COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: Slovakia 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: Slovakia, 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) 54 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: Slovakia     Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL  on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 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 the second river basin management plan reporting ..................................................... 9 

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

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 18 

Topic 1

  Governance and public participation ....................................................................... 22 

1.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 22 

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............................................................. 27 

2.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 27 

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 37 

2.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 37 

Topic 3

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water 

bodies 

 ................................................................................................................................... 39 

3.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
RBMPs.................................................................................................................................... 39 

3.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs ................... 54 

3.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 55 

Topic 4

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................... 57 

4.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 57 

4.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 69 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
4.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 70 

Topic 5
bodies 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater 

 ................................................................................................................................... 73 

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

5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 78 

5.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 78 

Topic 6

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................... 80 

6.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 80 

6.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 86 

6.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 86 

Topic 7
  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 
Ecological Potential................................................................................................................... 88 

7.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle for designation ............................................................................................................... 88 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 90 

7.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 91 

Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions ................................................................ 93 

8.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 93 

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

8.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 100 

Topic 9

  Programme of measures.......................................................................................... 102 

9.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 102 

9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 108 

9.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 108 

Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity .......................................... 112 

2 

 
 
 
10.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 112 

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

10.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 113 

Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture................................................... 114 

11.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 114 

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

11.3 

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

Topic 12

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture ..................... 117 

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

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

12.3 

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

Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology ................................................................ 121 

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

13.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 122 

13.3 

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

Topic 14

Economic analysis and water pricing policies .................................................... 124 

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 .... 124 

14.2 

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

  Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives 

Topic 15
and measures) .......................................................................................................................... 128 

15.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 128 

15.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 131 

15.3 

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

Topic 16

Adaptation to drought and climate change .......................................................... 132 

3 

 
 
 
 
16.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 132 

16.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 132 

16.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 133 

4 

 
 
Acronyms and definitions 

EQS Directive 

Environmental Quality Standards Directive 

FD 

Km 

km2 

KTM 

PoM 

RBD 

RBMP 

WFD 

WISE 

Annex 0 

Floods Directive 

Kilometre 

Kilometre squared 

Key Type of Measure 

Programme of Measures 

River Basin District 

River Basin Management Plan 

Water Framework Directive 

Water Information System for Europe 

Member States reported the structured information on the 
second  RBMPs  to  WISE  (Water  Information  System  for 
Europe).  Due  to  the  late  availability  of  the  reporting 
guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an 
Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying 
what  information  they  were  unable  to  report  and  the 
reasons  why.  This  Annex  was  produced  using  a template 
included  in  the  reporting  guidance.  If  Member  States 
reported all 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 in March 2016. 

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

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

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

situation in the Member States may have changed since then. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
General Information 

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 Waters 

About 60% of the Slovak territory has an altitude over 300 m above the sea level, prevailingly 

in  the  West  Carpathians.  The  total  area  of  Slovakia  is  48  845 km²  and  the  population  is 
5.4 million.  

The territory of Slovakia belongs to  two international  River Basin  Districts  (RBDs):  Danube 
River basin and Vistula River basin. The Danube RBD is shared with 18 countries. The Vistula 

RBD is shared with Poland, Czech Republic, Belarus and Ukraine. 

Information on areas of the national RBDs including sharing countries is provided in Table A 

and Slovakia’s share of the international RBDs is shown in Table B. 

7 

SKUAUASK40000SK30000HU1000PL2000PL6000CZ_1000CZ_6000RO1000AT1000PL1000PL9000050100km 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A: Overview of Slovakia’s River Basin Districts  

RBD /  
Sub-basin 

Name 

Size (km2) 

% of SK 
territory 

Countries sharing RBD 

SK30000 

Vistula (Dunajec & 
Poprad sub-basins) 

1 950 

4 

BY, UA, PL, CZ 

SK40000 

Danube 

47 084 

96 

Sub-basin 

DE, PL, UA, AT, BG, CZ, 
HR, HU, RO, IT, MD, 
ME, RS, SI, BA, AL, CH, 
MK 

Morava sub-basin 

Dunaj sub-basin 

Vah sub-basin 

Hron sub-basin 

Ipel sub-basin 

Slana sub-basin 

Bodva sub-basin 

Hornad sub-basin 

Bodrog sub-basin 

2 282 

1 158 

18 769 

5 465 

3 649 

3 217 

858 

4 414 

7 272 

Table B: Transboundary river basins by category and % share in Slovakia 

Source: RBMP reported to WISE  

Name 
international 
river basin 

National RBD 

Countries sharing RBD 

1 

3 

Coordination category 

km² 

% 

km²  % 

1 950 

1.0 

Vistula 

SK30000 

BY,  UA, PL, CZ 

Danube 

SK40000 

DE, PL, UA, AT, BG, CZ, HR, HU, 
RO, IT, MD, ME, RS, SI, BA, AL, CH, 
MK 

47 084 

5.8 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

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

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Status of the second river basin management plan reporting 

The  two  RBMPs  of  Slovakia  (Vistula,  Danube)  were  published  on  22  December  2015. 

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 Slovakia are as follows: 

 

Governance and public consultation 

 

Slovakia used several mechanisms to inform the public about the RBMPs, including a 

media campaign, an interactive exhibition and guides for schools. 

 

Slovakia involved stakeholders during the preparation of the RBMPs via consultations, 

workshops and negotiations. 

 

Slovakia has established its Flood Risk Management Plans as sub-plans to its RBMPs, 

which provides a basis for strengthening coordination. 

 

Characterisation of the RBD 

 

Since the first cycle there has been biological validation, verification and refinement of 

river types. 

 

 

There is no assessment of the linkages of groundwater bodies with surface water bodies 
and terrestrial ecosystems. 

“Unknown  impact  type”  was  identified  for  55%  of  river  water  bodies,  which  may 
indicate  potential  gaps  in  the  methodologies  used  to  assess  pressures  and  impacts.  In 

addition, the significance of pressures was not defined in terms of thresholds.  

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status  

 

According  to  WISE  reporting,  there  was  a  significant  increase  in  the  numbers  of  sites 

used for surveillance monitoring since the first RBMPs, but a significant decrease in the 

number  of  sites  used  for  operational  monitoring.  However,  Slovakia  subsequently 
provided  new  figures  concerning  monitoring  sites,  according  to  which  there  was  a 
significant increase for both surveillance and operational monitoring sites. 

 

All  required  biological,  physicochemical  and  hydromorphological  quality  elements 

were monitored in rivers. 

10 

 
 

26 River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored, only in water. They 

were monitored at only 14 of the 1 152 sites reported to be used for surveillance and/or 
operational monitoring. 

 

Environmental  Quality  Standards  were  established  for  all  26  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants in accordance with the Technical Guidance n. 27. 

 

Only 51% of river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring were monitored for 

all  required  biological  quality  elements.  96%  were  monitored  for  all  required 
physicochemical quality elements and 18% for all required hydromorphological quality 

elements.  This  seems  to  indicate  an  over-reliance  on  the  physicochemical  quality 
elements. 

 

 

 

Only  11%  of  river  water  bodies  were  included  in  operational  monitoring.  This 
proportion is low when compared to the 44% of river water bodies which were reported 

to be at less than good ecological status/potential and the 71% which had at least one 
significant pressure. 

All  water  bodies  were  classified  in  terms  of  ecological  status/potential.  However,  the 
classification at quality element level was only reported for 31% of water bodies, while 

the other  water bodies  were classified based on extrapolation  of the overall results of 
ecological status in the group of water bodies with the same characteristics. 

The proportion of water bodies reported to be in good or better status decreased from 
64%  in  the  first  RBMPs  to  56%  in  the  second.  However,  there  was  a  significant  re-

delineation  of  water  bodies,  which  makes  an  assessment  of  the  evolution  of 
status/potential unreliable. 

 

There was an improvement in the level of confidence, with 16% being classified with 

high and 13% with medium confidence, even though this means that 71% of river water 
bodies have still been classified with low confidence. 

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

 

Between  the  two  RBMPs,  there  was  a  small  increase  in  the  proportion  of  river  water 
bodies with good chemical status from 95% to 98% and a corresponding decrease in the 

proportion failing to achieve good status from 5% to 2%.  

 

74% of water bodies were classified with low confidence using expert judgement.  

11 

 
 

Slightly more than a quarter of river water bodies were monitored for chemical status. 

Between  the  two  RBMPs,  there  has  been  a  net  decrease  in  surface  water  bodies 
monitored for chemical status for operational purposes. However, the number of water 

bodies monitored for surveillance monitoring of chemical status increased substantially. 

 

41  priority  substances  (so  including  those  identified  as  discharged)  are  monitored  in 

water  and  used  for  status  assessment  in  both  RBDs,  at  or  above  the  recommended 
minimum frequency. 

 

 

In biota, mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene have been monitored in 

51 water bodies for status assessment, at the recommended minimum frequency.  

According  to  the  information  provided  in  the  RBMPs,  the  method  for  dealing  with 

concentrations below the limit of quantification did not comply with the requirements 
of  the  Commission  Directive  on  technical  specifications  for  chemical  analysis  and 

monitoring of water status. 

 

For  trend  assessment,  Slovakia  has  monitored  two  of  the  required  14  Priority 

Substances in sediment, in the Vistula RBD and in Danube RBD, at the recommended 
minimum frequency. Monitoring was carried out at 67 of sites.  

 

The  Environmental  Quality  Standards  used  were  not  entirely  clear  in  the  reporting  to 

WISE  and  in  the  RBMPs.  Slovakia  reported  both  the  use  of  the  standards  from  the 
Directive (version in force in 2009) and some additional standards in water, sediment and 
biota.  Some explanations for these standards were provided in the RBMPs. 

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 

bodies 

 

 

A gap remains in the quantitative monitoring of groundwater as 28% of all groundwater 

bodies were not subject to monitoring. 

The total number of groundwater bodies failing good quantitative status declined from 

five groundwater bodies in the first RBMP to three in the second RBMP (from 5.4% to 
2.8%  of  the  total  groundwater  body  area).  The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  with 

unknown  status  slightly  increased  from  26  to  27.  72  of  the  102  groundwater  bodies 
were at good quantitative status. 

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

 

A  considerable  number  of  groundwater  bodies  are  not  monitored  for  chemical  status. 
However, and according to  subsequent  clarification by Slovakia all substances posing 

risk are monitored. 

12 

 
 

27% of groundwater bodies are without a clear status assessment and the confidence in 

the status results is low or unknown for about 60% of the groundwater bodies. 

 

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

Ecological Potential 

 

The  national  methodology  for  designating  HMWB  describes  how  the  significant 
adverse effects of restoration measures on the use and the wider environment have been 

defined  but  no  specific  criteria  agreed  at  national  level  are  given  (it  seems  that 
decisions for this type of assessment are taken on case-by-case basis). No information 

was  found  on  the  details  of  the  outcome  of  assessing  significant  adverse  effects  for 
individual water bodies. The assessment has also included information on other means 

to  achieve  the  beneficial  objectives  provided  by  the  hydromorphological  alterations 
(e.g. for heavily modified water body related to flood protection, drinking water supply, 

energy production and irrigation). 

 

Good  ecological  potential  has  been  defined  in  terms  of  biology.  Although  good 

ecological  potential  was  defined  for  rivers,  only  some  details  about  preliminary 

classification  methodology  was  provided  in  the  RBMPs.  The  descriptions  of  whether 
and  how  actual  values  for  the  biological  quality  elements  are  estimated  were  not 
reported in WISE, but these have been included in the RBMPs. Mitigation measures for 

defining  good  ecological  potential  are  reported  but  no  information  is  given  about  the 
assessment  of  the  effects  of  such  measures  on  biology  (as  the  effectiveness  of  the 

implemented measures on biological terms was not apparent in 2015 yet). 

 

Environmental objectives and exemptions 

 

Environmental  objectives  for  ecological  and  chemical  status  in  surface  water  bodies 

and  quantitative  and  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  have  been  reported  in  all 

RBDs.  

 

 

Drivers, pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions are reported. 

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

and  disproportionate  costs.  Overall  Article  4(4)  exemptions  have  been  applied  more 
widely in surface water bodies. 

13 

 
 

Programme of Measures 

 

Progress  has  been  made  in  identifying  pressures  and  most  are  being  addressed  with 

measures.  New  legislation  or  regulations  to  implement  the  Programme  of  Measures 
(PoM) has been adopted in both RBDs. A clear financial commitment has been secured 

for the implementation of the PoM in both RBDs. 

 

A  combination  of  qualitative  and  quantitative  cost-effectiveness  analysis  was  carried 

out in both RBDs to support the selection of measures proposed under the 2015-2021 
PoM. 

 

For  surface  water  bodies,  gap  analyses  have  been  performed  for  2015  and  2021  for 

most  significant  pressures.  No  gap  analyses  have  been  performed  for  2027,  although 
progress anticipated in closing the gaps by 2021 is very modest. For groundwater in the 

Danube RBD gap analyses were presented for 2015 only. 

 

For surface water bodies most significant pressures are covered by operational KTMs. 

However in groundwater bodies, not all significant pressures have been addressed with 
operational KTMs. 

 

Slovakia  has  mapped  a  total  of  22  national  basic  measures  and  23  national 
supplementary measures against a total of 12 KTMs. 

 

There is no information on River Basin Specific Pollutants in the Vistula RBD or in the 

Danube  RBD.  Tetrachloroethylene  in  groundwater  in  the  Danube  RBD  is  reported  to 
cause failure of objectives and is covered by a KTM (KTM14 – Research and KTM4 - 
Remediation). 

 

Only  4  of  11  Priority  Substances  in  the  Danube  RBD  are  covered  by  a  KTM  (all 

KTM14 - Research), and none in the Vistula RBD (only one reported to cause failure of 
objectives). 

 

The RBMPs and Floods Directive Flood Risk Management Plans have been integrated 
in both RBDs. No “win-win” measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD 

and Floods Directive have been applied, and WFD Article 9(4) has not been applied to 
impoundment for flood protection. 

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 

14 

 
  Water abstraction pressure has not been reported as significant for Slovakia. 

 

The  calculation  methods  for  the  water  consumption  (e.g.  metering,  estimations)  have 
not been reported. 

 

There  is  a  permitting  regime  and  a  register  of  abstractions  for  surface  water  and 

groundwater and a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control water 
impoundment and a register of impoundments in place. Small abstractions are not billed 

and do not require permits. 

 

 

Specific water resource allocation and management plans have been set up. 

An  amendment  to  the  Water  Act  from  2014  made  metering  compulsory  for  water 
abstractions by all business/economic activities including agriculture. 

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture 

 

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

  Management  objectives  for  nutrient  pollution  and  a  gap  assessment  for  nutrients  has 

been undertaken in all RBDs 

 

Basic  measures  under  Article  11(3)(h)  for  the  control  of  diffuse  pollution  from 
agriculture  at  source  are  ensured  in  all  RBDs  where  the  same  rules  apply  across  the 

whole RBD, including for pesticides. 

 

Financing  of  measures  is  secured  in  all  basins.  Supplementary  measures  for  reducing 

pollution from agriculture are reported. 

 

Even  though  there  is  a  clear  understanding  of  the  areas  that  need  to  be  covered  by 
agricultural measures, the PoM relies on voluntary measures as well as basic measures. 

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 

 

 

The Slovak Republic reported a large range of KTM to tackle non agricultural sources 
of pollution. 

Priority  Substances  and  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  are  reported  to  be  tackled  by 
specific Key Types of Measures.  

15 

 
 

An  assessment  of  the  gap  to  reach  good  chemical  status  for  surface  water  and 

groundwater has been made and indicators reported for 2015 and 2021 for most KTMs. 
Measures to tackle urban waste water discharges and input from urban areas, transport 

and  built  infrastructure  are  expected  to  lead  to  progress  in  reaching  good  status, 
however little progress is expected by 2021 from the implementation of other KTMs. 

 

For  pollution  from  sectors  other  than  agriculture  the  Slovak  Republic  does  not  report 
values for key indicators for 2027 (this was an optional element in the reporting), it is 

therefore unclear when the environmental objectives for these pressures will be met. 

  Measures related to hydromorphology 

 

A larger number of hydromorphological measures are planned to be implemented in the 

second  cycle,  compared  to  the  first  RBMPs,  which  only  included  two  relevant 

measures.  Progress  has  also  been  made  in  linking  specific  hydromorphological 
pressures  with  specific  sectors  and  measures  as  well  as  providing  information  on  the 

contribution of measures to achieving the WFD objectives.  

 

Concerning  progress  expected,  it  can  be  concluded  that  for  significant  physical  and 

hydrological alterations, there will be little progress in terms of closing the gap between 
2015  and  2021.  Specifically  for  'measures  to  ensure  the  continuity  of  rivers  and 

habitats',  the  RBMPs  mention  that  financing  for  the  implementation  of  the  measures 
will be spread over a longer period of time - until 2027. 

 

 

Ecological flows have not been derived nor implemented for the relevant water bodies 
in any of the RBDs but there are plans to do so during the second cycle.  

Information on the use of win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the 
WFD and Floods Directive and Natural Water Retention Measures to tackle significant 
pressures was not reported. 

 

Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

 

No  new  information  on  the  application  of  the  Polluter  Pays  Principle  was  reported 

which is implemented mainly by the charges for discharging waste water into surface 

water.  

16 

 
 

 

 

A  broad  definition  of  water  services  has  been  used  with  10  water  services  being 

reported. 

Cost recovery rates are calculated for five out of ten water services 

Environmental  and  resource  costs  are  reported  to  be  calculated,  internalised  and 

considered  significant  for  only  three  water  services.  Further  work  is  on-going  to 
develop  methodologies/approaches  to  derive  environmental  costs  and  resource  costs 

based on available published approaches. 

 

There was little information  on the incentive function of water pricing policies in  the 

RBMPs,  although  an  analysis  of  the  pricing  policy  in  terms  of  adequate  incentives  is 
reported  to  have  been  carried  out,  and  an  affordability  index  was  determined.  Pricing 

policies have been modified to include agricultural water use. 

 

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

 

Specific  objectives  for  drinking  water  areas  (surface  and  groundwater)  have  not  been 

set.  Generally  for  all  Habitat  and  Birds  Directive  related  Protected  Areas  it  has  been 
reported  that  good  ecological  status  is  considered  sufficient  to  meet  the  objectives  of 

these  directives.  Objectives  have  therefore  not  been  set  on  a  site  by  site  basis. 
Additional objectives have not been set. 

 

 

Little or no specific monitoring of Protected Areas has been reported.  

Safeguard zones for the protection of Drinking Waters have been established. Different 

restrictions  are  implemented  based  on  the  distance  to  the  abstraction  point  (mainly 
groundwater wells). 

 

Adaptation to drought and climate change 

 

Climate  change  was  considered  in  both  river  basin  districts  and  it  is  stated  that  the 

Common  Implementation  Strategy  guidance  document  on  how  to  adapt  to  climate 

change was used.  

 

A climate change check of the PoM was carried out for the second cycle.  

 

Droughts  have  not  been  reported  to  be  relevant  for  the  country  and  therefore  drought 
management plans have not been developed 

17 

 
 
 
 
Recommendations  

 

Slovakia  should  include  clear  information  in  national  RBMPs  on  international 

coordination efforts in order to increase transparency.  

 

 

Slovakia  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. 

Slovakia  needs  to  establish  reference  conditions  for  all  types  of  Quality  Elements,  in 
particular  hydromorphological  Quality  Elements,  for  which  no  reference  conditions 

have been established, and to improve the assessment of pressures and impacts. 

 

Slovakia  should  complete  the  monitoring  framework,  as  an  adequate  WFD-compliant 

monitoring  and  assessment  framework  is  a  necessary  pre-requisite  to  design  effective 

PoMs and ultimately to achieve the WFD objectives. There are a number of gaps in the 
monitoring  programmes  which  need  to  be  addressed.  There  is  no  adequate  fish 

monitoring in rivers, only phytoplankton is monitored in lakes, there is no monitoring 
of  priority  substances  in  sediments  and  biota,  and  not  all  priority  substances  were 

monitored  in  all  water  bodies.  These  gaps  in  the  monitoring  design  resulted  in  an 
incomplete  status  assessment  of  surface  water  bodies,  which  has  to  be  improved.  In 
particular, mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene should be monitored 

in  biota  for  comparison  with  the  biota  standards  in  the  EQSD,  unless  water  EQS 
providing  an  equivalent  level  of  protection  are  derived,  and  trend  monitoring  in 

sediment  or  biota  for  at  least  the  substances  specified  in  EQSD  Article  3(3)  will  also 
need to be reflected in the next RBMP. 

 

Slovakia  should  improve  monitoring,  as  there  are  still  important  gaps.  Monitoring 

should cover all relevant quality elements in all water categories in a sufficient number 
of  sites,  particularly  for  biological  and  hydromorphological  quality  elements.  The 

number  of  monitoring  sites  for  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  should  increase 
significantly.  Operational  monitoring  needs  to  include  all  water  bodies  which  are 

subject to significant pressures, as they are under-monitored in the second RBMPs. 

 

Improved  monitoring  should  lead  to  an  increased  level  of  confidence  in  the 

classification of ecological status/potential. 

18 

 
 

Slovakia should complete the development of assessment methods, including reference 

conditions, for all relevant quality elements. The assessment of ecological status should 
include assessments of all relevant quality elements.  

 

Slovakia  should  improve  the  confidence  in  the  assessment  of  status.  In  particular, 
monitoring  should  be  performed  in  a  way  that  provides  sufficient  spatial  coverage 

(including  in  biota),  to  reach  good  confidence  in  the  assessment,  if  necessary  in 
combination with robust extrapolation/grouping methods.  

 

Treat measurements of Priority Substances lower than the limit of quantification in the 

way specified in Article 5 of Commission Directive 2009/90/EC. 

 

Slovakia  should  further  improve  trend  monitoring,  to  ensure  that  all  the  relevant 

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

 

 

Slovakia should continue working for trend assessment in groundwater. 

Further efforts are needed to improve the designation process of heavily modified and 

artificial water bodies since progress is still limited compared to the first RBMPs. The 

designation  needs  to  comply  with  all  the  requirements  of  Article  4(3).  Clear  criteria 
need  to  be  developed  for  the  assessment  of  significant  adverse  effects  of  a 

comprehensive set of restoration measures on the use or the wider environment and the 
lack  of  significantly  better  environmental  options.  This  needs  to  be  specifically 
mentioned in the RBMPs in order to ensure the transparency of the designation process. 

Similarly,  a  transparent  approach  for  the  definition  of  ecological  potential  is  needed, 
taking into account all relevant mitigation measures and their effects in order to define 

ecological potential also in terms of biology for all relevant water categories.         

 

A  significant  number  of  Article  4(4)  exemptions  is  still  applied  in  Slovakia  in  the 

second RBMPs. Efforts should be continued to ensure the ambitious implementation of 

measures for the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. 

 

Slovakia needs to  ensure a thorough assessment  of any planned new modifications in 

line with the requirements of the WFD and as further specified by the Judgment of the 
Court in case C-461/13. The use of exemptions under Article 4(7) needs to be based on 

a  thorough  assessment  of  all  the  steps  as  requested  by  the  WFD,  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 

19 

 
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 RBMPs.  

 

KTMs  in  Vistula  RBD  should  be  mapped  against  individual  pressures  and  be 

operational. 

