COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: France 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: France, 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) 47 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: France 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) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 
Acronyms...................................................................................................................................... 5 

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

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

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

Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plans . 11 

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

Topic 1

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

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

1.1  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 27 

1.2  Progress with Commission recommendationss ............................................................ 27 

Topic 2

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

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

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first  cycle ...................... 47 

2.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 47 

Topic 3

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water 

bodies 

 ................................................................................................................................... 49 

3.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
RBMPs.................................................................................................................................... 49 

3.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first the RBMPs ................... 73 

3.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 74 

Topic 4

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................... 78 

4.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 78 

4.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 94 

4.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 95 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 5

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater 

bodies 

 ................................................................................................................................... 96 

5.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 96 

5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 104 

5.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 105 

Topic 6

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 

106 

6.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 106 

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

6.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 114 

Topic 7
  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 
Ecological Potential................................................................................................................. 115 

7.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle for designation ............................................................................................................. 115 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 118 

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

Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions .............................................................. 120 

8.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 120 

8.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 126 

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

Topic 9

  Programme of measures.......................................................................................... 128 

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

9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 138 

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

Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity .......................................... 142 

2 

 
 
 
10.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .... 142 

10.2 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 144 

Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture................................................... 145 

11.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 145 

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

11.3 

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

Topic 12

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture ..................... 151 

12.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 151 

12.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 154 

12.3 

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

Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology ................................................................ 158 

13.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 158 

13.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 160 

13.3 

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

Topic 14

Economic analysis and water pricing policies .................................................... 162 

14.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 162 

14.2 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 162 

  Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives 

Topic 15
and measures) .......................................................................................................................... 164 

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

15.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 168 

15.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 168 

Topic 16

Adaptation to drought and climate change .......................................................... 169 

3 

 
 
 
 
16.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 169 

16.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 170 

16.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 170 

4 

 
 
Acronyms 

EQS Directive 

Environmental Quality Standards Directive 

FD 

Km 

km2 

KTM 

PoM 

Floods Directive 

Kilometre 

Kilometre squared 

Key Type of Measure 

Programme of Measures 

QA/QC Directive 

Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive  

RBD 

RBMP 

WFD 

WISE 

Annex 0 

River Basin District 

River Basin Management Plan 

Water Framework Directive 

Water Information System for Europe 

Member States reported the structured information on the 
second  RBMPs  to  WISE  (Water  Information  System  for 
Europe).  Due  to  the  late  availability  of  the  reporting 

guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an 
Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying 

what  information  they  were  unable  to  report  and  the 
reasons  why.  This  Annex  was  produced  using  a template 

included  in  the  reporting  guidance.  If  Member  States 
reported all the required information, this explanatory note 

was not necessary. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Foreword 

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

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

2015 and reported to the European Commission in March 2016. 

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

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

The  Member  State  Reports  reflect  the  situation  as  reported  by  each  Member  State  to  the 
European Commission in 2016 or 2017 and with reference to River Basin Management Plans 

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

6 

 
 
 
 
 
General Information 

Map A  

  Map of RBDs 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

  International RBDs (within European Union and Switzerland) 
  International RBDs (outside European Union) 
  National RBDs (within European Union) 
  Countries (outside European Union) 
  Coastal Waters 

7 

0350700kmADFRMediterranean SeaBay of BiscayEnglish ChannelLigurian SeaCHCHBEEscaut_RWBEEscaut_Schelde_BRFRGFRFFRDFRHITAITCDE1000ITEFRCFRADE5000AT1000FREFRB1CZ_5000ITDFRB2CZ_1000CZ_1000FRHITBES091DE2000ITAITCDE1000ITECHDE5000AT1000ES100ES030ES020DE4000UK08ITCUK07ES017BEMeuse_RWBESchelde_VLNLMSITDDE7000ES018AT2000LU RB_000BEMaas_VLBERhin_RWMC0100200kmMayotte (FR)Reunion (FR)French Guiana(FR)Martinique (FR)Guadeloupe (FR)0100km020km0120km020km020kmFRIFRJFRKFRLFRM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Information on areas of the national RBDs including sharing countries is provided in Table A: 

Table A  

Overview of France‘s RBDs  

Name 

Short Name1  Size2 (km2) 

Countries sharing 
RBD 

RBD 

FRA 

FRB1  Meuse 

Scheldt, Somme and coastal waters of the 
Channel and the North Sea 

Scheldt 

Meuse 

19362 

BE, NL 

7901 

1103 

BE, DE, LU, NL 

BE 

FRB2  Sambre (part of the Meuse international RBD) 

Sambre 

FRC 

Rhine 

Rhine 

23736 

BE, CH, DE, LU, NL 

FRD 

Rhone and Coastal Mediterranean 

FRE 

Corsica 

FRF 

Adour, Garonne, Dordogne, Charente and 
coastal waters of Aquitania 

Rhone-
Mediterranean 

Corsica 

Adour-
Garonne 

123846 

CH, ES, IT 

10896 

- 

118502 

ES 

FRG 

Loire-Brittany and Vendee coastal waters 

Loire-Brittany 

168857 

- 

FRH 

Seine and Normandy coastal waters 

FRI 

FRJ 

Guadeloupe 

Martinique 

FRK   Guyana (French) 

FRL 

Réunion Island 

Seine-
Normandy 

Guadeloupe 

Martinique 

Guyana 

Réunion 

96581 

BE 

4769 

2065 

85938 

2998 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Les cours d’eau de Mayotte  

FRM 
Source: RBMPs reported to WISE. Mayotte was only recently subject to the RBD and has different deadlines for 
reaching good status. 

Mayotte 

1761 

The  share  of  France  in  the  respective  international  RBDs  is  99.3  %  (Garonne),  92.1  % 
(Rhone), 50.8 % (Scheldt), 26.0 % (Meuse-Maas), 12.1 % (Rhine), 0.55 % (Ebro) and 0.23 % 

(Po). 

France has a number or parts of major international river basins on its territory with established 
international  co-operation  and  RBMPs  (Rhine,  Meuse,  Scheldt).  There  are  also  a  number  of 

river basins where very small stretches of river cross the national frontiers, such as part of the 
river  Po  (mainly  in  Italy),  and  small  parts  of  the  Ebro  (mainly  in  Spain  and  Andorra).  The 

Rhône river basin is shared with Switzerland. In these cases there is established co-operation 
on a bilateral level, although no international RBMPs have been adopted. Each of these RBDs 

is therefore considered as international. 

1 
2 

 The short name for each RBD is used throughout this report. 
 Area includes coastal waters. 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table B  

Transboundary river basins by category and % share in France  

Name 
international 
river basin 

National 
RBD 

Other RBD 
names 

Countries sharing 
RBD 

Co-ordination category 

1 

2 

km² 

% 

km² 

% 

Ebro 

FRD 

Adour 
Garonne (FR) 
/ Cantabrico 
Oriental (ES) 

ES 

Garonne 

FRF 

Ebro (ES) 

ES 

Meuse-Maas 

FRB1 

Meuse / Maas 
(BE, NL) 

BE, DE, LU, NL 

8919 

26.0 

474 

0.55 

80122 

99.3 

Po 

Rhine 

Rhone 

Scheldt 

FRD 

FRC 

FRD 

FRA 

Po/Rhône 

CH, ES, IT 

173 

0.23 

Rhine (BE), 
Rhein 

BE, CH, DE, LU, NL 

23830 

12.1 

CH, Po (IT) 

CH, ES, IT 

88977 

92.1 

Escaut / 
Scheldt (BE) 

BE, NL 

18486 

50.8 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

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

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Status of second river basin management plan reporting 

A total of 14 RBMPs (Scheldt, Meuse, Sambre, Rhine, Rhone-Mediterranean, Corsica, Adour-

Garonne,  Loire-Brittany,  Seine-Normandy,  Guadeloupe,  Martinique,  Guyana,  Réunion, 
Mayotte)  were  published  between  23  November  and  22  December  2015.  Documents  are 

available  from  the  European  Environment  Agency  EIONET  Central  Data  Repository 
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/. 

10 

 
 
 
Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River 
Basin Management Plans 

The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMPs of France are as follows: 

 

Governance and public consultation 

 

France’s  Competent  Authorities  include  its  Basin  Committees,  which  bring  together 

government and private stakeholders. This led to the involvement of a broad  range of 
stakeholders in the development of all the French RBMPs. 

 

 

The public consultation on the draft RBMPs led to improvements at different levels in 
almost all French RBDs. 

Some of France’s RBDs are part of international RBDs where cooperation includes the 
development of international RBMPs and PoMs: the Scheldt, Meuse/Maas and Rhine.   

 

France did not report on the international dimensions of Rhone-Mediterranean, Seine-

Normandy  or  Guyana  RBDs.  Nonetheless,  in  the  Rhone-Mediterranean  RBD,  France 
has strengthened cooperation with Switzerland and with Italy.   

 

France has not reported coordination with Belgium with regard to the Seine-Normandy 
RBD  (the  share  of  territory  in  Belgium  in  this  RBD  is,  however,  quite  small).  No 

information  is  provided  on  coordination  between  the  Guyana  RBD  and  neighbouring 
third countries.  

 

Characterisation of the RBD 

  Most  national  types  are  linked  to  an  intercalibration  type.  However,  32  %  of  surface 
water  bodies  do  not  have  a  corresponding  intercalibration  type  reported  (23  %  if  we 

only consider mainland France).  

 

For  the  Réunion  RBD,  the  typology  has  not  been  made  biologically  relevant  for  all 

types for the second cycle.  

 

Reference  conditions  are  available  for  some  biological  quality  elements  in  all  water 

types  for  rivers  and  lakes.  However,  there  are  still  some  significant  gaps  in  the 

establishment  of  comprehensive  reference  conditions  for  all  water  body  types  in  all 

11 

 
water  categories  in  France,  which  raises  doubts  about  the  robustness  of  the 

classification of ecological status/potential. 

 

For surface waters and groundwaters, in all 14 RBDs the significance of pressures was 

linked to failure of objectives. However, for groundwater, the significance of pressures 
was not defined in terms of thresholds in all 14 French RBDs and the same applies to 

eight RBDs for surface water.  

 

France carried out a comprehensive analysis of the gap that needs to be filled in order 

to reach the environmental objectives of the Directive. That analysis was done in terms 
of significant pressures. Some, but not all, pressures are linked to specific sectors and 

activities. The weakest part of the reported gap analysis concerns hydromorphological 
pressures,  which in  the  vast  majority of cases have not  been apportioned between the 

responsible sectors or activities, unknown or obsolete being reported instead.  

 

13  of  the  14  French  RBDs  have  established  inventories  of  emissions  (Mayotte  has  a 

different  timetable).  All  RBDs  except  the  Scheldt  and  Sambre  have  complete 

inventories,  with  only  one  group  of  substances  missing  in  these  two  RBDs.  The 
methodology used was reported as “other” and the data quality was uncertain. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status  

 

There was a small increase in the number of surveillance monitoring sites and overall, 

there is good representation in surveillance monitoring of water bodies in the different 

status/potential classes. However, the number of operational monitoring sites decreased 
by  about  72  %  in  coastal  waters,  rivers  and  transitional  waters  in  the  13  RBDs  that 

reported for both the first and second RBMPs. 

 

There  is  no  monitoring  programme  for  lakes  in  the  Guadeloupe  and  Guyana  RBDs, 

even if lake water bodies have been identified in both RBDs. 

 

At  least  one  biological  quality  element  was  monitored  in  almost  all  water  bodies 

included in operational monitoring. In lakes and rivers in some RBDs, some biological 
quality  elements  which  had  not  been  monitored  for  the  first  RBMPs  were  now 

monitored. However, the extent of the monitoring of most biological quality elements 
in transitional waters has decreased. 

 

There are still major gaps in the monitoring and assessment of the hydromorphological 

quality  elements.  For  example,  the  number  of  RBDs  in  which  hydromorphological 

12 

 
quality elements were monitored in lakes was reduced from nine to six. For rivers, this 

went down from 11 to 8 RBDs. 

 

For most biological quality elements and River Basin Specific Pollutants, the minimum 

recommended sampling frequency was not respected. The Directive allows for different 
frequencies  when  justified,  but  no  explanation  was  provided  by  France  for  the 

frequencies adopted. 

 

There was a reduction of the number of water bodies in unknown status. Over 99 % of 

coastal and river water bodies, 98 % of transitional water bodies and 93 % of lake water 
bodies have now been assigned an ecological status/potential class.  

 

All  the  required  biological  quality  element  assessment  methods  have  been  developed 

for  rivers,  transitional  and  coastal  waters,  although  reference  conditions  were  not 
developed  for  coastal  and  transitional  waters.  Assessment  methods  have  not  been 

developed for phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates in lakes. 

 

Standards were developed for most required general physicochemical quality elements 

in  rivers,  lakes  and  transitional  waters.  Standards  for  nutrient  conditions  were  not 
developed  for  coastal  waters,  even  if  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  are  classified  in  some 

water bodies. The classification method  for  general  physicochemical  quality elements 
is, therefore, unclear. 

 

Environmental Quality Standards were reported for 10 River Basin Specific Pollutants 
in  water  in  rivers  and  lakes,  and  for  one  pollutant  in  water  for  coastal  waters  and 

transitional waters. For biota, an Environmental Quality Standard has been set for one 
substance, for all four water categories. The standards have been derived in accordance 

with  the  Technical  Guidance  n.  27  and  the  analytical  methods  are  in  line  with  either 
Article  4(1)  or  4(2)  of  Directive  2009/90/EC.  However,  no  information  was  provided 

on how those River Basin Specific Pollutants were selected. 

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

 

Between  the  two  RBMPs  there  was  an  increase  in  the  proportion  of  surface  water 

bodies with good chemical status from 43 % to 63 %. The proportion of surface water 
bodies with poor chemical status decreased from 23 % to 16 % and the proportion with 

an unknown chemical status also decreased from 34 % to 21 %. 

13 

 
 

Overall,  52  %  of  surface  water  bodies  were  classified  for  chemical  status  with  low 

confidence, 33 % with medium confidence and 15 % with high confidence, reflecting a 
combination of monitoring, expert judgement and grouping used in  the  assessment of 

chemical status. 

 

A  large  proportion  (from  63  %  to  91  %)  of  the  lake,  transitional  and  coastal  water 

bodies  in  France  was  monitored  for  chemical  status;  about  a  quarter  of  river  water 
bodies were monitored. No territorial waters were monitored nor assessed for chemical 

status.  

 

The  operational  monitoring  programme  covered  most  of  the  water  bodies  failing  to 

achieve good status. 

 

All 41 Priority Substances were monitored in 12 of the 14 RBDs. In the two remaining 
RBDs  36  substances  were  monitored.  All  discharged  substances  were  monitored  (no 

inventory  was  reported  for  Mayotte).  The  sampling  frequencies  were  in  line  with  the 
recommended minimum frequency for surveillance monitoring, except for Guyana and 

Reunion  RBDs,  where  lower  frequencies  were  applied,  due  e.g  to  local  difficulties 
related to accessibility, seasonality, analytical capacity and costs.  

  Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  were  monitored  in  biota  for 
status assessment in six RBDs. Monitoring was undertaken at what seems to be a small 

proportion  of  sites.  The  reported  frequencies  met  the  recommended  minimum  at  the 
majority of sites. 

 

France  has  monitored  all  14  Priority  Substances  in  sediment  and/or  biota  for  trend 
assessment (except in the Réunion RBD, where sediment monitoring is not possible due 

to local hydromorphological conditions and trend monitoring is reported in water). The 
spatial extent could not be determined (as not properly reported to WISE). The reported 

frequency met the recommended minimum frequency at the majority of sites. 

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 

bodies 

 

There  was  a  significant  increase  of  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  and  of  the 

numbers  of  monitored  groundwater  bodies  and  of  monitoring  sites.  Still,  25  %  of 
groundwater  bodies  are  not  monitored  and  grouping  of  groundwater  bodies  for 

monitoring purposes was not indicated.  

14 

 
 

All groundwater bodies now have a clear quantitative status and the groundwater body 

area  failing  good  status  was  significantly  reduced.  However,  it  is  not  clear  from  the 
reporting  how  status  was  assessed  in  the  absence  of  monitoring  data.  According  to 

information  subsequently  provided  by  France,  the  groundwater  bodies  without 
monitoring are indirectly assessed by pressure and/or modelling approach. 

 

Environmental objectives related to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have 
not been considered in all river basin districts where such ecosystems  exist and cause 

risk. 

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

  Monitoring  decreased  from  89  %  coverage  of  surveillance  monitoring  in  the  first 
RBMPs  to  84  %  of  all  groundwater  bodies.  Not  all  groundwater  bodies  at  risk  are 

object  of  operational  monitoring.  Not  all  substances  causing  risk  are  object  of 
surveillance and operational monitoring. 

 

The overall status improved significantly, as the number of groundwater bodies failing 
good status dropped from 235 to 199 (from 31 % to 25 % in terms of total groundwater 

body area failing good status). 

 

There was no consideration of groundwater associated surface waters in threshold value 

establishment  and  no  consideration  in  status  assessment  in  the  Rhone-Mediterranean 
river basin district where such ecosystems are related to risk. 

 

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

 

No  major  changes  in  the  methodology  for  heavily  modified  water  body  designation 

have taken place. General information about the definition of significant adverse effects 
of  restoration  measures  on  the  use  and  the  wider  environment  and  of  better 

environmental options is found in a national guidance document.  

 

The methodology for defining good ecological potential has not changed since the first 

RBMPs. Good ecological potential is defined using a hybrid approach (combining the 

Prague and the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance approaches); however, it is 
not  defined  in  two  RBDs  with  designated  HMWB  (Guyana  and  Réunion).  Good 
ecological  potential  biological  values  are  derived  for  diatoms  (rivers)  and 

15 

 
phytoplankton (lakes), thus still missing the biological quality elements which are most 

sensitive to hydromorphological alterations. Mitigation measures are also identified for 
defining  good  ecological  potential,  but  no  description  is  provided  of  the  ecological 

changes expected due to the mitigation measures. 

 

Environmental objectives and exemptions 

  The  increased  number  of  exemptions  in  a  number  of  RBDs  is  an  issue  of  concern. 
Progress  with  the  justifications  for  the  application  of  Article  4(4)  and  4(5)  exemptions 
should be continued and uncertainties further reduced. Justifications need to be reviewed 

and updated in  order to  ensure that all possible measures  are implemented for a timely 
achievement of the WFD objectives.  

  For  the  application  of  Article  4(7)  France  needs  to  ensure  a  thorough  assessment  of 
proposed new projects in line with the requirements of the WFD and as further specified 

by the Judgment of the Court in case C-461/13. 

 

Programme of Measures 

 

Significant  progress  in  the completion of measures does not  seem  to  have been made 

between the two cycles. 

 

For  the  second  cycle,  finance  has  been  secured  for  all  measures  and  all  relevant 
sectors.Lack of  finance  was reported  as an obstacle to  the implementation of the first 

Programmes of Measures. 

 

New  legislation  or  regulations  to  implement  the  Programmes  of  Measures  in  the  first 

cycle  were  reported  as  necessary  and  already  adopted  in  all  13  previously  reported 
RBDs. 

  With  a  few  exceptions,  most  significant  pressures  seem  to  be  covered  by  operational 

KTMs.  

 

38  national  basic  measures  and  204  national  supplementary  measures  have  been 

mapped  against  predefined  KTMs  and  the  basic  measure  types  are  indicated  for  all 
RBDs. National measures have been mapped against a wide range of KTMs.   

 

No  KTMs  have  been  reported  to  tackle  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  or  Priority 
Substances causing water bodies to fail good status. 

16 

 
 

Indicators of gaps have not been reported for 2027. Indicators for the scale and progress 

of the implementation of measures have not been reported for 2021 or 2027. 

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 

  Water  abstraction  has  not  been  identified  as  a  significant  pressure  at  the  river  basin 
district  level.  However,  several  river  basin  districts  have  more  than  10  %  of 
groundwater  bodies  in  bad  quantitative  status  or  more  than  20  %  of  surface  water 

bodies with significant abstraction pressures.  

  Water  resource  allocation  and  management  planning  in  relation  to  abstractions  is 

included in the RBMPs.  

 

There  is  a  concession,  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  water 
impoundment and abstractions as well as a register of impoundments and abstractions. 

Complementary measures are reported for addressing abstraction pressures, and water 
reuse is foreseen as a measure in most of the river basin districts.  

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. No gap 
assessment in terms of load reduction was done but there is information on the number 

of water bodies for which a measure is planned in the second cycle. 

Safeguard zones have been established for abstractions.  

Implementation  of  basic  measures  under  Article  11(3)(h),  for  the  control  of  diffuse 

pollution from agriculture at source, is ensured in all RBDs with differentiated rules for 
different parts of the RBDs. Supplementary measures are applied in all RBDs. General 

binding  rules  for  nitrates,  pesticides,  phosphorus  and  sediments  to  control  diffuse 
pollution from agriculture are set and applied in all RBDs. 

No  information  is  available  in  the  RBMPs  on  the  use  of  mandatory  versus  voluntary 
measures. 

Progress is anticipated in relation to pesticides. However, no specific link is made to the 
Directive on Sustainable Use of Pesticides. 

 

Financing of agricultural measures is secured in all RBDs. 

17 

 
  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 

  Many  KTMs  have  been  reported  to  tackle  a  wide  range  of  non  agricultural  pressures 
causing  pollution,  including  for  example  pollution  from  urban  and  industrial  waste 
water treatment plants, or pollution  from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure.  

 

Two  national  plans  are  in  place  to  better  know  and  better  control  pollution,  one  plan 
dealing with micropollutants in general, and one more specifically on plant protection 

products. 

 

France chose to report KTMs as linked to pressures and not specifically to substances, 

so it is not possible to know whether measures are in place to tackle pollution from all 

substances  causing  failure  and  to  suppress  emissions  from  all  priority  hazardous 
substances. 

 

Efforts are being made to tackle pollution from nutrients at basin wide level, however it 
could  not  be determined whether the expected progress  will be sufficient to  reach the 

WFD objectives. 

  Measures related to hydromorphology 

 

Operational KTMs to address the significant hydromorphological pressures are reported 

for  11  out  of  the  14  RBDs  where  such  pressures  are  identified.  However,  significant 
hydromorphological  pressures  have  not  been  clearly  related  in  the  WISE  reporting  to 

specific  sectors  and  drivers.  Operational  KTMs  for  hydromorphological  pressures  are 
missing  for  three  RBDs  (Réunion,  Guyana  and  Martinique.)  For  the  KTMs,  indicator 

values are only reported for 2015, but not for 2021 and 2027. Therefore, no conclusions 
can  be  reached  on  the  number  of  measures  that  will  still  be  needed  after  2021  for 

hydromorphological pressures. 

 

Although  hydromorphological  measures  to  restore  ecological  continuity  in  the  Rhine 

have been agreed in the framework of the International Convention for the Protection of 
the Rhine (ICPR), these measures have not yet been implemented in France. 

 

In  four  RBDs  (Rhone-Mediterranean,  Corsica,  Adour-Garonne  and  Martinique) 

ecological flows have been derived for all relevant water bodies. In two of these RBDs 
(Adour-Garonne,  Martinique)  the  derived  ecological  flows  have  been  implemented  in 
all relevant water bodies, while in the other two there has been partial implementation 

18 

 
and the work is  still ongoing.  In the remaining  10 RBDs, ecological  flows have been 

partially  derived  and  work  is  still  ongoing.    Specific  measures  to  achieve  ecological 
flows are planned in some but not all RBDs. 

 

Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

 

 

 

Cost recovery calculations vary widely, as do the values reported.  

The RBMPs do not describe how ‘adequate incentives’ are provided.  

The  definition  of  water  services  varies  across  the  French  RBDs,  including  in  the 

language used to describe them.  

 

Considerations  specific  to  Protected  Areas  (identification,  monitoring,  objectives 

and measures) 

 

 

For  Protected  Areas  related  to  Shellfish  and  for  Drinking  Water  Protected  Areas 
additional objectives have been set for both surface and groundwaters. 

However, France reported that, for the majority of Protected Areas designated under the 
Birds  and  Habitats  Directives,  no  specific  water  objectives  have  been  set  to  protect 

dependent  habitats  or  species  because  the  additional  needs  are  not  known.  Progress 
with establishing the need for additional objectives is, so far, limited. 

 

The specific monitoring activity in relation to Protected Areas was significantly higher 

in the first cycle than in the second. The reported monitoring programmes for Protected 
Areas in France seem to be insufficient both in coverage and in number of monitoring 

sites. 

 

Adaptation to drought and climate change 

 

Climate  change  was  considered  in  various  ways  in  all  RBDs  and  it  is  stated  that  the 

Common Implementation Strategy guidance document on adaptation to climate change 
was used. 

 

No drought management plans have been reported for France, and there is not always a 
clear distinction between droughts and water scarcity. 

19 

 
 
Recommendations  

  France should ensure transparency on how coordination within the international river 
basin districts is taking place and include clear information in national RBMPs on 
international coordination efforts.  

  France 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 Programme of Measures in order to ensure the 
timely achievement of the WFD objectives. 

  France has made important progress on the significance of pressures and its quantification, 

but further work is needed in the identification of all pressures, in particular 
hydromorphological, which also need to be apportioned among different sectors. 

  Reference conditions are still incomplete for all required Quality Elements, in particular 

for hydromorphological and biological Quality Elements. This work therefore needs to be 
completed. 

  France should further strengthen monitoring of surface waters by covering all relevant 
quality elements in all water categories. In particular, hydromorphological quality 
elements should be monitored at a sufficient number of sites for a reliable assessment of 
status/potential.  Operational monitoring needs to include all water bodies which are 
subject to significant pressures. The monitoring frequency should be in line with the 
minimum recommended frequency, especially for surveillance monitoring, unless 
adequately justified. 

  France should have a clear and transparent method for the selection of River Basin 

Specific Pollutants. 

  France should complete the development of assessment methods for all biological quality 

elements in all categories of water bodies, and develop reference conditions for 
transitional and coastal waters. River Basin Specific Pollutants should be included in the 
assessment of transitional waters, and to a larger extent in coastal waters.  

  France should continue to progress in the assessment of hydromorphological and general 

physicochemical quality elements. France should develop standards for nutrient conditions 
for coastal waters and clarify the classification methods used. The assessment of 
hydromorphological quality elements should be linked to sensitive biological quality 
elements, and should cover all categories of water bodies.  

  The number of unknowns in chemical status should be further reduced and confidence in 
the assessment further improved. Monitoring should be performed in the relevant matrix 

20 

 
in a way that ensures sufficient spatial coverage and temporal resolution to reach sufficient 
confidence in the assessment for all water bodies, if necessary in combination with robust 
grouping/extrapolation methods. If a different matrix or reduced frequencies are used, the 
corresponding explanations should be provided, as required by the Directives.  

  For trend monitoring, where sediment monitoring is not possible, monitoring in biota 

should be considered. 

  France should improve harmonisation of groundwater status assessments among RBDs, 
including the consideration of natural background levels.  Continued improvement is 
needed concerning groundwater monitoring (especially operational) and grouping 
methodologies need to be clarified. France should also ensure appropriate assessment and 
classification, taking into account the links to aquatic and terrestrial dependent 
ecosystems. 

  Good ecological potential needs to be defined also for the remaining RBDs where heavily 

modified or artificial water bodies are designated. 

  The increased number of exemptions in a number of RBDs is an issue of concern. 

Progress with the justifications for the application of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions 
should be continued and uncertainties further reduced. Justifications need to be reviewed 
and updated in order to ensure that all possible measures are implemented for a timely 
achievement of the WFD objectives.  

  For the application of Article 4(7) France needs to ensure a thorough assessment of 

proposed new projects in line with the requirements of the WFD and as further specified 
by the Judgment of the Court in case C-461/13. 

  France should ensure that funding for all measures and relevant sectors will be secured. 

  KTMs should cover all the significant pressures and be operational. In addition, KTMs 
should be reported to tackle River Basin Specific Pollutants or Priority Substances, to 
clearly show whether the measures are sufficient to reach the objectives of the WFD (the 
objective of reaching good status, but also the objective to suppress emissions for priority 
hazardous substances). 

  Water scarcity and over-abstraction should continue to be addressed in those river basin 

districts where they translate into significant pressures and cause poor quantitative status. 

  France should complete a comprehensive gap assessment for diffuse pollutant loads  from 

agriculture (nutrients, agri-chemicals, sediment, organic matter) across all waters 
(including coastal waters)  in all RBDs, and link it directly to mitigation measures  in the 

21 

 
third RBMPs (as per WFD Article 11(3)(h)), to facilitate the achievement of WFD 
objectives. 

 

 

In the third RBMPs, France should state clearly to what extent, in terms of area covered 
and pollution risk mitigated, basic measures (minimum requirements to be complied with) 
or supplementary measures (designed to be implemented in addition to basic measures) 
will contribute to achieving the WFD objectives. The contribution of the measures on an 
RBD-wide basis in all RBDs should be considered and sources of funding identified (e.g. 
CAP Pillar 1, RDP), as appropriate, to facilitate successful implementation of these 
measures.  

In the third RBMPs France should make the links between the WFD and supporting 
programmes (ND, SUD, Echophyta) more explicit and ensure that an expert and effective 
advisory service is available to farmers to aid successful implementation of measures. 
RDP funds need to be made available to support the successful implementation of the 
RBMPs’ agricultural measures. 

  France should continue their efforts to tackle nutrient pollution, and clearly assess and 

report the expected effect of the measures on status.  

  France should continue its efforts to implement and report hydromorphological measures 
for all water bodies affected by hydromorphological pressures, and for all RBDs, also to 
meet international commitments to remove obstacles to river continuity. 

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

  France should consider developing drought management plans for areas more at risk of 
drought, particularly in light of the fact that abstraction is identified as a significant 
pressure for both surface water and groundwater bodies in the country. 

22 

 
 
 
 
Topic 1

 Governance and public participation 

1.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

1.1.1

  Administrative arrangements – RBDs 

France  has  reported  14  RBDs3.  Of  these,  eight  are  located  in  “metropolitan”  France,  one  in 
Corsica and the remaining five in  France’s overseas territories outside of Europe. In the first 

cycle,  France  reported  one  fewer  RBD  (a  total  of  13):  in  the  second  cycle,  the  island  of 
Mayotte, previously included with La Réunion, was designated a separate RBD. 

France reports that four of its mainland RBDs are part of international RBD: Scheldt (part of 

this RBD is in the international Escaut/Scheldt RBD); Meuse (part of the Meuse international 
RBD);  Sambre  (also  part  of  the  Meuse  international  RBD);  and  Rhine  (part  of  the  Rhine 
international RBD). 

France  did  not  report  that  the  Rhone-Mediterranean  RBD  is  part  of  an  international  RBD: 

however, the Rhone itself arises in Switzerland, a non-European Union country, and its basin 
includes  Lake  Geneva  (Lac  Leman)  and  other  water  bodies  in  Switzerland4.    In  addition,  a 
small catchment (the Roya or Roia River) is shared with Italy and a small share of the Segré 
River basin (96 % of which is in Spain) lies in this RBD.  

France did also not report that Seine-Normandy RBD is part of an international RBD: a small 

portion  of  this  RBD  is  located  in  Belgium,  which  has  reported  it  as  an  international  RBD. 
Finally, France did not  report that Guyana, located in South America, is  part of international 

RBD(s). 

1.1.2

 Administrative arrangements – competent authorities 

France lists three sets of competent authorities.  

These include 12  Comités  de bassin (Basin  Committees) for the 14 RBDs (the Rhine-Meuse 
Committee covers the Meuse, Sambre and Rhine RBDs): these Committees are responsible for 

the preparation of the RBMPs.  

3   By  judgment  of  26  December  2018,  the  Paris  Administrative  Court  annulled  the  RBMP  (SDAGE)  of  the 

Seine-Normandy basin for the period 2016-2021. 

4   France  subsequently  informed  that  the  ‘Commission  Internationale  pour  la  Protection  des  Eaux  du  Léman’ 
(the  CIPEL  convention)  covers  bilateral  co-operation  with  Switzerland  which  is  elaborated  in  the  section 
below. 

23 

 
                                                      
Corresponding to each of these 12 Basin Committees there is a Préfet coordonnateur de bassin 

(Basin Coordinating Prefect), responsible for the assessment of groundwater and surface water, 
regulations, 
co-ordination  of 

implementation,  economic  analysis,  enforcement  of 

implementation of measures, monitoring of groundwater and surface water, preparation of the 
Programme of Measures, pressure and impact analysis, public participation and reporting to the 

European  Commission.  There  are  two  exceptions:  instead  of  a  Prefect,  the  corresponding 
Competent Authority in Corsica RBD is the Président du conseil executif de Corse (President 

of  the  Executive  Council  of  Corsica),  and  in  Mayotte  RBD,  it  is  the  Representative  of  the 
State.  

