 
 
bodies reported as affected by significant hydromorphological pressures has significantly 
increased. In general, the significant hydromorphological pressures are assigned to specific 
sectors with a few exceptions (for example, in some cases in the Padan RBD and Sardinia 
RBD),  where  for  most  water  bodies  affected  by  hydromorphological  pressures,  the 
specific sector linked to these pressures is either unknown/obsolete or “other”. Operational 
KTMs to tackle the hydromorphological pressures are reported for all RBDs. Based on the 
information based, this recommendation can be considered fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Consider and prioritise the use of green infrastructure and/or natural 
water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements in water 
quality,  increase  of  water  infiltration,  aquifer  recharge,  flood  protection,  habitat 
conservation etc.), social  and economic benefits which can be in  many cases more cost-
effective than grey infrastructure.  

Assessment:  KTM23-Natural  water  retention  measures  is  applied  for  flood  protection 
pressures  in  the  Eastern  Alps  RBD  and  in  the  Padan  RBD,  and  for  agricultural  diffuse 
pollution  (not  related  to  hydromorphological  pressures)  in  the  Central  Apennines  RBD. 
Also  the  RBMPs  of  further  RBDs  may  include  references  to  green  infrastructure  and 
natural  water  retention measures.  For  example,  the  RBMP  for  the  Padan  RBD  discusses 
the link between green infrastructure and the Floods Directive and refers to measures such 
as the creation of buffer strips/filter ecosystems along the natural and artificial network of 
plains.  Priority  is  given  to  the  use  of  natural  water  retention  measures  and  green 
infrastructure measures in the planning process, under a provision set out in the national 
law132. For example, in the RBMP for the Padan RBD, when presenting synergies with the 
Flood  Risk  Management  Plans,  there  is  clear  reference  to  the  prioritisation  of  green 
infrastructure. It is clearly stated that flood protection measures should be designed in such 
a way as to provide the widest possible spectrum of ecosystem services. 

Based on the information found, this recommendation has been fulfilled. 

132 Decree Law of 2014, n.133 

186 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 14

  Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

14.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

On the national level, water services and uses are defined according to the Ministerial Decree 
39/2015(MD  39/2015),  which  lists  the  following  water  services:  integrated  water  service 
(drinking  water  abstraction  and  treatment  and  sewage  collection  and  wastewater  treatment); 
rainwater collection and sewerage; industrial water services, including abstraction, distribution 
and  treatment;  irrigation  water  abstraction,  treatment  and  distribution;  water  services  for  the 
regulation  of  Lakes  Maggiore,  Como,  Iseo  and  Garda;  services  for  the  management  of 
reservoirs  (for  hydroelectricity,  bathing,  navigation,  water  sports  and  other);  services  for 
hydraulic protection; water services for the management of natural water courses and hydraulic 
works, and multi-sectoral water services (Allegato A - Annex A - of the Decree). 

However,  the  individual  RBMPs  define  water  services  differently133.  Overall,  only  in  some 
RBDs  is  self-abstraction  included  as  water  service.  In  most  cases,  a  very  narrow  or  narrow 
definition of water services is used (only the RBMP of the Padan refers to the broad definition 
of the Ministerial Decree 39/2015). Only for some water services, an overall cost recovery rate 
is given (always 100 %).  

It  is  not  clearly  explained  in  some  RBMPs  if  these  cost  recovery  rates  per  water  service  are 
disaggregated  to  contributions  from  different  water  users.  Also,  the  information  on  which 
sectors benefit from a water service (sometimes including additional ones  beyond household, 
industry, agriculture) as well as if and how users contribute to cost recovery, differs from RBD 
to RBD. 

Article 9(4) is indicated as being applied for navigation in three RBDs (Northern Apennines, 
Serchio  and  Southern  Apennines),  while  water  storage  is  indicated  as  a  use  for  one  RBD 
(Serchio). Article 9(4) used is indicated in WISE not to be used for any other water services134. 

A  methodology  for  the  calculation  of  environmental  and  resource  costs  is  given  at  national 
level,  in  Ministerial  Decree  39/2015  (and  the  guidelines  attached  to  the  decree).  The  Decree 
has  introduced  a  cost-based  approach  which  defines  environmental  and  resource  costs  as  the 

133 Italy subsequently clarified that, in accordance with Ministerial Decree 39/2015, in the RBMPs each RBD has 
identified  water  services  and  uses  relevant  for  its  territory  on  the  basis  of  the  pressure  and  impact  analysis 
carried out in accordance with the WFD. Self-abstraction is taken into consideration if relevant. 