 

 

 

 

Gap analysis should be performed to cover all significant pressures on groundwater. 

Slovakia should consider, in all RBDs, the inclusion of measures to address agricultural 

pressures in accordance with WFD Article 11(3) (e) and (g), i.e. abstraction and point 
sources.  

KTMs  should  be  mapped  against  River  Specific  Basin  Pollutants  and  Priority 
Substances, covering all substances causing failure of objectives. 

Slovakia  should  make  sure  the  measures  reported  for  individual  substances  causing 
failure are sufficient to reach the WFD objectives of good status. Slovakia should also 

implement  and clearly  report measures  to suppress  emissions from  priority hazardous 
substances. 

 

Slovakia should continue with its work to define the necessary measures to address all 

hydromorphological  pressures  and  to  ensure  restoration  of  water  bodies.  These 
measures need to be implemented as soon as possible and included in the next RBMPs. 

 

Slovakia needs to establish and implement ecological flows for relevant water bodies in 

all RBDs.  

 

Slovakia  should  continue  to  consider  river  restoration  and  prioritise  the  use  of  green 
infrastructure  and/or  natural  water  retention  measures  that  provide  a  range  of 

environmental  (improvements  in  water  quality,  increase  water  infiltration  and  thus 
aquifer  recharge,  flood  protection,  habitat  conservation  etc.),  social  and  economic 

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

 

Slovakia should apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact 

on  water  bodies  or  justify  any  exemptions  using  Article  9(4).  It  should  continue  to 
transparently  present  how  financial,  environmental  and  resource  costs  have  been 

calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. Slovakia 

20 

 
should also transparently present the water-pricing policy, including the use of adequate 

incentives  for  users  to  use  water  efficiently  and  provide  a  transparent  overview  of 
estimated investments and investment needs. 

 

Slovakia  should  continue  to  work  on  setting  specific  additional  objectives  for  all 
Protected  Areas  under  relevant  Directives  and  ensure  their  link  to  the  WFD 

implementation.  The  monitoring  of  Protected  Areas  should  be  improved,  and  the 
monitoring schemes under other Directives should be reported appropriately under the 

WFD. 

21 

 
 
 
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 – RBDs 

Slovakia  has  two  RBDs,  the  Vistula  (SK30000)  –  covering  approximately  4%  of  national 

territory  –  and  the  Danube  (SK40000),  covering  the  remaining  96%.  Both  are  part  of 
international RBDs.  

In  the  first  cycle,  Slovakia  prepared  a  single  RBMP  for  both  RBDs.  In  its  assessment,  the 
European Commission called on Slovakia to prepare one RBMP per RBD, rather than one for 

the whole country. Slovakia has implemented this recommendation and prepared two RBMPs 
for the second cycle. 

1.1.2  Administrative arrangements – competent authorities 

Slovakia  reports  one  competent  authority,  the  Ministry  of  Environment,  whose  main  roles 
comprise: monitoring and assessment of status of surface water and groundwater; enforcement 

of regulations; pressure and impact analysis; economic analysis; preparation of the RBMPs and 
PoM; public participation; implementation of measures; coordination of implementation, and; 

reporting to the European Commission. 

1.1.3  RBMPs – structure and Strategic Environmental Assessment  

On  WISE,  Slovakia  reports  three  types  of  sub-plans  for  its  two  RBMPs:  hydropower;  the 

Public  Water  Supply  and  Sewerage  Development  Plan  of  Slovakia,  and  the  Flood  Risk 
Management Plans (Figure 1.1). 

22 

 
 
Figure 1.1 Issues, sectors, sub-basins or water categories in Slovakia supplemented by more 

detailed sub-plans for the second cycle 

s
t
h
g
u
o
r
d
d
n
a

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

y
r
t
s
u
d
n
i

l
a
c
i
m
e
h
C

e
r
u
t
l
u
c
i
r
g
A

RBD 

SK30000 

SK40000 

t
r
o
p
s
n
a
r
T

r
e
w
o
p
o
r
d
y
H
 

 

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

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

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

t
n
e
m
h
c
i
r
n
e

t
n
e
i
r
t
u
N

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

n
o
i
s
o
r
e

l
a
t
s
a
o
C
n/r 

n/r 

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

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

:
r
e
h
t
O
 

 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

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

A Strategic Environmental Assessment was prepared for each of Slovakia's two RBMPs. 

1.1.4 

Public consultation 

The  public  and  interested  parties  were  informed  by  direct  mailing,  internet,  meetings  and 
written consultation.  Documents were available  via direct  mailing (email) and download  and 

were available for the requisite six months.  

Slovakia  reported  that  the  following  stakeholder  groups  were  actively  involved  in  the 

development  of  the  RBMPs:  agriculture/farmers;  energy/hydropower;  industry  and  other 
sectors.  The  mechanisms  for  active  involvement  were:  an  information  campaign  on  water 

within  a  LIFE+  project,  including  a  media  campaign;  an  interactive  exhibition;  guides  for 
schools, and consultations with  the sectors involved (telephone and  email  consultations were 
used including with investors in new infrastructure projects).  

Slovakia reported that the results of public consultation led to the addition of new information 

and  adjustment  of  specific  measures.  There  was  international  coordination  of  public 
participation for both RBMPs. 

Moreover,  according  to  the  RBMPs,  during  their  preparation,  a  range  of  consultations, 
workshops and negotiations were held with the sectors concerned in order to more effectively 

incorporate water policy objectives into other environmental and sectoral policies and ensure 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the  participation  of  all  parties  concerned  with  removing  obstacles  for  meeting  the 

environmental goals. 

In  its  recommendations  on  Slovakia’s  first  RBMP,  the  European  Commission  recommended 

good  coordination  between  the  public  administration  and  other  stakeholders  to  improve 
planning  and  implementation  of  the  PoM.  Based  on  the  information  available,  this 

recommendation has been implemented.  

In  addition,  the  European  Commission  called  for  more  information  on  the  involvement  of 

interested  parties  and  consultation.  It  appears  that  there  has  been  progress  in  this  area,  as 
Slovakia’s reporting to WISE as well as its RBMPs provides information on consultation and 

on active involvement of stakeholders. 

1.1.5 

Integration  with  the  Floods  Directive  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive 

In  its  WISE  reporting  on  its  RBMPs,  Slovakia  indicates  that  the  RBMP  and  the  Flood  Risk 
Management Plan under the Floods Directive1 were integrated into a single plan in both RBDs 
and  that  the  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  were  sub-plans  to  the  RBMP.  Reporting  for  the 
Flood Risk Management Plans indicates that these plans were prepared for sub-basins and are 

formally considered parts (i.e. sub-plans) of the RBMPs. 

Slovakia  reports  that  joint  consultation  was  carried  out  for  the  RBMPs  and  Flood  Risk 

Management Plans. 

1.1.6 

International coordination  

Slovakia's two RBDs are both part of international RBDs, the Danube and the Vistula. For the 

Danube, Slovakia reports that there is an international agreement, permanent cooperation body 
and  international  RBMP  (designated  as  category  1  cooperation).  Moreover,  there  is  an 

international  report  (“roof  report”)  and  explicit  links  have  been  made  with  national  RBMPs 
within the international RBMPs.  

Slovakia  has  coordinated  with  neighbouring  countries  as  well  as  other  Danube  countries  via 
the  International  Commission  for  the  Protection  of  the  Danube  River  (ICDPR),  and  is  a 

member of the Tisza Group, a platform established by ICDPR for coordination within this sub-
basin. For further information see the reports on international coordination on the WFD. 

1   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  

24 

 
                                                      
Slovakia has bilateral agreements for water management in place with neighbouring Member 

States – Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland – and with Ukraine. 

1.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

In  the  first  cycle,  Slovakia  prepared  a  single  RBMP  for  both  RBDs.  In  the  second  cycle, 
Slovakia  has  prepared  two  separate  RBMPs  for  its  two  RBDs.  In  the  first  cycle,  Slovakia 

prepared  sub-plans  for  the  sub-basins  of  its  RBDs.  also  introduced  sectorial  plans  (for 
hydropower, public water supply and sewerage as well as the Flood Risk Management Plans 
which was reported as a third type of sub-plans). 

1.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

on the following: 

The  2012  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  has  three  recommendations  related  to 

governance.  

  Recommendation:  Ensure  good  coordination  between  public  administration  and  other 
stakeholders to improve the planning and implementation of the Programme of Measures 
and  to  monitor  their  effectiveness,  i.e.  a  more  detailed  implementation  plan  for  the 

Programme  of  Measures  and  information  about  the  control  mechanisms  should  be 
included  in  the  second  RBMPs  cycle.  Furthermore,  Slovakia  should  ensure  effective 

coordination between WFD and Floods Directive. 

Assessment: With regard to good coordination between the public administration and other 

stakeholders,  the  RBMPs  indicate  that  for  their  preparation,  a  range  of  consultations, 
workshops  and  negotiations  were  held  with  the  sectors  concerned  in  order  to  more 

effectively  incorporate  water  policy  objectives  into  other  environmental  and  sectoral 
policies  and  ensure  the  participation  of  all  parties  concerned  at  removing  obstacles  for 

meeting the environmental goals.  

Regarding coordination between WFD and Floods Directive, in its WISE reporting on its 

RBMPs,  Slovakia  indicates  that  the  RBMP  and  the  Flood  Risk  Management  Plan  were 
integrated  into  a  single  plan  in  both  RBDs  and  at  the  same  time  that  the  Flood  Risk 

Management Plans were sub-plans to the RBMP. Slovakia’s reporting for the Flood Risk 
Management  Plans  indicate  that  these  plans  were  prepared  on  a  sub-basin  basis  and  are 
formally  considered  part  (i.e.  sub-plans)  of  the  RBMPs,  although  the  Flood  Risk 

25 

 
Management  Plans  remain  separate  plans.  Overall,  based  on  the  information  available, 

Slovakia has fulfilled this recommendation. 

  Recommendation: There is one plan for two RBDs and the plan does not always provide a 
clear guide as to whether an issue/problem is relevant for both or only for one RBD. It was 
often  difficult  to  identify  RBD-specific  information.  Future  RBMPs  need  to  be  more 

transparent in this respect, and it is recommended that Slovakia develops one RBMP per 
national part of the RBD on its territory. 

Assessment:  Slovakia  has  followed  this  recommendation  and  prepared  two  separate 
RBMPs. Consequently, this recommendation has been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: More information needs to be included in the plan on the involvement of 
interested parties and consultation, since it is not clear from the RBMP which stakeholders 

were involved, and what impact the consultation had on the content of the RBMP. 

Assessment:  It  appears  that  there  has  been  progress  in  this  area,  as  information  has  been 

provided on the consultation and on active involvement of interested parties - for the latter, 
Slovakia  drew  on  the  resources  of  a  LIFE+  project.  This  recommendation  has  been 

fulfilled. 

26 

 
 
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 

Slovakia did not identify lakes, transitional or coastal water bodies in either cycle. Lakes with a 
size of over 10 km2 are not found in Slovakia and it is a landlocked country. There was a 14% 
reduction in  the numbers  of identified river water bodies  from the first  RBMP to  the second 

RBMP (Table 2.1), with the most significant changes in the Danube RBD. 23 of the 1 510 river 
water bodies were previously reported to  be reservoirs but  these were rivers which had been 

dammed and were therefore re-designated as rivers in the second cycle. 

Table 2.1 

Number  and size  distribution  of  delineated  surface  water  bodies  in  Slovakia 

for the second and first cycles 

Year 

RBD 

Number of 
water bodies 

Total length of 
water bodies  

River water bodies length(km) 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Average 

2016  SK30000 

2016  SK40000 

2016  Total 

2010  SK30000 

2010  SK40000 

2010  Total 

74 

1 436 

1 510 

83 

1 677 

1 760 

831 

16 833 

17 665 

902 

18 042 

18 944 

4.72 

1.57 

4.6 

1.6 

47.34 

172.75 

54.1 

172.4 

11.24 

11.9 

10.87 

10.91 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

The  RBMP  reported  that  river  water  bodies  were  delineated  for  catchments  greater  than 
10 km2.  The  Joint  Implementation  Strategy  of  the  EC  was  reported  to  have  been  used: 
“Identification  of  Water  Bodies  -  Horizontal  Methodological  Guidance”.  Water  bodies  with 
less  than  10  km2  were  not  delineated  and  are  part  of  the  main  river  water  bodies  within  the 
catchment. The RBMP reported changes of the boundaries of the river water bodies or merging 

and pooling of water bodies. The criteria for merging of water bodies are as follows:  

 

River length less than 8 km; 

27 

 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

River basin area less than 10 km2;  

  Without significant impacts, and;  

 

Leaking channels, or dry or partially culverted water bodies. 

Despite the reduction in  the numbers of river water bodies, there was 10-fold increase in the 

number of designated artificial water bodies between the two cycles and also an increase in the 
number and proportion of heavily modified water bodies (Figure 2.1). This was accompanied 

by  decreases  in  number  and  proportion  of  natural  water  bodies.  Slovakia  reported  that  these 
significant changes are due to a lengthy process, which is still not completed, of identification 

of heavily modified and artificial water bodies. 

Figure 2.1 

Proportion of surface water bodies in Slovakia 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 

Artificial

Heavily Modified

Natural

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Rivers 2016 (1510)

Rivers 2010 (1760)

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

There was only a small  change in  the number (and area) of  groundwater bodies between the 

two cycles with 101 delineated in the first RBMP and 102 in the second RBMP (Table 2.2).  

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

evolved between the two cycles. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.2 

Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Slovakia for the second 
and first cycles 

Year 

RBD 

Number 

Area (km2) 
Minimum  Maximum  Average 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2010 

2010 

2010 

SK30000 

SK40000 

Total 

SK30000 

SK40000 

Total 

4 

98 

102 

4 

97 

101 

72.43 

33.15 

33.15 

72.42 

33.15 

33.15 

1 707.30 

6 248.61 

6 248.61 

1 707.20 

6 248.37 

6 248.37 

597.95 

765.49 

758.92 

597.91 

772.52 

765.6 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Table 2.3 

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

Slovakia between the second and first cycles 

Type of water body change for second 
cycle 

Groundwater 
Body 

River Water Body 

Aggregation 

splitting 

Aggregation and splitting 

ExtendedArea 

Creation 

Deletion 

Change in code 

Change 

No change 

Total water bodies before deletion 

Delineated for second cycle (after deletion 
from first cycle) 

1 

101 

102 

102 

1 

251 

4 

1506 

1761 

1510 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

2.1.2 

Identification of transboundary water bodies  

50 transboundary river water bodies from eight  of the nine subunits in the Danube RBD and 
the Vistula RBD were reported. All six reported transboundary groundwater bodies were from 

the Danube RBD. In the RBMPs there is a general statement that the water bodies forming the 
border were harmonised both in terms of delineation and types of water bodies.  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.3  Typology of surface water bodies 

Table 2.4 shows the number of surface water body types at RBD level in Slovakia for the first 
and second cycles. Overall in Slovakia 39 river types were reported in the first RBMP and 42 

in the second RBMP. Four types are common to the two RBDs. The RBMPs reported that the 
increase in types was a result of the change of category of reservoirs, which were reported as 

rivers  in  the  second  RBMPs  but  not  in  the  first,  as  well  as  of  the  biological  validation, 
verification  and  refinement  of  river  types.  This  was  carried  out  based  on  statistical  data 

processing  of  abiotic,  biological  and  chemical  data.  Within  the  river  water  body  types,  it 
should be noted that 14 reservoir types were reported in the first RBMP and the second RBMP. 

Table 2.4 

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

RBD 

Rivers 

SK30000 

SK40000 

TOTAL 

2010 

2016 

5 

34 

39 

6 

36 

42 

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

17  river  types  in  Slovakia  were  reported  to  have  six  equivalent  river  intercalibration  types. 
13% of river water bodies in Slovakia did not have any applicable equivalent intercalibration 

types.  

It was noted in the RBMPs that the typology of the transboundary rivers was discussed during 

the  preparation  of  the  first  RBMPs.  At  the  level  of  the  Ecological  Status  Working  Group 
(ECOSTAT)  where  the  intercalibration  process  of  the  biological  methods  of  environmental 

assessment has been undertaken, an intercalibration typology was created. Within the Eastern 
Intercalibration Geographical Intercalibration Group, most Slovak types were included. It was 

reported  that  all  the  procedures  according  to  the  requirements  of  the  European  Commission 
Intercalibration  Instructions  (Common  Implementation  Strategy  WFD  Guidance  Document 
No. 302) have been followed. 

2.1.4  Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies 

Table  2.5  shows  the  percentage  of  surface  water  body  types  in  the  Slovak  Republic  with 
reference  conditions  established  for  the  first  and  second  RBMPs.  Reference  conditions  have 

2https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/5aee6446-276c-4440-a7de-

0d4dec41ed4b/IC_manual_2015_to%20be%20published.pdf 

30 

 
 
                                                      
not been reported for any of the hydromorphological quality elements in any type in Slovakia3. 
For all non-reservoir types, reference conditions were reported to have been established for all 
biological  and  all  physicochemical  quality  elements.  For  the  14  reservoir  types,  reference 

conditions  have  only  been  reported  for  some  biological  quality  elements  but  not  for  any 
hydromorphological or any physicochemical quality elements.  

Table 2.5 

Percentage of surface water body types in Slovakia with reference conditions 

established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and 
physicochemical quality elements 

Water category  Water types 

Rivers 

All  

Some 

None 

Biological quality 
elements 
63% 

37% 

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 

Physicochemical 
quality elements 
63% 

100% 

37% 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

2.1.5  Characteristics of groundwater bodies 

Slovakia reported the characteristics of the geological formation of its aquifers and whether or 

not  water  bodies  were  layered.  The  RBMPs  noted  that  there  was  better  knowledge  of 

groundwater since the first cycle, a better conceptual understanding and more monitoring data 

available. However, no information was reported on groundwater body links to surface water 

bodies or groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (Annex 0). 

2.1.6 

Significant pressures on water bodies 

26  pressure  types  were  reported  to  be  affecting  river  water  bodies  in  Slovakia  in  the  second 

RBMP. The most predominant pressures in terms of proportion of water bodies affected were 

diffuse  agriculture  (33%  of  surface  water  bodies),  Physical  alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian 

area/shore - Flood protection (29%) and Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - 

Agriculture (14%) (Figure 2). Each of 11 of the 26 pressures affected less than 1% of surface 

water bodies.  

3  Slovakia  subsequently  clarified  that  reference  conditions  for  hydromorphological  quality  elements  were 

established for natural types in 2007. 

31 

 
 
  
  
  
  
 
                                                      
The RBMP explained that since the first  cycle different  pressures were being identified with 

activities being implemented or in the preparatory phase, these include: 

 

 

 

 

Invasive species; 

Lack of water and drought (drought indicators, ecological flows, water bills); 

Climate change; 

Qualitative  and  quantitative  aspects  of  sediment  management  (issue  specific  to  the 

Danube), and; 

 

Pressures on sturgeon. 

No  significant  pressures  were  reported  for  groundwater  bodies  in  the  Vistula  RBD.  Nine 

different pressure types were reported to be significant on groundwater bodies in the Danube 

RBD.  The  most  significant  were  Diffuse  -  Discharges  not  connected  to  sewerage  network 

affecting  8%  of  groundwater  bodies,  point  urban  waste  water  pressures  (7%  of  groundwater 

bodies) and point waste disposal sites (7%) (Figure 2.2).  

Slovakia  did  not  report  data  to  WISE  on  specific  pressures  in  the  first  RBMP.

32 

 
Figure 2.2 

The  most  significant  pressures  on  surface  water  bodies  and  groundwater 

bodies in Slovakia for the second cycle 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.7  Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater 

The RBMP did not highlight any changes in the methodology or the criteria for the assessment 

of  significance  for  the  second  RBMPs.  Numerical  tools  were  used  to  assess  point  source 

pressures  and  a  combination  of  both  numerical  tools  and  expert  judgement  were  used  for 

diffuse source pressures. Significance was not defined in terms of thresholds. 

A  combination  of  both  numerical  tools  and  expert  judgement  were  used  to  assess  the 

significance of point source, diffuse source and abstraction pressures on groundwater bodies. 

Significance  has  been  defined  in  terms  of  thresholds  and  has  been  linked  to  failure  of 

objectives in groundwater.  

2.1.8 

Significant impacts on water bodies  

Four  impact  types  were  reported  to  be  significant  for  river  water  bodies  in  Slovakia  in  the 

second RBMPs. Altered habitats  due to  morphological  changes impacted 35% of river water 

bodies, followed by organic pollution (27%), nutrient pollution (13%) and chemical pollution 

(6%) (Figure 2.3). “Unknown impact type” was  identified for 55% of river water bodies. No 

significant  impacts  were  reported  for  groundwater  bodies  in  the  Vistula  RBD  in  the  second 

RBMP,  while  in  the  Danube  RBD  chemical  pollution  impacted  11%  and  in  3%  abstraction 

exceeded available groundwater resource of groundwater body (Figure 3). 

34 

 
Figure 2.3 

Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Slovakia for 

the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

2.1.9  Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 

7%  of  groundwater  bodies  in  the  Danube  RBD  were  reported  to  be  at  risk  of  failing  good 

chemical status; there were none in the Vistula RBD. Eight chemical substances were causing 
the risk with sulphate causing the risk in 7% of groundwater bodies and nitrate in 4%.  

8% of groundwater bodies in the Danube RBD were at risk of failing good quantitative status 
with the risk being associated with water balance and risks to associated surface water bodies. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
2.1.10  Quantification of gap to achieve status objectives  

Gaps to be filled to achieve objectives were mostly reported for those pressures reported to be 

significant at  the surface water body level  in  the Vistula RBD. Gaps were reported  for three 
pressures that were not reported as significant at the water body level (Point - Non Industrial 
Emissions  Directive4  plants,  Dams,  diffuse  -  Discharges  not  connected  to  sewerage  network, 
barriers and locks - Unknown or obsolete) and no gaps were reported for two pressures (dams, 

barriers and locks related to recreation and unknown anthropogenic pressures). 

In the Danube RBD, gaps were not reported for five pressures reported to be significant at the 

groundwater  body  level  including  point  source  pressures  from  urban  waste  water  and  waste 
disposal  sites.  Gaps  were  reported  for  the  other  four  pressures  reported  at  the  groundwater 

body level, including agriculture and abstraction for public water supply. 

For surface water in the Danube RBD, gaps were reported for 25 different pressures that had 

been reported to be significant at the water body level. 

Gaps were reported for three pollutants causing failure of objectives in groundwater and for six 
Priority Substances causing failure of objectives in surface waters in the Danube RBD. 

2.1.11  Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances 

Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQS Directive5) requires Member 
States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances 
and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I EQS Directive for each RBD, or part 

thereof,  lying  within  their  territory.  This  inventory  should  allow  Member  States  to  further 
target measures to tackle pollution from priority substances. It should also inform the review of 

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

hazardous substances). 

Slovakia  reported  inventories  for  both  of  its  RBDs.    According  to  the  WISE  reporting,  the 

reported inventory for the Vistula RBD contained only one Priority Substance.  For the other 
RBD,  22  different  Priority  Substances  were  included  in  an  inventory  in  at  least  one  of  the 

subunits.  Lead, mercury, nickel  and  cadmium  were included in  inventories in  eight  subunits. 

