COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: Romania 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: Romania, 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) 52 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: Romania     Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL  on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - 
 
 
Table of Contents 
Acronyms and definitions ............................................................................................................. 5 

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

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

Status of second river basin management plan reporting ........................................................... 9 

Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s)
.................................................................................................................................................... 10 

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 20 

Topic 1

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

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

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

1.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 25 

Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District............................................................. 26 

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

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 39 

2.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 39 

Topic 3

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water 

bodies 

 ................................................................................................................................... 41 

3.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
RBMP ..................................................................................................................................... 41 

3.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP ..................... 63 

3.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 64 

Topic 4

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................... 67 

4.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 67 

4.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 81 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
4.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 81 

Topic 5
bodies 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater 

 ................................................................................................................................... 84 

5.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 84 

5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 88 

5.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 89 

Topic 6

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................... 90 

6.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 90 

6.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 96 

6.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 96 

Topic 7
  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 
Ecological Potential................................................................................................................... 97 

7.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle for designation ............................................................................................................... 97 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 99 

7.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 100 

Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions .............................................................. 101 

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

8.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 105 

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

Topic 9

  Programme of measures.......................................................................................... 108 

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

9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 119 

9.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 120 

Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity .......................................... 122 

2 

 
 
 
10.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 122 

10.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 123 

10.3 

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

Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture................................................... 124 

11.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .... 124 

11.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 125 

No major changes in any of the RBDs for aspects of the topic have been identified. ......... 125 

11.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 125 

Topic 12

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture ..................... 128 

12.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .... 128 

12.2 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 129 

Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology ................................................................ 133 

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

13.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 135 

13.3 

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

Topic 14

Economic analysis and water pricing policies .................................................... 138 

14.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .... 138 

14.2 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 139 

  Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives 

Topic 15
and measures) .......................................................................................................................... 142 

15.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 142 

15.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 144 

15.3 

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

Topic 16

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

3 

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

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

16.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 147 

4 

 
 
Acronyms and definitions 

EQS Directive 

Environmental Quality Standards Directive 

FD 

Km 

km2 

KTM 

PoM 

Floods Directive 

Kilometre 

Kilometre squared 

Key Type of Measure 

Programme of Measures 

QA/QC Directive 

Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive 

RBD 

RBMP 

WEI+ 

WFD 

WISE 

Annex 0 

River Basin District 

River Basin Management Plan 

Water Extraction Index+ 

Water Framework Directive 

Water Information System for Europe 

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

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Foreword 

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

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

2015 and reported to the European Commission by 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  RBMPs  prepared  earlier.  The 

situation in the Member States may have changed since then. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
General Information 

Romania (Map A) has a total population of 22.3 m (the total resident population is 19.9 m) and 
a  total  surface  area  of  238  391  km2.  Romania  is  located  in  southeast  Europe.  Romania’s 
territory  is  mountainous  in  the  north  while  the  main  feature  in  the  south  is  the  vast  Danube 

valley. The Danube River forms a delta as it approaches the Black Sea. 

Map A  

Map of River Basin Districts 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

  International River Basin Districts (within European Union) 

  International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) 

  National River Basin Districts (within European Union) 

  Countries (outside European Union) 

  Coastal and transitional Waters 

100%  of  Romania’s  surface  is  part  of  the  international  Danube  River  Basin  District, 

representing  approximately  29%  of  the  international  Danube  River  Basin  surface.  The 
Romanian part of the Danube RBD encompasses 11 sub-units / river sub-basins.  

Information on areas of the national river basin districts including sharing countries borders is 
provided in Table A and the respective share within Romania is given in Table B. 

7 

ROBlackSeaRSMDUARO1000BG1000HU1000BG2000PL2000SK40000BG3000PL90000100200km 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A 

Overview of Romania’s River Basin Districts and sub-units 

RBD /  
Sub-basin 

RO1000 

Sub-basin 

RO9SO 

RO8CR 

RO7MU 

RO1BA 

RO2JI 

RO3OT 

RO4AG 

RO5IL 

RO10SI 

RO11PR 

RO6DL 

Name 

Size (km2) 

% of RO 
territory 

Countries sharing 
borders 

Danube 

238 962* 

BG, HU, MD, RS, UA 

Someş - Tisa 

Crişuri 

Mureş 

Banat 

Jiu 

Olt 

Argeş - Vedea 

Buzău - Ialomiţa 

Siret 

Prut - Bârlad 

22 452 

14 939 

28 540 

18 312 

16 759 

25 388 

21 543 

26 471 

27 949 

20 569 

Dobrogea Litoral 

16 041* 

9.4 

6.3 

11.9 

7.7 

7 

10.7 

9 

1011.1 

11.98 

8.7 

6.4* 

HU, UA 

HU 

HU 

RS 

- 

- 

- 

- 

UA 

MD, UA 

BG, MD, RS, UA 

*including transitional and coastal waters 

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE 

Table B 

Transboundary river basins by category and % share in Romania 

Name international 
river basin 

National RBD  Countries sharing borders 

1 

km² 

% 

Co-ordination category 

Danube 

RO1000 

BG, HU, MD, RS, UA 

238 962* 

29.6* 

* including transitional and coastal waters 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

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

8 

 
 
 
 
Status of second river basin management plan reporting 

A single/national  RBMP for Romania (Danube)  and 11 sub-units  RBMPs  were published on 

22  December  2015,  the  whole  territory  of  Romania  being  assigned  to  a  single  River  Basin 
District  (Danube).  Documents  are  available  from  the  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA) 

EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/. 

9 

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

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

 

Governance and public consultation 

 

Concerning public participation and active involvement of stakeholders, the public and 

stakeholders  were  informed  by  a  range  of  methods,  including  media  as  well  as 
celebrations of World Water Day and Danube Day. 

 

The  Basin  Committees,  in  place  for  each  sub-basin,  helped  to  inform  the  public  and 
also supported the active involvement of stakeholders. 

 

Characterisation of the RBD 

 

There was a significant  (11%) decrease in the numbers of river water bodies between 
the two cycles, due to an updated methodology applied based on research studies.  

 

The  RBMP  reported  that  the  typology  was  revised  and  that  a  number  of  types  were 

harmonised. 

 

There are gaps in the biological quality element  type-specific reference conditions for 

some types in all water categories. According to the information subsequently provided 
by  Romania  the  reference  conditions  were  reported  in  WISE  only  for  existing 

situations,  but  in  the  RBMP,  type-specific  reference  values  for  almost  all  biological 
quality  elements  have  been  included.  In  addition,  coastal  and  transitional  water  types 

had  no  reference  conditions  established  for  any  of  the  hydromorphological  or 
physicochemical quality elements. According to the information subsequently provided 

by  Romania,  there  are  hydromorphological  type-specific  reference  conditions  for 
transitional and coastal water bodies.  

 

There are no equivalent intercalibration types for both transitional water bodies due to 
the  lack  of  common  types.  According  to  the  information  subsequently  provided  by 

Romania, it has not been technically feasible to complete the comparability assessment 
within the intercalibration process. 59% of lake and 47% of river water bodies do not 

have  an  equivalent  intercalibration  type  although  the  class  boundaries  used  for  all 
national types were those of the intercalibrated types: the translation/ use of the results 

10 

 
of  intercalibration  to  non-intercalibrated  types  is  key  to  the  basis  of  the  status 

classification. 

 

Further  characterisation  has  been  undertaken  with  the  geological  formation  of  the 

aquifers  associated  with  the  groundwater  bodies  and  reported  as  to  whether  the 
groundwater  bodies  were  layered  or  not.  Groundwater  bodies  were  linked  to  surface 

water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems. 

 

The significance of the pressures was defined in terms of thresholds and was linked to 

failure of objectives for both groundwater and surface water. However, for transitional 
water  bodies  unknown  anthropogenic  pressures  was  the  only  reported  pressure, 

indicating  that  there  are  shortcomings  in  the  current  pressures  and  impact  assessment 
for  this  water  category.  According  to  the  information  subsequently  provided  by 

Romania  the  unknown  pressures  on  transitional  water  bodies  were  indirect  pressures 
from the catchment and the measures taken upstream would lead to the achievement of 

the environmental objectives for the transitional water bodies. 

 

Romania  reported  gaps  indicators  for  significant  pressures  to  be  filled  to  achieve  the 

environmental  objectives  for  most  significant  pressures.The  impact  of  significant 
pressures  (point  and  diffuse  pollution)  has  been  quantitatively  assessed  by  applying 

modelling tools and the results of the monitoring of pollutant emissions have been used. 

 

Romania  reported  inventories  of  Priority  Substances  for  each  of  its  11  sub-units.  37 

Priority  Substances  were  included  in  inventories  in  at  least  one  of  these  inventories. 

The  two  step  approach  from  Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  document 
No.  28  was  used  to  compile  the  inventories  for  nine  of  the  37  Priority  Substances  in 

inventories.  For  these  substances,  Tier  2  (riverine  load)  or  Tier  1  (point  source 
information)  +  Tier  2  were  implemented,  in  line  with  the  Guidance  Document.  The 

same  methodology  was  implemented  for  other  substances.  The  data  quality  was 
assessed as uncertain or medium. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status  

 

The  monitoring  network  has  been  expanded  since  the  first  RBMP,  the  number  of 

monitored parameters has increased and the level of confidence of the status assessment 
has also improved. 

11 

 
  Most biological quality elements were monitored at least at the minimum recommended 
frequency.  There  are  some  gaps  in  the  monitoring  of  required  quality  elements,  as 
morphological conditions were not monitored in coastal and transitional waters. 

 

A  large  proportion  of  water  bodies  have  been  classified  for  more  biological  quality 
elements and supporting quality elements than in the first RBMP.  Macrophytes were 
not classified in rivers and lakes, and fish were not classified in lakes1, due to missing 
methods. 

  More  assessment  methods  for  biological  quality  elements  have  been  developed  since 
the  first  RBMP.  However,  methods  for  macrophytes  in  rivers  and  lakes2  and  fish  in 
lakes were still missing. 

 

 

Assessment  methods  for  biological  quality  elements  in  rivers  are  sensitive  to  several 
significant  impacts.  However,  there  are  no  biological  quality  element  assessment 

methods  that  are  sensitive  to  chemical  pollution,  hydrological  changes,  acidification 
and saline intrusion in rivers, even though these impacts were reported to be significant. 

A large proportion of national river and lake types are not linked to any intercalibration 
type. For all national types, the class boundaries used were those of the intercalibrated 

types. 

  Morphological conditions were assessed in terms of ecological status/potential and the 
classification boundaries are related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological 
quality  elements.  Hydrological  or  tidal  regime  in  all  categories,  as  well  as  river 

continuity, were reported to be assessed but the classification boundaries are not related 
to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements.  

 

Assessment  methods  for  most  of  the  physicochemical  quality  elements  have  been 

developed  since  the  first  RBMP.  For  rivers  and  lakes,  all  general  physico-chemical 
elements/parameters  are  assessed  in  terms  of  ecological  status/potential,  except 

transparency and salinity conditions in lakes. Thermal conditions were not considered 
relevant for lakes, transitional and coastal water bodies since there are no discharges in 

those water categories. 

1 It should be noted that fish are not relevant for 26% of the natural lake water bodies. 
2 The methods for macrophytes have now been intercalibrated and have been included in the latest Intercalibration 

Decision. 

12 

 
                                                      
 

The number of monitoring sites for River Basin Specific Pollutants decreased in  lakes 

but increased in rivers since the first RBMP. There was little change in transitional and 
coastal waters. 

  Monitoring was reported for 11 different River Basin Specific Pollutants, at least at the 
minimum  recommended  frequency.  The  analytical  methods  are  in  line  with  Articles 

4(1) or 4(2) of the QA/QC Directive (2009/90/EC) for all substances. 

 

The number of water bodies in good or better ecological status increased since the first 

RBMP. 

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

 

 

All  water  bodies  and  all  territorial  waters  were  classified.  Between  the  two  RBMPs, 
there  was  a  small  increase  in  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  in  good  chemical  status 

(from 93 to 98%), together with a corresponding small decrease in water bodies failing 
to achieve good status (from 7 to 2%). 

All  transitional  and  coastal  water  bodies  and  all  territorial  waters  are  monitored  for 
chemical status. Only about a quarter of river and lake waterbodies are monitored. This 

means than approximately a quarter of lake  and  river water bodies were  classified by 
expert judgment, and approximately 50% by grouping.  

 

The  number  of  priority  substances  monitored  and  the  number  of  water  bodies 

monitored increased between the two RBMPs, which led to an increased confidence in 
the assessment of status. However, 56% of surface water bodies in Romania were still 
classified for chemical status with low confidence (and only 1 % with high confidence). 

 

37  of  the  41  Priority  Substances  were  monitored  in  water  and  used  for  status 

assessment.  This  included  all  priority  substances  identified  as  discharged.  The  four 
substances which were not monitored were also not considered in the inventories (so it 

is  unclear  whether  they  are  discharged).  In  over  80%  of  the  cases,  the  monitoring 
frequency  applied  was  at  least  the  recommended  minimum  frequency.  The  reduced 

frequencies  resulted  from  the  inability  to  sample  during  the  dry  period  for  temporary 
water bodies, from the inability to sample under certain winter weather conditions   or 

from data incorrectly reporting in WISE. 

13 

 
  Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  have  been  monitored  in  biota 
for  status  assessment,  at  the  recommended  minimum  frequency.  Monitoring  is 
performed in what seems to be a very limited number of sites.  

 

9 of the required 14 Priority Substances are monitored in sediment in rivers and lakes 
for  trend  assessment.  Three  of  these  nine  substances  were  also  monitored  in  other 

surface water categories. Some of these substances are monitored in what seems to be a 
very  limited  number  of  sites.  The  sampling  frequency  is  the  recommended  minimum 

frequency. 

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 

bodies 

 

30 of 143 groundwater bodies are not monitored. However, having in view the pressure 

and  impact  analysis  and  status  assessment  results,  all  groundwater  bodies  have  been 
classified  in  good  quantitative  status  and  are  not  failing  to  meet  the  environmental 

objectives. 

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

 

The coverage of surveillance monitoring improved in the second cycle but it is still not 

complete. All WFD core parameters were monitored. 

 

Not all substances  causing  risk are subject  to  monitoring. Yet,  Romania subsequently 

clarified that all groundwater bodies at risk of failing good groundwater chemical status 
and all substances causing the risk are subject to operational monitoring.  

 

The  groundwater body  area  failing  good status decreased from  the first  to the second 
RBMP.  About  10%  of  the  groundwater  bodies  are  failing  the  good  chemical  status 

objective. 

 

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

Ecological Potential 

 

An  updated  analysis  of  anthropogenic  pressures,  in  particular  of  hydromorphological 

alterations, has been carried to support the designation of heavily modified water bodies 
as well as a more detailed analysis of other alternative means to achieve the benefits of 

the  modifications.  Furthermore,  the  failure  to  achieve  good  status  has  been  verified 
with improved assessment methodologies. 

14 

 
 
 

The biological quality elements used for defining good ecological potential/maximum 

ecological  potential  seem  to  have  increased  since  the  first  cycle.  The  assessment 
methods  for  various  biological  quality  elements  have  been  reviewed  and  improved. 

Therefore,  the  number  of  biological  quality  elements,  which  are  possible  to  assess  in 
different water categories to classify status and potential, has increased. The confidence 

of  the  assessment  of  ecological  potential  has  also  improved  since  the  first  cycle. 
However,  for  coastal  waters,  no  biological  quality  element  assessment  methods 

sensitive to hydrological or morphological changes were reported. 

  Mitigation  measures  for  defining  good  ecological  potential  have  been  reported. 
According  to  information  subsequently  provided  by  Romania,  descriptions  of  the 
effects expected on the biological quality elements are provided as a general approach 

in a catalogue of mitigation and restoration measures 

 

Environmental objectives and exemptions 

 

Environmental  objectives  for  ecological  and  chemical  status  in  surface  water  bodies 

and chemical and quantitative status in groundwater have been reported in all RBDs. 

 

 

Drivers, pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions were reported. 

Article 4(5) was applied in surface waters in the first cycle and is applied more widely 

in the second RBMP. The application of Article 4(4) exemptions has been reduced in 
rivers  and  lakes  between  the  first  and  second  RBMP  and  remained  stable  for  coastal 

and transitional water bodies. 

 

Article 4(7) has been applied because of new modifications in four river water bodies. 

Further information is needed to assess whether all the requirements of Article 4(7) are 
fulfilled  and  whether  the  effects  of  all  newly  planned  modifications  on  water  body 

status/potential are assessed at quality element level 

 

Programme of Measures 

 

Nearly  75%  of  the  planned  measures  (established  in  the  first  cycle)  have  been 

implemented.  There  have  been  some  delays  in  the  implementation  for  the  first 

Programme  of  Measures  (PoM)  due  to  a  lack  of  finance,  a  lack  of  mechanism  and 
delays in the tendering of contracts.  

15 

 
 
 

Romania has reported that financing has been secured for all the relevant sectors for the 

second PoM. A large amount of investment  is  required to  implement  the measures in 
Romania. 

 

New  Legislation  or  regulations  to  implement  the  PoM  in  the  first  cycle  have  already 
been adopted in Romania. 

  Most significant pressures have operational Key Types of Measure in place to address 
them.  No  significant  pressures  have  been  identified  as  causing  groundwater  bodies  to 
fail  to  be  of  good  quantitative  status.  Some  significant  pressures  on  surface  water 

bodies do not have Key Types of Measure in place to address them. 

 

Romania  has  mapped  national  basic  and  supplementary  measures  against  pre-defined 

and nationally derived Key Types of Measure. A high proportion (63%) of the national 
supplementary measures have been mapped against KTM 14 - Research, improvement 

of knowledge base reducing uncertainty. 

 

No information was reported for River Basin Specific Pollutants in surface water, but 

they are being addressed in general terms (e.g. KTM21 – waste water treatment). 

 

Key Types of Measure have been reported for some Priority Substances causing surface 

water bodies to fail to be of good status. Key Types of Measure have not been reported 

for three Priority Substances that were reported as causing surface water bodies to fail 
to  be  of  good  status;  but  these  are  covered  by  other  measures  such  as  KTM1  – 
Construction or upgrade of waste water treatment plants (pressure type 1.1), KTM21  - 

Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas,  transport  and 
built infrastructure. 

 

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 have been reported. This is a 
real  strength  of  Romania’s  implementation  in  relation  to  the  PoM.  Meaningful 

indicators  have  been  defined  for  both  the  gap  to  good  status  and  the  level  of 
implementation required from the measures, for all forthcoming planning cycles. 

 

According to the Water Law, the RBMP and Flood Risk Management Plans have not 
been  integrated  into  a  single  plan.  It  has  been  reported  that  co-ordination  has  been 

achieved in all aspects. 

16 

 
 
 
  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 

  Water abstraction pressures were not reported as relevant for Romania and no surface 

or 

groundwater  water 

body 

faces  water 

quantity-related 

problems.                                                                          

However, local variation between sub-units in Romania in terms of water demand and 
availability have been recorded.  

 

The  main  uses  for  water  consumption  are  not  reported.  The  European  Union-funded 

planned  expansion  of  irrigation  from  0.8  to  1.8  m  hectares  could  lead  to  future 
significant abstraction pressures, which is a concern. 

 

The RBMP does not include a water resource allocation and management plan. There is 
a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control water impoundment and 

abstractions and a register of impoundments and abstractions. 

  Measures  promoting  efficient  and  sustainable  water  use  (Basic  Measure  Article 
11(3)(c)) were implemented in the previous cycle, and new measures and/or significant 
changes are planned for the 2016-2021 period. 

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture 

 

 

 

 

 

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

A gap  assessment for nutrients and pesticides have been undertaken and  management 

objectives for nutrient pollution have been set.  

The  implementation  of  basic  measures  for  the  control  of  diffuse  pollution  from 

agriculture  at  source  is  ensured  in  all  RBDs  where  the  same  rules  apply  across  the 

whole RBD.  

Supplementary measures for reducing pollution from agriculture were reported. 

Financing of measures is secured and the costs of the measures were reported. 

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 

 

Basic  measures  to  reduce  the  effects  of  pressures  caused  by  effluents  from  human 

agglomerations have been established with a view to reducing the pollution from point 
sources and diffuse sources of pollution. 

 

KTMs have been reported for several but not all individual Priority Substances causing 
failure.  General  measures  are  in  place  for  others  and  for  River  Basin  Specific 

Pollutants. KTM 15 - "Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses 
of  Priority  Hazardous  Substances  or  for  the  reduction  of  emissions,  discharges  and 

losses  of  Priority  Substances"  is  among  the  KTMs  mapped  and  tackling  significant 
pressures. 

17 

 
 
  Measures related to hydromorphology 

 

Significant  hydromorphological  pressures  were  identified  only  for  rivers  and  several 

operational Key Types of Measure were reported to address such pressures. However, 
for water bodies affected by hydromorphological alterations (physical loss of whole or 

part  of  the  water  body),  which  represent  the  highest  share  of  water  bodies  with 
significant hydromorphological pressures, only research measures are proposed, as the 

first step of setting the appropriate measures for the next cycle.   

 

The  level  of  ambition  in  terms  of  closing  the  gap  for  significant  hydromorphological 

pressure varies between closing none of the gap to fully closing the gap between 2015 
and  2021.  For  river  stretches  affected  by  significant  hydromorphological  pressures 

where no progress is expected by 2021, the reported information indicates that the gap 
will  be  fully  closed  by  2027,  with  the  exception  of  certain  river  stretches  affected  by 

flood protection and hydropower whose pressure levels remain unchanged until 2027. 

 

Ecological  flows  have  been  derived  and  implemented  partly,  i.e.  for  some  relevant 

water  bodies,  but  the  work  is  still  on-going.  For  the  first  RBMP,  there  were  no 

guidelines  for  defining  the  ecological  flow,  but  there  were  obligations  to  ensure 
minimum flow for protection of the aquatic ecosystems, according to the Water Law. In 
the  second  RBMP,  a  methodology  for  ecological  flow  determination  has  been 

elaborated,  which  in  2015  was  still  in  the  process  of  validation.  According  to 
information subsequently provided by Romania, the methodology is now finalised.  

  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  have  been  made  operational  to  tackle  physical 
alterations due to flood protection. In addition, some measures related to natural water 
retention are also included in the Flood Risk Management Plan Measures establishing a 

link between the WFD and the Floods Directive. It is also noted that there has been a 
proposal to set up an inter-ministerial working group for the reconstruction of wetlands 

along the Danube and the main tributaries as a measure to reduce the risk of floods and 
to implement green infrastructure and water retention. 

 

Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

 

Cost  recovery  calculations  remain  limited  –  environmental  and  resource  costs  have 

partially been included.  

  With  regard  to  the  explanation  of  how  water-pricing  policies  provide  adequate 
incentives  for  users  to  use  water  resources  efficiently,  several  national  legislative 

18 

 
requirements  are  mentioned,  but  it  is  not  explained  specifically  how  pricing  policies 

provide ‘adequate incentives’. 

References to legislative acts, which includes details about polluter pays principle, has 

been provided.  

A broad definition of water services has been used. The cost recovery rates are exactly 

100% for all water services, hinting at methodological issues. 

 

 

 

Considerations  specific  to  Protected  Areas  (identification,  monitoring,  objectives 

and measures) 

 

All  relevant  types  of  Protected  Areas  have  been  identified,  and  the  status  of  all 
associated  surface  and  groundwater  bodies  has  been  assessed  with  high  or  medium 

confidence. 

 

Specific objectives have been set for Drinking Water Protected Areas and for shellfish 

production areas. These have been largely met in Drinking Water Protected Areas and 
fully met in shellfish production areas.  

 

However, no specific objectives have been set for Habitats and Birds related Protected 

Areas;  WFD  environmental  objectives  are  considered  sufficient  to  ensure  favourable 
conservation status  at all Natura 2000 sites. There is no evidence of an assessment of 

the needs of interest features in individual Protected Areas. 

 

Specific  monitoring  of  surface  water  Protected  Areas  has  been  reported  for  the 

monitoring  sites  in  water  bodies  associated  with  Habitat  areas  and  Drinking  Water 
areas, as well as for the shellfish production areas.   

 

Adaptation to drought and climate change 

 

Climate  change  was  considered  in  various  ways  in  the  preparation  of  the  RBMP  in 

Romania  and  it  is  stated  that  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance 
Document No. 24 on how to adapt to climate change was used. 

 

Climate proofing of measures has been carried out in the second RBMP. 

19 

 
 
 
Recommendations  

 

Romania  should  continue  to  improve  international  cooperation,  including  coordinated 

assessments  of  the  technical  aspects  of  the  WFD  such  as  ensuring  a  harmonized 

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

 

 

Romania has made significant progress on characterisation of water bodies but further 
work is needed on setting reference conditions. 

Romania should further work on the apportionment of pressures among sectors, which 
is necessary in order to be able to identify adequate measures. 

 

Romania should further strengthen monitoring of surface water by covering all relevant 

quality  elements  in  all  water  categories,  including  hydromorphological  quality 
elements. 

 

Romania  should  complete  the  development  of  assessment  methods  for  all  relevant 
quality  elements  and  ensure  that  they  are  according  to  the  WFD  requirements. 

Assessment methods for biological quality elements should be sensitive to all relevant 
impacts, in particular chemical pollution, hydrological changes, acidification and saline 

intrusion  in  rivers.  The  classification  boundaries  of  hydrological  and  tidal  regime 
should be related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. 

 

 

Romania  should  progress  in  the  transfer  of  the  results  of  intercalibration  into  all 
national types. 

The confidence in the assessment of chemical status should continue to be improved. In 
particular,  monitoring  should  be  performed  in  a  way  that  provides  sufficient  spatial 

coverage, in particular in biota, and all priority substances should be considered in the 
assessment  of  status.  If  a  different  matrix  is  used,  the  corresponding  explanations 

should be provided, as required by the Water Framework Directive. 

 

Romania should further  improve trend monitoring in  sediment  and/or biota, to  ensure 

that all the relevant substances specified in Directive 2008/105/EC are monitored in a 

way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage. 

 

Romania  should  continue 

improving  quantitative  and  chemical  groundwater 

monitoring. 

20 

 
 

Romania should continue the efforts  to  further improve the methodology  for defining 

ecological  potential  for  all  water  categories  at  water  body  level,  including  coastal 
waters. This will improve the confidence level of the assessment. 

 

Article 4(5) is  applied  more widely in  the second RBMPs. Efforts  should  continue to 
further improve the methodology and justifications for the assessment  and application 

of  exemptions.  Criteria  for  the  application  of  Article  4(4)  need  to  be  clearly 
distinguishable  from  the  criteria  applied  for  Article  4(5)  in  relation  to  technical 

feasibility and disproportionate costs. 

 

Romania needs to ensure a thorough assessment of planned new modifications in line 

with  the  requirements  of  the  WFD  and  as  further  specified  by  the  Judgment  of  the 

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

assessment  of  whether  the  project  is  of  overriding  public  interest  and  whether  the 
benefits  to  society  outweigh  the  environmental  degradation,  and  the  absence  of 

alternatives  that  would  be  a  better  environmental  option.  Furthermore,  these  projects 
may  only  be  carried  out  when  all  practicable  steps  are  taken  to  mitigate  the  adverse 
impact  on  the  status/potential  of  the  water  bodies.  Respective  information  on  the 

application of Article 4(7) needs to be reported in the RBMP. 