134 Italy subsequently clarified that this is a reporting mistake in WISE and that Article 9(4) has not been used. 

187 

 
 
                                                      
costs  of  measures  required  to  fill  the  gap  to  achieve  the  good  water  status  objective.  In  this 
context, measures already in place and implemented are considered as financial costs whereas 
the  costs  of  measures  to  be  implemented  to  fill  the  gap  between  the  actual  situation  and  the 
status objective are considered as environmental and resource costs. Most RBMPs refer to this 
methodology,  but  indicate  that  it  has  not  yet  been  applied  and  indicate  the  calculation, 
significance and partial internalisation for water services relevant for the District on the basis 
of the analysis of pressures and impacts and taking into account the affordability. 

Information about incentive pricing is not included in any of the RBMPs135. 

The  Polluter  Pays  Principle  is  mentioned  in  most  RBMPs,  mostly  with  reference  to  the 
respective national legislation (Article 119 of D. Lgs 152/2006, which inter alia transposes the 
WFD - this Article refers to the Polluter Pays Principle).  

Volumetric pricing is partially applied in Italy. However, for irrigation the situation may vary 
from  region  to  region.  The  Ministry  of  Agriculture  released  the  "National  guidelines  to  the 
Regions on the methodologies for the volume quantification of water used for irrigation", that 
provide  for  the  transmission  of  data  functional  to  the  quantification  of  irrigation  volumes 
through  appropriate  water  meters  or,  where  it  is  technically  impossible  or  economically 
unfavourable,  to  provide  for  estimates  through  a  shared  estimation  methodology  at  national 
level. 

The  economic  analysis  was  reported  as  updated  in  six  RBDs,  while  for  two  it  has  been 
"partially updated" (in Sicily and Southern Apennines). 

14.2 Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMPs  and  first  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 transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource 

135 Italy subsequently explained that the requirements for incentive pricing are laid down by national provisions 
which require financial tools to be applied to the different services and uses to incentivise the efficient use of 
water resources. 

188 

 
 
                                                      
costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on 
the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring 
an efficient use of water.  

Assessment:  On  the  national  level,  water  services  are  defined  according  to  the 
Ministerial  Decree  39/2015,  which  lists  a  broad  range  of  water  services.  Reportedly 
self-abstraction is analyzed only in those RBMPs where it has a significant relevance. 

However, the individual RBMPs have carried out the economic analysis for the water 
services considered significant in the respective River Basin Districts:  

o  The  RBMP  of  the  Padan  refers  to  the  water  services  indicated  by  Ministerial 
Decree  39/2015.  Financial  costs  are  included  for  integrated  services  for  drinking 
water  abstraction  and  treatment  and  sewage  collection  and  wastewater  treatment, 
calculated and the recovery rate is 100 %. The RBMP also presents a table showing 
connections between water services, significant water uses, potential pressures and 
measures to address them. 

o  The  RBMP  of  the  Central  Apennines  indicates  two  "other"  water  services  ("uso 
civile"  and  "uso  irriguo")  in  application  of  the  provisions  of  MD  39/2015.  
Financial costs are included for the integrated water service named "uso civile" and 
only  partially  for  irrigation  named  "uso  irriguo",  for  both  costs  are  calculated, 
leading to a cost recovery rate of 100 %. 

o  The RBMP  of the Southern Apennines  defines  as water services  all the activities 
that use the resource and/or impact the state of the water and that could prevent the 
achievement of the environmental objectives set by the WFD,  in accordance with 
the  provisions  of  Ministerial  Decree  39/2015.  In  particular,  the  pressure  impact 
analysis  in  accordance  with  the  Ministerial  Decree  refers  to  three  main  water 
services: integrated water service (drinking water collection, treatment and supply 
and  waste  water  collection  and  treatment),  irrigation  and  industrial  services. 
Financial costs are included, calculated and a cost recovery rate of 100 % given for 
drinking water abstraction/treatment/distribution and sewage collection/wastewater 
treatment 
water 
abstraction/treatment/distribution only partial inclusion is stated, no calculation and 
no  cost  recovery  rates  are  provided.  For  industry,  only  partial  inclusion  and 
calculation of financial costs, no cost recovery rates provided. 