4   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  

5   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 

36 

 
                                                      
 
Five substances were included in inventories for only one sub-unit. In Annex 0 of the WISE 

reporting,  Slovakia  explained  that  the  inventories  were  established  according  to  the  CIS 
Guidance  no.  28  and  are  included  in  the RBMPs,  but  this  was  done  at  water  body  level  and 

therefore could not be reported to WISE, which required reporting at the level of sub-units.  

According  to  the  WISE  reporting,  the  two  step  approach  from  the  Common  Implementation 

Strategy  Guidance  Document  n°28  has  been  followed  for  all  substances  considered  in  the 
inventories. Tier 1+ 2 of the methodology was implemented The data quality was assessed as 

medium.  

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

There was a 14% reduction in the number of identified river water bodies in Slovakia from the 
first  RBMP to  the second RBMP. There was a 10 fold increase in  the number of  designated 

artificial  water  bodies  between  the  two  cycles  and  also  an  increase  in  the  number  and 
proportion of heavily modified water bodies. This  was accompanied by  decreases in  number 

and proportion of natural water bodies. Slovakia reported that these significant changes are due 
to  a  lengthy  process,  which  is  still  not  completed,  of  identification  of  heavily  modified  and 

artificial water bodies. 

Overall  in  Slovakia  39  river  types  were  reported  in  the  first  RBMP  and  42  in  the  second 

RBMP: for both cycles there were no common type codes across the two RBDs. 

In the first RBMP, reference conditions were established for all biological quality elements but 

for fish they are only preliminary. In the second RBMP reference conditions were reported to 
be  established  for  all  non-reservoir  river  types  indicating  that  there  had  been  some  progress 

since the first RBMPs. 

2.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

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

be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place 
before  the  next  cycle.  Regarding  characterisation,  for  instance,  reference  conditions 

should be established for all biological quality elements. 

37 

 
Assessment:  Reference  conditions  have  been  established  for  all  biological  quality 

elements  in  28  of  the  42  river  types,  and  for  some  biological  quality  elements  in  14 
types  which  are  all  reservoir  types.  More  significantly  no  reference  conditions  have 

been  set  for  any  types  in  terms  of  hydromorphological  quality  elements.  In  terms  of 
physiochemical  quality  elements,  reference  conditions  have  been  established  for  all 

relevant elements in 28 types but for none of the elements in the reservoir types.  

A combination of both numerical tools and expert judgement was used for determining 

the significance of diffuse pressures on surface and groundwater. 

In conclusion there has  been some progress  but  there are still major gaps in  fulfilling 

this recommendation, so it has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: The RBMPs need to provide more information on the links between 

pressures and status, and the respective measures for surface waters. 

This recommendation is addressed in Chapter 9 on the PoM.  

38 

 
 
 
Topic 3

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

3.1 

Assessment  of 
requirements in the second RBMPs 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

3.1.1  Monitoring of ecological status/potential 

Monitoring programmes 

Separate surveillance and operational monitoring programmes have been reported for each of 
the two designated water categories: rivers and groundwater. 

Monitoring sites 

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

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

There  were  significant  changes  in  delineation  of  surface  water  bodies  from  the  first  to  the 
second  RBMPs.  In  particular,  reservoirs  had  been  reported  as  lakes  in  the  first  RBMPs  but 

were  reported  as  rivers  in  the  second  RBMPs,  as  specified  in  the  reporting  guidance.  A 
comparison  of  data  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs  is  therefore  difficult  and  is 

meaningful  only  for  the  total  number  of  monitoring  sites  in  surface  waters.  Taking  this  into 
account, according to the reporting in WISE there was a significant increase in the number of 

sites used for surveillance monitoring but a significant decrease in the number of sites used for 
operational  monitoring.  Slovakia  subsequently  provided  different  numbers  for  monitoring 

sites,  explaining  that  sites  used  for  surveillance  monitoring  were  also  used  for  operational 
monitoring.  According  to  the  latter  data  provided  by  Slovakia,  there  was  also  a  significant 

increase in the number of sites used for operational monitoring. 

39 

 
 
 
Table 3.1 

Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Slovakia 

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

take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical 
monitoring. Note the total number of monitoring sites may differ from the 

sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one 
purpose.  

Rivers 

Lakes 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

second RBMP  

SK_30000 

SK_40000 

Total by type of site 

41 (37) 

834 (749) 

875 (786) 

22 (41) 
255 
(1.071) 
277 
(1.112) 

- 

- 

- 

Total number of monitoring sites 

1.144 (1.898) 

- 

first RBMP 

SK_30000 

SK_40000 

Total by type of site 

31 (6) 

529 (97) 

560 (103) 

29 (9) 
565 
(190) 
594 
(199) 

- 

23 

23 

- 

- 

- 

- 

7 

7 

Total number of monitoring sites 

698 (241) 

23 

Sources: Member States electronic reports to WISE . The numbers in parentheses were subsequently provided by 

Slovakia and are different from those reported in WISE. 

Table 3.2 

Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different 

purposes in Slovakia. Note the total number of monitoring sites may differ 
from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more 

than one purpose.  

Monitoring Purpose 

CHE - Chemical status 

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

ECO - Ecological status 

OPE - Operational monitoring 

QUA - Quantitative status 

REF - Reference network monitoring site 

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

SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring 

SUR - Surveillance monitoring 

Total sites irrespective of purpose 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

40 

Rivers 

402 

7 

447 

277 

417 

35 

32 

2 

875 

1144 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) 

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

Table 3.3 

Quality  elements  monitored  for  the  second  RBMPs  in  Slovakia  (excluding 

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

Biological quality elements 

Hydromorphological quality elements 

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

s
e
t
y
h
p
o
r
c
a
M

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

c
i
h
t
n
e
B

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

h
s
i
F

s

m
r
e
p
s
o
i
g
n
A

e
a
g
l
a
o
r
c
a
M

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

a
r
o
l
f

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

r
e
h
t
O

Rivers 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  No  No  No 

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

e
m
i
g
e
r

l
a
d
i
t

 Yes 

y
t
i
u
n
i
t
n
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

 Yes 

General physicochemical quality elements 

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

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

l
a
m
r
e
h
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

n
o
i
t
a
n
e
g
y
x
O

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

y
t
i
n
i
l
a
S

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

n
e
g
o
r
t
i

N

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

s
u
r
o
h
p
s
o
h
P

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
C

e
t
a
c
i
l
i
S

Rivers 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

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

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

r
e
h
t
O

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

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

t
n
e
i
r
t
u
n

No 

All expected biological quality elements and physicochemical quality elements were reported 

to be monitored in rivers. In addition phytoplankton was monitored in reservoirs (re-designated 
as  rivers  in  the  second  RBMPs)  and  some  other  river  water  bodies.  Hydromorphological 

conditions and River Basin Specific Pollutants were also monitored. 

In the first RBMPs it was reported that all required quality elements were monitored in rivers, 

except for fish. In the second RBMPs fish were monitored, indicating some progress since the 
first RBMPs. 

23  (1.6%)  of  the  1 510  identified  river  water  bodies  were  reported  to  be  reservoirs  that  had 
originally  been  a  river.  Phytoplankton,  macrophytes,  phytobenthos  were  monitored  in  these 

water bodies but not benthic invertebrate or fish. If these were being monitored and assessed as 
lakes, it would be expected that fish and benthic invertebrates would have been monitored: as 
they are not, this is a shortcoming in the current monitoring. In addition  hydromorphological 

41 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
quality  elements  were  not  monitored  in  reservoirs.  All  the  expected  physicochemical  quality 

elements were monitored in reservoirs. 

Annex V of the Water Framework Directive provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring 

of  the  different  quality  elements.  Surveillance  monitoring  should  be  carried  out  for  each 
monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a RBMP i.e. six years. 

For  phytoplankton  this  should  be  done  twice  during  the  monitoring  year  and  for  the  other 
biological quality elements once during the year. As a guideline, operational monitoring should 

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

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

All biological quality elements included in surveillance monitoring were sampled at, or more 

than, the WFD minimum recommended frequency at all sites where they are monitored. Three 
of the four biological quality elements used for operational monitoring were also sampled at, or 

at  more  than,  the  recommended  frequency  at  all  sites.  None  of  the  sites  used  for  fish  were 
sampled at the recommended minimum frequency. 

River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored 

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

Slovakia in the first and second RBMPs.  

26  different  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  reported  to  be  monitored  for  Slovakia,  all 

were only monitored in water. River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored at 
either 14 sites  (for  four  metals) or 13 sites  (for  22 other pollutants).  In terms  of surveillance 

monitoring all 26 pollutants were monitored at all sites at a frequency that met the minimum 
WFD minimum frequency of four times in one year of the six year WFD cycle. However for 

operational monitoring only two of the seven sites used for the operational monitoring of River 
Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  sampled  for  the  26  substances  at  least  at  the  minimum 

recommended frequency of four times a year in each year of the six year WFD cycle.  

Slovakia  reported  1.144  monitoring  sites  for  either  surveillance  and/or  operational  purposes: 
the 14 sites used for River Basin Specific Pollutants represent only 1.2% of these sites6. 

6 Slovakia subsequently stated that the number of monitoring sites is 1,898. 

42 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
Table 3.4 

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

the  second  RBMPs  in  Slovakia.  Note  not  all  Member  States  reported 
information at the site level for the first RBMPs meaning that there were no 

equivalent data 

Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 

RBMP 

second 
RBMP 

first RBMP 

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

Sources:  WISE electronic reports 

Rivers 

14 for metals 
13 for other pollutants 

Not Reported 

Surveillance monitoring of surface water bodies 
Figure  3.1  shows  that,  according  to  the  reporting  in  WISE,  there  has  been  an  increase  in 
surveillance monitoring and a decrease in operational monitoring of water bodies from the first 
to the second RBMPs7. Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of water bodies subject to surveillance 
monitoring  within  each  ecological  status  class.  Water  bodies  at  bad  status  were  fully 

represented  whereas  a  quarter  of  water  bodies  at  good  status  were  covered  by  surveillance 
monitoring. 

Figure 3.1 

Percentage  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  and  operational 
monitoring  in  Slovakia  for  the  first  RBMPs  (2010)  and  second  RBMPs 

(2016).  Note  no  differentiation  is  made  between  water  bodies  included  in 
ecological and/or chemical monitoring 

Source:  WISE electronic reports  

7  Slovakia  subsequently  provided  different  numbers  for  monitoring  sites,  explaining  that  sites  used  for 
surveillance  monitoring  were  also used for operational  monitoring.  According to the latter data  provided by 
Slovakia, there was also a significant increase in the number of sites used for operational monitoring. 

43 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
Figure 3.2 

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

included in surveillance monitoring in Slovakia 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

According to the reporting in WISE, only 51% of river water bodies included in surveillance 
monitoring  of  ecological  status/potential  were  monitored  for  all  required  biological  quality 

elements. 96% were monitored for all required physicochemical quality element and none for 
all required hydromorphological quality elements. Slovakia subsequently explained that 18.9% 

of  river  water  bodies  were  in  fact  monitored  for  all  required  hydromorphological  quality 
elements.  In  Slovakia  as  a  whole  28%  of  river  water  bodies  were  included  in  surveillance 

monitoring of ecological status/potential and for comparison 11% were included in operational 
monitoring. 

As there was a significant re-delineation of surface water bodies between the first and second 
RBMPs and there were  errors in  the reporting of monitoring in  WISE, comparisons between 
numbers of water bodies monitored in the first and second RBMPs are not meaningful. 

Operational monitoring of surface water bodies 

The WFD states that “operational monitoring shall be carried out for all those bodies of water 
which  are  identified  as  being  at  risk  of  failing  to  meet  their  environmental  objectives  under 

Article 4”. In Slovakia as a whole, only 11% of river water bodies were included in operational 
monitoring. This is in spite of the fact that 44% of river water bodies were reported to be at less 

than  good  ecological  status/potential  and  71%  had  at  least  one  significant  pressure.  Even 
though  Slovakia  indicated  that  grouping  was  used  in  the  assessment  of  status/potential,  this 

44 

 
 
 
seems to be a low number. However, Slovakia subsequently explained that the monitoring sites 

used for surveillance monitoring were also used for operational monitoring for the parameters 
which were considered relevant. 

All relevant biological quality elements were included in operational monitoring. According to 
the  reporting  in  WISE,  morphological  conditions  were  the  only  hydromorphological  quality 

elements  included in operational  monitoring:  this  was monitored in 8 of the 12 water bodies 
included in operational monitoring8. All the monitored physicochemical quality elements were 
monitored  in  10  of  the  12  water  bodies  in  operational  monitoring  and  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants in six. 

Transboundary surface water body monitoring 

Slovakia  reported  32  monitoring  sites  that  were  part  of  an  international  network  of  a  river 
convention: three in the Vistula RBD and 29 in the Danube RBD. 

3.1.2 Ecological Status/potential of surface water  

The  ecological  status/potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Slovakia  for  the  second  RBMPs  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.  

8 Slovakia subsequently stated that all hydromorphological quality elements were monitored. 

45 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
Map 3.1 

Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Slovakia 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  3.3  compares  the  ecological  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Slovakia  for  the  first 

RBMPs 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 Slovakia is shown in Figure 3.4. All surface water bodies 

are expected to achieve good ecological status/potential by 2027. 

46 

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

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

period  of  the  assessment  of  status  for  the  second  RBMPs  was  2009  to  2012. 
The year of the assessment of status for first RBMPs is not known 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

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

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

Source:  WISE electronic reports  

None  of  the  surface  water  bodies  in  Slovakia  were  reported  to  have  unknown  ecological 
status/potential in both the first and second RBMPs. 64% were reported to be of good or better 

47 

 
 
 
status for the first RBMPs and 56% for the second. However, there was significant reduction in 

the  number  of  delineated  water  bodies  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs  which  makes  a 
comparison of status/potential unreliable. 

The  RBMPs  state  that  significant  changes  are  identified  in  high  and  good  status  /  potential 
classes (as shown in Figure 3.3). In other classes, the differences are not significant. Changes 

in the classification results are reported to be due to both the updating of water bodies and the 
increased reliability of the assessment. 

Confidence in ecological status assessment 

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

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

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

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Water bodies were classified with low (88%) or medium (12%) confidence for the first RBMP. 
For the second RBMP, there was an improvement in the level of confidence with 16% being 

classified with high and 13% with medium confidence although the levels of confidence were 
still low overall (with 71% of water bodies remaining at low confidence). 

Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element 

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

48 

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

classification  of  surface  waters  in  Slovakia.  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  

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

status/potential for the first and second RBMPs. It should be noted that this comparison should 
be  treated  with  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 3.8 and Figure 3.9 illustrate the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential 

of rivers in Slovakia for the second RBMPs. 

49 

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

biological  quality  elements  in  surface  waters  between  the  first  and  second 
RBMPs 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Figure 3.8 

The  classification  of  the  ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface  waters  in 

Slovakia 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 

50 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3.9 

The  percentage  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Slovakia  where  no  biological 

quality  element  or  no  hydromorphological  (HYMO)  or  no  general 
physicochemical  (PHYSCHEM)  or  no  river  basin  specific  pollutant 

(RBSP) has been used in the classification of ecological status or potential 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

While all water bodies have been assigned an overall ecological  status/potential, the detailed 
overview  on  which  quality  elements  were  classified  reveals  considerable  gaps  in  the  use  of 

quality elements to classify the water bodies. On average, around 75%  of water bodies show 
'unknown' status/potential (see Figure 3.6) at the level of each individual quality element.  

All  1 510  water  bodies  were  classified  in  terms  of  ecological  status/potential.  However,  the 
classification at the quality element level  was  only reported for 463 (31%) water bodies. For 

the other 69% of water bodies, classification was based on extrapolation of overall results of 
ecological  status/potential  within  groups  of  water  bodies  with  the  same  characteristics.  The 
confidence of assessment of these water bodies was reported as low.  

Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements 

According to the reporting in WISE, for some national river types (mostly those for which no 

intercalibration  type  has  been  assigned),  certain  biological  reference  conditions  were  not 
defined.  Also  physicochemical  reference  conditions  were  not  defined  for  some  types. 

Hydromorphological  reference  conditions  were  not  defined  for  all  river  types.  However, 
Slovakia subsequently clarified that reference conditions for all quality elements were set in a 
Governmental Regulation. 

51 

 
 
 
Assessment methods were reported for all biological quality elements relevant for rivers. The 

methods  were  reported  to  be  sensitive  to  most  defined  impact  types  except  for  chemical 
pollution for which no method was reported to be sensitive. Chemical pollution was reported to 

be significant in both RBDs. 

Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements 

Morphological conditions were reported to be assessed in terms of ecological status/potential 
in rivers but the classification boundaries for this supporting quality element were not related 

to  the  class  boundaries  for  the  sensitive  biological  quality  elements.  River  continuity  and 
hydrological regime were not. included in the assessment of ecological status. 

Assessment methods for general physicochemical quality elements 

4  physicochemical  quality  elements  (thermal,  oxygenation,  salinity  and  nutrient  conditions) 

were reported to be assessed in terms of ecological status/potential in rivers. 

Standards  were  reported  for  12  physicochemical  determinants  covering  five  groups  of 

physicochemical  quality  elements:  they  included  determinants  for  acidification  conditions 
which  had  not  been  reported  as  being  assessed  in  terms  of  ecological  status/potential.  All 
standards  were  reported  to  be  consistent  with  the  good-moderate  status  boundary  of  the 

relevant sensitive biological quality elements. 

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

Environmental quality standards were reported for 26 different River Basin Specific Pollutants 
in  Slovakia,  all  for  water  (none  in  sediment  and/or  biota).  All  were  reported  to  have  been 

derived in accordance with the 2011 Technical Guidance Document No 27 and the analytical 
methods  used  meet  the  minimum  performance  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  4(1)  of  the 

Commission  Directive  on  technical  specifications  for  chemical  analysis  and  monitoring  of 
water status 9 for the strictest standard applied for all substances. 

Use of monitoring results for classification 

Figure 3.10 illustrates the basis on which classification of ecological status/potential was made 

for each element. 

9   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  

52 

 
                                                      
Figure 3.10 

Basis  of  the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  in  Slovakia.  The 

percentages are in terms of all water bodies in each category. 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Grouping  has  been  used  to  classify  around  70%  of  river  water  bodies  at  the  quality  element 
level.  The  remaining 30% are classified using monitoring results except  for a few individual 

water  bodies  classified  by  expert  judgment  (not  shown  in  Figure  3.9)  in  terms  of 
physicochemical  quality  elements.  This  may  be  because  of  a  lack  of  confidence  in  some 

monitoring results. 

The two most commonly  used biological  quality elements  for the classification of ecological 

status/potential in rivers in Slovakia were phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates being used to 
classify around 24% and 23%, respectively, of classified water bodies. Macrophytes, fish and 

phytoplankton were also classified. The classification of status/potential for all classified water 
bodies was based on monitoring results. More water bodies were directly monitored than were 
subsequently  classified  by  the  biological  quality  elements  indicating  that  there  was  probably 

some  uncertainty  in  the  assessment  of  status  for  some  water  bodies  and  biological  quality 
elements. Monitoring results for morphological conditions were used to classify 16% of river 

water  bodies  even  though  18  %  were  directly  monitored.  Proportionally  more  river  water 
bodies  (27%)  were  classified  using  the  monitoring  results  of  the  physicochemical  quality 

elements  than  for  either  the  biological  quality  elements  or  hydromorphological  quality 
elements:  approximately  the  same  number  of  water  bodies  were  classified  and  directly 
monitored  for  the  physicochemical  quality  elements  perhaps  indicating  a  greater  level  of 
confidence in the monitoring results of these elements.  

53 

 
 
It  remains  unclear  how  the  grouping  of  water  bodies  has  been  carried  out.  Given  that  the 

overall number of biological quality elements applied in water body classification is very low, 
the grouping of water bodies might introduce a high level of uncertainty in the classification. 

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

Slovakia  reported  that  the  one-out,  all-out  principle  had  been  used  in  the  derivation  of  the 

overall ecological status/potential of water bodies. 

3.2  Main  changes  in  implementation  and  compliance  since  the  first 

RBMPs 

There  were  significant  changes  in  delineation  of  surface  water  bodies  from  the  first  to  the 
second  RBMPs.  In  particular,  reservoirs  had  been  reported  as  lakes  in  the  first  RBMPs  but 

were  reported  as  rivers  in  the  second  RBMPs,  as  specified  in  the  reporting  guidance.  A 
comparison  of  data  between  the  first  and  second  RBMPs  is  therefore  difficult  and  is 

meaningful  only  for  the  total  number  of  monitoring  sites  in  surface  waters.  Taking  this  into 
account, according to the reporting in WISE there was a significant increase in the number of 

sites used for surveillance monitoring but a significant decrease in the number of sites used for 
operational  monitoring.  Slovakia  subsequently  provided  different  numbers  for  monitoring 

sites,  explaining  that  sites  used  for  surveillance  monitoring  were  also  used  for  operational 
monitoring.  According  to  the  latter  data  provided  by  Slovakia,  there  was  also  a  significant 

increase in the number of sites used for operational monitoring. 

Only half as many water bodies were included in operational monitoring in the second RBMPs 
compared to the first.  

In the first RBMPs it was reported that all required quality elements were monitored except for 
fish  in  rivers.  In  the  second  RBMPs  fish  were  monitored,  indicating  that  some  progress  has 
been made since the first RBMPs. 

64% of water bodies were reported to be of good or better status for the first RBMPs and 56% 

for  the  second.  However,  there  was  significant  reduction  in  the  number  of  delineated  water 
bodies  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs  which  makes  a  comparison  of  status/potential 

between the cycles unreliable. The comparison of water body classifications between the first 
and the second RBMPs revealed that the classifications (and therefore possibly the underlying 

assessments)  differed  significantly  between  them,  with  considerably  more  water  bodies 
reaching high status in the first RBMPs. 

54 

 
 
3.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation: The ecological status assessment in rivers lacks the assessment of fish, 
and for lakes it is only based on phytoplankton. The ecological status assessment does not 

include  hydromorphological  quality  elements.  No  assessment  system  for  lakes  has  been 
intercalibrated. Most of the biological quality elements have not been intercalibrated, and 

have thus not been used in the classification. All these shortcomings need to be addressed.  

Assessment: The monitoring of fish in  rivers  was  included for the second RBMPs but  in 

fewer water bodies than other biological quality elements. The lakes reported for the first 
RBMPs  were  re-designated  as  rivers  as  they  had  been  formed  by  damming  river  water 

bodies.  More  biological  quality  elements  were  monitored  in  reservoirs  but  not  all  the 
required elements: In terms of hydromorphology, only morphological conditions are used 

in  the  classification  of  rivers,  with  river  continuity  and  hydrological  regime  being 
monitored but not used in the assessment .  

The  assessment  methods  for  all  biological  quality  elements  were  developed  and 
intercalibrated  for  natural  rivers,  while  there  is  no  intercalibration  at  EU  level  for 

reservoirs. The recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: There are a number of gaps in the monitoring programmes which need 
to  be  addressed.  There  is  no  adequate  fish  monitoring  in  rivers,  only  phytoplankton  is 
monitored  in  lakes,  there  is  no  monitoring  of  priority  substances  in  sediments  and  biota, 

and  not  all  priority  substances  were  monitored  in  all  water  bodies.  These  gaps  in  the 
monitoring  design  resulted  in  an  incomplete  status  assessment  of  surface  water  bodies, 

to  be 

improved. 

which  has 
In  particular,  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 
hexachlorobutadiene should be monitored in biota for comparison with the biota standards 
in  the  EQSD,  unless  water  EQS  providing  an  equivalent  level  of  protection  are  derived, 
and  trend  monitoring  in  sediment  or  biota  for  at  least  the  substances  specified  in  EQSD 

Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMP.   