Finally,  the  Ministry  of  Ecology,  Energy  and  the  Sea  is  listed  as  a  Competent  Authority 
responsible  for  reporting  to  the  European  Commission  (under  the  current  government,  this 

Ministry has been renamed Ecological Transition and Solidarity). 

1.1.3

  RBMPs – structure (sub-plans, Strategic Environmental Assessment)  

France did not report the use of sub-plans for any of its RBDs. 

All of France’s RBMPs underwent a Strategic Environmental Assessment procedure. 

1.1.4

  Public consultation 

Documents were available for the requisite six months for all of France's 14 RBDs. In all the 
RBDs,  documents  were  available  for  download.  Paper  copies  were  in  general  available  in 

municipal  buildings.  Six  RBDs  carried  out  a  direct  mailing  via  email,  and  seven  a  direct 
mailing via the post. In five RBDs, documents were distributed at exhibitions.  

France  reported  that  stakeholders  in  all  RBDs  were  actively  involved  via  advisory  groups 

(presumably  the  River  Basin  Councils,  which  bring  together  public  bodies  and  stakeholder 
groups). Stakeholders were involved in drafting in all but one RBD (Guyana). Five RBDs used 

regular  exhibitions  for  active  involvement,  and  two  RBDs  -  Meuse  and  Rhine  -  established 
geographical commissions, with information meetings at local authorities and inter-municipal 

structures as well as dedicated  Internet  spaces. The stakeholders that were actively involved, 
according  to  the  information  available  in  WISE,  were:  agriculture/farmers;  local/regional 

authorities,  in  all  RBDs  but  Adour-Garonne;  NGOs/Nature  protection  in  all  but  Adour-
Garonne;  water  supply  and  sanitation;  consumer  groups  in  all  RBDs  but  Adour-Garonne, 

Corse  and  Mayotte;  energy/hydropower  in  all  but  Guadeloupe,  Martinique  and  Mayotte; 
fisheries/aquaculture  in  all  RBDs  but  Adour-Garonne,  Guadeloupe,  Martinique,  Guyana  and 
Mayotte;  industry  in  all  RBDs  but  Adour-Garonne,  Martinique,  Mayotte;  navigation/ports  in 

24 

 
all but Guadeloupe, Martinique and Mayotte. (France informed, however, that the consultation 

in  the  Adour-Garonne  RBD  included  local/regional  authorities,  NGOs/nature  protection, 
consumer groups, fisheries/aquaculture and industry.)  

Tourism stakeholders are indicated in three RBDs: Scheldt, Sambre and Rhone-Mediterranean. 
In  the  Meuse  and  Rhine  RBDs,  other  stakeholder  groups  involved  include  local  water 

commissions  (CLE  of  the  SAGEs)  and  other  public  concertation  bodies  (SCOTs)  as  well  as 
parties  involved  in  the  Floods  Directive5.  In  the  Rhone-Mediterranean  and  Corsica  RBDs, 
amateur fishing associations were involved. 

The impact of public consultation was: the addition of new information in 11 of the 14 RBDs; 
adjustment  to  specific  measures  in  10  RBDs;  commitment  to  further  research  in  six  RBDs; 

commitment to action in the next RBMP cycle in five RBDs; changes to selections of measures 
in five RBDs; greater coordination of public policies and finance for measures in two RBDs; 

and  changes  to  methodology  in  one  RBD  (out  of  France's  14  RBDs,  only  one,  Guyana, 
reported no changes following public consultation). 

France subsequently informed that as part of the RBMP and PoM consultations in the Meuse 
and Rhine RBDs, the Basin Coordinator Prefect  and the President of the Rhine-Meuse Basin 

Committee  requested  the  opinion  of  the  Presidents  of  the  Regional  Chambers  of  Agriculture 
for Alsace, Champagne-Ardenne and  Lorraine and the Presidents  of Departmental Chambers 
of Agriculture6. These bodies are also represented on the Basin Committee and participated in 
its working groups, which defined the fundamental orientations and provisions of the RBMPs. 

Drinking  water  and  waste  water  treatment  enterprises  were  widely  consulted.  The  Basin 
Coordinating Prefect  and the Basin  Committee chairman moreover sought  the opinion of the 

municipalities, which have authority for drinking water and waste water treatment (mayors of 
3,240  municipalities)  and  as  well  as  the  Presidents  of  inter-municipal  structures  (the 

Établissements  public  de  coopération  intercommunale,  EPCIs,  of  the  Rhine  and  Meuse).  In 
addition,  local  government  bodies  are  represented  on  the  Basin  Committee  (with  40 

representatives, 40 % of the total) that approves the RBMPs.  

France  subsequently  clarified  that  in  the  Loire-Brittany  RBD,  local  water  commissions 
(commissions  locales  de  l’eau),  which  prepare  lower-level  water  management  plans,  are 

closely  associated  with  the  work  to  prepare  the  RBMP,  on  the  one  hand,  by  being  officially 
consulted in the same way as other bodies and on the other hand, through their own networks. 

5 

 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 

6 For the Ardennes, Haute-Marne, Meurthe and Moselle, Meuse, Moselle, Bas-Rhin, Haut -Rhin and Vosges. 

25 

 
                                                      
In the Adour-Garonne RBD, 1,200 organisations were consulted, and 291 gave an opinion on 

the  RBMP  and  POM,  including:  Chambers  of  Agriculture  and  of  Commerce  and  Industry, 
Regional  Councils  and  socio-economic  councils,  local  water  commissions,  inter-municipal 

organisations and others.  

1.1.5

  Integration  with  other  European  Union  legislation:  Floods  Directive  and  Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive 

All  of  France's  RBDs  organised  joint  consultation  for  their  RBMPs  and  Flood  Risk 

Management Plans. 

For all of France's RBMPs, there was joint consultation with the Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive7. Further information on coordination in relation to measures is provided in section 
9.1.1 of this report. 

1.1.6

  International coordination and co-operation 

France reports that four of its RBDs are part of international RBDs - Scheldt (part of this RBD 

is  in  the  international  Escaut/Scheldt  RBD),  Meuse,  Sambre  (also  part  of  the  Meuse 
international  RBD)  and  Rhine.  For  all  four,  France  reports  that  international  cooperation  is 

taking place in the frame of international agreements, permanent co‐operation bodies and that 

RBMPs  and  Programme  of  Measures  were  prepared  at  international  level  (designated  as 
category 1 cooperation). In addition, explicit links were made with national RBDs within the 

international  RBMP  (for  further  information  see  the  reports  on  international  coordination  on 
the Water Framework Directive). 

As  noted  above,  France  did  not  report  on  the  international  dimension,  nor  on  international 

coordination, for the Rhone-Mediterranean, Seine-Normandy or Guyana RBDs. 

For the Rhone-Mediterranean, in 1963 France and Switzerland signed an agreement to protect 

Lake  Geneva,  which  is  part  of  the  Rhône  International  River  Basin  District:  cooperation  is 
undertaken  via  the  joint  Commission  created  under  the  agreement  (CIPEL,  Commission 

internationale  pour  la  protection  des  eaux  du  Léman).  France  and  Switzerland  have  also 
signed  administrative  agreements  for  several  small,  shared  sub-catchments  in  the  RBD  and 

have  discussed  a  framework  for  integrated  water  management  in  the  RBD  as  a  whole.  In 
addition,  France  and  Italy  have  signed  a  protocol  to  establish  stronger  coordination  on  their 

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

26 

 
                                                      
shared  sub-catchment  of  this  international  RBD  (for  further  information  see  the  reports  on 

international coordination on the Water Framework Directive). 

Regarding Seine-Normandy, where a small share of the RBD lies in Belgium, France informed 

that there are exchanges with Belgium.  

1.1  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

There  was  one  main  change:  in  2011,  Mayotte  became  a  "Département  et  Région  d'Outre-
Mer". Consequently, in the second cycle it is included as a new RBD, named Les cours d’eau 

de Mayotte. 

1.2 

Progress with Commission recommendationss 

 There were no recommendations for this topic. 

27 

 
 
 
 
Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District 

2.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second  cycle  

2.1.1

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

14  RBDs  reported  data  on  the  delineation  of  water  bodies  in  the  second  RBMPs.  There  are 

only data for 13 RBDs in the first cycle because the Mayotte RBD had not been designated as 
a separate RBD (previously included with La Réunion). Excluding Mayotte, there was a small 

increase in the numbers of coastal water bodies (4) in the second RBMPs compared to the first 
ones,  relatively  small  decreases  in  numbers  of  lake  (-17)  and  river  water  bodies  (-132)  and 

larger  decreases  in  numbers  of  transitional  water  bodies  (-10)  (Table  2.1).  The  Rhone-
Mediterranean  RBMP  explained  that  other  changes  included  the  modification  of  the  water 

body route and the modification of attributes such as the name. 

Excluding  Mayotte,  in  the  second  RBMPs  7  %  of  surface  water  bodies  were  designated  as 

heavily modified and 2 % as artificial (Figure 2.1). The largest proportion of heavily modified 
water bodies was for lakes (70 %) and the smallest for rivers (4 %). The proportion of heavily 

modified water bodies in the same 13 RBDs (excluding Mayotte) was the same as in the first 
cycle for coastal water bodies, with small increases in lakes (69 % in the first cycle, 70 % in 

the second), in rivers (3.3 % in the first cycle to 4.4 % in the second) and transitional waters 
(25 % in the first cycle, 28 % in the second). At the RBD level, there was an increase in the 

numbers of heavily modified river water bodies in 6 of the 11 RBDs with designated heavily 
modified river water bodies and no change in the other five. In each of the six RBDs there was 

also  a  decrease  in  numbers  of  natural  river  water  bodies  and  it  is  implied  that  some  natural 
river  water bodies in the first  cycle were designated as heavily modified  water bodies in  the 

second  cycle.  The  largest  increase  in  heavily  modified  water  bodies  was  in  Rhone-
Mediterranean  RBD,  rising  from  136  in  the  first  cycle  to  176  in  the  second.  The  RBMP  for 
Rhone-Mediterranean only compared the status assessment of the two cycles, for those water 
bodies that remained the same8. 

Table 2.2 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in France between 

the second and first cycles. There were no significant changes overall in the minimum sizes of 
each water body category. The minimum size criteria reported were 10 km2 catchment area for 

8   France subsequently clarified that a comparison of the evolution of the state of the water bodies was carried 

out. 

28 

 
                                                      
rivers  and  0.5  km2  surface  area  for  lakes.  However  two  RBDs  were  different:  Guyana  has 
minimum size criteria of 20 km2 catchment area for rivers and Loire-Brittany had a minimum 
size criteria 10 km2 surface area for lakes.  

Figure 2.1 

Proportion of surface water bodies in France 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%

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

29 

 
 
 
 
Table 2.1 

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

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Year 

RBD 

Number of 
water bodies 

Total area 
(km2) of 
water bodies 

Number of 
water bodies 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2010 

2010 

2010 

FRA 

FRB1 

FRB2 

FRC 

FRD 

FRE 

FRF 

FRG 

FRH 

FRI 

FRJ 

FRK 

FRL 

FRM 

Total 

FRA 

FRB1 

FRB2 

4 

4 

1 

25 

94 

6 

107 

141 

47 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

4 

2 

57 

837 

4 

329 

224 

150 

0 

1 

361 

1 

55 

141 

11 

473 

2 633 

210 

2 681 

1 893 

1 651 

47 

20 

841 

24 

26 

Total length 
of water body 

(km) 

2 425 

2 948 

357 

10 187 

40 010 

2 865 

38 887 

97 853 

25 817 

364 

249 

20 130 

617 

604 

Number of 
water bodies 

Total area 
(km2) of 
water bodies 

Number of 
water bodies 

Total area 
(km2) of 
water bodies 

4 

64 

5 

503 

27 

4 

11 

30 

8 

1 

9 

754 

28 

829 

467 

285 

1 

528 

32 

14 

10 

39 

19 

11 

19 

1 

12 

17 

2 519 

2 100 

1 145 

11 876 

1 911 

3 080 

976 

1 961 

395 

1 399 

435 

1 971 

10 706 

243 312 

94 

2 956 

179 

27 864 

4 

4 

1 

3 

4 

2 

55 

141 

11 

2 431 

2 999 

362 

30 

4 

60 

5 

503 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Year 

RBD 

Number of 
water bodies 

Total area 
(km2) of 
water bodies 

Number of 
water bodies 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

FRC 

FRD 

FRE 

FRF 

FRG 

FRH 

FRI 

FRJ 

FRK 

FRL 

25 

103 

6 

105 

141 

45 

1 

1 

3 

Total 

439 

57 

843 

4 

330 

225 

146 

350 

1 

1 963 

473 

2 610 

210 

2 680 

1 940 

1 679 

47 

20 

934 

24 

Total length 
of water body 

(km) 

10 204 

39 996 

2 880 

38 906 

98 047 

25 840 

365 

244 

18 810 

600 

Number of 
water bodies 

Total area 
(km2) of 
water bodies 

Number of 
water bodies 

Total area 
(km2) of 
water bodies 

27 

4 

12 

30 

7 

4 

8 

755 

28 

576 

513 

271 

14 

622 

32 

14 

11 

39 

19 

11 

19 

1 

13 

2 523 

2 109 

1 537 

11 887 

1 937 

3 090 

967 

1 943 

156 

10 824 

241 684 

96 

2 840 

164 

26 652 

Source: WISE electronic reports.

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.2 

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

Lake area (km2) 

River length (km) 

Coastal (km2) 

Transitional (km2) 

Year  RBD 

Minimu
m 

Maximu
m 

Average 

Minimu
m 

Maximu
m 

Average 

Minimu
m 

Maximu
m 

Average 

Minimu
m 

Maximu
m 

Average 

224.13 

44.09 

25.1 

233.3 

100.64 

1.08 

40.03 

15.97 

2016  FRA 

0.52 

2016  FRB1  0.62 

2016  FRB2  1.54 

0.8 

1.34 

1.54 

2016  FRC 

0.52 

10.97 

0.67 

0.92 

1.54 

2.28 

2016  FRD 

0.09 

578.22 

8.9 

2016  FRE 

0.38 

2016  FRF 

0.34 

2016  FRG 

0.04 

2016  FRH 

0.43 

2016  FRI 

0.35 

2016  FRJ 

0.81 

1.16 

57.65 

54.26 

45.91 

0.35 

0.81 

0.65 

3.08 

1.59 

3.2 

0.35 

0.81 

2016  FRK 

361.49 

361.49 

361.49 

2016  FRL 

0.15 

0.4 

0.25 

2016  FRM 

2010  FRA 

0.52 

2010  FRB1  0.63 

2010  FRB2  1.54 

0.8 

1.34 

1.54 

2010  FRC 

0.52 

10.97 

0.67 

0.92 

1.54 

2.28 

8.12 

1.93 

8.51 

1.33 

1.06 

2.04 

1.29 

3.29 

0.4 

1.72 

5.43 

0.85 

6.3 

6.85 

8.13 

1.93 

8.53 

1.33 

180.78 

20.91 

92.87 

213 

32.46 

21.54 

187.88 

15.2 

74.23 

13.64 

194.19 

14.5 

508.05 

51.69 

161.13 

15.64 

7.74 

17.67 

23.89 

1.76 

0.28 

1.08 

38.37 

15.93 

35.84 

354.43 

78.72 

724.49 

150 

0.12 

1.08 

216.72 

114.54 

1.7 

1,321.74 

304.51 

330.85 

100.56 

0.61 

0.57 

937.22 

279.96 

188.34 

27.94 

13.75 

611.1 

6.95 

75.38 

185.11 

15.57 

145.18 

35.58 

12.45 

6.37 

191.35 

51.38 

1.2 

1.2 

1.2 

227.39 

23.94 

1,960.60 

1,960.60 

1,960.60 

7.4 

199.71 

58.65 

57.71 

67.79 

25.7 

23.21 

0.73 

1.41 

69.33 

32.89 

303.18 

82.3 

224.87 

44.2 

25.1 

233.3 

100.64 

1.08 

40.03 

14.97 

180.75 

21.27 

93.03 

32.91 

213.05 

21.57 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lake area (km2) 

River length (km) 

Coastal (km2) 

Transitional (km2) 

Year  RBD 

Minimu
m 

Maximu
m 

Average 

Minimu
m 

Maximu
m 

Average 

Minimu
m 

Maximu
m 

Average 

Minimu
m 

Maximu
m 

Average 

2010  FRD 

0.09 

578.12 

2010  FRE 

0.38 

2010  FRF 

0.34 

2010  FRG 

0.04 

2010  FRH 

0.43 

2010  FRI 

2010  FRJ 

1.17 

57.52 

54.19 

45.88 

2010  FRK 

350 

2010  FRL 

0.03 

350 

0.4 

8.19 

0.66 

3.14 

1.6 

3.25 

350 

0.17 

1.06 

1.14 

1.29 

3.29 

0.4 

2 

187.98 

15.32 

74.41 

13.71 

195.75 

14.52 

507.81 

50.54 

161.03 

15.39 

17 

7.77 

12.21 

20.14 

25.01 

1.76 

0.29 

1.08 

38.34 

15.96 

35 

6.37 

355.05 

78.83 

727.6 

150.62 

420.84 

139.77 

1,320.31 

304.81 

0.12 

1.09 

1.7 

0.7 

188.53 

27.97 

13.79 

6.98 

283.34 

48.04 

227.39 

17.11 

355.88 

101.97 

0.57 

157.64 

38.68 

940 

280.91 

191.99 

50.9 

0.02 

9.33 

3.48 

1,943.00 

1,943.00 

1,943.00 

2.34 

372.09 

77.78 

0.41 

33.58 

11.97 

5.64 

23.16 

2 

191 

5.12 

51.32 

Source: WISE electronic reports.

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Overall there was an increase of 10 % in the number of groundwater bodies, from 574 in the 

first RBMPs to 631 in the second (Table 2.3). In the RBMPs it is explained that due to better 
characterization of groundwater bodies a refined delineation of groundwater bodies was carried 
out. In the Guyane RBD groundwater bodies have been combined together so there are fewer9. 
In  the  Réunion  RBMP  it  is  explained  that  a  new  national  reference  system  for  assessing 

groundwater bodies had been developed which incorporates recent hydrogeological knowledge 
from  the  studies  "altitude  aquifers",  "signal  processing",  "GSAM"  (Galerie  Salazie  Amont), 

which allowed for the review the delineation of the groundwater bodies in the first  RBMP. 11 
homogeneous aquifer systems were identified, within which a coastal area was distinguished. 

The second  RBMP takes into account this new delimitation with now 27 bodies of water (16 
water bodies 2010-2015). In the Rhone-Mediterranean RBMP it was reported that deep water 

bodies  were  removed  and  based  on  improvements  of  knowledge  and  the  revision  of  the 
hydrogeological entities some groundwater bodies were split.  

No transboundary surface water or groundwater bodies were reported by France. 

Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by France on how water bodies have evolved 
between the two cycles. The water body category with the most changes was river water bodies 

(n=790)  with  water  bodies  created,  split,  aggregated  and  deleted.  Groundwater  bodies  were 
also changed, with the most significant number of changes related to splitting of water bodies. 

Table 2.3 

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

Year 

RBD 

Number 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

FRA 

FRB1 

FRB2 

FRC 

FRD 

FRE 

FRF 

FRG 

16 

11 

2 

15 

238 

15 

105 

143 

Area (km2) 

Minimum  Maximum  Average 

475.68 

3,067.38 

1,304.99 

183.23 

2,627.48 

1,060.40 

671.26 

882.25 

776.76 

208.12 

8,424.66 

2,280.08 

12.15 

5,912.07 

642.91 

8.61 

1.86 

6.52 

3,199.76 

591.86 

40,031.94 

3,634.93 

38,610.89 

2,414.02 

9   France  subsequently  highlighted  that  the  transition  from  14  groundwater  bodies  to  27  was  due  to  recent 
hydrogeological  knowledge  gained  from  the  studies,  to  have  a  coherent  image  of  the  issues  of  sustainable 
aquifer management in the island of La Réunion, which highlighted quantitative imbalances and pressures. 

34 

 
                                                      
2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

2010 

FRH 

FRI 

FRJ 

FRK 

FRL 

FRM 

Total 

FRA 

FRB1 

FRB2 

FRC 

FRD 

FRE 

FRF 

FRG 

FRH 

FRI 

FRJ 

FRK 

FRL 

Total 

53 

6 

6 

2 

27 

6 

645 

16 

11 

2 

15 

180 

9 

105 

143 

53 

6 

6 

12 

16 

574 

110.57 

60,943.01 

3,491.08 

20.21 

678.27 

114.64 

279.16 

279.54 

180.53 

3,555.61 

83,797.15 

43,676.38 

6.07 

1.4 

389.83 

141.79 

92.72 

61.33 

475.68 

3,067.38 

1,306.67 

183 

2,633.00 

1,062.00 

671.26 

873.45 

772.36 

208 

8,432.00 

2,282.13 

17 

33 

2 

7 

111 

20 

114 

19 

70 

8,021.00 

786.27 

6,152.00 

1,000.11 

40,096.00 

3,641.24 

15,113.00 

1,489.14 

61,021.00 

3,497.00 

678 

279 

294.67 

180.33 

19,726.00 

7,308.50 

302 

176.56 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.4 

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

France between the second and first cycles 

River 

Water 
Body 

Transitional 
Water Body 

Coastal 

Water 
Body 

Lake 

Water 
Body 

6 

5 

9 

Type of water body change for 

Ground-

second cycle (wiseEvolutionType) 

change 

Aggregation 

Aggregation and splitting 

Splitting 

Creation 

Deletion 

ExtendedArea 

ReducedArea 

Change in code 

No change 

water 
Body 

283 

2 

7 

102 

35 

19 

1 

2 

790 

27 

35 

148 

299 

424 

9 

38 

213 

424 

9360 

Total water bodies before deletion 

682 

Delineated for second cycle (after 

deletion from first cycle) 

663 

444 

435 

11130 

10706 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

2.1.2

 Typology of surface water bodies 

11 

1 

2 

1 

2 

79 

97 

95 

11 

3 

2 

17 

4 

2 

1 

139 

179 

179 

Other than for five coastal water types shared between Guadeloupe and Martinique RBDs, all 

types reported for the overseas RBDs were unique to the specific RBD. All types reported for 
the  overseas  RBDs  had  no  corresponding  intercalibration  types.  Note  that  ecological 

status/potential has been reported for surface water bodies in the overseas RBDs. 

A number of types are shared by more than one European French RBD: 38 % of coastal water 
types, 62 % of lake water types, 52 % of river water types and 46 % of transitional waters are 

shared  by  more  than  one  RBD.  For  example,  coastal  type  C1  is  common  to  four  RBDs  and 
lake type A6b to six RBDs. 

Table 2.5 shows the number of surface water body types at RBD level in France for the first 
and second cycles. In general there was an increase in number of types from the first cycle to 

the second, which was largely due to the types from Mayotte RBD being reported separately in 
the second RBMP. 35 of the 48 coastal types, 33 of the 34 lake types, 139 of 145 river types 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
and 15 of the 16 transitional water types reported in the second cycle were common to the first 

cycle. 

For the Réunion RBD, the typology was based on geology, hydrology and geomorphology and 

there  is  no  evidence  that  it  has  been  made  biologically  relevant.  Other  RBMPs  refer  to  the 
national methodology for defining types. 

Overall,  32  %  of  surface  water  bodies  do  not  have  a  corresponding  intercalibration  type 

reported. Considering only the nine French European RBDs, there are 23 % of surface water 
bodies without a corresponding intercalibration type. The RBMPs did not provide information 

on whether the typology was coordinated with  other Member States, but  it was  reported that 
the types were coordinated at a national level. It is unclear how the results of intercalibration 

have been translated to all national types. 

Table 2.5 

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

second cycles 

RBD 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

2010 

2016 

FRA 

FRB1 

FRB2 

FRC 

FRD 

FRE 

FRF 

FRG 

FRH 

FRI 

FRJ 

FRK 

FRL 

FRM 

9 

9 

12 

18 

143 

143 

143 

143 

143 

4 

3 

8 

6 

9 

9 

5 

18 

61 

5 

48 

40 

27 

3 

3 

8 

6 

3 

3 

3 

4 

8 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

0 

1 

1 

2 

TOTAL 

145 

2 

0 

2 

0 

3 

1 

5 

12 

2 

0 

1 

3 

0 

3 

3 

1 

7 

19 

2 

12 

14 

6 

1 

1 

1 

2 

0 

34 

2 

0 

0 

0 

3 

1 

5 

5 

4 

0 

1 

2 

0 

0 

16 

3 

0 

3 

0 

7 

4 

7 

3 

0 

0 

0 

7 

4 

7 

26 

12 

7 

6 

7 

1 

6 

7 

6 

7 

1 

5 

8 

48 

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. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.3

  Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies 

Table  2.6  shows  the  percentage  of  surface  water  body  types  in  France  with  reference 
conditions  established  for  the  first  and  second  cycles.  There  are  significant  gaps  and 

shortcomings  in  the  establishment  of  comprehensive  reference  conditions  for  all  water  body 
types  in  all  water  categories  in  France,  which  brings  into  doubt  the  robustness  of  the 

subsequent  classification  of  ecological  status/potential.  For  the  types  in  the  European  RBDs, 
reference conditions have been established for some physicochemical quality elements for all 

coastal  types  but  not  for  any  biological  or  hydromorphological  quality  elements.  In  lakes, 
reference conditions  have been established for some biological  quality  elements  for all  types 

but not for any type in terms of hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. In 
transitional waters, the only reference conditions established are for 12 of the 13 types for the 

physicochemical  quality  elements  and  not  for  any 
the  biological  and 
hydromorphological quality elements. Reference conditions have not been established for any 

types  for 

hydromorphological  or  physicochemical  quality  elements  for  any  river  body  type.  The 
situation in terms of biological reference conditions for river types is better to some extent, in 
that  they  have  been  established  for  103  out  of  the  122  types  for  some  but  not  all  biological 

quality elements. The other 19 river types do not have reference conditions for any biological 
quality element.  

Reference  conditions  have  only  been  established  for  five  coastal  water  types  for  some 

biological and some physicochemical quality elements in the French overseas RBDs. Limited 
reference conditions were also reported for lakes and river types in those RBDs: two of the five 

lake types only for some biological quality elements and six of the 23 river types only for some 
biological quality elements. Reference conditions have not been established for any transitional 

type for any quality element.  

There is no information on coordination of reference conditions at the European Union scale in 
the  RBMPs.  In  the  Réunion  RBMP  it  was  indicated  that  there  was  lack  of  knowledge  for 

reference conditions for some biological elements, because it was the first time they had been 
set.  It is  indicated that knowledge will be improved, and that  this may have an effect  on the 
definition of reference conditions and hence biological assessment in the future. 

38 

 
Table 2.6 

Percentage  of  surface  water  body  types  in  France  with  reference  conditions 

established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and 
physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of 

types in each category  

Water 

category 

Water 

Biological quality 

Hydromorphological 

Physicochemical quality 

types 

elements 

quality elements 

elements 

All 

Lakes (34) 

Some 

None 

All 

Rivers (145) 

Some 

Transitional 
(16) 

None 

All  

Some 

None 

All  

91 % 

9 % 

75 % 

25 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

Coastal (48) 

Some 

None 

10 % 

90 % 

100 % 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

75 % 

25 % 

65 % 

35 % 

2.1.4

 Characteristics of groundwater bodies 

13  of  the  14  RBDs  (all  except  Mayotte)  reported  data  on  the  geological  formation  of  their 
aquifer  types  and  whether  or  not  the  groundwaters  are  layered.  The  same  13  RBDs  reported 

whether groundwater bodies are associated with one or more surface water bodies and whether 
a terrestrial ecosystem is directly dependent on the groundwater body. 

2.1.5

 Significant pressures on water bodies 

Overall the most significant pressures on surface water bodies in France in the second RBMPs 
were  diffuse  agricultural  and  “Physical  alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian  area/shore  - 

Unknown  or  obsolete”  (i.e.  physical  alterations  to  the  water  body  from  an  unknown  source) 
(Figure  2.2).  Diffuse  agricultural  pressures  were  the  most  significant  on  surface  water  in 

France in the second cycle: 36 % of coastal waters, 26 % of lakes, 30 % of rivers and 60 % of 
transitional  water  bodies,  were  reported  to  be  affected.  Pressures  arising  from  Physical 

alteration of  channel/bed/riparian area/shore  - Unknown or obsolete were also  reported to  be 
significant  in  rivers (33  % of river  water bodies) and transitional water bodies (37 %). Point 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
source pressures from urban waste water were significant in 27 % of coastal water bodies and 

49 % of transitional water bodies. Diffuse agricultural pressures were reported in 13 of the 14 
RBDs  with  rivers.  Abstraction  or  flow  diversion  for  public  water  supply  and  pressures  from 

dams, barriers and locks (unknown or obsolete) were both significant in 12 RBDs. 8 of the 11 
RBDs with coastal waters reported significant point source pressures from urban waste waters, 

and seven RBDs reported significant pressures from physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian 
area/shore  -  Unknown  or  obsolete  and  diffuse  agriculture.  11  of  the  13  RBDs  with  lakes 

reported  significant  diffuse  agricultural  pressures  and 
five  physical  alteration  of 
channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Unknown or obsolete and point source pressures from urban 

waste  water.  Diffuse  agricultural  pressures  were  again  significant  in  the  most  RBDs  with 
transitional  waters  (six  out  of  eight  RBDs)  with  physical  alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian 

area/shore - Unknown or obsolete pressures and point source pressures from urban waste water 
significant in five RBDs. 

In  the  first  RBMPs,  the  most  significant  pressures  in  France  (based  on  13  RBDs,  excluding 
Mayotte) were from diffuse sources (38 % of surface water bodies) followed by point source 

pressures (30 % of surface water bodies) and river management pressures (Figure 2.3). 

It is not possible to make a direct comparison between the two cycles because of changes in 
pressure definitions between the two cycles and because of changes in water body delineation. 

In addition, different RBDs reported either aggregated pressures or disaggregated pressures in 
the first RBMPs: the comparison would have to be based on aggregated data.  

In  the  second  RBMPs,  39  %  of  surface  water  bodies  in  France  were  subject  to  significant 
diffuse pressures compared to 38 % in the first ones. There has been little change between the 

two cycles in these significant pressures on surface water bodies between the two cycles.  

In  the  Rhone-Mediterranean  RBMP,  it  was  explained  that  better  data  and  better  ways  of 
identifying/defining pressures led to a better detailed view on water bodies at risk. In that way, 
at an RBD level it may seem as if there are more pressures exerting a negative impact on water 
bodies,  but  in  the  RBMP  it  is  concluded  that  this  is  not  the  case.  The  higher  detail  serves 

towards  a  better  understanding  of  relevant  pressures  and  a  better  management  for  tackling 
these. In the Réunion RBMP, it is indicated that, due to changes in socio-economics (such as 

increase  in  population,  increase  in  intensity  of  agriculture  and  food  industry)  and  the 
implementation  of  large  sanitation  works,  expected  pressures  change  accordingly  and  there 

may be more of an issue in relation to water quantity and water quality as a consequence.  

40 

 
The  most  significant  pressures  on  groundwater  bodies  in  France  in  the  first  RBMPs  were 

diffuse sources (66 %), water abstraction (72 %) and point source pressures (7.1 %). Similarly 
to  surface  water, it is  not  possible to  make a direct  comparison  between  the first  and second 

cycle.  In  the  second  cycle  the  significant  pressure  affecting  the  largest  proportion  of 
groundwater bodies in France was diffuse agriculture (54 %), followed by abstraction or flow 

diversion  -  Public  water  supply  (38  %  of  groundwater  bodies)  and  abstraction  or  flow 
diversion  -  agriculture  (11  %  groundwater  bodies)  (Figure  2.2).  11  of  the  14  French  RBDs 

reported diffuse agriculture as a significant pressure, followed by abstraction or flow diversion 
- Public water supply (10 RBDs) and abstraction or flow diversion - Industry (seven RBDs). 

Figure 2.2 

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

41 

 
 
Source: WISE electronic reports. 

Figure 2.3 

Comparison  of  pressures  on  surface  water  bodies  in France  in  the  first  and 
second  cycles.  Pressures  presented  at  the  aggregated  level.  Note  that  there 

were 11414 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 11523 for 
the first cycle. 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

2.1.6

 Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater 

The  Mayotte  RBD  only  used  expert  judgement  to  assess  the  significance  of  pressures  on 

surface  water  bodies.  Numerical  tools  were  used  to  assess  the  significance  of  point  source 
pressures in four RBDs, expert judgement in two and a combination of both in the other eight 

42 

 
 
 
RBDs.  Numerical  tools  were  used  in  fewer  RBDs  (two)  to  assess  diffuse  source  pressures, 

expert judgment in one and a combination of both in the other 11. A combination of numerical 
tools and expert judgement was used in most RBDs (11) to assess water flow pressures with 

expert judgment being used in the other two RBDs that assessed this pressure. Numerical tools 
were used by most RBDs (8), expert judgement in one and a combination of both in the other 

five RBDs to assess water abstraction pressures on surface water bodies. It was largely unclear 
what tools had been used to assess significant pressures for the first RBMPs. 