(integrated 

irrigation 

service) 

water 

for 

189 

 
 
water 

o  The RBMP of the Serchio RBD also reports three water services, but different ones 
(drinking 
water 
abstraction/treatment/distribution, 
abstraction/treatment/distribution and self-abstraction). Financial costs are included 
and calculated only for drinking water abstraction/treatment/distribution with a cost 
recovery  rate  of  100  %,  for  irrigation,  costs  are  calculated  only  partially,  also 
leading  to  a  100  %  cost  recovery  rate.  No  calculation  of  recovery  rate  for  self-
abstraction is given. Cost recovery for self-abstraction was not calculated because 
it is not relevant for the District. 

irrigation 

and 

(drinking  water 

abstraction/treatment/distribution 

o  The  RBMPs  of  the  Eastern  Alps  and  the  Northern  Apennines  indicate  five  water 
services 
sewage 
collection/wastewater treatment, impoundment and storage of water, infrastructure 
for flood protection, irrigation water abstraction/treatment and distribution as well 
as self-abstraction). In the Eastern Alps inclusion of financial costs is stated for all 
these  water  services  ("partial"  for  irrigation  water  abstraction/treatment  and 
irrigation  water 
distribution),  while  a  calculation  was  only  done 
drinking  water 
abstraction/treatment 
abstraction/treatment/distribution  and  sewage  collection/wastewater  treatment  and 
irrigation  water  abstraction/treatment  and  distribution  are  cost  recovery  rates 
provided  (of  100  %  in  both  cases).  In  the  Northern  Apennines,  inclusion  of 
financial  costs  is  done  only  for  drinking  water  abstraction/treatment/distribution 
and sewage collection/wastewater treatment, calculation is stated for these services 
and  partial  for  irrigation  water  abstraction/treatment  and  distribution,  while  cost 
recovery rates are provided for these two, being in both cases 100 %. 

distribution.  Only 

and 

for 

for 

and 

treatment, 

abstraction/treatment/distribution 

o  The  RBMP  of  Sardinia  also  indicates  five  water  services  but  different  ones 
sewage 
(drinking 
water 
collection/wastewater 
irrigation  water  abstraction/treatment  and 
distribution,  impoundment  and  storage  of  water  and  infrastructure  for  flood 
protection (as an "other" water service), industrial ("other" water service) and self-
abstraction).  Inclusion  of  financial  costs 
indicated  for  drinking  water 
abstraction/treatment/distribution  and  sewage  collection/wastewater  treatment, 
irrigation water abstraction/treatment and distribution, impoundment and storage of 
water and infrastructure for flood protection and partially for self-abstraction, while 
calculation  is  stated  for  drinking  water  abstraction/treatment/distribution  and 
irrigation  water 
sewage  collection/wastewater 

treatment  and  partial 

for 

is 

190 

 
 
abstraction/treatment  and  distribution,  impoundment  and  storage  of  water  and 
infrastructure for flood protection (all 100 %). 

o  The RBMP of Sicily identifies three water services: drinking water, irrigation and 
industrial services. There is no clear link between the water services and pressures 
and impacts. 

Overall, only in some RBDs is self-abstraction included as water service. In most cases, 
a  very  narrow  or  narrow  definition  of  water  services  is  used.136  Only  for  some  water 
services, an overall cost recovery rate is given (always 100 %).  

The recovery of costs is carried out for uses and services having a significant impact on 
water resources taken into consideration in the economic analysis. Full cost recovery is 
ensured  by  the  existence  of  national  and  sectoral  regulations  that  foresee  that  water 
pricing  is  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  cost  recovery  principle.  Therefore  the 
information  on  which  sectors  benefit  from  a  water  service  (sometimes  including 
additional ones beyond household, industry, agriculture) as well as if users contribute 
to cost recovery differs from RBD to RBD. 

A  methodology  for  the  calculation  of  environmental  and  resource  costs  is  given  at 
national  level,  in  Ministerial  Decree  39/2015  (and  the  guidelines  attached  to  the 
decree).  Several  RBMPs  refer  to  this  methodology  and  indicate  the  calculation, 
significance  and  partial  internalisation  on  the  basis  of  the  analysis  of  pressures  and 
impacts  and  taking  into  account  the  affordability  for  water  services  relevant  in  the 
River Basin District. 

Information about incentive pricing is not included in the RBMPs137.  