  Recommendation:  Complete  the  monitoring  framework,  as  an  adequate  WFD-compliant 
monitoring  and  assessment  framework  is  a  necessary  pre-requisite  to  design  an  effective 
Programme of Measures and ultimately to achieve the WFD objectives.  

Assessment: The monitoring of fish in  rivers  was  included for the second RBMPs but  in 
fewer  water  bodies  than  other  biological  quality  elements.  Lakes  were  not  delineated  for 

55 

 
the  second  RBMPs,  since  reservoirs  were  delineated  as  rivers. 

In 

terms  of 

hydromorphology,  only  morphological  conditions  have  been  used  in  the  classification  of 
rivers  with  river  continuity  and  hydrological  regime  being  monitored  but  not  included  in 

the assessment.  Coverage of water bodies as a whole is fairly sparse for example only 13 
(around 1%) of surface water bodies are monitored for River Basin Specific Pollutants. The 

recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of 
the RBDs, in the 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. Regarding characterisation, for instance, reference conditions should 
be established for all biological quality elements.  

Assessment:  Biological  quality 
conditions  were  defined.  
Physicochemical  and  hydromorphological  quality  element  reference  conditions  were 

reference 

element 

defined  for  natural  river  types  but  not  for  reservoirs.  The  recommendation  has  been 
fulfilled. 

56 

 
 
 
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  have  to  implement  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  programmes  in 
accordance with the requirements of the WFD and of the EQS Directive10, 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 water bodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their 
environmental objectives, and to assess any changes in the status of such water bodies resulting 

from the PoM. 

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

monitoring programmes in Slovakia for the second RBMP.  

Figure 1 summarises the proportion of sites used for the monitoring of chemical status in rivers 

for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used for surveillance 
and/or  operational  purposes.  More  detailed  information  can  be  found  on  the  website  of  the 
European Environment Agency11.  Figure 4.1 shows that over a third of monitoring sites were 
used for assessment of chemical status. Marginally more sites were used for the assessment of 

ecological status. 

10 Directive 2008/105/EC. Available at : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008L0105 

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

57 

 
                                                      
Figure 4.1 

Proportion  of  sites  used  for  monitoring  of  chemical  status  and,  for 
comparison, ecological status, in Slovakia. 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 rivers 
for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used for surveillance 

and/or  operational  purposes.  Also  given  is  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  monitored  for  any 
purpose and, for comparative purposes, those for ecological status. Figure 4.2 shows that 26% 

of approximately 1 500 river water bodies were monitored for chemical status. 

Figure 4.2 

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

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
In  Slovakia  as  a  whole,  97%  of  the  water  bodies  that  are  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical 

status were monitored for the substances causing failure as part of the operational monitoring 
programme.  

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

biota for status assessment 
Monitoring for status assessment 

Requirements 

Article 8(1) of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes in order 

to provide inter alia a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. 
The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of priority substances, frequency and numbers 

of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of status. According to 
in  2009),  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 
the  EQS  Directive 

(version 

force 

in 

hexachlorobutadiene  have  to  be  monitored  in  biota  for  status  assessment,  unless  Member 
States  derived  a  standard  for  another  matrix,  which  is  at  least  as  protective  as  the  biota 
standard.  

Spatial coverage 

All 41 Priority Substances and groups of priority substances were monitored in water in both 

RBDs.  

Slovakia  reports  that  9.5%  and  26%  of  river  water  bodies  are  monitored  for  more  than  10 

Priority  Substances  for  the  Vistula  and  Danube  RBDs,  respectively.  This  equates  to  26%  of 
river water bodies in Slovakia. It was also reported that 74% of river water bodies in Slovakia 

were  not  monitored  for  any  Priority  Substances  (65  and  1059  in  the  Vistula  and  Danube, 
respectively). 

For  biota,  Slovakia  has  monitored  the  required  three  Priority  Substances  in  the  Vistula  RBD 
for status  assessment. Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were monitored 

for biota at one river monitoring site only in the Vistula RBD. No information was reported to 
WISE for the Danube RBD. Slovakia subsequently clarified that mercury, hexachlorobenzene 

and hexachlorobutadiene were also monitored in biota for status assessment in 50 sites in this 
RBD. 

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 

59 

 
 
cycle and at least monthly every year, respectively. Monitoring in biota for status assessment 

should take place at least once every year according to the EQS Directive. In all cases greater 
intervals can be applied by Member States if justified on the basis of technical knowledge and 

expert judgement. 

Monitoring  frequencies  in  water  are  reported  for  41  Priority  Substances  at  site  level  in  both 

RBDs. In both the Vistula and Danube RBDs all Priority Substances were monitored 12 times 
per year (depending on the sites, monitoring took place every one, two or three or four years). 

Where  monitoring  in  biota  occurred,  the  sampling  frequency  was  once  every  year.  The 
reported frequencies in both water and biota are therefore exactly the minimum recommended 

frequencies. 

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  substances12  that  tend  to  accumulate  in  sediment  and/or  biota,  for  the  purpose  of 
long-term trend assessment 

Spatial coverage 

Slovakia  has  monitored  two  (mercury  and  hexachlorobenzene)  of  the  required  14  Priority 
Substances  in  sediments  in  three  sites  in  the  Vistula  RBD.  Although  no  information  was 

reported  to  WISE  for  the  Danube  RBD,  Slovakia  subsequently  clarified  that  these  two 
substances  were  also  monitored  in  sediment  for  trend  assessment  in  64  sites  of  the  Danube 

RBD.  

Frequencies 

Monitoring should take place at least once every three years, unless technical knowledge and 
expert judgment justify another interval.  

Where  Priority  Substances  are  monitored  for  long-term  trends  in  river  water  bodies  (in  the 
Vistula RBD only) this is reported to occur once per year, and therefore is above the minimum 

recommended frequency. 

12  Anthracene,  brominated  diphenylether, 

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

chloroalkanes,  DEHP, 

cadmium,  C10-13 

60 

 
                                                      
Monitoring of Priority Substances that are discharged in each RBD  

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  states,  in  Section  1.3.1  (Design  of  surveillance  monitoring),  that 
“Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year 

during  the  period  covered  by  a  river  basin  management  plan  for  [inter  alia]:  priority  list 
pollutants  which  are  discharged  into  the  river  basin  or  sub-basin.”  Section  1.3.2  (Design  of 

operational  monitoring)  of  the  Directive  states  that  “In  order  to  assess  the  magnitude  of  the 
pressure to  which bodies of surface water  are subject  Member States shall monitor for those 

quality elements which are indicative of the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject. 
In order to assess the impact of these pressures, Member States shall monitor as relevant [inter 

alia]:  all  priority  substances  discharged,  and  other  pollutants  discharged  in  significant 
quantities.” 

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

In the Vistula RBD only one Priority Substance (Nickel) was in an inventory and discharged; 
this substance was also monitored.  

In the Danube RBD, 18 Priority substances were included in inventories and discharged. These 

substances were all monitored.  

Performance of analytical methods used  

For 31 Priority Substances and groups of Priority Substances, the analytical methods used meet 
the minimum performance criteria laid down in  Article 4(1) of the  Commission Directive on 
technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status13 for the strictest 
standard  applied.  For  the  remaining  10  reported,  the  analytical  methods  complied  with  the 

requirements laid down in Article 4(2) of that Directive.  

The  method  of  dealing  with  measurements  of  Priority  Substances  below  the  limit  of 
quantification  is  reported  to  be  as  specified  in  Article  5  of  the  Commission  Directive  on 
technical  specifications  for  chemical  analysis  and  monitoring  of  water  status.  However,  the 

actual review of the RBMPs revealed that a different approach was undertaken. It is stated that 
if  the  limit  of  quantification  of  the  best  available  method  was  higher  than  the  environmental 

quality  standard  and  if  all  the  measured  values  were  below  this  best  available  quantification 
limit,  this  result  was  considered  in  the  assessment  of  compliance  with  the  environmental 

quality standard values for chemical status as “assessment complies with environmental quality 

13   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 

61 

 
                                                      
standard" and in such cases, the reliability of status evaluation was reduced. This method is not 

in  line  with  the  requirements  of  Article  5  of  the  Commission  Directive  on  technical 
specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status. 

4.1.2  Chemical Status of surface water bodies 

Member States  are  required to  report the  year on which the  assessment of chemical  status  is 

based. This  may be the  year that the surface water body was monitored. In case of  grouping 
this may be the year in which monitoring took place in the surface water bodies within a group 

that  are  used  to  extrapolate  results  to  non-monitored  surface  water  bodies  within  the  same 
group. The chemical assessments were carried out in unspecified years between 2009 and 2012 

in both RBDs. 

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

the  map  below.  This  is  based  on  the  most  recent  assessment  of  status.  Map  4.1  shows  that 
around 98% of water bodies are at Good status and only 2% are failing to achieve good. 

Map 4.1 

 Chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Slovakia  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) 

62 

GoodFailing to achieve to goodUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
The chemical status of rivers in Slovakia for the first and second RBMPs is given in Table 4.1. 

Between the two cycles there was a small increase in the proportion of river water bodies with 
good chemical status from 95% to 98% and decrease in the proportion failing to achieve good 

status from  5 % to 2 %. This pattern occurred generally across all RBDs and Natural/Heavily 
Modified/Artificial water body categories.  

Table 4.1 

Chemical  status of surface water bodies  in Slovakia  for the second and first 
RBMP.  Note:  the  number  in  parenthesis  next  to  the  water  category  is  the 

number  of  water  bodies.  Note:  Chemical  status  assessment  is  based  on  the 
standards  laid  down  in  EQS  Directive  2008/105/EC  (version  in  force  on  13 

January  2009).  Some  Member  States  did  not  implement  the  Directive  in  the 
first RBMPs as the transposition deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption 

of the first RBMPs. 

Good 

Number 

% 

Failing to achieve good 
Number 

% 

Unknown 

Number 

% 

Category 

second RBMP 

Rivers (1510) 

1473 

98% 

37 

2% 

first RBMP 

Rivers (1760) 

1673 

95. % 

87 

5. % 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 4.3 shows the confidence in the classification of chemical status for the second RBMP. 
In Slovakia, overall, 26% of surface water bodies (all rivers) were classified for chemical status 

with  medium  confidence  and  74%  were  classified  with  low  confidence.  Confidence  in  the 
classification of chemical status for the first RBMPs was not reported. Expert judgement has 

been used to classify 74% of the river water bodies but the approach is not clear: The RBMPs 
state  the  approach  used  was  to  transfer  results  but  only  in  adjacent  water  bodies  in  the 

“direction of diffusion” and additionally by assessing the occurrence of pollution sources. It is 
important  to  note  in  addition  that  the  inventories  of  emissions  are  incomplete  –  they  do  not 

include all (groups of) priority substances. It is therefore unclear whether all relevant pressures 
have  been  identified  for  the  water  bodies  that  are  not  monitored  but  assessed  as  in  good 

chemical status. 

Figure 4.3 

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

Slovakia based on the most recently assessed status/potential  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: WISE electronic reporting 

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

expected  by  2015.  The  chemical  status  reported  in  the  second  RBMP  matches  what  was 
expected. 

The  assessment  of  chemical  status  for  the  second  RBMPs  was  expected  to  be  based  on  the 
standards laid down in EQS Directive 2008/105/EC14 (version in force on 13 January 200915). 
Some Member States did not implement the Directive in the first RBMPs as the transposition 
deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMPs.  

14   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 

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

64 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.4 

Chemical status of surface water bodies in Slovakia 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 RBMPs was 2009 to 2014. The year of the 
assessment of status for the first RBMP is not known 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

More information on the chemical status in each RBD and water category can be found on the 
website of the European Environment Agency16. 

Directive  2013/39/EU  amended  the  EQS  Directive.  In  particular,  it  sets  more  stringent 
environmental  quality  standards  for  seven  substances17.  Member  States  were  required  to 
indicate  if  the  new  standards  caused  the  status  of  the  surface  water  body  to  appear  to 

deteriorate. This was the case for 2% surface water bodies for benzo(a)pyrene and for 1% of 
surface water bodies for fluoranthene and lead. 

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  Slovakia  is  shown  in  Figure  4.5.  Good  chemical  status  of  all 

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

compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 

65 

 
 
 
                                                      
surface water bodies is expected to be achieved by the end of the third planning cycle in both 

of the RBDs. 

Figure 4.5 

Expected date of achievement of good chemical status of surface water bodies 

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

Priority substances causing the failure of good chemical status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Member  States  were  expected  to  report  exceedances  based  on  the  revised,  more  stringent 
standards from Directive 2013/39/EU, but in all likelihood, Slovakia reported the exceedances 

below  based  on  the  initial  standards.  (Information  on  the  effect  of  the  new  standards  is 
however available in the section above.) 

The Priority Substances causing the greatest proportion of water bodies to fail good chemical 
status were di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) (0.79% of all surface water bodies are failing to 

achieve good status because of DEHP) and mercury and its compounds (0.66% of water bodies 
failing to achieve good status). 

The “top-10” in  terms  of the proportion of water bodies failing because  of the substance are 
shown in Figure 4.6.  

For surface water bodies in Slovakia in general, the largest proportion of exceedances were for 
the  annual  average-environmental  quality  standard  for  di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate  (DEHP), 
alachlor,  mercury,  total  Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene  +Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene,  fluoranthene    and 
trichloromethane.  Exceedances  of  maximum  acceptable  concentration  environmental  quality 

66 

 
 
 
standards  were  largest  for  mercury.  In  terms  of  exceedance  of  both  the  annual  average  and 

maximum allowable concentration environmental quality standards, the largest proportion was 
also for mercury. 

Figure 4.6 

The  top-10  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical 
status in surface water bodies in Slovakia 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances 

According  to  article  8(a)  of  the  EQS  Directive18,  eight  priority  substances  and  groups  of 
priority  substances  are  behaving  like  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulable  and  toxic 
substances19.  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.  

The  influence  of  ubiquitous  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  Priority  Substances  on  the 

chemical status of river water bodies was assessed as limited. While mercury in biota and one 
group  of  PAHs  did  cause  failure  to  achieve  good  status  in  a  small  proportion  of  river  water 

bodies (0.66 and 0.2% respectively), other Priority Substances environmental quality standards 

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

dioxins, hexabromocyclodecane and heptachlor 

67 

 
 
                                                      
were  also  exceeded  in  these  water  bodies.  However,  the  full  extent  of  the  influence  of  these 

substances is not known because a large majority of the water bodies are not monitored and are 
classified on the basis of expert judgement. Monitoring of biota for status assessment is limited 

to a single site.  

This is illustrated in the 2018 State of Water report of the European Environment Agency20. 

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

Slovakia reports that all Priority Substances and groups of priority substances are used in the 

classification of chemical status and are also monitored. 

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. 

Slovakia reported that all of the environmental quality standards laid down in Part A of Annex 
I of Directive 2008/105/EC had been applied for assessment of the chemical status of bodies of 

surface water.  

However, it was also reported that alternative and/or additional standards for particular Priority 

Substances had been applied for 41 substances in water applied at the International Scale in the 
river water bodies in both RBDs; many of these are the same as the values in the Directive. It 

was also reported that alternative and/or additional standards for particular Priority Substances 
had  been  applied  for  three  substances  in  biota-fish  at  the  International  Scale  and  three 

substances 
the  National  Scale.  These  substances  are  mercury, 
hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene and the environmental quality standards reported 

for  sediment  at 

to WISE include those in the Directive (version in force in 2009) alongside others. No further 
information was found in the RBMPs. The actual environmental quality standards used remain 

unclear. 

Use of mixing zones  

Article  4  of  EQS  Directive  provides  Member  States  with  the  option  of  designating  mixing 
zones  adjacent  to  points  of  discharge.  Concentrations  of  substances  may  exceed  the  relevant 

environmental quality standard within such mixing zones if they do not affect the compliance 

20https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water  (p40-41  of  the  report).  Also  available  in  a  more 

interactive format 

68 

 
                                                      
of  the  rest  of  the  body  of  surface  water  with  those  standards.  Member  States  that  designate 

mixing zones are required to include within their RBMPs a description of: the approaches and 
methodologies applied to define such zones, and; measures taken with a view to reducing the 

extent of the mixing zones in the future. 

Mixing zones have not been designated. 

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. 

In both RBDs, natural background concentrations for metals and their compounds are reported 
to be taken into consideration where such concentrations prevent compliance with the relevant 

environmental quality standard.  

Water  quality  parameters  that  affect  the  bioavailability  of  metals  have  also  been  taken  into 
account when assessing monitoring results against relevant environmental quality standards in 

both RBDs. 

4.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

In comparing the number of sites and water bodies monitored for operational and surveillance 
purposes between the first and second RBMPs, there appears to be a net decrease in monitoring 

sites and surface water bodies monitored for operational purposes (a decrease of 324 sites and 
174 waterbodies). For surveillance monitoring, the number of sites has increased by 292 and 

the number of water bodies has increased by 181 since the first RBMP. 

There is no specific mention of the changes in the monitoring programme for chemical status 

assessment in either of the RBMPs.  

Between  the  two  RBMPs  there  was  a  small  increase  in  the  proportion  of  river  water  bodies 

with good chemical status from 95% to 98% and decrease in the proportion failing to achieve 
good  status  from    5  %  to    2  %.  This  pattern  occurred  generally  across  both  RBDs  and 
Natural/Heavily Modified/Artificial water body categories. 

69 

 
Since  the  first  RBMP,  Slovakia  has  carried  out  some  limited  monitoring  of  selected  Priority 

Substances in sediment and biota.  

Information on Priority Substances causing failure of good chemical status for the first cycle 

was not systematically reported making comparison with the second cycle difficult. However, 
examination of the first RBMPs showed that DEHP was also causing the greatest proportion of 

failures followed by mercury.  

Slovakia reported that eight Priority Substances improved from failing to achieve good status 

to  good  chemical  status  since  the  first  RBMP  including  di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate  (DEHP) 
(1%) and mercury (1%). 

4.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation: “Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of 
the RBDs, in the 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. Regarding characterisation, for instance, reference conditions should 
be established for all BQEs” 

Assessment: All priority substances (including discharged substances) are monitored at the 
minimum recommended frequency and used in the assessment of chemical status. However, 

the  spatial  coverage  of  monitoring  is  limited  to  about  a  quarter  of  water  bodies.  Expert 
judgment is used to classify a very significant proportion of water bodies, and the basis for 
this expert judgment is not entirely clear. Almost all water bodies classified on the basis of 

expert judgment are in good chemical status. However, the inventories of emissions do not 
include  all  priority  substances,  so  it  is  unclear  whether  all  relevant  pressures  have  been 

identified  for  these  non-monitored  water  bodies.  The  confidence  of  the  assessment  is  low 
for a significant  proportion of water bodies. According to  the information provided in  the 

RBMPs, the method for dealing with values below the limit of quantification is not in line 
with Article 5 of the Commission Directive on technical specifications for chemical analysis 

and monitoring of water status. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  More  information  needs  to  be  included  in  the  RBMPs  on  Priority 
Substances, such as a detailed description of which Priority Substances are monitored in 

which  water  bodies  and,  when  substances  are  not  assessed,  a  clear  explanation  of  the 
reasons, in order to fully assess the chemical status. 

70 

 
Assessment: The second RBMP has provided the necessary information on which Priority 

Substances  are  monitored  where  they  are  monitored  and  at  what  frequencies.  A  clear 
explanation of the reasons for substances being monitored or not monitored (for example in 

sediments  and/or  biota)  cannot  be  readily  found  within  the  RBMPs.  Some  progress  has 
therefore been made towards addressing this recommendation and it is partially fulfilled. 

The following two recommendations are assessed jointly: 

  Recommendation:  Complete  the  monitoring  framework,  as  an  adequate  WFD-compliant 
monitoring  and  assessment  framework  is  a  necessary  pre-requisite  to  design  effective 
PoMs and ultimately to achieve the WFD objectives; and, 

  Recommendation: There are a number of gaps in the monitoring programmes which need 
to  be  addressed.  There  is  no  adequate  fish  monitoring  in  rivers,  only  phytoplankton  is 

monitored  in  lakes,  there  is  no  monitoring  of  priority  substances  in  sediments  and  biota, 
and  not  all  priority  substances  were  monitored  in  all  water  bodies.  These  gaps  in  the 

monitoring  design  resulted  in  an  incomplete  status  assessment  of  surface  water  bodies, 
In  particular,  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 
which  has 

improved. 

to  be 

hexachlorobutadiene should be monitored in biota for comparison with the biota standards 
in  the  EQS  Directive,  unless  water  environmental  quality  standards  providing  an 

equivalent level of protection are derived, and trend monitoring in sediment or biota for at 
least the substances specified in EQS Directive, Article 3(3), will also need to be reflected 

in the next RBMP. 

Assessment:  

Slovakia  reports  that  about  a  quarter  of  river  water  bodies  are  monitored  for  Priority 
the  recommended  minimum 
Substances.  The  monitoring  frequencies  applied  are 

frequencies. It appears that all Priority Substances discharged are monitored in both RBDs 
based on the data reported. 74% of water bodies were classified with low confidence using 

expert judgement. 

With  regards  to  status  assessment,  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene 

have  been  monitored  in  biota  at  one  river  monitoring  site  in  the  Vistula  RBD  and  in  50 
sites in the Danube RBD. The EQS Directive environmental quality standards are reported 

to have been used.  

With regard to trend assessment, arrangements are reported to not be in place for the long-

term trend analysis in either of the two RBDs. However, Slovakia then clarified that  2 of 

71 

 
the 14 of the Priority Substances required were monitored in sediment for trend assessment 

in the Vistula RBD, and in 64 sites in the Danube RBD.   

For  31  Priority  Substances  the  analytical  methods  used  meet  the  minimum  performance 

criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of Commission Directive on technical specifications for 
chemical analysis and monitoring of water status21 for the strictest standard applied. For the 
remaining 10 reported, the analytical methods complied with the requirements laid down in 
Article 4(2) of that Directive.  

In  conclusion,  progress  has  been  made  with  both  of  the  recommendations  and  they  are 
partially fulfilled. 

21   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 

 
 
 
                                                      
  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 Slovakia reported under the second cycle was 102 

(Table  5.1);  29  groundwater  bodies  were  not  subject  to  monitoring  for  quantitative  status 
(Table 5.2). This means that 28% of groundwater bodies were not monitored. For these water 

bodies no evidence could be found to indicate that they had been classified by grouping.  

The number of groundwater bodies increased from 101 in the first RBMP to 102 in the second 

RBMP and the total groundwater body area remained almost the same. 

