COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT FITNESS CHECK of the Water Framework Directive, Groundwater Directive, Environmental Quality Standards Directive and Floods Directive Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks
Date: 2019-12-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: environmental risk prevention, environmental standard, flood, groundwater, pollution control measures, surface water, water management, water pollution, water protection, water resources

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.12.2019  SWD(2019) 439 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  FITNESS CHECK of the Water Framework Directive, Groundwater Directive, Environmental Quality Standards Directive and Floods Directive Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy            Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration            Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council            Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks {SEC(2019) 438 final} - {SWD(2019) 440 final}  
 
 
Acronyms  

Acronym 

Meaning  

CIS 

EEA 

EQSD 

EQS 

EU 

FD 

FHRM 

FRM 

FRMP 

GDP 

GWD 

MSFD 

PFRA 

PoM 

RBD 

RBMP 

Common implementation strategy: informal cooperation under the Water Framework 
Directive and its daughter directives to support their implementation. The strategy 
gathers representatives from Member States, EEA/EFTA countries and all relevant 
stakeholders. The strategy also serves as a platform for the exchange of experience 
and develops guidance documents and policy papers. 

European Environment Agency 

Environmental Quality Standards Directive 

Environmental quality standard(s): under the Environmental Quality Standards 
Directive, limits on the concentration of certain substances or groups of substances 
identified as priority pollutants because of the significant risk they pose to or via the 
aquatic environment. 

European Union 

Floods Directive 

Flood hazard and risk maps: step 2 in the cycle of flood risk management introduced 
by the Floods Directive; these maps show how far floods might extend, the depth or 
level of water and the impacts there might be on human health, the economy, 
environment and cultural heritage. 

Flood risk management 

Flood risk management plan: step 3 in the cycle of flood risk management introduced 
by the Floods Directive; these plans are required from Member States every 6 years 
and must set out appropriate objectives for the management of flood risk within the 
areas covered by the plan. 

Gross domestic product 

Groundwater Directive 

Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

Preliminary flood risk assessment: step 1 in the cycle of flood risk management 
introduced by the Floods Directive; these assessments lead to the identification of 
areas that are at significant risk of flooding. 

Programme of measures: the tool under the Water Framework Directive designed to 
enable the Member States to respond appropriately to the relevant pressures 
identified at river basin district level during the pressures and impacts analysis, with 
the objective of enabling the river basin/water body to reach good status. 

River basin district: unit of water management under the Water Framework Directive; 
a river basin district is an area of land from which all surface run-off flows through a 
sequence of streams, rivers and possibly lakes into the sea at a single river mouth, 
estuary or delta. 

River basin management plan: a comprehensive document required from Member 
States under the Water Framework Directive every 6 years, which should describe 
the actions envisaged to implement the Directive. The RBMPs cover many aspects of 
water management and identify all actions and measures to be taken within the river 
basin district in order to deliver the objectives of the Water Framework Directive. 

RBSPs 

River basin-specific pollutants: under the Water Framework Directive, pollutants 
identified by Member States as being of regional or local importance (in particular 
those listed in Annex VIII to the Directive) for which Member States must set 
environmental quality standards, conduct monitoring and establish control measures. 

SDGs 

Sustainable Development Goals 

1 

 
 
 
Acronym 

Meaning  

UoM 

Unit of management (under the Floods Directive); in the vast majority of Member 
States, UoMs correspond to river basin districts. 

UWWTD 

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 

WFD 

WISE 

WTP 

Water Framework Directive 

Water Information System for Europe, hosted by the EEA 

Willingness to pay 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 
1. 
INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS FITNESS CHECK ............ 7 
2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION .............................................................. 8 
2.1.  Description of the Directives and their objectives .................................................... 8 
Integrated water and flood management ................................................................. 12 
2.2. 
2.3. 
Intervention logic ....................................................................................................... 16 
2.4.  Baseline ....................................................................................................................... 17 
IMPLEMENTATION AND STATE OF PLAY ......................................................... 18 
3. 
3.1. 
State of European waters .......................................................................................... 18 
3.2.  Assessment of the second river basin management plans and first flood risk 
management plans ................................................................................................................. 22 
4.  METHOD ....................................................................................................................... 24 
Process ......................................................................................................................... 24 
4.1. 
4.2.  Evidence gathering..................................................................................................... 25 
4.3.  Limitations — robustness of findings ...................................................................... 26 
5.  ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 26 
5.1.  Effectiveness ............................................................................................................... 26 
5.1.1: ‘To what extent are the Directives performing as expected?’ ................................... 26 
5.1.2: ‘How have the Directives changed water management practices and influenced 
governance and policy-making in Member States?’ ............................................................ 37 
5.1.3:  ‘Which main factors have contributed to or stood in the way of achieving the 
Directives’ objectives?’ ....................................................................................................... 42 
5.2.  Efficiency .................................................................................................................... 54 

5.2.1: ‘What are the costs of the legislation and to what extent are the costs of the 
legislation justified, given the benefits achieved?’ .............................................................. 54 
5.2.2: ‘What factors have influenced the efficiency of implementation? Have good 
practices be identified?’ ....................................................................................................... 66 
5.2.3: ‘To what extent are monitoring and reporting requirements fit for purpose?’ .......... 70 
5.2.4: ‘To what extent are there opportunities to simplify the legislation or reduce 
unnecessary regulatory cost without undermining the objectives of the Directives?’ ......... 74 
5.3.  Coherence ................................................................................................................... 79 
5.3.1: ‘To what extent is the legislation coherent internally?’ ............................................. 79 
5.3.2: ‘To what extent is the legislation consistent with wider EU policy?’ ....................... 82 
5.3.3: ‘To what extent is the legislation consistency with international obligations?’ ...... 100 
5.4.  Relevance .................................................................................................................. 102 

5.4.1: ‘To what extent are the objectives still relevant and properly addressing the key 
problems and concerns related to water that ecosystems and the society presently face?. 102 
5.4.2: ‘How relevant are the Directives to EU citizens?’ .................................................. 109 
5.4.3: ‘How relevant are the Directives for EU external policy objectives (considering the 
development, cooperation and transboundary water dimensions)?’ .................................. 111 
5.5.  EU added value ........................................................................................................ 112 

3 

 
 
 
5.5.1: ‘What is the additional value resulting from these Directives compared to what could 
have reasonably been expected from Member States acting at national, regional and/or 
international (including non-EU) level?’ ........................................................................... 113 
6.  CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 115 
6.1.  Key points regarding the evaluation criteria......................................................... 115 
6.2.  Key issues per directive ........................................................................................... 119 
Water Framework Directive .............................................................................................. 119 
Environmental Quality Standards Directive ...................................................................... 121 
Groundwater Directive ....................................................................................................... 122 
Floods Directive ................................................................................................................. 123 
6.3.  Lessons learned for future follow-up ..................................................................... 123 
7.  ANNEXES .................................................................................................................... 125 
Annex 1 - Procedural information...................................................................................... 125 
1.1.  LEAD DGS AND INTERNAL REFERENCES ................................................... 125 
1.2.  ORGANISATION OF THE WORK AND TIMING ........................................... 125 
1.3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES .................. 126 
1.4.  CONSULTATION OF THE REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD ................ 126 
1.5.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY ............................................................ 130 
Annex 2 - Consultation activities - synopsis report........................................................... 131 
Annex 3 - Methods used in preparing the fitness check ................................................... 145 
Annex 4 - References ........................................................................................................... 150 
Studies, articles, reports and policy documents ................................................................ 150 
EU legislation ........................................................................................................................ 157 
Common implementation strategy ..................................................................................... 159 
Annex 5 - Coherence - additional information on the coherence of water policy with 
wider EU policy .................................................................................................................... 160 

Coherence with other components of EU environmental legislation affecting water 
quality ................................................................................................................................ 160 
Coherence with other EU policies addressing the protection of the environment ............. 161 
Coherence with other EU policies ..................................................................................... 171 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Term  

Chemical status 

Cost recovery principle 

Good ecological status 

Glossary 

Definition 

Defined  in  the  Water  Framework  Directive  Article  2(24)  and  (25)  for 
surface  waters  and  groundwaters  respectively.  The  chemical  status  of 
surface  waters  is  determined  by  reference  to  environmental  quality 
standards  set  at  EU  level  for  chemical  pollutants,  mainly  the  priority 
substances  (Article  16  of 
the  Directive).  The  chemical  status  of 
groundwaters  is  determined  by  reference  to  criteria  including  quality 
standards and conductivity (Article 17 of the Directive).  

The Water Framework Directive establishes the principle of cost recovery, 
whereby competent authorities should ensure that the costs of measures, 
including  environmental  and  resource  costs,  are  recovered,  taking  into 
account the polluter pays principle. 

Defined  in  Water  Framework  Directive  Article  2(22)  and  Annex  V,  it 
comprises the quality of the biological community, the hydromorphological 
characteristics and the physico-chemical characteristics of water bodies. 

Good ecological potential  Defined in Water Framework Directive  Article  2(23)  and  Annex V, this  is 
the equivalent of good ecological status for artificial and heavily modified 
water bodies. 

Heavily modified water 
body 

A water body resulting from physical alterations by human activity, which 
substantially  change  its  hydromorphological  character,  for  example,  a 
harbour. 

Implementation gap 

The  gap  between  the  status  quo,  if  not  good,  and  being  in  compliance 
with the Directives’ objectives. 

Mixing zone 

Non-deterioration 
principle 

One-out-all-out principle 

Priority substance 

Zone  adjacent  to  a  point  of  discharge  of  pollutants  within  which  the 
concentration of those pollutants may exceed the relevant environmental 
quality standards  if this does not  affect the compliance of the rest  of the 
water body with those standards. 

Principle  in  the  Water  Framework  Directive  under  which  Member  States 
must  take  measures  to  prevent  the  status  of  their  water  bodies  from 
deteriorating;  an  exemption  from  this  principle  can  only  be  granted  if 
certain  requirements  are  met,  one  of  which  is  the  demonstration  of  an 
overriding public interest. 

Principle in the Water Framework Directive underlying the definition of the 
status  of  water  bodies;  it  ensures  that  all  parameters  are  adequately 
considered  in  the  effort  to  reach  good  status.  For  example,  the  status 
cannot  be  good  if  the  status  of  any  of  the  relevant  biological  quality 
elements is less than good or if the environmental quality standards in the 
Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  are  exceeded  for  any  of  the 
substances listed in Annex X to the Water Framework Directive. 