In  summary,  there  has  been  partial  progress  on  the  recommendation.  The  Ministerial 
Decree  39/2015  has  delivered  some  progress,  but  needs  to  be  implemented  on  the 
regional  level.  Due  to  the  fractured  approaches  it  is  difficult  to  draw  an  overall, 
national-level conclusion. The recommendation has been partially fulfilled.  

136 Italy subsequently clarified that, in accordance with Ministerial Decree 39/2015, in the RBMPs each RBD has 
identified water services and uses relevant for its territory on the basis of the pressure impact analysis carried 
out in accordance with the WFD. Self-abstraction is taken into consideration if relevant. 

137  Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  the  requirements  for  incentive  pricing  are  laid  down  by  national  provisions 
which require financial tools to be applied to the different services and uses to incentivise the efficient use of 
water resources.   

191 

 
 
                                                      
  Recommendation  (from  2015):  Establish  in  the  second  RBMPs  cycle  an  appropriate 
water  pricing  policy  (Article  9  WFD),  in  particular  for  agriculture,  that  provides 
adequate  incentives  for  users  to  use  water  efficiently.  Both  water  provision  and  self-
abstraction  should  be  covered.  It  should  be  demonstrated  that  the  policy  provides  an 
adequate incentive for users to use water efficiently. Cost-recovery instruments should 
include all financial, environmental and resource costs.  

Assessment:  Regarding 
recommendation above. 

financial, 

environmental 

and 

resource 

costs, 

see 

Volumetric pricing is partially applied in Italy. However, the situation may vary from 
region to region.  

The obligation to measure volumes withdrawn and returned in Italy is provided by art. 
95  of  Legislative  Decree  152/06.  More  recently  in  July  2015,  the  Ministry  of 
Agriculture released "National guidelines to the Regions on the methodologies for the 
volume  quantification  of  water  used  for  irrigation"  which  have  been  implemented  at 
regional level through regional regulations.  

The overall pricing policy regarding water use is also set at the national level (through 
Ministerial Decree 39/15), but from the RBMPs it is unclear how it is implemented at 
regional level. Consequently, based on the RBMPs it is not possible to assess whether 
Italy has implemented this recommendation.  

192 

 
 
 
 
Topic 15

  Considerations specific to Protected Areas 

(identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 

15.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second RBMP 

Protected  areas  have  been  identified  for  all  relevant  Directives,  i.e.  Drinking  Water,  Bathing 
Water, Birds, Habitats, Urban Waste Water, Nitrate and Shellfish (Table 15.1). 

Table 15.1 

Number  of  protected  areas  of  all  types  in  each  RBD  of  Italy,  for  surface 
and groundwater 

Protected Area type 

Abstraction of water intended for 
human consumption under Article 7 

Recreational waters, including areas 
designated as bathing waters under 
Directive 76/160/EEC (Bathing water 
Directive)138 

Protection of species where the 
maintenance or improvement of the 
statusof water is an important factor in 
their protection, including relevant 
Natura 2000 sites designated under 
Directive 79/409/EEC (Birds139) 

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 
(Habitats140) 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including 
areas designated as vulnerable zones 
under Directive 91/676/EEC (Nitrates 
Directive141)  

Number of protected area Associated with 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Groundwater 

1 641 

99 

3 

12 249 

99 

316 

4 

2 280 

352 

75 

45 

85 

125 

979 

139 

70 

321 

587 

796 

113 

7 

76 

2 221 

138  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 

139  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 

140  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 

141  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 

193 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
Protected Area type 

Number of protected area Associated with 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Groundwater 

Areas designated as sensitive areas 
under Directive 91/271/EEC (Urban 
Wastewater Treatment Directive142) 
Areas designated for the protection of 
economically significant aquatic 
species 

Other 

52 

95 

545 

342 

53 

96 

55 

21 

82 

10 

89 

119 

343 

Source: Member States reporting to WISE 

The status assessment of Protected Areas was reported to have been carried out with high or 
medium  confidence  for  around  half  of  the  status  assessments,  but  for  14  %  of  the  Protected 
Areas no information relating to the status of water bodies associated with Protected Areas is 
available.  The  assessments  made  with  high  or  medium  confidence  should  be  based  on 
monitoring  data,  but  these  figures  are  not  consistent  with  the  very  low  monitoring  activity 
related  to  water  bodies  associated  with  Protected  Areas.  The  results  of  the  status  assessment 
are shown in Figure 15.1.  