Table 5.1 

Proportion of groundwater bodies in Slovakia monitored for quantitative 
status 

RBD code 

SK30000 

SK40000 

No of groundwater bodies 
with quantitative monitoring 

Total No. 
groundwater bodies 

% of total groundwater bodies monitored 
for quantitative status 

4 

69 

4 

98 

100% 

70.41% 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Table 5.2 

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

RBD code 

Total 
ground
water 
bodies 
directly 
monito-
red 

CHE – 
Chemi-
cal 
status 

DWD – 
Drink-
ing 
water - 
WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.i 

INT – 
Interna-
tional 
network 
of other 
interna-
tional 
conven-
tion 

Monitoring Purpose 

OPE – 
Opera-
tional 
monitor
-ing 

QUA – 
Quanti-
tative 
status 

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

SK30000 

SK40000 

4 

70 

2 

37 

2 

3 

60 

2 

43 

4 

69 

RIV – 
Interna-
tional 
network 
of a 
river 
conven-
tion 
(include
-ing 
bilateral 
agree-
ments) 

17 

SOE - 
EIONET 
State of 
Environ-
ment 
monitor-
ing 

SUR – 
Survei
llance 
moni-
toring 

TRE – 
Chemi-
cal 
trend 
assess-
ment 

4 

70 

4 

70 

4 

70 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The number of monitored groundwater bodies increased from 66 in the first RBMP to 73 in the 
second RBMP. The number of monitoring sites for quantitative status is listed in Table 5.3 and 
shows a slight decrease from 1 507 in the first RBMP to 1 502 in the second RBMP. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
34 of 98 groundwater bodies are identified as drinking water protected areas, allocated in the 

Danube RBD (Danube). No information for this category was provided for the Vistula RBD. 

Table 5.3 

Number of groundwater monitoring sites in Slovakia and their purpose  

Monitoring Purpose 

RBD code 

Total 
ground-
water 
monito-
ing sites 

DWD – 
Drink-
ing 
water - 
WFD 
Annex 
IV.1.i 

INT – 
Internatio-
nal network 
of other 
internatio-
nal 
convention 

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

OPE – 
Operatio-
nal 
monitor-
ing 

QUA – 
Quanti-
tative 
status 

RIV – 
Internatio-
nal network 
of a river 
convention 
(including 
bilateral 
agreements) 

SOE - 
EIONET 
State of 
Environ-
ment 
monitoring 

SUR – 
Surveil-
lance 
monitor
-ing 

TRE - 
Chemical 
trend 
assessment 

SK30000 

42 

SK40000 

2 244 

3 

61 

226 

15 

1 091 

7 

408 

39 

1 463 

569 

19 

583 

12 

164 

41 

1 612 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

5.1.2  Assessment and classification of quantitative status for groundwater 

Map  5.1  displays  the  most  recently  assessed  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies.  It 
shows that 72 of 102 groundwater bodies (71%) were of good quantitative status, three (3%) 
are failing good status and 27 groundwater bodies (26%) are of unknown status (Figure 5.1). In 

terms of area this means that about 3% by area are failing good quantitative status and 23% by 
area  are  of  unknown  status.  Figure  5.2  shows  that  all  groundwater  bodies  with  good 
quantitative status have been classified with high confidence.  

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  quantitative  status  declined  from  five 
groundwater bodies in the first RBMP to three in the second RBMP (from 5.4% to 2.8% of the 

total groundwater body area). The number of groundwater bodies with unknown status slightly 
increased from 26 to 27. 

For both  river basin  districts  water balance was  assessed by  a  comparison of annual  average 
groundwater  abstraction  against  the  ‘available  groundwater  resource’  for  every  groundwater 

body.  

The  reasons  for  the  failure  of  good  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  are  shown  in 
Figure 5.3. Three groundwater bodies are failing good status due to failing the water balance 
test,  which  means  that  the  long-term  annual  average  rate  of  groundwater  abstraction  is 

exceeding  the  available  groundwater  resource.  The  expected  date  of  achievement  of  good 
quantitative  status  in  Slovakia  is  at  the  end  of  the  3rd  RBMP  in  the  year  2027  as  shown  in 
Figure 5.4. 

In both river basin districts the criterion of ‘available groundwater resource’ has been partially 

applied in accordance with WFD Article 2(27). From all environmental objectives only water 
balance,  the  surface  water  objectives  and  diminution  of  surface  water  status  has  been 

74 

 
 
 
considered in the status assessment. Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems and saline 

intrusion have not been considered. 

In  total  eight  groundwater  bodies  (8%)  are  at  risk  of  failing  good  quantitative  status.  Two 

groundwater  bodies  are  at  risk  of  failing  good  quantitative  status  due  to  harm  to  actual  or 
potential legitimate uses or functions of groundwater and seven due to diminution of the status 

of groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems. 

Map 5.1 

Map of the most recently assessed quantitative status of groundwater bodies  

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2(2)(4). 
Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

75 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
Figure 5.1  Quantitative status of groundwater bodies in Slovakia 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  period  of  the 

assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2004 to 2012. 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 Slovakia based on the most recent assessment of status  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

76 

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

based on the most recent assessment of status  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 5.4  Expected date of achievement of good quantitative and good chemical status 
of  groundwater  bodies  in  Slovakia.  102  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  bodies  with  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  have  not  been  reported. 
However,  for  seven  groundwater  bodies  risk  is  related  to  associated  surface  waters. 

77 

 
 
 
 
Groundwater associated surface waters have been considered in status assessment in all river 

basin districts.  

No groundwater bodies are linked with groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems and there 

is  no related risk. Groundwater dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  have not  been considered in 
status assessment. 

5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

All 101 groundwater bodies from the first RBMP remained unchanged. Only one groundwater 
body has been added. 

Assessment  of  the  RBMP  and  background  documents  found  that  the  RBMP  of  the  Danube 
RBD  summarised  the  evaluation  of  the  progress  made  from  the  first  planning  cycle.  Both 

RBMPs (the Danube and the Vistula) state that, in relation to quantitative monitoring, in order 
to  evaluate  the  status  of  habitats  and  species  of  European  importance,  the  State  Nature 

Protection [Agency/organisation] had been developing (between 2013 and 2015) the complex 
information  and  monitoring  system  (KIMS)  required.  It  was  stated  that  once  finalised,  the 

status of habitats (favourable/unfavourable) would be evaluated and regular monitoring would 
be carried out of groundwater bodies in an interdisciplinary way. 

The groundwater monitoring situation did slightly improve, but 28% of the groundwater bodies 
remain  unmonitored.  The  assessment  of  RBMP  and  background  documents  found  the 

following  description,  which  does  not  fully  explain  why  28%  of  the  groundwater  bodies 
remain  unmonitored:  “The  groundwater  monitoring  program  for  2009  to  2012  covered  all 

groundwater  bodies  in  poor  quantitative  status.  In  addition,  all  other  groundwater  bodies  in 
quaternary sediments  and in  pre-quaternary rocks  in  good status were monitored, where the 

share  of  groundwater  use  exceeds  10%  of  the  documented  quantities  and  with  at  least  one 
monitoring  facility.  The  groundwater  quantity  monitoring  program  is  aimed  exclusively  at 

bodies  of  groundwater  in  quaternary  sediments  and  groundwater  bodies  in  pre-  quaternary 
rocks. Quantitative monitoring does not cover 27 geothermal waters.” 

The status situation improved from 5.4% of the total groundwater body area failing good status 
in the first RBMP to 2.8% in the second RBMP. 

5.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

on the following: 

78 

 
  Recommendation:  There  are  a  number  of  gaps  in  the  monitoring  programmes  which 

need to be addressed.  

Assessment: This recommendation regarding monitoring has not been fulfilled. The gap in 

groundwater  quantity  monitoring  is  still  significant  (28%  of  groundwater  bodies  are  not 
monitored for quantitative status) and remains unchanged. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  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  Slovakia  reported  for  the  second  cycle  was  102 

(Table 2.3). In total 28 (27.5%) groundwater bodies (27 geothermal groundwater bodies and 1 
groundwater body on pre-quaternary rocks)  were not subject to surveillance monitoring (Table 

7).  45  of  the  102  were  subject  to  operational  monitoring.  For  groundwater  bodies  not 
monitored, no evidence could be found to indicate that they had been classified by grouping.  

The number of groundwater bodies increased from 101 in the first RBMP to 102 in the second 
RBMP  and  also  the  total  groundwater  body  area  remained  almost  the  same.  All  101 

groundwater bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP. 

The number of groundwater bodies with surveillance monitoring increased from 62 in the first 
RBMP  to  74  in  the  second  RBMP.  The  number  of  monitoring  sites  (as  listed  in  Table  5.3) 

showed an increase from 130 in the first RBMP to 176 in the second RBMP. The number of 
operational  monitoring  sites  decreased  significantly  since  the  first  RBMP,  from  1 106  (in  60 

groundwater bodies) to 415 (in 45 groundwater bodies). 

Not all substances causing risk of deterioration in chemical status were subject to monitoring. 

In the Danube RBMP no explanation was found why BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene 
and xylene) and Petroleum products were not covered by monitoring. Except for pH, all other 

WFD  core  parameters  (nitrate,  ammonium,  electrical  conductivity  and  oxygen)  were 
monitored22.  Seven  groundwater  bodies  (7%)  were  reported  to  be  at  risk  of  failing  good 
chemical status (Figure 13). 

22  Slovakia subsequently clarified that for the monitoring of groundwater chemical status, 183 indicators  (terrain 
characteristics, the basic physical and chemical parameters, trace elements, the relevant substances, pesticides 
and other specific organic compounds) were established. They are divided into basic and supplementary sets 
of  indicators.  The  basic  set  of  indicators  was  determined  at  all  sampling  points.  The  scope  of  the 
supplementary set was determined only in selected water bodies depending on the type of pollution affecting 
it.  (e.g.  pesticides  are  monitored  in  agricultural  areas  and  volatile  hydrocarbons  in  industrial  areas).  All 
substances  causing  risk  of  deterioration  in  chemical  status  were  subject  to  monitoring.  In  the  Danube  and 
Vistula  RBMP  all  BTEX  (benzene,  toluene,  ethylbenzene  and  xylene)  and  petroleum  products  were 
monitored.  WFD  core  parameters  (nitrate,  ammonium,  pH,  electrical  conductivity  and  oxygen)  were 
monitored. Only the 27 geothermal GWBs and 1 GWB in pre-quaternary rock were not monitored.  

80 

 
                                                      
 
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  64  of  102  groundwater  bodies  (63%)  were  of  good  chemical 

status, 11 groundwater bodies (11%) were failing good status and 27 groundwater bodies were 
of  unknown  status  (26%).  In  terms  of  area  this  means  that  about  17%  were  failing  good 

chemical status. Figure 6.2 shows the confidence in status classifications, which is low or even 
unknown for about 60% of the groundwater bodies. The number of groundwater bodies with 

unknown status increased from 26 in the first RBMP to 27 in the second RBMP.  

Map 6.1  Map  of  chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Slovakia  based  on  the  most 

recently assessed status of the groundwater water bodies 

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2(4)(5). 
Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

The total number of groundwater bodies failing good chemical status decreased since the first 

RBMP from 13 (13%) to 11 (11%) groundwater bodies (see Figure 6.2) (from 18% to 17% of 
the total groundwater body area). The expected date of achievement of good chemical status in 

Slovakia  is  shown  in  Figure  5.4.  All  groundwater  bodies  are  expected  to  achieve  good 
chemical status by the end of the third cycle. 

81 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
Figure 6.1 

Chemical status of groundwater bodies in Slovakia for the second RBMP, 

for the first RBMP and expected in 2015. The number in the parenthesis is 
the number  of groundwater bodies for both cycles. Note the period  of the 

assessment  of  status  for  the  second  RBMP  was  in  2011.  The  year  of  the 
assessment of status for the first RBMP was 2007 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Figure 6.2 

Confidence in the classification of chemical status of groundwater  bodies 
in Slovakia based on the most recent assessment of status  

Source: WISE electronic reports  

82 

 
 
 
The reasons for the failure of good chemical status of groundwater bodies are shown in Figure 

6.3.  For  all  11  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 6.3 

Reasons  for  failing  good  chemical  status  in  Slovakia  for  the  most  recent 
assessment of status  

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Figure  6.423  shows  the  pollutants  causing  failure  of  status  and  Figure  6.5  shows  a  sustained 
upward trend. In the Danube RBD the calculation of the extent of exceedance of a groundwater 
quality standard or a groundwater threshold value is based on the groundwater body area. Due 

to no exceedances occurring in the Vistula RBD, a method was not reported. 

Groundwater  threshold  values  have  not  been  established  for  all  pollutants  or  indicators  of 
pollution  causing  a  risk  of  failure  of  good  chemical  status.  No  explicit  indication  was  found 
that all Groundwater Directive24 Annex II substances have been considered, it is mentioned in 
the  RBMP  that  only  some  substances  were  considered25.  In  all  RBDs  natural  background 
levels have been considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values.  

23  It  should  be  noted  that  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  reported  as  failing  good  status  due  to  nitrates  is 

significantly lower than indicated in the Slovak reporting under the Nitrates Directive. 

24   Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection 

of groundwater against pollution and deterioration  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006L0118-20140711  

25 Slovakia subsequently clarified that threshold values have been set for all substances listed in Annex II, Part B 
of Directive 2006/118 / EC. This was in turn reflected in the Government Regulation Collection Act 282/2010.   

83 

 
 
                                                      
 
A trend and trend reversal methodology was available and assessments have been carried out 
in all RBDs. 

Figure 6.426  Top groundwater pollutants causing failure of good chemical status in 
Slovakia 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Figure 6.5 

Top pollutants with upward trends in groundwater bodies in Slovakia 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

26 Please see footnote 22. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
6.1.3  Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/  or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

Groundwater  bodies  with  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  have  not  been  reported  and 

associated  surface  waters  were  not  considered  in  the  status  assessment  although  for  one 
groundwater body, a risk was related to associated surface waters. 

Groundwater bodies with groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have not been reported 
and  groundwater  dependent  ecosystems  were  not  considered  in  the  assessment  of  status 
although for one groundwater body, a risk was related to these ecosystems27.  

Groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems 

have  not  been  considered  in  the  establishment  of  groundwater  threshold  values,  although  as 
mentioned, risks have been associated.  

Figure 6.6 shows the percentage of groundwater bodies at risk of failing good chemical status 
and good quantitative status. 

Figure 6.6 

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

Source: WISE electronic reports  

27  Slovakia  subsequently  clarified  that  the  impact  assessment  on  groundwater  body  contamination  on  the 
terrestrial ecosystems has not been compiled at the time of submission due to a lack of information.  For the 
2nd planning cycle, The State Nature Conservation Agency of Slovak Republic (SNCA SR) has proposed a list 
of sites, significant in the context of the groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems. For the assessment of 
the status of habitats and species, the SNCA SR has been building a comprehensive information monitoring 
system since 2013. After its completion, the status of habitats will be evaluated and then regular monitoring 
will be carried out in an interdisciplinary manner, This will be reported for the 3rd RBMPs  

85 

 
 
                                                      
 
6.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

All 101 groundwater bodies from the first RBMP remained unchanged. Only one (geothermal) 
groundwater body was added. 

The RBMP and background documents stated that, in comparison to the first cycle, chemical 
status was assessed in accordance with the requirements in Groundwater Directive28 Annex III 
only for those quaternary and pre-aquatic groundwater bodies, which were classified in the first 
RBMP  as  being  of  poor  chemical  status.  It  was  also  mentioned  that  a  trend  assessment 
methodology had been developed. The results of the trend assessments were one of the criteria 

for assessing the status of groundwater bodies. 

The  level  of  monitoring  has  improved  as  more  groundwater  bodies  were  covered  by  more 

surveillance  monitoring  sites.  However,  around  28  %  of  groundwater  bodies  (27  geothermal 
GWBs  and  1  GW  in  pre-quaternary  rocks)  were  not  monitored.    Slovakia  clarified  that  all 

substances  causing  risk  were  monitored  even  though  initially  the  assessment  found  the 
contrary. 

Chemical  status  improved  marginally  with  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good 
chemical status decreasing from 13 to 11 and the percentage of the total groundwater body area 

failing good chemical status decreasing from 18% to 17%. 

6.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  There  are  a  number  of  gaps  in  the  monitoring  programmes  which 

need to be addressed.  

Assessment: The recommendation regarding monitoring of groundwater bodies has not 
been  fulfilled.  The  coverage  of  surveillance  monitoring  was  increased  but  the  gap  is 

still  significant  (about  28%  of  the  groundwater  bodies).  Not  all  substances/indicators 
causing risk are subject to operational monitoring. 

28   Groundwater Directive (GWD): Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 

December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration. 

86 

 
                                                      
  Recommendation: A methodology for trend analysis in groundwater assessment should 
be  in  place,  even  if  it  was  not  possible  to  carry  out  such  an  analysis  during  the  first 
RBMP cycle. This needs to be in place for the second cycle. 

Assessment:  The  recommendation  regarding  trend  assessment  has  been  fulfilled.  A 
trend analysis was carried out for the second RBMPs and trend reversal methodology is 

reported as being available and assessments have been performed in both RBDs. 

87 

 
 
  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 

The WFD requires a review of designation every six years. The number of river water bodies 

designated as heavily modified water bodies has increased since the first RBMP: in the Danube 
RBD, the number has increased from 53 to 85 river heavily modified water bodies (from 3.2% 

to  5.9%  of  total  river  water  bodies)  and  in  the  Vistula  RBD,  one  river  water  body  has  been 
designated as a heavily modified water body compared to none in the first RBMP (Figure 31). 

There are 23 water bodies which were originally reservoirs created by damming rivers, which 
have subsequently been designated as river heavily modified water bodies. 

The  number  of  designated  river  artificial  water  bodies  increased  significantly  since  the  first 
RBMP from seven (0.4% of total river water bodies) to 75 (5.2% of total river water bodies, 
see Figure 7.1). 

The  main  water  use  for  which  river  water  bodies  have  been  designated  as  heavily  modified 
water  bodies  is  for  flood  protection,  followed  in  some  cases  by  hydropower,  irrigation, 

tourism/recreation, industry and drinking water supply. The main physical alterations of river 
heavily  modified  water  body  are  weirs/dams/reservoirs  and  channelisation/straightening/bed 

stabilisation/bank reinforcement. 

When defining heavily modified or artificial water bodies, as in the first planning cycle, a step-

by-step approach that follows the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document No. 
429 was used.  

The  national  methodology  describes  how  the  significant  adverse  effects  of  restoration 
measures  on  the  use  and  the  wider  environment  (Article  4(3)(a))  have  been  defined.  In 

assessing the significance of the adverse effects of proposed measures on other water uses, the 
socio-economic aspects of the region have been taken into account: for example in the case of 

flood protection, this has considered the degree of direct threat to protected territories and to 
land owners; in  the case of hydropower, losses  of electricity  generation have been  compared 

29https://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 

88 

 
                                                      
with benefits  for improving water status for large hydropower plants. No further information 

was  found  on  specific  criteria  agreed  at  national  level,  although  decisions  for  this  type  of 
assessment are possibly taken on case-by-case basis at water body level. 

If the effect of the proposed restoration measures was shown to be significant on the use or the 
wider environment, the water body was also evaluated in terms of other means to achieve the 

beneficial  objectives  provided  by  the  hydromorphological  alterations.  In  the  Vistula  RBMP, 
alternative sources of water for irrigation of agricultural land were assessed as to whether they 

could be a better environmental option. In case of flood protection in the Danube RBMP, flood 
protection  within  municipalities  cannot  be  ensured  by  other  technical  means  that  would 

provide  a  better  environmental  option,  due  to  spatial  limitations  and  the  purpose  of  flood 
protection (protection of life and human health, avoidance of property damage). In the case of 

energy production, alternative sources of energy such as photovoltaic, biomass, or wind power 
plants  to  ensure  electricity  generation  as  alternatives  to  hydroelectric  power  plants  were  not 

considered to provide a better environmental option. 

Figure 7.1 

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

Source: WISE electronic reports  

7.1.2  Definition  of  Good  Ecological  Potential  for  Heavily  Modified  and  Artificial 

Water Bodies 

Good  ecological  potential  is  reported  as  defined  in  both  RBDs,  using  the  Common 
Implementation Strategy Guidance approach (approach based on biological quality elements as 

89 

 
 
illustrated in  Common Implementation Strategy  Guidance No. 430).  In both  RBDs, definition 
of  good  ecological  potential  has  been  carried  out  for  groups  of  heavily  modified  water 
bodies/artificial water bodies of the same use/physical modification. 

Good  ecological  potential  is  also  reported  as  being  defined  by  biological  conditions  in  both 
RBDs. The biological quality elements for which biological values have been derived to define 

maximum  ecological  potential  and  good  ecological  potential  are  reported  as  being 
macrophytes, phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates and phytoplankton. According to the WISE 

reporting, a comparison between good ecological potential and good ecological status has been 
made in both RBDs and mitigation measures for defining good ecological potential have been 

reported at RBD level. 

A methodology for defining good ecological potential in rivers is reported to be in place. The 

preliminary methodology for the classification of heavily modified and artificial water bodies 
has  been  described  in  the  RBMPs  (isolated  channels,  drainage  systems,  multipurpose  and 

drinking water reservoirs). The RBMPs also describe the relevance of the selected biological 
quality elements for the definition of good ecological potential. No information is given with 
regard  to  the  assessment  of  mitigation  measures,  whether  the  effects  of  such  measures  on 

biology  are  assessed,  or  whether  actual  values  for  the  biological  quality  elements  at  good 
ecological potential have been estimated. Slovakia subsequently clarified that the effect of the 

measures could not be assessed yet in 2015, as these were not accomplished yet. 

There  is  one  method  for  assessing  fish  in  rivers  which  is  sensitive  to  altered  habitats  due  to 

both hydrological and morphological changes as well as one method for benthic invertebrates 
which is  only sensitive to morphological  changes. The methods  for  assessing phytoplankton, 

macrophytes and phytobenthos are not sensitive to hydromorphological changes. 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

As  described,  there  have  been  modifications  in  the  extent  of  designation  of  water  bodies  as 
heavily modified or artificial since the first RBMPs.  

In  the  first  planning  cycle,  due  to  the  time-consuming  nature  of  the  final  heavily  modified 
water body definition process, not all candidate heavily modified water bodies were tested for 

final  designation;  the  process  rather  concentrated  on  large  and  medium-sized  streams  with  a 
surface  catchment  area  over  100  km2  and  only  partly  on  streams  with  small  flows  with  a 
surface catchment area below 100 km2. For this reason, most candidate heavily modified water 

30https://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 

90 

 
                                                      
bodies  in  small  flows  were  considered  to  be  natural  bodies  of  surface  water.  The  testing 

process  for  finalising  heavily  modified  water  body  designation  continued  into  the  second 
planning cycle. In 2010-2012, further surface water bodies which were preliminarily identified 

as  heavily  modified  water  bodies  with  small  flows  were  tested  and  part  of  these  were 
designated as heavily modified water bodies and part as artificial water bodies. In a number of 

water  bodies,  the  test  results  have  not  yet  been  confirmed  as  they  are  currently  undergoing 
assessment  processes  based  mainly  on  ichthyologic  aspects  related  to  hydromorphological 

impacts. 

In  addition,  based  on  the  review/update  of  the  hydromorphological  impact  screening  of  all 

surface water bodies, some changes have been identified in the physical characteristics in some 
water  bodies,  in  particular  as  a  result  of  the  implementation  of  small  hydropower  plants 

and/flood  defence  schemes.  All  new  changes  and  their  potential  impact  on  the  ecological 
status/potential of the relevant surface water bodies have been the subject of expert judgment 

and, based on the results of this assessment, were subject to testing for designation as heavily 
modified water bodies or artificial water bodies. 