 

 

All KTMs should be operational and all significant pressures be addressed. 

Romania  should  ensure  that  the  measures  are  based  on  the  updated  pressures  and 

impacts analysis and status assessment of water bodies. 

 

Romania  should  ensure  that  KTMs  are  associated  with  all  individual  Priority 

Substances,  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  and  Groundwater  Pollutants  causing 
failure. 

 

Romania  should  assess  the  effectiveness  of  measures  to  tackle  chemical  pollutants  so 

that it can identify appropriate supplementary measures. 

 

Romania  needs  to  improve  the  implementation  of  the  requirements  under  the  Urban 

Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive  in  relation  to  the  requirement  of  more  stringent 
treatment  of wastewaters for discharge into sensitive areas, and ensure investments  to 

allow for appropriate treatment of waste water from big cities. 

21 

 
 

Romania should ensure the identification of all relevant hydromorphological pressures 

and  implement  appropriate  measures  to  address  those  pressures.  The  RBMP  are  not 
ambitious enough in the design and application of these measures.  

 

Romania needs to ensure that ecological flows are derived and implemented during this 
second cycle 

 

Romania should continue to monitor the efficacy of measures in the second RBMP and, 

if in some water bodies water quality remains at risk from diffuse agricultural sources 
of pollution, should consider the implementation of alternative or additional measures, 

to mitigate this risk. 

 

Romania  should  continue  to  apply  cost  recovery  for  water  use  activities  having  a 

significant  impact  on  water  bodies  or  justify  any  exemptions  using  Article  9(4). 
Romania  should  also  continue  to  transparently  present  how  financial,  environmental 

and  resource  costs  have  been  calculated  and  how  the  adequate  contribution  of  the 
different users is ensured. Romania should continue to transparently present the water-

pricing  policy  and  provide  a  transparent  overview  of  estimated  investments  and 
investment needs. 

 

Romania still needs to implement specific measures in its safeguard zones associated to 
Drinking Water Protected Areas. Moreover, Romania should set specific objectives for 

Protected  Areas  designed  under  the  Habitats  and  Birds  Directive  as  requested  in 
previous recommendations. 

22 

 
 
 
Topic 1

  Governance and public participation 

1.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

1.1.1  Administrative arrangements – river basin districts 

Romania  has  designated  a  single  River  Basin  District  (RBD),  the  Danube  River  RBD.  This 
RBD is  divided into 11 sub-basins/sub-units.  Almost all of Romania’s territory is  part of the 
international Danube RBD3: 97.4%. The remainder is accounted for mainly by coastal waters 
and associated small tributaries, which were attached to the Danube RBD (100%). 

1.1.2  Administrative arrangements – competent authorities 

Romania reports two competent authorities.  

The  National  Administration  "Romanian  Waters"  is  responsible  for  the  monitoring  and 
assessment of status of groundwater and surface water, economic analysis, pressure and impact 

analysis, preparation of the RBMP and PoM, public participation, implementation of measures 
and reporting to the European Commission.  

The  Ministry  of  the  Environment,  Waters  and  Forests  is  responsible  for  the  coordination  of 
implementation and the enforcement of regulations. 

1.1.3  River  Basin  Management  plans  –  structure  and  Strategic  Environmental 

Assessment  

Romania has 11 sub-plans to its RBMP, one for each sub-basin/sub-unit. 

A Strategic Environmental Assessment was carried out for Romania's RBMP. 

1.1.4 

Public consultation 

The  public  and  interested  parties  in  Romania  were  informed  of  the  consultation  by:  direct 

mailing,  Internet,  invitations  to  stakeholders,  local  authorities,  media  (papers,  television  and 
radio),  meetings  and  printed  material.  In  addition,  thematic  articles  were  published  in 

specialised magazines, brochures and leaflets and festivities were organised for World Water 
Day  and  Danube  Day.  The  Basin  Committees  (in  place  for  each  sub-basin)  were  the  main 

3   European Commission, Member State Report: Romania (accompanying the report from the Commission to the 
European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC): 
River Basin Management Plans), SWD(2012) 379 final, 14 November 2012. 

23 

 
                                                      
bodies  for  informing  and  consulting  the  public  at  sub-basin  and  local  levels.  Consultation 

documents were available by direct mailing (both email and post), for download and in paper 
copies  at  municipalities.  Documents  were  available  on  the  websites  of  the  National 

Administration "Romanian Waters" and Water Basin Administrations (i.e. the administrations 
for sub-basins) for the requisite six months. 

fisheries/aquaculture, 

The  following  stakeholder  groups  were  actively  involved:  agriculture/farmers,  consumer 
groups4,  energy/hydropower, 
local/regional  authorities, 
navigation/ports,  NGOs/nature  protection,  water  supply  and  sanitation,  and  universities, 
research  centres  and  professional  associations.  Active  involvement  took  place  via  the 
establishment of advisory groups and also in the Basin Committees5 and via information events 
during World Water Day and Danube Day.  

industry, 

The public consultation had the following impact: addition of new information, adjustment to 
specific measures, changes to the selection of measures and commitment to further research. 

1.1.5 

Integration  with  the  Floods  Directive  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive 

Romania held joint consultations on its RBMP and the Flood Risk Management Plans prepared 
under the Floods Directive6.  

Joint  consultation  was  not  carried  out  with  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive.7 
However, the preparation of the RBMP and PoM was coordinated with the implementation of 
the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (see Chapter 9). 

1.1.6 

International coordination and co-operation  

Romania's  RBD  is  part  of  the  Danube  international  RBD.  An  international  agreement, 

permanent  co-operation body and international  RBMP are in  place (designated as category 1 
cooperation).  Explicit  links  have  been  made  with  national  RBMP  within  the  international 
RBMP. Public participation was coordinated within the Danube iRBD (further information is 
available in the reports on international coordination on the Water Framework Directive). 

4   Romania subsequently clarified that these were water users in particular.  
5   Romania subsequently informed that in the Committees, meetings were dedicated to specific stakeholders. 
6   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  

7   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  

24 

 
                                                      
1.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

No changes in governance were noted. 

1.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

There were no recommendations based on the first RBMP and PoM. 

25 

 
 
 
 
Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District 

2.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle  

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

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

water bodies 

Overall,  there  were  only  small  differences  in  the  number  of  delineated  lake  water  bodies 
(decrease of 1 to 130) between the two cycles8. The same numbers of coastal and transitional 
water bodies were delineated for both cycles. However, there was a significant (11%) decrease 

in the numbers of river water bodies between the two cycles, from 3 262 to 2 891 (Table 2.1).  

Reductions  were  reported  in  the  numbers  of  natural,  heavily  modified  and  artificial  water 

bodies between the two  cycles (Figure  2.1). Proportionally there were small decreases in  the 
percentages (of total river water bodies) of natural and artificial rivers and a small increase in 

the percentage of heavily modified rivers. There was also a small decrease (two water bodies) 
in the number of natural lakes and a small increase (one water body) in the number of heavily 
modified lakes between the two cycles9. 

Between 2013 and 2015, the delineation of water bodies was revised and updated. Since the 

first  RBMP,  an  in-depth  analysis  of  the  hydromorphological  pressures  lead  to  changing  the 
classification  of  the  water  body  category  on  a  case  by  case  basis.  Delineation  was  also 

validated with the monitoring data. The re-delineation of water bodies has led to: 

 

 

 

Grouping  /  aggregation  and  splitting  of  water  bodies  according  to  the  water  body 

category, typology, water body size, water pressure on water bodies, etc.; 

Grouping of non-permanent watercourse water bodies typologies;  

Validation of identification and delineation of the water bodies according to the criteria 

established  in  research  studies  undertaken  by  the  National  Institute  for  Hydrology  and 
Water  Management,  which  led  to  reduction  of  temporary  water  bodies  (i.e.  “annual 
drying up” (Q95% = 0) - according to updated of the Drying River Atlas from Romania – 
2014); Changing the name and / or water body code. 

8 Romania subsequently explained that the small decrease is generated by the fact that two water bodies have been 
aggregated into one water body and another water body has been deleted due to criterion size (being under 50 
ha). 

9 Romania subsequently clarified that the small increase (1 water body) in the number of heavily modified lakes 
between  the  two  cycles  is  generated  by  the  fact  that  in  the  first  RBMP  that  water  body  was  identified  as  a 
reservoir belonging to the river water body category and in the second RBMP, that water body was identified 
as a heavily modified lake belonging to lake water body category. 

26 

 
                                                      
For  water  bodies  related  to  protected  areas,  the  RBMP  reported  that  in  the  process  of 

subdividing water bodies into smaller units, a balance between the boundaries of the protected 
areas and the water bodies of different status was maintained, as well as the need to avoid the 

surface water fragmentation.  

Table 2.2 shows the size distribution of surface water bodies in Romania in the second and first 

RBMPs.  There  were  no  significant  changes  but  it  can  be  seen  that  the  maximum  length  of 
rivers has decreased which would relate to the splitting of water bodies described above.  

The  RBMP  does  not  report  directly  on  any  consequences  of  the  changes  in  delineation; 
however,  it  was  stated  that  the  changes  in  delineation  have  affected  the  comparability  of  the 

water body status between the 2 cycles. 

Table  2.3  summarises  the  information  provided  by  Romania  on  how  water  bodies  have 

evolved between the two cycles. The water body categories with the most significant changes 
were river water bodies with deletion (390), creation (5), aggregation (55), splitting (53) and 

changes (2313).   

For  groundwater  bodies,  there  was  an  increase  of  one  groundwater  body  from  142  to  143 
(Table  2.3).  There  were  also  some  changes  in  the  water  body  areas,  including  reduction  and 

extension (Table 2.4). It was stated in the RBMP that changes to delineation were based on the 
new  data  and  information  (geological,  hydrogeological,  land  use  maps  for  each  groundwater 

body,  conceptual  models  developed  for  some  groundwater  bodies)  obtained  from  studies 
during the period since the first RBMP. 

Figure 2.1 

Proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Romania  designated  as  artificial, 
heavily  modified  and  natural  for  the  second  and  first  cycles.  Note  that  the 
numbers  in  parenthesis  are  the  numbers  of  water  bodies  in  each  water 
category  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

27 

 
 
Table 2.1 

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

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Year  RBD 

Number of 
water bodies 

Total length (km) of 
water bodies 

Number of 
water bodies 

Total area of 
water body (km2) 

Number of 
water bodies 

2016  RO1000  2 891 

73 798 (72 966) 

130 

1 009 (999.74)  

2010  RO1000  3 262 

74 473 

131 

993 

2 

2 

Total area 
(km2) of water 
bodies 

383 (781) 

781 

Number of 
water bodies 

4 

4 

Total area 
(km2) of water 
bodies 

252 (572) 

572 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Romania and did not match the information reported to WISE. 

Table 2.2 

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

Year 

RBD 

River length (km) 

Lake area (km2) 

Transitional (km2) 

Coastal (km2) 

Min 

Max 

Average 

Min 

Max  Average  Min 

Max 

Average  Min 

Max 

Average 

2016  RO1000 

0.36 

655.5 
(487.5)  

26.85 
25.235  

0. 02 
(0.01) 

391.53 

7. 76 
(7.69) 

168.94 
(162) 

214.2 
(619.37) 

191.57 
(390.5) 

2. 27 
(2.627) 

107.45 
(348.41) 

63.01 
(143) 

2010  RO1000  0.36 (0.28) 

499.31 
(487.5)  

22.87 (25.5) 

0.01 

392 

7.58 

162 

619.37 

390.69 

2.67 

348.41 

142.95 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Note: Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Romania and did not match the information reported to WISE.

28 

 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Table 2.3 

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

Romania between the second and first cycles 

Type of water body change 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional  Coastal  Groundwater 

for second cycle  

Change 

Aggregation 

Splitting 

Aggregation and splitting 

Creation 

Deletion 

Extended area 

Reduced Area 

Change in code 

No change 

2313 

118 

2 

4 

55 

53 

10 

5 

390 

9 

45 

401  

1 

1 

1 

8 

2 

Total water bodies before 
deletion 

3281 

131 

Delineated for second cycle 

2891 

130 

2 

2 

4 

4 

(after deletion from first 
cycle) 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

1 

88 

28 

26 

143 

143 

Table 2.4 

Number  and  area  of  delineated  groundwater  bodies  in  Romania  for  the 

second and first cycles 

Year 

RBD 

Number 

Area (km2) 

Minimum  Maximum 

Average 

2016 

RO1000 

143 

21.76 (22) 

44 093.83 

1872.76 

(44095) 

(1873.73) 

2010 

RO1000 

142 

21.75 

42 492.64 

1 857.42 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Romania and did not match 

the information reported to WISE. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.2 

Identification of transboundary water bodies  

One transboundary river water body was reported by Romania. No transboundary water bodies 
were  reported  between  non-EU  neighbouring  countries,  following  advice  from  the  reporting 

helpdesk.  The  RBMP  did  not  report  on  the  coordination  of  the  delineation  of  transboundary 
surface water bodies with other countries. No transboundary groundwater bodies were reported 

to WISE but the RBMP stated that there are 17 transboundary groundwater bodies. 

2.1.3  Typology of surface water bodies 

Comparing the information reported for both cycles indicates that there was a decrease in main 
(i.e. not including sub-types) lake types (18 to 9 natural lake types) and river types (20 to 19 

natural river types) between the first cycle and second cycle (Table 2.5). The RBMP reported 
that the typology was revised and that a number of types were harmonised. For example, the 

RO17 type (non-permanent water flow in the mountain area) was joined with the RO18 (non-
permanent water flow in the pre-mountainous area or high plains), resulting in the new RO17 

non-permanent water course located in the mountainous area of high plateaus. This was based 
on additional biotic data, as well as the similarities in the communities of benthic invertebrates. 

Table 2.5 

Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Romania for the first and 

second cycles 

RBD 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

first  

second  

first  

second  

first  

second  

first  

second  

RO1000 

80 (20) 

56 (19) 

23 (18) 

14 (9) 

2 

2 

4 (2) 

4 (2) 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Romania and concern only 
natural water bodies not including sub-types. 

Each  coastal  water  body  in  Romania  was  reported  to  have  a  separate  national  type,  one  of 
which  has  an  equivalent  intercalibration  type.  The  two  transitional  water  bodies  each  had  a 
different type, neither of which had an equivalent intercalibration type10. Fourteen (one being 
natural  types)  national  lake  types  were  reported  by  Romania  four  of  which  had  the  same 

equivalent  intercalibration  type.  59%  of  lake  water  bodies  did  not  have  an  equivalent 

10  Romania  subsequently  clarified  that  it  has  not  been  technically  feasible  to  complete  the  comparability 
assessment  within  the  intercalibration  process.  Romania  also  mentioned  that  the  national  classification 
methods  and  their  respective  boundary  values  are  included  in  the  part  2  of  the  Annex  of  the  Commission 
Decision (EU) 2018/229 of 12 February 2018 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  and  repealing  Commission  Decision  2013/480/EU  being  consistent  with  the 
normative definitions set out in Section 1.2 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC.  

30 

 
 
                                                      
 
intercalibration  type.  56  national  river  types  were  reported  by  Romania,  20  of  which  had  an 

equivalent intercalibration type (corresponding to seven intercalibration types). 46.7% of river 
water bodies (excluding reservoirs) did not have an equivalent intercalibration type. 

Danube river typology was developed in coordination with the entire Danube RBD based on a 
harmonized  system  within  the  framework  of  the  GEF  /  UNDP  Danube  Regional  Project11  - 
‘Danube river basin type and conditions based on national contributions from the Danube river 
countries.’ During the first planning cycle, thematic sessions / workshops were held in order to 

present  or  harmonize  the  methodological  approaches  with  Bulgaria,  Hungary,  Moldova  and 
Ukraine. 

2.1.4  Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies 

Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Romania which have reference 
conditions  established12,13.  All  four  coastal  water  types  were  reported  to  have  reference 
conditions established for all relevant biological quality elements but type-specific conditions 

for none of the hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. 

Table 2.6 

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

physicochemical quality elements  

Water category 

Water 
types 

Biological quality 
elements  

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 

Physicochemical 
quality elements 

All 

4% 

Rivers 

Some 

96% 

None 

All 

Lakes 

82% 

15% 

5% 

100% 

Some 

100% 

100% 

8% (0%) 

in 

11   The  United  Nations  Development  Programme  /  Global  Environment  Fund  Danube  Regional  Project  was 
launched to reinforce regional cooperation of the Danube countries, and has been working to address priority 
environmental  problems 
found  at: 
http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/undpgef-drp-danube-regional-project  

information  can  be 

since  1992.  More 

the  Danube 

12   Romania  subsequently  explained  that  the  biological  type-specific  reference  conditions  (for  rivers  and  lakes) 
were interpreted to be represented only by the currently existing reference situations, while the type-specific 
reference  values  could  also  represent  an  ideal  situation  or  a  situation  in  the  past  (based  on  e.g.  modelling, 
expert judgement).   

13   Romania subsequently clarified that in comparison with the first RBMP progress has been made concerning 
the  BQEs  for  which  the  typology  was  not  fully  validated  at  the  time  of  first  RBMP  reporting,  respectively 
phytobenthos and macrophytes. Romania stated also that analysis performed for the development/finalisation 
of  assessment  system  methods  of  biological  quality  elements  within  intercalibration  process  have  fully 
validated the typological systems classification. 

31 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                      
Water category 

Water 
types 

None 

All 

Biological quality 
elements  

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 

Physicochemical 
quality elements 

Transitional 

Some 

100%) 

Coastal 

100%  

None 

All 

Some 

None 

0% (100%) 

100% 90%) 

0 % (100%) 

100% (0%) 

92% (100%) 

100% 

100% 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Romania. to correct some 

errors in the WISE reporting. 

Reference  conditions  have  only  been  established  for  some  biological  quality  elements14  and 
some  hydromorphological  quality  elements  for  all  lake  types.  For  lakes,  there  are  no  type-
specific reference conditions for any of the physicochemical quality elements.  

Only  three  of  the  river  types  had  established  reference  conditions  for  all  relevant  biological 
quality elements; for the remaining types they had been established for some of the biological 

quality  elements.  Most  river  types  had  type-specific  reference  conditions  established  for  all 
relevant  hydromorphological  quality  elements,  eight  for  some  and  three  for  none.  Type-

specific reference conditions have not been established for any of the physicochemical quality 
elements for any of the river types. 

Both transitional water types were reported to have reference conditions established for some 
of  the  relevant  biological  quality  elements  but  for  none  of  the  hydromorphological  and 
physicochemical quality elements15. 

In  coastal  water  bodies,  all  types  had  established  reference  conditions  for  biological  quality 
elements,  but  only  some  for  hydromorphological  quality  elements  and  none  for 

physicochemical quality elements. 

The typology for surface waters was partially validated with biological data for the first cycle. 

14   Romania  subsequently  clarified  that  for  biological  quality  elements  type  specific  reference  conditions  were 
reported  in  WISE  only  for  existing  situations,  but  in  Annex  6.1.1.A.-  6.1.1.I.;  6.1.4.A.-6.1.4.G.  of  RBMP 
reference values for almost all biological quality elements have been included. Romania also stated that after 
the second RBMP reporting, the reference values have been defined (within the intercalibration process) for all 
biological quality elements. 

15   Romania subsequently explained that there was an error in reporting and that, for transitional waters, reference 

conditions had also been defined for some hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. 

32 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                      
The 

identification  of 

type-specific  reference  conditions  has  been  coordinated  with 

neighbouring  countries  for  transitional  and  coastal  waters,  i.e.  with  Bulgaria  for  the  Danube 
river  types.  Reference  conditions  for  river  water  bodies  have  been  coordinated  within  the 

Danube  Regional  Project  –  ‘Danube  river  basin  type  and  conditions  based  on  national 
contributions from the Danube river countries’ during the first RBMP cycle. 

2.1.5  Characteristics of groundwater bodies 

Romania  reported  on  the  geological  formation  of  the  aquifers  associated  with  groundwater 

bodies and identified whether the groundwater bodies were layered or not.  It was reported to 
WISE  that  55%  of  groundwater  bodies  were  linked  to  surface  water  bodies  and  55%  16  to 
terrestrial ecosystems. 

2.1.6 

Significant pressures on water bodies 

30 different  pressure  types  were reported to  be affecting surface water bodies in  Romania in 
the  second  RBMP.  The  three  most  significant  pressures  on  surface  waters  were  “diffuse 

pressures from discharges not connected to sewerage network” (25% of surface water bodies), 
“diffuse  agricultural  pressures”  (12%  of  surface  water  bodies)  and  “point  source  pressures 
from urban waste water” (5% of surface water bodies) (Figure 2.2). 

“Diffuse  pressures  from  discharges  not  connected  to  sewerage  network”  were  reported  to  be 
the  most  significant  pressures  on  coastal  waters  (all  four  water  bodies)  and  on  river  water 

bodies (25% of river water bodies) in the second RBMP: this pressure also affected 9% of lake 
water bodies (Figure 2). “Diffuse agricultural pressures” and “diffuse aquaculture” were the 2 

most significant pressures on lakes, affecting 11% of water bodies. “Unknown anthropogenic 
pressures” were reported as a significant pressure for transitional water bodies17.   

Romania reported significant pressures at an aggregated level in first RBMP. “Diffuse source 
pressures” affected most surface water bodies (33%), followed by “water flow regulation and 

morphological alteration pressures” (13%) and “point source pressures” (8%) (Figure 2.3). 

Only two pressure types were reported to be significant on groundwater in the second RBMP: 

“diffuse  agricultural  pressures”  and  “diffuse  pressures  from  discharges  not  connected  to 
sewerage  networks”,  both  affecting  10%  of  groundwater  bodies  (Figure  2.3).  In  the  first 

16   Romania subsequently explained that there was a mistake in the WISE reporting and that 32% of groundwater 

bodies were linked to terrestrial ecosystems (according with the RBMP, chapter 4.1, page 86). 

17   Romania  subsequently  highlighted  that  the  unknown  pressures  on  transitional  water  bodies  were  indirect 
pressures  from  the  catchment  and  the  measures  taken  upstream  on  the  Danube  river  will  lead  to  the 
achievement of the environmental objectives for the transitional water bodies.  

33 

 
                                                      
RBMP,  the  same  two  equivalent  pressure  types  were  the  only  pressures  reported,  each 

affecting 13% of groundwater bodies. 

Figure 2.2 

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

34 

 
 
 
 
Figure 2.3  Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Romania in the first and 

second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

2.1.7  Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater 

Numerical  tools  were  used  to  assess  the  significance  of  water  abstraction  and  water  flow 

pressures on surface water bodies, and a combination of numerical tools and expert judgment 
for point source and diffuse source pressures. The significance of the pressures was defined in 

terms of thresholds and was linked to failure of objectives. 

The RBMP reported that the methodology for identifying significant  pressures and assessing 

the  impact  on  water  bodies  has  been  revised  for  the  second  RBMP  for  surface  waters.  The 
pressures were based on the pressure types as recommended by the Common Implementation 

Strategy  Guidance  documents.  The  criteria  were  set  out  in  a  document:  "Methodological 
elements  regarding the updating of significant  pressure identification and assessment of their 
impact on surface water status  -  Identification of bodies of water at risk of not achieving the 
objectives of the WFD". In order to identify the potentially significant point source pressures a 
set of criteria was applied18.  

18 Romania subsequently clarified that generally the criteria for identifying  the potential point pollution  sources 
was based on specific thresholds/criteria defined in the water related European Directives transposed into the 
national legislation (UWWTD, IED; Dangerous Substances Directive). Romania stated that this was done by 
crosschecking the point pollution sources with the water bodies failing reaching the environmental objectives 
were  established  the  significant  point  and  diffuse  pressures,  if  the  specific  parameter  causing  failure  of 

35 

 
 
 
                                                      
It  was  reported  to  WISE  that  expert  judgment  was  used  to  assess  the  significance  of  all 
assessed pressures on groundwater bodies19. The significance of the pressures was defined in 
terms of thresholds and was linked to failure of objectives. 

In  the  RBMP  quantitative  pressures  on  groundwater  bodies  were  defined  as  significant 
pressures,  when  the  abstraction  may  exceed  the  natural  rate  of  recharge  of  the  aquifer.  The 

impact  of  anthropogenic  pressures  on  groundwater  bodies  has  been  assessed  based  on  the 
results  obtained  from  the  quantitative  and  quality  (chemical)  monitoring  of  the  groundwater 

body. Artificial recharge is not taken into account as a pressure on groundwater bodies.  

2.1.8 

Significant impacts on water bodies  

Nine impact types were reported for surface waters in the second RBMP; five were reported in 
the  first  RBMP.  The  most  significant  in  both  the  first  and  second  cycle  was  nutrient 

pollution/enrichment affecting 27% and 32% of surface water bodies, respectively (Figure 4). 
Nutrient pollution affected the most water bodies in rivers (27%), lakes (13%), coastal (100%) 

and  transitional  (50%)  water  bodies  in  the  second  RBMP.  Organic  pollution  was  impacting 
17%  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the  second  RBMP  and  organic  enrichment  13%  in  the  first 
RBMP.  An  unknown  impact  type  was  affecting  3%  of  surface  water  bodies.  Note  that  3027 

surface water bodies were delineated in the second RBMP compared to 3399 in the first cycle, 
which might make difficult the comparison between the 2 cycles.  

Only one impact type was reported for groundwater in the second RBMP; chemical pollution, 
which  impacted  10%  of  groundwater  bodies  (Figure  2.4).  Similarly,  there  was  only  one 

reported impact in first RBMP: chemical damage impacting 13% of groundwater bodies.  

environmental objectives exceed the boundaries between classes in the status system classification. Romania 
also  explained  that  the  tool  used  for  defining  the  significant  diffuse  pressures  it  was  mentioned  MONERIS 
model and WaQ model (RBMP Update 2015 Chapter 3.4 – Significant pressures, page 52 and Chapter 9.9 – 
Supplementary measures, page 278). 

19  Romania  subsequently  clarified  that  for  the  non-polluted  GWBs  (especially  located  in  the  mountains  area  or 
very  deep  aquifers)  without  monitoring  data,  the  chemical  risk  assessment  has  been  done  considering  the 
chemical pressures analysis together with the evaluation of the global protection degree, through considering 
two essential parameters (lithology of the covering layers/strata and efficient infiltration/recharge) for which 
numerical criteria have been set. 

36 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
Figure 2.4 

Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Romania for 

the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

2.1.9  Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 

10.5% of groundwater bodies were reported in the second RBMP to be at risk of failing good 

chemical status. Two pollutants were causing the risk: nitrate in 8% of groundwater bodies and 
ammonium  in  2%.  No  groundwater  bodies  were  reported  to  be  at  risk  of  failing  good 

quantitative status. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
2.1.10  Quantification of the gap and apportionment of pressures  

Gaps,  which  needed  to  be  filled  in  order  to  achieve  objectives,  were  reported  for  the  two 
pressures  which  were  significant  at  the  groundwater  body  level.  A  gap  indicator  was  also 

reported for diffuse urban run-off pressures even though this pressure was not reported at the 
groundwater body level. 