142  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 

194 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
Figure 15.1  Status  of  water  bodies  associated  with  the  Protected  Areas  report  for  Italy. 
Note: based on status/potential aggregated for all water bodies associated with 
all Protected Areas 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Protected  areas  have  been  considered  separately  in  setting  objectives  (for  example,  generic 
objectives  have  not  simply  been  applied  in  relation  to  the  birds  and  habitats  Directives)  as 
demonstrated  by  a  range  of  options  being  used  to  describe  the  objectives  in  place  (such  as 
needs not known, objectives set, good ecological status is sufficient, specific objectives have 
been set to protect all habitats and species). For the majority of nature Protected Areas (Habitat 
and  Birds)  objectives  have  not  been  set,  either  because  additional  needs  are  not  known,  or 
because objectives have been set but work is still on-going to determine additional needs – in 
both cases meaning that additional measures cannot be identified.143  

143  Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  has  recently  published  (in  April  2018)  a 
guideline that set homogeneous criteria for the identification of the additional objectives (additional needs) in 
protected  areas,  depending  on  the  ecological  needs  of  the  species  and  habitats  present.  Link  at: 
http://www.minambiente.it/sites/default/files/archivio/allegati/trasparenza_valutazione_merito/Pianificazione_
governo_territorio/linee_guida.pdf. 

195 

 
 
 
                                                      
However,  in  the  Programmes  of  Measures  of  some  RBMPs  (e.g.  Eastern  Alps  and  Po) 
additional measures have been planned for specific studies aimed at increasing knowledge on 
the  conservation  status  of  species  and  habitats  of  community  interest  related  to  aquatic 
environments, interaction between water bodies and Natura 2000 areas and identification of the 
additional objectives for Protected Areas. 

For Article 7 areas (Drinking Water abstraction in both surface and groundwaters), objectives 
have  only  been  set  for  a  small  number  of  the  RBDs  (objectives  only  set  for  6  %  of  surface 
water Protected Areas in three RBDs and for groundwaters in only one RBD). Objectives have 
also  been  set  for  groundwater  dependent  nature areas in  a  few  RBDs  (two  RBDs  have  areas 
related to the Birds Directive and four have area related to the Habitats Directive). 

The reported monitoring program for protected areas (on the basis of the WISE reporting and 
only for the water bodies where the monitoring purpose is declared,144) is very limited (Table 
15.2); for surface water areas monitoring is only reported for four RBDs and for groundwater 
areas only  for  two RBDs. More than 2000 Protected Areas were  reported under the Habitats 
Directive but the monitoring program comprises only 194 sites. 12 000 Groundwater drinking 
water  Protected  Areas  were  reported,  but  specific  monitoring  is  only  reported  for  38  water 
bodies. Furthermore, no monitoring of groundwater dependent habitat areas or nitrate sensitive 
groundwater areas was reported.  

Table 15.2  Number of monitored water bodies associated with Protected Areas in Italy 

Protected Area type 

Abstraction of water intended for human 
consumption under Article 7 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas 
designated as vulnerable zones under 
Directive 91/676/EEC (Nitrates 
Directive) 

Areas designated as sensitive areas 
under Directive 91/271/EEC (Urban 
Wastewater Treatment Directive) 

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 

Number of monitored water bodies associated with Protected 
Areas in 

Groundwater 

River 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

38 

39 (37) 

18 (14) 

(124) 

351 
(245) 

11 (9) 

37 

72 (66) 

6 

35 

8 

6 

(17) 

79 (78) 

10 

22 

144 Italy clarified that in the reporting in WISE the monitoring purpose field may have been misunderstood by the 
competent authorities and therefore filled out in a non-exhaustive manner. For this reason the number of water 
bodies  specifically  monitored  towards  protected  areas  is  not  correctly  reported.  The  corrected  numbers  are 
included in brackets in table 15.2. 

196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Protected Area type 

Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats) 

Recreational waters, including areas 
designated as bathing waters under 
Directive 76/160/EEC (Bathing water 
Directive) 

Areas designated for the protection of 
economically significant aquatic species 

Number of monitored water bodies associated with Protected 
Areas in 

Groundwater 

River 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

(13) 

5 

14 

4 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Safeguard  Zones  have  been  established  or  plans  are  in  place  for  their  implementation  in  all 
eight RBDs. The RBMPs do not contain any details with regard to specific measures that are to 
be implemented in them, apart from measures relating to their expansion and the identification 
of related hydrogeological criteria. 