The methodology used for heavily modified water body designation appears to be very similar 

to that used in the first RBMP, but there is clear evidence that the designations from the first 
planning cycle have been reviewed, as described above. 

In  the  first  cycle,  the  methodology  for  defining  good  ecological  potential  in  Slovakia  was 
incomplete because the assessment methods for the biological quality elements were not fully 

developed.  In the second cycle, good ecological  potential has been reported as being defined 
also  in  terms  of  biology.  The  preliminary  methodology  for  the  classification  of  heavily 

modified  and  artificial  water  bodies  has  been  described  in  the  RBMPs  (isolated  channels, 
drainage systems, multipurpose and drinking water reservoirs). The RBMPs also describe the 

relevance  of  the  selected  biological  quality  elements  for  the  definition  of  good  ecological 
potential. 

7.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

on the following: 

  Recommendation  (report  2012):  The  designation  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies 
should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3). The assessment of significant 
adverse  effects  on  their  use  or  the  environment  and  the  lack  of  significantly  better 

91 

 
environmental options should be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This is needed 

to ensure transparency of the designation process. 

Assessment:  Overall,  the  methodology  for  designation  of  heavily  modified  water 

bodies  has  not  changed  since  the  first  RBMPs  but  there  is  clear  evidence  that  the 
designations  from  the  first  planning  cycle  have  been  reviewed.  The  national 

methodology describes how the significant  adverse effects  of restoration  measures on 
the use and the wider environment have been defined but no specific criteria agreed at 

national level are given (it seems that decisions for this type of assessment are taken on 
case-by-case  basis).  No  information  was  found  on  the  details  of  the  outcome  of 

assessing significant adverse effects for individual water bodies. The assessment in the 
RBMPs  and  background  documents  has  nevertheless  included  information  on  other 

means  to  achieve  the  beneficial  objectives  provided  by  the  hydromorphological 
alterations (e.g. for heavily modified water bodies related to flood protection, drinking 

water supply, energy production and irrigation).  

Based on the information found, it can be concluded that this recommendation has been 
partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation  (report  2012):  The  methodology  for  defining  good  ecological 
potential in Slovakia is incomplete because the assessment methods for the biological 
quality elements are not yet fully developed. More work needs to be done fulfilling the 
requirements  of  WFD  Article  4(1)(a)(iii)31,  collecting  the  missing  data,  and  updating 
evaluation systems and classification. 

Assessment: In the second RBMPs, good ecological potential was reported in WISE as 
defined, also in terms of biology, for heavily modified river water bodies. However, no 

information is given about the assessment of mitigation measures, whether the effects 
of  such  measures  on  biology  are  assessed,  or  whether  and  how  actual  values  for  the 

biological quality elements at good ecological potential have been estimated. Therefore, 
on the basis of the evidence available, it has been concluded that this recommendation 

has been partially fulfilled. 

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

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

92 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
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 201532), groundwater (good chemical and quantitative status by 2015) and 
for Protected Areas (achievement of the objectives of the associated Directive by 2015 unless 
otherwise specified).  

Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status in surface water and quantitative 
and chemical status in groundwater have been reported in all RBDs. It is noted that nearly all 

surface water bodies were reported to be in good chemical status (see Chapter 4). 

Member States are also required to specify additional environmental objectives and standards 

in  Protected  Areas.  An  assessment  of  such  additional  objectives  for  Slovakia  is  provided  in 
Chapter 15 of this report. 

Assessments of the current status of surface and groundwater bodies in Slovakia are provided 
elsewhere in this report: for ecological status/potential of surface waters (Chapter 3); chemical 

status  of  surface  waters  (Chapter  4);  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  (Chapter  5); 
chemical status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 6); status of surface and groundwater bodies 

associated with Protected Areas (Chapter 15). 

For  the  second  cycle  plans,  Member  States  are  required  to  report  the  date  when  they  expect 
each  surface  and  groundwater  body  to  meet  its  environmental  objective.  This  information  is 
summarised  for  Slovakia  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), and; chemical status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 6).  

32 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. 

93 

 
 
 
                                                      
8.1.2  Exemptions 

Where environmental objectives have not been met a series of exemptions can be applied. 

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

objectives. 

Figure 8.1 

Water bodies in Slovakia expected to be in at least good status in 2015 and 

use of exemptions. 1 = Surface water body ecological status/potential; 2 = 
Surface  water  body  chemical  status;  3  =  Groundwater  body  quantitative 

status; 4 = Groundwater body chemical status 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Article  4  of  the  WFD  allows  under  certain  conditions  for  different  exemptions  to  the 
objectives:  an  extension  of  deadlines  beyond  2015,  less  stringent  objectives,  a  temporary 

deterioration,  or  deterioration  /  non-achievement  of  good  status  /  potential  due  to  new 
modifications, provided a set of conditions is fulfilled. 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.  

94 

 
 
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 Slovakia. 

Figure 8.2 

Type  of  exemptions  applied  to  surface  water  and  groundwater  bodies  for 

the  second  RBMP  in  Slovakia.  Note:  Ecological  status  and  groundwater 
quantitative  status  exemptions  are  reported  at  the  water  body  level. 

Chemical  exemptions  for  groundwater  are  reported  at  the  level  of  each 
pollutant  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status,  and  for  surface  waters 

for each Priority Substances that is causing failure of good chemical status 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

95 

 
 
 
 
Application of Article 4(4) 

While the total number of water bodies decreased compared to the first cycle, Article 4(4) has 

been applied more widely in surface water. In the Vistula RB, Article 4(4) was applied for nine 
(12.1%)  water  bodies  as  regards  good  ecological  status/potential,  with  a  length  of  216  km 

(26.9%).  One  exemption  was  applied,  for  water  body  SKP0055  Vrbovský  potok,  due  to 
exceeding  the  environmental  quality  standard  for  a  pesticide.  In  the  Danube  good  ecological 

status/potential  is  achieved  in  55%  of  the  water  bodies  and  chemical  status  in  98%.  Table  1 
shows  the  number  of  water  bodies  with  exemptions  relating  to  Priority  Substances  failing  to 

achieve good chemical status. 

The reason for the application of Article 4(4) in surface waters in the Danube and the Vistula 

RBD are technical feasibility, disproportionate costs and natural conditions.   

In  the  Vistula  RBD  no  exemptions  were  applied  for  groundwater  in  the  first  RBMP  and  the 

situation has not  changed in  the second  cycle. The application of Article 4(4)  in the Danube 
RBD has decreased for  groundwater and the remaining exemptions  are  justified by technical 
feasibility,  disproportionate  costs  and  natural  conditions.  Article  4  (4)  of  the  WFD  is  now 

applied for 11 groundwater bodies in poor chemical status (7 quaternary and 4 pre-quaternary) 
for nitrogenous substances and two cases for pesticides chlorotoluron and phenmedipham and 

for three groundwater bodies relating to quantitative status. 

Slovakia  has  developed  a  Methodology  for  Economic  Explanation  of  Exemptions  under 
Article 4(4) and 4(5) of the WFD33 for determining/deciding whether a water body should be 

exempted  from  achieving  the  environmental  objectives  under  Article  4  (4)  or  pursuant  to 

Article 4(5). The methodology contains sections on essential questions related to Article 4(4) 

and  Article  4(5)  and  guidance  on  the  logic  to  be  applied  when  applying  one  of  the  two 

provisions. Further explanation and guidance on how these two exemptions should be applied 

is given. The following criteria were considered: 

  Whether the implementation of the proposed measures are technically feasible within a 

given time period; 

  Whether or not the costs over this time period will be disproportionately high; 

33   http://www.vuvh.sk/rsv2/WFD_reporting/2016 

96 

 
 
                                                      
  Whether the water body is exposed to one or more impacts (solving one of the problems 

in the given water body does not necessarily ensure the achievement of the objective); 

  Whether  natural  conditions  make  it  possible  to  achieve  the  necessary  improvements  to 

reach environmental objectives in the required time. 

For technical feasibility the criteria to be considered are listed as: 

 

if  the  cause  of  the  risk  of  not  meeting  the  environmental  targets  is  not  sufficiently 

understood because water bodies are usually exposed to multiple impacts; 

 

if the technical solution is not possible to be implemented in a given time period i.e. within 

three years of the adoption of the management plan for the RBD, and the costs for such a 
short  time  span  would  be  disproportionately  high.  The  main  problems  associated  with 

technical feasibility of proposed measures in the given time period include: 

 

 

 

time requirements for design and construction; 

the lengthy approval of projects; 

lengthy public procurement of works contracts; 

  settlement of property rights, and; 

  high financial demands, requiring the pooling of all public resources. 

For  the  assessment  of  disproportional  costs,  the  methodology  recommends  the  use  of  the 

following analytical tools: 

  affordability, 

  cost-effectiveness analysis, 

  social and sectoral impacts, and; 

  benefit assessment. 

The main drivers behind exemptions to surface water are agriculture, industry, flood protection 
and  urban  development.  The  main  drivers  for  exemptions  to  groundwater  bodies  are 

agriculture, climate change, energy, industry, urban development and unknown drivers. 

The  main  pressures  to  surface  water  responsible  for  exemptions  in  both  basins  come  from  a 

broad  range  of  activities  including  urbanisation,  industry,  agriculture,  introduced  species  and 
diseases  and  dams,  barriers  and  locks  as  well  as  physical  alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian 

areas  and  atmospheric  deposition  (Table  8.1).  In  addition,  in  Slovakia,  abstraction  and 
hydrological alterations are reported. In both basins the main drivers behind these pressures are 

industry, agriculture, flood protection and urban development.  

97 

 
The main pressures to groundwater bodies that are responsible for exemptions are abstraction 

for  public  water  supply  and  point  and  diffuse  pollution  with  the  main  drivers  being  urban 
development, climate change, energy, industry and agriculture (Table 8.2).  

Table 8.1 

Pressure responsible for Priority Substances in Slovakia failing to achieve 
good chemical status and for which exemptions have been applied 

Significant pressure on surface water bodies 

Failing 
Priority 
Substances 

Number 

Article 4(4) 
- Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 
Number 

Article 4(5) - 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 
Number 

1.3 - Point - Industrial Emissions Directive plants 

1.4 - Point - Non Industrial Emissions Directive plants 

1.5 - Point - Contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites 
2.5 - Diffuse - Contaminated sites or abandoned industrial 
sites 
2.7 - Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition 

8 - Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown 

9 - Anthropogenic pressure - Historical pollution 

4 

2 

1 

5 

3 

6 

2 

6 

2 

1 

7 

12 

17 

4 

Source:, WISE electronic reports  

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

The  impacts  causing  Article  4(4)  exemptions  in  groundwater  are  organic,  chemical  and 
nutrient pollution and a lowered water table. For surface waters, these are organic and nutrient 

pollution as well as altered habitats.  

Table 82 

Pressure  on  surface  water  bodies  responsible  for  pollutants  in  Slovakia 
failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  in  groundwater  and  for  which 
exemptions have been applied  

Number 
of failing 
pollutants 

Number of 
exemptions 

Article 4(4) - 
Disproportionate 
cost 

1 

2 

6 

1 

4 

1 

1 

1 

3 

18 

1 

10 

2 

2 

Significant pressure on groundwater 

1.5 - Point - Contaminated sites or abandoned 
industrial sites 

1.6 - Point - Waste disposal sites 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.5 - Diffuse - Contaminated sites or abandoned 
industrial sites 

2.6 - Diffuse - Discharges not connected to 
sewerage network 

2.8 - Diffuse - Mining 

8 - Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown 

      Source: WISE electronic reports  

98 

 
 
Application of Article 4(5) 

Article 4(5) was not applied in the first RBMP but has been applied in the second cycle in the 
Danube RBD in one surface water body due to technical feasibility and disproportionate costs. 

The driver behind  this is the industry sector, impacting the  water body by  chemical,  nutrient 
and organic pollution. 

The  impacts  causing  Article  4(5)  exemptions  in  surface  water  are  organic,  chemical  and 
nutrient pollution although pressures have not been reported in Table 1 for Priority Substances. 

Application of Article 4(6)  

Article 4(6) has not been applied. 

Application of Article 4(7)  

Article  4(7)  has  not  been  reported  to  be  applied.  Exemptions  under  Article  4(7)  due  to  new 

infrastructure projects are not yet in place in the management plan of the Danube and Vistula 
RBD.  The  RBMPs  include  forward-looking  objectives  for  infrastructure  projects,  the 

implementation  of  which  originates  from  sectoral  policies  and  other  strategic  development 
documents  which  determine  the  basic  policy-strategic  framework  for  the  long-term 
development of individual sectors/areas of the Slovak economy. 

Since the implementation of these prospective infrastructure projects by implementing specific 
projects may lead to new changes in the physical (hydromorphological) characteristics of the 

surface water bodies or changes in the levels of the bodies of groundwater as a prerequisite for 
issuing  a  territorial  decision  on  the  implementation  of  these  projects,  their  assessment  under 

Article 4(7) of the WFD will be required in the future. 

Application of Article 6(3) GWD 

No exemptions according to Article 6(3) Groundwater Directive34 have been applied. 

8.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

While the total number of water bodies decreased compared to the first cycle, Article 4(4) has 
been  applied  more  widely  in  surface  water.  In  the  second  planning  cycle  (2015-2021)  in 

Slovakia,  exemptions  for  surface  water  bodies  were  applied  by  extending  the  deadline  for 
achieving  good status  by applying Article 4(4) and in  one case by applying lower objectives 

34   Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection 

of groundwater against pollution and deterioration  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006L0118-20140711  

99 

 
                                                      
 
according  to  Article  4(5).  Exemptions  related  to  chemical  status  on  the  basis  of  technical 

feasibility  are applied due to  the contamination  of surface water bodies by specific synthetic 
substances and non-synthetic substances. The Application of Article 4(4) in the Danube RBD 

has  decreased  for  groundwater  bodies.  The  exemption  under  Article  4(4)  was  applied  for 
groundwater  bodies  for  nitrates  and  pesticides.  For  both  RBDs  exemptions  according  to 

Article 4(6) were not applied in the first RBMPs and also not in the second RBMPs. 

In the first RBMPs no information was provided on the application of exemptions according to 

Article 4(7). For the second RBMPs it was stated that Article 4(7) has not been applied. 

8.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first PoM reports requested 

action on the following: 

  Recommendation: Indicate in the second RBMPs when WFD objectives will be achieved. 
Exemptions should be adequately justified at water body level, and in particular Slovakia 

needs to ensure compliance with Article 4(7) of the WFD in the second RBMP cycle. 

Assessment:  The  recommendation  has  been  implemented  as  justifications  for  exemptions 

are  provided  at  water  body  level.  Criteria  have  been  developed  for  the  application  of 
“technical  unfeasibility  and  disproportionate  costs”.  This  recommendation  has  been 

fulfilled. With regard to Article 4(7) see further below. 

  Recommendation:  Make  sure  that  new  hydromorphological  modifications  (e.g.  new 
hydropower plants, new or reconstructed drainage, etc.) comply with the requirements of 
the  WFD  for  these  exemptions,  and  are  adequately  justified  and  supported  by  a  proper 

assessment of alternative solutions and include all necessary mitigation measures. 

Assessment:  Article  4(7)  has  not  been  applied  but  the  RBMP  outlines  that  future 

infrastructure projects will require the application of the Article 4(7) procedures. Therefore 
further  information  will  be  needed  to  assess  whether  the  recommendation  has  been 

fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  A  large  number  of  exemptions  have  been  applied  in  this  first  cycle  of 
RBMPs. While the WFD provides for exemptions, specific criteria 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 for concern. 

100 

 
Assessment:  The  recommendation  has  been  partly  fulfilled  as  the  number  of  exemptions 

for groundwater decreased but the number for surface water bodies increased. Criteria for 
exemptions have been elaborated. 

  Recommendation: Only little improvement of the water status is expected by 2015 and the 

objectives for subsequent planning deadlines are not always clear. 

Assessment: Deadlines for meeting WFD objectives are set. The recommendation has been 
fulfilled.  

101 

 
 
 
 
Topic 9

  Programme of measures  

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the PoM reported by Member States; more 

specific  information  on  measures  relating  to  specific  pressures  (for  example  arising  from 
agriculture) is provided in subsequent chapters. 

The  Key  Types  of  Measures  (KTM)  referred  to  in  this  section  are  groups  of  measures 
identified by Member States in the PoM, 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 

silos. 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 (WFD Reporting Guidance 2016).  

A  Key  Type  of  Measure  may  be  one  national  measure  but  it  would  typically  comprise 

more than one national measure. The 25 predefined Key Types of Measures are listed in 
the WFD Reporting Guidance 2016. 

The Key Type 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  as  to  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 surface water, KTMs were 

reported  for  most  significant  pressures  in  both  RBDs;  the  exceptions  were  “Barriers  etc.  – 
recreation”  in  SK30000  (Vistula),  “Barriers  etc.  –  navigation”  in  SK40000  (Danube),  and 

“Anthropogenic pressures  – unknown” in  both  RBDs. For  groundwater KTMs were reported 
for four out of nine pressure types in the Danube RBD; no significant pressures were reported 

102 

 
 
for the Vistula RBD. Some additional KTMs were included for which no significant pressures 

were identified, including, for the Danube RBD for groundwater and surface water, individual 
chemical substances/priority pollutants. 

For  each  RBD  Slovakia  has  mapped  the  number  of  national  basic  measures  and  national 
supplementary  measures  incorporated  into  each  KTM;  in  total  there  are  22  national  basic 

measures  mapped  against  eight  KTMs,  and  23  national  supplementary  measures  against  10 
KTMs. There are 12 KTMs in total; all except KTM24 – Adaptation to climate change apply to 

both RBDs. The basic measure types have also been reported; all relate to Articles 11(3)i), g), 
h), or d). 

Links to documents on Article 11(3)(c-k) basic measures are provided, and information on the 
inventory of national basic measures, including supplementary measures is also provided.  

For both RBDs all KTMs, except KTM21 - Pollution from urban areas etc., is reported to be 
tackling  significant  pressures  covered  by  KTMs  mapped  against  national  measures,  although 

for the Vistula RBD not all KTMs mapped appear against individual pressures, therefore it is 
not clear if these are relevant/will be made operational.  

The percentage of water bodies not expected to achieve good status/potential by 2027 has been 

identified as a zero for all significant pressures on surface waters for both RBDs (information 
provided for nine sub-basins of the Danube RBD). For groundwater in the Danube RBD “no 

information” has been indicated  against all significant  pressures,  and there are no significant 
pressures on groundwater in the Vistula RBD.  

KTMs  have  been  mapped  against  substances  in  groundwater  in  the  Danube  RBD  only;  all 
causing  failure  of  objectives  have  been  addressed.  There  is  no  information  for  River  Basin 

Specific  Pollutants  in  surface  water  for  the  Danube  RBD,  and  nothing  was  reported  for 
groundwater  or  surface  water  in  the  Vistula  RBD.  The  reason  is  that  no  substance  causes 

failure of WFD objectives for groundwater in the Vistula RBD, all groundwater bodies were 
classified at good status. 

KTMs have been reported for 4 of 11 Priority Substances (individual chemicals or groups of 
substances) causing failure of WFD objectives in the Danube RBD; all are KTM14 – Research, 

improvement  of  knowledge  base  reducing  uncertainty.  No  KTM  was  reported  in  the  Vistula 
RBD,  where  one  group  of  substances  caused  failure  of  objectives  in  one  water  body.  The 

number of surface water bodies failing objectives has also been listed for both RBDs.  

103 

 
Slovakia reported quantitative indicators and gap values, as well as KTM indicators and values 

for  most  significant  pressures  (including  individual  chemical  /  Priority  Substances)  on 
groundwater and surface water for the Danube RBD and for surface water in the Vistula RBD 

(no significant pressures were reported on groundwater in the Vistula RBD). In most cases the 
gap values were for 2015 and 2021, with relatively modest achievements or none expected by 

2021.  For  groundwater  in  the  Danube  RBD  the  gap  values  were  for  2015  only  (except  for 
chemical substances which were for 2015 and 2021) and a number of gap indicators referred to 

exemptions. No gap values were presented for 2027.  

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 measure 
of package of measures has the highest ranking. In the first  as well as second cycle the cost- 

effectiveness  analysis  of  measures  was  performed.  For  the  second  cycle  a  combination  of 
qualitative and quantitative cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out in both RBDs to support 

the  selection  of  measures  proposed  under  the  2015-21  PoM.  No  further  details  have  been 
provided on prioritisation of measures. Links to relevant documents have been provided.  

A critical factor in the success of the implementation of the PoM is the availability of funding 

to  support  the  investments  required.  Investment  costs  have  been  reported  for  the  first  cycle 
(covering  years  2009-15)  for  both  RBDs  as  the  total  for  Article  11(3)(b-l)/11(4)/11(5) 

(€1 086 million at Member State level). For the second cycle investment and annual costs were 
presented  for  the  years  2016-21  for  both  RBDs  separately  for  Article  11(3)(a)  (measures 

required  to  implement  Community  legislation  for  the  protection  of  water)  (€1685 million 
investment  and  €281 million  annual  costs  at  Member  State  level);  and  Article  11(3)(b-

l)/11(4)/11(5)  (all  other  measures)  (€370 million  investment  and  €62 million  annual  costs  at 
Member State level); depreciation has not been included in any calculations. European Union 

investment funding figures were also presented for the first cycle and estimated for the second 
cycle. Links to relevant documents have been provided.  

A  clear  financial  commitment  has  been  secured  for  the  implementation  of  the  PoM  in  both 
RBDs.  On  a  sectoral  basis,  commitments  have  been  secured  for  both  RBDs  for  Agriculture, 

Industry, Urban, Hydropower  and  Flood  Protection, whereas Transport,  Energy,  Aquaculture 
and Recreation were identified as “not applicable” in both RBDs.  

Coordination  with  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  is  not  relevant  as  Slovakia  is 
landlocked. 

104 

 
The RBMPs and Floods Directive Flood Risk Management Plans have been integrated in both 

RBDs; (i) joint consultation of RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans was carried out, (ii) 
the objectives and requirements of the Floods Directive were considered in the second RBMPs 

and PoM, (iii) drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures have been 
included  in  the  PoM,  (iv)  the  design  of  new  and  existing  structural  measures,  such  as  flood 

defences,  storage  dams  and  tidal  barriers,  has  been  adapted  to  take  account  of  WFD 
environmental  objectives  in  both  RBDs,  and  (v)  clear  financial  commitments  have  been 

secured for the implementation of the PoM in the flood protection sector. However, no “win-
win  measures”  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  Floods  Directive  have 

been applied. The above information applies equally to both RBDs. 

9.1.2  Measures related to other significant pressures 

One  “other  significant  pressure”  (Introduced  species/diseases)  has  been  reported  for  surface 
water  for  both  RBDs,  with  gap  indicators  and  measure  indicators  for  2015  and  2021,  but  no 

improvements  were  expected  during  this  time.  KTM18  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the 
adverse  impacts  of  invasive  alien  species  and  introduced  diseases  is  listed  but  no  national 
measures have been mapped against it. No “other significant pressures” have been reported for 

groundwater. 