Substance  identified  in  accordance  with  Water  Framework  Directive 
Article  16(2)  and  listed  in  Annex  X.  Priority  substances  are  chemical 
pollutants that pose a significant risk to (or via) the aquatic environment at 
EU  level.  There  are  currently  45  of  these  priority  substances  listed  in 
Annex  X  to  the  Water  Framework  Directive.  Member  States  have  to 
monitor 
the 
environmental  quality  standards  set  for  them  within  a  certain  timeline, 
unless they meet conditions that allow them to apply exemptions. 

in  surface  waters  and  meet 

their  concentrations 

Priority hazardous 
substance 

Priority  hazardous  substances  are  a  subset  of  priority  substances,  of 
which they are the most dangerous. They are toxic, persistent and liable 
to bio-accumulate, or give rise to an equivalent level of concern. Because 
of  these  properties,  the  Water  Framework  Directive  requires  their 
emissions to the aquatic environment to be phased out within 20 years of 

5 

 
 
 
Term  

Watch list 

Water body 

Definition 
their designation as ‘priority hazardous’. 

List of substances for which EU-wide monitoring data are to be gathered 
for  the  purpose  of  supporting  future  reviews  of  the  list  of  priority 
substances.  These  are  substances  for  which  the  information  available 
indicates  that  they  may  pose  a  significant  risk,  but  for  which  monitoring 
data are insufficient. 

For surface waters, a water body is a discrete and significant element of 
water  such  as  a  lake,  reservoir,  stream,  river,  canal  or  a  part  of  one  of 
these, or a transitional water or stretch of coastal water. For groundwater, 
a  body  of  water  is  a  distinct  volume  of  groundwater  within  an  aquifer  or 
aquifers. According to Common implementation strategy Guidance No 2, 
‘The ‘water body’ should be a coherent sub-unit in the river basin (district) 
to which the environmental objectives of the directive must apply. Hence, 
the main purpose of identifying ‘water bodies’ is to enable the status to be 
accurately described and compared to environmental objectives’. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  Introduction: purpose and scope of this fitness check 

This  fitness  check  is  a  comprehensive  policy  evaluation  of  four  Directives  on  integrated 
water management:  

- 
- 
- 
- 

the Water Framework Directive (WFD1) — Directive 2000/60/EC;  
the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQSD2) — Directive 2008/105/EC;  
the Groundwater Directive (GWD3) — Directive 2006/118/EC;  
the Floods Directive (FD4) — Directive 2007/60/EC.  

It assesses whether the Directives are fit for purpose by examining their performance against 
the  five  criteria  set  out  in  the  Commission’s  Better  Regulation  agenda5:  relevance, 
effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value.  

For each criterion, specific evaluation questions were prepared (see Annex 3). This includes: 
(i)  examining  implementation  and  integration  successes  and  problems;  (ii)  the  costs  of 
implementation and non-implementation of the legislation; (iii) the administrative burden of 
implementation;  and  (iv)  opportunities  to  reduce  the  burden  without  compromising  the 
integrity  of  the  Directives’  purpose.  This  retrospective  exercise  considers  what  has  worked 
well  and  what  has  not,  and  compares  actual  performance  against  earlier  expectations.  The 
results will be used by the Commission to inform future decisions on EU water policy. 

This  report  has  been  prepared  in  accordance  with  Article  19(2)  of  the  Water  Framework 
Directive, which tasks the Commission with reviewing the WFD at the latest 19 years after 
the date of its entry into force (22 December 2000) and proposing any necessary amendments 
to  it.  It  also  covers  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  and  the  Groundwater 
Directive,  the  WFD’s  two  ‘daughter’  directives,  because  they  are  directly  relevant  to  the 
environmental objectives and standards included in the WFD. Both daughter directives have 
annexes that require regular updating, and this fitness check contributes to the evidence base 
for the next updates. 

While there is no specific article in the Floods Directive requiring evaluation, its evaluation 
was included in  this  fitness  check because there  are strong links  between the WFD and the 
FD. These links are particularly strong for water quality and hydrological and morphological 
aspects  of  water  management,  but  also  in  light  of  the  increasing  environmental  pressures 
caused  by  extreme  weather  events  resulting  from  climate  change.  The  links  between  the 
WFD  and  the  FD  are  also  explicit  in  the  legal  requirement  for  coordination6  between  the 
management  plans  developed  under  both  directives.  This  requirement  has  translated  into 
strong links between the implementation of the WFD and FD at Member State and river basin 
district level. 

1 Directive 2000/60/EC. 
2 Directive 2008/105/EC. 
3 Directive 2006/118/EC. 
4 Directive 2007/60/EC. 
5 European Commission — COM/2015/0215 final. 
6 Art 9(2) FD. 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
This  fitness  check  is  also  closely  linked  to  the  evaluation  of  the  Urban  Waste  Water 
Treatment Directive (UWWTD7), which was carried out in parallel. The measures under the 
UWWTD  are  among  the  basic  measures  required  under  the  WFD8;  their  implementation  is 
therefore essential for the achievement of the WFD objectives. However, since the UWWTD 
is a directive that targets one specific pressure, it was evaluated on its own, with the results 
feeding into this fitness check.  

Other  pieces  of  EU  water  law,  such  as  the  Nitrates  Directive  (91/676/EEC),  the  Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) and the Bathing Directive (2006/7/EC) are not 
part of the scope of this fitness check as their evaluations are due to be carried out in the near 
future. The Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC) has been evaluated, and the proposal for its 
recast  is  currently  under  ordinary  legislative  procedure.  Links  with  these  directives,  have 
been fully considered in this fitness check, particularly under the ‘coherence’ criterion. 

Finally, this fitness check also follows on from the Commission’s commitments in response 
to the Right2Water citizens’ initiative, which promotes access to water and sanitation9.    

2.  Background to the intervention 

2.1.  Description of the Directives and their objectives 

History 

European  water  legislation  began  in  1975  with  the  setting  of  standards  for  European  rivers 
and  lakes  used  for  drinking  water  abstraction  and  bathing  water.  In  1980,  binding  quality 
targets  were  set  for  drinking  water,  and  legislation  was  subsequently  introduced  on  the 
quality  of  fish  waters,  shellfish  waters  and  groundwater.  At  that  time,  the  main  emission 
control  instrument  applied  to  water-related  directives  was  the  Dangerous  Substances 
Directive.  

In 2000, EU water policy underwent a consolidation process, which led to the adoption of the 
WFD. Its aim was to promote a more holistic approach to water policy, streamlining existing 
freshwater legislation and adopting a river basin management approach. The WFD included a 
provision under which the Directive would be complemented to further refine the assessment 
of  water  status.  The  EQSD  and  GWD  were  subsequently  adopted  in  2008  and  2006 
respectively. 

The  Floods  Directive  was  adopted  in  2007.  It  introduced  a  comprehensive  and  integrated 
approach  to  floods  management  after  a  period  in  which  Europe  suffered  over  100  major 
destructive  floods  (between  1998  and  2004),  including  the  record‑breaking  August  2002 
flood on the Danube, the Elbe and their tributaries. 

The Water Framework Directive 

The  Water  Framework  Directive  is  the  most  comprehensive  and  overarching  instrument  of 
EU water policy. It applies to fresh, coastal and transitional waters and ensures an integrated 
approach  to  water  management  respecting  the  integrity  of  whole  ecosystems.  It  provides 
direction for and coherent links with several other EU directives relevant to water. 

7 Recast Directive 91/271/EEC, http://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-4989291 
8 Article 11 WFD, see Section 2.2. 
9 http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/initiatives/successful/details/follow-up/2012/000003/en 

8 

 
 
 
                                                 
The environmental objectives of the WFD are to:  

-  prevent deterioration of the status of water bodies; and  
-  protect, enhance and restore all water bodies, aiming to achieve good ecological status 
or good  ecological  potential  and good chemical  status for surface waters,  as well as 
good quantitative and good chemical status for groundwater by 2015 (as laid down in 
its Article 4(1)).  

Preventing further deterioration is thus key in the path towards achieving good status.  

These environmental objectives fit into the more general purpose of the Directive (set out in 
Article  1)  which  is  to  establish  a  framework  to  protect  inland  surface  waters,  transitional 
waters,  coastal  waters  and  groundwaters.  This  includes  preventing  further  deterioration, 
promoting  sustainable  water  use,  and  improving  and  better  protecting  the  aquatic 
environment. 

A  number  of  exemptions  to  the  environmental  objectives  of  the  WFD  may  be  applied  if 
specific conditions are met. 
  Article  4(4)  allows  for  an  extension  of  the  deadline  for  achieving  good  status  beyond 
2015; this extension is limited to 2027 (end of the third cycle), unless natural conditions 
prevent the WFD objectives from being reached within the time limits set. 

  Article 4(5) allows for less stringent objectives.  
  Article 4(6) allows for a temporary deterioration in the status of water bodies owing to 

natural causes or force majeure.  

  Article 4(7) sets out conditions in which deterioration of status or failure to achieve some 
of the WFD objectives may be permitted. This includes failure to achieve the objectives 
due  to  new  modifications  to  the  physical  characteristics  of  surface  water  bodies  or 
alterations in the level of groundwater, and failure to prevent deterioration from high to 
good status due to new sustainable human development activities.  

The Environmental Quality Standards Directive  

The  2008  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  (EQSD),  a  ‘daughter’  of  the  WFD, 
established environmental quality standards (EQS), as required by WFD Article 16(8), for the 
33  priority  substances  listed  since  2001  in  Annex  X  to  the  WFD,  and  for  eight  other 
pollutants already regulated at EU level. The EQS are the concentrations that should not be 
exceeded,  either  on  an  annual  average  basis  (AA-EQS)  or  at  any  time  point  (Maximum 
Allowable Concentration EQS). These standards are used to determine the chemical status of 
surface water.  

Based on a scientific review of more than 2,000 substances, the EQSD was revised in 201310, 
and  thereby  also  Annex  X  to  the  WFD.  Twelve  substances  were  added  to  the  priority 
substances  list,    including  additional  industrial  chemicals,  biocides,  and  plant  protection 
products.   

The Water Framework Directive requires the Commission to submit proposals for controls to 
reduce emissions, discharges and losses of all priority substances and eight  other pollutants 
and to cease or phase out emissions, discharges and losses of the subset of priority hazardous 
substances. 

10 I.e. amended by Directive 2013/39/EU 

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
By  replacing  five  older  Directives11,  the  EQSD  contributed  to  the  Commission’s  Better 
Regulation initiative. 

The EQSD also requires Member States to ensure that the concentrations of certain pollutants 
in sediment and biota do not significantly increase, and to establish inventories of pollutant 
emissions so that progress towards reducing and phasing out emissions can be assessed. The 
Directive further includes provisions for Member States to designate what are called ‘mixing 
zones12’, and to take account of transboundary pollution.  

The  2013  revision  of  the  EQSD  established  a  new  mechanism  requiring  Member  States  to 
monitor substances on a surface water watch list (first adopted in 2015 and revised in 2018) 
to  gather  information  to  support  the  review  of  the  priority  substances  list.  The  substances 
included  in  this  watch  list  are  those  for  which  the  information  available  indicates  that  they 
may  pose  a  significant  risk  at  EU  level,  but  for  which  monitoring  data  are  insufficient. 
Monitoring of these substances is required in all Member States for a certain period, so that 
enough  evidence  can  be  collected  for  or  against  their  future  inclusion  in  the  list  of  priority 
substances. 