The  tools  used  for  the  assessment  of  point  source,  diffuse  source  and  water  abstraction 
pressures on groundwater varied among the French RBDs in the second RBMPs with cases of 

numerical tools, expert judgment and a combination of both being reported. Artificial recharge 
pressures  were  assessed  either  by  expert  judgment  or  a  combination  of  expert  judgment  and 

numerical tools in the seven RBDs that assessed this pressure. It was largely unclear what tools 
had been used to assess significant pressures for the first RBMPs. 

For surface waters, significance has been defined in terms of thresholds in six of the 14 French 

RBDs  whereas  in  all  14  RBDs  significance  was  linked  to  failure  of  objectives.  For 
groundwater, significance was not defined in terms of thresholds in any of the 14 French RBDs 

whereas  in  all  14  RBDs  significance  was  linked  to  failure  of  objectives.  For  example  in  the 
Rhone-Mediterranean RBMP, there is a graph that displays the percentages for which certain 

parameters have caused failure of reaching good ecological  status  in  2015. These parameters 
include  (1)  morphology  and/or  continuity,  (2)  hydrology,  (3)  dangerous  substances,  (4) 

pesticides, (5) diffuse pollution except for pesticides and nitrogen and phosphorus, (6) organic 
material and oxidisables, (7) other and (8) pressure unknown. Morphology (>70 % of the water 

bodies) and pesticides (>40 %) were the main pressures. There are maps included, such as in 
the Scheldt RBMP, which show an increase in nitrate concentrations per area, which may be 

linked to not reaching good status objectives for groundwater. 

In the Réunion RBMP, there was no indication of how pressures have been identified for the 

second cycle, but that the first cycle was reported rather late, so no new methodology has been 
identified. However, the combination of status  assessment and the identification of pressures 

led to the determination of water bodies that were at risk, not at risk, or uncertain of reaching 
good status by 2021.  

2.1.7

  Significant impacts on water bodies  

For  France  as  a  whole  (14  RBDs),  the  largest  impact  on  surface  water  bodies  in  the  second 
RBMPs  was  from  altered  habitats  due  to  morphological  changes  (40  %  of  surface  water 

43 

 
bodies),  chemical  pollution  (37  %),  nutrient  pollution  (33  %),  organic  pollution  (28  %)  and 

altered  habitats  due  to  hydrological  changes  (25  %)  (Figure  2.4).  In  the  first  RBMPs, 
information  on  impacts  was  only  reported  for  11  RBDs.  The  most  significant  impact  was 

altered  habitats  (36  %  of  surface  water  bodies),  nutrient  enrichment  (26  %)  and  organic 
enrichment (21 %). The data for the two cycles are not comparable because of the difference in 

the  RBDs  reported  and  also  in  terms  of  differences  in  the  definition  of  the  impact  types 
between the two cycles. The largest impact on groundwater bodies in the second RBMPs was 

from chemical pollution (28 % of groundwater bodies) and nutrient pollution (24  %) (Figure 
2.4).  

Figure 2.4 

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

44 

 
 
2.1.8

 Quantification and apportionment of pressures  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

France has reported information on the gaps to be filled to achieve objectives in groundwater 

for 13 of its RBDs. Gaps are reported for the different sectors responsible for diffuse, point and 
abstraction  pressures  in  particular.  For  example,  gaps  to  be  filled  in  terms  of  diffuse 

agricultural pressures are reported for 11 RBDs. 

For  surface  waters,  France  has  reported  information  on  the  gaps  to  be  filled  to  achieve 

objectives  for  all  14  of  its  RBDs.  Gaps  are  reported  for  the  different  sectors  responsible  for 
diffuse, point and abstraction pressures in particular. For example, gaps to be filled in terms of 

diffuse agricultural pressures are reported for 13 RBDs, in terms of point - Urban waste water 
pressures  for  14  RBDs  and  point  –  Industrial  Emissions  Directive10  plants  pressures  for  12 
RBDs.  However, 
there  has  been  no  apportionment  of  pressures/impacts  for  some 
hydromorphological  pressures  such  as  for  "Physical  alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian 

area/shore" where "Unknown or obsolete" is reported and for "Dams, barriers and locks" where 
"Unknown or obsolete" are reported. 

In  the  Réunion  RBMP  source  apportionment  of  pressures  on  surface  water  from  sectors 

contributing  nitrate,  phosphorus  and  organic  loads  to  surface  waters  has  been  undertaken.  In 
the  Scheldt  RBMP  there  was  no  specific  link  made  to  the  sectors,  but  in  the  Programme  of 

10 

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

(integrated 

prevention 

pollution 

control) 

and 

45 

 
 
                                                      
Measures, each parameter is clearly linked to a sector for which action is needed11. There is no 
quantitative data linking drivers/impacts to failure of good status for groundwater. 

France  did  not  report  any  information  on  the  quantification  of  gaps  to  be  filled  for  chemical 

substances  causing  failure  of  status  objectives.  It  should  be  noted  that  France  reported  water 
bodies that are in less than good chemical status and on Priority Substances that are causing the 

failures. 

2.1.9

 Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances 

Article  5  of  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive12  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 of the 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 (or suppressing) 
emissions, discharges and losses for Priority Substances.  

13 of the 14 French RBDs established an inventory of emissions: the exception is the Mayotte 
RBD. Mayotte became and outermost region of the European Union in 2014, which means that 

the European legislation (including the WFD and associated Directives) entered into force on 
1st January 2014 in this RBD. 

All RBDs except the Scheldt and Sambre had inventories for all Priority Substances. The only 
missing substances in the inventories for those two RBDs were those belonging to the group of 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.  

The two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°2813 
was  followed  for  all  substances  considered  in  the  inventories.  The  methodology  tier  was 

reported as “other” and the data quality as uncertain.  

11   France  subsequently  clarified  that  the  pressures  (and  therefore  the  drivers)  responsible  for  exemptions  on 
water  bodies  has  been  reported  to  WISE.  In  addition,  for  each  body  of  water  exempted,  the  impacts  are 
mentioned.  

12   Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental 
quality  standards  in  the  field  of  water  policy,  amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Council  Directives 
82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the 
European 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
Parliament 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105  

Council 

and 

the 

of 

13   CIS Guidance N° 28 - Preparation of Priority Substances Emissions Inventory 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm 

46 

 
                                                      
2.2    Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first  cycle 

Excluding Mayotte, which is a new RBD in the second cycle, there was a small increase in the 
numbers  of  coastal  water  bodies  (4)  in  the  second  RBMPs  compared  to  the  first,  relatively 

small decreases in numbers of lake water bodies (-17) and river water bodies (-132) and larger 
decreases in numbers of transitional water bodies (-10). There was an increase in the number of 

groundwater bodies from 574 in the first cycle to 631 in the second cycle. 

Overall in France (excluding Mayotte) the proportion of heavily modified water bodies in the 

13  RBDs  was  the  same  as  in  the  first  cycle  for  coastal  waters,  with  small  increases  in  lakes 
(69 % in the first cycle, 70 % in the second), in rivers (3.3 % in the first cycle to 4.4 % in the 

second) and transitional waters (25 % in the first cycle, 28 % in the second). At the RBD level, 
there was an increase in the numbers of heavily  modified river water bodies  in  six of the 11 

RBDs with designated heavily modified river water bodies and no change in the other five. The 
largest  increase  was  in  Rhone-Mediterranean  RBD,  from  136  in  the  first  cycle  to  176  in  the 

second.  In each of the six RBDs there was also  a decrease in  numbers of natural  river water 
bodies and it is implied that some natural river water bodies in the first cycle were designated 

as heavily modified water bodies in the second cycle. 

In general there was an increase in number of types from the first cycle to the second, which 
was largely due to the types from Mayotte RBD being reported separately in the second cycle 

RBMP. 35 of the 48 coastal types, 33 of the 34 lake types, 139 of 145 river types and 15 of the 
16 transitional water types reported in the second cycle were common to the first cycle. 

At the aggregated pressure level, 29.5 % of surface water bodies in  France were  affected by 
significant point source pressures in the second cycle, compared to 30 % in the first cycle. In 

the  second  cycle,  38  %  of  surface  water  bodies  in  France  were  subject  to  significant  diffuse 
pressures, compared to 38.6 % in the first cycle.  

2.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

 

 

Recommendation: Refine the significance of the pressures by quantifying those which 
are likely to prevent the achievement of environmental objectives. 

and 

Recommendation:  Apportion  pressures  by  their  sources  and  identify  the  responsible 
sectors/areas. 

47 

 
Assessment: France has reported a comprehensive set of gaps required to be filled to 

achieve objectives in groundwater and surface waters in terms of significant pressures. 
The  pressures  are  identified  by  sectors  and  activities  for  some  but  not  all  pressures. 

The  biggest  gap  in  the  reported  information  is  in  terms  of  hydromorphological 
pressures which in the vast majority of cases have not been apportioned between the 

responsible  sectors  or  activities:  instead  unknown  or  obsolete  is  reported.  In 
conclusion there has been significant progress on this recommendation but it has not 

been completely fulfilled. 

 

Recommendation:  Where 

there  are  currently  high  uncertainties 

in 

the 

characterisation  of  the  RBDs,  identification  of  pressures,  and  in  the  assessment  of 
status,  these  need  to  be  addressed  in  the  current  cycle,  to  ensure  that  adequate 

measures can be put in place before the next cycle.  

Assessment: There has been little if any progress on this recommendation in terms of 

characterisation.  Reference  conditions  are  still  not  complete  for  all  the  required 
quality elements with significant gaps remaining. Reference conditions have not been 

established  for  any  hydromorphological  quality  element  in  any  of  the  four  water 
categories,  and  not  for  any  biological  quality  element  in  coastal  and  transitional 

waters.  This  calls  into  doubt  the  validity  in  the  assessment  of  ecological 
status/potential  in  France.  This  recommendation  has  not  been  fulfilled.  (Further 

information on progress with respect to measures is provided in Chapter 9). 

48 

 
Topic 3

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  ecological 

status in surface water bodies 

3.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second RBMPs 

3.1.1

 Monitoring of ecological status/potential 

Monitoring programmes 

All  14 RBDs reported monitoring programmes. There was a separate monitoring programme 
for  groundwater.  In  terms  of  surface  waters,  there  were  either  a  surface  water  monitoring 

programme (e.g. in  the  Scheldt and Adour-Garonne RBDs) or separate programmes for each 
water  category  (e.g.  the  Rhone-Mediterranean  and  Corsica  RBDs).  In  general,  monitoring 

programmes covered each water category identified in the RBD. The exceptions were for lakes 
in  the  Guadeloupe  and  Guyana  RBDs  where  lakes  were  identified  but  no  monitoring 

programme was reported.  

Monitoring sites 

There were small increases in the number of surveillance monitoring sites from the first to the 
second  RBMPs  in  coastal,  lakes,  rivers  and  transitional  waters  overall  in  the  13  RBDs  that 

reported  information  for  both  cycles  (the  Mayotte  RBD  did  not  report  separately  in  the  first 
RBMP). Proportionally the largest increase was in transitional waters where numbers increased 

by 25 % from the numbers reported in the first RBMPs. Surveillance sites were not reported in 
the second RBMPs for lakes in Guadeloupe, Martinique and Guyana even though lakes have 

been  identified  in  the  water  body  characterisation.  Figure  3.1  shows  the  percentage  of  water 
bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring for the first and second RBMPs. 

Overall,  the  number  of  operational  monitoring  sites  decreased  by  about  72  %  from  the  first 
RBMPs  to  the  second  in  coastal  waters,  rivers  and  transitional  waters  in  the  13  RBDs  that 
reported for both cycles. There was a small increase (five sites) in operational sites in lakes. In 

rivers there was a decrease in numbers of operational sites in seven RBDs, an increase in four 
and no change in two RBDs. 

The  same  proportion  of  coastal,  lake  and  river  water  bodies  were  included  in  surveillance 
monitoring  for  the  second  RBMPs  as  had  been  for  the  first  overall  in  the  13  RBDs  which 

49 

 
reported  data  for  both  cycles.  For  transitional  waters  the  proportion  included  in  surveillance 

monitoring increased from 58 % for the first RBMPs to 62 % for the second. 

In contrast to surveillance monitoring, overall in the 13 RBDs with information for both cycles 

there was a decrease in the proportion of coastal (40 % to 29 %), lakes (49 % to 48 %), rivers 
(33  %  to  26  %)  and  transitional  (75  %  to  53  %)  water  bodies  included  in  operational 

monitoring compared to the first RBMPs.  

These  changes  in  the  proportion  included  in  each  type  of  monitoring  are  not  seemingly 
explained by the  relatively small decreases in the numbers of water bodies identified in each 

category from the first to the second RBMPs, which was around 1 % in each category. 

Representative RBMPs from three RBDs were examined to obtain any additional information 
on the changes in monitoring from the first to the second RBMPs. The number of monitoring 

sites has changed over time for the Scheldt RBD and Rhone-Mediterranean RBD, due to the 
new delineation of water bodies (grouping or new water bodies) or due to the extension of the 

network  in  order  to  increase  representativeness  of  the  network.  For  example,  in  the  Scheldt 
RBD there has been a selection of previously unreported existing sites to be representative of 
agricultural activities. No change has been made or reported in terms of ecological indicators 

for  the  status  assessment  for  either  of  the  RBDs.  There  was  no  information  for  the  Réunion 
RBD. 

50 

 
Figure 3.1 

Percentage  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  and  operational 

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

monitoring  

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Surveillance monitoring of surface water bodies 

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. 

Table 3.1 

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

data  reported  in  the  first  RBMP,  the  second  RBMP  data  does  not  take  into 
account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring 

second RBMP  

FR_A 

FR_B1 

FR_B2 

FR_C 

FR_D 

FR_E 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

Op 

42 

27 

8 

80 

396 

22 

40 

62 

9 

283 

656 

23 

4 

2 

1 

15 

43 

6 

2 

1 

1 

38 

5 

4 

4 

4 

4 

10 

4 

17 

3 

18 

5 

9 

3 

51 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FR_F 

FR_G 

FR_H 

FR_I 

FR_J 

FR_K 

FR_L 

FR_M 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Op 

377 

959 

648 

18 

10 

Surv. 

352 

420 

216 

25 

20 

51 

20 

20 

Surv. 

Op 

Surv. 

53 

48 

28 

1 

38 

76 

58 

1 

2 

10 

16 

5 

1 

29 

Op 

10 

9 

7 

1 

Surv. 

Op 

1 

10 

12 

6 

2 

7 

25 

12 

16 

12 

7 

10 

17 

Total by type of site 

1699 

3085 

201 

222 

79 

51 

133 

47 

Total number of monitoring sites 

3756 

320 

110 

158 

first RBMP 

FR_A 

FR_B1 

FR_B2 

FR_C 

FR_D 

FR_E 

FR_F 

FR_G 

FR_H 

FR_I 

FR_J 

FR_K 

FR_L 

4 

1 

47 

5 

38 

78 

44 

42 

27 

8 

80 

396 

22 

355 

420 

216 

20 

14 

53 

20 

43 

87 

6 

376 

658 

23 

935 

957 

1161 

17 

2 

4 

2 

1 

15 

45 

6 

52 

49 

23 

1 

1 

2 

4 

4 

4 

18 

3 

10 

30 

7 

12 

4 

8 

16 

5 

3 

13 

18 

6 

7 

25 

12 

11 

12 

4 

10 

8 

7 

1 

22 

12 

7 

4 

65 

Total by type of site 

1673 

4265 

199 

217 

63 

72 

109 

Total number of monitoring sites 

4967 

315 

96 

129 

Sources: Member States electronic reports to WISE 

Table 3.2 

Number  of  monitoring  sites  in  relevant  water  categories  used  for  different 
purposes  for  the  second  RBMP  in  France.  Note  that  no  differentiation  is 

made  between  sites  used  for  ecological  monitoring  and/or  chemical 
monitoring 

Monitoring Purpose 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

CHE - Chemical status 

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

ECO - Ecological status 

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

OPE - Operational monitoring 

320 

320 

1 

222 

85 

95 

3 

51 

116 

146 

47 

3100 

16 

3740 

1341 

3085 

52 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Monitoring Purpose 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

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

SEA - International network of a sea convention 

SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring 

SUR - Surveillance monitoring 

TRE - Chemical trend assessment 

Total sites irrespective of purpose 

26 

35 

1134 

1699 

1286 

3756 

151 

201 

154 

320 

8 

31 

79 

36 

110 

16 

46 

133 

45 

158 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Surveillance  monitoring  should  include  “sufficient  surface  water  bodies  to  provide  an 
assessment of the overall surface water status within each catchment or sub-catchments within 

the river basin district”. Overall in France, there is good representation of water bodies among 
the status/potential classes that are included in surveillance monitoring (Figure 3.2). 

All coastal water bodies included in surveillance monitoring were monitored for at least one of 

the  required  biological  quality  elements.  However,  60  %  of  these  water  bodies  did  not  have 
any hydromorphological quality elements monitored and 2 % had none of the physicochemical 

quality  elements  monitored.  16  %  of  transitional  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance 
monitoring had none of the required biological quality elements monitored, 69 % none of the 

hydromorphological quality elements and 9 % none of the physicochemical quality elements. 
In  rivers,  82  %  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  did  not  have  any 

hydromorphological quality elements monitored, 1 % none of the biological quality elements 
and 0.1 % none of the physicochemical quality elements. The situation for lakes in France is 

similar, as 62 % of water bodies included in surveillance did not have any hydromorphological 
quality elements monitored, 5 % none of the biological quality elements and 7 % none of the 

physicochemical quality elements. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.2 

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

included in surveillance monitoring in France  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

A differentiated presentation between ecological status and potential and including all 
types of quality element can be viewed here: 

https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityEleme
nt_Status_Compare/SWB_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embe
d=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false&:showVizHome=no 

The  water  category  with  the  highest  proportion  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance 

monitoring where all the required biological quality elements are monitored is rivers (82 % of 
water bodies), followed by coastal waters (70 %), lakes (35 %) and transitional waters (5 %). 

There was a wide variation among the RBDs in terms of monitoring all the required biological 
quality  elements:  in  six  of  the  eight  RBDs  there  were  no  water  bodies  where  all  biological 

quality  elements  were  monitored  in  transitional  waters.  In  five  RBDs  all  required  biological 
quality elements were monitored in all water bodies included in surveillance monitoring and in 

three there were none. 

The  extent  of  monitoring  of  the  hydromorphological  quality  elements  in  France  is  much 
smaller than for the biological quality elements. For example, 8 of the 10 RBDs with lakes did 

not have any lake water bodies where all required hydromorphological quality elements were 
monitored; in the other two all required elements were monitored. Overall in France, 2.5 % of 

lake  water  bodies,  4  %  of  coastal  water  bodies,  15  %  of  river  water  bodies  and  22  %  of 
in  surveillance  were  monitored  for  all  required 
transitional  water  bodies 

included 

hydromorphological quality elements. 

54 

 
 
 
There  is  a  high  percentage  of  coastal  water  bodies  in  which  all  relevant  physicochemical 

quality  elements  are monitored in  water bodies included in  surveillance monitoring (96 % in 
France as a whole). For rivers the overall value for France is 18 %, 36 % in lakes and 64 % in 

transitional water bodies. As for the other quality element  groups, there was a wide range of 
variation among the RBDs: in some, all elements were monitored in all water bodies, in others 

there were none.  

Operational monitoring of surface water bodies  

For  operational  monitoring,  the  WFD  requires  the  selection  of  parameters  indicative  of  the 
biological  quality  element,  or  elements,  most  sensitive  to  the  pressures  to  which  the  water 

bodies are subject.  At least  one biological  quality  element  is  used in  every transitional water 
body, in 98 % of coastal, 95 % of river and 98 % of lake water bodies included in operational 

monitoring. In terms of hydromorphological quality elements, only 18 % of transitional, 43 % 
of coastal, 6 % of river and 59 % of lake water bodies included in operational monitoring have 

at least one these elements monitored. 99 % of river, 98 % of lake, 93 % of coastal and 82 % of 
least  one 
transitional  water  bodies 

in  operational  monitoring 

include  at 

included 

physicochemical quality element. 

International surface water body monitoring 

26 sites (in the Scheldt, Sambre and Rhine RBDs) were reported to be part of an international 

network of a river convention and 59 (in the Scheldt, Rhone-Mediterranean, Corsica, Adour-
Garonne  and  Guadeloupe  RBDs)  sites  to  be  part  of  an  international  network  of  a  sea 

convention. 

Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) 

Table 3.3 illustrates the quality  elements  used for the monitoring of surface water bodies for 
the second RBMPs: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. 

55 

 
 
 
Table 3.3 

Quality  elements  monitored  for  the  second  RBMPs  in  France  (excluding 

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

Biological quality elements 

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

s
e
t
y
h
p
o
r
c
a
M

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

c
i
h
t
n
e
B

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

h
s
i
F

s

m
r
e
p
s
o
i
g
n
A

e
a
g
l
a
o
r
c
a
M

Rivers 

Lakes 

No   Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

r
e
h
t
O

c
i
t
a
u
q
a

r
e
h
t
O

a
r
o
l
f

No 

No 

Transitional  Yes  Yes  Yes   Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  No 

Coastal 

Yes 

Yes  No  Yes  Yes  No 

General physicochemical quality elements 

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

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

l
a
m
r
e
h
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

n
o
i
t
a
n
e
g
y
x
O

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

y
t
i
n
i
l
a
S

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

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

s
u
t
a
t
s

Yes 

Yes 

Yes  

Yes  

n
e
g
o
r
t
i

N

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 

Coastal 

Hydromorphological quality 
elements 

e
m
i
g
e
r

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

l
a
d
i
t

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

s
u
r
o
h
p
s
o
h
P

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
C

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

y
t
i
u
n
i
t
n
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes  

Yes  

e
t
a
c
i
l
i
S

Yes 

No  

Yes 

Yes 

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

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

r
e
h
t
O

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

t
n
e
i
r
t
u
n

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

No 

No  

Yes 

In coastal waters there was no change in the RBDs monitoring phytoplankton from the first to 
the  second  RBMPs.  However,  there  was  some  deterioration  from  the  first  to  the  second 
RBMPs  in  the  biological  quality  elements  monitored  in  coastal  waters.  For  example, 

macroalgae were no longer reported in the second RBMP in the Guadeloupe RBD, and benthic 
invertebrates no longer reported for the Martinique RBD.  

There  has  been  no  change  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs  in  the  number  of  RBDs 

reporting  that  phytoplankton  is  monitored  in  lakes,  but  macrophytes  appear  to  be  no  longer 
monitored  in  one  RBD  (Corsica)  for  the  second  RBMP.  Phytobenthos  was  reported  to  be 

monitored  in  lakes  in  three  more  RBDs  (Meuse,  Rhine,  Réunion  )  for  the  second  RBMPs 
compared to the first, and fish were reported for three RBDs that had not been reported for the 

first RBMPs. Nine RBDs reported that hydromorphological quality elements were monitored 
for the first RBMPs in lakes but this was reduced to six RBDs for the second.  

56 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Macrophytes were reported to be monitored in rivers by the same RBDs for the second RBMPs 

as for the first, but this still left a gap in that the Corsica RBD did not monitor this element. In 
terms  of  phytobenthos  and  benthic  invertebrates  in  rivers,  two  and  one  more  RBD, 

respectively, reported that these were now monitored for the second RBMPs. However, three 
fewer  RBDs  reported  fish  were  monitored  in  rivers  for  the  second  RBMPs  compared  to  the 

first.  Similarly  to  lakes,  for  the  first  RBMPs  11  RBDs  reported  that  hydromorphological 
quality elements were monitored in rivers whereas for the second it was only eight RBDs.  

In  transitional  waters  phytoplankton  was  reported  to  be  monitored  in  one  more  RBD  for  the 
second RBMPs than for the first. However, the extent of the monitoring of the other biological 

quality  elements  in  transitional  waters  decreased  from  the  first  to  the  second  RBMPs:  five 
RBDs reported macroalgae for the first RBMPs, two for the second; five reported angiosperms 

for  the  first  RBMPs,  three  for  the  second;  seven  reported  benthic  invertebrates  for  the  first 
RBMPs, six for the second; and six reported fish for the first RBMPs, five for the second. In 

terms of monitoring hydromorphological quality elements in transitional waters, four reported 
them to be monitored for the first RBMPs and three for the second.  

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

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

done  twice  during  the  monitoring  year  and  for  the  other  biological  quality  elements  once 
during  the  year.  As  a  guideline,  operational  monitoring  should  take  place  at  intervals  not 

exceeding once every six months for phytoplankton and once every three years during the six 
year cycle for the other biological quality elements. Greater intervals may be justified on the 

basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. 

All  biological  quality  elements  used  for  the  surveillance  monitoring  of  coastal  waters,  rivers 

and  transitional  waters  were  monitored  at  the  minimum  recommended  frequency  at  all  sites. 
This was not the case for lakes where only one element (phytobenthos) was monitored at the 

minimum  recommended  frequency  at  all  sites:  the  lowest  rate  was  for  fish  where  they  were 
sampled at 66 % of sites at the minimum frequency. 

Only two biological quality elements out of the 19 used for operational monitoring across the 

four water categories were sampled at  the minimum  recommended frequency  for operational 
monitoring  at  all  sites:  macroalgae  and  fish  in  transitional  waters.  For  the  other  quality 

elements,  the  highest  and  lowest  rates  were:  for  benthic  invertebrates  (95  %  of  sites)  and 
angiosperms (61 % of sites) in coastal waters respectively; for macrophytes (75 % of sites) and 

57 

 
phytoplankton (1 % of sites) for lakes, respectively; for phytobenthos (93 % of sites) and fish 

(45  %  of  sites)  for  rivers,  respectively;  and  the  lowest  for  transitional  waters  was  for 
macrophytes (42 % of sites). 

River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored 

Overall  in  France,  10  different  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  monitored.  All  were 

monitored in all water categories, but not in all RBDs. Seven substances were monitored in 12 
RBDs, including MCPA, linuron, oxadiazon and copper. Chlordecone was monitored in four 

RBDs. 

Table 3.4 

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

in the first RBMPs in France. Note that the data from both cycles may not be 
fully comparable as different definitions were used and also not all Member 

State  reported  information  at  the  site  level  meaning  that  there  were  no 
equivalent data for the first RBMPs 

Year 

first RBMP 

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

second 
RBMP 

Sites used to monitor River Basin 
Specific Pollutants 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional 

Coastal 

223 

2940 

231 

2561 

77 

37 

101 

37 

Sources: WISE electronic reports 

In  coastal  waters,  substances  were  monitored  only  in  water  at  a  maximum  of  37  sites  each 
(23 % of total sites in coastal waters) and a minimum of four sites. Oxadiazon, linuron, MCPA 

and copper were monitored at 37 sites. 

In lakes, all substances were monitored in water, nine in sediment, six in settled sediment and 
one (chlordecone) in biota, at one site only. Linuron, oxadiazon and MCPA were monitored at 
the highest number of sites in water (229, 72 % of lake sites), followed by copper (219 sites). 

In rivers, all substances were monitored in water, seven in sediment, six in settled sediment and 
one  (chlordecone,  57  sites)  in  biota.  All  were  monitored  in  more  sites  for  water  than  for  the 

other matrices, with linuron monitored at 2398 sites (64 % of river sites), oxadiazon in 2360, 
copper and zinc in 2297 sites. 

58 

 
 
In transitional waters, substances were monitored only in water. Eight of these substances were 

monitored  at  37  sites  (34  %  of  transitional  water  sites),  including  oxadiazon,  linuron  and 
copper. 

The monitoring in sediment was reported to be exclusively for long-term trend assessment. 

The  WFD  indicates  that,  for  the  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  of  River  Basin 
Specific  Pollutants,  the  frequency  of  monitoring  should  be,  respectively,  at  least  once  every 

three months for one year during the six year cycle and at least once every three months every 
year  (this  frequency  is  to  be  understood  for  monitoring  in  water).  Greater  intervals  can  be 

applied provided they are justified on the basis of expert judgment or technical knowledge.  

All River Basin Specific Pollutants monitored in water were monitored at least at the minimum 
recommended frequency of four times per year in most of the sites. No explanation was found 

for the reduced frequencies.  

Minimum  monitoring  frequencies  in  biota  are  specified  for  the  assessment  of  Priority 

Substances  in  Article  3(2)c  of  the  EQS  Directive  :  this  is  once  per  year  for  operational  and 
surveillance  monitoring  purposes,  unless  greater  intervals  can  be  justified  on  the  basis  of 

technical  knowledge  or  expert  judgment.  It  thus  seems  consistent  to  monitor  River  Basin 
Specific Pollutants in biota at the same frequency.   

The  only  substance  monitored  in  biota,  chlordecone,  was  monitored  at  all  57  sites  at  a 

frequency of at least once a year.  

Use of monitoring results for classification 

Over 99 % of coastal and river water bodies, 98  % of transitional water  bodies and 93 % of 
lake  water  bodies  in  France  have  been  assigned  an  ecological  status  or  potential  class. 

Grouping was not used in the assessment and classification of any water body for any quality 
element  and  expert  judgment  was  only  rarely  used.  Therefore  overwhelmingly  monitoring 

results  were  used  in  the  classification  of  water  bodies  in  France.  In  many  cases  more  water 
bodies  are  monitored  for  biological  quality  elements  than  those  for  which  monitoring  results 

are used in classification of ecological status or potential. However, there are examples where 
more  water  bodies  are  classified  using  monitoring  results  for  the  biological  quality  elements 

than were reported to  be directly monitored. For  example in  France, 4063 river water bodies 
were  classified  using  the  results  of  monitoring  phytobenthos  while  2874  were  directly 

monitored,  and  3799  were  classified  using  the  results  of  monitoring  benthic  invertebrates 

59 

 
compared  to  2844  directly  monitored.  This  is  hard  to  explain  particular  as  grouping  has  not 

been reported to be used. 

The results of the monitoring of four biological quality elements were used to classify coastal 

waters;  at  most  54  %  of  coastal  water  bodies  were  classified  using  the  results  of  monitoring 
phytoplankton.  The  results  of  monitoring  seven  different  physicochemical  quality  elements 

were used in the classification of coastal water (at most 60 % using nitrogen conditions) but the 
results of the monitoring of hydromorphological quality element were only used for classifying 

7  %  of  coastal  water  bodies  though  France  reported  that  56  %  more  were  monitored  for 
morphological conditions but the results were not used. 

Lakes were classified using the monitoring results from three biological quality elements (the 

most  was  75  %  by  phytoplankton)  and  from  five  different  physicochemical  quality  elements 
(the  most  by  phosphorus  and  nitrogen  conditions,  75  %).  The  results  of  monitoring 

hydromorphological  quality  elements  were  not  used  in  any  water  body  though  hydrological 
regime was reported to be monitored in 63 % of lakes. 

Of the four biological quality elements where monitoring results were used in the classification 
of rivers, the most commonly used was phytobenthos (38 % of river water bodies). The results 

of  monitoring  hydromorphological  quality  elements  were  only  used  in  the  classification  of 
0.2 % of river water bodies though they were reported to be monitored in 74 % of river water 

bodies.  Eight  different  physicochemical  quality  elements  were  used  in  the  classification  of 
river water bodies with  oxygenation conditions,  acidification status, nitrogen and phosphorus 

conditions being most commonly used (42 % of river water bodies). 

The monitoring results from all five relevant biological quality elements have been used in the 
classification of transitional water bodies: angiosperms were the least used (2 % of transitional 

water  bodies)  and  phytoplankton 
results  of  monitoring 
hydromorphological  quality  elements  were  not  used  to  classify  any  transitional  water  bodies 
though  France  reported  that  these  elements  were  monitored  in  56  %  of  transitional  water 
bodies.  Only  three  physicochemical  quality  elements  were  used  in  the  classification  of 

(40  %).  The 

the  most 

transitional  water  bodies  with  nitrogen  conditions  being  the  most  commonly  used  (44  %  of 
transitional water bodies). 

Overall  in  France,  biological  quality  elements  were  used  to  classify  76  %  of  lake,  65  %  of 
transitional water, 64 % of coastal and 42 % of river water bodies. These values imply that a 

significant proportion of water bodies in France have been classified not using any biological 

60 

 
quality  elements.  The percentage of water bodies classified using only one biological  quality 

element was 62 % of lakes, 21 % of transitional waters, 7 % of coastal waters and 7 % of river 
water  bodies.  In  addition,  9  %  of  coastal  waters,  4  %  of  river,  2  %  of  lake  and  1  %  of 

transitional water bodies were classified using only physicochemical quality elements. 