Gaps were reported for most of the significant pressures on surface waters, thereby identifying 
the  sources/activities  causing  the  main  pressure  types  such  as  point  source;  diffuse  source; 

physical  alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian  area/shore;  dams,  barriers  and  locks;  hydrological 
alteration  pressures  and  other  anthropogenic  pressures.    Gaps  were  not  reported  for  four 

pressures,  each  of  which  was  affecting  one  surface  water  body.  These  were:    point  -  waste 
disposal sites; physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - other; dams, barriers and 

locks - irrigation; and, hydrological alteration - aquaculture. 

Romania  reported  gaps  to  be  filled  for  four  priority  substances  (lead,  mercury,  nickel  and 

cadmium).  The  gap  indicators  were  in  terms  of  the  loads  to  be  reduced  and  the  numbers  of 
water bodies failing the environmental quality standard for each substance. 

2.1.11  Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances 

Article  5  of  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  (EQS  Directive20)  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 
(respectively priority hazardous substances). 

losses  for  priority  substances 

Romania  reported  inventories  of  priority  substances  for  each  of  its  11  sub-units.  37  Priority 
Substances were included in at least one of the inventories in Romania. There were inventories 

in all sub-units for 20 substances including mercury, lead, cadmium and nickel. However, four 
priority substances and groups of priority substances were not included in an inventory in any 

20 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 

38 

 
                                                      
 
of  the  sub-units:  these  were  tributyltin,  chloroalkanes  C10-13,  pentachlorophenol  and 

brominated diphenylether.  

The  two-step  approach  from  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  Document 
n°2821  was  used  to  compile  the  inventories  for  nine  Priority  Substances  only.  For  these 
substances  Tier  2  (riverine  load)  or  Tier  1  (point  source  information)  +  Tier  2  were 
implemented.  It  is  unclear  which  methodology  was  implemented  for  other  substances22.  The 
data quality was assessed as uncertain or medium. 

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

There  was  a  significant  (11%)  decrease  in  the  numbers  of  river  water  bodies  between  the  2 
cycles.  Proportionally  there  were  small  decreases  in  the  percentages  (of  total  river  water 

bodies)  in  natural  and  artificial  rivers  and  a  small  increase  in  the  percentage  of  heavily 
modified  rivers.  There  was  also  a  small  decrease  (2  water  bodies)  in  the  number  of  natural 

lakes and a small increase (1 water body) in the number of heavily modified lakes between the 
2 cycles. The typologies of surface water bodies were also synthesised.  

There were some changes in the methodologies used for defining significance of pressures are 
described in the RBMP23.  

2.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

the following: 

 

Recommendation:  Review  the  pressures  and  impacts  analysis  and  status  assessment  in 

the second RBMP and ensure that the measures are based on the updated pressures and 
impacts analysis and status assessment of water bodies. Ensure that the RBMPs clearly 

identify the gap to good status, and that the Programmes of Measures are designed and 
implemented to close that gap. [Actions: The second RBMP should: 

 

Include  a  reviewed  pressure  and  impact  analysis  based  on  more  complete  monitoring 

data, revision of water body status, more complete inventory of emissions and revision of 
risk assessment.  

21CIS  Guidance  N° 

28 

- 

Preparation 

of 

Priority 

Substances 

Emissions 

Inventory 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm   
22   Romania subsequently clarified that the same methodology was used also for the other substances. 
23   Romania subsequently explained that in fact the changes consist in re-assessment of the significant pressures 

types and defining, identifying and validating the pressures to focus more on significant pressures. 

39 

 
                                                      
 

The  RBMP  should  apportion  impacts  to  pressures  and  sources/drivers,  to  increase  the 

understanding of which activities and sectors are responsible and in which proportion - 
for achieving objectives.  

 

Include a gap analysis on the measures that need to be taken to achieve good status and 
put in a place and implement the Programme of Measures needed to close this gap. 

Assessment:  Inventories  have  been  reported  for  all  priority  substances,  except  four 
Priority Substances for the second RBMP. The inventory was developed for the first time 

in  the  second  RBMP  and  therefore,  there  has  been  some  progress  in  developing  more 
complete inventories.  

The  risk  assessment  for  groundwater  was  reported  to  WISE  to  be  defined  by  expert 
judgement. The significance of the pressures was however defined in terms of thresholds 
and was linked to failure of objectives24. It seems that there has been some progress on 
this aspect. 

Romania  also  reported  gaps  to  be  filled  to  achieve  objectives  for  most  significant 
pressures: this indicates some progress.  

Overall  progress  has  been  made  towards  fulfilling  this  recommendation  but  it  has  not 
been completely fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation: The characterization is not complete, harmonization between abiotic 
typology  definition.  The 
and  biotic  criteria 

is  still  under  development 

for 

characterization  and  the  harmonization  of  abiotic  and  biotic  criteria  should  be 
completed.  [Action:  In  the  first  RBMPs,  the  characterization  was  not  complete,  and 

harmonization  between  abiotic  and  biotic  criteria  was  still  under  development  for 
typology  definition.  The  characterization  and  the  harmonization  of  abiotic  and  biotic 

criteria for typology definition should be completed.] 

Assessment:  The  RBMP  reported  that  the  typology  was  revised  and  that  a  number  of 

types were synthesized. In the RBMP it was explained that the typology was defined in 
three  stages:  (1)  the  top-down  approach  -  based  on  abiotic  factors;  (2)  the  bottom-up 

approach - based on biological elements; and (3) the analysis and combination of the two 
approaches for the final definition of the types. The recommendation has therefore been 

fulfilled.  

24  Romania  subsequently  highlighted  that  pressures  and  impacts  analysis,  status  assessment  were  based  on 

monitoring results which were compared with standards values and threshold values. 

40 

 
 
                                                      
Topic 3

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

3.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second RBMP 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

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. Territorial waters are not  a water 
body  category  under  the  WFD.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  under  Article  2(1)  of  the 

WFD, territorial waters are included for the assessment and reporting of chemical status. 

Operational  monitoring  programmes  were  reported  for  rivers,  lakes,  transitional  and  coastal 
waters  

Surveillance  programmes  were  only  reported  for  rivers  and  lakes.  Romania  subsequently 
clarified that as coastal and transitional water bodies have been assessed as being not in good 

status, only operational monitoring is now carried out. The operational monitoring programme 
is carried out each year during a management plan cycle and will be replaced by surveillance 

monitoring if the water bodies reach good status. Romania clarified that operational monitoring 
is undertaken at least as frequently and often more frequently than surveillance monitoring for 

the relevant quality elements and parameters. 

Monitoring  sites  and  monitored  water  bodies  used  for  surveillance  and  operational 
monitoring 

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

for  different  purposes  for  the  second  RBMP.  There  were  some  significant  differences  in  the 
numbers of monitoring sites from the first to the second RBMPs (Figure 3.1). The total number 

of  monitored  surface  water  bodies  has  increased  from  28%  to  39%  of  the  total  number  of 
surface water bodies from the first to the second RBMP. 

41 

 
Table 3.1 

Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Romania 

for the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with 
data reported in first RBMP, the data for the second RBMP does not take into 

account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring.  

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Territorial 

Surv. 

Op. 

Surv. 

Op. 

Surv. 

Op.  Surv. 

Op.  Surv. 

Op. 

second RBMP  

Total by type of site 

1 234 

422 

22 

72 

Total number of 
monitoring sites 

first RBMP 

1 656 

94 

0 

8 

8 

0 

28 

0 (3) 

3 
(0) 

28 

3 

Total by type of site 

1 263 

547 

434 

229 

12 

12 

42 

42 

Total number of 
monitoring sites 

1 263 

434 

12 

42 

Surv. = Surveillance, Op. = Operational 

Sources:  Member  States  electronic  reports  to  WISE.  Romania  subsequently  communicated  that  the  monitoring 
sites  in  territorial  waters,  which  were  mistakenly  reported  for  operational  monitoring  were  instead  used  for 
surveillance monitoring. 

Table 3.2 

Number  of  monitoring  sites  in  relevant  water  categories  used  for  different 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional  Coastal  Territorial 

1 004 

61 

purposes in Romania  

Monitoring Purpose 

CHE - Chemical status 

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

197 

ECO - Ecological status 

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

INT - International network of other international 

convention 

1 940 

96 

156 

37 

69 

INV - Investigative monitoring 

171 

2 

MSF - Marine Strategy Framework Directive25 
monitoring network 

8 

8 

4 

28 

3 

28 

3 (0) 

2 

1 

6 

13 

25   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 

42 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Monitoring Purpose 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional  Coastal  Territorial 

NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates 
Directive26 - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 

OPE - Operational monitoring 

REF - Reference network monitoring site 

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

546 

422 

127 

12 

SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring 

136 

SUR - Surveillance monitoring 

TRE - Chemical trend assessment 

Total sites irrespective of purpose 

1 234 

147 

1 982 

43 

72 

6 

9 

22 

18 

96 

8 

8 

4 

3 

8 

28 

28 

3 

15 

28 

3 

3 (0) 

1 (0) 

0 (3) 

2 

3 

Source: WISE electronic reports Romania subsequently explained that there were errors in the reporting of 
monitoring sites in territorial waters and that all three sites were used for surveillance monitoring and for 
chemical status only. 

26   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 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
Figure 3.1 

Percentage  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  and  operational 

monitoring  in  Romania  for  the  first  and  second  RBMPs.  Note  no 
differentiation  is  made  between  water  bodies  included  in  ecological  and/or 

chemical monitoring. Lakes data for first RBMP are not included; no data for 
coastal and transitional waters for the second RBMP 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Surveillance  monitoring  sites  were  reported  in  coastal  and  transitional  waters  for  the  first 
RBMP but  not  for the second RBMP. Surveillance sites in  lakes decreased from  434 for the 

first RBMP to 22 for the second RBMP, and in rivers from 1 263 for the first RBMP to 1 234 
for the second RBMP. Similarly, the number of operational monitoring sites was reduced in all 

surface  water  categories,  with  the  largest  proportional  decrease  in  lakes  (68%)  followed  by 
coastal  and  transitional  waters  (33%)  and  rivers  (23%).  It  should  be  noted  that  there  was  an 

11% reduction in the number of river water bodies from the first to the second RBMPs with 
smaller or no changes in the number of water bodies in the other categories. The re-delineation 

of river water bodies does not explain the decreases in river monitoring sites from the first to 
the second RBMPs.  

For river water bodies the monitoring network has been expanded.  

44 

 
 
 
For lakes, there were large decreases in the proportion of water bodies included in surveillance 

and  operational  monitoring  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs  due  to  the  factors  explained 
above. However, the values for monitored lakes reported in the first RBMP are unreliable, as 

different  samples  taken  from  the  same  lake/reservoir  water  body  were  reported  as  separate 
monitoring sites, see further details above. For rivers, there was a 2% increase in the proportion 

of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  and  a  2%  decrease  in  those  included  in 
operational  monitoring.  Water  bodies  monitored  in  the  surveillance  programme  were 

distributed among the status classes, including those in high status as expected (Figure 3.2). 

Romania  subsequently  informed  that  in  the  first  RBMP,  the  same  monitoring  sites  were 

reported in the surveillance and operational programmes. Therefore, the total number of sites 
was double counted. The methodology for designing and reporting the monitoring programmes 

has been updated since the first RBMP, applying surveillance monitoring for the water bodies 
which  achieved  the  environmental  objectives  and  operational  monitoring  for  surface  water 
bodies  which  are  at  risk  of  failing  the  objectives.27  Some  monitoring  sites  and  sub-sites  for 
lakes and reservoirs were also merged. In this respect, no meaningful comparison can be done 
between  the  figures  of  both  plans,  but  the  number  of  monitored  surface  water  bodies  has 

increased in the second RBMP. 

27  In  the  first  RBMP  the  monitoring  of  lakes  and  reservoirs  used  more  sampling  sites  per  lake,  three  sites  at 
entrance, middle, end/dam respectively and for each of these sites the following sub-sections were sampled: 
surface,  euphotic  zones  and  end  of  the  euphotic  zones.  Due  to  the  changes  of  the  sampling  methods  (now 
using integrated sample from the euphotic zone) and the analysis of the relevance of having several monitoring 
sites in the assessment process of the lake water bodies, the number of monitoring sites per lake were reduced 
to the following sampling sites: middle and end/dam and for each of them, taking just one integrated sample 
from the euphotic zone. 

45 

 
 
                                                      
 
Figure 3.2 

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

included in surveillance monitoring in Romania 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Information  in  the  RBMP  indicates  that  the  monitoring  system  was  assessed  and  improved 

(where applicable) compared to  the first  RBMP.  The delineation of surface and  groundwater 
bodies  has  been  revised;  therefore  a  re-evaluation  of  the  monitoring  network  was  necessary. 

The  monitoring  network  has  been  expanded  in  order  to  monitor  as  many  water  bodies  as 
possible in a planning cycle, the number of monitored parameters has increased as well as the 
level  of  confidence  of  the  status  assessment.  To  extend  the  monitoring  network  at  national 

level, 194 new monitoring points were included in 184 surface water bodies. This information 
is not consistent with the information reported to the WISE for the first and second RBMPs.28 

30% of lake and 32% of river water bodies were monitored for all required biological quality 
elements  for  surveillance  monitoring.  For  the  hydromorphological  quality  elements,  5%  of 

lakes  and  59%  river  water  bodies  were  monitored  for  all  required  quality  elements  in 
surveillance  monitoring,  and  for  physicochemical  quality  elements,  50%  of  lake  and  64%  of 

river water bodies.  

28  Note:  the  number  of  surveillance  and  operational  sites  were  transposed  incorrectly  in  the  2012  Commission 
Staff  Working  Document  for  the  first  RBMP.  The  numbers  in  the  surveillance  column  are  operational  sites 
and vice-versa. 

46 

 
 
 
                                                      
The  same  biological  quality  elements  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  were  also  used  in 

operational monitoring. In operational monitoring the most extensively used quality element in 
rivers was benthic invertebrates – 261 or 9% of river water bodies. For lakes, the predominant 

biological quality elements used were phytoplankton and phytobenthos (30 lake water bodies, 
23%  of  total  lake  water  bodies);  fish  were  only  monitored  in  3%  of  lakes.  All  coastal  and 

transitional  water  bodies  were  included  in  operational  monitoring.  60%  of  lake  and  22%  of 
river water bodies at  less than good ecological  status or potential are included in  operational 

monitoring. 

Transboundary surface water body monitoring 

Romania reported one transboundary river water body. Twelve monitoring sites were reported 
to be part of an international network of a river convention. Monitoring sites were also reported 

for  coastal  and  transitional  waters  that  were  part  of  an  international  network  for  other 
international conventions. 

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 RBMP: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. 

All  expected  biological  quality  elements  were  reported  to  be  monitored  in  coastal,  lake  and 
river water bodies. However, there is a gap in the monitoring of transitional waters where other 

aquatic flora was reported not to be monitored.  

In terms of rivers, lakes and transitional water bodies all relevant hydromorphological quality 

elements  were  reported  to  be  monitored,  but  morphological  conditions  were  reported  as  not 
being monitored for coastal and transitional waters. Romania subsequently clarified that they 

are indeed monitored in one of the two transitional water bodies.  

47 

 
Table 3.3 

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

Biological quality elements 

Hydromorphological quality elements 

s
e
t
y
h
p
o
r
c
a
M

Yes 

Yes 

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

Yes 

n

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

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

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

c
i
h
t
n
e
B
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

h
s
i
F
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

s

m
r
e
p
s
o
i
g
n
A

e
a
g
l
a
o
r
c
a
M

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

r
e
h
t
O

a
r
o
l
f

c
i
t
a
u
q
a

r
e
h
t
O
- 

- 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 29 

Yes 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

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

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

l
a
d
i
t

r
o

e
m
i
g
e
r

y
t
i
u
n
i
t
n
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

l
a

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

Yes 

No (Yes) 

No 

General physicochemical quality elements 

c
n
e
r
a
p
s
n
a
r
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

y

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

l
a
m
r
e
h
T

Yes 

Yes (No) 

Yes (No) 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

No (Yes) 

Coastal 

No (Yes) 

No 

No 

n
o
i
t
a
n
e
g
y
x
O

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

y
t
i
n
i
l
a
S

Yes 

Yes (No) 

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 

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

n
e
g
o
r
t
i

N

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

s
u
r
o
h
p
s
o
h
P

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
C

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

t
n
e
i
r
t
u
n
r
o
f

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

d
n
a
n
i
m
r
e
t
e
d

r
e
h
t
O
No 

No 

No 

No 

e
t
a
c
i
l
i
S

No 

No 

No (Yes) 

No(Yes) 

Source: WISE electronic reports. Values in brackets were subsequently provided by Romania.. 

29 Romania explained that aquatic flora is not relevant for transitional waters due to the absence of adequate conditions for the development of aquatic flora. 

48 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                      
 
For the first RBMP all expected quality elements were reported to be monitored in all surface 

water  categories  for  both  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring,  though  within  different 
numbers  of  water  bodies.  For  the  first  RBMP,  fish  was  the  most  frequently  used  biological 

quality element (in terms of number of water bodies) for the operational monitoring of lakes, 
and benthic invertebrates for the operational monitoring of rivers.  

All  the biological  quality  elements  monitored for surveillance  and operational  purposes  were 
sampled at, or more than, the WFD minimum recommended frequency: transitional and coastal 

waters were not included in surveillance monitoring, for reasons outlined above. 

The  pollution  of  surface  water  resources  is  monitored  according  to  the  quantities  of  organic 

substances (expressed as dissolved oxygen, CCO - Cr and CBO5), nutrients (total nitrogen and 
total phosphorus) and specific pollutants by category of pollution sources. 

River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored 

Monitoring  for  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  has  been  reduced  in  terms  of  the  number  of 

monitoring  sites  in  lakes  (but  comparability  is  difficult  due  to  the  change  of  the  monitoring 
methodology for lakes, as described above), but has increased in rivers; there was little change 
in transitional and coastal waters (Table 3.4). 11 different River Basin Specific Pollutants were 

monitored  in  water  in  Romania.  Seven  substances  were  monitored  in  coastal,  six  in 
transitional, 11 in lake and 11 in river water bodies. 

Table 3.4 

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

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

not all Member State reported information at the site level meaning that there 
were no equivalent data for the first RBMP 

RBMP 

Rivers  Lakes 

Transitional  Coastal 

second 

Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants30 

1 137  

77 

First 

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

812 

271 

8 

7 

28 

27 

Sources: WISE electronic reports 

The  WFD  gives  a  guideline  monitoring  frequency  of  once  every  three  months  for  other 
pollutants. Overall 72% of sites in surface waters where River Basin Specific Pollutants were 

30 Romania clarified that there are 1102 monitoring sites in rivers and 81 sites in lakes. 

49 

 
 
                                                      
monitored  in  accordance  with  the  recommended  WFD  monitoring  frequency  of  every  three 

months,  for  the  rest  of  the  sites  higher  monitoring  frequency  is  applied.    The  analytical 
methods  are  in  line  with  Article  4.1  of  QA/QC  Directive  (2009/90/EC)  for  all  substances, 

except “EEA_33-09-0 Detergents”, where the best available method as specified in the Article 
4(2) has been used.  

Use of monitoring results for classification 

The  classification  of  quality  elements  for  coastal  and  transitional  waters  for  all  water  bodies 

was based on monitoring results  (Figure 3.3).  For most of the river water bodies and quality 
elements and many of the lake water bodies and quality elements, the classification is based on 

grouping or expert judgement. 

One transitional water body was classified according to morphological conditions even though 

this quality element was not reported to be directly monitored.  

Monitoring results were mostly used in the classification of quality elements for lakes, though 

grouping  and  expert  judgement  have  also  been  used.  In  particular,  expert  judgment  was 
predominantly  used  to  classify  the  hydrological  regime.  There  were  more  lake  water  bodies 
directly  monitored  for  the  hydromorphological  quality  elements  than  water  bodies  for  which 

monitoring  results  had  been  used  in  the  classification.  Macrophytes  and  fish  were  also 
monitored in  some lake water bodies, but  not  all water bodies were  yet  classified by these 2 

elements.  This  is  because  of  the  on-going  development  for  fish  method  and  on-going 
validation for macrophytes method.  

In  rivers,  grouping  was  used  mainly  for  the  classification  of  the  biological  quality  elements, 
with monitoring results and expert judgement also used, to a differing extent for the different 

elements.  More  water  bodies  were  classified  using  monitoring  results  for  phytobenthos  and 
fish than had been directly monitored for these elements. This may be a reporting error. Fewer 

water bodies were classified using fish than the other required biological quality elements, and 
more water bodies had been directly monitored for fish than were subsequently classified using 

this element. As for lakes, the classification of hydromorphological quality elements in rivers 
was  mainly  based  on  expert  judgment  followed  by  monitoring  results  and  grouping.  Again 

there  may  be  a  reporting  error  as  fewer  river  water  bodies  were  reported  to  be  directly 
monitored for hydromorphological quality elements than had been classified using monitoring 

results.  

50 

 
Figure 3.3  Basis  of  the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  in  Romania.  The 

percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category. 

Source: WISE electronic reports. Note: ‘not applicable’ situations are not presented. 

51 

 
 
3.1.2  Ecological Status/potential of surface water  

The  ecological  status/potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Romania  for  the  second  RBMP  is 
illustrated in Map 3.1. This is based on the most recent assessment of status. 

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

Map 3.1 

Ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Romania  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 

Figure 3.4 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. For the first 
RBMP  no  surface  water  body  was  classified  with  high  confidence;  for  the  second  this  had 
increased  to  24%.  There  had  also  been  a  decrease  in  the  proportion  classified  with  low 
confidence, from 52% to 23%.  

52 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Figure  3.5  compares  the  ecological  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Romania  for  the  first 

RBMP with that for the second (based on the most recent assessment of status/potential) 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  Romania  is  shown  in  Figure  3.6.  Romania  expects  to 

achieve good ecological status/potential in surface water bodies by 2027 at the latest. 

Figure 3.4  Confidence  in  the  classification  of  ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface 
water bodies in Romania based on the most recently assessed status/potential  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

53 

 
 
Figure 3.5  Ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Romania  for  the 
second  RBMP,  for  the  first  RBMP  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in 
parenthesis  is  the  number  of  surface  water  bodies  for  each  cycle.  Note  the 
period  of  the  assessment  of  status  for  the  second  RBMP  was  2010  to  2015. 
The year of the assessment of status for the first RBMP was 2007 to 2009 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Figure 3.6  Expected  date  of  achievement  of  good  ecological  status/potential  of  surface 
water  bodies  in  Romania.  The  number  in  the  parenthesis  is  the  number  of 
water bodies in each category 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

54 

 
 
 
The ecological status/potential is good or better in most of the lakes and rivers, but in none of 

the  transitional  and  coastal  waters.  There  are  very  few  water  bodies  with  unknown 
status/potential  (6  lakes,  most  of  them  explained  by  Romania  in  their  WISE  reporting  as 

“therapeutic”  lakes  with  very  different  reference  conditions).  The  confidence  in  lake 
assessment  is  quite  low,  while  that  of  the  assessments  of  rivers  and  transitional  and  coastal 

waters are mostly high or medium.  

The proportion of river water bodies in good or better status/potential has increased from 66% 

to 71% from the first to the second RBMPs, while that in lakes has increased a lot more from 
17%  to  79%  during  the  same  period31.  The  natural  lake  assessment  does  not  include 
macrophytes or fish (but those were also missing in the first RBMP32). None of the transitional 
and coastal water bodies have changed status/potential, as they are still in less than good with 

50% reported to be in bad status.  

The  Member  State  reports  that  the  assessment  of  ecological  status  and  ecological  potential 

shows an increase in the number of surface water bodies in good and high status/good potential 
between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs,  of  6.71% (from  59.43%  to  66.14%).  It  is  noted  in  the 
RBMPs that due to the use of methodologies with stricter class boundaries for some biological 

elements  (as  a  result  of  the  intercalibration  process),  as  well  as  changes  in  the  grouping  of 
water bodies, the percentage of water bodies in  "high" status in the second RBMPs has been 

reduced compared to the first  RBMPs, but  the number of  water bodies in "good "  status  has 
increased.. 

Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element 

Figure  3.7  illustrates  the  biological  quality  elements  used  in  the  classification  of  ecological 

status/potential. 

Figure  3.8  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  some  caution  as  there  are  differences  between  the  numbers  of  surface  water 

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

Figure 3.9 illustrates the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers and 

lakes in Romania for the second RBMPs. 

31 Romania clarified that in the first RBMP, these figures are referring only to the natural water bodies in relation 

to all natural water bodies in all categories, not only to river water bodies 

32 Romania reported that, in the case of fish, 25 % of natural lake water bodies represent  not-applicable situations. 

55 

 
                                                      
A larger proportion of water bodies have been classified for more biological quality elements 

(Figure  3.7)  and  supporting  quality  elements  than  in  the  first  RBMP,  e.g.  phytobenthos  and 
benthic  invertebrates  and  supporting  quality  elements  in  lakes,  and  phytobenthos  and 

supporting  quality  elements  in  rivers.  These  quality  elements  were  not  classified  in  the  first 
RBMPs due to lack of methods.  

56 

 
 
 
Figure 3.7  Ecological  status/potential  of  the  biological  quality  elements  used  in  the 

classification  of  surface  waters  in  Romania.  Note  that  water  bodies  with 
unknown  status/potential,  and  those  that  are  monitored  but  not  classified  or 

not applicable, are not presented.  

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

57 

 
Figure 3.8  Comparison of ecological status/potential in Romania according to classified 

biological  quality  elements  in  surface  water  bodies  between  the  first  and 
second RBMPs. The numbers in parenthesis show the number of water bodies 

with a classification for that element  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Figure 3.9 

The classification of the ecological status or potential of surface water bodies 
in Romania using 1, 2, 3 or 4 types of quality element. Note: The four  types 

are:  biological;  hydromorphological,  general  physicochemical  and  River 
Basin Specific Pollutants 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

58 

 
 
Macroalgae and angiosperms are listed as not applicable, but other aquatic flora is used (Figure 

3.8). Romania reported that  the methodology was developed considering  the macroalgae and 
angiosperms  as  a  single  biological  quality  element.  More  than  40%  of  lakes  have  unknown 

status/potential for phytobenthos and for benthic invertebrates. Macrophytes are not classified 
in rivers and lakes, and fish is not classified in lakes33, due to missing methods.  

Changes in quality element class have also been reported for many water bodies. Those quality 
elements that have changed class are mostly showing improvements, and most of the changes 

were reported to be consistent. 

Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements 

More assessment methods have been developed since the first RBMP: phytobenthos in rivers 
and  lakes,  benthic  invertebrates  in  lakes,  other  aquatic  flora  in  coastal  waters  (macroalgae 

and/or  angiosperms).  All  the  biological  quality  element  methods  required  in  the  WFD  have 
been developed, except macrophytes in rivers34, fish in lakes, and angiosperms and macroalgae 
in transitional waters35. Reference conditions are available for some biological quality elements 
in the majority of river types: they are available for all biological quality elements in three river 
types.  