In  2019,  as  required  by  Article  8(c)  of  the  amended  EQSD,  the  Commission  adopted  a 
communication on a strategic approach to pharmaceuticals in the environment13. It identifies 
actions in  six  areas  that  could  help  to  reduce the potential risk from  pharmaceuticals  in  the 
environment. The areas cover all stages of the lifecycle of pharmaceuticals, from design and 
production  through  usage  to  disposal  and  waste  management.  There  are  actions  to,  for 
example:  raise  awareness  and  promote  prudent  use;  incentivise  ‘green  design’;  reduce 
emissions from manufacturing; improve risk assessment; reduce waste; assess the feasibility 
of  upgrading  selected  urban  waste  water  treatment  plants  to  reduce  the  presence  of 
pharmaceuticals in effluent; and gather more monitoring data. 

The Groundwater Directive 

As required by WFD Article 17, the 2006 Groundwater Directive (GWD), another ‘daughter’ 
of the WFD, has as its main focus the prevention and control of groundwater pollution, with a 
view to ensuring the protection of drinking water sources and of dependent ecosystems14. The 
GWD  was  introduced  to  clarify  the  criteria  in  the  WFD  for  good  chemical  status  of 
groundwater, a task too complex to finalise at the time the WFD was adopted15.  

The  GWD  provides  EU-wide  groundwater  quality  standards  for  nitrates  and  pesticides 
(individual and total, in Annex I). For other pollutants, the setting of EU-wide standards was 
not at the time considered a viable option due to the high variability of many substances in 
groundwater and diverse range of hydrogeological settings and aquifer types. Consequently, 
the GWD currently requires Member States to set their own threshold values for application 
at  Member  State,  river  basin  district  (RBD)  or  water  body  level  for  all  pollutants  putting 

11 Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC. 
12  Zone  adjacent  to  a  point  of  discharge  of  pollutants  within  which  the  concentration  of  those  pollutants  may 
exceed the relevant EQS if this does not affect the compliance of the rest of the water body with those standards. 
13 European Commission — COM (2019) 128. 
14  The  objective  of  good  quantitative  status  is  clear  in  the  WFD,  which  aims  to  ensure  a  balance  between 
abstraction and recharge. 
15  Hence  fulfilling  the  obligation  under  Article 17  WFD,  which  requires  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council to establish technical specifications to complement the overall groundwater regulatory regime in place. 
10 

 
 
 
                                                 
groundwater  bodies  at  risk  of  failing  to  meet  good  chemical  status,  taking  into  account 
identified risks and the minimum lists of pollutants in Annex II to the GWD16.  

Since  groundwater  moves  slowly  through  the  subsurface,  the  impact  of  anthropogenic 
activities may last for a relatively long time, which means that pollution that occurred some 
decades ago — whether from agriculture, industry or other human activities — may still be 
threatening groundwater quality today and, in some cases, will continue to do so for several 
generations to come. For this reason, the WFD requires measures to prevent or limit the input 
of pollutants into groundwater, and the GWD emphasises that upward pollution trends must 
be identified and reversed.  

The  GWD  was  revised  in  2014.  The  changes  to  its  Annex  II  included  adding  common 
principles for the determination of natural background levels (an important factor behind the 
high  variation  in  threshold  values)  in  Part  A.  In  addition,  nitrites,  and  phosphorus 
(total)/phosphates  were  added  to  the  minimum  list  of  pollutants  for  Member  States  to 
consider  when  setting  threshold  values.  Finally,  the  revision  introduced  the  need  to 
incorporate clarifications and complementary provisions in the RBMPs regarding the way the 
procedure set out in Part A of the Annex has been followed. This revision also acknowledged 
the need to establish a voluntary watch list mechanism to increase monitoring and knowledge 
of substances posing a potential risk to groundwater (including emerging pollutants).  

The Floods Directive 

The main objective of the Floods Directive is to reduce and manage the risks that floods pose 
to  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage  and  economic  activity.  In  this  way,  it 
complements the WFD. The Floods Directive covers river floods, flash floods, urban floods, 
sewer floods and coastal floods.  

The Floods Directive requires Member States to set objectives for flood risk management and 
to  draw  up  measures  to  achieve  them.  It  requires  EU  Member  States  to  undertake  the 
following, for each river basin or other management unit. 

  A preliminary flood risk assessment, including a map of the river basin. This assessment 
consists of a description of: (i) past floods; (ii) flooding processes and their sensitivity to 
change; (iii) development plans; (iv) an assessment of the likelihood of future floods 
based on hydrological data, types of floods and the projected impact of climate change 
and of land use trends; and (v) a forecast of the estimated consequences of future floods. 

  Flood hazard maps and flood risk maps (damage maps), for high-risk areas, i.e. those 
that could be flooded with a high probability (a 10-year return period), with a medium 
probability (a 100-year return period) and with a low probability (extreme events). 

  Preparation and implementation of flood risk management plans, aimed at achieving the 

required levels of protection. 

16 (i) Substances or ions or indicators  which  may occur both naturally and/or as a result of human activities’: 
arsenic,  cadmium,  lead,  mercury,  ammonium,  chloride,  sulphate,  nitrites,  phosphorus  (total)/phosphates;  (ii) 
‘man-made synthetic substances’: trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene; (iii) ‘Parameters indicative of saline or 
other intrusion’: conductivity or chloride and sulphate (to be decided by Member States). 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.2. Integrated water and flood management 

Challenges for water policy and flood management 

One of the main challenges for water policy to be effective is that some of the pressures on 
water,  and  the  measures  required  to  mitigate  them,  are  location-specific.  This  is 
demonstrated  in  Figure  1,  which  presents  a  view  of  the  different  pressures  on  European 
rivers. It shows that there are significant differences between Member States (and even within 
a Member State or river basin district) depending on the pressure. 

Figure  1:  Maps  of  pressures  on  European  rivers;  (a)  nitrogen  concentration;  (b) 
phosphorous  concentration;  (c)  pollution  from  urban  run-off;  (d)  water  demand;  (e) 
preservation of  low flow at  25th  percentile;  (f) preservation of  low flow at  10th  percentile; 
(g)  infrastructure  in  floodplains;  (h)  natural  areas  in  floodplains;  (i)  urban  areas  in 
floodplains; (j) agricultural areas in floodplains; (k) artificial land cover in catchment area; 
(l) agricultural land cover in catchment area. (Source: Grizetti et al., 2017) 

At  the  same  time,  some  pressures  require  a  similar  approach  across  Europe.  Many  water 
issues are also transboundary: all Member States except Malta and Cyprus share international 
river basins, meaning that changes in one Member State can have an impact on the hydrology 
or  water  quality  in  other  Member  States.  This  requires  an  integrated  approach,  both  across 
administrative borders and across different policy areas.  

Taking  into  account  the  principle  of  subsidiarity17,  the  Directives  covered  by  this  fitness 
check responded to these challenges by introducing a flexible framework which promotes an 
integrated approach to deal with all different pressures on water across different policy areas. 
This leaves considerable discretion to the Member States to set location-specific objectives, 

17 Currently Article 5(3) TEU. 

12 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
methodologies  and  measures,  while  ensuring  harmonisation  and  a  level  playing  field.  

Innovative approach to water management 

The WFD introduced an innovative approach to manage and protect aquatic ecosystems in a 
holistic  way,  rather  than  focusing  only  on  specific  aspects  of  water  quality.  This  approach 
considers all uses and users of water and the interlinkages between them. 

First, rather than taking an approach that is only focussed on pollution control, the objective 
of  the  WFD  is  to  ensure  ecosystem  integrity,  which  is  translated  into  the  ‘one-out-all-out’ 
principle.  For  surface  waters,  this  means  that  if  one  of  the  parameters  that  determines 
ecological or chemical status is less than good, the water body’s status will not be classified 
as good. It is thus not sufficient that priority substances in a surface water body are below the 
thresholds  (good  chemical  status);  to  be  in  good  status,  the  water  body  also  needs  to  be  in 
good  ecological  status,  i.e.  to  meet  certain  requirements  defined  by  the  presence  of  e.g. 
phytoplankton  (micro-algae),  macrophytes  (water  plants),  benthic  invertebrates  or  fish.  For 
groundwater  bodies,  the  one-out-all-out  principle  means  that  if  one  of  the  parameters  that 
determines  chemical  status  or  quantitative  status  is  less  than  good,  the  water  body’s  status 
will not be classified as good (see Figure 2). 

Figure  2:  Assessment  of  status  of  surface  waters  and  groundwater  according  to  the  WFD 
(Source: EEA (2018) State of European Waters) 

Second, rather than limiting the management focus to ad hoc mitigation measures, the formal 
steps  of  the  river  basin  management  planning  process  guarantee  an  integrated  approach  by 
following  the  ‘DPSIR  model’,  which  takes  into  account  the  interdependencies  between 
drivers, pressures, status, impacts and results (see Figure 3): 

  Article 5 requires Member States to undertake a pressures and impacts analysis, i.e. an 
assessment  of  drivers  and  pressures  affecting  the  water  environment,  along  with  an 
assessment of the sensitivity of water bodies to the pressures identified and of the risk of 
failing to achieve good water status. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
  Article 8 requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes to ensure that the 
state of the water environment is known, and that changes in this state over time can be 
captured and understood. 

  Article 11 requires Member States to deliver a programme of measures (i.e. responses) to 

address the drivers, pressures and/or states. 

Figure 3: The DPSIR framework (Source: Wood, 2019) 

To  reach  the  environmental  objectives,  the  WFD  requires  Member  States  to  implement  the 
‘basic measures’. These include measures that pre-date the WFD (Art 11(3)(a) and measures 
that are listed in Article 11(3)(b-l) (see Table 1 below). If these measures are not sufficient to 
reach the WFD’s objectives, Member States need to implement ‘supplementary measures’. 

Basic measures in the form of laws pre-
dating WFD (Art 11(3)a) 
-  Urban  Waste  Water 
Directive (91/271/EEC) 

Treatment 

-  Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) 
-  Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) 
-  Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC) 
as amended by Directive (98/83/EC) 
-  Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC). 
-  Integrated  Pollution  Prevention  and 

Control Directive (96/61/EC) 

-  Major  Accidents  (Seveso)  Directive 

(96/82/EC) 

-  Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) 
-  Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) 
-  Environmental Impact Assessment 

Directive (85/337/EEC) 

Basic measures under the WFD (Art 11(3)b-l) 

b) measures to implement Article 9 (cost recovery) 
c) measures to promote efficient and sustainable water 
use 
d)  measures  to  protect  drinking  water  quality  and 
reduce the treatment required 
e)  measures  to  control  abstraction  from  surface  and 
groundwater 
f) measures to control recharging of groundwater 
g) measures to control point source discharges 
h)  measures  to  prevent  or  control  inputs  of  diffuse 
pollutants 
i) measures to address any other significant impacts on 
status, in particular the hydromorphological condition 
j)  measures 
groundwater 
k) measures to eliminate or reduce pollution by priority 
substances 
l) measures to prevent accidental pollution 

to  prohibit  direct  discharges 

to 

Table 1 — Classification of basic measures under the WFD 

Achieving the WFD’s environmental objectives is thus conditional on full implementation of 
a number of other pieces of EU law. 