For  other  types  of  Protected  Areas,  additional  measures  are  planned  in  some  RBDs.  For 
example,  in  the  North  Apennines  RBD,  additional  measures  include  improving  wastewater 
treatment in water bodies that affect bathing waters, restoration of the longitudinal continuity 
of rivers and definition and application of ecological flows in freshwaters to support fisheries. 
For Natura 2000 areas, additional measures include interventions for the naturalisation of the 
river network and the definition and implementation of ecological flow and regulation of water 
withdrawals.  For  sensitive  areas  under  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive145, 
measures include completion and improvement of wastewater treatment. It is not clear if these 
additional measures will be sufficient to reach the objectives for Protected Areas. 

Exemptions for surface waters have been applied for around 30 % of all Protected Areas (and 
including  most  types  of  Protected  Areas)  -  ranging  from  10  %  for  Drinking  water  Protected 
Areas to 54 % for Nitrate Sensitive Areas. Exemptions have been applied in four out of eight 
RBDs  and  are  justified  mainly  by  disproportionate  costs  or  technical  feasibility,  with  a  few 
justified by natural conditions. 

Exemptions for groundwater areas are applied in a much more limited way with only 7 % of 
the  Protected  Areas  having  exemptions  applied  and  in  only  two  out  of  the  eight  RBDs  (the 
North  Apennines  RBD  with  16  %  and  Sicily  RBD  with  73  %  of  the  Protected  Areas 
exempted). 

145  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  

197 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
15.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 

The number of designated Protected Areas has increased significantly from the first RBMP to 
the second plans for Article 7, Bathing Water, Habitats and Nitrate Vulnerable areas, whereas 
the numbers of the remaining types of Protected Areas have remained more or less the same. 

There  has  been  a  dramatic  decrease  in  the  monitoring  activity  specifically  targeted  towards 
protected areas from the first RBMP to the second RBMP146, for example, for Bathing Waters 
262 water bodies  were reported in seven RBDs in the first RBMP but only 13 water bodies in 
two RBD's in the second; for Habitats 874 water bodies  were reported in seven RBDs in the 
first  RBMP  but  only  111  water  bodies  in  three  RBDs  in  the  second  RBMP  and  finally  the 
numbers of groundwater drinking water bodies  fell from 1 645 sites in six RBDs in the first 
RBMP to 38 water bodies  in two RBDs in the second RBMP. Italy subsequently informed the 
Commission  that  these  values  may  be  related  to  an  error  in  the  information  reported  to 
WISE147.   

15.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  In  order  to  function  as  a  framework  document  for  water 
management it is important that all additional measures to reach additional objectives 
for protected areas are included in the Programmes of Measures. 

Assessment: In some of the RBDs, additional measures have been identified, but it is 
not possible to evaluate if these measures are sufficient to reach the specific objectives 
for the particular type of protected area. 

For  a  considerable  number  of  protected  nature  areas  (particularly  for  surface  waters) 
objectives have not been set, either because additional needs are not known, or because 
objectives  have  been  set  but  work  is  still  on-going  to  determine  additional  needs  and 
therefore additional measures cannot be identified. 

146  Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  the  comparison  with  the  first  RBMPs  is  not  possible  because  of  how  the 
criteria differed between the two cycles (monitored WB, protected areas type, consistent monitoring purpose 
of related sites). 

147  Italy subsequently informed the Commission of an error in the reported information. The totals subsequently 
provided  were:  Drinking  water:  443;  Bathing:  374;  Birds:  892;  Habitats:  1423;  Fish:  600;  Nitrates:  903; 
Shellfish: 127; UWWTD: 471; and Other: 822. 

198 

 
 
                                                      
In principle, the recommendation seems to have been fulfilled as additional measures – 
where  known  –  are  included  in  the  RBMPs.  What  could  be  questioned  is  the  large 
number of protected areas where the needs are not known and where measures have not 
been identified148. Overall this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

148  Italy  subsequently  clarified  that  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  has  recently  published  (in  April  2018)  a 
guideline  that  sets  homogeneous  criteria  for  the  identification  of  additional  objectives  (additional  needs)  in 
protected  areas,  depending  on 
species  and  habitats  present. 
(http://www.minambiente.it/sites/default/files/archivio/allegati/trasparenza_valutazione_merito/Pianificazione
_governo_territorio/linee_guida.pdf) 

the  ecological  needs  of 

the 

199 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 16

  Adaptation to drought and climate change 

16.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second RBMP 

Climate change was considered in all RBDs. The guidance on how to adapt to climate change 
(Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  Document  No.  24149)  was  used  in  the  Padan, 
North Apennines, Sardinia and Sicily RBDs150. 