Romania subsequently clarified that the biological type-specific reference conditions (for rivers 
and  lakes)  were  interpreted  to  be  represented  only  by  the  currently  existing  reference 

situations, while the type-specific reference values could also represent an ideal situation or a 
situation in the past (based on e.g. modelling, expert judgement). 

Reference conditions are available for all biological quality elements in all coastal water types, 
and some biological quality elements in all lake and transitional waters types.  

None  of  the  biological  quality  element  assessment  methods  were  reported  to  be  sensitive  to 
chemical  pollution even though chemical  pollution was reported to  have a significant  impact 

on rivers. Also in rivers, there were no methods sensitive to hydrological changes, acidification 
and saline intrusion even though they were reported as a significant impact.  

There is information in the RBMP on the biological elements for which intercalibration (within 
the Geographical Intercalibration Groups) has not been completed and the steps (recommended 

in  the  WFD  Intercalibration  Manual)  that  have  yet  to  be  taken.  The  remaining  gaps  and 

33 Romania considers that, in the case of fish, 26% of natural lake water bodies represent not-applicable situations 
34 The method for macrophytes has been intercalibrated and included in the 2018 Intercalibration Decision 
35  Romania  explained  that  aquatic  flora  is  not  relevant  for  transitional  waters  due  to  the  absence  of  adequate 

conditions for the development of aquatic flora. 

59 

 
                                                      
inconsistencies in the methods concern monitoring results for macrophytes in lakes and rivers 

and fish in lakes. 

Intercalibration of biological assessment methods and national classification systems 

For the biological quality element methods, a large proportion of national river and lake types 
are  not  linked  to  any  intercalibration  type.  Romania  has  later  informed  that  for  all  national 

types, the class boundaries used were those of the intercalibrated types. 

Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements 

Hydrological or tidal regime in all categories and river continuity were reported to be assessed 
in  terms  of  ecological  status/potential  but  the  classification  boundaries  are  not  related  to  the 

class  boundaries  for  the  sensitive  biological  quality  elements.  Morphological  conditions  are 
also  assessed  in  terms  of  ecological  status/potential  and  the  classification  boundaries  are 

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

Reference conditions are available for all hydromorphological quality elements in all but three 

river types. Reference conditions for some hydromorphological quality elements are available 
in  all  lake  types,  but  according  to  the  reporting  in  WISE  none  are  available  in  coastal  and 
transitional waters.  

The RBMP indicates that for the hydromorphological quality elements, the National  Institute 
of Hydrology and Water Management has developed a new status assessment methodology for 

the second RBMP, both for rivers and lakes (natural and heavily modified water bodies). The 
new methodology ensures a higher data confidence. The remaining gaps and inconsistencies in 

the  methods  for  assessing  the  hydromorphological  quality  elements  are  not  specified  in  the 
RBMP. The methodology for assessment of hydromorphological status for rivers is presented 

in  an  annex  to  the  RBMP.  Romania’s  evaluation  of  this  methodology  concluded  that  the 
interlinkages  between  hydromorphological  and  biological  quality  elements  still  remain  an 

issue. This is currently included as a prioritised activity at EU level. 

Assessment methods for general physicochemical quality elements 

More  assessment  methods  have  been  developed  since  the  first  RBMP  for  most  of  the 
physicochemical quality elements.  

All  relevant  physicochemical  quality  elements  are  assessed  in  rivers  in  terms  of  ecological 
status/potential  and  all  but  the  assessment  of  acidification  status  was  related  to  the  class 

boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements.  

60 

 
Transparency,  thermal  conditions  and  salinity  conditions  in  lakes,  and  thermal  conditions  in 

coastal and transitional waters are not assessed in terms of ecological status/potential. Romania 
has  informed  that  thermal  conditions  are  not  relevant  for  the  lakes,  transitional  and  coastal 

WBs,  since  there  are  no  discharges  of  thermally  polluted  waters.  The  classification  of 
transparency  and  acidification  status  methods  is  not  related  to  the  class  boundaries  of  the 

sensitive biological  quality elements.  Oxygenation and nutrient  conditions are  assessed in  all 
water categories in terms of ecological status/potential and their classification is related to the 

class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. 

Standards  were  reported  for  all  relevant  physicochemical  quality  elements  in  rivers  and  all 

except  for  pH  were  reported  to  be  consistent  to  the  good-moderate  status  boundary  of  the 
relevant  sensitive  biological  quality  elements.  For  lakes,  standards  were  reported  for  four 

physicochemical  quality  elements  in  lakes,  all  except  for  pH  were  consistent  to  the  good-
moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. There were no 

standards  for  transparency  and  thermal  conditions.  Standards  were  reported  for  five 
physicochemical  quality  elements  in  coastal  and  transitional  waters,  all  except  for  pH 
(acidification  status)  and  secchi  disk  depth  (transparency)  were  consistent  to  the  good-

moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. There were no 
standards for thermal conditions. 

However, although the nutrient standards are type-specific, the standards for total phosphorus 
in some river types may not support good status for the sensitive biological quality elements, 

although they were reported to do so (>0.2 mg/l total phosphorus).  

Reference conditions are not available for any of the physicochemical quality elements in any 
water  category  and  type,  except  for  some  in  lake  type  ROLN07.36  However,  the  high/good 
boundaries  have  been  set  for  nutrients  in  different  types  in  all  the  water  categories,  which 

means that the upper end of the reference conditions has been defined.  

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

Environmental  Quality  Standards  were  reported  for  11  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  (four 
metals,  six  persistent  organic  pollutants  and  detergents37),  all  for  water  in  each  of  the  four 
water  categories.  The  standards  were  not  derived  in  accordance  with  the  Common 

36 Romania subsequently informed that the reported reference conditions for ROLN07 was an error made in the 

WISE reporting 

37  Polychlorinated  biphenyls,  acenaphthylene,  toluene,  zinc,  copper,  arsenic,  chromium,  phenol,  xylenes,  total 

cyanides and anionic-active detergents. 

61 

 
                                                      
Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  Document  No  27.38  The  environmental  quality  standards 
set for the first River Basin Specific Pollutants were derived based on the requirements of from 
Annex  V  from  the  point  1.2.6  –  Procedure  for  the  setting  of  chemical  quality  standards  by 

Member States. The applied methodology has focussed on the development of thresholds that 
are  called  Predicted  No-Effect  Concentrations  (PNEC)  based  on  toxicology  testing.  The 

environmental quality standards values were based on these thresholds, but applying the most 
appropriate  safety  factor  (1-1000,  depending  on  confidence  in  the  toxicity  data).39  In  the 
procedure for deriving environmental quality standards for metals the limit values take natural 
background levels into account. 

From  the  reported  background  information,  identification  and  assessment  of  the  River  Basin 
Specific Pollutants has been done. The methodology to identify River Basin Specific Pollutants 

is described in the RBMPs. At national level the River Basin Specific Pollutants are identified 
taking  into  account  the  inventory  of  sources  of  pollution  from  the  identified  669  potentially 

significant  industrial  and  agricultural  point  sources.  218  of  these  have  installations  falling 
under the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive.40 There are also 451 industrial 
and agricultural establishments, other than those under the Integrated Pollution Prevention and 

Control Directive. For the period 2013-2014 there were identified 56 significant point source 
pressures (54 industrial and 2 agricultural).  

Compared  with  the  2007  situation,  which  was  the  reference  year  used  to  assess  the  same 
emissions  in  the  first  RBMP,  a  reduction  is  observed.  These  emission  reductions  are  mainly 

due  to  the  implementation  in  2010-2014  of  the  basic  and  additional  measures  for 
agglomerations, industrial activities and other activities (including agricultural  activities), but 

also the reduction, closure or conservation of the activities of some economic sectors.  

River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  have  been  assessed  on  a  basis  of  a  specific  monitoring 

programme,  which  ensures  a  minimum  of  four  or  eight  (depending  on  the  monitoring 
programme) concentration values per year for the monitored substances. 

38https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0cc3581b-5f65-4b6f-91c6-433a1e947838/TGD-EQS%20CIS-

WFD%2027%20EC%202011.pdf  

39 Romania subsequently informed that the derivation process for EQS-values continued with national validation 
of the derived PNECs to seek confirmation that they are scientifically valid, and that the data used to derive 
them  were  sound  and  complete.  For  each  substance,  the  recommended  PNECs  were  adopted  as  EQS’s  - 
EQSx≈PNECx.  

40 Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated 

pollution prevention and control  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al28045  

62 

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

The  overall  classification  of  ecological  status  is  based  on  all  four  of  the  groups  of  quality 
elements only in coastal and transitional waters  with increasing proportions of river and lake 

water bodies not using one of the quality element groups (Figure 3.10).  

Figure 3.10  The  percentage  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Romania  where  no  biological 

quality  element  (No  BQEs)  or  no  hydromorphological  (No  HYMO)  or  no 
general  physicochemical  (No  PHYSCHEM)  or  no  River  Basin  Specific 

Pollutant  (No RBSP) has been used in the classification of ecological  status 
or potential 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

The one-out-all-out principle has been used and the details on combination rules applied for the 

biological quality elements versus the supporting quality elements are provided in the RBMP. 

3.2  Main  changes  in  implementation  and  compliance  since  the  first 

RBMP 

There  were  significant  differences  in  the  numbers  of  monitoring  sites  between  the  first  and 
second  RBMPs.  Romania  informed  that  the  changes  are  mainly  due  to  the  updated 

methodology  applied  in  comparison  with  the  first  RBMP.  This  entails  a  clearer  monitoring 

63 

 
  
 
programme for each surface water body monitoring site (surveillance monitoring for the WBs 

which  achieved  the  environmental  objectives  and  operational  monitoring  for  surface  water 
bodies which are at risk of failing to meet the objectives) and merging some monitoring sites 

and  sub-sites  for  lakes  and  reservoirs.  For  the  first  RBMP,  the  same  monitoring  sites/water 
bodies were used for both programmes, which caused a double counting of monitoring sites in 

WISE.  In  this  respect,  no  meaningful  comparison  between  the  figures  of  both  plans  can  be 
made, but the numbers of monitored SWBs have increased in the second RBMP (see further 

details in section on monitoring at the start of chapter 1.1.).  

More assessment methods have been developed since the first RBMP:  phytobenthos in rivers 

and  lakes;  benthic  invertebrates  in  lakes;  other  aquatic  flora  in  coastal  waters  (including 
macroalgae and angiosperms); physicochemical quality elements, hydromorphological quality 

elements  and  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  in  all  water  categories.  Macrophytes  are 
monitored in a few water bodies in rivers and lakes.  

The confidence in assessments of ecological status has improved for rivers from around 50% in 
high  or  medium  confidence  in  the  first  to  almost  80%  in  high  or  medium  confidence  in  the 
second RBMP. Change in quality element class has also been reported for many water bodies. 

Those  quality  elements  that  have  changed  class  are  mostly  to  the  better  rather  than  to  the 
worse,  and  most  of  the  changes  were  reported  to  be  consistent.  More  biological  quality 

elements  and  supporting  quality  elements  have  been  used  for  classification  in  the  second 
RBMP than in the first. 

3.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

following: 

 

Recommendation:  “Strengthen  monitoring  as  there  are  not  enough  monitoring  data 

related  to  ecological  and  chemical  elements  and  this  is  one  of  the  reasons  for  low 
confidence in the status assessment.” 

Assessment: A large proportion of water bodies have been classified for more biological 
quality  elements  and  supporting  quality  elements  than  in  the  first  RBMP,  e.g. 

phytobenthos  and  benthic  invertebrates  and  supporting  quality  elements  in  lakes,  and 
phytobenthos and supporting quality elements in rivers. These quality elements were not 

classified  in  the  first  RBMP  due  to  lack  of  methods.  For  chemical  elements,  all  the 
relevant physico-chemical quality elements are included in the monitoring. For the River 

64 

 
Basin  Specific Pollutants, 11 substances are monitored, the number of  monitoring sites 

have increased, the frequency and the analytical methods are in line with Article 4.1 of 
Directive 2009/90/EC41 for all substances, except “EEA_33-09-0 Detergents”, where the 
best available method (Article 4(2) of WFD) has been used.  

All expected biological quality elements were reported to be monitored in coastal waters, 

lakes  and  rivers.  However,  there  are  still  gaps  in  the  monitoring  of  transitional  waters 
where  other  aquatic  flora  were  reported  not  to  be  monitored.  Romania  explained  that 

aquatic  flora  is  not  relevant  for  transitional  waters  due  to  the  absence  of  adequate 
conditions for the development of aquatic flora. 

Morphological  conditions  were  reported  as  not  being  monitored  in  coastal  and 
transitional  waters  although  Romania  subsequently  clarified  that  they  are  indeed 

monitored in one of the two transitional water bodies. There has been some progress on 
this respect. There have been very significant decreases in the number of monitoring sites 

reported for the second RBMP compared to the first, but Romania has informed that this 
is mainly due to updating of the monitoring methodology and to double counting of the 
sites used in  the first RBMP, as the same sites were used both  for surveillance and  for 

operational monitoring. In reality the number of the monitored WBs has increased (see 
further details in section 1.1.1 above).  

Romania  reported  operational  monitoring  programmes  for  all  water  categories  and  233 
(23%)  out  of  1019  water  bodies  at  less  than  good  ecological  status/potential  were 

included  in  operational  monitoring  for  the  second  RBMP.  This  aspect  of  the 
recommendation has been met. 

The confidence in status assessment has also improved. 

The recommendation is mostly fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation:  “Complete  the  development  of  methods  for  the  status  assessment  of 

water  bodies  and  definition  of  reference  conditions  and  apply  them  through  the 
implementation of a robust monitoring programmes.” 

Assessment:  More  assessment  methods  have  been  developed  since  the  first  RBMP: 
Phytobenthos in rivers and lakes, benthic invertebrates in lakes and other aquatic flora in 
coastal  waters  (including  both  macroalgae  and  angiosperms).  All  the  biological  quality 

41 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 

65 

 
                                                      
element  methods  required  in  the  WFD  have  been  developed,  except  macrophytes  in 
rivers42 and fish in lakes. 

More assessment methods have also been developed since the first RBMP for most of the 

physicochemical quality elements. However, there are still gaps. Transparency, thermal 
conditions  and  salinity  conditions  in  lakes,  and  thermal  conditions  in  coastal  and 

transitional waters are not assessed in terms of ecological status/potential.  

Hydrological  or  tidal  regime  in  all  categories  and  river  continuity  were  reported  to  be 

assessed in  terms  of ecological  status/potential but  the classification boundaries are not 
the  sensitive  biological  quality  elements. 
related 

the  class  boundaries  for 

to 

Morphological conditions are also assessed in terms of ecological status/potential and the 
classification  boundaries  are  related  to  the  class  boundaries  for  the  sensitive  biological 

quality elements. 

The recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation:  The  monitoring  activity  should  check  also  the  efficiency  of  the 
implemented  measures  (e.g.  fish  passes,  construction  of  buffer  strips  or  wetland 

restoration effect on water quality etc.).  

Assessment: Morphological conditions were reported to be monitored in rivers and lakes 

but not in transitional and coastal waters. River continuity was also monitored in rivers. 
In theory and according to the recommendation, the results of monitoring these elements 

could  be  used  for  checking  the  efficiency  of  implemented  measures  but  in  practice  no 
details were found in the RBMPs consulted.  

The recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

42 The method has in the meantime been intercalibrated and included in the 2018 Intercalibration Decision. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 4

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

4.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle  

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

4.1.1  Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters 

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

Member States implement surveillance and operational monitoring programmes in accordance 
with the requirements of the WFD and of the EQS Directive, for the assessment of ecological 

status/potential and chemical status.  

Surveillance monitoring programmes should allow Member States to supplement and validate 

the  impact  assessment  procedure,  to  efficiently  and  effectively  review  the  design  of  their 
monitoring programmes, and to  assess the long-term  changes in  natural  conditions  and those 

resulting  from  widespread  anthropogenic  activity.  For  operational  purposes,  monitoring  is 
required to establish the status of waterbodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their 
environmental objectives, and to assess any changes in the status of such waterbodies resulting 

from the PoM. 

Section 3.1.1 of this report summarises the characteristics of the surveillance and operational 

monitoring programmes in Romania for the second RBMP. 

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

surface waters for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used 
for  surveillance  and/or  operational  purposes.  More  detailed  information  can  be  found  on  the 
website of the European Environment Agency43. 

Figure  16  shows  that  all  sites  in  transitional  and  coastal  waters  are  used  for  ecological  and 

chemical  monitoring and sites in  territorial  water are used for monitoring of chemical  status. 
Just  over  half  of  all  river  water  body  sites  and  64  %  of  lake  water  body  sites  are  used  for 

monitoring  chemical  status.  Romania  subsequently  clarified  that  territorial  waters  are  not 
monitored for ecological status (this was a reporting mistake). 

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

67 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.1 

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

comparison, ecological status, in Romania. 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 surface 
waters  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 4.3 shows that all transitional water bodies, coastal water bodies and territorial waters 
are monitored for chemical status. A quarter of river water bodies are monitored and 28% of 

lake water bodies indicating that several sites are monitored for some of these waterbodies.  

In Romania, 90% of water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status were reported to be 

monitored.  

Romania indicated that the international RBMP for the Danube RBD provides information on 

the  monitoring  programme  and  international  network  (Danube  Transnational  Network)  and 
that Romania has bilateral agreements with neighbouring countries that foresee monitoring and 

exchange of data. 

68 

 
 
 
Figure 4.2 

Proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category  which  are  monitored, 

monitored  for  chemical  status  and  monitored  for  ecological  status,  in 
Romania. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number 
of water bodies in that category44 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

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

Monitoring for status assessment 

Requirements  

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

The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of priority substances, frequency and numbers 
of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of status. According to 

in  2009),  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 
the  EQS  Directive 
hexachlorobutadiene  have  to  be  monitored  in  biota  for  status  assessment,  unless  Member 

(version 

force 

in 

States  derived  a  standard  for  another  matrix,  which  is  at  least  as  protective  as  the  biota 
standard.  

44 Romania clarified that 25% (and not 28%) of lakes water bodies are monitored for chemical status. 

69 

 
 
                                                      
 
Spatial coverage 

In Romania, all coastal and transitional water bodies, and territorial waters are monitored for 
more than 10 Priority Substances in water. For lakes, 71% are not monitored for any Priority 
Substances45, 22% are monitored for 10 or more Priority Substances with the remainder being 
monitored  for  between  two  and  six  Priority  Substances.  Similarly  for  rivers,  75%  are  not 

monitored for any Priority Substances, 16% are monitored for 10 or more with the remainder 
being monitored for between one and six Priority Substances. 

For  status  assessment,  Romania  has  monitored 
three  Priority  Substances 
(hexachlorobenzene, mercury and hexachlorobutadiene) in river water bodies.46 No monitoring 
is  undertaken  in  other  water  categories.  For  the  three  Priority  Substances,  17  of  the  1040 
monitoring sites for chemical status in rivers are monitored in biota.  

in  biota 

Frequencies 

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

in water, the frequency of monitoring should be at least monthly for one year during the RBMP 
cycle and at least monthly every year, respectively. Monitoring in biota for status assessment 
should take place at least once every year according to the EQS Directive. In all cases greater 

intervals can be applied by Member States if justified on the basis of technical knowledge and 
expert judgement. 

Monitoring  frequencies  were  reported  for  37  Priority  Substances  in  water  at  site  level  in 
Romania. Monitoring frequencies for different Priority Substances were reported to range from 

between  1  and  12  times  per  year  every  year.  For  over  80%  of  the  monitoring  data  the 
monitoring  frequencies  meet  the  recommended  minimum  frequency,  but  there  are  some 

particular  cases,  where  the  frequency  was  lower.  Romania  subsequently  clarified  that  this  is 
due  to  sampling  conditions  for  the  temporary  water  bodies,  winter  sampling  conditions  or 

incorrect reporting in WISE of the screening or investigative monitoring 

For  monitoring  of  priority  substances  in  biota,  the  sampling  frequency  is  once  every  year 

which meets the once per year minimum recommended frequency for status assessment.  

45 Romania clarified that 75% of lakes water bodies are not monitored for any Priority Substance. 
46  Romania  informed  that  the  biota  monitoring  for  status  assessment  will  be  used  for  trend  assessment  in 

subsequent RBMPs. 

70 

 
 
 
                                                      
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  substances47  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 

According  to  WISE,  Romania  has  monitored  in  sediment  nine  of  the  fourteen  Priority 
Substances  which  the  EQS  Directive  requires  for  the  monitoring  of  the  long-term  trend. 

Monitoring was carried out in river and lake water bodies for trend assessment. Romania does 
tributyltin 
not  monitor  for  brominated  diphenylether,  C10-13-chloroalkanes,  DEHP, 

compounds and indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene. Romania subsequently clarified that all substances of 
the  polyaromatic  hydrocarbon  groups  are  monitored.  Three  (lead,  mercury  and  cadmium)  of 

these nine were also monitored in coastal, transitional and territorial waters.  

Romania also subsequently mentioned that the monitoring reported in biota will be used in the 
next RBMP to assess trends. 

The  highest  number  of  sites  monitored  for  sediment  in  Romania  as  a  whole  was  125  for 
mercury, while the lower number of sites (2) was for lead, and cadmium.  

Frequencies 

Sampling  is  undertaken  once  or  twice  every  year  which  meets  the  every  three  year 

recommended minimum frequency in the EQS Directive for trend monitoring. 

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 

47  Anthracene,  brominated  diphenylether, 

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

chloroalkanes,  DEHP, 

cadmium,  C10-13 

71 

 
 
                                                      
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.  

According to  the information reported for Romania, all 37 Priority Substances in  inventories 

(so  including  those  assessed  as  discharged  in  these  inventories)  are  monitored.  The  four 
substances which are not included in the inventories are not monitored. It is not clear whether 

these substances are discharged in Romania. 

Performances of the analytical methods used  

For  23  Priority  Substances,  the  analytical  methods  used  meet  the  minimum  performance 
criteria laid down in  Article 4(1) of the QA/QC  Directive48 for the strictest standard applied. 
For 14 substances, the analytical methods are in line with the requirements laid down in Article 

4(2)  of  the  QA/QC  Directive  for  the  strictest  standard  applied.  The  following  four  Priority 
Substances  are  not  monitored:  pentachlorophenol,  tributyltin-cation,  chloroalkanes  C10-13, 

brominated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154). 

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 QA/QC Directive. 

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. All assessments across Romania were carried out between 2009 and 2015. 

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 

72 

 
 
                                                      
The chemical status of surface water bodies in Romania for the second RBMP is illustrated in 

Map 4.2. This is based on the most recent assessment of status. The map shows that 98% of 
water bodies are at Good status and that 2% of water bodies are failing to achieve good. 

Map 4.2 

Chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Romania  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 waters in Romania for the first and second RBMPs is given in 

Table 4.1.  

Table 4.1 

Chemical status of surface water bodies in Romania for  the second and first 

RBMP.  Note:  the  number  in  parenthesis  next  to  the  water  category  is  the 
number  of  water  bodies.  Note:  Chemical  status  was  supposed  to  be  reported 

based on the standards from the Environmental Quality Standards, version in 
force in 2009, but Romania used the more stringent standards from Directive 

73 

GoodFailing to achieve to goodUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
 
2013/39/EU to assess chemical status. Some Member States did not implement 

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

Category 

Good 

Failing to achieve good 

Unknown 

Number 

% 

Number 

% 

Number 

% 

Second RBMP 

Rivers (2891) 

2 822 

Lakes (130) 

130 

Transitional (2) 

Coastal (4) 

Territorial (1) 

2 

4 

1 

98% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100 % 

69 

2% 

  Total (3028) 

2959 

98% 

69 

2% 

First RBMP 

Rivers(3262) 

3 110 

Lakes (131) 

55 

95.00% 

42.00% 

Transitional (2) 

Coastal (4) 

Total (3399) 

3165 

146 

76 

2 

4 

4.00% 

6 

0% 

58.00% 

100.00% 

100.00% 

93% 

7% 
Source: WISE electronic reporting 

228 

6 

0% 

There  has  been  a  re-delineation  of  water  bodies  between  the  two  cycles,  and  therefore  the 
comparison  of  status  between  the  two  cycles  should  be  treated  with  some  caution.  Overall, 

between the two RBMP there was a decrease in the proportion of surface water bodies failing 
to achieve good chemical status from 7% down to 2%. For water bodies with good chemical 

status, there was a slight increase from 93% in the first RBMP to 98% in the second RBMP. 
The first RBMP also listed some water bodies with unknown status but these were not reported 
in the second RBMP, showing that the status of these waterbodies has been assessed. 

Figure 4.3 shows the confidence in the classification of chemical status for the second RBMP. 

Overall, 56% of surface water bodies in Romania were classified for chemical status with low 
confidence,  43%  with  medium  confidence  and  only  1%  (all  rivers)  with  high  confidence. 
Confidence in the classification of chemical status for the first RBMP was not reported. 

74 

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

Romania based on the most recently assessed status/potential  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 4.4 compares the chemical status of surface water bodies in Romania for the first cycle 
with  that  for  the  second  RBMP  (based  on  the  most  recent  assessment  of  status)  and  that 

expected by 2015.  

75 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.4  Chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Romania  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 reported based on 
the  standards  laid  down in  EQS  Directive  (version  in  force  on  13 January  200949).  However 
Romania used the more stringent standards from Directive 2013/39/EU. Some Member States 

did  not  implement  the  Directive  in  the  first  cycle  as  the  transposition  deadline  was  in  July 
2010, after the adoption of the first RBMP. 

Classification is carried out according to the "one-out-all-out" principle.   

More information on the chemical status in each RBD and water category can be found on the 
website of the European Environment Agency50. 

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

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

76 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Directive  2013/39/EU  amended  the  EQS  Directive.  In  particular,  it  sets  more  stringent 
environmental  quality  standards  for  seven  substances51.  Member  States  were  required  to 
indicate  if  the  new  standards  caused  the  status  of  the  surface  water  body  to  appear  to 

deteriorate.  Romania  reported  that  none  of  the  more  stringent  standards  caused  the  status  of 
surface water bodies to appear to deteriorate. 

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

stringent objectives under WFD article 4(5). 

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

status. The information for Romania is shown in Figure 4.5.  

Figure 4.5  Expected  date  of  achievement  of  good  chemical  of  surface  water  bodies  in 

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

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

compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 

77 

 
 
 
                                                      
Priority substances causing the failure of good chemical status 

The exceedances identified below are assessed based on the revised, more stringent standards 
from Directive 2013/39/EU. 

The  “top”  substances  causing  failure  are  shown  in  Figure  4.6.  In  particular,  cadmium  is 
causing failure in 0.86% of water bodies, mercury in 0.76% and trichloromethane in 0.69%. 

Figure 4.6 

The  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  in 

surface water bodies in Romania 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Overall  for  surface  water  bodies  in  Romania,  the  largest  proportion  of  exceedances  were  for 
the  annual  average  environmental  quality  standard  for  trichloromethane.  Exceedances  of 

maximum  allowable  concentration  environmental  quality  standards  were  the  greatest  for 
mercury,  trichloromethane  and  nickel.  In  terms  of  exceedance  of  both  types  of  standard,  the 

largest proportion was for cadmium, mercury and lead.  

Ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances 

According  to  article  8(a)  of  the  EQS  Directive52,  eight  priority  substances  and  groups  of 
priority  substances  are  behaving  like  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic 

52 Amended by Directive 2013/39/EU 

78 

 
 
 
                                                      
substances53.  These  substances  are  generally  expected  to  cause  widespread  exceedances,  and 
their emissions can be challenging to tackle (e.g. due to long-range atmospheric transport and 
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.  

In Romania, 69 river water bodies were reported to be failing to achieve good chemical status 
(representing  2%  of  the  total  number  of  waterbodies).  At  least  one  ubiquitous  persistent, 

bioaccumulative  and  toxic  Priority  Substance  was  causing  failure  in  23  waterbodies.  The 
influence of these substances on the reported chemical status is therefore assessed as limited. 

This  is  also  illustrated  in  the  2018  State  of  Water  report  of  the  European  Environment 
Agency54. 

Mercury  is  monitored  in  biota  in  what  seems  to  be  a  very  limited  number  of  sites.  A  more 
thorough spatial coverage would give a more precise picture of the influence of this substance. 

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

37  Priority  Substances  were  monitored  and  used  in  the  assessment  of  chemical  status.  Four 
tributyltin-cation,  chloroalkanes  C10-13,  brominated 
substances:  pentachlorophenol, 

diphenylethers  (congener  numbers  28,  47,  99,  100,  153  and  154)  were  reported  not  to  be 
monitored or used in the status assessment.  

All  coastal  and  transitional  water  bodies  and  territorial  waters  bodies  were  classified  on  the 
basis  of  monitoring.  Expert  judgment  and  grouping  were  used  to  classify  the  status  of  the 

non-monitored lake and river waterbodies (about a quarter of water bodies in each category are 
classified based on expert judgment, grouping is used in about 50% of the water bodies in each 

of  these  categories).  Romania  clarified  that  where  grouping  was  not  possible,  water  bodies 
were assigned a status on the basis of the risk of failing environmental objectives as performed 

under the requirements of Article 5 of the WFD (see chapter 2 for further details). 

53 Brominated diphenylether, Mercury and its compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), Tributyltin,  PFOS, 

dioxins, hexabromocyclodecane and heptachlor 

54https://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 

79 

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

According  to  the  EQS  Directive,  Member  States  may  opt  to  apply  environmental  quality 
standards for  another matrix than the one specified in  the Directive for a given substance.  If 

they do so, they have to ensure the environmental quality standard they set in the other matrix 
(or  matrices)  offers  at  least  the  same  level  of  protection  as  the  standard  established  in  the 

Directive. 

Reporting  to  WISE  was  not  entirely  explicit  on  this  issue.  However  Romania  subsequently 

clarified  that  the  standards  from  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  were  applied  for  all 
substances  monitored.  The  more  stringent  water  standards  from  Directive  2013/39/EU  were 

used  when  they  existed.  Biota  standards  were  applied  for  the  three  substances  monitored  in 
biota (mercury, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene).   

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 under Article 4 of the EQS Directive in Romania. 

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  were  taken  into 

consideration where such concentrations prevent compliance with  the relevant  environmental 
quality standard. 

80 

 
No information was provided in WISE to indicate whether bioavailability of metals have been 

taken  into  account  when  assessing  monitoring  results  against  relevant  environmental  quality 
standards.  However,  further  information  in  the  RBMPs  confirmed  that  the  parameters  that 

affect  the  bioavailability  of  metals  (pH,  hardness,  dissolved  organic  carbon  or  other  water 
quality  parameters)  were  not  taken  into  account  when  comparing  concentrations  with  the 

maximum admissible and annual average concentration values. 

4.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Romania  started  reviewing  the  monitoring  programmes  in  2011,  to  increase  their  efficiency, 

and  collect  more  robust  data  for  the  assessment  of  status.  The  number  of  priority  substances 
monitored and the number of water bodies monitored increased.55. Romania chose to include in 
priority in the revised monitoring programmes the water bodies failing good status in the first 
RBMPs, for which further investigative monitoring was required according to the first PoM.  

Overall  between  the  two  RBMPs  there  was  a  decrease  in  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies 
failing to achieve good chemical status from 7% down to 2%.  There was a slight increase in 

the  proportion  of  water  bodies  in  good  chemical  status  (from  93  to  98%).  Similar  changes 
occurred  across  all  water  body  types  (artificial,  heavily  modified  and  natural).  While  some 

water  bodies  had  an  unknown  status  in  the  first  plan,  all  water  bodies  were  classified  in  the 
second RBMP.  

Information on Priority Substances causing failure of good chemical status for the first RBMPs 
was  not  systematically  reported  making  comparison  with  the  second  RBMP  difficult. 

However,  cadmium,  lead  and  nickel  were  identified  as  causing  the  greatest  proportion  of 
surface water body status failures in the first RBMP. 19 Priority Substances were reported to 

have  improved  from  failing  to  achieve  good  to  good  chemical  status  since  the  first  RBMPs, 
with 23% of water bodies showing improvements for cadmium, lead (21%) and nickel (15%). 

4.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

following: 

 

Recommendation:  “Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  should  be 

monitored in biota for comparison with the biota standards in the EQS Directive, unless 

55  A  direct  comparison  between  the  number  of  sites  reported  as  monitored  in  the  two  RBMPs  is  not  possible 
because  Romania  clarified  that  some  sites  were  double  counted  in  the  first  reporting  (reported  both  under 
surveillance and operational monitoring). 

81 

 
                                                      
water  environmental  quality  standards  providing  an  equivalent  level  of  protection  are 

derived.  The  monitoring  being  carried  out  in  sediment  and  biota  should  cover  the 
requirement  for  trend  monitoring  specified  for  several  substances  in  EQS  Directive 

Article 3(3).” 

Assessment:  Romania 

has  monitored  mercury, 

hexachlorobenzene 

and 

hexachlorobutadiene 
the 
recommended minimum  monitoring  frequency  from  the Directive, however monitoring 

in  biota  for  status  assessment.  Romania 

implemented 

is performed in what seems to be a very limited number of river water bodies. Romania 
further  clarified  that  this  monitoring  data  will  also  be  used  to  assess  trend  in  the  next 

RBMP. 

Romania has monitored nine of the required fourteen Priority Substances in sediment for 

trend assessment (including the three substances above). Monitoring was performed once 
every  year  which  is  above  the  recommended  minimum  frequency.  The  number  of 

monitoring  sites  used  varied  between  the  different  substances,  from  2  to  125,  hence 
spatial coverage appears to be very limited for some of the monitored substances . 

Whilst progress with meeting the requirements of this recommendation has been clearly 

demonstrated, the recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

 

    The following two recommendations are assessed jointly below ; 

Recommendation:  “Strengthen  monitoring  as  there  are  not  enough  monitoring  data 

related  to  ecological  and  chemical  elements  and  this  is  one  of  the  reasons  for  low 
confidence in the status assessment.  

and  

Recommendation 

:  ““Where 

there  are  currently  high  uncertainties 

in 

the 

characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, 
these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be 

put in place before the next cycle.” 

Assessment: Romania started reviewing the monitoring programmes in 2011, to increase 

their efficiency, and collect more robust data for the assessment of status.  

The  number  of  water  bodies  monitored  increased.58  All  coastal  and  transitional 
waterbodies, and  all territorial waters are now monitored. Romania  chose to  include in 

priority in the revised monitoring programmes the water bodies failing good status in the 

82 

 
first  RBMP,  for  which  further  investigative  monitoring  was  required  according  to  the 

first PoM.  

The  number  of  priority  substances  monitored  also  increased.  Romania  report  that  37 

Priority Substances are monitored and used in the assessment of chemical status. These 
37  substances  include  all  substances  identified  as  discharged  in  the  inventories.  Four 

substances  were  reported  to  be  neither  monitored  (because  of  a  lack  of  analytical 
method)  nor  used  in  the  status  assessment.  It  is  unclear  whether  these  four  substances 

were discharged as they were not considered in the inventories.  

Clear progress in monitoring has been demonstrated, and this has certainly reduced the 

uncertainties  in  the  assessment  of  status.  All  water  bodies  are  now  classified  in  the 
second  RBMP  (based  on  expert  judgment  or  grouping  when  monitoring  data  is  not 

available). However 56% of water bodies are still classified with low confidence (no data 
on  the  level  of  confidence  in  the  first  RBMP  could  be  found  so  no  comparison  is 

possible). The spatial coverage of monitoring in river and lakes may contribute to explain 
the low confidence in the assessment. In addition, very limited monitoring is performed 
in biota. 

Progress has been made, and the recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

83 

 
 
  Monitoring, assessment and classification of 

Topic 5
quantitative status of groundwater bodies 

5.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

5.1.1  Monitoring of quantitative status in groundwater 

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Romania  is  143  (Table  4).  Thirty  groundwater 

bodies are not subject to monitoring for quantitative status (Table 5.1). This means that 21% of 
groundwater bodies are not monitored. Examination of the RBMP and background documents 

found that grouping for monitoring purposes was not applied. 

Table 5.1 

Number  of  water  bodies  in  Romania  directly  monitored  and  the  purpose  of 

monitoring 

Monitoring Purpose 

Total 
ground-
water 

bodies 
directly 

monitored 

CHE – 
Chemi-

cal 

status 

NID - Nutrient 

sensitive area 
under the 

Nitrates 
Directive - 

WFD Annex 
IV.1.iv 

RBD 

OPE - 

QUA – 

Operational 
monitoring 

Quantita-
tive status 

SOE - 
EIONET 
State of 

Environ-

ment 
monitoring 

SUR – 
Surveil-

lance 
monitor-

ing 

RO1000 

135 

134 

61 

113 

26 

121 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The number of groundwater bodies increased by one from 142 in the first RBMP to 143 in the 

second RBMP and the total groundwater body area increased slightly by 1.5%. 26 groundwater 
bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP. 

The number of monitored groundwater bodies for quantitative purpose decreased from 120 in 
the  first  to  113  in  the  second  RBMP  (Table  5.2).  The  number  of  monitoring  sites  for 

quantitative status is listed in Table 5.3 and shows a significant decrease from 3338 sites in the 
first to 2834 in the second RBMP56. Having in view the pressure and impact analysis and status 
assessment  results  all  GWBs  are  in  good  quantitative  status  and  are  not  failing  to  meet  the 
environmental objectives. 

56 Romania subsequently clarified that in the  first cycle  there  was an error and monitoring sites  may  have been 

double counted when used for multiple monitoring purposes.   

84 

 
 
                                                      
110 of 143 groundwater bodies are identified as Drinking Water Protected Areas. 

Table 5.2 

Proportion  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Romania  monitored  for  quantitative 
status 

RBD 

No of groundwater 
bodies with 

quantitative 
monitoring 

Total No. 
groundwater 

bodies 

% of total groundwater bodies 

monitored for quantitative status 

RO1000 

113 

143 

79.02 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Table 5.3 

Number of groundwater monitoring sites in Romania and their purpose  

RBD 

Total 
ground-
water 

monitor-

ing sites 

Monitoring Purpose 

CHE - 
Chemical 

status 

OPE - 
Operational 

QUA - 
Quantitative 

monitoring 

status 

SOE - EIONET 
State of 

Environment 
monitoring 

SUR - 
Surveillance 

monitoring 

RO1000 

3 388 

1 548 (1601) 

499 (500) 

2 834 (2838) 

359 

1 019 (1101) 

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

5.1.2  Assessment and classification of quantitative status for groundwater 

Map  5.3  displays  the  most  recently  assessed  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies.  It 

shows  that  all  143  groundwater  bodies  (100%)  were  in  good  quantitative  status  (Figure  5.1) 
and they had already been in good status in the first RBMP. Figure 5.2 shows the confidence in 

status classification. All groundwater bodies had, and still have, a clear status, in the first and 
in the second RBMP.  

In Romania, water balance was assessed by using reliable information on groundwater levels 
across the groundwater body. 

The criterion of ‘available groundwater resource’ has been partially applied in accordance with 
WFD Article 2(27). 

From  all  the  environmental  objectives,  only  water  balance  has  been  considered  in  status 
assessment.  No  consideration  of  associated  aquatic  and  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 

ecosystems or of saline intrusion has been taken for the assessment of quantitative status in the 

85 

 
second  cycle.  However,  there  is  no  groundwater  body  at  risk  of  failing  good  quantitative 
status57. 

The expected date of achievement of good quantitative status in Romania is shown in  Figure 

5.3. 

Map 5.3 

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

assessed status of the groundwater water bodies 

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2(2)(4)  

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

57 Romania subsequently clarified that in the RBMP, Chapter 4.1.1. page 81, information regarding the associated 
aquatic and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems is available and identification and assessment of the 
dependence of the groundwater bodies by terrestrial ecosystems was carried out. 

86 

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

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

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

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

in Romania based on the most recent assessment of status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

87 

 
 
 
 
Figure 5.3  Expected date of achievement of good quantitative and good chemical status 

of  groundwater  bodies  in  Romania.  143  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 have been reported, they are not related to risk and they 
have been considered in status assessment in Romania. 

Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have been reported, they are not related to risk 
and  they  have  not  been  considered  in  status  assessment.  In  addition,  the  needs  of  these 
ecosystems have not been considered in status assessment in Romania58.  

5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The number of groundwater bodies increased by one from 142 in the first cycle to 143 in the 
second RBMP and the total groundwater body area increased slightly by 1.5%. 26 groundwater 
bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP. 

58  Romania  subsequently  clarified    that  in  2014  a  national  methodology  taking  into  consideration  the 
recommendations  made  in  the  Technical  Report  no.  6  “Groundwater  Dependent  Terrestrial  Ecosystems” 
(GWDTEs)  (2011)  was  finalised,  and  the  results  were  applied  (2014-2015)  using  all  data  and  information 
available. Romania is in the process of updating this methodology taking into account more information (flow, 
chemical data etc.), in order to apply the results in the status assessment. 

88 

 
 
                                                      
The  examination  of  the  RBMP  and  background  documents  found  a  chapter  in  the  RBMP 

summarising changes  and updates since the first  RBMP, which mentions that the revision of 
the groundwater body delineation was due to new data and information. 

Given the subsequent clarification from Romania indicating reporting errors in the first cycle, 
the monitoring situation of both cycles is not comparable. The reported number of monitoring 

sites  has  decreased  by  about  15%  and  the  number  of  quantitative  monitored  groundwater 
bodies also decreased from 120 in the first cycle to 113 in the second RBMP58. Yet, having in 
view the pressure and impact analysis and status assessment results all GWBs are considered in 
good quantitative status and are not failing to meet the environmental objectives. 

The examination of the RBMP and background documents found that it is proposed to extend 
the quantitative monitoring network with 95 monitoring wells. 

The status situation remains the same with all groundwater bodies achieving good quantitative 
status. 

The examination of the RBMP and background documents also found that the RBMP is in line  
with  the  requirements  of  the  Danube  RBD  document  "Methodology  for  the  analysis  of 
interdependence between groundwater bodies and terrestrial ecosystems with the identification 

of groundwater directly dependent on groundwater ecosystems". 

5.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

89 

 
 
 
  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical 

Topic 6
status of groundwater bodies 

6.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

6.1.1  Monitoring of chemical status in groundwater 

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Romania  is  143  (Table  2.4).  In  total,  22  (15%) 

groundwater  bodies  are  not  subject  to  surveillance  monitoring  (Table  5.1).  15  groundwater 
bodies  are  at  risk  and  61  groundwater  bodies  are  subject  to  operational  monitoring. 

Examination  of  the  RBMP  and  background  documents  found  that  grouping  for  monitoring 
purposes was not applied. 

The number of groundwater bodies increased by one from 142 in the first RBMP to 143 in the 
second RBMP and the total groundwater body area increased slightly by 1.5%. 26 groundwater 

bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP. 

The number of groundwater bodies with surveillance monitoring increased from 109  to 121. 
The  number  of  monitoring  sites  is  listed  in  Table  5.3  and  shows  a  significant  decrease  from 
2365 in the first RBMP to 1019 in the second RBMP.59 The number of operational monitoring 
sites decreased also significantly since the first RBMP, from 1224 (in 99 groundwater body) to 

500 (in 61 groundwater bodies). These are based on the pressure and impact analysis and status 
assessment  results  (more  GWBs  are  in  good  chemical  status  and  are  not  failing  to  meet  the 

environmental objectives). 

Not all substances  causing  risk of deterioration in chemical  status  are subject  to  surveillance 
operational  monitoring60.  All  WFD  core  parameters  (nitrate,  ammonium,  electrical 
conductivity, oxygen and pH) are monitored. 

6.1.2  Assessment and classification of chemical status in groundwater 

Map 6.1 and Figure 6.1 display the chemical status of groundwater bodies for the most recently 

assessed status. It shows that 128 of 143 groundwater bodies (89.5%) were of good chemical 

59  Romania  subsequently  clarified  that  the  high  number  of  monitoring  sites  in  the  first  RBMP  was  caused  by 
double counting of sites and the decrease of monitoring sites from the first to the second RBMP is therefore 
not significant. 

60 Romania subsequently clarified that all substances causing risk are subject to operational monitoring. 

90 

 
                                                      
status, and the remaining 15 groundwater bodies (10.5%) are failing good status.  In terms of 

area, this means that about 13.5% are failing good chemical status. 

Map 6.1 

Map on the most recently assessed chemical status of groundwater bodies  in 

Romania  

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2(4)(5) 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

91 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.1  Chemical status of groundwater bodies in Romania for the second RBMP, for 

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

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Figure 6.2 shows the confidence in status classifications. Except for three groundwater bodies 

with low or unknown confidence, the confidence in status results is high for 140 groundwater 
bodies. All groundwater bodies had, and still have a clear status, in the first and second cycle.  

Figure 6.2  Confidence in the classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies in 

Romania based on the most recent assessment of status  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

92 

 
 
 
The total number of groundwater bodies failing good chemical status decreased since the first 

RBMP from 19 (13%) to 15 (10%) groundwater bodies (Figure 6.1) (from 14.4% to 13.5% of 
the total groundwater body area). 

The reasons for the failure of good chemical status of groundwater bodies are shown in Figure 
6.3.  For  all  15  groundwater  bodies,  the  general  assessment  of  the  chemical  status  for  the 

groundwater body as a whole failed. This assessment considers the significant environmental 
risk from pollutants across a groundwater body and a significant impairment of the ability to 

support human uses.  

Figure  6.4  shows  the  pollutants  causing  failure  of  status  and  sustained  upward  trends,  and 

those pollutants showing an upward trend are given in Figure 6.5. 

Figure 6.3  Reasons  for  failing  good  chemical  status  in  Romania  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. 

93 

 
 
 
Figure 6.4 

Top  groundwater  pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status  in 

Romania 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Note: only two pollutants reported causing failure. 

Figure 6.5 

Top pollutants with upward trends in groundwater bodies in Romania 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

The calculation of the extent of exceedance of a groundwater quality standard or a groundwater 
threshold value is based on the groundwater body area.  

The  percentage  of  groundwater  bodies  at  risk  of  failing  good  chemical  status  and  good 
quantitative status are shown in Figure 6.6.  

94 

 
 
 
Figure 6.6 

Percentage  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Romania  at  risk  of  failing  good 

chemical status and good quantitative status for the second RBMP 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Groundwater threshold values have been established for all pollutants or indicators of pollution 

causing  a  risk  of  failure  of  good  chemical  status.  The  examination  of  the  RBMP  and 
background documents did find indications that the operational monitoring programme covers 
the mandatory parameters provided by the WFD and the Groundwater Directive61 Annex II, as 
well as other parameters depending on the risk, the specific pollution type, the vulnerability to 

pollution  and  the  international  convention  to  which  Romania  is  a  party.  This  latter  point  is 
curious, as Romania reports no transboundary groundwater bodies 62. 

Natural  background  levels  have  been  considered  in  the  groundwater  threshold  value 
establishment.  

A trend and trend reversal methodology is available and assessments have been performed. 

61   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 

62 Romania subsequently clarified that there was a misunderstanding in the electronic reporting and that in fact 17 

groundwater bodies are identified as transboundary. 

95 

 
 
                                                      
 
6.1.3  Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/  or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

Groundwater associated surface waters and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have 

been  reported,  they  are  not  related  to  risk  and  they  have  not  been  considered  in  status 
assessment. 

Groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems 
have not been considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values. 

6.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  monitoring  situation  improved  by  now  covering  more  groundwater  bodies  but  still 
surveillance  monitoring  is  no  more  complete  than  the  first  cycle.  There  was  a  significant 

decrease  in  the  number  of  monitoring  sites.  The  examination  of  the  RBMP  and  background 
documents did find a summary of changes and updates since the first cycle for this topic and in 

particular it was mentioned that the chemical monitoring network was increased by additional 
115 new wells. This statement is in contradiction when looking at the number of groundwater 

monitoring sites reported in WISE, which decreased from 2365 sites in the first cycle to  1101 
(this  figures  refers  only  at  surveillance  monitoring  sites,  not  all  GW  monitoring  sites)  in  the 

second RBMP.  

The Romanian authorities subsequently explained that the comparison between the first and the 

second  RBMP  is  difficult  to  assess  since  there  are  changes  in  the  approaches.  In  the  first 
RBMP,  for  many  monitoring  sites  both  monitoring  programs  (surveillance  and  operational) 

were  established and this led to  the double counting of some monitoring sites.  In the second 
RBMP, an updated methodology has been used, establishing clear monitoring: surveillance or 

operational  monitoring  program,  based  on  the  updated  results  of  the  pressures  and  impacts 
analysis and status assessment.  

The status situation improved slightly. The groundwater body area failing good chemical status 
decreased since the first RBMP from 14.4% to 13.5% of the total groundwater body area. 

6.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

There were no Commission recommendations based on the first cycle and PoM for this topic. 

96 

 
 
  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water 

Topic 7
Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 

7.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle for designation  

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

7.1.1  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies 

In the second RBMP, 16.1% of surface water bodies are designated as heavily modified water 

bodies and 2.3% as artificial water bodies. Approximately a third of the river heavily modified 
water  bodies  are  reservoirs  which  were  originally  rivers.  The  proportion  of  surface  water 

bodies in each cycle designated as heavily modified or artificial is shown in Figure 7.1. 

Figure 7.1 

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The  main  water  uses  for  which  river  water  bodies  are  designated  as  heavily  modified  water 
bodies  are  flood  protection,  hydropower,  urban  development  (for  drinking  water  supply), 

irrigation, and storage for fisheries. The main water uses of lake heavily modified water bodies 
are storage for fisheries and the wider environment. The coastal heavily modified water bodies 

are designated due to transport. 

The  main  physical  alterations  of  river  and  lake  heavily  modified  water  bodies  are 

channelization; straightening; bed stabilisation; bank reinforcement and weirs/dams/reservoirs. 

97 

 
 
Coastal heavily modified water bodies are affected by land reclamation, coastal modifications 

and ports. 

7.1.2  Definition  of  Good  Ecological  Potential  for  Heavily  Modified  and  Artificial 

Water Bodies 

In  the  second  RBMP,  good  ecological  potential  was  reported  as  defined,  using  a  hybrid 

approach  which  combines  elements  of  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance 
approach  (based  on  biological  quality  elements  as  illustrated  in  Common  Implementation 
Strategy Guidance No 463) and the Prague approach (based on the identification of mitigation 
measures). Good ecological potential has not been defined at water body level or for groups of 

heavily  modified  water  bodies/artificial  water  bodies,  but  according  to  the  WISE  reporting, 
another approach has been used. 

A combined method has been applied for the establishment of good ecological potential at the 
level  of  the  11  sub-basins  /  hydrographic  areas.  The  original  method  used  in  the  first  cycle 

(method  A)  based  on  biological  quality  elements  as  illustrated  in  Common  Implementation 
Strategy Guidance No 4 has been developed and the Prague method has been used as well. 

Good  ecological  potential  was  reported  to  have  been  defined  in  terms  of  biology.  The 

biological quality elements for which biological values have been derived to define maximum 
ecological potential and good ecological potential are phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates, fish, 

phytoplankton, and other aquatic flora.  

The  evaluation  systems  for  biological  quality  element  values  are  comparable  for  ecological 

potential  and  ecological  status.  Individual  indices  and  multimetric  indices  are  calculated  for 
each of the biological  elements, applying the methodologies described in  the Annexes of the 

RBMP.  The  estimation  of  biological  values  of  biological  quality  elements  for  maximum 
ecological  potential and  good ecological  potential  is  based on available data and monitoring, 

statistical analysis, and expert judgement. 

A  comparison  between  good  ecological  potential  and  good  ecological  status  has  been  made. 

The  good  ecological  potential  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  is  established  as  having  a 
lower class  compared to  good status,  in  the case of the metrics  for benthic invertebrates  and 

phytoplankton. 

63 

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  

98 

 
                                                      
For rivers, methods for assessing fish, phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates were reported as 

sensitive to  altered habitats  due to  morphological changes, depending on  the river types.  For 
lakes,  methods  sensitive  to  morphology  were  reported  for  assessing  phytoplankton  and 

phytobenthos. No biological quality element assessment methods sensitive to hydrological or 
morphological changes for coastal waters were reported. 

Mitigation measures for  defining  good ecological  potential have been reported. According  to 
information  subsequently  provided  by  Romania,  a  description  of  the  ecological  changes 

expected  from  the  mitigation  measures  is  provided  in  a  generic  catalogue  of  mitigation  and 
restoration measures, which is included in the RBMP. As a general approach, each mitigation 

and restoration measure from the catalogue has been assessed in relation to the expected effects 
on each biological quality element. 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The number of river  artificial water bodies and heavily modified water bodies has  decreased 
but no major change is noted in terms of their length. The number of coastal heavily modified 

water bodies (2) is the same as in the first cycle. No major changes in the designation of lake 
heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies are noted.  

Compared to the first RBMP, an updated analysis of anthropogenic pressures, in particular of 
hydromorphological  alterations,  has  been  carried  to  support  the  designation  of  heavily 

modified water bodies as well as a more detailed analysis of other alternative means to achieve 
the  benefits  of  the  modifications.  Furthermore,  the  failure  to  achieve  good  status  has  been 

verified with improved assessment methodologies.  

Concerning  the  definition  of  good  ecological  potential,  a  development  in  methodology  has 

taken place. The original method used in the first cycle (method A) based on biological quality 
elements  as  illustrated  in  Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  No  4,  whereby  the 

values  of  the  biological  elements  at  good  ecological  potential  derive  from  those  defined  for 
maximum ecological potential, has been combined with the Prague method. Furthermore, the 

biological  quality  elements  used  for  defining  good  ecological  potential/maximum  ecological 
potential have increased since the first cycle. In the second RBMP, biological quality elements 

for  which  biological  values  have  been  derived  to  define  maximum  ecological  potential  and 
good  ecological  potential  are  phytobenthos,  benthic  invertebrates,  fish,  phytoplankton,  and 

other  aquatic  flora.  In  the  first  RBMP,  due  to  the  lack  of  data,  only  a  few  biological  quality 
elements  were  used  to  assess  ecological  potential  (macroinvertebrates  for  rivers,  and  in 
addition phytoplankton for reservoirs). According to information in the RBMP, the assessment 

99 

 
methods  for  various  biological  quality  elements  have  been  reviewed  and  improved  since  the 

first cycle. Therefore, the number of biological quality elements which are possible to assess in 
different water categories to classify status and potential has been increased. The confidence of 

the assessment of ecological potential has also improved since the first RBMPs. 