14 

 
 
 
 
Third,  rather  than  following  the  regular  administrative  units  of  management,  the  WFD  is 
based on integrated planning and management at river basin level, from the characterisation 
of water bodies to the definition and implementation of measures to reach the environmental 
objectives.  

The  framework  for  integrated  floods  management  in  the  Floods  Directive  takes  a  similar 
approach to that developed for the WFD.  It  requires the planning of measures that includes 
river basins and coasts and widens the management focus to flood prevention, preparedness 
and protection.  

Six-yearly reporting cycles to report on the approach taken 

One of the governance innovations brought about by the WFD and the FD is the streamlined 
reporting of Member States’ water policy. Figure 4 presents an overview of these reporting 
cycles since the adoption of the Directives. 

Figure 4: Overview of the deadlines and reporting cycles 

River  basin  management  plans  are  documents  that  contain  the  full  analysis  (e.g. 
characterisation of the water bodies, assessment of drivers and pressures, economic analysis, 
etc.) for every river basin district. Based on the RBMP, the programme of measures (PoMs) 
lists  measures  that  will  be  implemented  in  the  river  basin  district  to  reach  the  objectives, 
taking  the  form  both  of  ‘basic  measures’  and  'supplementary  measures'.  The  RBMPs  and 
PoMs have to be produced and reported to the Commission in six-year cycles starting from 
2009.  In  addition,  Member  States  voluntarily  report  data  electronically  to  the  Water 
Information System for Europe (WISE18) hosted by the European Environment Agency. This 
approach  ensures  full  transparency  of  the  analysis  that  underlies  local  water  policy,  while 
making sure that methodologies are comparable across the different Member States.  

The Floods Directive takes a similar three-step cyclical  approach to  flood risk management 
by  requiring  Member  States  to  first  prepare  preliminary  flood  risk  assessments  (PFRAs), 
leading to the identification of areas that are at significant risk of flooding. This is followed 
by  the  preparation  of  flood  hazard  and  risk  maps  (FHRMs),  showing  how  far  floods  might 
extend,  the  depth  or  level  of  water,  and  the  impacts  there  might  be  on  human  health,  the 
economy, environment and cultural heritage. The final step in each cycle is the preparation of 
flood  risk  management  plans  (FRMPs)  and  the  identification  of  the  necessary  measures  to 
reach  the  objectives  in  the  FRMPs.  The  timing  of  the  flood  risk  management  plans  is 
synchronised with the river basin management plans to maximise synergies and links; starting 

18 WISE: Water Information System for Europe https://water.europa.eu/ 

15 

 
 
 
                                                 
from  the  first  FRMPs  in  2015,  the  management  cycles  for  the  WFD  and  FD  coincided. 
Consequently, since then Member States report their RBMPs and second FRMPs at the same 
time.  

After each update of the river basin management plans and flood risk management plans, the 
Commission  must  publish  a  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  on  the 
implementation  of  the  Directives  that  give  rise  to  the  respective  management  plans.  The 
Commission  report  includes  a  review  of  progress  in  implementing  the  Directives  and  an 
assessment  of  the  plans,  including  suggestions  on  how  to  improve  future  plans.  The 
implementation reports are available at the following web pages: 

  WFD: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/impl_reports.htm  
  FD: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/implementation_reports.htm  

The common implementation strategy 

Since 2001, the implementation of the WFD and its ‘daughter directives’ has been supported 
by  informal  cooperation  under  the  ‘common  implementation  strategy’  (CIS).  The  strategy, 
which is not formally provided for in the legislation, is led by ‘Water Directors’ of Member 
States and the Commission, with the participation of all relevant stakeholders and European 
Economic  Area/EFTA  countries.  As  of  2007,  the  common  implementation  strategy  also 
covers the Floods Directive.  

The common implementation strategy has  delivered more than 30  guidance documents and 
policy  papers  and  served  as  a  platform  for  exchange  of  experience  and  implementation  of 
best practices among Member States19. Its focus is now increasingly on the exchange of best 
practice and on the discussion of policy developments. 

2.3. Intervention logic 

The set of directives covered by this fitness check offers a comprehensive regulatory basis to 
manage  the  EU’s  fresh,  coastal  and  transitional  water  resources.  Figure  5  presents  the 
intervention logic for the Directives.  

The societal needs addressed by the Directives are (i) water of adequate quality and quantity 
for all relevant uses, (ii) resilient aquatic ecosystems; and (iii) reduction and mitigation of the 
adverse effects of floods.  

These needs are addressed by the Directives’ objectives, which are to: (i) ensure that water 
bodies reach good status and do not deteriorate; and (ii) manage flood risks.  

To achieve these long-term objectives, the WFD (supported by the EQSD and the GWD) and 
the FD set out an assessment framework. The framework requires Member States to: (i) make 
a comprehensive assessment of pressures, impacts and status of the aquatic environment; and 
(ii)  carry  out  an  economic  analysis  of  water  uses  to  enable  them  to  identify  the  most  cost-
effective set of measures in every river basin district.  

The  outcome  of  this  analysis  is  a  set  of  instruments,  namely  the  river  basin  management 
plans,  the  programmes  of  measures  and  the  flood  risk  management  plans  (see  Section  2.2 
above).  

19 See https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/objectives/implementation_en.htm 

16 

 
 
 
                                                 
It  is  difficult  to  isolate  the  legislation’s  short-term  direct  results  and  impacts  due  to  the 
complexity of the policy framework and the fact that nature needs time to respond; results of 
measures  may  thus  take  some  time  to  materialise.  Eventually,  however,  the  impacts  of  the 
measures  should  coincide  with  the  Directives’  objectives  and  lead  to  more  global  impacts 
such  as  the  regeneration  and  preservation  of  ecosystems  and  a  reduction  in  the  adverse 
consequences associated with floods. 

The pressures that the Directives are meant to address and the results of the measures taken 
can be influenced by external factors over which the Directives have no control. For example, 
increased global emissions of greenhouse gases will likely exacerbate the consequences and 
frequency of floods in the EU. These jeopardise the expected results of the Floods Directive, 
but  are  beyond  the  control  of  the  Directive  itself.  Furthermore,  the  expected  effects  of  the 
Directives  are  also  influenced  by  legislation  and  strategies  in  other  sectoral  policies,  which 
may greatly affect the status of water bodies20. 

Figure 5: Simplified intervention logic of the Directives subject to this fitness check 

2.4. Baseline 

The  EU  Better  Regulation  guidelines21  acknowledge  that  it  is  difficult  to  identify  a  robust 
baseline, i.e. a counterfactual situation if EU laws had not been adopted. This is particularly 
true for the Water Framework Directive, for several reasons.   

First, there are no quantitative data available from impact assessments. The original proposals 
for  the  GWD22,  for  the  EQSD  and  its  revision23,  and  for  the  FD24  were  subject  to  impact 

20 Likewise, the Directives may also have an effect on other policies such as climate change, security of supply 
of raw materials, and industrial policy. 
21 European Commission (2015) — SWD(2015) 111. 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
assessments.  These  included  some  information  on  the  situation  prevailing  when  they  were 
carried out, for example on concentrations of candidate priority substances. However, they do 
not give a comprehensive picture (of status and management) before the WFD’s introduction, 
meaning that they do not allow for comparison  with the situation today. The WFD was not 
subject to an impact assessment before it was adopted in 2000. 

Second, the WFD has  led to  the repeal  and  consolidation of a number of directives.  It  also 
refers  to  a  number  of  ‘basic  measures’  required  by  other  EU  legislation  such  as  the  Urban 
Waste Water Treatment Directive and the Nitrates Directive, which pre-date the WFD’s entry 
into force. A study carried out for the Directorate-General for the Environment has confirmed 
that it can be difficult to distinguish between pre-WFD measures and WFD measures25.  

A third complication is  that  the data available  cannot  be compared or  compiled into a time 
trend.  The  Commission’s  5th  implementation  report,  for  example,  explains  the  difficulty  in 
comparing the status of individual water bodies between the first and second RBMPs. This is 
due  in  many  cases  to  the  re-delineation  of  the  water  bodies  in  question,  but  also,  more 
generally,  to  the  introduction  of  better  methodologies  and  standards  for  classification  and 
improved monitoring after the first cycle. 

3.  Implementation and state of play 

3.1. State of European waters 

Since the adoption of the WFD, the quantity and quality of the available evidence on water 
status  and  pressures  has  grown  significantly.  Many  Member  States  and  river  basin  districts 
have  invested  in  new  or  better  ecological  and  chemical  monitoring  programmes,  with  a 
greater number of monitoring sites and the inclusion of more chemicals and quality elements. 
Surface waters and groundwater have been monitored at more than 130,000 monitoring sites 
over  the  past  6  years.  In  the  second  set  of  RBMPs,  this  has  resulted  in  both  a  marked 
reduction  in  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  with  unknown  status  and  in  a  clear  increase  in 
confidence in status assessments. 

Based  on  the  data  reported  by  the  Member  States  in  their  second  RBMPs,  the  European 
Environment  Agency  published  a  report  on  the  state  of  European  waters26,27.  Overall,  the 
report shows that the WFD’s objectives have not yet been reached in the majority of the EU’s 
water bodies (see Figure 6). The recently published  State of the Environment Report 202028 
confirms  this  conclusion,  putting  it  in  the  more  general  framework  of  the  gaps  observed 
between the current state of the environment and existing EU policy targets. In assessing the 
state of progress towards the objectives, two factors should be noted. First, water takes time 

22 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52003SC1086&from=EN; in addition, the 
review of the annexes of the  GWD in 2014 was  supported by a background study that  analysed the options 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/background_groundwater.pdf 

23 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-dangersub/lib_pri_substances.htm#prop_2011_docs 
24 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52006SC0066 
25 COWI (2010). 
26 EEA Report 7/2018. 
27 The data from the second RBMPs (due in 2015), which are available in WISE, are generally from 2012-2013. 
More recent and more detailed data exist at national level. 
28 EEA (2019) ‘The European environment  - state and outlook 2020. Knowledge for transition to a sustainable 
Europe’ 

18 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
to react to measures (see Section 5.1). Second, the starting conditions differ widely between 
Member States, depending on the relative condition of each of their water bodies at the time 
when measures started to be applied. 

Surface water bodies 

On a European scale, around 40% of surface water bodies have good or high ecological status 
or  potential,  with  lakes  and  coastal  waters  having  better  status  than  rivers  and  transitional 
waters (Figure 6 — map a). There has been limited change in ecological status since the first 
RBMPs were reported.  