The nutrients  (nitrogen  and phosphorus) are classified in coastal water bodies in  most RBDs 

having  coastal  waters,  but  no  nutrient  assessment  methods  are  reported  for  coastal  waters  in 
any RBD. Thus, it is unclear how the classification was undertaken.  

River  basin  specific  pollutants  were  used  to  classify  coastal  (7  %),  lakes  (61  %)  and  river 

(23  %)  water  bodies  but  not  for  the  classification  of  transitional  waters,  although  they  are 
monitored in some (~10 %) water bodies. 

It  is  stated  in  the  RBMPs  that  the  surveillance  monitoring  network  has  been  considered  as 

representative for the different types and pressures. The increase in surveillance sites and the 
improvement of the model of extrapolating the state from pressures explain the increase in the 

number of water with classifications at high and medium confidence levels. The assessment of 
the ecological status of each body of water is based either on data from the basin monitoring 
program and from local  studies, when the body of water is monitored, or on extrapolation of 

the  state  from  the  assessments  of  the  impact  of  pressures.  From  2011,  the  water  monitoring 
network has been strengthened.  

3.1.2

 Ecological Status/potential of surface water  

Overall water status and ecological status 

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

illustrated on Map 3.1.  

61 

 
Map 3.1 

Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in France  

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1(4)(2)(i)  
Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

High 

Good 

Moderate 

Poor  

Bad 

Unknown 

RBDs 

Countries outside the European Union 

A differentiated presentation of this data between ecological status and potential and including 
all types of quality element can be viewed here: 
https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement_Statu
s_Compare/SWB_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_c
ount=no&:showAppBanner=false&:showVizHome=no 

The proportion of water bodies in less than good status has slightly decreased for many water 
categories in many RBDs, while in the first RBMPs a 22 % improvement in the proportion of 
surface  water  bodies  at  good  or  better  ecological  status/potential  was  anticipated.  The 

62 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
proportion of water bodies expected to achieve good ecological status after 2015 has increased 

from around 35 % in the first RBMPs to around 50 % in the second.  

In  the  Rhone-Mediterranean  RBMP  it  is  indicated  that  certain  parameters  used  in  the 

calculation of the ecological status of water bodies have been reviewed and revised revealing 
that  the  impact  of  certain  pressures  on  the  status  of  water  was  underestimated  in  the  first 

RBMPs. The achievement of good status assumes that all the parameters meet the criteria; the 
addition of more or revised criteria often leads to the identification of more water bodies in less 

than  good  status.  Furthermore,  natural  variability  is  apparent  so  results  need  to  be  compared 
over  the  long  term.  Overall,  these  changes  slightly  degrade  the  overall  assessment  of  the 

ecological status of the water bodies in the basin. Work is underway to develop more sensitive 
indicators for measuring changes over shorter periods. There was no information on this aspect 

in the Scheldt and the Réunion RBMPs. 

There are still some heavily modified and artificial lake water bodies with unknown ecological 
potential.  

Confidence in ecological status assessment 

The  confidence  in  the  classification  of  status  reported  for  in  second  RBMPs  has  improved 

compared to the first, due to more monitoring and assessment of biological quality elements. 
Examination  of  the  RBMP  for  the  Rhone-Mediterranean  RBD  indicates  that  the  level  of 

confidence  is  determined  globally  and  not  on  a  quality  element  basis.  Thus,  the  ecological 
status evaluated for a water body may be the result of combining different types and levels of 

information  (environmental  data,  pressure  data,  and  similar  contextual  data).  The  level  of 
confidence is attributed according to the data available for the assessment of status.  

Figure 3.3 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. 

63 

 
Figure 3.3 

Confidence  in  the  classification  of  ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface 

water bodies in France  

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

i

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

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

No
Information
High

Medium

High

Good Moderate

Poor

Bad

Unknown

Ecological status or potential  

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Classification of ecological status at the quality element level 

Hydromorphological  quality elements are not  classified in  any water body, although relevant 
methods are developed. The monitoring of these quality elements is highly variable among the 

RBDs  and  water  categories,  but  are  mostly  not  monitored  or  monitored  in  only  a  few  water 
bodies. Macrophytes and fish are classified in a small minority of rivers and in very few lake 

water  bodies.  Benthic  invertebrates  and  fish  are  rarely  classified  in  heavily  modified  and 
artificial river water bodies. Oxygen and acidification conditions in lakes are not classified in 

any water body.  

Ecological status change 

The proportion of water bodies in less than good status/potential has slightly decreased (from 
56 % to 54 %) for many water bodies in many RBDs between the two plans.  While in the first 

RBMPs  a  22  %  increase  in  the  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  at  good  or  better 
status/potential was anticipated, there was a smaller increase from 44 % to 46 % reported for 

the  second  RBMPs.  Figure  3.4  compares  the  ecological  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in 
France  for  the  first  RBMPs  with  that  for  the  second  RBMPs  (based  on  the  most  recent 
assessment of status/potential) and that expected by 2015. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.4 

Ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  France  for  the 

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

the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2006 to 2013 
for rivers,  2004-2014 for  lakes, 2008 to  2013 for  coastal  waters and 2008 to 

2013 for transitional waters. The year of the assessment of status for the first 
RBMPs is not known 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

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

status/potential. The information for France is shown in Figure 3.5. 

65 

 
 
 
Figure 3.5 

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

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

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element 

Figure  3.6  illustrates  the  numbers  of  surface  water  bodies  classified  for  different  biological 

quality elements and their assessed ecological status/potential.  

66 

 
 
Figure 3.6 

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

classification of surface water bodies in France. Note that water bodies with 
unknown status/potential or those where the quality element was reported as 

not applicable or monitored but not used for classification are not presented. 

Source: WISE electronic reports. A differentiated presentation of this data between ecological status and potential 

and including all types of quality element can be viewed here: 
https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement_Status_Compare/SWB

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

67 

 
 
 
The change in status/potential at the quality element level is unknown for the vast majority of 

water bodies and for most quality elements. For the few that are known, most quality elements 
have  no  change,  while  in  a  few  water  bodies  the  status  has  improved  and  in  others  it  has 

deteriorated. The reason for change is unknown for all quality elements and water bodies.  

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

status/potential for the first and second RBMPs. 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 3.7 

Comparison  of  ecological  status/potential  in  France  according  to  classified 
biological  quality  elements  in  rivers  and  lakes  from  the  first  to  the  second 

RBMPs 

Source: WISE electronic reports  

Hydromorphological  quality  elements  are  only  classified  in  relatively  few  river  and  coastal 

water bodies  and not  in  any lake or transitional  water body,  although  relevant  methods were 
developed. The monitoring of these quality elements is  highly variable among the RBDs and 

water  categories,  but  they  are  mostly  not  monitored  or  monitored  in  a  few  water  bodies. 
Macrophytes  and  fish  are  classified  in  a  small  minority  of  rivers  and  in  very  few  lake  water 

bodies.  Benthic  invertebrates  and  fish  are  rarely  classified  in  heavily  modified  and  artificial 
rivers. Oxygen and acidification conditions are not classified in any lake water body.  

68 

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

of surface waters in France for the second RBMPs. The classification of the individual quality 
elements is illustrated in Figure 3.10. 

Figure 3.8 

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

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Figure 3.9 

The percentage of surface water bodies in France where no biological quality 
elements  (BQEs)  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  

69 

 
 
 
Figure 3.10  Basis  of  the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  in  France.  The 

percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

70 

 
 
Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements 

Assessment  methods  for  macrophytes  and  fish  in  lakes  have  been  developed,  but  not  for 
phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates. Reference conditions are available for some biological 

quality elements in all water types for rivers and lakes. Methods have not been developed for 
phytoplankton  in  rivers,  though  they  have  been  for  the  other  required  biological  quality 

elements. All the required biological quality element assessment methods have been developed 
in  transitional  and  coastal  waters  (although  reference  conditions  were  not  developed).  The 

sensitivity  to  impacts  seems  logical  for  all  the  biological  quality  elements  in  all  water 
categories. Most national types are linked to an intercalibration type. 

Examination of the RBMP for the Rhone-Mediterranean RBD indicated that work is currently 
underway to  further develop  the method for phytoplankton  in  coastal water but  this does not 

prejudge that there will be a significant impact on the classification of coastal water bodies. It 
is also stated that there is insufficient knowledge on the relationship between pressures and the 

biological  quality  elements,  as  well  as  natural  variability,  which  makes  it  difficult  to  see 
progress in status assessments in the short term. 

Intercalibration of biological quality element methods 

Most  national  types  are  linked  to  an  intercalibration  common  type.  It  is  not  clear  which 
biological quality elements are intercalibrated. 76 % of lake, 43 % of coastal water, 41 % of 

transitional  water  and  40  %  of  river  types  did  not  have  a  reported  equivalent  common 
intercalibration type. 

Examination of the RBMP for the Rhone-Mediterranean RBD indicated that for coastal waters 
the first  phase of the intercalibration exercise in  2012 resulted in  an adjustment of the good-

moderate  status  boundaries  particularly  for  benthic  invertebrates  and  macroalgae.  Work  is 
currently  underway  for  phytoplankton  but  does  not  prejudge  a  significant  impact  on  the 

classification  of  coastal  water  bodies.  Class  boundary  changes,  especially  for  benthic 
invertebrates,  have  led  some  water  bodies  to  change  status  without  this  being  linked  to  the 

effects  of  the  Programme  of  Measures  or  any  deterioration  in  the  quality  of  the  water  body. 
There  was  no  information  on  how  the  results  of  intercalibration  have  been  translated  to 

national types without an equivalent intercalibration type. 

71 

 
Assessment of hydromorphological quality elements 

The  hydromorphological  quality  elements  are  assessed  in  terms  of  ecological  status/potential 
for  rivers  and  lakes,  but  are  not  linked  to  sensitive  biological  quality  elements.  They  are  not 

in 

assessed 
transitional  waters. 
Hydromorphological quality elements are classified and monitored in coastal waters and rivers, 

terms  of  ecological  status/potential 

in  coastal  and 

and monitored but not classified in lakes and transitional waters. 

Classification methods for physicochemical quality elements 

Standards  are  developed  for  most  required  quality  elements  in  rivers,  lakes  and  transitional 
waters,  and  for  some  physicochemical  quality  elements  (transparency,  temperature  and 

oxygenation conditions) in coastal waters. Standards for nutrient conditions are not developed 
for coastal waters and no nutrient standards are reported for this water category. Nevertheless, 

nitrogen  and  phosphorus  are  classified  in  some  water  bodies.  The  classification  method  is, 
therefore, unclear. 

The RBMP for the Rhone-Mediterranean RBD states that the standards for the quality classes 

of physicochemical parameters (total phosphorus, nitrate, ammonium) have changed compared 
to  those  used  in  the  first  RBMP.  The  new  standards  are  set  out  in  the  amended  Decree  on 
methods and criteria for assessing ecological status, of 25th January 2010. 

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

There was no specific information in the RBMPs on how River Basin Specific Pollutants had 
been identified. 

Environmental quality standard values are reported for four metals (arsenic, chromium, copper 

and zinc) and six organic pollutants in water in rivers and lakes, and for one organic substance 
(chlordecone)  in  water  for  coastal  and  transitional  waters.  An  EQS  has  been  set  for  one 

substance  (chlordecone)  in  biota,  applicable  in  all  four  water  categories.  The  standards  have 
been  derived  in  accordance  with  the  2011  Technical  Guidance  Document  No  27.  The 
analytical methods are in line with either Article 4(1) or 4(2) of Directive 2009/90/EC14.  

In  rivers  and  lakes,  there  are  four  metals  (arsenic,  chromium,  copper  and  zinc)  and  two 
persistent organic pollutants (MCPA and chlordecone) that exceed their environmental quality 

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

72 

 
                                                      
standard values in some water bodies. River Basin Specific Pollutants are not included in the 

assessment of status in transitional waters, and they are included in the assessment of status for 
less than 10 % of coastal waters. There were no reported exceedances in coastal waters. 

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

The one-out, all-out principle has been used in all RBDs, but the details on combination rules 

applied for the biological quality elements versus the supporting quality elements are not clear.  

3.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since first the RBMPs 

There  were  small  increases  in  the  numbers  of  surveillance  sites  from  the  first  to  the  second 

RBMPs  in  coastal,  lake,  river  and  transitional  waters  overall  in  the  13  RBDs  that  reported 
information  for  both  cycles  (the  Mayotte  RBD  did  not  report  separately  in  the  first  RBMP). 

Proportionally,  the  largest  increase  was  in  transitional  waters,  where  numbers  increased  by 
25  %  from  those  reported  in  the  first  RBMPs.  Surveillance  sites  were  not  reported  in  the 

second RBMPs for lakes in Guadeloupe, Martinique and Guyana even though lakes have been 
identified in the water body characterisation. 

Overall, the number of operational monitoring sites decreased by about 72 % from the first to 
the  second  RBMPs  in  coastal  waters,  rivers  and  transitional  waters  in  the  13  RBDs  that 

reported for both RBMPs. There was a small increase (five sites) in operational sites in lakes. 
In  rivers there was a decrease in  numbers of operational  sites in  seven  RBDs, an increase in 

four RBDs and no change in two RBDs. 

The  same  proportion  of  coastal  (65  %),  lake  (45  %)  and  river  (14  %)  water  bodies  were 
included in surveillance monitoring for the second RBMPs as had been for the first overall in 

the  13  RBDs  which  reported  data  for  both  cycles.  For  transitional  waters  the  proportion 
included in surveillance monitoring increased from 58 % for the first RBMPs to 62 % for the 

second. 

In contrast to surveillance monitoring, overall in the 13 RBDs with information for both cycles 

there  was  a  decrease  in  the  proportion  of  coastal  water,  lakes,  rivers  and  transitional  water 
bodies  that  were  covered  by  operational  monitoring  for  the  second  RBMPs  compared  to  the 

first: 40 % to 29 % for coastal waters, 49 % to 48 % for lakes; 33 % to 26 % for rivers and 
75 % to 53 % for transitional waters.  

73 

 
These  changes  in  the  proportion  included  in  each  type  of  monitoring  is  not  seemingly 

explained by the relatively small decreases in the numbers of water bodies identified in each 
category from the first to the second RBMPs, which was around 1 % in each category. 

The  proportion  of  water  bodies  in  less  than  good  status/potential  slightly  decreased  for  the 
second RBMPs for many  water categories  in  many RBDs, while in  the first  RBMPs a 22 % 

improvement  in  the  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  at  good  or  better  ecological 
status/potential  was  anticipated.  However,  some  improvements  are  seen  in  terms  of  lower 

proportions  in  less than  good status  for transitional  waters in  the Rhone-Mediterranean RBD 
and for coastal waters in the Loire-Brittany RBD,  and Vendee RBD, for lakes in the Adour-

Garonne RBD, and for coastal waters and rivers in the Guadeloupe RBD.  

There are fewer unknown status/potential water bodies in all categories for the second RBMPs 
compared  to  the  first.  There  was  in  particular  a  large  decrease  in  the  number  of  unknown 

status/potential  lakes  from  192  to  31.  There  were  only  one  and  two  coastal  and  transitional 
water bodies, respectively, with unknown ecological status/potential for the second RBMPs.  

Overall in  France there  was an increase in  the proportion of coastal waters at  less than good 
status/potential (39 % to 48 % of water bodies) from the first to the second RBMPs but a small 

increase in high status. The proportion of water bodies with unknown status decreased. There 
was also an increase in proportion of lake water bodies at less than good status/potential (40 to 

63  %)  but  a  small  increase  in  high  status.  This  was  accompanied  by  a  large  decrease  in 
unknown status/potential from 44 % to 7 %. There were only small changes in status/potential 

of rivers from the first to the second RBMPs: there was a decrease in less than good from 57 % 
to  55  %,  no  changes  in  the  proportion  of  good  status/potential  water  bodies  and  a  small 

improvement in the proportion of high status. There was only a small proportion of unknown 
status/potential in rivers in both cycles. 

The confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential has improved from 30 % to 
50  %  in  high  or  medium  confidence  for  rivers,  and  from  30  %  to  70  %  in  high  or  medium 
confidence for transitional and coastal waters.  

3.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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 

74 

 
the  next  cycle.  To  make  wider  use  of  monitoring  results  on  biological  quality  elements  in 

assessing the significance of pressures." 

Assessment:  In  the  second  RBMPs,  the  classification  at  the  quality  element  level  is 

overwhelmingly based on monitoring results. Some water bodies are classified not using any 
biological  quality  elements  but  overall  the  results  from  the  monitoring  of  biological  quality 

elements have a significant role in the classification of ecological status/potential which should 
be  responsive  to  all  significant  pressures.  In  summary,  there  has  been  some  progress  on  this 

aspect of this recommendation and it has been partially fulfilled. 

Some  improvements  of  ecological  status  are  seen  in  terms  of  lower  proportions  in  less  than 
good status for transitional waters in the Rhone-Mediterranean RBD and for coastal waters in 

the  Loire-Brittany  and  Vendee  RBD,  for  lakes  in  the  Adour-Garonne  RBD,  and  for  coastal 
waters  and  rivers  in  the  Guadeloupe  RBD.  Confidence  in  classification  has  improved  from 

30  %  to  50  %  in  high  or  medium  confidence  for  rivers,  and  from  30  %  to  70  %  in  high  or 
medium  confidence  for transitional and  coastal waters. There is  therefore  indication of some 

improvements in the assessment of status: this aspect of the recommendation has been partially 
fulfilled. 

Methods  for  macrophytes  and  fish  in  lakes  have  been  developed.  Reference  conditions  are 
available for some biological  quality  elements  in  all water types  for rivers and lakes. All  the 

required  biological  quality  element  methods  have  been  developed  in  transitional  and  coastal 
waters  (although  reference  conditions  are  not  developed).  The  sensitivity  to  impacts  seems 

logical  for  all the biological  quality elements  in  all water categories. Most  national  types are 
linked to an intercalibration type. 

These  improvements  indicate  that  this  aspect  of  the  recommendation  has  been  partially 

fulfilled. 

Recommendation:  “The  current  French  assessment  methods  still  need  to  be  improved  and 
further developed for the next cycle of RBMPs. A considerable effort has been made to develop 

a  number  of  assessment  methods  for  the  biological  quality  elements,  but  there  are  still 
important  gaps  in  the  methodology.  The  methods  for  assessment  of  physicochemical  and 
hydromorphological quality elements should also be further developed”  

Assessment:  In  general  all  expected  biological  quality  elements  are  used  in  the  monitoring, 
assessment  and  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  though  not  to  the  same  extent  for 

75 

 
each  biological  quality  element  in  each  water  category,  and  there  has  been  an  apparent 

decrease in the number of biological quality elements monitored in some RBDs since the first 
RBMPs.  In  particular,  there  are  still  major  gaps  in  the  monitoring  and  assessment  of  the 

hydromorphological  quality  elements:  there  has  been  no  progress  in  terms  of  this  group  of 
quality  elements  since  the  first  RBMPs.  This  part  of  the  recommendation  has  not  been 

fulfilled. 

Standards have been developed for most of the required physicochemical quality elements in 

rivers,  lakes  and  transitional  waters,  and  for  some  physicochemical  quality  elements 
(transparency, temperature and oxygenation conditions) in coastal waters. Hydromorphological 

quality  element  methods  are  now  developed  for  rivers  and  lakes  for  all  required 
hydromorphological quality elements in the freshwater categories. 

Thus the development of methods for these supporting quality elements is partly in line with 

this recommendation, which is partially fulfilled.  

Recommendation:  "The  identification  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  needs  to  be  more 
transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were 
monitored,  where  there  are  exceedances,  and  how  such  exceedances  have  been  taken  into 

account  in  the  assessment  of  ecological  status.  It  is  important  that  there  is  an  ambitious 
approach to combating chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place." 

Assessment: Information of what River Basin Specific Pollutants are monitored and in which 

matrix  has  been  reported  for  the  second  RBMPs  (it  should  be  highlighted  that  River  Basin 
Specific Pollutants are not included in the assessment of status in transitional waters, and they 

are  included  in  the  assessment  of  status  for  less  than  10  %  of  coastal  waters).  There  is  no 
information  in  the  RBMPs  on  how  the  substances  have  been  selected.  The  one-out-all-out 

principle was used to assess status.   

There has been progress on the monitoring aspect of this recommendation but information is 
still missing on the identification of River Basin Specific Pollutants. 

The  2011  Technical  Guidance  Document  27  has  been  used  to  set  the  environmental  quality 
standards  for  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  (four  metals  and  six  persistent  organic 

pollutants).  The  analytical  methods  are  in  line  with  either  Article  4(1)  or  4(2)  of  Directive 
2009/90/EC. 

76 

 
In conclusion, this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

77 

 
 
Topic 4

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  chemical 

status in surface water bodies 

4.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle  

4.1.1

 Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters 

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

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

ecological status/potential and chemical status.  

Surveillance monitoring programmes should allow Member States to supplement and validate 
the  impact  assessment  procedure,  to  efficiently  and  effectively  review  the  design  of  their 
monitoring programmes, and to  assess the long-term changes in  natural  conditions  and those 

resulting  from  widespread  anthropogenic  activity.  For  operational  purposes,  monitoring  is 
required to establish the status of waterbodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their 

environmental objectives, and to assess any changes in the status of such waterbodies resulting 
from the programmes of measures. 

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

monitoring programmes in France for the second RBMPs. 

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

surface waters for the second RBMPs. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used 
for  surveillance  and/or  operational  purposes.  Territorial  waters  have  not  been  monitored  or 

classified for chemical status. Between 73 % and 100 % of all monitoring sites (irrespective of 
purpose) are used for monitoring of chemical status for surface water bodies in France. More 
detailed information can be found on the website of the European Environment Agency15.  

Figure 4.1 

Proportion  of  sites  used  for  monitoring  of  chemical  status  and,  for 
comparison, ecological status, in France. The number in parenthesis next to 

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

78 

 
 
                                                      
the  category  is  the  total  number  of  monitoring  sites  irrespective  of  their 

purpose  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

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

waters  for  the  second  RBMPs.  In  this  figure,  no  distinction  is  made  between  sites  used  for 
surveillance  and/or  operational  purposes.  Also  given  is  the  proportion  of  water  bodies 

monitored for any purpose and, for comparison, those for ecological status. Figure 4.2 shows 
that, for rivers a lower proportion of water bodies was monitored for chemical  status  (24 %) 

compared to other water bodies although it should be pointed out that there are over 20 times 
more river water bodies than in any other category. 

79 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.2 

Proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category  monitored,  monitored  for 

chemical  status  and,  for  comparison,  monitored  for  ecological  status,  in 
France. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of 

water bodies in that category 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Throughout France most of the water bodies that fail to achieve good status are monitored as 
part  of  the  operational  monitoring  programme.  In  three  RBDs  (Martinique,  Réunion  and 

Mayotte) 100 % of the water bodies that fail to achieve good status are monitored.  

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

biota for status assessment 

Monitoring for status assessment 

Requirements 

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

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

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

(version 

force 

in 

hexachlorobutadiene had 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. 

80 

 
 
 
Spatial coverage 

In  four  RBDs  in  France  (Guadeloupe,  Martinique,  Réunion  and  Mayotte),  100  %  of  coastal 
water  bodies  are  not  monitored  for  any  Priority  Substances,  while  in  the  remaining  RBDs 

coastal water bodies  are monitored for more than 10 priority substances  in  varying amounts, 
from 57 % to 100 %. In thirteen RBDs in France, 50 % or more lake waters are monitored for 

more than 10 priority substances. In six of fourteen RBDs in France, 50 % or more river waters 
are monitored for more than 10 priority substances. In seven RBDs in France, 74 % or more 

transitional waters are monitored for more than 10 priority substances, in four of these 100 % 
of transitional waters are monitored for more than 10 priority substances. 

Monitoring in water is reported for 41 Priority Substances in 12 of the 14 RBDs in France and 

also for 36 Priority Substances at site level in the other two RBDs (Martinique and Mayotte).   

Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  are  monitored  in  biota  for  status 
assessment  in  six  RBDs  (Guadeloupe,  Loire-Brittany,  Martinique,  Rhone-Mediterranean  and 

Corsica,  Guyana).  In  rivers,  monitoring  (mercury  only)  is  undertaken  in  the  Guadeloupe, 
Martinique  and  Guyana    RBDs  (at  36,  20  and  51  sites  respectively).  In  lakes,  monitoring  is 
restricted  to  a  single  site  in  the  Martinique  RBD.  These  substances  are  monitored  in  coastal 

waters  in  the  Rhone-Mediterranean,  Loire-Brittany  and  Corsica  RBDs  in  8  to  21  sites,  with 
mercury also monitored in the Guyana RBD (at four sites). Monitoring in these RBDs is also 

undertaken  in  transitional  waters  in  4  to  20  sites.  In  all  cases,  monitoring  is  undertaken  at  a 
small proportion of sites. 

Frequencies 

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

in water, the frequency of monitoring should be at least monthly for one year during the RBMP 
cycle and at least monthly every year, respectively. Monitoring in biota for status assessment 

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

expert judgement. 

The reported frequency of monitoring ranged widely for different substances and different sites 
in  the  14  RBDs.16  France  subsequently  clarified  that  only  the  Guyana  and  Reunion  RBDs 

16   France subsequently clarified that reported data  is inaccurate  due  to confusion on  how  to report frequencies 
(Loire-Brittany  RBD), a  mix  between operational  monitoring and  surveillance  monitoring (Seine-Normandy 

81 

 
                                                      
actually have frequencies less that the recommended minimum frequency on all waterbodies. 

This  is  due  to  local  difficulties  related  to  accessibility,  specific  seasonality,  analytical 
capacities  and  costs.  Priority  Substances  are  monitored  in  all  other  RBDs  with  the 

recommended frequency (12 times per  year, once in  the cycle) and most monitor at  a higher 
frequency (12 times per year in at least two years in the cycle). This meets the recommended 

minimum frequency for surveillance monitoring.  

The 

reported 

frequencies 

for 

the  monitoring  of  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 

hexachlorobutadiene in biota for status assessment met the requirements of once every year in 
lakes and rivers. For transitional and coastal waters in the Loire-Brittany RBD, this was also 

the case; however, sampling was less frequent in some RBDs (Rhone-Mediterranean, Corsica 
and Guyana). 

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  substances  that  tend  to  accumulate  in  sediment  and/or  biota,  for  the  purpose  of 

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

Spatial coverage 

All  14  Priority  Substances  were  monitored  in  sediment  and/or  biota  for  trend  assessment  in 
four  RBDs  (Meuse,  Rhine,  Loire-Brittany  and  Seine-Normandy).  Monitoring  for  trend 

assessment  was  not  reported  in  the  remaining  10  RBDs.  France  subsequently  clarified  that 
most of the remaining RBDs have sediment monitoring in place for at least the 14 substances 

required by WFD but this was not reported correctly. For some RBDs (e.g. the Réunion RBD), 
sediment monitoring is not possible due to local hydromorphological conditions. According to 

WISE, monitoring was performed in 60 sites in the Meuse RBD, 281 sites in the Rhine RBD, 
up to 76 sites in the Loire-Brittany RBD and up to 255 sites in the Seine-Normandy RBD. The 

true  spatial  extent  is  not  known  as  France  subsequently  clarified  that  not  all  sediment 
monitoring has been reported. 

Frequencies 

RBD), use of average frequencies over 6 years (Meuse  and Sambre RBDs), or lower monitoring frequencies 
for lake waters based on local expertise. 

82 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
A range of monitoring frequencies were reported; the majority of sites met the recommended 

frequency of once every three years but some sites were reported to monitored less frequently.  

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  Annex  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.  

In the Scheldt and Sambre RBDs, 38 Priority  substances were listed in  inventories. Of these 
38, 34 were discharged and monitored. In the Meuse RBD, 41 Priority Substances were listed 

in an inventory. 25 of these were discharged, all of which were monitored.  The situation was 
similar  for  the  Rhine  RBD:  38  priority  substances  were  listed  in  an  inventory,  31  were 

discharged, all of which were monitored.   

In  the  Rhone  RBD,  40  Priority  substances  were  included  in  inventories,  37  of  which  are 
discharged  and  all  were  monitored.  Three  further  substances  were  monitored  but  not 

discharged (Endosulfan, Total DDT (DDT, p,p’ + DDT, o,p’ + DDE, p,p’ + DDD, p,p’) and 
Brominated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 and 154).  

In  the  Corsica  RBD,  40  priority  substances  were  in  inventories  and  19  of  these  were 

discharged. 37 were monitored in this RBD, including those which were discharged.   

In the Adour-Garonne RBD, 41 priority substances were in an inventory. 38 were discharged 

and  were  monitored.  Three 
substances  were  monitored  but  not  discharged 
(Hexachlorocyclohexane,  DDT,  p,p’  and  Brominated  diphenylethers  (congener  numbers  28, 

47, 99, 100, 153 and 154)).  

83 

 
In the Loire RBD, 41 priority substances were in inventories, 37 were discharged, all of which 

were monitored, along with the remaining four substances: DDT, p,p’, Hexachlorobenze, Total 
cyclodiene pesticides (aldrin + dieldrin + endrin + isodrin) and Total DDT (DDT, p,p' + DDT, 

o,p' + DDE, p,p' + DDD, p,p').  

In  the  Seine  and  Normandy  RBDs,  41  priority  substances  were  in  inventories  and  37  were 

discharged.  Of  these  37  discharged,  all  were  monitored.  Four  further  substances  were 
monitored but not discharged.  

In the Guadeloupe RBD, 41 Priority Substances  were in inventories and 11 were discharged. 

All 41 Priority substances in inventories, and therefore all those discharged, were monitored.  

In the Martinique RBD,  41 substances were also in  inventories. 35 of these were discharged 
and  all  were  monitored  except  for  Total  cyclodiene  pesticides  (aldrin  +  dieldrin  +  endrin  + 

isodrin)  and  Total  Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene 
(CAS_193-39-5).  Three 

(CAS_191-24-2)  + 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene 
substances  were  monitored  but  not  discharged, 

further 

Benzo(a)pyrene, Pentachlorobenzene and  Total DDT (DDT, p,p' + DDT, o,p' + DDE, p,p' + 
DDD, p,p'). 

In  the  Guyana  RBD,  41  Priority  substances  were  in  inventories  and  12  of  these  were 
discharged. 41 priority substances were monitored, including those that were discharged. The 

situation  was  similar  in  the  Réunion  RBD.  All  41  priority  substances  were  included  in 
inventories and 16 of these were discharged; all were monitored.  

No information was provided for the Mayotte RBD (see also section 2.19 of this report). 

France has included all  Priority Substances  in  inventories and monitored those discharged in 
all RBDs except the Mayotte RBD.   

Performance of analytical methods used  

In the Scheldt, Meuse, Sambre, Rhine, Guadeloupe and Martinique RBDs, for all 41 Priority 
Substances the analytical methods used meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in 

Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/90/EC for the strictest standard are applied. For the remaining 
RBDs,  fewer  than  the  41  Priority  Substances  meet  the  Article  4(1)  performance  criteria 
(ranging  from  zero  in  Mayotte  to  39  in  Rhone-Mediterranean  and  Corsica  RBDs)  but  in  all 

84 

 
 
cases,  the  analytical  methods  complied  with  the  requirements  laid  down  in  Article  4(2)  of 

Directive 2009/90/EC for the strictest standard applied.  

The  method  of  dealing  with  measurements  of  Priority  Substances  lower  than  the  limit  of 

quantification is as specified in Article 5 of Directive 2009/90/EC. 

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. Assessments for the Meuse, Sambre, Rhine, Adour-Garonne and Réunion RBDs were 

all carried out between 2011 and 2013. Assessments for Guadeloupe, Martinique and Mayotte 
RBDs were all carried out between 2012 and 2013. The assessment of Scheldt was carried out 
between 2009 and 2011, Rhone-Mediterranean was between 2004 and 2013, Corsica between 
2008  and  2013,  Loire-Brittany  between  2008  and  2014,  Seine-Normandy  between  2010  and 

2014 and finally the assessment for Guyana was carried out between 2006 and 2013. Some of 
these assessment periods were outside of the expected range (2010 – 2015). 

The chemical  status of surface water bodies in France for the second RBMP is  illustrated in 
Map 4.1. This is based on the most recent assessment of status. 

The  chemical  status  of  surface  waters  in  France  for  the  first  and  second  RBMPs  is  given  in 

Table 4.1.  

Overall, 63 % of surface water bodies are reported as being in good chemical status.  