7.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

 

Recommendation  (report  2015):  “Review  the  designation  of  heavily  modified  water 
bodies and improve the methodology used for establishing good ecological potential in 
the second RBMP.” 

Assessment: The designation of heavily modified water bodies has been reviewed on the 
in  particular  of 
basis  of  an  updated  analysis  of  anthropogenic  pressures, 
hydromorphological  alterations,  as  well  as  a  more  detailed  analysis  of  other  means  to 
achieve the benefits of the modifications. Furthermore, the failure to achieve good status 
has been verified with improved assessment methodologies. 

Progress  is  also  noted  concerning  the  methodology  for  establishing  good  ecological 
potential.  The  assessment  methods  for  various  biological  quality  elements  have  been 

reviewed and improved since the first cycle. Therefore, the number of biological quality 
elements which are possible to assess in different water categories to classify status and 

potential has been increased. In the second RBMP, biological quality elements for which 
biological  values  have  been  derived  to  define  maximum  ecological  potential  and  good 

ecological  potential  are  phytobenthos,  benthic  invertebrates,  fish,  phytoplankton,  and 
other  aquatic  flora.  In  the  first  RBMP,  due  to  the  lack  of  data,  only  a  few  biological 
quality  elements  were used to  assess ecological  potential (macroinvertebrates for rivers 

and  in  addition  phytoplankton  for  reservoirs).  In  addition,  the  assessment  of  the 
ecological potential was in general of low confidence in the first cycle. According to the 
second RBMP reporting, the assessment of ecological potential of the majority of heavily 
modified  water  bodies  and  artificial  water  bodies  is  done  with  medium  or  high 

confidence  level;  only  for  some  heavily  modified  water  bodies  and  artificial  water 
bodies, the confidence level is low. The work at European level on the intercalibration of 

good ecological potential was being done and continued at the time of the adoption of the 
second RBMPs. 

The recommendation has been largely fulfilled. 

100 

 
 
Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions 

8.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

8.1.1  Environmental objectives 

The  environmental  objectives  are  defined  in  Article  4  of  the  WFD.  The  aim  is  long-term 
sustainable water management based on a high level of protection of the aquatic environment. 

Article 4(1) defines the WFD general objective to be achieved in all surface and groundwater 
bodies,  i.e.  good  status  by  2015.  Within  that  general  objective,  specific  environmental 

objectives are defined for heavily modified water bodies (good ecological potential and good 
chemical status by 201564), groundwaters (good chemical and quantitative status by 2015) and 
for Protected Areas (achievement of the objectives of the associated Directives by 2015, unless 
otherwise specified).  

Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status in surface waters and quantitative 
and chemical status in groundwater have been reported in all RBDs. 

Member States are also required to specify additional environmental objectives and standards 
in  Protected  Areas  where  these  are  required  to  ensure  the  requirements  of  the  associated 

Directives  are  met.  An  assessment  of  such  additional  objectives  for  Romania  is  provided  in 
Chapter 15 of this report. 

Assessments of the current status of surface and groundwater bodies in Romania 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 RBMP, 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  Romania  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).  

64 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. 

101 

 
                                                      
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 given 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 Romania for the four main sets of environmental 

objectives. 

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

Source: WISE electronic reports 

The  exemptions  under  WFD  Article  4  include  the  provisions  in  Article  4(4)  -  extension  of 

deadline, 4(5) - lower objectives, 4(6) - temporary deterioration, and 4(7) - new modifications / 
new  sustainable  human  development  activities.  Article  4(4)  exemptions  may  be  justified  by: 

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

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

102 

 
 
 
Figure 8.2 

Type of exemptions applied to surface water and groundwater bodies for the 

second  plan 
in  Romania.  Note:  Ecological  status  and  groundwater 
quantitative status exemptions were reported at the water body level. Chemical 

exemptions  for  groundwater  were  reported  at  the  level  of  each  pollutant 
causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status,  and  for  surface  waters  for  each 

Priority Substances that is causing failure of good chemical status 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

103 

 
 
 
 
Application of Article 4(4) 

The application of Article 4(4) exemptions  has  been reduced in  rivers and lakes between the 
first  and  second  RBMP  and  remained  stable  for  coastal  and  transitional  water  bodies.  The 

numbers  of  groundwater  exemptions  in  relation  to  chemical  status  increased  slightly.  In  the 
first RBMP, the exemptions according to Article 4(4) were applied due to technical feasibility, 

disproportionate  costs  and  natural  conditions,  whereas  in  the  second  RBMP  justifications 
included  technical  feasibility  and  disproportionate  costs.  For  groundwater,  exemptions  to  the 

achievement  of good chemical  status  by 2015 have been applied on the grounds of technical 
feasibility. Exemptions are applied and justifications are provided on waterbody level.  

Disproportionate costs are justified by cost-benefit analysis and cost effectiveness analysis.  

The  main  pressures  to  surface  waters  come  from  a  broad  range  of  activities  including 
urbanisation,  agriculture,  activities  causing  changes  in  hydromorphology,  industry,  mining, 

aquaculture and activities causing changes in hydromorphology. The main drivers behind these 
pressures are agriculture, urban development, flood protection, transport, industry and energy. 
The  main  pressures  to  groundwater  come  from  a  broad  range  of  activities  including 

urbanisation, industry, agriculture, mining and aquaculture. The drivers behind these pressures 
are not reported. 

Table 8.1 

Pressure  on  surface  waters  responsible  for  Priority  Substances  in  Romania 
failing to achieve good chemical status and for which exemptions have been 

applied 

Significant pressure on surface water bodies 

Failing 
Priority 
Substances 

Article 4(4) 
- Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 

Article 4(4) - 
Disproportionate 
cost 

Number 

Number 

Number 

1.1 - Point - Urban waste water 

1.3 - Point - Industrial Emissions Directive plants 

1.4 - Point - Non Industrial Emissions Directive plants 

1.7 - Point - Mine waters 

1.8 - Point - Aquaculture 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

1 

3 

4 

4 

2 

3 

2.5 - Diffuse - Contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites  5 

2.6 - Diffuse - Discharges not connected to sewerage network 

2.8 - Diffuse - Mining 

2.10 - Diffuse - Other 

8 - Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown 

4 

4 

3 

5 

2 

3 

15 

20 

2 

3 

24 

16 

29 

4 

35 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

2 

0 

4 

0 

0 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

104 

 
 
Table 8.2 

Pressure  responsible  for  pollutants  in  Romania  failing  to  achieve  good 

chemical status in groundwater and for which exemptions have been applied  

Significant pressure on groundwater 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.6 - Diffuse - Discharges not connected to sewerage network 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Number 
of failing 
pollutants 

Number of 

exemptions 

Article 4(4) - 
Technical 

feasibility 

2 

2 

15 

15 

Application of Article 4(5) 

Article 4(5) was applied in surface waters in the first RBMP and is applied more widely in the 

second RBMP. It is noted that this was applied to a limited number of surface water bodies, of 
which  56%  are  represented  by  temporary  water  bodies  and  83%  are  heavily  modified  water 

bodies. Article 4(5) was applied for technical feasibility and disproportionate costs. 

Application of Article 4(6) 

Article 4(6) has not been applied. 

Application of Article 4(7) 

Article 4(7) has been applied because of new modifications in four river water bodies65.  

Application of Article 6(3) GWD 

No exemptions according to Article 6(3) Groundwater Directive have been applied. 

8.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Article  4(7)  has  been  applied  and  is  applied  again  in  the  second  RBMP.  There  were  no 

applications of Article 4(6) in the first or second RBMPs. Article 4(4) exemptions have been 
reduced in  rivers and lakes. Article 4(5) has been applied in  surface waters in  the  first  cycle 

65 Three of these exemptions were applied for projects which lead to a change in water category, and which started 

before year 2000. 

105 

 
 
                                                      
and  is  applied  more  widely  in  the  second  RBMP.  The  numbers  of  groundwater  exemption 

under 4(4) increased slightly. 

8.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

 

Recommendation:  Only  little  improvement  of  the  water  status  is  expected  by  2015  and 
the objectives for subsequent planning deadlines are not always clear. Objectives should 

be clearly indicated and transparent in order to be able to reach good status of waters in 
a reasonable timeframe. 

Assessment:  The  number  of  waters  bodies  where  exemptions  under  Article  4(4)  was 
applied  has  been  reduced  in  river  and  lake  waters  and  remained  stable  for  coastal  and 

transitional  water  bodies.  The  numbers  of  groundwater  exemptions  in  relation  to 
chemical  status  slightly  decreased  since  the  first  cycle.  Article  4(5)  was  applied  in 

surface waters in the first RBMP and is applied more widely in the second cycle. Clear 
information  on  when  it  is  planned  that  water  bodies  will  achieve  good  status  (2021  or 

2027) is provided for most exempted water bodies and exemptions are justified at water 
body level. In this context the recommendation has partly been fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation:  There  have  been  a  large  number  of  exemptions  applied  in  this  first 
cycle of RBMPs. While the WFD does provide for exemptions, there are specific criteria 

that must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to 
be more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the 

plans.  The  high  number  of  exemptions  applied  in  these  first  RBMPs  is  a  cause  of 
concern.  Romania  should  take  all  necessary  measures  to  bring  down  the  number  of 

exemptions for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the characterisation 
process,  monitoring  networks  and  status  assessment  methods,  as  well  as  reducing 
significantly the degree of uncertainties 

Assessment: See assessment above.  

 

Recommendation:  Indicate  clearly  in  the  second  RBMPs  when  WFD  objectives  will  be 
achieved. 

Assessment: Clear information on when it is planned that water bodies will achieve good 
status  (2021  or  2027)  is  provided  for  most  exempted  water  bodies  and  exemptions  are 

106 

 
justified  at  water  body  level.  Information  on  the  environmental  objectives  with  the 

planned  deadlines  to  achieve  the  objectives  (2021  or  2027)  and  exemptions  for  water 
bodies are presented in the RBMP. The recommendation has been fulfilled. 

 

   Recommendation: Exemptions should be adequately justified at water body level.    

Assessment: Exemptions are applied and justifications provided on waterbody level. The 

recommendation has been fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation: Provide in the second RBMPs a detailed overview of new and planned 

infrastructure  projects  that  could  create  hydromorphological  pressures  and  an 
assessment of their impacts, any exemptions required, and any measures to address the 

pressures. 

Assessment:  In  the  RBMP,  possible  new  infrastructure  projects  and  new  structural 

measures projects which might have a negative impact on the ecological status/potential 
or causing the non-achievement of environmental objectives have been identified. Article 

4(7) has been applied because of new modifications in four river water bodies, of which 
3 were related to infrastructure projects with multiple uses, leading to a change in water 

category (reservoirs), that had been started before year 2000.  

Modifications  where  exemptions  under  Article  4(7)  were  applied  in  the  second  RBMP 

were  flood  protection  schemes,  hydropower  plants  and  impoundments  for  drinking 
water.  Information  was  provided  that  these  projects  on  new  infrastructure  will  be 

assessed  in  the  context  of  regulation  process  (permits  issuing)  and  the  requirements  of 
Article 4(7) will be analysed by Romania. A further in-depth analysis is needed to assess 

whether  all  the  requirements  of  Article  4(7)  are  fulfilled  and  whether  the  effects  of  all 
newly  planned  modifications  on  water  body  status/potential  are  assessed  at  quality 

element level, as required by Annex V of WFD, and according to ruling of the European 
Court of Justice C-461/13. The RBMP (chapter 7) includes this requirement of assessing 

the  negative  effects  at  quality  element  level.  The  recommendation  has  been  partially 
fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation:  Justify  adequately  exemptions  in  general  and  especially  new 
modifications, such as navigation projects and new hydropower plants, and support them 

by  a  proper  assessment  of  alternative  solutions  and  include  all  necessary  mitigation 
measures. 

Assessment: See assessments above. 

107 

 
 
Topic 9

 Programme of measures  

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the PoM reported by the Member State; 

more specific information on measures relating to specific pressures (for example arising from 
agriculture) is provided in subsequent chapters. 

The  Key  Types  of  Measures  (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  Measures  for  the  purpose  of 

reporting.  The  same  individual  measure  can  be  part  of  more  than  one  Key  Types  of 
Measure because it may be multi-purpose, but also because the Key Types of Measures 

are not completely independent. Key Types of Measures have been introduced to simplify 
the  reporting  of  measures  and  to  reduce  the  very  large  number  of  Supplementary 

Measures reported by some Member States in 2010 (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 Measures are listed in 

the WFD Reporting Guidance 2016. 

The  Key  Types  of  Measures  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 
requirements in the second cycle 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

9.1.1  General issues 

An indication of whether or not measures have been made operational is when they have been 

reported  as  being  planned  to  tackle  significant  pressures  (Key  Types  of  Measure  level). 
Significant pressures are also reported at the water body level. It would be expected that there 

would be measures planned to tackle all significant pressures. For groundwater, all significant 
pressures have been reported as being addressed by operational Key Types of Measure. For all 

GWs  failing  good  chemical  status,  the  reported  associated  pressure  were  2.2  –  Diffuse 
agriculture  and  2.6  –  Diffuse  –  Discharges  not  connected  to  sewerage  systems  types. 
Pressure 2.1 - Diffuse – Urban run-off is also indicated, although not in terms of numbers of 

108 

 
 
groundwater  bodies  failing  good  status;  it  is  addressed  through  KTM21  –  “Measures  to 

prevent/control pollution from urban areas”. 

In  surface  water  bodies,  Key  Types  of  Measure  have  been  reported  for  most  significant 

pressures  causing  failure  of  good  status.  The  pressures  which  have  not  been  addressed  are: 
“Point - Waste disposal sites”, “Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore – Other”, 

“Dams, barriers and locks – Irrigation” and “Hydrological alteration – Aquaculture”.  

Romania has mapped 22 national basic measures against 11 pre-defined Key Types of Measure 

and  two  nationally  derived  Key  Types  of  Measure  (“Closure  and  ecologisation  of  the  ponds 
and  tailings,  rehabilitation  and  ecologisation  (land  reclaiming)  of  the  waste  dumps”  and 
“Remediation of municipal landfills”). In addition, 9366 national supplementary measures have 
been mapped against 12 pre-defined Key Types  of Measure and  four nationally derived Key 

Types  of  Measure  (“Closure  and  ecologisation  of  the  ponds  and  tailings,  rehabilitation  and 
ecologisation (land reclaiming) of the waste dumps”, “Establishing management /environment 

objectives  specific  for  fisheries  and  therapeutic  lakes”,  “Implementing  of  the  investigative 
monitoring  adapted  to  the  specific  pressures  on  the  water  bodies  (including  longitudinal 
connectivity)”  and  “Measures  to  reduce  nutrient  and  organic  substance  accumulation  in 
lakes”).  However,  63%67  of  the  national  supplementary  measures  have  been  mapped  against 
KTM 14 –“Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty”. In the National 

Management  Plan,  Romania  has  reported  that  the  basic  measures  reported  do  not  cover  the 
following aspects of Article 11(3):  

• 

• 

• 

Article 11(3)(b): Measures for the recovery of cost of water services (Article 9)68; 

Article  11(3)(f):  Controls,  including  a  requirement  for  prior  authorisation  of  artificial 
recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies69; and 

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 
incidents70. 

66  Romania  subsequently  mentioned  that  there  were  actually  94  national  supplementary  measures  reported  in 

WISE. 

67 Romania subsequently clarified that there were 24 out of 94 (26%) national supplementary measure reported in 

WISE related to KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty. 

68    Romania  subsequently  explained  that  in  the  National  RBMP  (updated  2015)  there  is  a  description  of  the 
measures for the recovery of cost of water services (Article 9), in Chapter 9.2 Cost recovery of water resources 
management activities and for public services on water and sanitation, page 253-256.   

69  Romania  subsequently  clarified  that  the  basic  measures  for  controls,  including  a  requirement  for  prior 
authorization of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies, are applied if necessary. Artificial 
recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies is not a usual practice in Romania. 

109 

 
                                                      
Three of the Key Types of Measure against which national measures have been mapped have 

not been reported as operational measures in place to address significant pressures. These are 
KTM  8  –“Water  efficiency,  technical  measures  for  irrigation,  industry,  energy  and 

households”, KTM 13 –“Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard 
zones, buffer zones etc)” and KTM 24 –“Adaptation to climate change”.71 On the other hand, 
one  nationally  derived  Key  Type  of  Measure  that  has  been  reported  as  being  operational  to 
address  significant  pressures  has  not  had  national  measures  mapped  against  it,  specifically 

“Study on development and application of methodology for assessing the ecological status in 
terms of salinity of water bodies with natural mineral loading”. Given the likely nature of this 

measure  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  conclude  that  this  is  not  a  national  measure.  Romania  has 
reported that some significant pressures are likely to be causing up to 10% of water bodies to 

fail  to  be  of  good  status  in  2027.  The  pressures  concerned  are  “Point  -  Urban  waste  water”, 
“Diffuse  –  Agricultural”,  “Diffuse  -  Discharges  not  connected  to  sewerage  network”, 

“Hydromorphological  alteration  -  Physical  loss  of  whole  or  part  of  the  water  body”,  “Dams, 
barriers  and  locks  –  Hydropower”,  “Physical  alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian  area/shore  - 
Flood protection”, and “Hydrological alteration – Hydropower”. 

12 groundwater bodies have been reported to be failing to achieve good chemical status as a 
result of the nitrates and three were reported to be failing due to ammonium72. No information 
has been reported on the Key Types of Measure in place to address these failures, nor has any 
information  been  provided  on  the  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  affecting  surface  water 
bodies73. 

Romania reported that seven Priority Substances are causing between 1 and 26 water bodies to 

fail  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  (trifluralin,  atrazine,  trichloromethane,  lead  and  its 

70  Romania  subsequently  noted  that  in  the  WISE  RBMP  KTM16  -  Upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial 
wastewater treatment plants (including farms) and measures such as: specific measures for control and permit 
of  point  pollution  sources;  rehabilitation  /  extension  of  sewage  network  (RO11_B_PSD_01),  reduction  of 
pollutant losses from wastewaters (RO11_B_PSD_02). Also in the National RBMP (updated 2015) there were 
measures in Chapter 9.5 Measures for mitigation of the point pollution sources and other activities with impact 
on water status and in Chapter 9.8 Measures to prevent and reduce the impact of accidental pollution. Also in 
the sub-unit RBMPs (updated 2015) specific measures were presented for sewage networks of agglomerations 
(Annex 9.3) and industrial facilities (Annex 9.9). 

71  Romania  subsequently  noted  that  these  measures  can  be  considered  as  operational,  since  continuous 

implementation is mandatory. 

72  Romania  subsequently  clarified  that  Nitrate  and  Ammonium  were  reported  as  substances  failing  the  good 
chemical  status  of  groundwaters.  But  the  associated  KTMs  for  significant  pressures  for  groundwaters  (2.2  - 
Diffuse  –  Agricultural  and  2.6  -  Diffuse  -  Discharges  not  connected  to  sewerage  network)  were  reported: 
KTM2 – “Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture”, KTM 21 – “Measures to prevent or control the input of 
pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure”. 

73 Romania subsequently clarified that the Key Types of Measure associated with River Basin Specific Pollutants 
affecting  surface  water  bodies  are  KTM1  –  “Construction  or  upgrade  of  waste  water  treatment  plants”  and 
KTM8 – “Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown”. 

110 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
compounds,  mercury  and  its  compounds,  nickel  and  its  compounds,  cadmium  and  its 

compounds).  Key  Types  of  Measure  have  not  been  reported  for  trifluralin,  atrazine  or 
trichloromethane despite the fact that a total of 24 surface water bodies are failing to achieve 
good chemical status because of those substances74. 

Indicators  of  the  gap  to  good  status  and  the  level  of  implementation  of  the  Key  Types  of 

Measure  expected  have  generally  been  reported  by  Romania.  Indicators  of  the  gaps  to  good 
status have been reported for the majority of significant pressures on groundwater and surface 

water  for  2015,  2021  and  2027,  with  most  gaps  expected  to  be  filled  by  2027,  with  some 
exemptions,  such  as,  in  surface  water  bodies,  “Point  -  Urban  waste  water”,  “Diffuse  – 

Agricultural”, “Diffuse - Discharges not connected to sewerage network”, “Physical alteration 
of  channel/bed/riparian  area/shore  -  Flood  protection”,  “Dams,  barriers  and  locks  – 

Hydropower”, “Hydrological alteration – Hydropower”, and “Hydromorphological alteration - 
Physical loss of whole or part of the water body”. The indicators of the gap to good status have 

been meaningfully defined, as for example, for the significant  pressure “Point  - Urban waste 
water” pressure: PE01 - Load (tonne per year) of biological oxygen demand to be reduced to 
achieve  objectives,  PE02  -  Load  (tonne  per  year)  of  nitrogen  to  be  reduced  to  achieve 

objectives, PE03 - Load (tonne per year) of phosphorus to be reduced to achieve objectives; for 
the  significant  pressure  “Diffuse  –  Agricultural”:  PO99  -  Other  indicator:  Number  of  water 

bodies  failing  the  environmental  quality  standard  for  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  from  diffuse 
agricultural  sources,  and  for  the  significant  pressure  “Diffuse  -  Discharges  not  connected  to 

sewerage  network”:  PL01  -  Length  (km)  of  water  bodies  where  diffuse  urban  runoff  is 
preventing the achievement of objective.  

For  groundwater  bodies,  an  assessment  of  the  gap  to  good  status  and  the  level  of 
implementation  needed  from  the  measures  has  been  carried  out  for  the  significant  pressure 

types,  but  has  not  been  done  for  the  substances  causing  groundwater  bodies  to  fail  to  be  of 
good  status  (nitrate  and  ammonium)  for  which  measures  have  not  been  put  in  place75. 
Similarly, for the Priority Substances causing surface water bodies to fail to be of good status, 
indicators have been reported for those where measures are in place5. 

Indicators  of  the  expected  gap  to  good  status  in  surface  water  bodies  in  2027  have  not  been 
reported for the significant pressures “Point - Mine waters” and “Point – Aquaculture” despite 

74 Romania subsequently clarified that Key Types of Measure for priority substances are: KTM 1 – “Construction 
or  upgrade  of  waste  water  treatment  plants”,  KTM  3  –  “Reduce  pesticides  from  agriculture”  and  KTM8  – 
“Anthropogenic pressure- Unknown”. 

75  Romania  subsequently  clarified  that  this  assessment  has  been  made  in  the  Action  Plan  and  Code  of  Good 
Agriculture  Practices  (KTM2  –  “Reduce  nutrient  pollution  from  agriculture”)  and  reduce  the  nitrate  diffuse 
pollution from urban area without waste waters collecting systems (KTM 21 - “Measures to prevent or control 
the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure”). 

111 

 
                                                      
100% compliance not being expected by 2021.76 No indicators have reported for the significant 
pressure “Point - Waste disposal sites” on surface water bodies. 

The indicators of the level of progress expected with the implementation of the Key Types of 

Measure show that, in  some cases, a  greater level  of implementation  is  expected in  the third 
PoM (2021-2027) than the second (2015-2021).  For  example, for the Key  Types  of Measure 

indicator:  KTM  1  –“Construction  or  upgrades  of  wastewater  treatment  plants”  (KS01  - 
Population  equivalent  required  to  be  treated  by  construction  or  upgrade  of  wastewater 

treatment plants to achieve objectives), the value 143 525 was reported for 2015 while 511 612 
for 2021, and zero for 2027.77  

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 PoM, cost effectiveness analysis was undertaken for measures at 
the  sub-basin  scale  in  order  to  identify  which  supplementary  measures  should  be  prioritised. 

However, the cost effectiveness analyses had a high level of uncertainty attached to them from 
both  the  assessment  of  the  level  of  improvement  expected,  and  the  costs  of  the  measures 
concerned. For the second PoM, Romania reported that a combination of both quantitative and 

qualitative analysis has been carried out for supporting the selection of measures proposed. The 
prioritisation  of  measures  was  further  explored  in  the  examination  of  the  RBMP  and 

background  documents  and  it  was  found  that,  in  the  process  of  identifying  important  water 
management issues both at the level of the Danube International Water Danube Region and at 

national  level,  four  major  categories  of  important  water  management  issues  have  been 
identified (organic pollution, nutrient pollution, pollution with priority / hazardous substances 

and  hydromorphological  alterations)  for  which  specific  Programmes  of  Measures  have  been 
established  to  achieve  environmental  objectives.  It  is  also  important  to  note  that  the  specific 

measures  established  at  the  international  level  (presented  in  the  Danube  International  Water 
Management Plan - Part A) have been integrated at the national level. The measures apply to 

man-made  (anthropogenic)  pressures,  mainly  due  to  human  agglomerations,  industrial  and 
agricultural  activities,  hydromorphological  pressures  and  other  types  of  activities  generating 

significant pressures. By applying economic analysis and scenario trends (through modelling), 

76 Romania subsequently clarified that research studies have been proposed to identify measures for reaching the 

environmental objectives in these water bodies. 

77 Romania subsequently clarified that in 2021 the indicator values KS01  - Population equivalent required to be 
treated by construction or upgrade of wastewater treatment plants to achieve objectives is higher than in 2015 
due to the fact that in the period 2016-2021 the number of measures for construction or upgrade of wastewater 
treatment  plants  are  more  numerous  that  the  previous  period.  The  2027  value  is  zero  because  no  measures 
were planned after 2027. 

112 

 
                                                      
the  combinations  of  measures  (basic  measures  and  additional  measures)  with  the  best  cost-

effectiveness ratio are selected. 

A critical factor in the success of the implementation of the PoM is the availability of funding 
to  support  the  investments  required.  Romania  has  reported  that,  for  the  first  PoM,  €7 987  m 
was  invested  in  measures  to  fulfil  Article  11(3)(a)  requirements  (measures  required  to 

implement  Community  legislation  for  the  protection  of  water)  and  €993  m  was  invested  in 
measures  to  meet  the  requirements  of  and  Articles  11(3)(b-l),  11(4)  and  11(5)  (all  other 
measures).  For  the  second  PoM  (2016-2021),  capital  investment  of  €13 27478m  is  needed  to 
implement  all  the  measures  planned  under  Article  11(3)(a)  with  annual  operation  and 
maintenance costs of €82479m, while capital investment of €388 m is needed to implement the 
measures under Articles 11(3)(b-l), 11(4) and 11(5) with annual operational and maintenance 
costs of €47780m. Depreciation has not been taken into account in the investment figures. For 
the first PoM €4 376 m of European Union funding was received, and €6 20481m is expected to 
support  the  second  PoM.  Romania  has  reported  that  clear  financial  commitments  have  been 
secured  for  the  PoM  from  all  relevant  sectors,  namely  agriculture,  industry,  urban, 
hydropower,  aquaculture  and  flood  protection.  The  transport,  energy  and  recreation  sectors 

have been reported to not be relevant in Romania. 