Figure 6: Status of EU water bodies in river basins — (a) ecological status of surface water 
bodies, b) chemical status of surface water bodies, c) chemical status of groundwater bodies, 
d) quantitative status of groundwater bodies (Source: EEA (2018) State of European Waters) 

For  surface  waters,  good  chemical  status  is  determined  by  limits  (environmental  quality 
standards) on the concentrations of certain pollutants found across the EU, known as priority 
substances.  In  the  second  RBMPs,  38%  of  surface  water  bodies  had  good  chemical  status, 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
while  46%  had  not  achieved  good  chemical  status  and  for  16%  their  status  was  unknown 
(Figure 6 — map b). 

Groundwater 

With respect  to  groundwater, 74%  and 89% of the area of  groundwater bodies29  had  good 
chemical  and  quantitative  status  respectively  (Figure  6  —  maps  c  and  d).  This  is  a  small 
improvement in status compared to the first RBMPs. 

Pressures 

Figure 7 provides an overview of the main significant pressures on surface and groundwater 
bodies.  The  most  common  pressure  for  surface  water  bodies  is  hydromorphology,  which 
affects 40% of surface water bodies, followed by diffuse source pollution (38%), atmospheric 
deposition (38%), point source pollution (18%) and abstraction (7%)30. For groundwater, the 
main significant pressures are diffuse source pollution (35% of groundwater area), abstraction 
(17%) and point source pollution (13%).  

Figure 7: Significant pressures in the second RBMPs (Source: EEA (2018) State of European 
Waters) 

Figure  8  presents  an  overview  per  Member  State  for  these  significant  pressures  (except 
atmospheric deposition) on surface water bodies. 

29 Due to the extremely large differences in size among groundwater bodies, any comparisons based on number 
of  water bodies  would  have little  meaning. Therefore the results are presented in terms  of the  surface area of 
groundwater bodies. 
30 These percentages reflect the percentage of all water bodies that are affected by the pressures in question.  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure  8:  Main  significant  pressures  on  surface  water  bodies  per  Member  State  (Source: 
Data reported by Member States in WISE) 

Hydromorphology 

Hydromorphology  is  a  term  used  to  describe  the  hydrological  and  geomorphological 
characteristics  (including  continuity)  of  rivers,  lakes,  and  coastal  and  transitional  waters, 
including the underlying processes  from  which they  result. Water  and sediments  interact  at 
different scales and shape the physical environment, determining physico-chemical processes 
and providing a physical habitat for the biota. Hydromorphological alterations are associated 
with  water storage, irrigation, flood protection, navigation,  urban development and changes 
in  land  use.  Hydromorphological  pressures  reported  by  Member  States  include  physical 
alterations  (26%31),  dams,  barriers  and  locks  (24%),  hydrological  alterations  (7%)  or  other 
hydromorphological alterations (7%).  

Diffuse source pollution 

Diffuse  source  pollution  is  mostly  due  to  excessive  emissions  of  nutrients  (nitrogen  and 
phosphorus)  and  chemicals  such  as  pesticides,  as  well  as  deposition  of  some  persistent 
substances from the atmosphere. For surface waters, agricultural production is a major source 
of diffuse pollution (25%). Other drivers include rural dwellings (emissions from households 
not  connected  to  sewerage  systems  (11%),  and  run-off  from  urban  areas  (3%)  and  forested 
land  (4%).  Nutrient  enrichment  causes  eutrophication,  which  in  turn  leads  to  the  loss  of 
aquatic  biodiversity  and  a  reduction  in  fish  stocks.  Excessive  nutrient  enrichment  can  be 
dangerous for human health, e.g. owing to toxic algal blooms, and can impair the use of water 
for drinking and bathing. It imposes significant costs on water companies to treat water. The 
primary impact on groundwater is from chemical pollution (22% of groundwater body area), 
followed by nutrient pollution (18%). 

31 Figures in brackets represent the EU average of surface water bodies affected by this pressure. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Point source pollution 

The point source pressures on surface waters relate mostly to effluent discharges of pollutants 
from urban waste water (12%), followed to  a lesser degree by discharges from storm water 
overflows  (4%),  industrial  sites  (3%)  and  aquaculture.  The  point  source  pressures  affecting 
groundwater  relate  more  to  the  leaching  of  hazardous  substances  from  landfills  and 
contaminated sites, including industrial sites, waste disposal sites, and mining areas, together 
with urban waste water. 

Abstraction 

Water  abstraction  is  a  key  pressure  on  many  water  bodies,  in  particular  during  temporary 
periods of drought or in water scarcity-prone areas. Abstraction is a significant pressure for 
7%  of  surface  water  bodies  in  the  second  RBMPs,  with  higher  regional  importance  in 
southern  Europe  (e.g.  in  Spain,  Italy  and  France).  Abstraction  (mainly  for  agriculture  and 
public water supply) and artificial recharge are the main pressures on groundwater bodies in 
poor quantitative status. 

3.2. Assessment of the second river basin management plans and first flood risk 

management plans 

In  February  2019,  the  Commission  published  an  assessment  report  of  the  Member  States’ 
second river basin management plans and first flood risk management plans for 2016-2021, 
including  some  recommendations.  The  findings  of  this  assessment  are  part  of  this  fitness 
check and are reported in the analysis of the different evaluation criteria. 

Key points on the second cycle of RBMPs 

Governance 

Member  States  have  generally  strengthened  coordination  among  competent  authorities  in 
charge  of  water  and  other  related  policies  although  more  progress  is  needed.  International 
cooperation  has  improved  in  some  basins,  but  additional  efforts  are  still  needed  in  many 
others, both between EU countries and for river basins shared with non-EU countries. Public 
consultation and the active involvement of stakeholders have been boosted in most Member 
States.   

Knowledge base 

The  implementation  of  the  WFD  has  led  to  a  significantly  better  knowledge  of  the  main 
pressures putting water bodies at risk of not achieving good status. Member States have made 
significant efforts over the past decade to ensure deployment of monitoring networks and to 
improve the methods for assessing the ecological and chemical status of surface waters. This 
was  reflected  in  a  significant  reduction  in  the  number  of  water  bodies  for  which  the  status 
was  unknown  (as  compared  to  the  first  RBMPs).  Knowledge  of  the  status  of  groundwater 
bodies and of the pressures affecting them has also improved across all Member States.  

Monitoring networks and methodologies  

Nonetheless,  the  report  found  that  there  are  still  some  gaps  in  the  monitoring  networks,  in 
particular in  relation to  hydromorphological  aspects,  and in  some countries for some of the 
biological  quality  elements.  There  are  also  some  significant  gaps  in  monitoring  and 
assessment  of  specific  chemicals.  This  is  partly  because  EQSs  for  some  substances  of 
22 

 
 
 
 
potential  concern  at  national  level  have  not  always  been  derived  in  accordance  with  the 
technical  guidance32  developed  under  the  common  implementation  strategy,  sometimes 
resulting in their not being identified as RBSPs. Furthermore, the analytical methods used for 
some  RBSPs  and  priority  substances  have  not  met  the  requirements  of  the  relevant 
Commission Directive as regards their sensitivity33. Finally, the inventories of emissions for 
priority substances continue to be insufficiently developed, in particular for diffuse sources. 
For  groundwater, there are also  a number of  gaps for both  quantitative  and chemical  status 
monitoring.  

Measures to address specific pressures 

The ‘basic measures’ under the WFD have generally been defined, but their implementation 
varies  strongly  between  Member  States  and  by  type  of  measure.  Despite  the  significant 
pressures from agricultural activities, progress in this domain depends highly on the effect of 
voluntary  measures,  often  in  the  context  of  the  common  agricultural  policy.  On  water 
abstraction,  some  gaps  have  been  identified  on  controls  and  registration,  including 
exemptions for small abstractions. 

Since  the  first  cycle,  significant  improvements  have  been  achieved  on  measures  to  tackle 
pollutants causing failures of chemical or ecological status, as well as on measures to reduce 
the  negative  environmental  impacts  of  significant  hydromorphological  pressures.  However, 
little progress has been made on protected areas for drinking water and on nature protected 
areas.  Finally,  in  about  half  of  the  Member  States,  droughts  were  considered  a  relevant 
feature for water management. One of the key measures recommended by the Commission to 
mitigate  drought  impacts  is  a  drought  management  plan,  but  this  was  not  adopted  in  all 
relevant river basin districts. 

Funding of measures and cost recovery 

Overall,  the  Commission’s  implementation  report  found  that  the  lack  of  funding  is  a 
significant obstacle to implementing the measures. Only 46% of RBDs reported that funding 
was  secured  to  implement  measures  in  all  relevant  sectors,  while  17%  reported  having  no 
financing  secured  at  all.  A  number  of  Member  States  have  upgraded  their  water  pricing 
policies and improved the cost recovery of water services. However, significant gaps remain 
in  translating  these  improved  elements  of  economic  analysis  into  concrete  measures  to 
internalise environmental and resource costs.  

Exemptions 

The  Commission’s  implementation  report  also  found  that  another  hurdle  towards  effective 
implementation  is  the  extensive  use  of  exemptions,  in  many  cases  without  appropriate  and 
detailed justification. In particular, the time taken to achieve the objectives has been extended 
(under Article 4(4)) without a clear strategy to achieve good status by the extended deadline. 
It is not clear whether the necessary measures are being implemented in the meantime, which 
makes it unclear whether the WFD’s objectives will be reached by 2027. 

The next round of river basin management plans and programmes of measures will play a key 
role in ensuring the necessary progress towards achieving the environmental objectives by the 
2027  deadline.  To  support  and  steer  Member  States  in  this  process,  the  Commission 

32 Technical guidance for deriving environmental quality standards. 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/ba6810cd-e611-4f72-9902-f0d8867a2a6b  

33 Directive 2009/90/EC. 

23 

 
 
 
                                                 
formulated  recommendations  addressed  to  all  of  them  in  its  latest  implementation  report, 
complemented by Member State-specific recommendations. The EU-level recommendations 
call  on  Member  States  to:  (i)  continue  improving  stakeholder  involvement;  (ii)  clearly 
identify  the  gap  to  good  status  for  individual  pressures  and  water  bodies,  and  design,  fund 
and  implement  targeted  PoMs  to  close  it;  (iii)  reduce  reliance  on  exemptions  and  improve 
transparency over the justifications used; and (iv) ensure the proper implementation  of cost 
recovery.  

Key points regarding the first FRMPs 

Objectives and measures 

All  Member  States  have  set  objectives  for  the  management  of  flood  risk  and  all  included 
measures in their plans for achieving the stated objectives. There is still scope, however, to 
better  detail  the  objectives  and  explain  more  clearly  how  the  chosen  measures  will  be 
effective in achieving these objectives. Most Member States have identified possible funding 
sources  but  did  not  make  any  budgetary  commitments  for  the  planned  measures  in  their 
FRMPs. In all Member States, a broad range of stakeholders were involved in the preparation 
of the FRMPs. 