85 

 
 
 
Map 4.1 

Chemical status of surface water bodies in France 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) 

86 

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

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

RBMP.  Note:  the  number  in  parenthesis  next  to  the  water  category  is  the 
number of water bodies. Chemical status assessment is based on the standards 

laid  down  in  EQS  Directive  (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 

Failing to achieve good 

Unknown 

Number 

% 

Number 

% 

Number 

% 

Category 

Second RBMP 

Lakes (435) 

Rivers (10706) 

Coastal  (179) 

Transitional (94)  

Total (11414) 

First RBMP 

Lakes (439) 

Rivers (10824) 

Coastal (164) 

Transitional (96) 

367 

6636 

130 

48 

7181 

125 

4733 

70 

37 

Total (11523) 

4965 

84 % 

62 % 

73 % 

51 % 

63 % 

28 % 

44 % 

43 % 

39 % 

43 % 

22 

1738 

16 

38 

1841 

18 

2548 

23 

38 

2627 

5 % 

16 % 

9 % 

40 % 

16 % 

4 % 

24 % 

14 % 

40 % 

23 % 

46 

2332 

33 

8 

2419 

71 

3543 

71 

21 

3931 

11 % 

22 % 

18 % 

9 % 

21 % 

16 % 

33 % 

43 % 

22 % 

34 % 

Overall, between the  first  and second RBMPs  there was an increase in  proportion of surface 

water  bodies  with  good  chemical  status  from  43  %  to  63  %  (Figure  4.4).  The  proportion  of 
surface water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status decreased from 23 % in the first 

RBMPs to 16 % in the second. The proportion of surface water bodies with unknown chemical 
status also decreased, from 34 % to 21 %. 

There  are  different  approaches  to  the  assessment  of  chemical  status  in  unmonitored  surface 

water bodies among the RBDs in France. Scheldt and Sambre reported that this issue was not 
relevant as all surface water bodies have been sufficiently monitored for  chemical status. The 

Meuse, Rhine, Loire-Brittany, Martinique and Réunion RBDs reported that unmonitored water 
bodies  were  classified  as  unknown  status  (38  to  57  %  of  water  bodies  not  monitored).  The 

remaining  RBDs  reported  that  chemical  status  had  been  derived  or  extrapolated  from 
monitoring available in comparable water bodies. 

87 

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

Overall, 52 % of surface water bodies were classified for chemical status with low confidence, 
33 % with medium confidence and 15 % with high confidence. Confidence in the classification 

of chemical status for the first RBMPs was not reported.  

Confidence in the classification is linked to the extent to which it is based on monitoring and 

on the use of grouping and expert judgement.  All of the surface water bodies in Guyana RBD 
have  been  classified  through  expert  judgement.  The  Rhone-Mediterranean  RBD  was 

predominantly classified through monitoring, with some exceptions: 15 % of transitional water 
bodies,  9  %  of  coastal  water  bodies  and  82  %  of  river  water  bodies  were  classified  through 

expert  judgement.  The  Corsica  and  Adour-Garonne  RBDs  surface  water  bodies  were  mostly 
classified  through  monitoring,  but  with  87  %  of  river  water  bodies  and  70  %  of  river  water 

bodies being classified through expert judgement in Corsica and Adour-Garonne respectively. 
River water bodies in the Guadeloupe RBD were classified through a mix of expert judgement 

(26 %), grouping (11 %) and monitoring (64 %). The remaining RBDs were classified through 
a  combination  of  expert  judgement  and  monitoring.  The  one-out-all-out  principle  has  been 

applied in the classification of chemical status where monitoring data is available. 

88 

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

France based on the most recently assessed status/potential 

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

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

No information

High

Medium

Low

Good

Failing to
achieve good

Chemical status 

Unknown

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

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

expected by 2015. It shows that 71 % of surface water bodies were expected to achieve good 
status in 2015 against 63 % reported in the second RBMPs. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.4 

Chemical status of surface water bodies in France for the second RBMPs, for 

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

assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2004 to 2014. The year of the 
assessment of status for first RBMPs 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 Agency17. 

Directive  2013/39/EU  amended  the  EQS  Directive.  In  particular,  it  set  more  stringent 

environmental quality standards for seven substances. Member States were required to indicate 
if the new standards caused the status of the surface water body to appear to deteriorate. The 

Environmental  Quality  Standards  associated  with  benzo(a)pyrene,  fluoranthene,  lead,  nickel, 
brominated diphenylethers were reported to cause the status of surface water bodies to appear 

to  deteriorate,  affecting  river  water  bodies  in  two  RBDs  (Scheldt  and  Sambre)  with 
benzo(a)pyrene  and  fluoranthene  causing  the  greatest  number  of  water  bodies  to  appear  to 

deteriorate (56-64 % and 71-91 % of river water bodies respectively in the two RBDs) but only 
a small proportion of surface water bodies in  France as a whole with  regard to  fluoranthene. 
No information was reported for the Corsica, Réunion and Mayotte RBDs.18  

17   https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water 
18   A RBMP for the Mayotte RBD was prepared for the first time in 2015 and so reporting of these changes was 

not expected. 

90 

 
 
 
                                                      
Good  chemical  status  should  be  reached  by  2021  in  relation  to  the  revised  environmental 

quality  standards,  unless  Member  States  apply  exemptions  under  WFD  Article  4(4)  or  less 
stringent objectives under WFD Article 4(5). 

The  expected  date  for  the  achievement  of  good  chemical  status  is  shown  in  Figure  4.5.  The 
expected date for the achievement of good status remains unknown for a significant proportion 

of water bodies in each water category.  

Figure 4.5 

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

each category 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Priority Substances causing the failure of good chemical status 

Member States were expected to report exceedances for individual substances on the basis of 
the  revised,  more  stringent  standards  from  Directive  2013/39/EU.  However  it  seems  that 
France reported the exceedances below based on the 2008 standards. 

The  substance  causing  the  greatest  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  to  fail  good  chemical 

status was total benzo(g,h,i)-perylene + indenol(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene. The “top-ten” in terms of the 
proportion of water bodies failing because of the substance are shown in Figure 4.6.  

91 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.6 

The  top-ten  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical 

status in surface water bodies in France  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Overall for surface water bodies in France, the largest proportion of exceedances were for the 
annual average Environmental Quality Standard for total benzo(g,h,i)-perylene + indeno(1,2,3-

cd)-pyrene.  Exceedances  of  maximum  allowable  concentration  Environmental  Quality 
Standards were largest for mercury. 

Ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances 

According to Article 8(a) of the EQS Directive, eight priority substances and groups of priority 

substances  are  behaving  like  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  substances. 
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.  

Overall in France 16 % of surface water bodies are failing to achieve good chemical status. If 
the ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances are omitted, the proportion of 

surface water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status decreases to 5 %.  

This is illustrated in the 2018 State of Water report of the European Environment Agency19. 

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

interactive format at :  

92 

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

All  Priority  Substances  monitored  are  reported  to  be  used  in  the  classification  of  chemical 
status  in  all  RBDs  with  two  exceptions,  where  substances  are  used  in  the  assessment  of 

chemical  status,  but  not  monitored:  Trichlorobenzenes  (all  isomers)  in  the  Martinique  RBD 
and  Hexachlorobutadiene  in  Mayotte  RBD.  In  these,  as  well  as  some  other  RBDs,  expert 

judgement and grouping or extrapolation have been used to classify some surface water bodies 
on the basis on monitoring undertaken elsewhere in the RBD. 

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.  France  reported  that  all  of  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  had  been  applied 

and  alternative  and/or  additional  standards  for  particular  Priority  Substances  had  not  been 
applied. 

Use of mixing zones  

Article 4 of the EQS Directive provides Member States with the option of designating mixing 
zones adjacent to points of discharge in surface waters. Concentrations of Priority Substances 

may exceed the relevant Environmental Quality Standard within such mixing zones if they do 
not affect the compliance of the rest of the surface water body with those standards. Member 

States that designate mixing zones are required to include within their RBMPs a description of 
the  approaches  and  methodologies  applied  to  define  such  zones,  and  a  description  of  the 

measures taken to reduce the extent of the mixing zones in the future. 

Mixing zones have not been designated in France.  

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: 

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

93 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
(a) natural background concentrations for metals and their compounds, if they prevent 

compliance with the Environmental Quality Standard, and; 

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

metals. 

Natural  background  concentrations  for  metals  and  their  compounds  are  taken  into 
consideration in five of the RBDs of France, but not in the other nine.  

The bioavailability of metals has been taken into account in 3 of the 14 RBDs, but not in the 

other 11.  

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  (though not specific to chemical  status) 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  1210  sites  and  801  water  bodies),  both  due  to  a  large 

reduction  in  river  water  monitoring.  For  surveillance  monitoring,  the  number  of  sites  has 
increased by 69 and the number of water bodies has increased by 39 since the first RBMPs. 

Overall, between the two cycles there has been an increase in the proportion of surface water 
bodies with good chemical status from 43 % to 63 %. The proportion of surface water bodies 

that fail to achieve good chemical status decreased from 23 % in the first RBMPs to 16 % in 
the  second.  The  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  with  an  unknown  chemical  status  also 

decreased between the first and second RBMPs, from 34 % to 21 %. In some RBDs (such as 
the  Scheldt  RBD)  polycyclic  aromatic  hydrocarbons  are  considered  to  be  having  more  of  an 

impact  on  chemical  status  than  in  the  first  RBMP  but,  apart  from  these  exceptions,  the 
chemical  status  of  water  bodies  has  improved.  In  other  RBDs,  such  as  the  Rhone-

Mediterranean RBD, it is stated that monitoring has improved and allowed a better insight into 
the assessment of chemical status. 

In France, 24 Priority Substances were reported to be responsible for the improvement of water 
bodies  from  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  to  achieving  good  chemical  status  since 

the  first  RBMPs.  For  example,  7  %  water  bodies  showed  improvements  in  terms  of  total 
benzo(g,h,i)-perylene + indenol(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene and 2 % in terms of diuron and isoproturon. 

The remainder were accountable for improvements in smaller percentages of water bodies. 

94 

 
4.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  The  biota  standards 

for  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 
hexachlorobutadiene  in  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive,  or  standards 

providing  an  equivalent  level  of  protection,  should  be  applied  where  not  already  used. 
Trend  monitoring  in  sediment  or  biota  as  specified  for  several  Priority  Substances  in 

Directive  2008/105/EC  Article  3(3)  will  also  need  to  be  reflected  in  the  next  French 
RBMPs. 

Assessment:  Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  are  monitored  in 
biota for status assessment in six RBDs. Monitoring was undertaken at what seems to be 

a small proportion of sites. The reported frequencies met the recommended minimum at 
the majority of sites. 

France  has  monitored  all  14  Priority  Substances  in  sediment  and/or  biota  for  trend 
assessment (except in the Réunion RBD, where trend monitoring is reported in water as 

sediment  monitoring  is  not  possible  due  to  local  hydromorphological  conditions).  The 
spatial extent could not be determined (as not properly reported to WISE). The reported 

frequency met the recommended minimum frequency at the majority of sites. 
This recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  The  assessment  of  chemical  status  should  be  clearly  defined  in  the 
RBMP, including the methodology and which substances have been used in the different 
plans. 

Assessment: Progress is evident as a large list of substances is monitored (including all 
those discharged) in all RBDs in water, but in fewer RBDs for the required substances in 

biota,  and  used  in  the  assessment  of  chemical  status.  The  one-out-all-out  principle  has 
been applied in  the classification of chemical  status  where this is based on monitoring. 

This recommendation has been fulfilled. 

95 

 
 
 
Topic 5

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative 

status of groundwater bodies 

5.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

5.1.1

 Monitoring of quantitative status in groundwater 

The total number of groundwater bodies in France is 645 (Table 2.3). 163 groundwater bodies 

(25 % of the total) are not  subject  to  monitoring for quantitative status (Table 5.1). Between 
50  %  and  100  %  of  the  groundwater  bodies  in  each  RBD  are  subject  to  monitoring  for 
quantitative status. There were no indications that groundwater bodies had been grouped.20 

The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  increased  by  12  %  from  574  in  the  first  to  645  in  the 

second  RBMPs  and  the  total  groundwater  body  area  increased  slightly.  498  groundwater 
bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMPs.21 

The number of monitored groundwater bodies increased from 445 (13 RBDs) in the first to 482 

(14  RBDs)  in  the  second  RBMPs.  The  number  of  monitoring  sites  for  quantitative  status  is 
listed in Table 14 and shows an increase from 1674 in the first to 1729 in the second RBMPs. 

579 of 645 groundwater bodies are identified as Drinking Water Protected Areas, in all 14 
RBDs.

20   France subsequently clarified that not all groundwater bodies are directly monitored but are indirectly assessed 

by pressure and/or model approach. 

21   France  clarified  that  the  significant  increase  of  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies  is  due  to  the  reference 

system for groundwater bodies having evolved to become more relevant. 

96 

 
                                                      
Table 5.1 

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

Monitoring Purpose 

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

13 

10 

2 

13 

185 

74 

130 

52 

RBD 

Total ground-
water bodies 
directly 
monitored 

CHE - 
Chemical 
status 

FRA 

FRB1 

FRB2 

FRC 

FRD 

FRE 

FRF 

FRG 

FRH 

FRI 

FRJ 

FRK 

FRL 

FRM 

16 

10 

2 

15 

205 

12 

98 

135 

53 

5 

6 

2 

15 

6 

15 

10 

2 

13 

191 

10 

92 

132 

53 

5 

6 

2 

13 

5 

OPE – 
Operational 
monitoring 

QUA – 
Quantitative 
status 

SOE - 
EIONET State 
of Environ-
ment monitor-
ing 

SUR – Surveil-
lance monitor-
ing 

TRE - 
Chemical trend 
assessment 

15 

185 

10 

92 

52 

16 

4 

2 

9 

71 

45 

86 

49 

3 

6 

10 

16 

7 

2 

14 

160 

9 

84 

113 

46 

3 

6 

2 

14 

6 

15 

10 

2 

13 

185 

10 

92 

52 

2 

16 

10 

2 

15 

202 

12 

98 

135 

52 

5 

6 

2 

14 

6 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5.2 

Proportion of groundwater bodies in France monitored for quantitative status 

RBD 

No of groundwater bodies with quantitative 
monitoring 

Total No. groundwater bodies 

% of total groundwater bodies monitored for 
quantitative status 

FRA 

FRB1 

FRB2 

FRC 

FRD 

FRE 

FRF 

FRG 

FRH 

FRI 

FRJ 

FRK 

FRL 

FRM 

16 

7 

2 

14 

160 

9 

84 

113 

46 

3 

6 

2 

14 

6 

16 

11 

2 

15 

238 

15 

105 

143 

53 

6 

6 

2 

27 

6 

100.00 % 

63.64 % 

100.00 % 

93.33 % 

67.23 % 

60.00 % 

80.00 % 

79.02 % 

86.79 % 

50.00 % 

100.00 % 

100.00 % 

51.85 % 

100.00 % 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

98 

 
 
Table 5.3 

Number of groundwater monitoring sites in France and their purpose  

Monitoring Purpose 

RBD 

Total 
ground-
water 
monito-
ring sites 

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

CHE - 
Chemical status 

OPE - 
Operational 
monitoring 

QUA - 
Quantitative 
status 

SOE - EIONET 
State of 
Environment 
monitoring 

SUR - 
Surveillance 
monitoring 

TRE - 
Chemical trend 
assessment 

FRI 

FRA 

FRB1 

FRB2 

FRC 

FRD 

FRE 

FRF 

FRG 

FRH 

FRJ 

FRK 

FRL 

FRM 

33 

251 

84 

12 

263 

912 

45 

697 

745 

776 

19 

18 

51 

22 

12 

183 

68 

6 

194 

579 

18 

365 

358 

495 

19 

13 

31 

7 

85 

68 

4 

186 

506 

227 

330 

377 

7 

207 

21 

9 

80 

350 

185 

204 

354 

19 

16 

50 

337 

18 

312 

709 

22 

68 

16 

6 

63 

365 

28 

409 

402 

281 

19 

11 

22 

17 

33 

118 

70 

11 

209 

672 

45 

646 

745 

724 

19 

18 

37 

22 

183 

54 

6 

148 

337 

18 

312 

443 

13 

Source: WISE electronic reporting

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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  579  of  645  groundwater  bodies  (90  %)  were  in  good  quantitative  status  and  66 

(4  %)  were  failing  good  status  (Figure  5.1).  This  compares  with  the  13  %  of  groundwater 
bodies predicted to be at risk of failing  good status from the risk assessment (Figure 6.6). In 
terms of area this means that about 11 % are failing good quantitative status. Figure 5.2 shows 

the confidence in status classification. All groundwater bodies had a clear status in the second 
RBMPs. This is an improvement from the first RBMPs where 13 groundwater bodies had an 

unknown status.  

About 13 % of the groundwater bodies are at risk of failing good quantitative status. The total 
number of groundwater bodies failing good quantitative status increased significantly, from 48 

in  the  first  to  66  in  the  second  RBMPs,  but  in  terms  of  groundwater  body  area  failing  good 
quantitative status,  the situation  improved significantly  from  16 % groundwater body area in 

the  first  to  11.2  %  in  the  second  RBMPs.  A  more  detailed  assessment  of  the  Rhone-
Mediterranean RBMP showed that the change of status is due to changes in the classification 

methodology,  which  is  now  more  precise.  The  samples  are  better  quantified  and  associated 
with  the  relevant  water  bodies,  thanks  to  the  evaluation  studies  about  the  available 

groundwater  resource.  In  this  RBD,  116  of  131  groundwater  bodies  have  unchanged  good 
status, three bodies that were in poor status do now reach good status,eight groundwater bodies 

that were in poor status remain in poor status, and five bodies that were in good status are now 
in  poor  status.  Only  the  methodological  explanation  is  given  towards  this  apparent 

deterioration. 

In all 14 RBDs 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. The expected date of achievement of good quantitative status in France is shown in 

Figure 5.4.  

The  criterion  of  ‘available  groundwater  resource’  has  not  been  applied  in  accordance  with 
Article 2(27) of the WFD.  

In the Loire-Brittany and Martinique RBDs, all environmental objectives have been considered 
in  the  status  assessment.  In  the  Guyana  RBD,  no  environmental  objectives  have  been 

100 

 
 
 
considered.  In  the  remaining  11  RBDs  environmental  objectives  have  been  partially 

considered. In 10 of 14 RBDs saline intrusions have been considered. 

In total, 82 groundwater bodies are at risk of failing good quantitative status. 33 groundwater 

bodies  are  at  risk  of  failing  good  quantitative  status  due  to  harm  to  actual  or  potential 
legitimate  uses  or  functions  of  groundwater,  49  groundwater  bodies  due  to  damage  to 

groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  and/or  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) 

5.1.3

  Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/or  groundwater 
dependent ecosystems 

In  12  of  14  RBDs  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  have  been  reported.  For  42 
groundwater  bodies  (in  four  RBDs)  risk  is  related  to  the  associated  surface  waters.  Surface 

101 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
  
water objectives were considered in three RBDs but not in three RBDs where such ecosystems 

cause risk. Diminution of the status of associated surface waters was considered in nine RBDs 

In  9  of  14  RBDs  groundwater  bodies  are  linked  with  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 

ecosystems.  Groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  have  been  considered  in  status 
assessment  in  7  of  14  RBDs.  In  four  RBDs  damage  to  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 

ecosystems  is  causing  risk  of  failure.  The  needs  of  terrestrial  ecosystems  have  not  been 
considered in status assessment in any RBD. 

Figure 5.1  Quantitative status of groundwater bodies in France for the second RBMsP, 

for the first RBMPs and expected in 2015. The number in parenthesis is the 
number  of  groundwater  bodies  for  each  cycle.  Note  the  period  of  the 

assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 1944 - 2015. The year of the 
assessment of status for first RBMPs is not known 

Good

Poor

Unknown

Not good

Expected good status in 2015

Second plan (645)

First plan (574)

91% 

90% 

89% 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage of groundwater bodies 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

102 

 
 
 
 
Figure 5.2 

Confidence in the classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 

in France based on the most recent assessment of status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 5.3 

Reasons for the failure of good quantitative status of groundwater in France 

based on the most recent assessment of status 

Failing good quantitative status

10,2% 

Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems

1,1% 

Saline or other intrusion

1,4% 

Surface water

6,0% 

Water balance

4,7% 

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

Percentage of groundwater bodies 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 
Notes: ‘Water balance’ = long-term annual average rate of abstraction exceeds the available groundwater resource which may 
result in a decrease of groundwater levels.  
‘Surface water’ = Failure to achieve Environmental Objectives (Article 4 WFD) for associated surface water bodies resulting 
from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions; significant diminution of the status of surface waters 
resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions. 
‘Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems’ = Significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems 
resulting from an anthropogenic water level alteration. 

‘Saline or other intrusion’ = Regional saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced sustained changes in 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
flow direction. 

Figure 5.4 

Expected date of achievement of good quantitative and good chemical status 
of groundwater bodies in France. 645 groundwater bodies were delineated for 

second RBMPs 

Good quantitative status

584 

Good chemical status

447 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of groundwater bodies 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Less stringent objectives
already achieved

2015

2016--2021

2022--2027

Beyond 2027

Unknown

5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

There was a significant increase of the number of groundwater bodies, from 547 to 645, but the 

total  groundwater  body  area  increased  only  very  slightly.  498  of  645  groundwater  bodies 
remained  unchanged  since  the  first  RBMPs.  There  was  also  a  significant  increase  of  the 

number of monitored groundwater bodies and in the number of monitoring sites. 

All groundwater bodies have a clear status. 

Although the number of groundwater bodies failing good status increased, the overall area of 

groundwater  bodies  failing  good  status  decreased  by  one  third,  from  16  %  of  the  total 
groundwater body area in the first to 11.2 % in the second RBMPs. 

In the Rhone-Mediterranean RBMP, for example, it is stated that the changes in status are due 

to  a  change  of  the  assessment  methodology,  causing  the  results  to  be  more  precise.  The 
samples  are  better  quantified  and  associated  with  the  relevant  water  bodies,  thanks  to  the 

evaluation studies of the global available groundwater resources that were carried out. 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
5.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  Assessment  of  groundwater  status  should  be  better  harmonised 
among RBDs to increase the knowledge base and the transparency. Trend assessment 

and reversals should be performed in the second RBMP cycle. 

Assessment:  Not  enough  information  on  progress  could  be  found  in  the  second 

RBMPs.  In  fact,  for  all  RBDs  it  is  reported  that  water  balance  was  assessed  by  a 
the  ‘available 
comparison  of  annual  average  groundwater  abstraction  against 

groundwater  resource’  for  every  groundwater  body.  Further  information  on  the 
harmonisation  of  methods  could  not  be  identified  in  the  RBMPs.  Therefore  the 
recommendation is not fulfilled.22 

22   France subsequently clarified that national evaluation rules already existed for the first and second cycles, and 
it was chosen for the next cycle to improve and clarify them for a coherent and harmonious implementation by 
all basins (specific national guidelines will be published shortly). 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 6

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  chemical 

status of groundwater bodies 

6.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

6.1.1

 Monitoring of chemical status in groundwater 

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  in  France  is  645  (Table  2.3).  About  35  %  of  the 
groundwater bodies are at risk but not all are subject to operational monitoring: in the Meuse 

and Rhine RBDs the total number of groundwater bodies at risk is higher than the number of 
groundwater bodies under operational  monitoring. No indication of  grouping of  groundwater 
bodies for monitoring and assessment of chemical status was found in the RBMPs 23. 

The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  increased  by  12  %  from  574  in  the  first  to  645  in  the 
second  RBMPs  and  the  total  groundwater  body  area  increased  slightly.  498  groundwater 

bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMPs. 

The number of groundwater bodies with surveillance monitoring increased from 513 (89 %) in 
the first RBMPs to 575 (84 %) of 645 groundwater bodies in the second RBMPs (Table 5.1). 

The number of monitoring sites is listed in Table 5.3 and shows that the number of surveillance 
monitoring  sites  has  significantly  increased,  from  1775  in  the  first  to  3369  in  the  second 

RBMPs.  The  number  of  operational  monitoring  sites  has  decreased  since  the  first  RBMPs, 
from 3005 to 1452 in 301 groundwater bodies. 

Not all substances at risk of causing deterioration in chemical status are subject to surveillance 
and  operational  monitoring.  All  WFD  core  parameters  (nitrate,  ammonium,  electrical 

conductivity,  oxygen  and  pH)  are  monitored  in  four  RBDs.  In  the  oher  RBDs,  dissolved 
oxygen is not monitored. In the Martinique RBDs, electrical conductivity is missing and in the 

Réunion RBD none of the WFD core parameters seem to be monitored. 

6.1.2

 Assessment and classification of chemical status in groundwater 

Map  6.1  and  Figure  6.1  display  the  most  recently  assessed  chemical  status  of  groundwater 

bodies. They show that 446 of 645 groundwater bodies (69 %) were in good chemical status, 
and the remaining 199 groundwater bodies (31 %) were failing good status. In terms of area, 

23   France subsequently clarified that indeed, for the quantitative aspect, not all groundwater bodies are directly 

monitored by monitoring stations but are evaluated indirectly by pressure and/or model approach. 

106 

 
 
 
                                                      
this means that about 25 % were failing good chemical status. Figure 6.2 shows the confidence 

in status classifications. All groundwater bodies have a clear status in the second RBMPs. This 
is an improvement from the first RBMPs where one groundwater body had an unknown status. 

Map 6.1 

Map of the most  recently assessed  chemical  status  of groundwater bodies in 
France  

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2(4)(5)  

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

107 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.1 

Chemical status of groundwater bodies in France for the second RBMPs, for 

the first RBMPs and expected in 2015. The number in the parenthesis is the 
number  of  groundwater  bodies  for  each  cycle.  Note  the  period  of  the 

assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2007 to 2014. The year of the 
assessment of status for first RBMPs is not known 

Expected good status in
2015

Second plan (645)

69% 

69% 

First plan (574)

59% 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage of groundwater bodies 

Good

Poor

Unknown

Not good

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The total number of groundwater bodies failing good chemical status decreased since the first 
RBMPs  from  235  (41  %)  to  199  (31  %)  (see  Figure  6.1).  This  compares  with  the  35  %  of 

groundwater  bodies  predicted  to  be  at  risk  of  failing  good  status  from  the  risk  assessment 
(Figure 6.6). In terms of groundwater body area, the percentage of groundwater bodies at poor 

chemical status decreased from 31 % in the first to 25 % in the second RBMPs. The expected 
date of achievement of good chemical status in France is shown in Figure 5.4. 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.2 

Confidence in the classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies in 

France based on the most recent assessment of status 

i

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

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

No information

High

Medium

Low

Good

Poor

Unknown

Chemical status of groundwater bodies 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The reasons for the failure of good chemical status of groundwater bodies are shown in Figure 
6.3.  For  193  groundwater  bodies  the  general  assessment  of  the  chemical  status  for  the 

groundwater  body  as  a  whole  was  failed.  This  assessment  considers  the  significant 
environmental risk from pollutants across a groundwater body and a significant impairment of 

the  ability  to  support  human  uses.  69  groundwater  bodies  are  failing  the  drinking  water  test, 
which means that the requirements of Drinking Water Protected Areas have not been met. 14 

groundwater bodies are failing the groundwater associated surface water test, which means that 
there  is  diminution  of  the  status  of  groundwater  associated  surface  water.  10  groundwater 

bodies are failing the groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystem test, which means that there 
is  damage  to  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems.  Figure  6.4  shows  the  most 

common  pollutants  causing  failure  of  status  (pesticides  and  nitrate)  and  Figure  6.5  the 
pollutants causing a sustained upward trend (tetra- and trichloroethylene and, to a lesser extent, 

pesticides and nitrate).  

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.3 

Reasons  for  failing  good  chemical  status  in  France  for  the  most  recent 

assessment of status 

Failing good chemical status

31% 

Surface water

2% 

Saline or other intrusion

0% 

Groundwater dependent terrestrial
ecosystems

2% 

General water quality assessment

Drinking Water Protected Area

11% 

30% 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Percentage of groundwater bodies 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Notes: 
‘Surface water’ = Failure to achieve Environmental Objectives (Article 4 WFD) in associated surface water bodies or 
significant diminution of the ecological or chemical status of such surface water bodies. 

‘Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems’ = Significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems which depend directly on the 
groundwater body. 

‘Saline or other intrusion’ = Regional saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced sustained changes in 
flow direction. 

‘Drinking Water Protected Area’ = Deterioration in quality of waters for human consumption. 

‘General water quality assessment’ = Significant impairment of human uses; significant environmental risk from pollutants 
across the groundwater body. 

110 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6.4  Most common groundwater pollutants causing failure of good chemical status 

in France.  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 6.5 

Pollutants with upward trends in groundwater bodies in France  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.6 

Percentage of groundwater bodies in France at risk of failing good chemical 

status and good quantitative status for the second RBMP 

i

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

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

35% 

13% 

Chemical

Quantitative

Source: WISE electronic report 

The  calculation  of  the  extent  of  exceedance  of  a  groundwater  quality  standard  or  a 
groundwater threshold value is in all RBDs based on the groundwater body area.  

In  all  RBDs,  groundwater  threshold  values  have  been  established  for  all  pollutants  or 

indicators of pollution causing a risk of failure of good chemical status. There is no indication 
that the Groundwater Directive24 Annex II substances have been considered.25 

In  four  RBDs,  natural  background  levels  have  been  considered  in  the  groundwater  threshold 
value establishment, in six RBDs they have been considered in status assessment and in four 

RBDs natural background levels have not been considered in the establishment of groundwater 
threshold values (although in the Rhine RBD chloride and sulphate are causing risk).26 

24 

 Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
and 
of 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006L0118-20140711 

deterioration 

groundwater 

pollution 

against 

25   France subsequently clarified that the Groundwater Directive Annex II substances were included in the 2008 

decree and its 2012 application circular. 

26   France  clarified  that  this  is  due  to  lack  of  knowledge.  Specific  studies  have  been  launched  and  the 

consideration of the geochemical background is included in the forthcoming chemical status guidance. 

112 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
 
 
 
A trend methodology is available and assessments have been performed in all RBDs. There is 
no trend reversal assessment although the time series are quite long.27 

6.1.3

 Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/  or  groundwater 
dependent ecosystems 

In  12  of  the  14  RBDs,  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  have  been  reported.  In  three 

RBDs, risk is related to these associated surface waters and 14 groundwater bodies are failing 
good  chemical  status.  Surface  water  objectives  were  considered  in  status  assessment  in  five 

RBDs but not in the Rhone-Mediterranean RBD where the links to such ecosystems cause risk. 

In  9  of  the  14  RBDs,  groundwater  bodies  are  linked  with  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 
ecosystems and 10 groundwater bodies are failing good chemical status. In three RBDs risk is 

related  to  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems.  However,  these  have  not  been 
considered in status assessment in any of the RBDs. 

Groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems 
have not been considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values. 

6.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

There was a significant increase of the number of groundwater bodies, from 547 to 645, but the 
total groundwater body area increased only very slightly. 498 of the 645 groundwater bodies 

remained  unchanged  since  the  first  RBMPs.  According  to  the  information  in  the  RBMP,  for 
the Réunion RBD the development of a new national reference system for groundwater and the 

recent improved knowledge of hydrology led to a new delimitation of groundwater bodies with 
an identification of 11 homogenous systems.  

The monitoring situation deteriorated slightly, from 89 % coverage of all groundwater bodies 
by  surveillance  monitoring  in  the  first  RBMPs  to  84  %  in  the  second.  Not  all  groundwater 

bodies at risk in the Meuse and Rhine RBDs are subject to operational monitoring. 

27   France  clarified  that  work  on  trend  reversal  methodologies  has  been  carried  out  at  the  national  level  in 
connection with research organisations. This work has been presented and taken up in the framework of the 
CIS Working Group Groundwater in 2017. Moreover, for the next cycle, it has been decided to improve and 
clarify  the  trend  and  trend  reversal  calculations  for  a  coherent  and  harmonised  implementation  in  all  basins 
(specific national guidance will be published shortly). 

113 

 
 
 
                                                      
The  overall  status  situation  improved  significantly,  as  the  number  of  groundwater  bodies 

failing good status dropped from 235 to 199 (from 31 % to 25 % in terms of total groundwater 
body area failing good status). 

6.3   Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  Assessment  of  groundwater  status  should  be  better  harmonised 
among RBDs to increase the knowledge base and the transparency. Trend assessment 
and reversals should be performed in the second cycle RBMP cycle. 

  Assessment: The recommendation has been fulfilled with respect to trend assessment, 
as  a  trend  methodology  exists  and  was  applied  in  all  RBDs.  The  initial  assessment 
showed  that  trend  reversal  was  not  reported  to  be  performed  in  any  of  the  18  RBDs. 