9.1.3  Mapping of national measures to Key Types of Measures 

It  was  expected  that  Member  States  would  be  able  to  report  their  PoM  by  associating  their 
national  measures  with  predefined  Key  Types  of  Measures.  Key  Types  of  Measures  are 

expected  to  deliver  the  bulk  of  the  improvements  through  reduction  in  pressures  required  to 
achieve WFD environmental objectives. A Key Type of Measure may be one national measure 

but it would typically comprise more than one national measure. Member States are required to 
report on the national measures associated with the Key Types of Measures, and whether the 

national  measures are basic (Article 11(3)(a) or  Article 11(3)(b-l)) or supplementary  (Article 
11(4)).  

Table 9.1 summarises the number of national measures that have been mapped to the relevant 
Key  Types  of  Measures  in  Slovakia.  Also  shown  is  the  number  of  RBDs  for  which  the  Key 

Type  of  Measure  has  been  reported.  Table  9.2  then  summarises  the  type  of  basic  measures 
associated with the national measures mapped against the Key Type of Measures. 

105 

 
 
 
Table 9.1 

Mapping  of  the  types  of  national  measures  to  Key  Types  of  Measure  in 

Slovakia 

Key Type of Measure 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number of 
RBDs where 
reported 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment 
plants 

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base 
reducing uncertainty 

KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, 
discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or 
for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of 
Priority Substances 

KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial 
wastewater treatment plants (including farms). 

KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts 
of invasive alien species and introduced diseases 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 

KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 

KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical 
pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil) 

KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing 
fish passes, demolishing old dams) 

KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of water 
bodies other than longitudinal continuity 

KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment 
of ecological flows 

Total number of Mapped Measures 

9 

2 

1 

1 

4 

1 

3 

1 

22 

4 

6 

1 

1 

2 

1 

5 

1 

1 

1 

23 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

Table 9.2 

Type of basic measure mapped to Key Type of Measures in Slovakia 

Key Type of Measure 

Basic Measure Type 

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

t
c
e
r
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

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

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater 
treatment plants 
KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base 
reducing uncertainty 
KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, 
discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances 
or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of 

2 

1 

e
t
s
a
W
n
a
b
r
U

r
e
t
a
W

7 

r
e
t
a
w
n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
P

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

2 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic Measure Type 

Key Type of Measure 

Priority Substances 

KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial 
wastewater treatment plants (including farms). 
KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 
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 

D
E
I
C
P
P
I

1 

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

4 

e
s
u
f
f
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

2 
1 

3 

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

1 

t
c
e
r
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

r
e
t
a
w
n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
P

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

e
t
s
a
W
n
a
b
r
U

r
e
t
a
W

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

‘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) as repealed and replaced by the Industrial 
Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU). 
‘Nitrates’ = Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC). 
‘Point source discharges’ = Article 11(3)(g): Requirement for prior regulation of point source discharges liable to cause 
pollution. 
‘Pollutants diffuse’ = Article 11(3)(h): Measures to prevent or control the input of pollutants from diffuse sources liable to 
cause pollution. 
‘Pollutants direct groundwater’ = Article 11(3)(j): Prohibition of direct discharge of pollutants into groundwater. 
‘Protection water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(d): Measures for the protection of water abstracted for drinking water (Article 
7) including those to reduce the level of purification required for the production of drinking water. 
‘Urban Waste Water’ = Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). 

9.1.4 

Pressures for which gaps need to be filled to achieve WFD objectives and the Key 

Types of Measures planned to achieve objectives 

Member  States  are  required  to  report  the  gaps  that  need  to  be  filled  to  achieve  WFD 

environmental  objectives  in  terms  of  all  significant  pressures  on  surface  waters  and 
groundwater,  in  terms  of  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status  and  in 

terms  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  ecological  status/potential. 
Member  States  were  asked  to  report  predefined  indicators  of  the  gaps  to  be  filled  or  other 

indicators where relevant. Values for the gap indicators were required for 2015 and 2021, and 
were optional for 2027. 

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. 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This information is reported at the sub-unit level. Sub-units are smaller geographic areas within 

particular  RBDs  identified  by  Member  States.  Not  all  Member  States  have  defined  and 
reported sub-units. 

Member States were required to report which KTMs are to be made operational to reduce the 
gaps to levels compatible with the achievement of WFD environmental objectives. A number 

of  indicators  were  predefined  for  each  KTM.  Values  of  the  indicators  for  the  second  and 
subsequent  planning  cycles  were  also  to  be  reported  to  give  an  indication  of  the  expected 

progress and achievements: the values for 2027 could be optionally reported. This means that 
the value of the indicator will be reduced with time as measures are implemented. A value of 

zero is comparable with 100 % good ecological status or potential or good chemical status.  

This  information  was  reported  at  sub-unit  level,  or  at  RBDs  level  if  sub-units  have  not  been 

reported by the Member State. 

9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  level  of  implementation  of  the  first  cycle  of  PoM  in  both  RBDs  (the  Vistula  and  the 

Danube)  was  reported  as  “some  measures  completed”.  Delays  and  lack  of  finance  were 
reported  as  the  only  obstacles.  No  summary  of  progress  has  been  provided  in  the  plans  but 

progress has been made in identifying pressures and most are being addressed with measures 
including  gap  analyses.  A  combination  of  qualitative  and  quantitative  cost-effectiveness 

analysis was carried out in both RBDs to support the selection of measures proposed under the 
2015-21  PoM.  Costs  of  measures  have  been  reported,  including  estimated  European  Union 

funding,  and  financial  commitments  have  been  made  to  implement  the  PoM.  Gap  analyses 
have  been  performed  for  most  significant  pressures  for  2015  and  2021  (not  for  2027),  but 

progress anticipated by 2021 is modest. 

9.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

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

addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before 
the  next  cycle.  Regarding  characterisation,  for  instance,  reference  conditions  should  be 
established for all biological quality elements.(cid:157) 

108 

 
Assessment: Progress has been made in identifying pressures and most are being addressed 

with measures including gap analyses. Further assessment of the RBMPs indicates that the 
typology  of  the  rivers  in  the  common  border  water  bodies  was  discussed  during  the 

preparation  of  the  first  RBMP  of  Slovakia  within  the  working  groups  of  experts  of  the 
Border  Waters  Commissions  (Slovak-Austrian,  Slovak-Hungarian,  Slovak-Polish  and 

Slovak-Czech). All common border water bodies forming the border were harmonised both 
in terms of types and boundaries of water bodies. At the level of the EKOSTAT working 

group,  where  the  intercalibration  process  of  biological  methods  of  environmental 
assessment  is  underway,  an  intercalibration  typology  was  created.  Within  the  Eastern 

Intercalibration GIG, all relevant Slovak types were also included. (Additional information 
may emerge from Topics 2 and 3 and Task 3).  

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled.  

  Recommendation:  The  RBMPs  need  to  provide  more  information  on  the  links  between 

pressures and status, and the respective measures for surface waters.  

Assessment: Most of the pressures on surface waters have been addressed with measures, 

and  gap  analyses  have  been  carried  out  to  assess  the  effects  on  status.  This 
recommendation has been partially fulfilled.  

  Recommendation: Ensure in the second RBMPs that measures adopted in the Programme 
of Measures are based on a reliable status assessment of water bodies and are linked to the 

relevant  pressures.  The  explanation  of  the  links  between  pressures  and  status  and 
respective measures should be included in the update of the RBMPs. 

Assessment: For this Topic, this issue has been addressed through the gap analyses. This 
recommendation has been partially fulfilled.  

  Recommendation: Ensure that the quantitative assessment of how much the pressures have 
to be reduced to achieve the WFD objectives is clearly identified in RBMPs. The gap that 

needs  to  be  closed  for  the  achievement  of  WFD  objectives  by  2015  (or  later)  has  to  be 
clearly quantified in terms of the reductions needed in the pressures causing water bodies 

to  fail  or  be  at  risk  of  failing  the  environmental  objectives.  The  applied  Environmental 
Quality Standards should be specified in the second RBMPs. The identified impacts have to 

be  clearly  apportioned  between  the  sources  and  sectors/drivers  responsible  for  the 
pressures for all significant water management issues. In the second RBMP cycle, Slovakia 

should consider supplementary measures for River Basin Specific Pollutants and Priority 
Substances that show exceedances.(cid:157)  

109 

 
Assessment:  The  issue  has  been  addressed  through  gap  analyses,  and  supplementary 

measures are in place, although most of the Priority Substances seem to be addressed using 
KTM14  -  Research.  The  environmental  quality  standards  applied  for  the  assessment  of 

chemical  status  have  been  specified  in  the  second  RBMP;  however,  for  some  Priority 
Substances  in  some  matrices,  it  is  not  clear  which  values  have  been  used.  This 

recommendation has been mostly fulfilled.  

  Recommendation: It is not clear if the measures proposed in the Plan have been based on 
the  assessment  of  the  status  of  surface  water  bodies.  This  means  that  the  Programme  of 
Measures for surface waters may be based on the risk analysis rather than on monitoring 
data or status assessment, this is a shortcoming to be addressed35. Meaningful information 
regarding the scope, the timing and the funding of the measures should be included in the 

Programme  of  Measures  so  that  the  approach  to  achieve  the  objectives  is  clear.  All  the 
relevant  information  on  basic  and  supplementary  measures  should  be  included  in  the 

summary of the Programme of Measures to ensure transparency of the planned actions for 
the achievement of the environmental objectives set out in the WFD.(cid:157) 

Assessment:  This  has  also  been  partially  addressed  through  the  gap  analyses.  National 
basic measures have been mapped, including supplementary measures; Priority Substances 

are addressed mainly by research, and substances have only been reported and addressed in 
groundwater in the Danube RBD. Although funding commitments are in place, there is no 

clear  information  on  scope,  timing  and  funding  of  measures.  This  recommendation  has 
been partially fulfilled.  

  Recommendation: Carry out a cost-effectiveness analysis of potential measures (voluntary 
or  obligatory),  for  achieving  the  environmental  objectives.  The  effectiveness  of  the 

implemented  measures  will  have  to  be  demonstrated  by  the  assessment  of  the 
status/potential of water bodies in the second RBMPs. Available funding, in particular the 

European Union funds (e.g. RDP funds, Structural and Investment Funds, LIFE Integrated 
Projects  and  Horizon  2020)  needs  to  be  exploited  as  much  as  feasible  in  order  to 
implement the Programme of Measures. Consequently, appropriate priorities should be set 
in  the  programming  documents  (Protected  Areas,  Operational  Programmes  and  Rural 

Development Programmes) of the new European Union funding policy 2014-2020.(cid:157)  

35  On  the  review  of  the  report  SK  reported  that  not  all  measures  are  based  on  risk  analysis.  Some  are  directly 
applied in terms of implementation of EU legislation (UWWT Directive, Industrial Emissions Directive) and 
the water monitoring results indicate the problem which can be solved by building/upgrading of waste water 
treatment plants and/or reassessment of already adopted measures including the revision of permits for waste 
water  discharges.  Risk  analysis  is  relevant  for  nutrient  pollution  from  agricultural  land  and  corresponds  to 
(re)definition of Nitrates Directive vulnerable zones and actualization of Action plan 

110 

 
                                                      
Assessment: A combination of qualitative and quantitative cost-effectiveness analysis was 

carried out in both RBDs to support the selection of measures proposed under the 2015-21 
PoM, but further assessment revealed no further information on prioritisation of measures. 

Costs  of  measures  and  estimated  European  Union  funding  have  also  been  reported.  This 
recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

111 

 
 
 
Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

10.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

Water exploitation and trends  

Water abstraction pressure has not been reported as significant for Slovakia, where only 3% of 
surface water bodies in the Danube RBD are subject to significant abstraction pressures. The 

Water Exploitation Index + (2012) is reported as 2.7% for the Vistula RBD and 0.01% for the 
Danube  RBD  (non-stressed  countries  have  values  <  10%).  Water  scarcity  issues  are  not 

considered relevant at the international level. However, specific water resource allocation and 
management plans have been set up, and there remains an important information gap as 27.5% 

of groundwater bodies are reported to have unknown quantitative status.  

Main uses for water consumption  

The  major  use  for  water  consumption  is  “urban”  followed  by  “industry”,  with  agriculture 
consuming  only  minor  resources.  This  applies  to  both  surface  and  groundwater  bodies,  with 

surface water being more relevant  for industry in the Danube RBD. Calculation  methods for 
water consumption (e.g. metering, estimations) have not been reported.  

Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

Regarding  basic  measures  (Article  11(3)(e)),  in  Slovakia  there  is  a  permitting  regime  and  a 

register  of  abstractions  for  surface  water  and  groundwater  and  a  concession,  authorisation 
and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  water  impoundment  and  a  register  of  impoundments  in 

place; and small abstractions are exempted from these controls: abstractions of less than 1 250 
m3 per month or less than 15 000 m3 per annum are not billed and do not require permits.  

No measures for the efficient and sustainable use of water (Article 11(3)(c)) were implemented 
in the first cycle but new measures and/or significant changes were planned for the 2016-2021 

period.  An  amendment  to  the  Water  Act  from  2014  made  metering  compulsory  for  water 
abstractions  by  all  business/economic  activities  including  agriculture,  and  follow-up  actions 
are  expected.  Up  until  the  second  RBMP,  water  abstraction  for  irrigation  was  not  billed;  the 

new  amendment  to  the  Water  Act  (under  preparation  during  the  drafting  of  the  RBMP; 
finalised as of the second RBMP) includes billing for abstraction of water for irrigation. 

112 

 
Measures  for  the  prior  authorisation  of  artificial  recharge  or  augmentation  of  groundwater 

bodies (Article 11(3)(f)) have not been implemented in the previous cycle, but new measures 
or significant changes are planned for the next period. 

Complementary  measures  are  planned  to  be  implemented  in  the  Danube  RBD  associated  to 
KTM7  -  Improvements  in  flow  regime  and/or  establishment  of  ecological  flows  addressing 

two surface water bodies, and KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing 
uncertainty  and  KTM24  -  Adaptation  to  climate  change  addressing  the  gaps  for  three 

groundwater bodies. Reuse is not a measure foreseen in any RBDs. 

10.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

An amendment to the Water Act from 2014 made metering compulsory for water abstractions 

by all business/economic activities including agriculture, and follow-up actions are expected. 

10.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

There were no Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first PoM for this 
topic. 

113 

 
 
 
Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture  

11.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

The type of pressures from agriculture and the measures taken have not changed between the 

two  cycles.  Measures  have  been  linked  to  pressures  except  for  physical  alteration  of 
channel/bed/riparian  area/shore  due  to  agriculture.  Only  KTM2  –  Reduce  nutrient  pollution 

from agriculture, has been reported as a measure. 

The  PoM  provides  information  on  measures  associated  with  types  of  pollution  such  as  by 

organic  substances,  nutrients  or  Priority  Substances,  and  then  categorises  them  according  to 
basic and supplementary measures and whether they are mandatory or voluntary. 

KTM2 – Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture, KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution and 
KTM17  -  Measures  to  reduce  sediment  from  soil  erosion  and  surface  run-off  are  linked  to 

cross-compliance conditions as part of Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition within 
the  Common  Agricultural  Policy.  These  are  all  basic  (the  minimum  requirement  to  be 

complied  with)  measures  within  the  PoM  as  stated  above.  Supplementary  measures  relevant 
for pollution from nutrients are: 

  Measure 1. Transfer of knowledge and information activities - education and information 
activities  focusing  on  reducing  pollution  of  the  individual  components  of  the 
environment  -  air,  water,  soil,  climate  and  biodiversity;  education  in  the  field  of  water 
management on agricultural land - counter-measures and flood control measures. 

  Measure 2. Advisory services - provision of counselling, training of advisors.  

  Measure  4.  Investments  in  tangible  assets  –  to  reduce  environmental  burden  including 

technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve irrigation.  

  Measure  5.  Restoring  the  potential  of  agricultural  production  destroyed  by  natural 
disasters  and  catastrophic  events  and  introducing  appropriate  preventive  measures  - 
rehabilitation,  modernization,  repair  and  completion  of  drainage  systems,  regulated 
drainage  channels  and  service  stations  and  their  facilities  that  are  in  line  with  relevant 
RBMPs.  

  Measure  8.  Investment  in  forestry  development  and  improvement  of  forest  viability  - 
support  of  preventive  flood  and  fire  measures  to  improve  water  management  in  the 
forest.  

  Measure  10.  Agri-environment  and  Climate  Action  -  Integrated  production  in  fruit 
growing, vegetables and viticulture, protection against erosion, protection of biotopes of 

114 

 
semi-natural  and  natural  grassland,  multifunctional  field  margins,  green  corridors  on 

arable land, protection of water resources (CHVO Žitný ostrov).  

  Measure 11. Organic farming.  

  Measure 12. Payments under the NATURA 2000 system. 

No  information  concerning  safeguard  zones  around  drinking  water  protection  areas  has  been 
provided36.  In the PoM,  in relation  to  pollution from  organic substances and Article 11(3) of 
the WFD, it is stated that until 2021 there will be a harmonisation of the handling of polluting 

substances  with  the  conditions  set  in  the  Water  Act  no.  364/2004.  This  includes 
reconsideration of permits issued in accordance with section 8 paragraph 3 of the Water Act. 

According  to  WISE,  the  implementation  of  basic  measures  under  Article  11(3)(h)  for  the 
control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at source is ensured in all RBDs where the same 

rules apply across the whole RBD. Issues covered include pesticides.  

Farmers/Farmers'  Unions  have  been  consulted  under  the  Public  Consultation  process  in  all 

basins.  

Financing of agricultural measures is  secured in  all basins. The RBMPs mention  RDP  2014-

2020  in  the  financing  section  for  the  specific  PoM.  Information  for  the  investments  for 
agricultural measures between 2009 and 2015 are provided.  

11.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The type of pressures from agriculture and the measures taken have not changed since the first 

cycle. 

11.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  Agriculture  is  indicated  as  exerting  a  significant  pressure  on  the 
water resources in Slovakia. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines 

the  basic/mandatory  measures  that  all  farmers  should  adhere  to  and  the  additional 
supplementary  measures  that  can  be  financed.  This  should  be  developed  with  the 

farming community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. There needs to be a 
very clear baseline so that any farmer knows the rules this can be adequately advised 

and enforced and so that the authorities in charge of the Common Agricultural Policy 

36 Slovakia subsequently indicated that protection of spatially defined drinking water protection areas is provided 

by special sets of measures adapted to suit specific drinking water protection areas. 

115 

 
                                                      
funds  can  adequately  set  up  Rural  Development  programmes  and  cross  compliance 

water requirements. 

Assessment:  The  evidence  suggests  that  this  recommendation  has  been  fulfilled  as 

implementation of basic measures under Article 11(3)(h) is part of the RBMP and rules 
apply across the whole RBD. 

  Recommendation:  Provide  a  coherent  strategy  to  address  agriculture's  pressure  on 
water in the second RBMPs cycle (how the gaps on basic measures will be closed, what 

supplementary  measures,  including  under  the  RDP,  will  be  included  in  the  second 
RBMP, an assessment of the extent to which the basic and supplementary measures in 

the  second  cycle  will  be  sufficient  to  address  agricultural  pressures  to  allow  the 
achievement of good status, etc.). Agriculture is considered as a key source of pollution 

by nutrients, organic substances and pesticides.  The major  release of  pollutants  from 
agriculture  occurs  through  diffuse  sources.  Slovakia  should  implement  through 

national law and include in the second RBMPs basic measures, consistent with article 
11.3, to address nutrients, sediment, hydromorphology and pesticides. Slovakia should 

ensure a better control of abstractions in the second RBMP cycle (e.g. information to 
be provided on how metering of water consumption in agriculture is ensured). 

Assessment: Part of the recommendation has been acted on: A gap assessment has been 
performed  for  pesticides  and  nutrients,  although  it  is  not  clear  what  the  contribution 
from the Nitrates Directive would be37. Implementation of basic measures under Article 
11(3)(h) is part of the RBMP and rules apply across the whole RBD. Article 11(3)(g) 
basic  measures  to  control  point  sources,  is  also  not  applied  in  all  basins.  Article 
11(3)(e) basic measures to control abstractions from agriculture are not applied38. The 
PoM provides measures according to the type of pollution - e.g. by organic substances, 
nutrients,  priority  substances  etc,  and  then  describes  relevant  measures  divided 
according  to  basic  and  supplementary  and  whether  mandatory  or  voluntary.  Explicit 
mention  of  advice  is  given  by  applying  measure  2  (see  Section  11.1)  but  there  is  no 
information provided on monitoring and inspection regimes for the measures39. 

37  Slovakia  subsequently  indicated  that  according  to  the  results  reported,  the  increase  in  content  of  nitrates  in 
groundwater  in  Slovakia  has  significantly  slowed  down,  as  a  result  of  the  decline  in  the  intensity  of 
agricultural  production  and  the  application  of  the  Nitrates  Directive  measures.    (Ministry  of  Environment, 
2012. Report on the state of implementation of  Council Directive 91/676 / EEC on the  protection of  waters 
against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources in the SR, p. 12 (in Slovak)). 

38 Slovakia subsequently indicated that with regard to basic measures under Art. 11(3)(g), point sources, relevant 
pressures  were identified recently  to be included in reporting. In the case of  Art.  11(3)(e),  water abstraction 
(mainly for irrigation purposes) is based on previous permission of state authority.  

39  Slovakia  subsequently  indicated  that  inspections  are  carried  out  by  the  Slovak  Environmental  Inspectorate 
pursuant to the Water Act 364/2004 and the Central Control and Testing Institute in Agriculture in Bratislava 

116 

 
 
                                                      
Topic 12

  Measures  related  to  pollution  from  sectors  other  than 

agriculture  

12.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

In  the  context  of  this  topic,  pollution  is  considered  in  terms  of  nutrients,  organic  matter, 
sediment, saline discharges and chemicals (priority substances, river basin specific pollutants, 

groundwater  pollutants  and  other  physico-chemical  parameters)  arising  from  all  sectors  and 
sources apart from agriculture. KTMs are groups of measures identified by Member States in 

their  Programmes  of  Measures  which  target  the  same  pressure  or  purpose.  A  KTM  could  be 
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.  For  general 

information  on  the  link  between  individual  measures  and  Key  Types  of  Measures,  see 
explanations at the beginning of Chapter 9).  

Slovakia has identified 12 Key Types of Measures in its PoM, six of these are relevant to this 

Topic. They are: 

  KTM1 – Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants. 

  KTM4 – Remediation of contaminated sites. 

  KTM 14 – Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty. 

  KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority 
Hazardous  Substances  or  for  the  reduction  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of 

Priority Substances. 

  KTM16  -  Upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial  wastewater  treatment  plants 

(including farms). 

  KTM21  –  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas, 

transport and built infrastructure.  

pursuant to the Act No 136/2000 Coll. on fertilizers and Pesticide Legislation (Regulation (EU) No 540/2011). 
Further  information  is  available  in  the  National  Action  Plan  to  achieve  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides 
published in 2012 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.  

117 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
Slovakia  has  reported  that  there  are  measures  to  eliminate  pollution  of  surface  waters  by 

Priority  Substances  and  to  progressively  reduce  pollution  by  other  substances,  which  would 
otherwise prevent achievement of the objectives for the bodies of surface waters as set out in 

Article 4 (Article 11(3)(k)). For second RBMP reporting, Member States have been asked to 
report  on  which  KTMs  they  are  using  to  reduce  significant  pressures  including  those  from 

chemical substances.  