Integration with other policies 

Most  Member  States  have  sought  synergies  and  coordination  with  the  environmental 
objectives set out in the WFD. A total of 14 Member States have made specific links between 
their FRMPs and their national climate change adaptation strategies. 

In the second round of  FRMPs, Member States will need to  further refine and complement 
their  analysis  and  set  out  the  necessary  measures.  To  support  them  in  this  process,  the 
Commission’s recommendations to all Member States (in addition to Member State-specific 
comments)  were  to:  (i)  clearly  link  the  implementation  of  measures  to  the  achievement  of 
objectives so as to assess progress from the second cycle onwards; and (ii) identify specific 
funding sources to secure the implementation of measures.  

4.  Method 

4.1. Process  

The  Commission  announced  this  fitness  check  in  October  2017  with  the  publication  of  the 
roadmap34. This set out the scope and purpose of the fitness check and allowed for feedback 
from stakeholders. In reply, 82 responses were received, which were taken into account in the 
further process. The fitness check was closely coordinated with the evaluation of the Urban 
Waste Water Treatment Directive given the close links between the different directives. For 
further procedural information about this fitness check, see Annex 1. 

The Commission also organised an extensive stakeholder consultation in accordance with the 
consultation strategy established at the beginning of the process. The consultation consisted 
of:  (i)  a  general  public  consultation,  which  ran  for  6  months;  (ii)  a  targeted  expert 
consultation; and (iii) several focus groups and stakeholder workshops.  

34 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-5128184_en 

24 

 
 
 
                                                 
  The public consultation received more than 370,000 unique responses in total35, which is 
an exceptionally  high number. The vast  majority of the  responses  (more  than 368,000) 
were identical and thus were identified as being part of campaigns promoted by several 
environmental organisations. The remaining 1,944 responses were analysed separately. 
  The  targeted  expert  consultation  consisted  of  an  online  survey,  which  was  filled  in  by 
205 individuals, and 74 interviews36 with selected experts. The three focus groups were 
attended by more than 200 people.  

  The Commission also received 90 unique position papers from various associations and 
organisations. A ‘consultation group’ of Member States’ Water Directors also drafted a 
paper on the Water Framework Directive37 as an input for this fitness check, and this was 
also considered. 

  The  fitness  check  also  includes  the  findings  of  the  5th  European  Water  Conference38, 
which was jointly organised by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for the 
Environment and the Austrian EU Presidency in September 2018. 

All  these stakeholder views were thoroughly  analysed and synthesised by a  contractor,  and 
the key points were integrated into the replies to the fitness check’s five  evaluation  criteria 
(Section 5). For a more detailed summary of the public consultation, including the summary 
of the views of the campaign respondents, see Annex 2.  

4.2. Evidence gathering 

the 2012 fitness check of the EU’s freshwater policy (‘Blueprint41’) 
reports from the European Court of Auditors 

To  support  its  analysis,  the  Commission  awarded  a  study  contract  to  a  consortium  of 
experts39,  aimed  at  creating  a  robust  evidence  base.  The  contractor’s  analysis  included  an 
extensive  review  of  all  the  relevant  information  and  evidence  that  is  available  on  the 
implementation and background of the four Directives. A non-exhaustive list of key sources 
that were consulted includes the following40:   
-  Commission implementation reports of the RBMPs and FRMPs 
- 
- 
-  CIS technical reports 
- 
studies and reports from Member States (including RBMPs and FRMPs) 
-  European Environment Agency reports and Joint Research Centre studies 
- 
-  EU-funded studies42 and research projects43 
- 
-  position papers from Member States and interest groups. 

statistical data (e.g. from the European Environment Agency and Eurostat)  

academic papers 

35 The consultation received 385,088 responses, of which 15,010 were from the same respondent with identical 
responses. These were thus excluded from the analysis. 
36  Member  State  competent  authorities,  international  river  basin  districts,  NGOs,  industry  representatives  and 
research organisations. 
37 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/9ab5926d-bed4-4322-9aa7-9964bbe8312d/library/a2b1038f-2aa8-44e8-

8288-d0f226fe2224/details 

38 https://ec.europa.eu/info/events/eu-water-conference-2018_en 
39 Consortium led by Trinomics and Wood. 
40 Trinomics and Wood (2019). 
41 European Commission — COM(2012) 673 and SWD(2012) 393. 
42 E.g. Ecorys (2019), Wood (2019). 
43 https://cordis.europa.eu/ 

25 

 
 
 
                                                 
Respondents  to  the  public  consultation  further  complemented  the  knowledge  base  for  the 
fitness check by sharing data, studies and reports.  

More information about the methods and evidence gathering can be found in Annex 3. The 
complete list of references used in this report can be found in Annex 4. 

4.3. Limitations — robustness of findings 

The EU Better Regulation guidelines acknowledge that it can be difficult to identify a robust 
baseline or to make a quantitative analysis. They confirm that in many cases EU evaluations 
have  to  rely  on  qualitative,  reasoned  arguments  about  the  likely  contribution  of  an  EU 
intervention to the changes observed. This is particularly true for the Directives subject to this 
fitness check, for which data are scarce and often difficult to compare, especially on costs and 
benefits. The challenges specific to setting the baseline for this fitness check are discussed in 
detail  in  Section  2.  Nonetheless,  given  the  thorough  triangulation  behind  the  assessment 
through  different  sources  used  to  underpin  this  fitness  check  (see  Section  4.2),  the  overall 
findings and conclusions are considered robust.  

5.  Analysis 

5.1.  Effectiveness 

The effectiveness analysis considers how successful the Directives have been in achieving or 
progressing towards their objectives (Section 5.1.1).  It  also  looks in  more detail  at  how the 
Directives have changed water management practices and governance in the Member States 
(Section  5.1.2)  and  which  factors  contributed  to  or  stood  in  the  way  of  achieving  the 
Directives’ objectives (Section 5.1.3). 

5.1.1: ‘To what extent are the Directives performing as expected?’ 

Overall response:  

Progress  towards  the  environmental  objectives  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  notably  the 
restoration and improvement of status of water bodies towards ‘good’, is at different stages. Overall, 
however,  it  has  come  about  slower  than  anticipated.  For  well  over  half  of  Europe’s  surface  water 
bodies and for a smaller percentage of the groundwater bodies, there is a gap to good status, for which 
the deadline was 2015 except in duly justified cases. A large majority of the respondents to the public 
consultation  consider  EU  water  legislation  to  have  been  very  effective  or  moderately  effective  in 
preventing deterioration of status.   

The  noticeable  progress  in  individual  parameters  is  to  a  degree  masked  by  the  one-out-all-out 
principle.  The communication of results of efforts to implement the WFD is often seen as hampered 
by the application of the one-out-all-out principle. Progress in individual parameters has been better 
reflected in recent reports, and further efforts to ensure transparent communication towards citizens 
are ongoing.   

The  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  and  Groundwater  Directive  have  performed  as 
expected.  As  to  the  EQSD,  there  has  been  improvement  in  chemical  status,  which,  for  certain 
individual priority substances, has been substantial. However, certain persistent individual substances 
(e.g. mercury) have a significant impact on status but cannot easily be tackled.  

Progress  under  the  GWD  has  been  forthcoming,  and  groundwater  has  a  comparatively  better  status 
than surface water in the EU today. While the overall knowledge of pollutants has increased across 
the EU, for emerging pollutants there is as yet no comprehensive data.  For both the EQSD and the 

26 

 
 
 
GWD, the process of keeping up with science has proven slower than anticipated, and updates to the 
list of priority substances and to the list of substances in Annex I to the GWD involve lengthy and 
heavy procedures. 

For the Floods Directive, as intended, all Member States have taken action and are in the middle of 
the first FRMP implementation period (2016-2021), applying measures to reduce flood risk. As yet 
there  is  no  information  on  how  far  measures  have  been  implemented,  or  on  how  far  flood  risk  has 
been reduced44. 

The Water Framework Directive 

Environmental objectives 

The  environmental  objectives  of  the  WFD  include  both  ensuring  that  water  bodies’  status 
does  not  deteriorate  and  that  they  achieve  good  status  (Art  4(1),  see  also  Section  2.1). 
Depending on how far a water body has progressed on the path towards good status, the two 
objectives may be reachable only in sequence, with non-deterioration already constituting an 
important step towards good status.  

Good status 

The  European  Environment  Agency’s  2018  State  of  Water  report  and  the  Commission’s 
assessment  report  of  the  second  RBMPs  showed  that  a  significant  part  of  Europe’s  water 
bodies has not yet met the good status objectives laid down in the WFD. These objectives had 
to be reached by 2015, with the possibility to rely on exemptions if certain conditions are met 
(see Section 2.1). 

For  surface  water  bodies,  the  WFD’s  objectives  have  only  been  achieved  for  40%  for 
ecological status and 38% for chemical status. The situation is better for groundwater. About 
84% of groundwater bodies (representing 74% of the total groundwater body area) have good 
groundwater  chemical  status,  while  92%  of  groundwater  bodies  (representing  89%  of  the 
total groundwater body area) have good status. No substantial improvement in water bodies 
in terms of their overall status could be demonstrated compared to the first cycle.  

There are several reasons why progress has been limited, and why no substantial progress in 
water  bodies’  overall  status  appears  to  have  been  made  between  the  two  cycles.  First,  the 
second RBMPs (due in 2015) generally only show status classification up to 2012-2013, and 
at  that time many measures were only in  the process  of being implemented.  In  addition,  in 
some cases, nature’s response time is slow and so it takes time before measures take effect. A 
second  explanation  is  that  due  to  increased  monitoring,  some  water  bodies  previously 
classified  as  ‘unknown’  were  now  reported  as  ‘less  than  good’.  Furthermore,  in  the  second 
cycle,  overall  stricter  methodologies  were  often  used  due  to  the  harmonisation  of 
methodologies45. Finally, the effect of the one-out-all-out principle46 is also important. Under 
this principle, if the status of one quality element is less than good, the overall status of the 
water  body  will  also  be less  than  good,  irrespective  of  the  status  of  other  quality  elements. 
While  this  principle  is  essential  for  integrated  water  management  to  protect  ecosystems,  it 
makes it difficult to show progress in a water body, as the status of that water body will not 
change until all other problems are also addressed.  

44 However, this should be the case from the second FRMPs onwards. 
45 See e.g. van Puijenbroek et al (2015). 
46 See WFD Arts. 2(17) and 2(19). 

27 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  one-out-all-out  principle  is  an  issue  particularly  with  respect  to  ubiquitous,  persistent 
bioaccumulative  and  toxic  substances  (uPBTs).  The  persistence  of  such  substances  means 
that they do not react quickly to any measures, masking progress towards good status in other 
pollutants.  As  can  be  seen  in  Figure  9,  while  only  38%  of  surface  water  bodies  have  good 
status, 81% would achieve good chemical status if uPBTs were not taken into account47. 