France however clarified that assessment of trend reversal  has been carried out  at the 
national level30. It was not possible in this assessment to conclude whether assessment 
methodologies have been better harmonised. 28  

28   France subsequently clarified that the national evaluation rules already existed for the first and second cycles, 
and  it  was  chosen  for  the  next  cycle  to  improve  and  clarify  them  for  a  coherent  and  harmonised 
implementation by all RBDs (specific national guidance will be published shortly). 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 7

  Designation  of  Heavily  Modified  and  Artificial  Water 

Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 

7.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle for designation  

7.1.1

 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies 

Heavily  modified  water  bodies  and/or  artificial  water  bodies  are  designated  in  13 RBDs.  No 
heavily modified water bodies or artificial water bodies are designated in Guadeloupe, which 

was  also  the  case  in  the  first  RBMP.  There  are  also  no  heavily  modified  water  bodies  or 
artificial  water  bodies  reported  in  Mayotte.  The  proportion  of  water  bodies  in  each  water 

category  designated  as  heavily  modified  or  artificial  in  each  of  the  two  planning  cycles  is 
summarised in Figure 7.1. The WFD requires a review of designation every six years. As noted 
further  below  in  this  chapter,  compared  to  the  first  RBMPs,  there  are  a  few  changes  in  the 
extent of designations in some of the RBDs. 

In nine RBDs, there  are  reservoirs  which were originally rivers  and have  been designated as 

lake  heavily  modified  water  bodies.  The  highest  number  of  such  reservoirs  is  in  the  Rhine, 
Rhone-Mediterranean, Adour-Garonne, Loire-Brittany and Seine-Normandy RBDs. According 

to  Common  Implementation  Strategy  guidance  on  this  issue,  though,  it  is  recommended  to 
designate  these  as  river  heavily  modified  water  bodies.  In  two  RBDs,  there  are  reservoirs 

which  were  originally  lakes  and  are  designated  as  lake  heavily  modified  water  bodies  (87 
water bodies in the Loire-Brittany and one water body in Seine-Normandy RBDs). 

The  main  water  uses  for  which  river  water  bodies  are  designated  as  heavily  modified  water 
bodies are flood protection, urban development (for other uses or drinking water supply) and 

navigation.  Hydropower  is  also  linked  to  the  designation  of  river  heavily  modified  water 
bodies, especially in the Rhone-Mediterranean and Adour-Garonne RBDs. 

The lake heavily modified water bodies are designated mainly due to hydropower, agriculture, 

tourism and recreation. In the Loire-Brittany RBD, storage for fisheries/aquaculture/fish farms 
and  drinking  water  supply  are  also  reported  as  uses  for  the  designation  of  numerous  lake 

heavily  modified  water  bodies.  Coastal  heavily  modified  water  bodies  are  mainly  designated 
due to transport-navigation and urban development. The main uses leading to the designation 
of transitional heavily modified water bodies are transport-navigation and flood protection. 

115 

 
 
 
The  main  physical  alterations  of  river  heavily  modified  water  bodies  are  channelisation  / 

straightening / bed stabilisation / bank reinforcement, other alterations which are not specified 
in the WISE reporting and weirs / dams / reservoirs. For lake heavily modified water bodies, 

the main physical alterations are weirs / dams / reservoirs and others which are not specified. 

For coastal heavily modified water bodies, land reclamation / coastal modifications / ports are 

key  alterations  and  for  transitional  heavily  modified  water  bodies,  channelisation  / 
straightening / bed stabilisation / bank reinforcement, land reclamation / coastal modifications / 

ports and other alterations. 

Information on how the significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use and the 
wider  environment  (Article  4(3)(a))  and  better  environmental  options  (Article  4(3)(b))  have 

been  defined  is  found  in  a  general  national  guidance  document.  Although  this  is  not  very 
specific, it describes general types of restoration measures, as well as examples on how these 

aspects of the heavily modified water body designation can be applied. 

Figure 7.1 

Proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category  in  France  that  has  been 

designated as heavily modified or artificial  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

116 

 
 
 
 
7.1.2

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

Good  ecological  potential  is  reported  as  defined  in  11 RBDs  using  a  hybrid  approach  which 

combines  elements  of  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  approach  (based  on 
biological quality elements as illustrated in Common Implementation Strategy Guidance No 4) 
and the Prague approach (based on the identification of mitigation measures). Good ecological 

potential definition has taken place at water body level. 

Good  ecological  potential  is  reported  as  not  defined  in  three  RBDs  (Guyana,  Réunion  and 
Mayotte).  For  the  Guyana  and  Réunion  RBDs,  good  ecological  potential  definition  should 

have  taken  place,  as  there  are  designated  heavily  modified  water  bodies  or  artificial  water 
bodies in these RBDs.  

Good  ecological  potential  has  also  been  defined  in  terms  of  biology  in  the  11  RBDs  with 

defined good ecological potential. In these 11 RBDs, the biological quality elements for which 
biological  values  have  been  derived  to  define  maximum  ecological  potential  and  good 

ecological potential are phytoplankton and phytobenthos. 

The  second  RBMPs  refer  to  a  national  decree  of  201529,  including  criteria  for  defining  the 
ecological potential of heavily modified and artificial water bodies. To evaluate the ecological 
potential of heavily modified water bodies in rivers, indicators and class limits established on 

diatoms have been used. For physico-chemical elements, reference is made to rules on general 
physicochemical  elements  and  specific  pollutants  of  the  ecological  status.  Some  physico-

chemical  parameters  can  be  impacted  by  the  morphological  changes  and  in  that  case  expert 
knowledge  may  lead  to  adapting  new  thresholds,  or  even  not  to  use  these  parameters  in  the 

assessment  of  the  ecological  potential.  For  lakes,  indicators  and  class  limits  established  on 
phytoplankton are used. No information on coastal and transitional waters is provided. 

According to the national decree, the values of the quality elements corresponding to the good 

ecological  potential  are  those  obtained  when  all  the  mitigation  measures  are  implemented, 
which have an effect on the improvement of the quality and functionality of the environment 

and  are  technically  and  socio-economically  feasible  without  compromising  the  use(s)  of  the 

29  Arrêté du 27 juillet 2015 modifiant l’arrêté du 25 janvier 2010 relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de 
l’état  écologique,  de  l’état  chimique  et  du  potentiel  écologique  des  eaux  de  surface  pris  en  application  des 
articles 
l’environnement 
R. 
http://www.rapportage.eaufrance.fr/sites/default/files/DCE/2016/documents/FRN_Arrete_Evaluation-
2015.pdf   

212-10, 

212-18 

212-11 

code 

du 

de 

R. 

R. 

et 

117 

 
 
 
                                                      
heavily modified or artificial water body. In addition, measures may be necessary to ensure in 

particular ecological continuity, even when the good potential of a body of water is reached, in 
particular  to  respect  the  objective  of  non-deterioration  of  this  body  of  water  or  to  respect  or 

reach  the  good  condition  /  potential  of  other  water  bodies.  However,  the  decree  also  makes 
reference  to  hydromorphological  assessment  leading  to  the  assessment  of  good  ecological 
potential, in case no biological data are available. One of the Annexes of the decree indicates 

that in order to compensate for the absence, at the present time, of all the biological indicators 
adapted to evaluate the good potential (references, sampling protocols), the ecological potential 

class can be defined according to certain principles of hydromorphological conditions.  

For rivers, two methods are reported for fish and one for benthic invertebrates as sensitive to 
both hydrological and morphological changes. Two other methods for benthic invertebrates are 

sensitive to morphological but not to hydrological changes. One method for fish is sensitive to 
hydrological, but not to morphological changes. 

For lakes, there are no biological quality elements assessment methods which are sensitive to 

hydromorphological  changes.  For  coastal  waters,  three  methods  are  reported  as  sensitive  to 
morphological  changes.  These  methods  are  used  to  assess  macroalgae  or  angiosperms.  For 

transitional  waters,  one  method  for  assessing  fish  is  sensitive  to  hydrological  and 
morphological  changes.  Another  method  for  angiosperms  is  only  sensitive  to  morphological 

changes. 

Mitigation  measures  for  defining  good  ecological  potential  have  been  reported  for  the  11 

RBDs with defined good ecological potential. However, there is no description provided of the 
ecological changes expected due to the mitigation measures. 

A comparison between good ecological potential and good ecological status has not been done 

in any of the RBDs. 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Compared to the first RBMPs, there are a few changes in the extent of designations in some of 
the RBDs. There is especially some increase in the percentage of river water bodies designated 

as heavily modified water bodies, e.g. in the Rhone-Mediterranean, Adour-Garonne and Seine-
Normandy RBDs. However, the overall share of river heavily modified water bodies in these 

RBDs  remains  below  7  %.  In  the  Rhone-Mediterranean  RBD,  a  reduction  of  lake  artificial 
water bodies is noted, from 22 to 13. In general, it is indicated that new water bodies have been 

118 

 
 
 
designated  because  of  changed  water  body  delineation  and/or  modification  of  the  water 

courses,  but  this  is  applicable  to  all  water  categories  and  not  only  to  heavily  modified  water 
bodies. 

No major changes in the methodology for heavily modified water body designation have been 
reported. 

Although  the  second  RBMPs  do  not  explicitly  describe  changes  to  the  method  for  defining 

good  ecological  potential  since  the  first  cycle,  the  decree  to  which  reference  is  made  was 
adopted  in  2015,  modifying  the  decree  of  2010  on  methodologies  and  criteria  for  the 

evaluation of good ecological status, chemical status and ecological potential. The amendment 
to the decree of 2010 aims to update the rules for the assessment of status, in particular with 

new indices, harmonised thresholds at European Union level, and an updated list of chemical 
pollutants. There is no specific reference concerning new criteria or thresholds that have been 

established for good ecological potential, as the methodology has not been changed. 

7.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

There were no recommendations in in the first cycle relating to this Topic. 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions 

8.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

8.1.1

 Environmental objectives 

The  environmental  objectives  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 201530), for groundwaters (good chemical and quantitative status by 2015) 
and  for  Protected  Areas  (achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  associated  Directive  by  2015 
unless otherwise specified).  

Environmental  objectives  for  ecological  and  chemical  status  of  surface  water  have  been 
reported  in  all  RBDs,  and  also  for  chemical  and  quantitative  status  of  groundwater. 

Information is also provided on when the objectives will be achieved, although for some water 
bodies the date for achievement of good status is unknown. 

Assessments  of  the  current  status  of  surface  and  groundwater  bodies  in  France  are  provided 

elsewhere in this report: for ecological status/potential of surface waters (Chapter 3); chemical 
status  of  surface  waters  (Chapter  4);  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  (Chapter  5); 

chemical status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 6); status of surface and groundwater bodies 
associated with Protected Areas (Chapter 15). 

For the second RBMPs, Member States were required to report the date when they expect each 
surface  and  groundwater  body  to  meet  its  environmental  objective.  This  information  is 
summarised for France elsewhere in this report, in the same chapters mentioned above.  

8.1.2

 Exemptions 

Where  environmental  objectives  are  not  yet  achieved  exemptions  can  be  applied  in  case  the 

respective  conditions  are  met  and  the  required  justifications  are  presented  in  the  RBMPs. 

30   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. 

120 

 
 
 
                                                      
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 France for the four main sets of  environmental 
objectives. 

Figure 8.1  Water bodies in France 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. For some water bodies the date for achievement of good status is unknown 

Article 4 of the WFD allows for different exemptions to the objectives: extension of deadlines 

beyond  2015,  less  stringent  objectives,  a  temporary  deterioration,  or  deterioration  /  non-
achievement of good status / potential due to new modifications, provided a set of conditions 

are  fulfilled.  The  exemptions  under  WFD  Article  4  include  the  provisions  in  Article  4(4)  - 
extension  of  deadline,  Article  4(5)  -  lower  objectives,  Article  4(6)  -  temporary  deterioration, 

and Article 4(7) - new modifications / new sustainable human development activities. Article 
4(4)  exemptions  may  be  justified  by:  disproportionate  cost,  technical  feasibility  or  natural 

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

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

121 

 
 
 
 
Figure 8.2 

Type of exemptions applied to surface water and groundwater bodies for the 

in  France.  Note:  Ecological  status  and  groundwater 
second  RBMP 
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  

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Application of Article 4(4) 

Article 4(4) was applied in the first cycle. In the second cycle the number of exemptions under 
Article 4(4) has changed in all RBDs: in some there has been a decrease (such as Scheldt and 

Sambre) and in some there has been an increase (such as Rhone-Mediterranean and Meuse).  

In the first RBMPs, the justification for surface waters and groundwaters in relation to Article 

4(4) referred to technical feasibility, natural conditions and disproportionate costs. The reasons 
used  in  the  second  cycle  are  the  same.  Disproportionate  costs  are  justified  by  affordability, 

Cost-Benefit Analysis and/or Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and/or the distribution of costs.  

The  main  pressures  to  surface  waters  (Table  8.1)  come  from  a  broad  range  of  activities 
including  urbanisation,  industry,  agriculture,  atmospheric  deposition  and  activities  causing 

changes  in  hydro-morphology.  In  groundwaters,  the  main  pressure  concerning  quantitative 
status  (Table  8.2)  is  abstraction  from  agriculture,  industry  and  public  water  supply.  Diffuse 

pollution  from  urban  areas  and  agriculture  and  point  pollution  from  urban  waste  water  and 
industry are the main pressures on groundwater chemical status. 

The  main  drivers  for  exemptions  in  surface  waters  are  agriculture,  industry  and  urban 
development. Energy is mentioned as a driver in surface waters in the Rhone-Mediterranean, 

Corsica,  Adour-Garonne,  Guyana  and  Seine-Normandy  RBDs  and  climate  change  is 
mentioned  in  the  Mayotte  RBD.  Tourism  and  recreation  are  drivers  in  surface  waters  in  the 

Rhone-Mediterranean, Corsica and Loire-Brittany RBDs. For groundwater, the main driver is 
agriculture (except for the Mayotte, Guyana and Guadeloupe RBDs where no exemptions are 

applied and for Corsica  where the main driver is urban development). Urban development  is 
also mentioned in addition to agriculture in the Scheldt, Sambre, Rhone-Mediterranean, Seine-

Normandy  and  Réunion  RBDs.  Climate  change  is  mentioned  as  a  driver  for  exemptions  in 
groundwater in the Scheldt and Sambre RBD. Industry is mentioned as a driver in groundwater 

in  the  Réunion,  Seine-Normandy,  Adour-Garonne,  Rhone-Mediterranean,  Rhine,  Scheldt, 
Meuse and Sambre RBDs. The Adour-Garonne RBD also mentioned energy (non-hydropower) 

as  a  driver  for  exemptions  in  groundwater.  The  Réunion  RBD  refers  to  flood  protection  and 
Seine-Normandy to transport as drivers for exemptions in groundwater. 

The  main  impacts  in  surface  waters  caused  by  the  exemptions  are  chemical,  nutrient  and 

organic  pollution  and  altered  habitats  in  all  RBDs.  For  groundwaters  the  main  impacts  are 
chemical pollution in all RBDs, except Corsica, Guadeloupe and Guyana. 

123 

 
 
 
Table 8.1 

Pressure  in  surface  waters  responsible  for  Priority  Substances  in  France 

failing to achieve good chemical status and for which exemptions have been 
applied 

Significant pressure on 
surface water bodies 

1.1 - Point - Urban waste 
water 

1.2 - Point - Storm 
overflows 

1.3 - Point - IED plants 

1.4 - Point - Non IED 
plants 

1.5 - Point - Contaminated 
sites or abandoned 
industrial sites 

1.6 - Point - Waste 
disposal sites 

1.8 - Point - Aquaculture 

1.9 - Point - Other 

2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-
off 

2.10 - Diffuse - Other 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.5 - Diffuse - 
Contaminated sites or 
abandoned industrial sites 

2.6 - Diffuse - Discharges 
not connected to sewerage 
network 

3.1 - Abstraction or flow 
diversion - Agriculture 

3.2 - Abstraction or flow 
diversion - Public water 
supply 

3.3 - Abstraction or flow 
diversion - Industry 

3.7 - Abstraction or flow 
diversion - Other 

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

4.2.9 - Dams, barriers and 

Failing 
Priority 
Substances 

Article 4(4) - 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 

Article 4(4) – 
Disproportionate 
costs exemptions 

Article 4(4) 
– Natural 
conditions 
exemptions 

Article 4(5) - 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 

Number 

Number 

Number 

Number 

Number 

21 

19 

25 

11 

2 

2 

3 

2 

8 

8 

26 

5 

17 

14 

10 

11 

8 

20 

18 

55 

81 

42 

17 

86 

9 

40 

7 

7 

7 

1 

67 

15 

614 

804 

542 

68 

6 

9 

19 

2 

88 

88 

968 

47 

367 

75 

37 

66 

19 

862 

537 

124 

1 

5 

38 

57 

22 

8 

4 

13 

1 

4 

85 

2 

35 

12 

9 

7 

42 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Significant pressure on 
surface water bodies 

locks - Unknown or 
obsolete 

4.3.6 - Hydrological 
alteration - Other 

7 - Anthropogenic pressure 
- Other 

8 - Anthropogenic pressure 
- Unknown 

9 - Anthropogenic pressure 
- Historical pollution 

Failing 
Priority 
Substances 

Article 4(4) - 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 

Article 4(4) – 
Disproportionate 
costs exemptions 

Article 4(4) 
– Natural 
conditions 
exemptions 

Article 4(5) - 
Technical 
feasibility 
exemptions 

14 

2 

13 

1 

175 

128 

303 

1 

4 

127 

1 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

Table 8.2 

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

Significant pressure on 
groundwater 

Number 
of failing 
pollutants 

Number of exemptions 

Article 4(4) 
- Technical 
feasibility 

Article 4(4) – 
Disproportion-
ate cost 

Article 4(4) 
- Natural 
conditions 

Article 4(5) 
- Technical 
feasibility 

1.1 - Point - Urban waste 
water 

1.2 - Point - Storm overflows 

1.3 - Point - IED plants 

1.4 - Point - Non IED plants 

1.5 - Point - Contaminated 
sites or abandoned industrial 
sites 

1.6 - Point - Waste disposal 
sites 

2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off 

2.10 - Diffuse - Other 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.4 - Diffuse - Transport 

2.6 - Diffuse - Discharges not 
connected to sewerage 
network 

3.1 - Abstraction or flow 
diversion - Agriculture 

3.2 - Abstraction or flow 
diversion - Public water 
supply 

6 

5 

2 

3 

17 

1 

5 

5 

6 

1 

1 

5 

7 

2 

1 

1 

25 

1 

82 

1 

2 

125 

2 

2 

2 

5 

1 

47 

1 

2 

22 

21 

1 

2 

37 

1 

22 

22 

209 

1 

2 

20 

26 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Significant pressure on 
groundwater 

Number 
of failing 
pollutants 

Number of exemptions 

Article 4(4) 
- Technical 
feasibility 

Article 4(4) – 
Disproportion-
ate cost 

Article 4(4) 
- Natural 
conditions 

Article 4(5) 
- Technical 
feasibility 

3.3 - Abstraction or flow 
diversion - Industry 

6.2 - Groundwater - Alteration 
of water level or volume 

9 - Anthropogenic pressure - 
Historical pollution 

6 

5 

4 

2 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

23 

22 

3 

3 

Application of Article 4(5) 

Article  4(5)  was  applied  in  the  first  cycle  but  is  applied  more  widely  in  all  RBDs  except 

Mayotte, Guyana and Seine-Normandy. Article 4(5) is justified by technical feasibility. 

Application of Article 4(6) 

Article 4(6) exemptions are not applied. 

Application of Article 4(7) 

In  the  first  RBMPs  there  were  a  number  of  projects  for  which  Article  4(7)  was  applied. 

However,  in  the  second  RBMPs  Article  4(7)  exemptions  are  not  applied  in  all  RBDs.  It 
remains unclear if for all projects planned an assessment of the impacts on the water body has 

been carried out 

Application of Article 6(3) of the GWD 

No exemptions according to Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive have been applied. 

8.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The number of exemptions under Article 4(4) has changed in all RBDs (in some the numbers 

decreased,  for  example  Scheldt  and  Sambre  RBDs;  in  some  it  increased  (Rhone-
Mediterranean,  Meuse  RBDs).  Article  4(5)  is  applied  more  widely  in  all  RBDs  except  the 

Mayotte, Guyana and Seine-Normandy RBDs. 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

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

requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  The  application  of  exemptions  under  Article  4(4)  and  Article  4(5) 
has  not  been  thoroughly  justified  in  the  French  RBMPs.  In  particular,  the  use  of 

disproportionate costs as the reason to apply the exemptions has not been sufficiently 
justified. 

Assessment:  The  recommendation  has  been  implemented.  In  the  second  cycle  it  has 

been reported that alternative sources of financing have been considered.  

  Recommendation: France is expected to provide a more consolidated methodology for 
justification  of  exemptions  to  the  achievement  of  environmental  objectives  (in 

particular as regards the assessment of affordability and disproportionate costs). 

Assessment:  Progress  with  this  recommendation  could  not  be  assessed  without  a 
detailed assessment of background documents. 

  Recommendation:  The  use  of  exemptions  under  Article  4(7)  should  be  based  on  a 
thorough  assessment  of  all  the  steps  as  requested  by  the  WFD,  in  particular  an 

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

alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects 
may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse 

impact  on the status  of the water. All conditions for  the application  of Article 4(7) in 
individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project 

planning as possible. 

Assessment:  No  Article  4(7)  exemptions  were  applied  in  the  second  cycle,  but  it 
remains  unclear  if  for  all  projects  planned  an  assessment  of  the  impacts  on  the  water 

body has been carried out.  

127 

 
 
 
 
Topic 9

  Programme of measures  

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the Programmes of Measures reported by 

Member  States;  more  specific  information  on  measures  relating  to  specific  pressures  (for 
example arising from agriculture) is provided in subsequent chapters. 

The Key Types of Measure (KTM) referred to in this section are groups of measures 
identified  by  Member  States  in  the  Programme  of  Measures,  which  target  the  same 

pressure or purpose. The individual measures included in the Programme of Measures 
(being part of the RBMP) are grouped into Key Types of Measure for the purpose of 

reporting.  The  same  individual  measure  can  be  part  of  more  than  1  Key  Type  of 
Measure because it may be multi-purpose, but also because the Key Types of Measure 

are not completely independent silos. Key Types of Measure have been introduced to 
simplify  the  reporting  of  measures  and  to  reduce  the  very  large  number  of 

Supplementary Measures reported by some Member States (WFD Reporting Guidance 
2016).  

A Key Type of Measure may be one national measure but it would typically comprise 

more than one national measure. The 25 predefined Key Types of Measure are listed in 
the WFD Reporting Guidance 2016. 

The Key Types of Measure should be fully implemented and made operational within 
the  RBMP  planning  period  to  address  specific  pressures  or  chemical  substances  and 

achieve the environmental objectives. 

9.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

9.1.1

 General issues 

An  indication  as  to  whether  or  not  measures  have  been  fully  implemented  and  made 

operational is when they have been reported as being planned to tackle significant pressures (at 
the  Key  Types  of  Measure  level).  Significant  pressures  are  also  reported  at  the  water  body 

level. It would therefore be expected that there would be measures planned in the RBMPs to 
tackle all significant pressures. Information of KTMs for significant pressures is provided for 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
all  RBDs,  including  Mayotte.  With  a  few  exceptions,  most  significant  pressures  seem  to  be 

covered by operational KTMs. To gain a picture of the implementation in relation to this topic 
in  France,  four  representative  RBDs  were  examined  in  more  detail.  It  should  be  noted  that 

none of the RBDs included information (pressures or KTMs) for individual substances. In the 
Scheldt RBD, all significant pressures causing failure of WFD objectives in both groundwater 
and  surface  water  are  covered  by  KTMs  and  there  are  no  “Other  significant  pressures” 

identified.  In the Rhone-Mediterranean RBD all  significant  pressures  on  surface waters were 
covered  by  KTMs,  but  no  KTM  was  identified  for  the  significant  pressures  Anthropogenic  - 

other  and  other  significant  pressures  relating  to  hydroelectric  developments.  In  the  Adour-
Garonne RBD, all significant pressures on groundwater bodies were covered by KTMs, but for 

surface water the significant pressures Point – Other and Anthropogenic – unknown were not 
addressed  by  KTMs.  In  the  Loire-Brittany  RBD,  no  KTMs  were  identified  to  address  the 

significant  pressure  Anthropogenic  unknown  in  groundwater,  and  none  were  identified  to 
address the significant pressures Point – other, Hydromorphological alterations, Exploitation or 
removal of animals and plants and Anthropogenic unknown in surface waters31. 

38  national  basic  measures  and  204  national  supplementary  measures  have  been  mapped 
against  predefined  KTMs  and  the  basic  measure  types  are  indicated  for  all  RBDs.  Of  these 

national basic measures 13 % are mapped against KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change, and 
another  13  %  are  mapped  against  KTM14  -  Research,  improvement  of  knowledge  base 

reducing  uncertainty.  27  %  of  supplementary  measures  are  mapped  against  KTM24  - 
Adaptation  to  climate  change  with  the  remainder  being  spread  over  other  KTMs.  All  KTMs 

have been used for either basic or supplementary measures. New KTMs have been developed 
in the Loire-Brittany and Martinique RBDs. 

A  comparison  of  KTMs  reported  to  be  tackling  significant  pressures  with  national  measures 
mapped  against  KTMs  shows  a  good  match  for  some  RBDs.  However,  in  others  it  includes 

larger numbers of predefined KTMs, and a small number of new KTMs, tackling significant 
pressures for all RBDs. This suggests that many national measures are available but have not 

been made operational, although significant pressures have been identified; e.g. in the Adour-
Garonne  RBD  national  measures  have  been  mapped  to  25  KTMs  compared  with  15  KTMs 

where  operational  measures  are  reported  to  be  in  place  whilst  in  the  Loire-Brittany  RBD 

31   France subsequently clarified that  for the Rhone-Meditarranean RBD there are many measures to reduce the 
pressures  mentioned  in  this  report  (Other,  anthropogenic,  hydroelectric  developments).  However,  they  are 
linked to another pressure label (e.g. hydroelectricity is attached to levy). This is due to a slight discrepancy 
between the list of pressures  reported to the  water body and for the RBD, time pressures did not allow to a 
coherence of the lists to be achieved before the information was reported to WISE. 

129 

 
 
 
                                                      
national  measures  have  been  mapped  to  19  KTMs  compared  to  12  KTMs  where  operational 

measures  are  reported  to  be  in  place.  In  the  Guadaloupe  RBD,  national  measures  have  been 
mapped  to  22  KTMs,  but  measures  in  only  10  KTMs  are  reported  to  be  operational.  In  the 

Martinique RBD, national measures have been mapped to 29 KTMS, but measures in only 15 
KTMs  are  reported  to  be  operational  and  in  the  Mayotte  RBD  national  measures  have  been 
mapped  to  18  KTMs  but  measures  in  only  eight  KTMs  are  reported  to  be  operational.  All 

water bodies are expected to achieve good status/potential by 2027 (Figure 3.5).  

The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  to  be  in  good  status  due  to  individual  chemical 
pollutants has been reported for 11 RBDs (not the Corsica, Guyana or Mayotte RBDs) but no 

information has been provided for any RBDs on failures due to River Basin Specific Pollutants 
in surface water bodies. No information has been reported on the KTMs used to tackle these 

substances  in  the  second  cycle.  The  number  of  surface  water  bodies  causing  failure  of 
objectives  due  to  Priority  Substances  has  been  reported  for  all  14  RBDs,  but  there  is  no 

information reported on the KTMs used to tackle these substances in the second cycle. 

Indicators of the gap to good status caused by significant pressures and a quantification of that 
gap in terms of “the number of water bodies for which the pressure is significant” have been 

reported  for  2015  and  2021  (no  value  for  2027).  Information  on  the  KTMs  planned  for  the 
second  cycle  is  also  provided  (including  those  mapped  against  national  measures  but  not 

indicated as operational in the first cycle), with quantitative indicators of the level of progress 
expected provided for 2015 only. France has defined its own KTM indicators which are given 
as, for example, “number of water bodies for which measures are planned for 2016-2021”. A 

national  approach  is  used  in  France,  and  therefore,  one  RBD,  the  Scheldt,  was  examined  in 
further  detail.  In  this  RBD,  gap  value  indicators  are  given  as  number  of  water  bodies  under 

significant pressures; for groundwater no improvements are expected between 2015 and 2021, 
although  measures  are  planned  for  the  period  2016-21  for  all  significant  pressures.  Modest 

improvements  are  expected  for  surface  water,  although  there  are  planned  measures  for  the 
period  2015-21  for  all  significant  pressures.  A  number  of  individual  chemicals,  including 

priority  pollutants,  are  indicated  as  causing  significant  pressures  or  failure  of  objective  in 
groundwater  and  surface  water,  but  these  are  not  addressed  separately,  i.e.  there  are  no 

indications of any specific measures or gap analyses.  

Cost-effectiveness  analysis  is  an  appraisal  technique  that  provides  a  ranking  of  alternative 
measures  on  the  basis  of  their  costs  and  effectiveness,  where  the  most  cost-effective  has  the 
highest ranking. In the first Programmes of Measures, whilst cost-benefit analysis was applied 

130 

 
 
 
to each water body with consideration given to affordability, a cost-effectiveness analysis was 

undertaken  only  for  supplementary  measures.  For  the  second  Programmes  of  Measures  a 
combination  of  qualitative  and  quantitative  cost-effectiveness  analysis  was  reported  to  have 

been  carried  out  in  all  14  RBDs.  Three  representative  RBDs  were  selected  for  further 
assessment. In the Scheldt RBD, cost-effectiveness analysis has not been studied in the literal 
sense  of  the  term.  That  is  to  say  that  each  service,  when  choosing  from  various  possible 

measures  aimed  at  achieving  a  goal  of  good  status,  relied  on  its  expertise,  its  detailed 
knowledge  of  the  constraints  and  possibilities  of  each  measure  in  order  to  select  the  most 

efficient.  This  selection  was  based  on  both  qualitative  and  quantitative  elements  and  was 
dictated  by  a  time  constraint.  In  fact,  a  tight  schedule  did  not  allow  for  the  use  of  an 

experienced organisation to obtain data or perform the cost-effectiveness analysis. By relying 
on the experience and knowledge of the services of the Water Agency and those of the State, a 

robust  selection  could  be  realised.  For  the  Rhone-Mediterranean  RBD,  the  Programme  of 
Measures identifies a combination of best cost-effectiveness measures to address the impacts 

of  identified  pressures  on  different  bodies  of  water.  This  combination  can  however,  be 
adjusted, for example when there is a better technique available or the experts will identify a 

variant that is at least as effective to achieve the goals. It can also be completed when new data 
on  the  status  is  available.  For  the  Réunion  RBD,  there  was  no  indication  on  how  the  cost 

effectiveness of measures was determined. However, indicators for the evaluation for measures 
have  been  used,  and  these  are  (1)  relevance  (if  right  objectives  have  been  set  to  address  a 

problem), (2) effectivity (if means are put into place to address the problem), (3) efficiency (if 
results  are  obtained)  and  (4)  coherence  (if  the  link  between  problem,  objectives,  means  and 

results is done in a coherent way). From this assessment it can be concluded that France has 
taken  steps  to  include  a  cost-effectiveness  analysis  in  the  selection  of  measures,  but  there  is 

more work to be done.  

A  critical  factor  in  the  success  of  the  implementation  of  the  Programmes  of  Measures  is  the 
availability  of  funding  to  support  the  investments  required.  Investment  costs  have  been 
reported for 13 RBDs32 for the first cycle, covering years 2009-15 for the Scheldt and Sambre 
RBDs, 2009-2014 for the others, but only as total values for all measures. A very high figure 

has been reported for the Guyana RBD, which is probably reported in Euros rather than million 
Euros  as  required  –  if  this  is  so,  the  total  investment  in  France  for  the  first  Programme  of 

Measures is €22 979 million. For the second cycle, investment costs have been reported for all 
RBDs,  separately  for  Article  11(3)(a)  requirements  (measures  required  to  implement 
Community legislation for the protection of water)  and Articles  11(3)(b-l), Article 11(4)  and 

32   Mayotte did not have a separate RBMP in 2009. 

131 

 
 
 
                                                      
Article  11(5)  (all  other  measures).  The  total  capital  investment  planned  for  Article  11(3)(a) 

measures  is  €2 805 million  and  for  Articles  11(3)  (b-l),  Article  11(4)  and  Article  11(5) 
measures  is  €15 046 million.  No  annual  operation  and  maintenance  costs  have  been  reported 

and depreciation has not been included in any calculations.   

A  clear  financial  commitment  has  been  secured  for  the  implementation  of  Programmes  of 
Measures in  all 13 previously reported RBDs33. On a sectoral basis, commitments have been 
secured  in  the  13  RBDs  for  Agriculture,  Industry,  and  Urban,  and  for  others  (Energy, 

Aquaculture, Recreation) where applicable. Transport and Flood Protection were marked “not 
applicable”  in  all  RBDs.  Information  on  European  Union  funding  is  provided  for  six  RBDs 

(Scheldt,  Sambre,  Rhone-Mediterranean,  Adour-Garonne,  Loire-Britanny  and  Seine-
Normandy) for 2009-2015 only. 