There was no joint consultation carried out on the RBMP and Marine Strategy in Romania, but 

the  preparation  of  RBMP  and  PoM  have  been  coordinated  with  the  implementation  of  the 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive82. It was reported that there is no need for additional or 
more  stringent  measures  beyond  those  required  by  WFD  in  order  to  contribute  to  the 
achievement  of  the  relevant  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  objective  in  coastal  and 
marine environment83 considered in the Programmes of Measures.  National measures relevant 
to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive have been reported as KTM 1 –“Construction or 

upgrades  of  wastewater  treatment  plants”,  KTM  14  –“Research,  improvement  of  knowledge 
base reducing uncertainty”. These are basic and supplementary measures.  

78  Romania  subsequently  clarified  that  this  figure  should  be  €13  662  m.  (Ref:  the  National  RBMP  updated, 

Chapter 9 – Programmes of measures, Tables 9.6.1 and 9.6.2, page 285-286.) 

79 Romania subsequently clarified that this figure should be €711 m. (Ref: the National RBMP updated, Chapter 9 

– Programmes of measures, Tables 9.6.1 and 9.6.2, page 285-286.) 

80 Romania subsequently clarified that this figure should be €54 m. (Ref: the National RBMP updated, Chapter 9 

– Programmes of measures, Tables 9.6.1 and 9.6.2, page 285-286.) 

81  Romania  subsequently  clarified  that  this  figure  should  be  €6 233  billion  of  EU  support.  (Ref:  the  National 

RBMP updated, Chapter 9 – Programmes of measures, Tables 9.6.1 and 9.6.2, page 285-286.) 

82 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 

83 Romania subsequently clarified that only the coastal environment is relevant to the Marine Strategy Framework 

Directive.  

113 

 
                                                      
The RBMP and Flood Risk Management Plans84 have not been integrated into a single plan in 
Romania (this is according to the Water Law), however joint consultation was carried out on 
the  RBMP  and  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans,  and  the  objectives  and  requirements  of  the 

Floods Directive have been considered in the second RBMP and PoM. Romania indicated that 
specific  win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  Floods 

Directive, drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) have 
been included in the PoM. The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood 

defences,  storage  dams  and  tidal  barriers,  have  been  adapted  to  take  into  account  WFD 
Environmental  Objectives  and  clear  financial  commitment  has  been  secured  for  the 

implementation of the PoM in the flood protection sector. Article 9(4) has not been applied to 
impoundments for flood protection in Romania. 

9.1.2  Measures related to other significant pressures 

Other  significant  pressures  in  Romania  were  reported  as  “anthropogenic  –  other”  or 

“anthropogenic  –  unknown”  and  apply  only  to  surface  waters.  Indicators  of  the  gap  to  good 
status have been provided for 2015, 2021 and 2027. In most cases little progress is expected in 
the second PoM, but good status is expected to be achieved by 2027. In terms of the level of 
progress expected in the implementation of each Key Type of Measure, approximately 50% of 
the measures have been reported to reduce the pressure to a level that would enable affected 

water bodies to achieve WFD objectives by 2021. The remaining ones will do so by 2027. 

9.1.3  Mapping of national measures to Key Types of Measure 

It  was  expected  that  Member  States  would  be  able  to  report  their  PoM  by  associating  their 
national measures with predefined Key Types of Measure. Key Types of Measure are expected 

to  deliver  the  bulk  of  the  improvements  through  reduction  in  pressures  required  to  achieve 
WFD Environmental Objectives. A Key Type of Measure may be one national measure but it 

would  typically  comprise  more  than  one  national  measure.  Member  States  are  required  to 
report  on  the  national  measures  associated  with  the  key  types  of  measure,  and  whether  the 

national  measures are basic (Article 11(3)(a) or  Article 11(3)(b-l)) or supplementary  (Article 
11(4)).  

Table 9.1 summarises the number of national measures that have been mapped to the relevant 
Key  Types  of  Measure  in  Romania.  Also  shown  is  the  number  of  River  Basin  Districts  for 

which  the  Key  Type  of  Measure  has  been  reported.  Table  9.2  then  summarises  the  type  of 

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

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

114 

 
                                                      
basic  measures  associated  with  the  national  measures  mapped  against  the  Key  Type  of 

Measure. 

Table 9.1 

Mapping  of  the  types  of  national  measures  to  Key  Types  of  Measure  in 

Romania 

Key Type of Measure 

National 

National 

Number of 

basic 
measures 

supplementary 
measures 

RBDs where 
reported 

1 

60 

2 

5 

4 

1 

1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

5 

KTM 1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment 
plants 

KTM 13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. 
establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.) 

KTM 14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base 
reducing uncertainty 

KTM 15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, 

discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or 
for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of 

Priority Substances 

KTM 16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial 
wastewater treatment plants (including farms). 

KTM 2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 

KTM 20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse 
impacts of fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal 

and plants 

KTM 21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of 
pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure 

KTM 23 - Natural water retention measures 

KTM 24 - Adaptation to climate change 

KTM 3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 

KTM 4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical 
pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil) 

3 

1 

1 

4 

2 

2 

3 

1 

1 

KTM 5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing 

fish passes, demolishing old dams) 

KTM 6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of water 
bodies other than longitudinal continuity 

KTM 7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment 
of ecological flows 

1 

115 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key Type of Measure 

National 

National 

Number of 

basic 
measures 

supplementary 
measures 

RBDs where 
reported 

KTM 8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, 
industry, energy and households 

KTM 99 - Other key type measure reported under the PoM - 
Closure and ecologisation of the ponds and tailings, 

rehabilitation and ecologisation (land reclaiming) of the 

1 

1 

waste dumps 

KTM 99 - Other key type measure reported under the PoM - 
Establishing management /environment objectives specific 

for fisheries and therapeutic lakes 

KTM 99 - Other key type measure reported under the PoM - 
Implementing of the investigative monitoring adapted to the 

specific pressures on the water bodies (including 

longitudinal connectivity) 

KTM 99 - Other key type measure reported under the PoM - 
Measures to reduce nutrient and organic substance 

accumulation in lakes 

KTM 99 - Other key type measure reported under the PoM - 
Remediation of municipal landfills 

Total number of Mapped Measures 

1 

22 

1 

2 

1 

3 

94 

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9.2 

Type of basic measure mapped to Key Type of Measures in Romania 

Key Type of Measure 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater 
treatment plants 
KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures 
(e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer 
zones etc) 
KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of 
emissions, discharges and losses of Priority 
Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of 
emissions, discharges and losses of Priority 
Substances 
KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial 
wastewater treatment plants (including farms). 
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 
KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from 
agriculture. 
KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites 
(historical pollution including sediments, 
groundwater, soil) 
KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or 
establishment of ecological flows 
KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for 
irrigation, industry, energy and households 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under 
PoM 

r
e
t
a
W

e
t
s
a
W
n
a
b
r
U

2 

3 

Basic Measure Type 

e
s
u
r
e
t
a
w

t
n
e
i
c
i
f
f

E

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

D
E
I
C
P
P
I

s
e
t
a
r
t
i

N

e
c
r
u
o
s

t
n
i
o
P

s
e
g
r
a
h
c
s
i
d

e
s
u
f
f
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
P
e
c
a
f
r
u
S

s
e
c
n
a
t
s
b
u
S

r
e
h
t
O

1 

r
e
t
a
w
s
l
o
r
t
n
o
C

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

Key 

‘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. 
‘Efficient water use’ = Article 11(3)(c): Measures to promote efficient and sustainable water use. 
‘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. 
‘Surface Priority Substances’ = Article 11(3)(k): Measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters by Priority Substances 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and to reduce pollution from other substances that would otherwise prevent the achievement of the objectives laid down in 
Article 4. 
‘Urban Waste Water’ = Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). 

9.1.4 

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. 

118 

 
 
 
9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

In general the amount and quality of readily available information has improved between the 
two cycles because of the revised WISE reporting. Often there is no equivalent information for 

the first cycle and it is difficult, therefore, to make direct comparisons between the two RBMPs 
on  what  has  changed  significantly.  Romania  has  reported  that  some  measures  have  been 

completed, while the obstacles to implementation for some other measures were delays, lack of 
finance, a lack of mechanism and measure being not cost effective. Romania has also reported 
that the legal regime in the country and the tendering process to issue contracts for work has 

also caused delays. Romania has provided a good summary of the progress made in relation to 
this  topic  which  was  explored  in  the  examination  of  the  RBMP  and  background  documents. 
From this, it can be summarised that the financing of the first PoM was achieved mainly from: 

  48.73%  European  Funds  -  Cohesion  Funds,  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural 
Development, European Regional Development Funds, European Fisheries Fund, LIFE 
funds, other funds; 

  31.17%  Governmental  and  local  government  funds  (state  budget,  local,  contribution 

royalties, etc.); 

  14.74% Own resources of the economic operator; 

  0.09% Public-Private Partnership; 

  3.32% Sources of National Administration Romanian Waters; 

  1.97% Other sources. 

In the period of the first cycle, most of the costs were related to the implementation of basic 

and additional measures for human agglomerations (drinking water, waste water, sludge from 
sewage treatment plants) and industrial and agro-zootechnical activities (Industrial Emissions 
Directive85, Seveso III) and other basic measures related to the regulation/authorisation, control 
to 
and  monitoring  of  significant  sources  of  pollution,  as  well  as 

those  related 

hydromorphological alterations. By the end of 2015, basic and additional measures have been 
implemented  under  the  program  of  measures  of  the  first  planning  cycle,  which,  from  a 

financial point of view, is at the value of the investment and other costs of approximately €9m, 
which represents approx. 61% of the total planned for the first cycle.  

85  Directive  2010/75/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  November  2010  on  industrial 

emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0075 

119 

 
                                                      
 
Based  on  the  analysis  of  the  progress  in  the  implementation  of  the  basic  and  additional 

measures  as  compared  to  the  planned  situation  in  the  Management  Plan  approved  by 
Governmental Decision No. 80/2011 it was found that: 

  74.38% of the measures were implemented; 

  8.19%  of  the  measures  are  new  measures,  not  envisaged  in  the  Management  Plan 

approved by Governmental Decision No. 80/2011; 

  4.04%  of  the  measures  have  been  modified  in  view  of  new  information  on  the 

effectiveness of the measure, etc.; 

  6.82%  of  the  measures  were  no  longer  necessary  due  to  either  the  reduction  in  the 
various  objective  causes  of  pollution  caused  by  significant  pressures  (some  measures 
were  abandoned,  no  longer  necessary,  after  the  re-evaluation  of  the  situation  in  the 

economic  units  (closed  units,  preservation)  and  reaching  of  the  environmental 
objectives of water bodies or other measures implemented in parallel on the same body 

of water have already led to the achievement of environmental objectives; 

  6.57% of the measures were not implemented, being transferred for implementation in 

the second planning cycle. 

9.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

 

Recommendation: “Review the pressures and impacts analysis and status assessment in 
the second RBMP and ensure that the measures are based on the updated pressures and 

impacts analysis and status assessment of water bodies. Ensure that the RBMPs clearly 
identify the gap to good status, and that the Programmes of Measures are designed and 

implemented to close that gap.” 

Assessment:  From  the  information  provided  both  to  WISE,  and  in  the  supporting 

documents reviewed in the examination of the RBMP, it appears that the measures have 
been targeted on four main pressure types. It is not clear whether the status assessment of 
the water bodies has been considered in the targeting of the measures86.  

86  Romania  subsequently  noted  that  the  National  Management  Plan  details  the  approach:  Chapter  3.4  indicates 
that the  status of the  water bodies  was taken into consideration  when significant pressures  were established. 

120 

 
                                                      
However, Romania has clearly identified the gap to good status, reporting indicators of 

the gaps or 2015 and 2021 and 2027, and the level of progress expected to be made in the 
implementation of the measures. This recommendation has been largely addressed. 

 

Recommendation:  “Provide  a  presentation  of  the  approach  and  results  of  cost-
effectiveness analysis in the second RBMPs.” 

Assessment:  Romania  reported  that  a  combination  of  both  quantitative  and  qualitative 
analysis had been carried out in for supporting the selection of measures proposed under 

the second cycle PoM. Further information on the prioritisation of measures was sought 
in the examination of the RBMP and background documents where it was found that by 

applying economic analysis and scenarios / trends (through modelling), combinations of 
measures (basic measures and additional measures) with the best cost-effectiveness ratio 

are  selected.  It  is  not  possible  to  determine  from  this  assessment  whether  this 
recommendation has been fulfilled or not. However, Romania has subsequently clarified 

that  the  cost  benefit  analysis  and  disproportionality  analysis  is  presented  in  detail  in 
Chapter 10 of the RBMP. Therefore this recommendation would be largely fulfilled.  

An evaluation of the impacts of significant pressures on the water body status is presented in Chapter 3.6 and 
in the Chapter 9.1 basic measures were applied to all water bodies with potential significant pressures and for 
prevention of deterioration of the  good status of  water bodies. In Chapter 9.9 supplementary  measures  were 
applied in the cases where after implementation of the basic measures the water body is still at risk of failing 
to reach the environmental objective. Also in the Annexes 9.2-9.12 of the 11 sub-basin RBMPs updated there 
are  included  links  between  pressures  and  measures  at  the  water  body  level  (code  of  water  body)  and 
consequently the link with the status of the water bodies and the reaching the environmental objectives from 
Annexes:  6.1.A  and  6.2  (ecological  status/ecological  potential  and  chemical  status)  and  7.1  (Environmental 
objectives). 

121 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
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 pressures were not reported as relevant for Romania. All groundwater bodies 
are  in  good  quantitative  status  and  water  abstraction  pressures  do  not  significantly  affect 
surface water bodies. The Water Exploitation Index + is not calculated at the sub-unit level87; 
but water quantity data have been reported to support the European State of the Environment 

Report  in  relation  to  Water  Quantity.  Water  scarcity  is  not  considered  an  issue  in  the 
international RBMP. The RBMP in Romania does not include a water resource allocation and 

management  plan,  but  legislative  provisions  regarding  the  water  resource  allocation  are  in 
place. 

10.1.2  Main uses for water consumption  

No  data  have  been  reported  to  WISE  for  the  uses  of  water  consumption,  as  water  quantity 

pressures  are  not  reported  as  significant.  However,  the  European  Commission  has  expressed 
concern that the Romanian authorities have requested an amendment of the Rural Development 

Programme  to  expand  irrigation  from  0.8  to  1.8  m  hectares.  This  can  lead  to  significant 
abstraction pressures.88 Furthermore, according to the World Bank, there are some sub-units in 
Romania  under  water  scarcity  i.e.  Arges  -  Vedea  and  Dobrogea.  Apparently,  the  situation 
varies widely from sub-unit to sub-unit, both in terms of demands and availability, so national 

average  figures  can  be  misleading  and  fail  to  reflect  the  situation  of  water  scarcity  or  water 
stress in Romania. 

87  Romania  subsequently  clarified  that  in  chapter  11  (Quantitative  aspects  and  climate  change)  of  the  National 
Management Plans, there is information about WEI+ , underlying that a relatively low water stress/deficit was 
identified in Romania,  with WEI + annual average  around 19.6%, with a  minimum of 15.2% in 2013 and a 
maximum  of  41.4  %  in  1990.  Chapter  8.6  of  the  National  Management  Plan  (Trends  in  water  demand,  and 
Annex  8.1.  Trends  in  Water  demand)  indicate  that  there  will  be  no  water  deficit  in  water  demand  until 
2020/2030. 

88 Romania subsequently indicated that according to the information provided by Ministry of Agriculture, there is 
no intention to extend the surface of the irrigation systems, but to rehabilitate and modernize the existing ones. 
A study regarding potential impacts on water resources in terms of quantity, as a result of the updating of the 
investment  strategy  in  the  irrigation  sector,  has  been  performed  and  indicates  that  no  related  surface  water 
bodies will be at risk from the quantitative point of view. The specific Romanian legislation in place allows for 
the control of all future potential significant pressures (projects) on water. 

122 

 
                                                      
10.1.3  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

Regarding  the  basic  measures  (Article11(3)(e)),  in  Romania  there  is  a  concession, 
authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  water  impoundment  and  a  register  of 

impoundments.  Small  abstractions  for  households  (drinking  water  purposes)  are  exempted 
from these controls.  

Measures promoting efficient and sustainable water use (Basic Measure Article 11(3)(c)) were 
implemented in the previous cycle, and new measures and/or significant changes are planned 

for the second RBMP period.  

Measures  for  the  prior  authorisation  of  artificial  recharge  or  augmentation  of  groundwater 

bodies  (Article  11(3)(f))  are  of  low  relevance  and  have  been  implemented  in  the  previous 
cycle, and new control and permit measures are included for the second RBMP. 

Complementary  measures  under  Key  Types  of  Measure  are  not  reported  for  addressing 
abstraction pressures. Water reuse is not foreseen as a measure. 

10.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Water abstraction was reported as a significant pressure in the first cycle but only affecting a 
small  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  (1.44%).  This  is  no  longer  the  case  in  the  second 

cycle  according  to  information  reported  to  WISE.  Romania  reports  a  development  of  the 
approach  for  the  assessment  of  pressures  in  the  second  cycle  including  the  use  of  numerical 

tools  for  the  assessment  of  water  abstraction  pressures  (section  2.1.7  of  this  report).  The 
quantitative status  of  groundwater bodies continues to  be in  good status  in the second cycle; 

the rate of abstraction from groundwater was noted to be exceeded by natural recharge in the 
first cycle. 

10.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

There were no recommendations in the first RBMP and PoM relating to this topic. 

123 

 
 
 
Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture  

11.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 
in 

second  cycle  and  main  changes 

requirements 
implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

the 

in 

Agriculture  is  considered  to  be  one  of  the  main  sources  of  point  and  diffuse  pollution  with 
nutrients, organic and hazardous substances present in surface water and is also causing altered 

habitats due to morphological changes.  

‘Diffuse agricultural pressures’ were reported to be among the two most widespread significant 

pressures  for  surface  and  groundwater  affecting  15%  of  surface  water  bodies  and  10%  of 
groundwater  bodies  in  the  second  cycle.  Such  pressures  were  among  those  identified  in  the 

first cycle. 

The  most  significant 

impact 

in  both 

the 

first  and  second  cycle  was  nutrient 

pollution/enrichment  affecting  27%  and  32%  of  surface  water  bodies,  respectively.  For 
groundwater, only chemical pollution was reported as a significant impact. Nitrate is the most 

common cause of the failure of good chemical status in 8% of groundwater bodies. One water 
body  is  failing  good  status  because  of  not  meeting  an  environmental  quality  standard  for 

pesticides originating from diffuse agricultural sources. 

A  gap  assessment  for  nutrients  and  pesticides  was  performed  and  the  areas  that  need  to  be 

covered by measures are indicated.  

The measures correspond to the pressures and cover: 

  KTM 2 – Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture; 

  KTM 3 – Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture; 

  KTM 8 – Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigations; 

  KTM 13 – Drinking water protection measures; and,  

  KTM 23 – Natural water retention measures.  

124 

 
Romania applied, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 (5) of the Nitrates Directive89, 
the Action Program  and Codes of Good Agricultural Practice throughout  the whole territory. 
Consequently, most water protection measures are basic measures (the minimum requirement 

to  be  complied  with).  Only  KTM  23  is  supplementary  and  KTM  2  is  both  basic  and 
supplementary. KTM 2, KTM 3 and KTM 8 cover both basic (mandatory) and supplementary 

measures. 

Basic measures under Article 11(3)(h) for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at 

source are applied across the whole RBD. General binding rules to control diffuse pollution are 
applied  for  nitrates,  organic  pollution,  phosphorus,  pesticides  and  other  pollution.  These 

measures  are  broadly  in  line  with  those  reported  in  the  first  RBMP  though  categorised 
differently  due  to  the  change  in  the  second  cycle  reporting  to  WISE.  The  second  RBMP 

indicates that further additional measures would be considered where water bodies remained at 
risk of non-compliance after the application of the measures in the second RBMP.  

Romania  has  declared  that  it  applies  the  whole  national  territory  approach,  instead  of 
delineation of nitrates vulnerable zones, having in view pollution prevention. In the process of 
implementing  the  Nitrates  Directive,  Codes  of  Good  Agricultural  Practice  and  Action 

Programs have been developed and implemented. Since June 2013, the decision has been taken 
to implement the Action Program throughout Romania, in accordance with Article 3 paragraph 

5 of the Nitrates Directive.  

Farmers and Farmers' Associations have been consulted under the Public Consultation process 

in Romania. Financing of agricultural measures is secured.  

11.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

No major changes in any of the RBDs for aspects of the topic have been identified. 

11.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

 

Recommendation:  Agriculture  is  indicated  as  exerting  a  significant  pressure  on  the 
water resources in Romania. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines 

89  Council  Directive  91/676/EEC  of  12  December  1991  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
agricultural 

sources 

by 

from 
caused 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31991L0676  

nitrates 

125 

 
                                                      
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 
farmers' community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. There needs to be a 

very  clear  baseline  so  that  any  farmer  knows  the  rules  this  can  be  adequately  advised 
and enforced and so that the authorities in charge of the CAP funds can adequately set 

up Rural Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements. 

Assessment: The RBMP clearly define basic/mandatory measures that all farmers should 

adhere to and additional supplementary measures. Basic measures under Article 11(3)(h) 
for  the  control  of  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  at  source  are  applied  across  the 

whole  RBD.  In  the  process  of  implementing  the  Nitrates  Directive,  Codes  of  Good 
Agricultural  Practice  and  Action  Programs  have  been  developed  and  implemented. 

Financing  of  measures  is  secured.  Farmers  and  Farmers’  Associations  have  been 
consulted under the Public Consultation process in Romania. This recommendation has 

been fulfilled.  

 

Recommendation: “Ensure that diffuse sources of pollution in the agricultural sector are 

controlled,  including  mandatory  requirements  for  farmers  where  necessary.  Include  in 
the second RBMPs measures related to nitrates also outside of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones 

(NVZs).” 

Assessment:  Most  measures  are  basic  measures  (i.e.  KTM3),  only  KTM  23  is 

supplementary  and  KTM  2  is  both  basic  and  supplementary.  Basic  measures  under 
Article 11(3)(h) for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at source are applied 

across the whole RBD. General binding rules to control diffuse pollution are applied for 
nitrates,  organic  pollution,  phosphorus,  pesticides  and  other  pollution  under  the  Action 

Programme  for  the  protection  of  waters  against  nitrate  pollution  from  agricultural 
sources.  Also,  Romania  applies  a  whole  territory  approach  and  the  measures  related  to 

nitrates  are  applied  on  all  agricultural  land.  The  second  RBMP  indicates  that  further 
additional  measures  would  be  considered  where  water  bodies  remained  at  risk  of  non-

compliance  after  the  application  of  the  measures  in  the  second  RBMP.  This 
recommendation is fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation: “Ensure in the second RBMPs that relevant links are established with 

the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  mechanisms  and  with  its  pesticides  national  action 

plan.”  

126 

 
Assessment:  Certain  information  was  found  in  the  RBMP  to  establish  if  Common 

Agricultural  Policy  mechanisms  would  be  used  and  what  is  the  contribution  of  the 
pesticide  action  plan  to  the  achievement  of  environmental  objectives.  The  RBMP 

mentions  as  important  measure  for  protecting  of  waters  against  pesticides  used  in 
agriculture  the  Measure  10  -  Agro-environment  and  climate90.  The  recommendation 
has been implemented.  

90  Romania  clarified  that  all  farmers  in  Romania  who  are  applying  this  measure  have  obligation  not  to  use 

pesticides at all in specific protected areas. This applies to about 800 thousand ha of agricultural land.   

127 

 
 
                                                      
Topic 12

  Measures  related  to  pollution  from  sectors  other  than 

agriculture  

12.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 
in 

second  cycle  and  main  changes 

requirements 
implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

the 

in 

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.  

Key  types  of  measures  (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 limited 

to  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. 

The following KTMs relevant to non-agricultural sources of pollution causing failure of WFD 

objectives have been reported for RBDs in Romania: 

  KTM 1 - “Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants“ 

  KTM 4 - “Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, 

groundwater, soil)“ 

  KTM 14 – “Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty” 

  KTM  15  –  “Measures  for  the  phasing-out  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of 
Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses 
of Priority Substances”  

  KTM  16  -  “Upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial  wastewater  treatment  plants 

(including farms)“ 

  KTM  20  –  “Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  adverse  impacts  of  fishing  and  other 

exploitation/removal of animal and plants” 

  KTM  21  -  “Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas, 

transport and built infrastructure“  

  KTM 99 – “Other type measure reported under POM“ 

128 

 
The  WFD  specifies  that  the  Programmes  of  Measures  shall  include,  as  a  minimum,  “basic 

measures” and, where necessary to achieve objectives, “supplementary measures” when basic 
measures  are  not  enough  to  address  specific  significant  pressures  (see  the  chapter  9  in  this 

report). Quantitative information on basic and supplementary measures used to tackle pollution 
from non-agricultural sources (number of measures per KTM) has been provided. Quantitative 

information  on  types  of  basic  measures  to  tackle  pollution  from  non-agricultural  sources 
(number of measures per KTM) is provided for six measure types.  

Romania provided more targeted information on basic measures required under Article 11(3)(c 
to  k).  Basic  measures  corresponding  to  Article  11(3)(g),  i.e.  the  use  of    authorization  and/or 

permitting regimes to control waste-water point source discharges is in place for surface water 
only.  A  register  of  waste  water  discharges  (Basic  measures  Article 11(3)(g))  is  available  for 

surface water only. There are no thresholds in Romania below which waste water discharges 
do  not  require  permits,  and  are  not  subject  to  registration.  Romania  clarified  that  all  waste 

water  discharges  require  a  water  management  permit  according  to  the  national  specific 
legislation  and  are  subject  to  registration91.  There  is  prohibition  of  all  direct  discharges  to 
groundwater in Romania.  

Romania reported that there are measures in place to eliminate / reduce pollution from Priority 
Substances  and  other  substances.  According  to  information  reported  to  WISE,  there  are 

measures in place to eliminate / reduce pollution from Priority Substances and other substances 
(Basic measures  Article 11(3)(k)). It is also reported that KTMs have been made operational 

based on pressures from four specific Priority Substances which have caused non-compliance. 
Substance-specific measures were already addressed in the sub-basin management plans in the 

first cycle. 

12.2  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  Identify  in  the  second  RBMPs  measures  that  are  more  targeted  to 

specific substances. 

Assessment: Information reported to WISE indicates that there are measures in place to 
eliminate  /  reduce  pollution  from  Priority  Substances  and  other  substances  (Basic 

measures Article 11(3)(k)). It also shows that KTMs have been made operational based 

91 This information can be found in the updated national RBMP, chapter 9, page 260. 

129 

 
                                                      
on  pressures  from  four  specific  Priority  Substances  causing  non-compliance  and  that 

KTM 15 - "Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority 
Hazardous  Substances  or  for  the  reduction  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of 

Priority Substances" is among the KTMs mapped and tackling significant pressures.  

Progress with the recommendation cannot be fully judged from this assessment but the 

reported information indicates progress. 