Indeed,  only  a  few  individual  pollutants,  the  most  common  being  mercury48,  have  a  large 
impact  on  status.  Action  is  being  taken  both  at  EU  and  international  level  to  reduce  the 
emissions of mercury and other pollutants (e.g. through the Minamata Convention49), which 
has  resulted  in  improvements  in  the  levels  for  some  individual  substances.  However,  the 
concentrations in water remain too high in a large number of EU water bodies, and there are 
no realistic options to reduce those levels rapidly. 

Figure 9: Chemical status of surface water bodies (SWB), with and without uPBTs (Source: 
EEA (2018) State of European Waters) 

Non-deterioration 

Aquatic ecosystems are among the most degraded habitats50, yet EU-specific time trend data 
that  sufficiently  go  back  in  time  are  rather  scarce.  This  lack  of  time  trend  data  makes  it 
impossible to have a systematic overview of the contribution of the EU water legislation to 
halting the degradation of water quality in the EU. 

Although the different  actors involved in  water  quality management  are  generally  aware of 
this contribution, they do not generally have the hard data to substantiate it. Their views are 
reflected in the results of the public consultation, where 76% of the respondents consider EU 
water  legislation  to  have  been  very  effective  or  moderately  effective  in  preventing 
deterioration of status. Of the responses indicating ‘very effective’ or ‘moderately effective’ 

47 3% would fail good status and 16% would have unknown status. The uPBTs are mercury, pBDEs, tributyltin 
and certain PAHs. 
48  Other  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  substances  causing  failure  to  meet  good  chemical 
status 
(benzo(a)pyrene, 
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, indeno(1.2.3-cd)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene). 
49 http://www.mercuryconvention.org/ 
50 See e.g. IPBES (2018). 

aromatic  hydrocarbons 

certain  polycyclic 

are  pBDEs, 

tributyltin 

and 

28 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
(n=483)51, most came from EU citizens (40%) and industry (28%). Likewise, representatives 
from industry acknowledged in bilateral exchanges that the WFD and its daughter directives 
have been instrumental in the protection and recovery of water bodies across Europe.  

In the absence of systematic data, some punctual examples can be found in the literature. One 
example is a recent article52 on the decline of seagrass53 meadows in Europe between 1869 
and  2016.  The  article  demonstrates  how  one  third  of  European  seagrass  was  lost  due  to 
disease, deteriorated water quality and coastal development, with losses peaking in the 1970s 
and 1980s. It shows how seagrass loss rates started to slow down towards the end of the 20th 
century and points out the WFD’s role in reversing the trend, including by bringing seagrass 
to the attention of policy-makers and making it mandatory that seagrass meadows be restored 
in order to reach good ecological status by 201554. 

A framework for the protection of European waters 

One key achievement of the WFD is that it has established a framework for the protection of 
waters (as required by Article 1, see also Section 2.1). This framework has brought about a 
systemic change in water governance that allows for flexibly tailoring water management to 
location-specific  conditions  while  facilitating  coordination  across  administrative  and 
geographical boundaries. This is not a minor achievement, as it put in place the governance 
framework that enables Member States to work towards achieving the WFD’s environmental 
objectives.  This point is explained in detail in Section 5.1.2.  

Challenges  

One  drawback  of  an  approach  based  on  subsidiarity  is  that  for  certain  issues  there  are 
considerable  variations  in  how  Member  States  have  implemented  the  Directives,  where  a 
more uniform approach may have been desirable. These variations may in some cases be due 
to local differences, but in many cases can only be explained by various other factors, such as 
political  will  (see  also  Section  5.2.1  on  cost  recovery),  resistance  to  change  or  lack  of 
technical capacity (see e.g. Section 5.2.3 on monitoring).  

One  example  of  an  issue  where  methodological  harmonisation  has  been  insufficient  is  the 
way in which hydromorphological quality elements are linked to biological quality elements, 
which varies between Member States55. Likewise, the implementation of Article 4(7) of the 
WFD  on  how  to  deal  with  new  physical  modifications  to  water  bodies  differs  considerably 
from  one  Member  State  to  another.  Similarly,  the  way  in  which  Member  States  designate 
specific water bodies as heavily modified, and the way in which good ecological potential is 

51 ‘n’ = total number of respondents to this question. Given that most questions in the public consultation were 
not mandatory, the total ‘n’ changes per question. 
52 De los Santos et al (2019). 
53  Seagrasses,  marine  flowering  plants  forming  underwater  meadows,  play  a  key  global  role  in  supporting 
fisheries  production,  climate  change  mitigation  and  coastal  protection.  They  rank  among  the  most  threatened 
ecosystems on Earth, with global loss rates accelerating from 0.9% per year in the 1940s to 7% per year towards 
the end of the 20th century. 
54 Other contributing factors quoted are basic measures addressing nutrient loads and the Habitats Directive. 
55 Within the WFD, there is a difference of requirements regarding supporting elements in Annex V between the 
physico-chemical  and  hydromorphological  quality  elements.  In  particular,  the  physico-chemical  quality 
elements  are  explicitly  required  for  good  and  high  status,  while  the  hydromorphological  quality  elements  are 
only required for the classification of high status. In terms of implementation, Member States have applied the 
elements in different ways for status classification and in the information that has been reported. In particular, a 
significant  number  of  Member  States  have  not  reported  assessment  results  for  hydromorphological  quality 
elements in their second RBMPs. 

29 

 
 
 
                                                 
defined in those water bodies, are also highly variable. Work on these aspects is ongoing, and 
the  results  are  expected  to  contribute  to  a  more  harmonised  approach  in  the  third  cycle  of 
RBMPs56. 

Another example is the large variability in the river basin-specific pollutants that have been 
identified by the Member States. While it is expected that different pollutants are identified as 
posing  risk  in  different  RBDs,  there  is  no  clear  justification  for  the  standards  used  for  the 
same  pollutant  to  be  very  different  for  different  RBDs.  This  issue  is  further  discussed  in 
Section 5.3.1 on coherence. The issue of variability in the number of pollutants posing a risk 
to groundwater bodies and the ranges of threshold values are discussed further below in this 
section. 

The Environmental Quality Standards Directive 

Chemical  status  of  surface  waters  is  assessed  against  a  relatively  short  list  of  important 
pollutants called priority substances listed in  Annex X to  the WFD. The concentration of a 
substance in the water is compared with an environmental quality standard (EQS) set in the 
EQSD.  Substances  are  included  in  the  list  of  priority  substances  based  on  the  scientific 
assessment  of  their  toxicity  to  humans  and  the  aquatic  environment,  e.g.  because  they  are 
directly toxic, limit  organisms’ ability to  reproduce or because they bio-accumulate in  food 
chains and have the potential to cause cancer. 

Member  States  are  making  significant  progress  in  tackling  certain  individual  priority 
substances 

Even if no progress in the chemical status of surface water bodies could be observed between 
the  first  and  second  RBMPs  —  mostly  due  to  the  presence  of  ubiquitous  persistent,  bio-
accumulative and toxic (uPBTs) substances  — there have been improvements in relation to 
other  priority  substances.  For  example,  a  reduction  has  been  noted  in  the  number  of  water 
bodies  failing  to  meet  standards  for  several  metals  (cadmium,  lead  and  nickel)  and  some 
pesticides.   

A  comparison  of  the  chemical  status  reported  in  the  first  and  second  RBMPs  shows  that 
chemical  status  has  improved  in  transitional  and  coastal  waters,  remained  similar  in  rivers 
and  declined  slightly  in  lakes  (Figure  10).  The  proportion  of  water  bodies  with  unknown 
status has dropped significantly. Consequently, knowledge on chemical status has improved, 
but in some cases this additional knowledge led to water bodies which had unknown status 
being classified as failing to achieve good chemical status. 

56  The  EU  Water  Directors  decided  that  the  differences  concerning  heavily  modified  water  bodies  and  good 
ecological  potential  needed  to  be  further  discussed  and  include  the  development  of  CIS  guidance  on  good 
ecological potential in the CIS work programmes for 2016-2018 and 2019-2021. 

30 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure  10:  Change  in  chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies,  by  water  category  (Source: 
EEA (2018) State of European Waters) 

Member  States  are  making  significant  progress  in  tackling  certain  individual  priority 
substances, but are experiencing difficulties in dealing with mercury, pBDEs and PAHs. For 
several  pollutants,  one  third  of  water  bodies  reduced  concentrations  between  the  first  and 
second RBMPs (Figure 11). 

In  the  case  of  cadmium,  nickel  and  lead,  943  water  bodies  improved  in  status  between  the 
first and second RBMPs, compared with 2,137 continuing to fail in the second RBMPs. On 
pesticides57,  571  water  bodies  improved  from  failing  to  good,  compared  with  621  water 
bodies  still  failing  in  the  second  RBMPs.  If  this  rate  of  development  continues  during  the 
next  cycle, the number of  water bodies failing to achieve  good status  as a result of priority 
pesticides may become very small. 

Figure 11: Numbers of water bodies that have improved levels of a priority substance since 
the first RBMPs and the number that failed to improve in the second RBMPs (Source: EEA 
(2018) State of European Waters) 

57 Alachlor, atrazine, chlorfenvinphos, chlorpyrifos, total cyclodienes, p,p’DDT, total DDT, diuron, endosulfan, 
hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorohexane, isoproturon, pentachlorophenol, simazine and trifluralin. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Increased knowledge of pollutants 

Overall,  the  EQSD’s  performance  has  been  as  could  be  expected.  The  setting  of  EU-level 
EQS  has  led  to  a  level  playing  field  for  the  individual  substances,  and  comparability  as 
regards chemical status assessment. It has also considerably improved knowledge of and data 
about  pollutants in  water and aquatic ecosystems. The monitoring  requirements included in 
the  WFD  and  EQSD  have,  for  example,  led  to  very  significant  developments  in  analytical 
methods  for  certain  substances,  for  which  they  either  did  not  exist  or  were  not  sufficiently 
sensitive.  Furthermore,  the  monitoring  of  trends  of  certain  pollutants  in  sediments  and/or 
biota has provided Member States with information to help them manage the presence in the 
water  environment  of  pollutants  which  are  no  longer  authorised.  Such  pollutants  can  enter 
water  through  illegal  use,  from  poorly  protected  stores  of  old  chemicals,  from  landfills  or 
contaminated land (by leaching or run-off) and by atmospheric deposition. Monitoring may 
also  detect  spills  of  authorised  chemicals.  Such  findings  should  then  trigger  action  by  the 
competent  authorities.  Chemicals  monitoring  data  should  also  be  used  to  build  emission 
inventories58,  but  this  is  not  the  case  in  all  Member  States.  Inadequate  inventories  hinder 
comprehensive  assessment  of  progress  towards  the  objectives  of  controlling  chemical 
pollution. 