Co-ordination of the preparation of all RBMPs and Programmes of Measures with the Marine 

Strategy  Framework  Directive  is  reported  for  all  10  European  RBDs  –  the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework Directive does not apply to France’s overseas territories. Joint consultation on the 

RBMPs and the Marine Strategy, as well as consideration of the need for additional or more 
stringent  measures  beyond  those  required  by  the  WFD  in  order  to  contribute  to  the 

achievement  of  the  relevant  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  objectives  in  coastal  and 
marine environments, are indicated for all seven relevant RBDs. (Additional measures for litter 

were implemented for 6 of the relevant RBDs, but not in the Loire-Brittany RBD). KTMs that 
are  relevant  to  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  are  listed  for  all  relevant  RBDs 
except the Sambre, with an indication of the type of measure, but not indicating the pressures 

they are addressing. 

The RBMPs and Floods Directive Flood Risk Management Plans have not been integrated into 
a  single  plan  in  any  of  the  RBDs.  However,  joint  consultation  of  RBMPs  and  Flood  Risk 

Management  Plans,  and  consideration  of  the  objectives  and  requirements  of  the  Floods 
Directive  in  the  second  RBMPs  and  Programmes  of  Measures  was  carried  out  in  all  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 have also been included in 

the Programmes of Measures, and the design of new and existing structural measures, such as 
flood  defences,  storage  dams  and  tidal  barriers,  have  been  adapted  to  take  account  of  WFD 

Environmental  Objectives 
the 
implementation  of  Programmes  of  Measures  in  the  flood  protection  areas  are  marked  “not 

in  all  RBDs.  However, 

financial  commitments 

for 

33   Mayotte did not have a separate RBMP in 2009. 

132 

 
 
 
                                                      
applicable” in all RBDs, and WFD Article 9(4) has not been applied to impoundment for flood 

protection,  while  it  would  be  an  activity/use  which  should  be  subject  to  cost  recovery  under 
Article 934. 

9.1.2

 Measures related to other significant pressures 

Most  of  the  other  significant  pressures  relate  to  unknown  anthropogenic  pressures  -  other, 

unknown,  and  historical  pollution,  exploitation  of  animals  or  plants,  introduced  species  or 
diseases.  In  the  Martinique  and  Mayotte  RBDs  litter  and  fly  tipping  are  also  identified  as 

significant pressures. The gap indicator values are shown in terms of water bodies affected by 
significant pressures for 2015 and 2021, but none for 2027. Whilst in a small number of cases 

the  numbers  of  water  bodies  affected  are  expected  to  remain  the  same  by  2021  as  in  2015, 
others  are  expected  to  improve,  some  closing  the  gap  completely,  mainly  due  to  planned 

measures  for  the  period  2016-2021;  i.e.  KTM14  -  research,  KTM4  -  remediation  of 
contaminated sites, KTM19 - measures to control the impact of recreation, KTM18 - measures 

to control alien species and KTM 24 - adaptation to climate change. 

9.1.3

 Mapping of national measures to Key Types of Measure 

It was expected that Member States would be able to report their Programmes of Measures by 

associating  their  national  measures  with  predefined  Key  Types  of  Measure.  Key  Types  of 
Measure are expected to deliver the bulk of the improvements through reduction in pressures 

required  to  achieve  WFD  Environmental  Objectives.  A  Key  Type  of  Measure  may  be  one 
national  measure  but  it  would  typically  comprise  more  than  one  national  measure.  Member 
States  are  required  to  report  on  the  national  measures  associated  with  the  Key  Types  of 

Measure, and whether the national measures are basic (Article 11(3)(a) or Article 11(3)(b-l)) or 
supplementary (Article 11(4)).  

Table 9.1 summarises the number of national measures that have been mapped to the relevant 

Key  Types  of  Measure  in  France.  Also  shown  is  the  number  of  RBDs  for  which  each  Key 
Type  of  Measure  has  been  reported.  Table  9.2  then  summarises  the  types  of  basic  measures 

associated with the national measures mapped against the Key Type of Measure. 

34   France  subsequently  clarified  that  a  mistake  was  made  when  reporting  financing  for  measures  linked  to  the 
Floods  Directive.  It  should  have  been  indicated  that  financial  commitments  were  secured.  For  all  other 
services,  French  water  agencies  collect  dedicated  taxes  listed  on  section  5  of  the  «  Guide  DCE  -  PdM  » 
reported.  There  is  no  specific  water  tax  targeting  flood  protection,  however  water  agencies  do  finance 
measures  in this area.  Additionally, there  is a national fund called  «  Fonds Barnier  »  created specifically to 
prevent natural disasters such as floods. Further information on the financing mechanisms of the Programmes 
of  Measures  is  available  on  section  4  of  the  document  «Guide  DCE  -  PdM  ».  Financing  mechanisms  are 
secured to cover the costs of the implementation of Programmes of Measures in the flood protection areas. 

133 

 
 
 
                                                      
Table 9.1 

Mapping  of  the  types  of  national  measures  to  Key  Types  of  Measure  in 

France  

Key Type of Measure 

National 
basic 
measures 

National 
supplemen
-tary 
measures 

Number 
of RBDs 
where 
reported 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants 
KTM10 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery 
of cost of water services from industry 
KTM11 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery 
of cost of water services from agriculture 

KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture 
KTM13  - Drinking  water protection  measures (e.g. establishment of  safeguard 
zones, buffer zones etc) 

KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty 
KTM15  -  Measures  for  the  phasing-out  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of 
Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and 
losses of Priority Substances 
KTM16  - Upgrades  or improvements of industrial  wastewater treatment plants 
(including farms). 

KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off 
KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive alien 
species and introduced diseases 
KTM19  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  adverse  impacts  of  recreation 
including angling 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 

KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of fishing and 
other exploitation/removal of animal and plants 
KTM21  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban 
areas, transport and built infrastructure 

KTM22 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from forestry 

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 

KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 
KTM4  -  Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical  pollution  including 
sediments, groundwater, soil) 
KTM5  -  Improving  longitudinal  continuity  (e.g.  establishing  fish  passes, 
demolishing old dams) 
KTM6  -  Improving  hydromorphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than 
longitudinal continuity 

KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows 
KTM8  -  Water  efficiency,  technical  measures  for  irrigation,  industry,  energy 
and households 
KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery 
of cost of water services from households 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Gestion des déchets 

KTM50  -  Reduce pesticides pollution excluding agriculture 
KTM50  -  Limiter  les  apports  diffus  ou  ponctuels  en  pesticides  non  agricoles 
et/ou utiliser des pratiques alternatives 

134 

4 

2 

1 

3 

5 

2 

3 

1 

2 

1 

5 

1 

1 

2 

1 

10 

2 

2 

1 

7 

9 

4 

7 

6 

1 

1 

8 

1 

4 

1 

19 

56 

16 

3 

4 

15 

4 

10 

4 

1 

1 

1 

14 

13 

13 

12 

14 

14 

13 

14 

8 

6 

7 

14 

5 

13 

6 

14 

14 

13 

13 

14 

14 

14 

12 

13 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
KTM50 - Reduce pesticides pollution excluding agriculture 

KTM50 - reduction des pesticides hors agriculture 

-  Other  key 

type  measure 

reported  under  PoM 

KTM50 - Reduce pesticides pollution excluding agriculture. 
KTM99 
d'amÃ©lioration des rÃ©seaux d'assainissement 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - Refus autorisation d'un 
plan d'eau 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM  - Refus autorisation ou 
arrêt concession d'un ouvrage 
KTM99  - Other key type  measure reported under PoM  - Révision autorisation 
ou révision concession d'un ouvrage 

-  Mesure 

1 

1 

2 

2 

4 

1 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Total number of Mapped Measures 

38 

204 

14 

Source: Member States reports to WISE

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9.2 

Type of basic measures mapped to Key Type of Measures in France  

Key Type of Measure 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants 
KTM10 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost 
of water services from industry 
KTM11 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost 
of water services from agriculture 
KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, 
buffer zones etc) 
KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty 
KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority 
Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of 
Priority Substances 
KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants 
(including farms). 
KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off 
KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 
KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 
KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change 
KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 
KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows 
KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and 
households 
KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost 
of water services from households 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM 

Basic Measure Type 

D
E
I
C
P
P
I

s
e
t
a
r
t
i

N

r
e
h
t
O

e
c
r
u
o
s

t
n
i
o
P

s
e
g
r
a
h
c
s
i
d

e
s
u
f
f
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

r
e
t
a
w
n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
P

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

e
g
r
a
h
c
e
R

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
u
a

s
r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
P
e
c
a
f
r
u
S

s
e
c
n
a
t
s
b
u
S

1 

2 

1 

1 
2 
1 
2 

3 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

r
e
t
a
W

e
t
s
a
W
n
a
b
r
U

4 

1 

1 

1 

r
e
t
a
w
s
l
o
r
t
n
o
C

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

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

e
s
u
r
e
t
a
w

t
n
e
i
c
i
f
f

E

1 

r
e
t
a
w
y
r
e
v
o
c
e
r

t
s
o
C

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
p
l
a
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
A

1 

1 

1 

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Member States reports to WISE 

Key 

‘Accidental pollution’ = Article 11(3)(l): Any measures required to prevent significant losses of pollutants from technical 
installations and to prevent and/or reduce the impact of accidental pollution incidents. 
‘Controls water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(e): Controls over the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater and 
impoundment of fresh surface waters including a register or registers of water abstractions and a requirement for prior 
authorisation of abstraction and impoundment. 
‘Cost recovery water services’ = Article 11(3)(b): Measures for the recovery of cost of water services (Article 9). 
‘Efficient water use’ = Article 11(3)(c): Measures to promote efficient and sustainable water use. 
‘Hydromorphology’ = Article 11(3)(i): Measures to control any other significant adverse impact on the status of water, and 
in particular hydromorphological impacts. 
‘IPPC IED’ = Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC) and the Industrial Emissions Directive 
(2010/75/EU). 
‘Nitrates’ = Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC). 
‘Other’ = Other Directives mentioned in Part A of Annex VI of the WFD. 
‘Point source discharges’ = Article 11(3)(g): Requirement for prior regulation of point source discharges liable to cause 
pollution. 
‘Pollutants diffuse’ = Article 11(3)(h): Measures to prevent or control the input of pollutants from diffuse sources liable to 
cause pollution. 
‘Protection water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(d): Measures for the protection of water abstracted for drinking water (Article 
7) including those to reduce the level of purification required for the production of drinking water. 
‘Recharge augmentation groundwaters’ = Article 11(3)(f): Controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of 
artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies. 
‘Surface Priority Substances’ = Article 11(3)(k): Measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters by Priority Substances 
and to reduce pollution from other substances that would otherwise prevent the achievement of the objectives laid down in 
Article 4. 
‘Urban Waste Water’ = Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
9.1.4

 Pressures  for  which  gaps  are  to  be  filled  to  achieve  WFD  objectives  and  the  Key 
Types of Measure planned to achieve objectives 

Member  States  are  required  to  report  the  gaps  that  need  to  be  filled  to  achieve  WFD 

Environmental  Objectives  in  terms  of  all  significant  pressures  on  surface  waters  and 
groundwaters, in  terms  of Priority Substances causing  failure of  good  chemical  status  and in 
terms  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  ecological  status/potential. 

Member  States  were  asked  to  report  predefined  indicators  of  the  gaps  to  be  filled  or  other 
indicators where relevant. Values for the gap indicators were required for 2015 and 2021, and 

were optional for 2027. 

The  information  reported  in  WISE  on  the  gaps  to  fulfil  to  achieve  good  ecological  status 
include detailed data on the significant pressures on surface and groundwaters that may cause 

failure on the environmental objectives. For chemical  status,  the Member States reported the 
specific chemical substances causing failure. 

This information is reported at the sub-unit level. Sub-units are smaller geographic areas within 

particular  RBDs  identified  by  Member  States.  Not  all  Member  States  have  defined  and 
reported sub-units. 

Member States were required to report which KTMs are to be made operational to reduce the 
gaps to levels compatible with the achievement of WFD environmental objectives. A number 

of  indicators  were  predefined  for  each  KTM.  Values  of  the  indicators  for  the  second  and 
subsequent  planning  cycles  were  also  to  be  reported  to  give  an  indication  of  the  expected 

progress and achievements: the values for 2027 could be optionally reported. This means that 
the value of the indicator will be reduced with time as measures are implemented. A value of 

zero is comparable with 100 % good ecological status or potential or good chemical status.  

This  information  was  reported  at  sub-unit  level,  or  at  RBDs  level  if  sub-units  have  not  been 
reported by the Member State. 

9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Progress  since  the  first  RBMPs  was  reported  as  “some  measures  completed”  for  all  13 

previously reported RBDs. The main obstacles reported were “Governance”, “Lack of finance” 

138 

 
 
 
 
and “Lack of mechanism” (all RBDs), whereas “Extreme events” were obstacles in three of the 

overseas RBDs (Guadeloupe, Martinique and Mayotte). The most significant progress seems to 
be in the identification of many more significant pressures and planning appropriate measures 

for  the  second  cycle,  as  well  as  performing  gap  analyses,  although  only  up  to  2021.  It  was 
difficult to find specific information, and the information varied among the RBDs examined. It 
was noted that, in the Scheldt RBD the level of remediation foreseen in the second Programme 

of Measures is less than in the first. This is linked to the completion of the upgrade of public 
sewage treatment works, and an improvement in knowledge of the sewage collection network 

which has made it possible to better target the measures. In the Réunion RBD, it is indicated 
that  the  second  Programme  of  Measures  has  built  on  the  first,  taking  account  of  changes  in 

pressures that have occurred. 

New legislation or regulations to implement the Programmes of Measures in the first cycle was 
reported necessary and already adopted in all 13 previously reported RBDs. 

9.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  Where 

there  are  currently  high  uncertainties 

in 

the 

characterisation  of  the  RBDs,  identification  of  pressures,  and  in  the  assessment  of 

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

Assessment:  Many  more  basic  measures  have  been  identified  to  tackle  significant 
pressures, not previously reported, and have been planned for 2016-2021; this seems 

to be based on an improved assessment of pressures. This recommendation appears to 
have been fulfilled with respect to measures (see Chapter 2 for progress with respect 

to characterisation).  

  Recommendation:  Meaningful  information  regarding  the  scope,  the  timing  and  the 
funding  of  the  measures  should  be  included  in  the  Programme  of  Measures  so  the 

approach  to  achieve  the  objectives  is  clear  and  the  ambition  in  the  Programme  of 
Measures  is  transparent.  All  the  relevant  information  on  basic  and  supplementary 

measures should be included in the summary of the Programme of Measures to ensure 
transparency  on  the  planned  actions  for  the  achievement  of  the  environmental 

objectives set out in the WFD.  

139 

 
 
 
Assessment:  Indicators  of  the  gap  to  good  status  have  been  reported  for  2015  and 

2021,  but  indicators  of  the  level  of  implementation  of  measures  have  only  been 
reported  for  2015.  Costs  (capital  investment  only,  no  annual  costs)  of  basic  and 

supplementary  measures  have  been  provided  for  the  first  and  second  cycles.  This 
recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  The  RBMPs  are  expected  to  make  a  clear  distinction  between 
mandatory  measures  and  voluntary  ones  that  will  be  funded  under  the  European 

Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. 

It  is  not  possible  to  draw  any  conclusions  from  this  assessment  concerning  the 
distinction between mandatory and voluntary measures. This recommendation has not 

been fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Assess  the  reduction  in  pressures  required  to  achieve  the 

environmental objectives. 

Assessment:  Gap  indicators  and  gap  values  as  number  of  water  bodies  under 

significant pressure for 2015 and 2021 (none for 2027) are presented. Information on 
KTMs planned for the second cycle is also provided (including those mapped against 

national measures but not indicated as operational in the first cycle), with gap values 
for 2015 only, given as “number of water bodies for which measures are planned for 

2016-2021”.  Generally  rather  modest  improvements  are  expected  between  2015  and 
2021,  although  more  measures  have  been  planned  for  the  second  cycle  for  all 
significant pressures, except individual chemicals, including priority pollutants which 

do  not  seem  to  be  addressed  separately.  This  recommendation  has  been  partially 
fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Improve knowledge about the link between pressures and impacts 

in designing and making operational the measures for the second cycle. 

Assessment: Many more significant pressures have been identified and basic measures 
to  tackle  these  have  been  planned  for  2016-2021;  this  seems  to  be  based  on  an 

improved  assessment  of  significant  pressures  and  the  results  of  gap  analyses.  This 
recommendation has been fulfilled. 

140 

 
 
 
  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  the  RBMPs  clearly  identify  the  gap  to  good  status, 
and that the PoMs are designed and implemented to close that gap with transparent 
and  meaningful  information  regarding  the  scope,  the  timing  and  the  funding  of  the 

measures. 

Assessment:  Although  gap  analyses  have  been  made  for  2015  and  2021  (none  for 
2027), the gap indicators were reported  as  number of water bodies under significant 
pressure, and number of WBs for which measures were planned for 2016-2021, not in 

terms of achieving good status. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

141 

 
 
 
Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

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

10.1.1

  Water exploitation and trends  

Water  abstraction  (understood  as  consumptive  use)  has  not  been  identified  as  a  significant 

pressure  at  the  RBD  level  (or  in  significant  portions  of  the  RBDs);  however,  several  RBDs 
have more than 10 % of groundwater bodies in bad quantitative status (Rhone-Mediterranean, 

Adour-Garonne, Loire-Brittany, Réunion, Mayotte) or more than 20 % of surface water bodies 
with  significant  abstraction pressures  (Scheldt, Rhone-Mediterranean, Adour-Garonne,  Loire-

Brittany, Martinique, Réunion, Mayotte). The Water Exploitation Index + was not calculated, 
although water quantity  data have been previously  reported to  support the European State of 
the  Environment  Report  in  relation  to  Water  Quantity.  Water  scarcity  is  not  considered  by 

France  to  be  an  issue  at  the  international  level.  Water  resource  planning  in  relation  to 
abstractions is included in the RBMPs (no separate water resource allocation and management 

plans have been developed).  

10.1.2

  Main uses for water consumption  

No data have been reported for the uses responsible for water consumption, as water quantity 

pressures are not reported as significant.  

10.1.3

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

Regarding  basic  measures  (Article  11(3)(e)),  in  France  there  is  a  concession,  authorisation 

and/or permitting regime to control water impoundment and abstractions as well as a register 
of impoundments and abstractions; small abstractions are exempted from these controls. These 
exemptions  or  the  allocation  system  might  hamper  achievement  of  objectives  for  the  large 
number of water bodies concerned with quantitative or abstraction pressures35. Measures under 
Article  11(3)(c)  were  implemented  in  the  previous  cycle  and  no  new  measures  and/or 

significant changes are planned for the 2016-2021 period.  

35  France  subsequently  clarified  that  a  reduction  of  abstraction  pressures  is  expected  during  the  next 

implementation cycle. 

142 

 
 
 
                                                      
Measures  for  the  prior  authorisation  of  artificial  recharge  or  augmentation  of  groundwater 

bodies  (Article  11(3)(f))  were  implemented  in  the  previous  cycle,  and  no  new  measures  or 
significant changes are planned for the next cycle for all RBDs. 

Complementary  measures  under  KTMs  are  reported  for  addressing  abstraction  pressures, 
applying a rather varied set in the different RBDs. KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity 

(e.g.  establishing 
Improving 
hydromorphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than  longitudinal  continuity,  are  listed 

fish  passes,  demolishing  old  dams),  and  KTM6 

- 

for  the  Rhone-Mediterranean  RBD.  Measures  under  KTM7  -  Improvements  in  flow  regime 
and/or establishment of ecological flows are considered for closing gaps in some RBDs, such 

as  the  Rhone-Mediterranean,  Seine-Normandy  and  Réunion  RBDs.  Measures  under  KTM8  - 
Water  efficiency,  technical  measures  for  irrigation,  industry,  energy  and  households  will 

address  gaps  in  the  Meuse,  Rhone-Mediterranean,  Corsica,  Adour-Garonne,  Loire-Brittany, 
Seine-Normandy,  Martinique  and  Réunion  RBDs,  with  different  proportions  by  2021. 

Additional measures addressing gaps by 2021 include KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures 
for  the  implementation  of  the  recovery  of  cost  of  water  services  from  households,  KTM10  - 

Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services 
from  industries,  KTM11  -  Water  pricing  policy  measures  for  the  implementation  of  the 

recovery  of  cost  of  water  services  from  agriculture,  KTM13  -  Drinking  water  protection 
measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones) (in Scheldt and Sambre).  

KTM14  -  Research,  improvement  of  knowledge  base  reducing  uncertainty  is  addressing 
existing  gaps  in  the  Rhone  RBD.  KTM16  -  Upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial 

wastewater treatment plants (including farms) is addressing existing gaps, some of which are 
expected to be solved by 2021. KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of 

recreation including angling is addressing existing gaps due to urban water supply pressures in 
Adour-Garonne  and  KTM23  -  Natural  water  retention  measures  is  applied  in  Rhone-

Mediterranean.  Also,  KTM24  -  Adaptation  to  climate  change  is  being  applied  in  Rhone-
Mediterranean and other RBDs.  

The list of measures under KTMs proposed for addressing water abstraction pressures seems 

rather  casual  and  is  very  different  among  the  RBDs,  with  some  KTMs  listed  that  do  not 
necessarily  have  an  apparent  influence  in  reducing  pressures  (especially  in  Rhone-

Mediterranean).  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  also  noteworthy  that  water  pricing  is  apparently  not 
foreseen for the Réunion RBD, whilst it is facing water quantity issues.  

143 

 
 
 
Water reuse is foreseen as a measure in most of the RBDs, with the exceptions of the Seine-

Normandy, Martinique and Réunion RBDs. 

10.2 Progress with Commission recommendations 

There were no European Commission recommendations from the first cycle for this topic. 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture  

11.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

Agriculture has been identified as one of the main pressures in all European RBDs in France, 

mainly for diffuse pollution, including nitrogen, phosphorus and chemicals, but also for altered 
habitats due to hydro-morphological changes. In the first cycle, water abstraction and transfers 

for  agricultural  purposes  were  considered  as  significant  pressures  in  the  Martinique  and 
Guadeloupe RBDs.   

No gap assessment in terms of load reduction was done but there is information on the number 
of water bodies for which a measure is planned in the second cycle.  

Measures match the identified pressures. KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture, KTM13 - 

Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.), 
KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off, KTM2 - Reduce 

nutrient  pollution  from  agriculture,  KTM23  -  Natural  water  retention  measures,  KTM3  - 
Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture, are applied in all RBDs. Implementation of basic 

measures  (the  minimum  requirement  to  be  complied  with)  under  Article  11(3)(h)  for  the 
control  of  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  at  source  is  applied  in  all  RBDs,  with 

differentiated rules for different parts of the RBDs. Supplementary measures are applied in all 
RBDs.  General  binding  rules  for  nitrates,  pesticides,  phosphorus  and  sediments  to  control 

diffuse pollution from agriculture are set and applied in all RBDs. 

For  the  Scheldt  RBD,  two  basic  measures  and  two  supplementary  measures  have  been 

implemented to reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture, and one supplementary measure for 
pesticide  reduction.  For  the  Rhone-Mediterranean  RBD,  four  supplementary  measures  are 

included  for  reducing  nutrient  pollution  from  agriculture,  and  two  basic  measures.  For 
pesticides,  two  supplementary  measures  are  implemented.  For  the  Réunion  RBD,  five 

supplementary measures for nutrient reduction and two supplementary measures for pesticide 
reduction are implemented. In relation to Article 11(3) specifically, it is indicated for all RBDs 

that there are differentiated rules for different parts of the RBD. 

Assessment  of  the  RBMPs  and  background  documents  indicated  coordinated  action  at  the 
national level in all RBMPs, namely: 

145 

 
 
 
 

Implementation  of  the  law  of  6  February  2014,  the  loi  Labbé36,  which  aims  to  better 
control the use of phytosanitary products at national level for the management of green 
spaces, forests and walkways, which are accessible or open to the public, from the start 
of January 2020.37 This is also relevant  for measures to tackle pollution from sources 
other than agriculture (non-agricultural use of pesticides), discussed in the next chapter 

of this report. 

  Reducing  the  use  of  plant  protection  products  under  the  Ecophyto  plan:  Farmers, 
communities  and  other  managers  (communication  routes,  gardeners,  activity  zones, 

golf  courses,  parks,  etc.)  are  encouraged  to  be  part  of  a  process  to  reduce  the  use  of 
plant  protection  products.  This  approach  is  carried  out  in  coherence  with  the 

implementation of the Ecophyto Plan and more particularly with its axes 2 (identify and 
generalize  agricultural  systems  and  known  ways  to  reduce  the  use  of  pesticides),  3 

(innovate in the design and development of pesticide-saving crops) and 7 (reduce and 
secure  the  use  of  plant  protection  products  in  non-agricultural  areas).  The  Eecophyto 

Plan was already established in the first RBMPs at a national scale. 

  Developing specific pesticide reduction plans as part of the consultation with the SAGE 

(which is the RBMP at a more detailed scale).  

  France has also informed the European Commission of further coordinated action put 
in  place,  in  particular  the  implementation  of  the  Nitrates  Directive  at  a  national  level 
and at regional scale as well as the implementation of action plans on diffuse pollution 

for drinking abstraction points that are designated as “priority”. 

The  background  documents  of  the  RBMPs  include  a  map  indicating  the  drinking  water 

protection  areas.  Within  each  area,  it  is  indicated  where  there  is  a  priority  abstraction  point, 
either  based  on  "critical  quality"  or  on  "volume  of  abstraction  >  500,000  cubic  metres  per 

year”. Action plans for agriculture for drinking water zones will be elaborated for the Scheldt 
and  Rhone-Mediterranean  RBDs,  which  were  assessed  in  more  detail  concerning  measures 

 https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000028571536&categorieLien=id 

36 
37   In  the  meantime,  France  has  sent  updated/corrected  information  to  the  Commission  with  reference  to  the 
Implementation of the law of 17 August 2017 (article L.253-7 of the rural and fishery code), which is the “loi 
sur  la  transition  énergétique  pour  la  croissance  verte”.  This  bans  the  use  of  chemical  pesticides  at  national 
level for the management of green spaces, forests and walkways, which are accessible or open to the public, 
from the start of January 2017, and bans the  use of chemical pesticides for private  individuals use from the 
start of January 2019. 

146 

 
 
 
                                                      
related to pollution from agriculture.38 KTM 13 relates to drinking water protection measures: 
two  basic  and  one  supplementary  measure  have  been  implemented  for  this  KTM  in  the 
Scheldt, Rhone-Mediterranean and Réunion RBDs.  

Farmers/Farmers'  Unions  have  been  consulted  under  the  Public  Consultation  process  in  all 
RBDs.  

Financing of agricultural measures is secured in all RBDs.  It remains unclear if the application 

of the polluter pays principle in the agricultural sector has been fully implemented.  

11.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 

In  the  first  cycle  water  abstraction  and  transfers  for  agriculture  purposes  were  considered  as 
significant pressures in the Martinique and Guadeloupe RBDs. Morphological pressures due to 

farming activity were highlighted in the Scheldt, Sambre and Loire-Brittany RBDs. This is no 
longer the case in the second cycle. In the first cycle, no precise information was provided in 

the  RBMPs  on  the  planned  financing  of  the  agricultural  measures.  This  information  is  now 
available. 

11.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  Check  that  nutrient  standards  are  consistent  and  provide  a  more 
coherent  strategy  encompassing  WFD  with:  the  Nitrates  Directive  and  Common 

Agricultural Policy in agriculture.  

Assessment:  Concerning  links  with  the  Nitrates  Directive39,  general  binding  rules  for 
nitrates (among others) to control diffuse pollution from agriculture are set and applied 
in all RBDs. In addition, France has informed the Commission of ongoing coordinated 

action  for  the  implementation  of  the  Nitrates  Directive  at  a  national  level  and  at 
regional  scale  and  control  mechanisms  under  the  Nitrates  Directive  and  Common 

Agricultural Policy for the implementation of RBMP measures. 

38   France subsequently informed the Commission that such action plans will in fact be elaborated  for all French 

RBDs. 

39   Council  Directive  91/676/EEC  of  12  December  1991  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
agricultural 

sources 

from 
caused 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31991L0676  

nitrates 

by 

147 

 
 
 
                                                      
Information  on  nutrient  standards  is  available  in  Chapter  3,  according  to  which 

standards  are  developed  for  most  required  quality  elements  in  rivers,  lakes  and 
transitional  waters,  and  for  some  physicochemical  quality  elements  (transparency, 

temperature  and  oxygenation  conditions)  in  coastal  waters.  Standards  for  nutrient 
conditions are not developed for coastal waters and no nutrient standards are reported 
for this water category. 

This recommendation is considered as partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation: Review the regulation of the use of pesticides in order to effectively 
reduce  current  levels  of  contamination  of  rivers  and  groundwater,  making  clear 
linkages with the implementation of the Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. 

Assessment:  There  is  no  specific  link  made  to  the  Directive  on  Sustainable  Use  of 
Pesticides40,  but  the  Programmes  of  Measures  relate  to  the  content  of  this  Directive. 
These  actions  are  aimed  at  achieving  reduction  of  pesticide  concentrations  in 

groundwater and in surface water as this is recognised as a major issue for not reaching 
good status. For all RBMPs, reducing the use of plant protection products is done under 

the Ecophyto Plan: Farmers, communities and other managers (communication routes, 
gardeners,  activity  zones,  golf  courses,  parks,  etc.)  are  encouraged  to  be  part  of  a 

process to reduce the use of plant protection products. This approach is carried out in 
coherence with the implementation of the Ecophyto Plan and more particularly with its 
axes 2 (identify and generalise agricultural systems and known ways to reduce the use 

of pesticides), 3 (innovate in the design and development of pesticide-saving crops) and 
7 (reduce and secure the use of plant protection products in non-agricultural areas). The 

Ecophyto  Plan  was  already  established  in  the  previous  RBMPs  at  a  national  scale. 
France subsequently informed the Commission that there are different types of control 

mechanisms for the implementation of the Programmes of Measures, including controls 
under the Nitrates Directive, controls under CAP and controls on mandatory measures 

linked to the protection of the environment against pesticides pollution. Therefore, this 
recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Define  measures  targeted  to  agriculture  at  an  appropriate  level  of 
detail to ensure their uptake by farmers and their inspection by relevant agencies.  

40   Directive  2009/128/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  21  October  2009  establishing  a 
framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides,  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32009L0128 

148 

 
 
 
                                                      
Assessment:  The  level  of  detail  at  which  measures  targeted  to  agriculture  are  defined 

varies among RBDs. For example, in the Programme of Measures for Artois-Picardie, 
some limited details on the implementation of measures are included, but no examples 

are provided. Information on location (only available for some measures) relates to the 
catchment, or vulnerable zones in the RBD. There is little information related to timing 
(one  measure  discusses  winter  ground  covering),  or  any  further  detail.  However,  in 

other RBDs, for example the Rhone RBD, the Programme of Measures provides more 
detail on exactly what each measure may consist of, and examples of how to implement 

the measure, during which periods (that is, related to spreading periods or seasons), and 
in  what  areas  (Nitrate  Vulnerable  Zones  and  eutrophic  zones,  but  also  measures 

specifically  for  storage  areas  and  equipment,  or  a  certain  distance  related  to  buffer 
strips). No detailed information was found in the Programmes of Measures on control 

mechanisms  for  measures  related  to  agriculture.  Nevertheless,  France  subsequently 
informed the Commission that there are different types of control mechanisms for the 

implementation  of  the  Programmes  of  Measures,  such  as  controls  under  the  Nitrates 
Directive,  controls  under  CAP  and  controls  on  mandatory  measures  linked  to  the 

protection  of 
recommendation is considered as partially fulfilled. 

the  environment  against  pesticides  pollution.  Therefore, 

this 

  Recommendation:  On  measures  related  to  agriculture,  the  baseline  for  water 
protection  needs  to  be  very  clear  so  all  farmers  are  informed,  and  the  authorities  in 
charge  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  funds  can  adequately  set  up  Rural 

Development programmes and cross compliance water requirements.  

Assessment:  Information  on  how  much  of  the  gap  to  the  achievement  of  the  WFD 
objectives  is  expected  to  be  closed  by  measures  related  to  agriculture  is  provided  in 

terms of the number of water bodies for which a measure is planned in the 2016-2021 
Programmes  of  Measures.  However,  there  is  no  clear  information  as  to  whether 

measures  are  obligatory  or  voluntary.  This  recommendation  is  therefore  partially 
fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Enhance  measures  to  tackle  pollution  by  nutrients  (nitrogen  and 
phosphorus),  considering  their  impact  on  ecological  status.  Full  consideration  of  the 
RBD-wide  impact  is  needed  in  this  respect  (local  and  downstream  up  to  transitional 

and coastal waters). 