  Recommendation:  Impose  stricter  measures  in  the  second  RBMPs  on  plants  treating 
waste water and industries discharging to the public sewage system, if needed in order 
to reach good chemical status. The results of the gap assessment should indicate where 

further  measures  are  required  for  plants  treating  waste  water  and  industries 
discharging to the sewage system. These could be other basic measures under Article 

11.3(g) or supplementary measures.  

Assessment: Measures taken to  tackle pollution from  non-agricultural  sources include 

KTM  1  -  "Construction  or  upgrades  of  wastewater  treatment  plants"  and  information 
reported  to  WISE  indicates  that  KTM1-  -  "Construction  or  upgrades  of  wastewater 

treatment plants" includes both basic and supplementary measures. The gap assessment 
indicators indicate gaps to the achievement of environmental objectives will be closed 

by 2027 in the vast majority of cases though this relies on greater emphasis on the third 
cycle PoM than on the second.  

Basic  measures  to  reduce  the  effects  of  pressures  caused  by  effluents  from  human 
agglomerations have been established with a view to reducing the pollution from point 

sources and diffuse sources of pollution in order to comply with the legislation in force. 
The  measures  are  related  to  the  implementation  of  the  requirements  of  the  European 

Directives in the field, namely those referring to drinking water, sewage treatment and 
sludge from sewage treatment plants. 

The  necessary  work 
from  human 
agglomerations  consists  of  the  rehabilitation,  upgrading  and  extension  of  sewage 

for  collecting  and  purifying  wastewater 

networks,  waste  water  treatment  plants  and  plants,  in  order  to  achieve  technical 
compliance with the provisions of Directive 91 / 271 / EEC.  

Significant progress has been made. This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

130 

 
  Recommendation:  Pay  special  attention  to  the  implementation  of  basic  measures 
(Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment92  and  Industrial  Emissions93  Directives)  that  account 
for a large number of  exemptions. In the second RBMP Romania should demonstrate 

that the basic measures required under Article 11(3)(a) have been fully implemented. 
An  assessment  should  be  carried  out  of  how  far  these  measures  will  go  towards  the 

achievement of good status. 

  Assessment: Information reported to WISE shows that a number of KTMs will be made 
operational to reduce the pressures: KTM 1 - "Construction or upgrades of wastewater 
treatment  plants",  KTM  4  -  "Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical  pollution 

including sediments, groundwater, soil)", KTM 15  - "Measures for the phasing-out of 
emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction 

of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  Priority  Substances",  KTM 16  -  "Upgrades  or 
improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms)", KTM 21  - 

"Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and 
built infrastructure". 

Basic  measures  to  reduce  the  effects  of  pressures  caused  by  effluents  from  human 
agglomerations have been established in Romania with a view to reducing the pollution 

from  point  sources  and  diffuse  sources  of  pollution  in  order  to  comply  with  the 
legislation in force. The measures are related to the implementation of the requirements 

of  the  European  Directives  in  the  field,  namely  those  referring  to  drinking  water, 
sewage treatment and sludge from sewage treatment plants. A gap assessment has been 

undertaken  indicating  achievement  of  environmental  objectives  by  2027  in  the  vast 
majority of cases. This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Put in place the measures and allocate the necessary funds to fulfil 
the  requirements  of  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive  and  ensure  that  the 

discharges  are  in  line  with  good  ecological  status  /  good  ecological  potential  in  the 
second RBMPs cycle. 14 agglomerations will require supplementary measures because 

of  stricter  emissions  considering  the  requirements  of  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment 
Directive.  Romania  should  make  efforts  to  ensure  that  the  discharges  will  be  in  line 

with good ecological status/potential in the second RBMP cycle. 

92   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 

93   Directive  2010/75/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  November  2010  on  industrial 

emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0075 

131 

 
                                                      
 
 
Assessment:  Measures  taken  to  tackle  pollution  from  non-agricultural  sources  in 

include  KTM1  –  “Construction  or  upgrades  of  wastewater  treatment  plants”  and 
information  reported  to  WISE  indicates  that  KTM1  includes  both  basic  and 

supplementary measures.  

Investment  expenditures  required  to  implement  measures  to  reduce  the  effects  of 

potentially significant point pressures caused by effluents from human agglomerations 
(potentially  significant  point  pressures  are  set  out  in  the  RBMP),  were  estimated  at 

national level at around €5 362.933 m for the second cycle. 

This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

132 

 
 
 
 
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  for  rivers  and  reservoirs.  The 

significant  hydromorphological  pressures  are  assigned  to  specific  sectors  and  the  dominating 
uses/sectors  related  to  such  pressures  are  flood  protection  and  hydropower.  Although  an 

updated analysis of hydromorphological alterations has been carried, the share of surface water 
bodies  affected  by  significant  hydromorphological  pressures  has  decreased  in  the  second 

RBMP  compared  to  the  first  RBMP.  Overall,  the  share  of  water  bodies  affected  by 
hydromorphological pressures (5%) is relatively low in the second cycle. 

Several  operational  Key  Types  of  Measure  were  reported 
to  address  significant 
hydromorphological pressures including KTM 5 – “Improving longitudinal continuity”, 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 23 – “Natural water retention measures” as well as KTM 99 – “other” and KTM 
14  –  “Research  activities”.  In  addition,  overall  management  objectives  and  quantitative 

objectives  in  terms  of  restoring  river  continuity  have  been  set.  However,  for  water  bodies 
affected by hydromorphological alterations (physical loss of whole or part of the water body), 

which  represent  the  highest  share  of  water  bodies  with  significant  hydromorphological 
pressures,  only  research  measures  are  proposed,  as  the  first  step  of  setting  appropriate 

measures for the next cycle.  

Regarding hydromorphological pressures related to hydropower (including micro-hydropower) 

as  well  as  other  types  of  utilities  affecting  longitudinal  continuity,  it  is  emphasized  that 
measures  are  planned  for  mitigating  their  effects  on  ecological  status  /  potential  both  in  the 

investment phase and in the operational phase (with emphasis on ensuring minimum flow and 
the  passage  of  migratory  fish).  Measures  are  also  planned  to  ensure  lateral  connectivity: 
restoration or creation of wetlands, restoring the meanders or side arms, diversification of the 

bank, bed and habitats structure.  

In order to improve the assessment of some aspects of the RBMP and to reduce uncertainties, it 

is proposed to carry out a series of research studies, feasibility studies and pilot studies in the 
second cycle, to be developed at national level and applied at RBD / sub-basin level.  

133 

 
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). There is also a register of physical modifications of water 

bodies. 

Win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  Floods  Directive94, 
drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures were reported as included 
in the PoM and KTM 23 – “Natural Water Retention Measures” has been made operational to 

tackle  physical  alterations  due  to  flood  protection.  A  number  of  the  lateral  connectivity 
measures (mentioned above) may be considered natural water retention measures, especially if 

they provide multiple benefits. Some of the lateral connectivity measures of the RBMP were 
also included in the Flood Risk Management Plan Measures. It is also noted that there has been 

a proposal to set up an inter-ministerial working group for the reconstruction of wetlands along 
the Danube and the main tributaries as a measure to reduce the risk of floods and to implement 

green infrastructure and water retention. 

Also, 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 and 

some explanations are provided on how this is being done. At national level, it is necessary to 
carry out a study on the sustainable development of the Danube meadows taking into account 

aspects  related  to  the  prevention  and  reduction  of  flood  risk,  the  achievement  of  the 
environmental objectives of the water bodies as well as socio-economic aspects. The measures 

included in the study will be subject to consultation of local communities and the central public 
authority on agriculture and rural development. At the level of the International Danube RBD, 

Romania  has  promoted  a  project  concept  on  flood  risk  reduction  by  restoring  the  Danube 
floodplain (starting in 2016).  

Ecological  flows  have  been  derived  and  implemented  partly,  i.e.  for  some  relevant  water 
bodies,  but  the  work  is  still  on-going.  The  National  Institute  of  Hydrology  and  Water 

Management  developed  a  "Methodology  for  ecological  flow  determination"  based  on  the 
following principles: Defining the ecological flow according to the typology of water courses 

in Romania (in three geographical areas: mountain, hill, plain) and habitat needs of dominant 
species  (mainly  fish),  corresponding  to  each  typology.  The  methodology  applies  to  both 

natural and heavily modified water bodies.  

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

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

134 

 
                                                      
The  process  of  validating  the  methodology  for  determining  the  ecological  flow  is  underway 

and may lead to adjustments, for example some corrections of the ecological flow assessment 
methodological elements95. The application of the methodology will be phased due to the need 
to  amend  the  legislation  in  force,  as  well  as  the  subsequent  legislation  for  the  regulation  of 
water management, taking into account  both  the technical  feasibility  and the socio-economic 

effects of the measure. 

Indicators on the gap to be filled for significant hydromorphological pressures and Key Type 

of  Measure  value  indicators  were  reported  for  2015,  2021  and  2027.  The  level  of  ambition 
varies  between  closing  none  of  the  gap  to  fully  closing  the  gap  between  2015  and  2021  for 

significant  hydromorphological  pressures.  For  river  stretches  affected  by  significant 
hydromorphological pressures where no progress is expected by 2021, the reported information 

indicates that the gap will be fully closed by 2027, with the exception of certain river stretches 
affected  by  flood  protection  and  hydropower  whose  pressure  levels  remain  unchanged  until 

2027. 

13.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The second RBMP indicates that additional measures and instruments related to the mitigation 

of  the  effects  of  significant  hydromorphological  pressures  have  been  identified  at  a  national 
level.  

In the  first  RBMP, no specific information was  found on how hydromorphological  measures 
would  improve  the  ecological  status/potential.  The  improved  WISE  reporting  for  the  second 

RBMP clearly  provides  information  for Romania on progress  expected by  2021 and 2027 in 
terms of closing the gap for significant hydromorphological pressures. 

13.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

following: 

 

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, in-crease water infiltration and thus aquifer recharge, flood protection, habitat 

conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many cases more cost-
effective than grey infrastructure. 

95 Romania subsequently clarified that this process was finalised after the adoption of the second RBMPs 

135 

 
                                                      
Assessment: In the second RBMP, KTM 23 – “Natural Water Retention Measures” has 

been made operational to tackle physical alterations due to flood protection. In addition, 
some  measures  related  to  natural  water  retention  are  also  included  in  the  Flood  Risk 

Management  Plan  measures  establishing  a  link  between  the  WFD  and  the  Floods 
Directive96.  It  is  also  noted that there has  been a  proposal  to  set  up an inter-ministerial 
working  group  for  the  reconstruction  of  wetlands  along  the  Danube  and  the  main 
tributaries as a measure to reduce the risk of floods and to implement green infrastructure 

and water retention. 

Therefore,  based  on  the  information  found,  this  recommendation  is  considered  to  be 

fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation  (report  2012):  The  RBMPs  should  indicate  how  hydromorphological 

measures will improve the ecological status/potential. 

Assessment:  Indicators  on  the  gap  to  be  filled  for  significant  hydromorphological 

pressures  and  Key  Type  of  Measure  value  indicators  have  been  reported,  therefore 
providing indications of how measures will contribute to the achievement of objectives. 

The  level  of  ambition  varies  between  closing  none  of  the  gap  to  fully  closing  the  gap 
between 2015 and 2021 for significant hydromorphological pressures.  

Therefore, this recommendation is considered as fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation:  To  fully  assess  the  ecological  impact  of  varying  flows,  the  second 

RBMPs should provide evidence that the concept of ecological flows has been developed 
and  implemented.  This  methodology  must  take  account  of  the  need  to  achieve  good 

ecological status. 

Assessment:  For  the  first  RBMP,  there  were  no  guidelines  for  defining  the  ecological 

flow,  but  there  were  obligations  to  ensure  the  minimum  flow  for  protection  of  aquatic 
ecosystems,  according  to  the  Water  Law.  In  the  second  RBMP,  ecological  flows  have 
been derived and implemented partly, i.e. for some relevant water bodies, but the work is 
still on-going. A methodology for ecological flow determination has been elaborated but 

in 2015 it was still in the process of validation. Romania subsequently informed that at 
the  time  of  publishing  this  assessment  report,  the  methodology  is  finalised.  The 

methodology defines  the ecological  flow according to  the typology of water courses in 

96   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  

136 

 
                                                      
Romania  and  habitat  needs  of  dominant  species  (mainly  fish),  corresponding  to  each 

typology. 

As  the  process  of  determining  and  implementing  ecological  flows  was  still  ongoing  in 

2015, this recommendation is partly fulfilled in the second RBMPs. 

137 

 
 
 
Topic 14

  Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

14.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 
in 

second  cycle  and  main  changes 

requirements 
implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

the 

in 

A  broad  definition  of  water  services  is  used.  The  defined  water  services  are:  drinking  water 
irrigation  water 
abstraction/treatment/distribution, 

infrastructure 

navigation, 

for 

abstraction/treatment/distribution,  sewage  collection/waste  water  treatment  and  seven  "other" 
services. Flood protection and navigation are not considered.  

The use of Article 9(4) was reported for flood protection and navigation97.  

Overall, cost recovery rates are provided for all water services, indicating 100% for all of them. 

Only for drinking water provision and sewage services are some explanations provided in the 
RBMP regarding the methodologies used. 

The  contributions  of  different  users  to  cost  recovery  rates,  broken  down  for  households, 
industry and agriculture, are not provided or explained in detail in the RBMP. 

In WISE, it was reported that environmental and resource costs are calculated for two out of 
the  11  water  services  (for  drinking  water  provision  and  sewage  services).  For  these  two 

services, environmental and resource costs are significant and internalized, for the other nine 
services they are not.  

With regard to the explanation of how water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives for 
users  to  use  water  resources  efficiently,  national  legislative  requirements  and  penalties  are 
mentioned,  but  without  describing  their  impact  on  all  defined  water  services.  For  all  water 

services, volumetric charging is applied.  

The RBMP include several references to legislative acts that are inspired by the Polluter Pays 

Principle.  

Some more details on methodologies are provided, but not comprehensively for all the topics 

and/or water services. 

97 Drinking water, irrigation, self-abstraction, waste water and water storage are also mentioned in WISE, but it 

was clarified by Romania that this is a reporting error. 

138 

 
                                                      
The economic analysis was reported to be updated. 

14.2  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

following: 

 

Recommendation:  The  cost-recovery  should  address  a  broad  range  of  water  services, 

including  impoundments,  abstraction,  storage,  treatment  and  distribution  of  surface 
waters, and collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, also when they are "self-

services",  for  instance  self-abstraction  for  agriculture.  The  cost  recovery  should  be 
transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource costs 

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. Information on how the polluter pays principle has been taken into 
account should be provided in the RBMPs. 

Assessment:  

A broad definition of water services is used. The defined water services are:  

 

 

 

 

 

drinking water abstraction/treatment/distribution,  

infrastructure for navigation,  

irrigation water abstraction/treatment/distribution,  

sewage collection/waste water treatment  

seven  "other"  water  services  (using  groundwater  for  households,  using 
groundwater  for  industrial  units,  using  groundwater  for  livestock,  using  surface 
water for aquaculture, using surface water for households, public institutions, agro-
industrial  units,  using  surface  water  for  thermal  power  plants  and  using  surface 
water for hydropower). 

Flood protection and navigation are not considered.  

The  use  of  Article  9(4)  was  reported  for  the  following  water  services:  drinking  water, 
irrigation, self-abstraction, waste water and water storage.  

Overall, cost recovery rates are provided for all water services, indicating 100% for all of 
them. Only for drinking water provision and sewage services are there some explanations 

provided regarding the methodologies used in the RBMP, stating that the recovery of the 

139 

 
financial  costs  at  the  level  of  the  invoiced  services  is  more  than  100%,  the  difference 

being the level of the development and the profit share of water operators established in 
accordance with the legislation in force. 

The contributions of the different users to cost recovery rates, broken down for at least 
households, industry and agriculture, are not provided/explained in detail. 

According to WISE, for all water services legal/regulatory instruments exist that require 
cost recovery as well as  that users contribute to the cost recovery of all water services, 

referring to Governmental Decision No. 1202/2010. The effectiveness "on the ground" of 
these legal/regulatory instruments cannot be assessed. 

Regarding  environmental  and  resource  costs,  on  WISE  it  was  reported  that  they  are 
calculated for two out of the 11 water services (for drinking water provision and sewage 

services).  For  these  two  services,  environmental  and  resource  costs  are  significant  and 
internalized, for the other nine services they are not.  

Environmental  costs  are  assessed  based  on  the  environmental  damage  caused  by  the 
degradation or loss of aquatic ecosystems due to pressure from certain water users (cost-
based approach).  

Resource costs are defined as the cost of missed opportunities by other water users due to 
the  quantitative  depreciation  of  the  resource  above  the  recovery.  It  is  concluded  that 

because the water requirements until 2021 will be completely covered, the resource cost 
is zero. 

With regard to the explanation on how water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives 
for  users  to  use  water  resources  efficiently,  national  legislative  requirements  and 

sanctions  are  mentioned,  but  without  describing  their  impact  on  all  defined  water 
services.  Instead,  it  is  stated  that  a  national  water  pricing  policy  was  put  in  place  in 

accordance to Article 9 of the WFD, which is based on the economic analysis and takes 
into consideration the principle of cost recovery, the effects of the recovery of the costs 

of water services and the Polluter Pays Principle as well as the users pay principle (the 
principles are explained). 

It  cannot  be  assessed  how  effectively  the  water  pricing  policy  is  implemented  on  the 
ground. 

For all water services, volumetric charging is applied.  

140 

 
Regarding  the  Polluter  Pays  Principle,  only  general  statements  are  presented  in  the 

RBMP. It is stated that the polluter or the water user, which exerts a qualitative risk on 
the water body, bears the costs of activities related to preventing the damage caused by 

the activity performed (meaning the monitoring and prevention measures). It is explained 
that these costs function as an incentive to use less harmful practices. 

Regarding  details  on  methodologies,  some  more  information  is  provided,  but  not 
comprehensively for all the topics and/or water services. 

Overall, this recommendation has been largely fulfilled (improved information supplied), 
but gaps remain (the information provided is not very specific). 

 

Recommendation:  “Develop  fully  the  economic  analysis  of  water  use,  including  the 
calculation  of  Environmental  and  Resource  Costs  covering  those  generated  by  diffuse 

and point sources, and ensure that the water tariff and the water fees lead to adequate 
recovery of the costs of water services.” 

Assessment: See recommendation above. 

Overall,  this  recommendation  has  been  partially  fulfilled  (all  topics  are  addressed  to 

some extent), but gaps remain. 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
  Considerations specific to Protected Areas 
Topic 15
(identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 
15.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

All relevant types of Protected Areas have been identified (Table 15.1): there are no Protected 
Areas  related  to  the  Nitrates  and  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive,  which  is 

consistent  with  the  whole  territory  approach  to  the  implementation  of  these  Directives  in 
Romania. A large number of national Protected Areas have also been reported. 

Table 15.1  Number  of  Protected  Areas  of  all  types  in  Romania,  for  surface  and 

groundwater 

Protected Area type 

Number of Protected Areas Associated with98 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal  Groundwater 

Abstraction of water intended for human 
consumption under Article 7 

274 (275) 

1 

2 479 

Recreational waters, including areas 
designated as bathing waters under 
Directive 76/160/EEC99 

Protection of species where the 
maintenance or improvement of the 
status of water is an important factor in 
their protection, including relevant 
Natura 2000 sites designated under 
Directive 79/409/EEC (Birds)100 

Protection of habitats or species where 
the maintenance or improvement of the 
status of water is an important factor in 
their protection, including relevant 
Natura 2000 sites designated under 
Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats)101 

123 

25 

246 

13 

Areas designated for the protection of 
economically significant aquatic species 

7 

Other 

222 (223) 

29 (28) 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

48 

2 

8 

3 

3 

86 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Romania subsequently corrected some of the data reported in WISE. The 
corrected data are shown in brackets in the table 

Status assessments have been reported for the surface and groundwater bodies associated with 
the  Protected  Areas  (Figure  15.1);  the  classifications  have  been  assigned  mainly  medium  or 

98 Romania subsequently corrected some of the reported data (the corrected number are in brackets in this table) 
99   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 

100  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 

101  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 

142 

 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
low  confidence  for  chemical  status  and  mainly  high  or  medium  confidence  for  ecological 

parameters. The status of associated groundwater bodies has been assigned high confidence for 
nearly all sites. 

Figure 15.1  Status  of  water  bodies  associated  with  the  Protected  Areas  report  for 
Romania.  Note:  based  on  status/potential  aggregated  for  all  water  bodies 

associated with all Protected Areas 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Additional objectives have been set for Article 7 related Protected Areas in surface waters and 
for shellfish production areas, but not for any other types of Protected Area102.  

102 Romania subsequently explained that for Habitat and Bird protected areas no additional objectives have been 
set so far because the environmental objectives under the Water Framework Directive are sufficient to reach 
favourable conservation status assessed on biogeographical regions level. 

143 

 
 
 
                                                      
Drinking water objectives for Article 7 Protected Areas have been met in the majority of areas 

and those for shellfish production areas have been met in all areas. The additional objectives 
set  for  the  latter  were  equivalent  to  the  microbiological  standards  in  the  repealed  Shellfish 

Waters Directive.  There is no evidence of an assessment of the needs of features in individual 
Protected Areas103. 

Specific  monitoring  of  surface  water  Protected  Areas  has  only  been  reported  for  a  small 
number of monitoring sites in water bodies associated with Habitat areas and Drinking Water 

areas  (Table  15.2),  but  also  in  National  Management  Plan,  information  on  monitoring 
programs are given in the chapter 5. Such programmes for the other Protected Area types have 

not  been  reported,  since  Romania  applies  whole  territory  approach  for  nutrient  sensitive  and 
nitrate vulnerable areas. 

No specific monitoring of groundwater Article 7 Protected Areas has been reported. 

Table 15.2  Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas in Romania 

Protected Area type 

Abstraction of water intended for 
human consumption under Article 7 

Protection of habitats or species where 
the maintenance or improvement of the 
status of water is an important factor in 
their protection, including relevant 
Natura 2000 sites designated under 
Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats) 

Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas in 
Romania 

Lakes 

Rivers 

197 

37 

156 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Additional  measures  and  exemptions  from  specific  objectives  for  Protected  Areas  have  not 

been applied in Romania. 

15.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The number of Protected Areas related to drinking water and habitats have increased from the 
first  cycle  of  River  Basin  Management  Plans  to  the  second.  In  the  first  cycle,  42  Protected 

Areas related to the Nitrates Directive were reported, but none in the second cycle. This relates 
to  the  decision  taken  in  2013  to  implement  the  whole  territory  approach  and  undertake  the 

103 Romania subsequently clarified that issues related to additional objectives have been reviewed and updated in 
the  light  of  available  information  on  Natura  2000  sites  and  their  natural  species  and  habitats,  and  that  most 
habitats and protected species potentially dependent on water are in favourable conservation status so specific 
objectives are not required. 

144 

 
 
 
                                                      
Action Program throughout Romania, in accordance with Article 3 paragraph 5 of the Nitrates 

Directive.  Specific  monitoring  of  surface  water  Protected  Areas  covered  more  types  of 
Protected Areas in the first cycle than the second - monitoring targeted towards the Birds, Fish 

and  Shellfish  Protected  Areas  was  reported  in  the  first  plans,  but  no  monitoring  sites  were 
reported in the second cycle. 

15.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

 

Recommendation:  "Investigate  cases  in  the  second  RBMPs  where  there  are  non-

compliant Drinking Water Protected Areas in relation to the requirements of Articles 7 
and  8  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  and  establish  respective  measures  where 

necessary." 

Assessment:  One  of  the  proposed  actions  was  to  ensure  a  full  status  assessment  of  the 

Article  7  Protected  Areas.  110  of  143  groundwater  bodies  are  identified  as  Drinking 
Water Protected Areas. All groundwater bodies have been assigned both quantitative and 

chemical status classes. All surface water bodies have been assigned both ecological and 
chemical  status  classes.  Therefore  all  water  bodies  associated  with  Drinking  water 

protected  Areas  have  a  full  status  assessment.  The  recommendation  has  been  partly 
fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation: "Put in place measures in the second RBMPs for protecting drinking-
water  Protected  Areas.  Romania  should  consider  establishing  safeguard  zones  for  all 

drinking water abstractions." 

Assessment: Safeguard zones have been established and it was reported that there are no 

plans  to  change  the  regulations  as  a  result  of  this  RBMP.  It  is  not  clear  if  specific 
measures  have  been  implemented  in  the  zones.  Romania  subsequently  clarified  to  the 

Commission  that  the  safeguard  zones  have  been  established  for  water  abstractions 
according with the national legislation. The recommendation has been fulfilled.  

 

Recommendation: "Set objectives and measures for the management of water-dependent 
species and habitats in the second RBMPs." 

Assessment: No specific objectives have been set. It is noted for all Protected Areas that 
the  good  ecological  status  is  sufficient  to  reach  the  objectives  according  to  the  Habitat 

145 

 
and  Birds  Directives,  based  on  the  data  assessed  at  biogeographical  region  level.  As 

specific objectives have been considered as not required, then additional measures have 
not been defined for these Protected Areas. However, a detailed analysis seems to have 

been  carried  out  at  the  level  of  the  protected  area.  Therefore,  this  recommendation  has  
been partially fulfilled. 

146 

 
 
Topic 16

  Adaptation to drought and climate change 

16.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

Climate change was considered in various ways  in the preparation of the RBMP in Romania 

and it is stated that the guidance on how to adapt to climate change (Common Implementation 
Strategy Guidance Document No. 24104) was used.  

Climate change was considered for flood and drought management as well when dealing with 
water  scarcity.  It  was  also  considered  for  forecasting  the  economics  of  water  supply  and 

demand  and  in  the  context  of  maximisation  of  cross-sectoral  benefits.  Detecting  climate 
change  signals  is  also  mentioned  in  the  RBMP.  KTM  24  –  “Climate  change  adaptation 

measures”  is  not  made  operational  to  address  significant  pressures  in  the  RBD,  although 
national  measures  have  been  mapped  against  KTM  24.  No  specific  sub-plans  addressing 

climate change were reported. 

Whilst in 2012 (see “Topic report on: Assessment of Water Scarcity and Drought aspects in a 
selection  of  European  Union  RBMPs”105)  there  was  still  not  a  clear  distinction  in  Romania 
between droughts  and water scarcity the authorities now make a clear identification of water 

scarcity and drought aspects and report that droughts are not relevant for the RBD.  

Even though there is no legal obligation to prepare Drought Management Plans, many Member 

States have prepared them in order to cope with droughts. No change has occurred in terms of 
the development of Drought Management Plans, which are not reported in the second RBMP 
as was the situation in 2012113.  

16.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Climate proofing of measures had not  been carried out  in the first  RBMP, but has now been 

undertaken  in  the  second  RBMP.  Moreover,  the  RBMP  identified  clearly  the  water  scarcity 
and droughts aspects and also put in place measures to be implemented to address them. 

16.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

There were no Commission recommendations based on the first cycle and PoM for this topic. 

104https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/a88369ef-df4d-43b1-8c8c-

306ac7c2d6e1/Guidance%20document%20n%2024%20-
%20River%20Basin%20Management%20in%20a%20Changing%20Climate_FINAL.pdf  

105 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Assessment%20WSD.pdf  

147