Slovakia has reported five significant pressures acting on surface waters which are relevant to 

this  topic,  including  point  and  diffuse  significant  pressure  types,  which  are  to  be  tackled  by 
KTMs (i.e. measures made operational). The KTMs reported are those listed above. KTM14 - 

Research,  improvement  of  knowledge  base  reducing  uncertainty,  is  reported  to  tackle  the 
significant pressure ‘Diffuse - Contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites’ and for each of 

the  named  Priority  Substances  (trichloromethane,  fluoranthene,  mercury  and  cadmium).  No 
specific River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported against measures for surface waters.  

For groundwater, two significant pressures relevant to this topic which have been reported and 
eight  pollutants  including  one  Priority  Substance  (Tetrachloroethylene)  causing  failure  of 
objectives. The KTMs are reported for seven of the eight pollutants, and these KTMs include 

KTM1, KTM 3, KTM4 and KTM14.  

Both basic and supplementary measures are required to meet objectives for all reported KTMs 

with  the  exception  of  KTM16.  The  basic  measure  types  reported  include  urban  wastewater 
treatment and point source discharges (for KTM1), diffuse pollutants (for KTM4), point source 
discharges (for KTM15) and Industrial Emissions Directive40 (for KTM16).  

Slovakia reports the use of authorisation and/or permitting regime to control waste water point 

source discharges (Basic measures Article 11(3)(g)) for all RBDs for surface and groundwater. 
A Register of waste water discharges (Basic measures Article 11(3)(g)) is available for surface 

and groundwater though small discharges are exempted from controls in all RBDs. There is a 
prohibition  of  all  direct  discharges  to  groundwater  in  all  RBDs.  Examination  of  the  second 

RBMPs and background documents provided no further information on the proposed measures 
to tackle Priority Substances or River Basin Specific Pollutants in the content of this topic. 

In  terms  of  the  expected  progress  in  the  implementation  of  KTMs  over  the  three  planning 
cycles,  Slovakia  has  provided  values  for  key  indicators  for:  all  KTMs  for  the  first  cycle;  for 
some KTMs for the second cycle; and not for the 3rd cycle. Slovakia is not reporting significant 

40   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  

118 

 
                                                      
 
progress  as  a  result  of  any  of  the  reported  KTMs  in  the  second  planning  cycle  with  the 

exception of that in relation to KTM1. Slovakia is not expecting the gap to the achievement of 
environmental objectives to be closed by 2021 except in relation to the application of KTM21. 

For the remainder, with no values for key indicators reported for 2027, it is unclear when the 
objectives will be met. 

12.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle  

Revision  of  permits/authorisations  and  construction  of  wastewater  treatment  plants  were 
among the key measures to  be taken to  tackle chemical  pollution in  the first  RBMPs and no 

information was provided on substance specific measures.  

The second cycle WISE reporting has facilitated the provision of further detail on the measures 

related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture. Essentially the measures applied in the 
first  cycle  are  continuing  to  be  applied  in  the  second  cycle;  KTM1  and  KTM21  (mentioned 

above)  related  to  the  improvement  of  the  urban  waste  water  collection  and  treatment 
infrastructure  are  those  where  greatest  progress  towards  the  achievement  of  environmental 

objectives is expected. 

While in the first cycle no information was provided on substance specific measures, the KTM 

assigned to substances causing failure for the second cycle was KTM14 and it not  clear how 
effective this measure will be.  

12.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

following: 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  in  the  second  RBMPs  that  measures  adopted  in  the  PoMs  are 
based  on  a  reliable  status  assessment  of  water  bodies  and  are  linked  to  the  relevant 
pressures.  The  explanation  of  the  links  between  pressures  and  status  and  respective 

measures  should  be  included  in  the  update  of  the  RBMPs.  In  the  second  RBMP  cycle, 
Slovakia should consider supplementary measures for River Basin Specific Pollutants and 

Priority Substances that show exceedances. 

Assessment:  Information  reported  to  WISE  indicates  that  supplementary  measures  have 

been  identified  for  KTM14  -  research,  improvement  of  knowledge  base  reducing 
uncertainty, and KTM4 - remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including 
sediments,  groundwater,  soil)  which  have  been  assigned  to  tackle  River  Basin  Specific 

119 

 
Pollutants and Priority Substances causing failure. No further information was found in the 

RBMPs  on  the  nature  of  these  supplementary  measures.  This  recommendation  has  been 
partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Identify  clearly  basic  measures  in  the  second  RBMPs  to  allow  for  a 
clear  assessment  of  the  need  for  additional  measures,  e.g.  Slovakia  should  provide  all 

information on the level of compliance and timing to reach full compliance with Directive 
91/271/EEC41 (Article 15 and following). 

Assessment:  Quantitative  information  on  basic  and  supplementary  measures  (number  of 
measures per KTM) has been provided in the WISE reporting for all significant pressures 

relevant to this topic. The reported information indicates progress with the recommendation 
but it cannot be fully judged from this assessment.  

Based  on  the  information  available  in  this  assessment,  it  is  not  possible  to  judge  the 
progress  of  the  aspect  of  this  recommendation  related  to  the  level  of  compliance  with 

Directive 91/271/EEC (Article 15 and following).  

41   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 

120 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology  

13.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

Significant  hydromorphological  pressures  for  rivers  and  operational  KTM  to  tackle  these 

pressures  are 
reduce 
hydromorphological  pressures  are:  KTM5-  Improving  longitudinal  continuity;  KTM6- 

in  both  RBDs.  The  KTM  made  operational 

reported 

to 

Improving hydromorphological  conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity, 
and KTM7- Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows.  

Although prioritisation of measures related to restoration of river continuity was carried out in 
the first  cycle, overall management objectives  in  terms  of restoring river  continuity have not 

been set in the second RBMPs. 

Significant  hydromorphological  pressures  related 

to  dams/barriers/locks  and  physical 

alterations were assigned to specific sectors. Physical alterations were mainly related to flood 
protection  and  agriculture.  Dams/barriers/locks  were  related  to  a  broad  range  of  uses,  but  in 

most of the affected water bodies, they were reported to be used for flood protection, followed 
by  hydropower,  recreation,  irrigation,  industry  and  drinking  water.  Hydrological  alterations 

were related in some water bodies to hydropower and public water supply, but in most affected 
water bodies, the use was not specified according to the uses listed in WISE (“other use” was 

reported). 

The  types  of  specific  hydromorphological  measures  planned  include  fish  ladders,  bypass 

channels, habitat restoration, removal of structures, reconnection of meander bends, setting of 
ecological flows, measures to address hydropeaking, as well as research activities. 

In  terms  of  basic  measures  planned  to  tackle  hydromorphological  pressures,  there  is  an 
authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  in  place  to  control  physical  modifications  in  both 
RBDs,  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. 

The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and 

tidal barriers, was reported to have been adapted to take into account WFD objectives in both 
RBDs. 

Win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  Floods  Directive, 
drought  management  and use of Natural  Water  Retention  Measures were not  included in  the 

121 

 
PoM  and  the  KTM23  -  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  was  not  reported  to  tackle  any 

significant pressures. 

Ecological flows have not been derived nor implemented for the relevant water bodies in any 

of the RBDs but there were plans to do so during the second cycle. 

Indicators on the gap to be filled for significant hydromorphological pressures and KTM value 

indicators  are  reported  for  2015  and  2021  but  not  for  2027.  At  the  same  time,  it  should  be 
noted that Slovakia has quantified only certain KTM so far in terms of their indicator values. 

From the information available, it can be concluded that for significant physical alterations and 
hydrological alterations, there will be very little progress in terms of closing the gap between 

2015 and 2021.  In the case of significant  hydromorphological pressures related to  continuity 
barriers, the evidence suggests that some more progress in closing the gap is likely to be made; 

the number of dams/weirs/barriers which have conditions not compatible with the achievement 
of objectives are expected to be reduced by around 18% up until 2021.  

Specifically for “measures to ensure the continuity of rivers and habitats”, it was mentioned in 
the RBMPs that financing for the implementation of the measures will be spread over a longer 
period of time - up until 2027. The economic justification for the shift in the implementation of 

measures into the next planning cycle was formulated in close contact with the implementers 
of  the  measures,  considering  all  available  sources  of  funding.  Some  measures  were  not 

expected  to  be  implemented  until  2021  (13  measures  in  the  RBD  Vistula  and  113  the  RBD 
Danube) and some measures in  the following cycle. According to  the Slovak Water Plan for 

the  first  cycle,  the  implementation  of  measures  to  ensure  the  lateral  continuity  of 
wetlands/floods  with  flow  and  other  morphological  measures  is  expected  to  be  achieved 

between 2021 and 2027. 

13.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

In  the  first  RBMPs,  only  two  measures  addressing  hydromorphological  pressures  were 
implemented and information on particular sectors causing pressures on hydromorphology was 

unclear. According to information provided by Slovakia to the European Commission after the 
first RBMPs, hydromorphological pressures were to be addressed in the second cycle.  

In  the  second  RBMPs,  progress  has  been  made  with  linking  specific  hydromorphological 
pressures to specific measures and providing information on their contribution to achieving the 

WFD  objectives.  Also 
sectors  causing  pressures  on 
hydromorphology  is  clearer  than  in  the  first  RBMP.  A  greater  number  of  measures  were 

information  on  particular 

planned to be implemented compared to the first RBMPs. 

122 

 
13.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  Provide  information  on  future  and  current  actions  to  address 
hydromorphological  pressures  deriving  from  water  management,  hydropower,  private 

users  and  other  related  sectors,  and  to  put  in  place  adequate  measures  to  address  these 
hydromorphological pressures in the second RBMPs. 

Assessment:  Progress  has  been  made  on  some  of  these  actions.  Hydromorphological 
pressures  have  been  assigned  to  specific  sectors,  especially  physical  alterations  and 

dams/barriers/locks.  KTM  to  tackle  the  identified  hydromorphological  pressures  are 
reported  in  both  RBDs.  In  terms  of  their  contribution  to  the  achievement  of  objectives, 

indicators  on  the  gap  to  be  filled  for  significant  hydromorphological  pressures  and  KTM 
value indicators were reported for 2015 and 2021 but not for 2027. From the information 

available,  it  is  possible  to  draw  some  conclusions  on  the  level  of  ambition  in  terms  of 
closing the gap by 2021 and beyond. 

Ecological  flows  have  yet  to  be  derived  or  implemented  for  the  relevant  water  bodies. 
Therefore, this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Consider  and  prioritise  the  use  of  green  infrastructure  and/or  natural 
water  retention  measures  that  provide  a  range  of  environmental  (improvements  in  water 

quality,  increase  water  infiltration  and  thus  aquifer  recharge,  flood  protection,  habitat 
conservation  etc.),  social  and  economic  benefits  which  can  be  in  many  cases  more  cost-

effective than grey infrastructure. 

Assessment: No progress is noted with regard to this recommendation. Win-win measures 

in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  Floods  Directive,  drought 
management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures are not included in the PoM and 

KTM23  -  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  is  not  reported  to  tackle  any  significant 
pressures. Thus, this recommendation has not been fulfilled. 

123 

 
 
 
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 

Slovakia has reported a broad definition of water services covering the following:  

  Drinking water abstraction (surface and/or groundwater), treatment and distribution; 

 

Impoundment and storage of water 

 

Infrastructure for flood protection; 

 

Infrastructure for navigation; 

 

Irrigation water abstraction, treatment and distribution; 

  Self-Abstraction; 

  Sewage collection and wastewater treatment, and; 

  3 "other" water services, which include abstraction of surface water from watercourses, 
abstraction  of  water  for  hydro-power  generation  and  the  hydro-energy  potential  of  a 
watercourse. 

Summary cost recovery rates are provided only for five out of the ten water services. The cost 
recovery analysis does not include flood protection, navigation, irrigation water for agriculture, 
and self-service abstractions. 

In the second cycle, Article 9(4) of the WFD was not applied. 

A  general  explanation  was  provided  that  through  the  pricing  policies  in  place  (charging, 

licensing etc.), an adequate contribution to cost recovery would be ensured. 

Environmental and resource costs were calculated the same way as in the first RBMP: the costs 

were assessed as internalised costs in the financial costs that underlie the price of waste-water 
treatment and collection and drinking water production. 

Slovakia  is  reported  to  be  working  on  developing  methodologies/approaches  to  derive 
environmental costs and costs based on available published approaches. 

124 

 
There is little information on the incentive function of water pricing policies in the RBMPs.  

The Polluter Pays Principle in  Slovakia was stated to  be implemented due to  the charges for 
discharging waste water into surface water.  

Progress  in  the  implementation  of  pricing  policy  has  been  made  in  comparison  to  the  first 
cycle. 

The economic analysis is reported as being updated. 

14.2  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first 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:  Slovakia  applies  a  broad  definition  of  water  services,  covering  10  water 

services.  

Cost  recovery  rates  are  provided  for  five  out  of  the  ten  water  services  (for  drinking 
water  supply,  sewage  collection  and  wastewater  treatment,  hydro-energy  potential  of 

watercourse, abstraction of energy water from watercourse, abstraction of surface water 
from  watercourse,  with  cost  recovery  rates  being  from  5%  to  above  100%).  The  cost 

recovery  analysis  does  not  include  flood  protection,  navigation,  irrigation  water  for 
agriculture,  and  self-service  abstractions  (although  significant  pressures  are  linked  to 
some of these activities; however, this link is not established in the RBMPs)42. It is also 
stated that the assessment of the estimated cost of water management was made for the 

supply  and  distribution  of  drinking  water  and  for  the  cleaning  and  drainage  of  waste 

42  Slovakia  subsequently  clarified  that  the  selection  of  water  services  is  based  on  the  water  services  which  are 
directly paid by users in Slovakia. Uses such as navigation or flood protection is "paid" for by the state and not 
directly by the user of these services; hence, cost recovery has not been calculated for such uses/services. 

125 

 
                                                      
water,  as  well  as  for  other  water  services  provided  by  the  river  basin  sector  such  as 

abstraction of surface water and energy water and use of hydroenergy potential. 

A general explanation is provided that through the pricing policies in place (charging, 

licensing etc.) an adequate contribution to cost recovery is ensured  

Environmental  and  resource  costs  are  reported  to  be  calculated,  internalised  and 

considered  significant  for  three  water  services.  However,  because  there  was  still  no 
methodology  available  for  the  calculation  of  environmental  and  resource  costs,  they 

were  calculated  the  same  way  as  in  the  first  RBMP:  the  costs  are  assessed  as 
internalised costs in the financial costs forming the price of waste-water treatment and 

collection and drinking water production. 

Slovakia is working on developing methodologies/approaches to derive environmental 

and resource costs based on available published approaches. 

There is limited information on the incentive function of water pricing policies in the 

RBMPs,  although  an  analysis  of  the  pricing  policy  in  terms  of  adequate  incentives  is 
reported to have been carried out,  and an affordability index was determined (i.e.  the 
percentage of household income available for paying for water services).  

The  Polluter  Pays  Principle  in  Slovakia  is  stated  to  be  implemented  mainly  by  the 
charges  for  discharging  waste  water  into  surface  water43.  Waste  water  discharge 
charges  apply  to  those  who  dispose  of  waste  water  to  surface  water  in  quantities 
exceeding 10 000 m3 per year or 1 000 m3 per month and if they exceed the permitted 
limits. 

In  summary,  there  has  been  progress  regarding  pricing  policies  (amendment  to  the 

Water Act);  cost  recovery  rates  are  calculated only for five out  of ten water services. 
Some  progress  has  been  made  on  environmental  and  resource  costs  and  the  Polluter 

Pays Principle. The recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Develop  fully  the  economic  analysis  of  water  use,  including  the 
calculation  of  Environmental  and  Resource  Costs.  Slovakia  should  ensure  water 

pricing in agriculture. Slovakia should elaborate on this issue in the second RBMPs. 

43 Slovakia subsequently clarified that it has applied the polluter pays principle for instance by  internalisation of 
fees for discharge of wastewater in the price for collection and treatment of wastewater  and that it has made 
steps compared to the first RBMP on a methodology for establishing environmental and resource costs, in line 
with EU approaches.  

126 

 
                                                      
  
Assessment:  The  first  part  of  this  recommendation  is  covered  above  which  indicates 

that some progress has been made. 

Since the first cycle, progress in the implementation of pricing policy has been made as 

follows: 

An  amendment  to  the  Water  Act,  which  entered  into  force  on  15  January  2015, 

introduced charging for irrigation water for agricultural land, which since 2004 had not 
been charged for. 

The amendment also resulted in a change in the water abstraction permits issued by the 
State Water Administration for the abstraction of freshwater and groundwater for a new 

period of 10 years, after which they would be re-evaluated. Under the previous Water 
Act these permits were issued without a time limit. 

The  amendment  to  the  Water  Act  also  introduced  other  measures  concerning  water 
permits which contributed to the implementation of Article 9 of the WFD and towards 

an efficient use of water (these measures are described in the background documents to 
the RBMPs).  

It is also stated in the RBMP that in future years, the analysis of financial and economic 

instruments as part of the pricing policy under Article 9 WFD would continue to form a 
basis for policy decisions. 

Overall, progress can be reported. The recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

127 

 
 
 
Topic 15

  Considerations specific to Protected Areas 

(identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 

15.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

Protected  Areas  have  been  identified  for  all  relevant  surface  water  types,  except  for  the 
Nitrates  Directive  where  no  associated  surface  water  areas  have  been  identified.  For 
groundwaters,  nutrient  sensitive  Protected  Areas  have  been  identified  along  with  Drinking 
Water Protected Areas (Table 15.1).  

Table 15.1 

Number  of  protected  areas  of  all  types  in  each  RBD  of  Slovakia,  for 
surface and groundwater 

Protected Area type 

Number of Protected Areas 
associated with44 

Abstraction of water intended for human consumption under Article 7 
Recreational waters, including areas designated as bathing waters under 
Directive 76/160/EEC45 
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)46 
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)47 
Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas designated as vulnerable zones 
under Directive 91/676/EEC48 and areas 
designated as sensitive areas under Directive 91/271/EEC49 
Areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic 
species 

Other 

Rivers 

34 

26 

40 

219 

1 

65 

Groundwater 
1734  
(Danube 1688, 
Vistula 46) 

1520 

7 

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

44 Slovakia subsequently corrected the data reported in WISE (the amended numbers are in brackets in this table) 
45   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  

46   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  

47   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  

48   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 

49   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 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
 
The  status  assessment  is  mainly  based  on  information  with  low  confidence  indicating  a 

significant need for additional monitoring data. 

For  Birds  and  Habitat  Protected  Areas  related  to  surface  water  it  was  reported  for  all  water 

bodies that the achievement of good ecological status is sufficient to reach the objectives of the 
Directives.  It  was  not  possible  to  determine  whether  this  assessment  had  been  based  on  a 

specific analysis of each water body or if it is used as a default. As such, additional objectives 
have not been set. 

No data was reported with regard to specific monitoring of Protected Areas. Table 15.2 shows 
the number of monitoring sites that are associated with Protected Areas in Slovakia. From the 

information  on  status  assessment  it  is  likely  that  there  is  a  significant  need  for  additional 
monitoring to increase the level of confidence.  

Table 15.2  Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas in Slovakia 

Protected Area type 

Abstraction of water intended for human consumption under Article 7 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas designated as vulnerable zones under Directive 
91/676/EEC and areas designated as sensitive areas under Directive 91/271/EEC 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Number of 
monitoring 
sites 
associated 
with 
Protected 
Areas in50 

Ri
vers 

Groun
dwater 

7 

(1264) 

1106(13
40) 

Safeguard  zones  for  the  protection  of  Drinking  Waters  have  been  established.  Different 
restrictions  are  implemented  based  on  the  distance  to  the  abstraction  point  (mainly 

groundwater wells). 

No information was found on additional measures related to other types of Protected Areas  – 

which might be explained to a certain extent by the fact that for nature areas, the achievement 
of  good  ecological  status  was  considered  sufficient  to  reach  the  objectives  of  the  Birds  and 

Habitats Directives; hence additional measures may have been deemed as not necessary.  

Exemptions related to Protected Areas have not been applied. 

50 Slovakia subsequently corrected the data reported in WISE (the amended numbers are in brackets in this table) 

129 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 15.1 provides an overview of the status (chemical and ecological and for groundwater 

also  quantitative)  of  water  bodies  associated  with  Protected  Areas  is  reported.  The  chemical 
status  of  surface  water  bodies  and  groundwater  bodes  as  well  as  the  quantitative  status  of 

groundwater bodies associated with Protected Areas is generally good. Around 60% of water 
bodies associated with Protected Areas have good or better ecological status/potential. 

Figure 15.1  Status of water bodies associated with the Protected Areas report for Slovakia. 
Note: based on status/potential aggregated for all water bodies associated with 

all Protected Areas 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

130 

 
 
 
 
15.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

For  the  Danube  in  contrast  to  the  first  planning  cycle,  targets  for  protected  areas  associated 
with wetlands of international importance were set in accordance with the 4th Ramsar Strategic 

Plan for 2016-2021. 

15.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission made no recommendations based on the first River Basin Management Plans 

and first PoM. 

131 

 
 
Topic 16

  Adaptation to drought and climate change 

16.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

Climate Change  

Climate change was considered in all RBDs and it is stated that the guidance on how to adapt 
to climate change (Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document No. 2451) was used. 
Climate  change  was  considered  when  assessing  direct  and  indirect  climate  pressures,  for 
detecting  climate  change  signals,  when  managing  drought,  floods  and  water  scarcity.  It  was 

also  reported  to  be  considered  when  monitoring  change  at  reference  sites  and  in  setting 
objectives.  

KTM  24  -  "Adaptation  to  climate  change"  has  been  made  operational  to  address  significant 
pressures  in  the  Danube  RBD.  Also  national  measures  were  mapped  against  KTM  24  in  the 

Danube RBD. No specific sub-plans addressing climate change were reported.  

Effects and impacts of prolonged droughts, as well as related measures  

According to the 2012 “Topic report on: Assessment of Water Scarcity and Drought aspects in 
a  selection  of  European  Union  RBMPs”52,  droughts  are  not  relevant  for  the  country  in  local 
sub-basins.  No  exemptions  have  been  applied  for  Slovakia  following  Article  4(6)  due  to 
prolonged droughts. 

Even though there is no legal obligation to prepare Drought Management Plans, many Member 
States have prepared them in order to cope with droughts. No Drought Management Plans have 

been developed in Slovakia. The European Commission made no recommendations regarding 
drought management. 

16.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

A climate check of the PoM was not carried out in the first RBMP although it was carried out 
in the second cycle. 

51https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/a88369ef-df4d-43b1-8c8c-

306ac7c2d6e1/Guidance%20document%20n%2024%20-
%20River%20Basin%20Management%20in%20a%20Changing%20Climate_FINAL.pdf 

52 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Assessment%20WSD.pdf  

132 

 
                                                      
16.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  climate  change  is  adequately  considered  in  the 
assessment  of  pressures  and  status  of  water  bodies  and  that  the  objectives  of  the 

Slovakian Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change are properly taken into account 
in the design of the Programme of Measures. 

Assessment:  In  the  second  RBMP  it  is  reported  that  climate  change  was  considered 
when  setting  objectives  and  when  assessing  direct  and  indirect  climate  pressures, 

therefore this recommendation has been fulfilled. 

133