149 

 
 
 
Assessment:  In  some  RBDs,  the  Programmes  of  Measures  (e.g.  the  Programme  for 

Artois-Picardie)  mention  the  implementation  of  a  nitrates  action  plan  for  the  RBD  – 
referring specifically to increased manure storage capacity for new vulnerable zones. In 

other  RBDs,  the  Programmes  of  Measures  go  one  step  further.  For  instance,  the 
Programme  of  Measures  of  the  Rhone  RBD  includes  a  measure  to  go  beyond  the 
requirements of the Nitrates Directive. This measure, and others on nutrient pollution, 

appear to be applied for all farmable land, though it is unclear if there is consideration 
of “RBD-wide impact”. Therefore, this recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  In  particular,  it  is  expected  that  RBMPs,  based  on  the  necessary 
reduction  in  nutrient  load,  clearly  identify  the  extent  to  which  the  measures  already 
taken under the implementation of Nitrates Directive and Urban Wastewater Treatment 
Directive41  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  WFD  objectives  and  which  additional 
measures should be taken to actually achieve these objectives. A clear identification of 

basic (mandatory) measures is expected to be made transparent both to the sectors and 
to the general public. 

Assessment:  No  gap  assessment  was  done  but  there  is  information  on  the  number  of 

water  bodies  for  which  a  measure  is  planned  in  the  second  Programme  of  Measures. 
However, it remains unclear to what extent the various measures (under various pieces 

of  legislation)  will  contribute  to  closing  the  distance  to  the  target.  Supplementary 
measures  are  applied  in  all  RBDs.  General  binding  rules  for  nitrates,  pesticides, 

phosphorus  and  sediments  to  control  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  are  set  and 
applied  in  all  RBDs.  Hydromorphological  pressures  from  agriculture  are  no  longer 

reported. This recommendation has not been fulfilled. 

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  

150 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
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.  Key  Types  of  Measure  (KTM)  are  groups  of  measures 
identified by Member States in their Programmes of Measures which target the same pressure 

or  purpose.  A  KTM  could  be  one  national  measure  but  would  typically  comprise  more  than 
one national  measure. The same individual measure can also  be part of  more than one KTM 

because it may be multipurpose, but also because the KTMs are not completely independent of 
one another. 

A total of 17 KTMs relevant to non-agricultural sources of pressures causing failure of WFD 

objectives have been reported for all French RBDs. These KTMs include those measures that 
are relevant to this topic such as: 

KTM1 - "Construction or upgrade of wastewater treatment plants", 

KTM4  -  "Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical  pollution  including  sediments, 
groundwater, soil)", 

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)" and 

KTM21  -  "Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas,  transport 

and built infrastructure". 

The  WFD  specifies  that  Programmes  of  Measures  shall  include,  as  a  minimum,  “basic 
measures” and, where necessary to achieve objectives, “supplementary measures” when basic 

151 

 
 
 
measures  are  not  enough  to  address  specific  significant  pressures.  French  RBMPs  contain 

quantitative  information  on  basic  and  supplementary  measures  used  to  tackle  pollution  from 
non-agricultural  sources.  The  number  of  basic  measures  to  tackle  pollution  from  non-

agricultural  sources  is  provided  for  three  measure  types  for  13  of  14  French  RBDs.  For  the 
Corsica RBD, this information is missing.  

France provided more targeted information on basic measures required under Article 11(3)(c to 
k).  Use  of  an  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  waste  water  point  source 

discharges (Basic measures Article 11(3)(g)) is  available in  all French RBDs for surface and 
groundwater.  A  Register  of  waste  water  discharges  (Basic  measures  Article  11(3)(g))  is  also 

available in all French RBDs for surface and groundwater. 

As regards thresholds below which waste water discharges do not require permits and are not 
subject  to  registration,  the  small  discharges  are  exempted  from  controls  in  all  French  RBDs. 

Some  direct  discharges  to  groundwater  are  authorised  in  France  in  accordance  with  Article 
11(3)(j). 

It  can  be  stated  in  general  terms  that  there  are  measures  in  place  to  eliminate  or  reduce 
pollution from Priority Substances and other substances in all RBDs in France. 

However, in all the second RBMPs that were assessed more in depth (Rhone-Mediterranean, 

Scheldt and Martinique), there are Priority Substances causing failure of WFD objectives for 
which no measures have been planned. In the Réunion RBD, measures are described in general 

with the aim of reducing emissions of the Priority Substances and eliminating emissions of the 
Priority Hazardous Substances. In RBDs Scheldt and Rhone-Mediterranean, actions to reduce 

pollution  by  Priority  Substances  have  been  explicitly  included  as  KTMs.  In  the  Rhone-
Mediterranean RBD, measures have been established to address pharmaceuticals that need to 

be better controlled, improve sediment management, better control pesticide use, and mitigate 
pollution  following  storm  events.  In  the  Scheldt  RBD,  the  measures  cover  better  control  of 

industrial  waste  and  further  innovation  of  technologies  that  can  reduce  the  emissions  of 
dangerous substances. 

As  far  as  measures  for  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  are  concerned,  in  the  Rhone-
Mediterranean and Scheldt RBDs the following measures are planned: 

152 

 
 
 
  Authorisation,  registration  and  declaration  of  regime  for  installations  classified  for 
protection of the environment; Articles L. 511-1 to L. 512-20 and R. 511-1 to R. 512-
75  of  the  Code  of  the  environment;  Order  of  February  2,  1998  related  to  levies  and 

water  consumption  and  emissions  of  any  kind  of  classified  installations  for  the 
protection of the environment subject to authorisation; 

  Control  and  sanction  measures  for  installations  classified  for  the  protection  of  the 
environment; Articles L. 514-4 to L. 514-17 and R. 514-1 to R. 514-5 of the Code of 
the environment Order of February 2, 1998 related to levies and water consumption and 

emissions  of any kind  of classified installations  for the protection of the environment 
subject to authorisation;  

  Definition of national research actions and reduction of hazardous substances;  

  Establishment of a list of dangerous substances in the field of water; 

  Procedures for the application of the activity tax;  

  Water protection measures and fight against all pollution from spills, deposits, runoff or 

releases; 

  Regulation of works and activities resulting in water pollution by discharges;  

  Definition of criminal penalties relating to pollution of waters in any way whatsoever;  

  Obligation of waste disposal and liability of actors in this operation; 

  Determination  of  limitation  and  use  measures  concerning  the  volume  of  thermal 
discharges  for  the  establishments  industrial  producers  of  these  releases;  Circular  of  4 

February 2002 Circular of January 5, 2009 Articles L. 151-1, L. 211-1 to L. 211-3, L. 
214-1,  L.  216-6,  L.  541-2,  L.  541-4,  L.  541-37  and  L.  541-38  of  the  Code  of  the 

environment.  

153 

 
 
 
  Measures taken pursuant to the Directive on plant protection products42. 

As  far  as  measures  for  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  causing  failure  are  concerned,  in  the 

Réunion RBD, there is a micropollutant plan in place, according to which monitoring of these 
substances has been carried out and specific pollutants have been characterised, but no specific 

list  of  measures  to  address  these  substances  has  been  produced.  Measures  to  reduce  specific 
pollutants  are  included  in  the  list  in  a  general  way  and  targeted  to  sectors.  For  all  French 
RBDs,  there  is  the  Ecophyto  Plan  in  place,  which  aims  at  reducing  pesticide  use.  Other 

measures are taken at an RBD scale with support of OSMOSES, the general tool for selecting 
measures.  In  the  Scheldt  RBD  a  problem  with  polycyclic  aromatic  hydrocarbons  and 

chlorinated substances is mentioned specifically. 

Concerning pollutants  causing failure of  good  chemical  status  in  groundwater, monitoring of 
sensitive  areas  under  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive  in  France  applies  to 

discharges  from  treatment  plants  in  and  outside  of  sensitive  areas.  These  discharges  are 
monitored  by  means  of  self-checks  carried  out  by  a  treatment  plant  operator.  Measures  to 

reduce  nutrient  pollution  are  also  linked  to  the  unsatisfactory  nutrient  concentrations  in  the 
marine  environment,  and  the  flux  of  nutrients  towards  the  sea  is  measured.  In  the  Rhone-

Mediterranean RBMP it is mentioned that restoration of degraded environments will be acted 
on in a coordinated way at the watershed scale, in which nutrient management is included. The 

capacity  of  the  “self-cleaning  potential”  of  the  riverine  environment  and  actions  to  improve 
this  has  been  referred  to.  In  the  Rhone-Mediterranean  RBMP,  the  measures  on  nutrient 

pollution  apart  from  agriculture  are  included  in  a  general  way,  and  reference  is  made  to  the 
SAGEs, which are the more comprehensive local water management plans where measures are 

described in more detail. 

12.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle  

The  first  RBMPs  reported  that  different  general  measures  had  been  included  in  the 
Programmes of Measures  to  address  chemical  pollution and that some specific measures had 

also been taken as necessary in specific RBDs, but no measures for specific substances causing 
failure were reported.  

42  Council  Directive  91/414/EEC  of  15  July  1991  concerning  the  placing  of  plant  protection  products  on  the 

market http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31991L0414  

154 

 
 
 
                                                      
The  2018  assessment  shows  that  there  are  measures  in  place  to  eliminate  /  reduce  pollution 

from Priority Substances and other substances (Basic measures Article 11(3)(k)) in all RBDs. 
However,  information  reported  to  WISE  shows  that  no  KTMs  have  been  made  operational 

based on pressures from specific Priority Substances, despite a number of Priority Substances 
causing failure to reach good status (see chapter 4 for more information).  

It  can  be  summarised  that  the  Programmes  of  Measures  do  not  explicitly  link  measures  to 
single  Priority  Substances  causing  failure.  In  the  Rhone-Mediterranean,  Scheldt  and 

Martinique RBMPs there are Priority Substances which are causing failure of WFD objectives 
for which no measures have been planned. In the Martinique RBD, the measures are described 
in general terms.43 

12.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  “The  identification  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  needs  to  be 
more  transparent,  with  clear  information  on  how  pollutants  were  selected,  how  and 
where they were monitored, where there are exceedances, and how such exceedances 

have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status. It is important that 
there  is  an  ambitious  approach  to  combating  chemical  pollution  and  that  adequate 

measures are put in place.” 

Assessment:  RBMPs  show  that  there  are  measures  in  place  to  eliminate  /  reduce 

pollution  from  chemical  substances.  However,  no  KTMs  have  been  made  operational 
based  on  pressures  from  specific  substances,  despite  a  number  of  them  potentially 

causing non-compliance. It is not possible to determine whether the measures in place 
will be sufficient to tackle chemical pollution related problems. This recommendation 

is therefore considered partially fulfilled.  

  Recommendation:  “Check  that  nutrient  standards  are  consistent  and  provide  a  more 
coherent  strategy  encompassing  WFD  with  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment 

Directive in urban areas.”  

43   France subsequently clarified that it was a national choice to report KTMs for pressures and not for individual 
priority  substances,  as  they  consider  that  significant  pressures  are  the  right  scale  of  action.  France  also 
highlighted that all significant pressures related to chemical pollution are covered by the reported KTMs for 
surface waters. 

155 

 
 
 
                                                      
Assessment: The only information found refers to monitoring of sensitive areas under 

the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive,  which  applies  to  discharges  from 
treatment plants in and outside sensitive areas having an impact on the sensitive areas. 

These  discharges  are  monitored  by  means  of  self-checks  carried  out  by  the  operator. 
in  Chapter  3.  The 
Further 
recommendation is considered partly fulfilled. 

information  on  nutrient  standards 

is  available 

  Recommendation:  “Enhance  measures  to  tackle  pollution  by  nutrients  (nitrogen  and 
phosphorus),  considering  their  impact  on  ecological  status.  Full  consideration  of  the 
basin-wide  impact  is  needed  in  this  respect  (local  and  downstream  up  to  transitional 

and coastal waters).” 

Assessment:  Measures  to  reduce  nutrient  pollution  are  linked  to  the  unsatisfactory 
nutrient concentrations in the marine environment, and the flux of nutrients towards the 

sea is measured. In the Rhone-Mediterranean RBD, it is mentioned that restoration of 
degraded environments will be acted on in a coordinated way at the watershed scale, in 

which nutrient management is included. The capacity of the “self-cleaning potential” of 
the riverine environment and actions to improve this has been referred to. Furthermore, 

the objectives include achieving good status based, in part, on phosphorus and nitrogen 
parameters. 

The  recommendation  is  partly  fulfilled  since  the  impact  of  measures  on  ecological 
status has could not be assessed. 

  Recommendation:  “In  particular,  it  is  expected  that  RBMPs,  based  on  the  necessary 
reduction  in  nutrient  load,  clearly  identify  the  extent  to  which  the  measures  already 
taken  under  the  implementation  of  the  Nitrates  and  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment 

Directives  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  WFD  objectives  and  which  additional 
measures should be taken to actually achieve these objectives. A clear identification of 

basic (mandatory) measures is expected to be made transparent both to the sectors and 
the general public.” 

Assessment: For example in the Rhone-Mediterranean RBD, the measures on nutrient 

pollution apart from agriculture are included in a general way, and reference is made to 
the  SAGEs,  which  are  the  more  comprehensive  local  management  plans;  where 

156 

 
 
 
measures  are  described  in  more  detail.  The  recommendation  is  considered  partly 

fulfilled. 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology  

13.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

Significant  hydromorphological  pressures  are  reported 

in  all  14  RBDs.  Significant 

hydromorphological pressures have not been related to specific sectors and drivers. The drivers 
are reported as unknown/obsolete or indicated as "other", i.e. not specified as one of the key 

sectors indicated in the WISE reporting. 

Operational KTMs to address the significant hydromorphological pressures are reported for 11 

out of the 14 RBDs. No operational KTMs are taken to address hydromorphological pressures 
in  the  Réunion,  Guyana  and  Martinique  RBDs.  There  is  a  large  variety  of  KTMs  made 

operational  to  tackle hydromorphological  pressures, namely KTMs 5, 6,  7, 8, 14, 22, 23 and 
24.  The  majority  of  these  KTMs  (7,  8,  14,  22,  23  and  24)  are  made  operational  to  address 

hydrological alterations in particular. 

Specific  measures  in  the  RBMPs  include  a  variety  of  measures,  such  as  fish  ladders,  bypass 
channels, sediment management, removal of structures, restoration of bank and bed structure, 

setting of ecological flows, floodplain inundation, hydropeaking modifications.  

In  terms  of  basic  measures,  there  is  an  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  in  place  to 
control physical modifications, which covers changes to the riparian area of water bodies, in all 
RBDs,  according  to  WFD  Article  11(3)(i).  However,  there  is  no  register  of  physical 

modifications of water bodies in any of the RBDs. 

Overall  management  objectives  and  quantitative  objectives  in  terms  of  river  continuity  have 
been set in all RBDs and KTM5 (Improving longitudinal continuity) has been reported for all 

RBDs.  

In the Rhine RBD, an agreement was reached within the Rhine Convention to find a long-term 
solution to ensure river continuity and to restore the wild salmon populations in the Rhine up 

to  Basel.  Possible  financing  options  have  been  discussed  in  that  framework.  Some  of  the 
obstacles for the salmon migration still remain in the French sub-basin III Nappe Rhin, where 

France reported some measures under KTM5 and identified the costs for their implementation 

158 

 
 
 
during the second and the third cycle. However, no information was provided on what specific 

interventions have been planned. 

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 reported to be included 
in the Programmes of Measures of all RBDs. The specific Key Type of Measure 23 on Natural 

Water  Retention  Measures  is  applied  in  six  RBDs  to  tackle  significant  hydromorphological 
pressures. The RBMPs explain that Natural Water Retention Measures have been applied as a 

win-win solution  in  order to  alleviate pressures  from hydrological  alterations, abstractions or 
flow  diversion  (hydropower),  and  various  other  pressures  (urban  wastewater,  agriculture, 

physical alteration, dams barriers and locks). Several sections of the RBMPs describe win-win 
activities  with  relevance  to  climate  change,  green  infrastructure,  sustainable  drainage,  water 

retention  measures,  re-use  of  water,  the  Floods  Directive  implementation  and  structural 
measures. 

The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and 

tidal barriers, is reported to have been adapted to take account of WFD objectives in all RBDs. 

In  four  RBDs  (Rhone-Mediterranean,  Corsica,  Adour-Garonne  and  Martinique),  ecological 

flows have been derived for all relevant water bodies. In two of these RBDs (Adour-Garonne, 
Martinique), the derived ecological flows have been implemented in all relevant water bodies, 

while  in  the  Rhone-Mediterranean  and  Corsica  RBDs,  there  has  been  partial  implementation 
and the work is still ongoing. In the remaining 10 RBDs, ecological flows  have been derived 

only for some relevant water bodies and the work is still on-going. No further information was 
found  in  the  RBMPs  on  the  timeline  for  initiating  or  completing  the  implementation  of 

ecological flows. 

Specific measures to achieve ecological flows are planned in some but not all RBDs. National 
regulations  set  the  framework  for  the  application  of  ecological  flows  (minimum  biological 

flow, restricted flow, low-flow target flow).  

Concerning  the  level  of  ambition  in  tackling  significant  hydromorphological  pressures,  from 

the information available it can be concluded that there will be different levels of progress in 
the  various  RBDs  in  terms  of  closing  the  gap  for  hydromorphological  pressures  by  2021 

(Indicators on the gap to be filled are reported for 2015 and 2021 but not for 2027.). In some 
RBDs, there will be a reduction of the number of water bodies for which hydromorphological 

159 

 
 
 
pressures  are significant  of between 40 % and 85 % (Rhone-Mediterranean, Corsica, Adour-

Garonne, Loire-Brittany, Guadeloupe, Mayotte RBDs). In the other RBDs, there will be some 
reduction of hydromorphological pressures, between 10 % and 35 %. 

For the KTMs, indicator values (number of water bodies for which measures are planned in the 
2016-2021  Programmes  of  Measures  to  tackle  hydromorphological  pressures)  are  only 

reported for 2015, but not for 2021 and 2027. Therefore, no conclusions can be reached on the 
number of measures that will still be needed after 2021 for hydromorphological pressures. 

13.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The  links  between  hydromorphological  measures  and  pressures  have  become  clearer  in  the 
second RBMPs due to the improved reporting in WISE. However, the links between pressures 

and  uses  (drivers)  remain 
unknown/obsolete or "other".  

largely  unclear,  as 

the  drivers  are  reported  as  either 

some  RBDs 

that 
In 
hydromorphological measures have made progress but have also been affected by delays due 

(e.g.  Scheldt  and  Rhone-Mediterranean), 

indicated 

is 

it 

to  complex  legal  and  practical  issues  (e.g.  on  land  to  be  acquired).  Furthermore,  there  is 
uncertainty on the effects of hydromorphological measures. 

13.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  ecological  flow  is  considered  wherever  existing  and 
planned abstractions may jeopardize the achievement of environmental objectives. This 

is  particularly  crucial  when  considering  the  review  of  water  allocations  and  permits 
and the construction of new dams and reservoirs.  

Assessment:  Ecological  flows  have  been  derived  for  all  relevant  water  bodies  in  four 
RBDs. In the other RBDs, they have been partially derived and work is still ongoing. 

National  regulations  set  the  framework  for  the  application  of  ecological  flows 
(minimum biological flow, restricted flow, low-flow target flow).  

No  information  was  found  on  basic  measures  under  Article  11(3)  which  impose 

controls on uses impacting the flow regime and whether and how these measures can 
support e-flow implementation.  

160 

 
 
 
From the above it cannot be concluded whether this recommendation is fully fulfilled 

in this second RBMPs. 

  Recommendation:  Consider  restoration  measures  as  well  as  the  use  of  green 
infrastructure  and/or  natural  water  retention  measures  that  provide  a  range  of 

environmental (improvements in water quality, flood protection, habitat conservation, 
etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than 
grey infrastructure. 

Assessment: The specific KTM23 on Natural Water Retention Measures is applied in 

six RBDs to tackle significant hydromorphological pressures. Restoration measures are 
also considered, such as measures to restore bank and bed structures, measures related 

to  floodplains  and  measures  to  restore  river  continuity.  The  RBMPs  explain  that 
Natural Water Retention Measures have been applied as a win-win solution in order to 

alleviate  pressures  from  hydrological  alterations,  abstractions  or  flow  diversion 
(hydropower),  and  various  other  pressures  (urban  wastewater,  agriculture,  physical 

alteration, dams barriers and locks). Several sections of the RBMPs describe win-win 
activities  with  relevance  to  climate  change,  green  infrastructure,  sustainable  drainage, 

water  retention  measures,  re-use  of  water,  the  Floods  Directive  implementation  and 
structural measures. 

The information found in the RBMPs indicates that this recommendation is fulfilled. 

161 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 14

  Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

14.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and 

compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

It seems that a more coordinated approach than for the first RBMPs has taken place among the 

different RBDs with regard to the definition of water services.  

Rates for cost recovery are provided for most water services in most RBDs, but the approaches 

used seem to differ significantly from RBD to RBD. 

The "adequateness" of the contributions of water uses is not explained. Information reported to 

WISE states that no water uses benefit from the water services. 

Environmental  and  resource  costs  are  mostly  regarded  as  significant,  and  stated  as  being 

internalised for all water services except flood protection.  

The Economic Analysis is updated from the first cycle in all relevant RBDs.  

There are still some significant differences concerning cost recovery rates and calculation and 
contribution to cost recovery in the different RBDs, hinting at limits to the co-operation at the 

national level.  

14.2  Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation: Provide a more complete definition of water services and a proper 
recovery  of  cost  to  contribute  to  the  objectives,  especially  when  fully  accounting  for 

environmental and resource costs for services creating a pressure on water bodies. 

and 

  Recommendation: Water services have been interpreted differently in the French RBD. 
Some RBDs have a broad approach, which takes into account all possible abstraction, 
storage, treatment, impoundment etc. In other RBDs, the approach has been narrower, 

taking into account public and self-water abstraction and wastewater treatment for all 
sectors, as well as irrigation. Finally, in some RBDs, the approach has been even more 

limited, taking into account only abstraction and wastewater treatment for households, 
industry and abstraction for agriculture. 

162 

 
 
 
Assessment: It seems that a national, or at least more coordinated, approach than for the 

first RBMPs has taken place among the different RBDs with regard to the definition of 
water services. The definition of water services is mostly the same now in the RBDs, 

reported  on  WISE  as  being  navigation  and  flood  protection,  as  well  as  agriculture, 
households,  industry,  hydropower  and  the  "crafts  sector";  households,  industry, 
agriculture  and  the  “crafts  sector”  defined  nationally  benefit  from  the  water  services 

and  contribute  to  the  cost  recovery  of  these  services.Although  drinking  water  supply 
and  waste  water  treatment  are  not  mentioned  here,  the  respective  chapters  in  the 

RBMPs have the focus on these two services. 

It is not clear what water uses have been identified for Article 9 purposes (in order to 

establish their contribution to cost recovery). 

Rates for cost recovery are provided for most water services in most RBDs, but there is 

no  consistency  (in  some  RBDs,  cost  recovery  rates  are  provided  for  all  services,  in 
some  for  none  etc.).  There  is  one  clear  and  shared  methodology  to  calculate  cost 

recovery  written  in  a  national  guidance.  The  RBDs  are  however  free  to  present  the 
results as they see fit which may lead to wrongly assuming that the methodology differs 

from one to another.  

The  "adequateness"  of  the  contributions  of  water  uses  is  not  explained.  Information 

reported to WISE states that no water uses benefit from the water services. 

Environmental  and  resource  costs  are  mostly  regarded  as  significant  (except  in  the 

Mayotte  RBD),  and  stated  as  being  internalised  for  all  water  services  except  flood 
protection  (again,  not  in  the  Mayotte  RBD).  How  this  is  done  is  not  described 

comprehensively in all RBMPs. 

There  are  still  some  significant  differences  concerning  cost  recovery  rates  and 

calculation and contribution to cost recovery in the different RBDs, hinting at limits to 
the co-operation at the national level.  

Overall, there is partial progress towards fulfilling these recommendations. 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

France  has  reported  Protected  Areas  for  all  relevant  Directives  in  the  second  RBMPs  (Table 
15.1)44.   

Table 15.1  Number  of Protected Areas  of all types in each  RBD of France, for surface 

and groundwater 

Protected Area type 

Number of Protected Areas45 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional  Coastal  Groundwater 

Abstraction of water intended for 

1088 

96 

23 

18 

24 465 

human consumption under Article 7 

Recreational waters, including areas 
designated as bathing waters under 
Bathing Waters Directive46 

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)47 

955 

363 

135 

1 889 

89 

32 

18 

26 

156 

44   France subsequently clarified that Protected  Areas designated under the Nitrates  Directive are  only reported 

under the Nitrates Directive Guidance and are not reported to WISE so are not included in this table. 

45   France subsequently informed the Commission that the reported information in WISE was not accurate. This 

table reflects the updated/corrected data 

46  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  

47  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  

164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
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)48 

Nutrient-sensitive areas designated as 
sensitive areas under Urban 

Wastewater Treatment Directive 

Areas designated for the protection of 
economically significant aquatic 

species 

625 

84 

72 

109 

647 

88 

41 

32 

21 

34 

68 

Source: Member States reports to WISE 

A  good  overview  of  the  status    of  water  bodies  associated  with  Protected  Areas  is  reported 
(Figure 15.1) with the status classification reported with three degrees of confidence. 

48  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  

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 15.1  Status of water bodies associated with the Protected Areas report for France. 

Note: based on status/potential aggregated for all water bodies associated with 
all Protected Areas 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

France  reported  that,  for  the  majority  of  Protected  Areas  designated  under  the  Birds  and 
Habitats Directives, no specific water objectives have been set to protect dependent habitats or 

species because the additional needs are not known. For a small proportion of these Protected 
Areas, additional objectives have been set but work is still ongoing to establish the needs of the 

features  of  interest.  For  a  small  number  of  Protected  Areas  in  the  RBDs  of  Rhone-
Mediterranean and Corsica, additional objectives  have not  been set  because the objectives of 
the WFD in associated water bodies are considered sufficient to protect the features of interest. 
Progress with establishing the need for additional objectives is, so far, limited. 

For  Protected  Areas  related  to  shellfish  and  for  Drinking  Water  Protected  Areas  additional 
objectives have been set for both surface and groundwaters. 

The WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for Protected Areas as 

far as the status  of surface and  groundwater bodies is  concerned. Monitoring sites of surface 

166 

 
 
 
 
 
water associated with Protected Areas are only reported for those under Article 7 of the WFD 

(and only in one RBD - Guadeloupe) and the Nitrates Directive. However, no Protected Areas 
associated  with  the  Nitrates  Directive  have  been  reported.  France  subsequently  informed  the 

Commission that Protected Areas have been designated under the Nitrates Directive in France, 
and these are regularly reported under the Nitrates Directive (last updated in June 2016), and 
hence France did not report vulnerable zones again under the Water Framework Directive. 

No  specific  monitoring  sites  are  reported  as  associated  with  other  types  of  Protected  Areas. 

Monitoring of Protected Areas under Article 7 is reported only for rivers (in one RBD) whilst 
monitoring  of  Protected  Areas  designated  under  the  Nitrates  Directive  is  reported  to  be 

undertaken  primarily  in  groundwater  and  rivers  with  some  sites  in  lakes  and  transitional 
waters.  Further  information  on  the  purpose  of  monitoring  sites  for  surface  water  and 

groundwater  status  assessment  can  be  found  in  Chapters  3  and  4  (ecological  and  chemical 
status  of  surface  waters)  and  Chapters  5  and  6  (quantitative  and  chemical  status  of 

groundwaters) of this report. 

The reported monitoring programmes for Protected Areas in France are inadequate: they do not 
cover  all  types  of  Protected  Areas;  and  the  number  of  monitoring  sites  for  Protected  Areas 

designated  under  Article  7  in  rivers  is  very  small  (16)  compared  to  the  number  of  Protected 
Areas reported (1088). 

Table 15.2  Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas in France  

Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected 

Protected Area type 

Areas in 

Groundwater 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Transitional  

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 

16 

2158 

1 

1641 

3 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

With  respect  to  measures  and  exemptions,for  Drinking  Water  Protected  Areas,  there  are 

safeguard zones in all RBDs, there are no plans to change the regulations as a result of these 
RBMPs and no exemptions for either surface or groundwater bodies have been used. 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
 
15.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

There are only minor changes between the number of different types of Protected Areas in the 

first  and  the  second  cycle  -  the  only  exception  is  Protected  Areas  related  to  the  Habitats 
Directive, where the number is significantly higher in the second cycle. 

The specific monitoring activity in relation to Protected Areas was significantly higher in the 

first cycle than in the second.   

15.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

There were no recommendations from the first cycle in relation to this topic.  

168 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 16

  Adaptation to drought and climate change 

16.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

Climate change adaptation was considered in various ways in all RBDs and it is stated that the 

guidance  on  how  to  adapt  to  climate  change  (Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance 
Document No. 24) was used. Following the Commission’s recommendation, specific climate 

change aspects have been considered in all RBDs, related to the following aspects: monitoring 
change at reference sites, maximisation of cross-sectoral benefits and minimisation of negative 

effects  across  sectors,  detecting  climate  change  signals  and  assessing  direct  and  indirect 
climate pressures. Climate change is also considered in flood risk and drought management as 

well as when dealing with water scarcity. However, climate change is also reported as a driver 
for  exemptions  in  the  Scheldt,  Sambre  and  Mayotte  RBDs.  The  Rhone-Mediterranean  RBD 

also  addressed  climate  change  when  setting  objectives.  Specific  climate  change  adaptation 
measures, KTM24, have been applied in the Scheldt, Sambre, Rhone-Mediterranean, Corsica, 

Seine-Normandy,  Guyana  and  Réunion  RBDs.  In  all  RBDs,  there  are  national  measures 
mapped  against  KTM24.  No  specific  sub-plans  addressing  climate  change  are  reported  for 

France.  

According to the 2012 Topic report on: Assessment of Water Scarcity and Drought aspects in a 
selection  of  European  Union  RBMPs49,  droughts  are  relevant  for  the  country,  with  Adour-
Garonne  facing  RBD-wide  droughts,  the  Sambre,  Rhone-Mediterranean  and  Réunion  RBDs 

facing local droughts, and the Corsica, Loire-Brittany and Seine-Normandy RBDs not clearly 
distinguishing  droughts  from  water  scarcity.  No  exemptions  have  been  applied  for  France 

following Article 4(6) due to prolonged droughts. 

No Drought Management Plans have been reported for France. However, in 2012 (Topic report 
on:  Assessment  of  Water  Scarcity  and  Drought  aspects  in  a  selection  of  European  Union 

RBMPs),  such  plans  or  elements  of  them  were  already  in  place.  The  European  Commission 
made no recommendation regarding drought management. 

49  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Assessment%20WSD.pdf 

169 

 
 
 
                                                      
16.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Climate  change  issues  have  been  more  extensively  incorporated  into  the  second  RBMPs, 

including pressure analysis, monitoring and a climate check of the Programmes of Measures. 

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 has 

been reported for France. However, in  2012 (Topic report on:  Assessment  of Water Scarcity 
and  Drought  aspects  in  a  selection  of  European  Union  RBMPs),  such  plans  or  elements  of 

them  were  reported  to  be  already  in  place.  France  subsequently  clarified  that  local  decrees 
could be adopted to face droughts.  

16.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

  Recommendation:  The  consideration  of  climate  change  issues  should  be  more 
extensively  incorporated  into  the  second  RBMPs  including  pressure  analysis, 

monitoring and a climate check of the Programme of Measures.  

Assessment:  Climate  change  was  considered  in  various  ways  in  all  RBDs  and  it  is 

stated that the guidance on how to adapt to climate change (Common Implementation 
Strategy  Guidance  Document  No.  24)  was  used.  Following  the  Commission’s 

recommendation,  specific  climate  change  aspects  have  been  considered  in  all  RBDs,  
related to the following aspects: monitoring change at reference sites, maximisation of 

cross-sectoral  benefits  and  minimisation  of  negative  effects  across  sectors,  detecting 
climate  change  signals  and  assessing  direct  and  indirect  climate  pressures.  Climate 

change  is  also  considered  in  flood  risk  and  drought  management  as  well  as  when 
dealing  with  water  scarcity.  However  climate  change  is  also  reported  as  a  driver  for 

exemptions  in  the  Scheldt,  Sambre  and  Mayotte  RBDs.  The  Rhone-Mediterranean 
RBD  also  addressed  climate  change  when  setting  objectives.  Specific  climate  change 

adaptation  measures,  KTM24,  have  been  applied  in  the  Scheldt,  Sambre,  Rhone-
Mediterranean,  Corsica,  Seine-Normandy,  Guyana  and  Réunion  RBDs.  In  all  RBDs, 

there are national measures mapped against KTM24. This recommendation is fulfilled. 

170