Checking  the  effectiveness  of  measures  in  relation  to  climate  change  was  carried  out  in  the 
North  Apennines,  Serchio,  South  Apennines,  and  Sicily  RBDs.  Detecting  climate  change 
signals  was  reported  in  the  Padan,  North  Apennines,  Serchio,  South  Apennines  and  Sardinia 
RBDs. Drought management and water scarcity is addressed in all RBDs except Sicily. Flood 
risk management was also addressed in all RBDs except Sicily.  

Climate change plays a role in forecasting the economics of water supply and demand and in 
the maximisation of cross-sectoral benefits and minimisation of negative effects across sectors 
in the Padan, Central Apennines, South Apennines and Sardinia RBDs. Monitoring change at 
reference  sites  was  reported  for  the  Padan,  North  Apennines,  Central  Apennines,  South 
Apennines  and  Sardinia  RBDs.  Climate  change  has  been  considered  in  the  preferential 
selection of robust adaptation measures in the Eastern Alps, Padan and Serchio RBDs. Climate 
change was considered when setting objectives in the South Apennines and Sardinia RBDs.  

Specific  sub-plans  addressing  climate  change  were  reported  for  the  Padan  and  North 
Apennines RBDs. Adaptation measures (KTM24 - "Adaptation to climate change") are made 
operational  to  address  significant  pressures  related  to  agricultural  diffuse  pollution  in  the 
Eastern Alps and Central Apennines RBDs, as well as abstractions and hydrological alterations 
in Sardinia RBD. 

According to  the  2012 Topic  Report:  Assessment  on  water  scarcity and  drought  aspects  in  a 
selection of European Union RBMPs151, the relevance of droughts was river-basin wide for the 
Eastern  Alps  and  Sicily  RBDs,  whilst  it  was  local  or  for  sub-basins  in  the  Padan,  South 
Apennines  and  Sardinia  RBDs  and  unclear  for  the  North  Apennines,  Serchio  and  Central 

149  https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/a88369ef-df4d-43b1-8c8c-
306ac7c2d6e1/Guidance%20document%20n%2024%20-
%20River%20Basin%20Management%20in%20a%20Changing%20Climate_FINAL.pdf  

150 Italy subsequently clarified that the guidance on how to adapt to climate change was also used in the Eastern 

Alps RBD. 

151  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Assessment%20WSD.pdf  

200 

 
 
                                                      
Apennines  RBDs.  No  exemptions  have  been  applied  for  Italy  following  Article  4(6)  due  to 
prolonged droughts. 

Drought  Management  Plans  were  reported  for  Italy  for  the  Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  North 
Apennines,  Serchio,  Central  Apennines  and  Sardinia  RBDs  in  2012152,  and  for  the  second 
RBMP such plans are developed for the Padan RBD, the North Apennines RBD, the Central 
Apennines RBD and the Sardinia RBD. 

The  European  Commission  made  no  recommendation  regarding  drought  management  on  the 
first RBMPs. 

16.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 

A climate check of the Programmes of Measures was not performed in the first RBMP, but has 
been done in the second RBMP in the Padan, North Apennines, Sardinia and Sicily RBDs153. 
Drought  Management  Plans  were  reported  for  Italy  for  the  Eastern  Alps,  Padan,  North 
Apennines, Serchio, Central Apennines and Sardinia RBDs in 2012, and for the second RBMP 
such plans were developed for the Padan, North Apennines, and Central Apennines RBDs.154 
For the Sardinia RBD drought management is included in the RBMP. 

16.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

There were no Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first Programme 
of Measures. 

152 Topic report on: Assessment of Water Scarcity and Drought aspects in a selection of European Union RBMPs 
153   Italy subsequently clarified that the Eastern Alps RBD was included in the climate check of the Programmes 

of Measures.  

154   Italy also informed the Commission that improvements after 2016 include the management of water resources 

in situations of water shortage.  

201