Challenges 

Priority substances 

Most  of  the  chemicals  designated  as  priority  substances  in  2001  (and  listed  with  EQSs  in 
2008)  had  long  been  recognised  as  harmful  to,  or  via,  the  aquatic  environment.  They  are  a 
small subset of the thousands of chemicals found in the environment, and many have faced 
restrictions on their use for decades. As already noted, some behave as uPBTs and still cause 
failure of existing EQS. 

Furthermore,  some  countries  that  have  already  applied  the  revised  (2013)  standards  for 
existing  priority  substances,  which  are  to  be  met  by  2021.  In  Sweden,  none  of  the  water 
bodies  met  the  revised  biota  standard  for  polybrominated  diphenyl  ethers.  In  Luxembourg, 
none  of  the  surface  waters  met  the  revised  standard  for  fluoranthene  (a  PAH),  while  the 
Netherlands expects this to be the case in its next RBMP. 

Pollutants of emerging concern and mixtures 

The newly listed priority substances (from 2013) are not yet reflected in the second RBMPs. 
However,  the  watch  list  mechanism,  established  in  2013  to  generate  data  on  pollutants  of 
emerging concern, has resulted in the reporting of data on several emerging pollutants. The 
latest Commission implementation report highlights the challenge of managing pollutants of 
emerging  concern.  For  example,  in  their  pressures  and  impacts  analysis,  Member  States 
should identify pollutants of national concern (including emerging pollutants) as RBSPs, but 
since  they  use  different  methodologies  to  select  RBSPs,  they  do  not  always  consistently 
identify relevant substances.  

The current  priority substances list includes some groups of substances, but  most are listed 
singly. Thousands of other substances are not addressed at all because they are not listed. It 
has also been recognised that mixtures of substances may have synergistic effects.  Because 

58 Pistocchi et al (2019). 

32 

 
 
 
                                                 
of these issues, attention is increasingly being given to methods for detecting the presence of 
pollutants and mixtures of pollutants using effect-based methods. 

Updating the list of priority substances is a time-consuming process 

The process for regular revisions of the list of priority substances and of the associated EQS 
is  procedurally  heavy,  as  each  revision  requires  the  ordinary  legislative  procedure.  In 
addition, identifying the substances which should be added to (or removed from) the list of 
priority  substances  can  also  be  a  lengthy  process.  This  is  due  to  the  need:  (i)  for  scientific 
work to identify the substances that pose risks to the aquatic environment or to human health 
via the aquatic environment and; (ii) in several cases, to develop adequate analytical methods 
for those substances.  

The watch list mechanism introduced in 2013  uses implementing acts to establish and revise 
the list, and so is much simpler than the co-decision procedure. Nonetheless, the process to 
update the watch list of substances is still relatively time consuming because of the need to 
carry out extensive analyses of the risk they may potentially cause and, in some cases, of the 
need to develop appropriate methods for monitoring their presence in the water. This issue is 
discussed further in the analysis of relevance (Section 5.4.1). 

The Groundwater Directive 

The  Groundwater  Directive  complements  the  Water  Framework  Directive  in  setting  up 
environmental objectives for good groundwater chemical status. 

Groundwater constitutes the largest reservoir of freshwater in the world, accounting for over 
97% of all freshwater available on earth (excluding glaciers and ice caps). It provides a major 
source of drinking water for many EU citizens as well as the steady base flow of rivers and 
wetlands. Maintaining this resource and keeping it free of pollution is vital both for humans 
and  for  surface-water  and  terrestrial  ecosystems.  Once  pollutants  are  in  groundwater, 
recovery  can  take  years  or  even  many  decades  because  of  residence  times  and  the  slow 
degradation of pollutants.  

Progress is slow but can be observed 

Member States’ reports  on the second RBMPs show that 74% of EU  groundwater area has 
good chemical status and 25% has poor chemical status, with 1% of unknown status (Figure 
1259). Given the long time-scales associated with pollution of groundwater, this is a small but 
significant improvement since the first RBMPs. 

59 Data from the second RBMPs include 13,411 groundwater bodies, which cover 4.3 million km². 

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure  12:  Chemical  status  of  groundwater  bodies,  by  area,  reported  in  first  and  second 
RBMPs (Source: EEA (2018) State of European Waters) 

The  total  groundwater  body  area  with  an  identified  upward  trend  (9.9%  of  area)  is  nearly 
double that with a trend reversal (5.9% of area). Significant and sustained upward trends were 
identified  for  58  pollutants,  mainly  nitrates,  which  were  detected  in  19  Member  States 
(Figure 13-a). In contrast, 14 Member States reported trend reversals for 65 pollutants (Figure 
13-b), mainly nitrates, ammonium, sulphates and chlorides. 

Figure  13:  Pollutants  with  an  upward  trend  (a)  and  trend  reversal  (b)  by  area  of 
groundwater bodies (Source: EEA (2018) State of European Waters) 

European  Environment  Agency  data  show  that  there  has  been  a  trend  reversal  in  2007  in 
nitrate concentrations in groundwater, moving towards the 1992 level (see Figure 14). These 
improvements are the result of measures to reduce nitrate emissions from agriculture and of 
improvements  in  waste  water  treatment.  This  is  a  significant  achievement  given  that  the 
comparatively long residence time of groundwater may cause delays in recovery, in the order 
of  years  to  decades,  between  applying  nutrient  control  measures  and  observing  measurable 
improvements in water quality.  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 14: Nutrient trends in groundwater (nitrates), 1995-2015) (Source: EEA) 

Increased knowledge of pollutants 

In terms of governance, the GWD has significantly contributed to the increased monitoring of 
groundwater  pollutants.  Before  the  WFD,  there  was  no  requirement  at  EU  level  to  monitor 
diffuse  pollution  of  groundwater,  aside  from  groundwater  monitoring  under  the  Nitrates 
Directive60. One concrete example is atrazine, a herbicide whose use is no longer allowed in 
the  EU,  and  which  is  also  listed  as  a  priority  substance.  It  moves  quickly  through  soil  but 
decays  only  slowly  in  water,  so  its  concentrations  rose  steadily  in  groundwater,  continuing 
even after its use was banned. The problem was identified initially through the monitoring of 
pesticides in drinking water, but the long-lasting impact of atrazine use was revealed thanks 
to the GWD’s monitoring requirements.  

Challenges 

Large variability in the number of pollutants identified by Member States as posing a risk to 
groundwater bodies 

Annex II to the GWD includes a minimum list of pollutants for which Member States have to 
consider setting threshold values. These have to be set for ‘all pollutants which characterise 
bodies  of  groundwater  as  being  at  risk’.  This  list  identifies  the  minimum  pollutants  (9 
substances  and  1  parameter),  and  it  is  up  to  Member  States  to  identify  all  other  pollutants 
which  may  cause  risk.  This  flexibility,  which  is  justified  by  the  different  conditions  in 
groundwater  bodies  all  over  the  EU,  has  led  to  significant  differences  in  the  number  of 
substances considered, from less than 10 in one Member State to more than 90 in others. 

A  voluntary  initiative  of  several  Member  States,  taken  under  the  common  implementation 
strategy, is setting up a voluntary watch list61. This ongoing process aims to: (i) increase the 
availability  of  monitoring  data  on  substances  posing  a  risk  or  potential  risk  to  groundwater 
bodies  (including  pollutants  of  emerging  concern);  and  (ii)  facilitate  the  identification  of 
substances  for  which  quality  standards  or  ‘threshold  values’  should  be  set.  This  voluntary 
process  could  in  future  support  the  selection  of  substances  for  which  quality  standards  or 
threshold values need to be established. 

Similarly  to  the  challenges  in  surface  water,  the  process  of  gathering  data  and  producing  a 
watch list can be time consuming, and data gaps make implementing the agreed methodology 

60 Council Directive 91/676/EEC. 
61 As acknowledged by Commission Directive 2014/80/EU of 20 June 2014 amending Annex II to the GWD. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
a  complex  task  (e.g.  toxicity  and  eco-toxicity  information  is  often  lacking  for  emerging 
pollutants).  Nevertheless,  two  pilot  studies  have  already  been  developed  on  per-  and  poly-
fluoroalkyl  substances  (PFAs)  and  the  most  commonly  found  pharmaceuticals62  to  guide 
Member States and support stetting monitoring priorities.  

Large variability in the threshold values 

There is also a large variability in the ranges of threshold values across the EU. Some of these 
variations are logical, as they depend on different natural background levels that depend on 
the geological nature of the area, but others depend exclusively on the methodologies used to 
set the threshold values.  

Table  2  provides  an  overview  of  the  range  of  threshold  values  of  pollutants/indicators  for 
which at least 10 Member States have established threshold values. It shows that the values 
differ  by  a  factor  of  1  to  50.  During  the  public  consultation,  several  Member  State 
representatives and NGOs expressed their preference for increasing the number of pollutants 
in Annex I, with a view to achieving more harmonisation. 

Substance 

Chloride 

Arsenic 

Ammonium 

Cadmium 

Tetrachloroethylene 

Trichloroethylene 

Sum of Tetrachloroethylene and 
Trichloroethylene 

Number of MS 

From 

To 

15 

17 

16 

17 

12 

12 

14 

100 

5 

0.2 

2 

1 

1 

7.5 

350 

20 

2 

20 

50 

50 

10 

Unit 

mg/l 

µg/l 

mg/l 

µg/l 

µg/l 

µg/l 

µg/l 

Table  2:  Pollutants/indicators  for  which  at  least  10  Member  States  have  established 
threshold values, including the range threshold values (Source: European Commission63) 

The  last  update  of  the  Directive  (2014/80/EU)  only  entered  into  force  in  2016.  The  update 
partly addressed this issue, as it requested that Member States provide additional information 
on the setting of the threshold values. Efforts  are also  ongoing at  technical  level  within the 
CIS  Working  Group  on  Groundwater  to  collect  additional  information  on  how  threshold 
values are set  by Member States. Overall, inputs from  NGOs to  the  consultation  and views 
expressed  in  the  Groundwater  Directive  focus  group  suggest  that  more  time  is  needed  to 
assess  whether  the  parameters  included  in  the  GWD  Annexes  are  sufficient  and  what 
additional efforts are needed to better harmonise threshold values.  

The Floods Directive 

As Member States are still in the first implementation period for the Floods Directive (2016-
2021), there is no information yet on the state of implementation of measures included in the 
first FRMPs or on the degree of flood risk reduction that has been achieved. This information 
will  only  be  available  after  2022,  when  Member  States  will  publish  their  second  FRMPs. 

62 Amec Foster Wheeler (2016). 
63 CIS (2019) Technical Report; see also European Commission — C(2010) 1096 and SEC(2010) 166. 

36 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Nonetheless, during the focus group discussions Member State representatives confirmed that 
so  far  the  Directive  is  working  as  intended,  with  the  flexibility  and  framework  of  the 
Directive  helping  them  to  work  together,  communicate  with  the  public  and  understand  risk 
concepts64.  According  to  the  European  Environment  Agency,  the  Directive  is  possibly  the 
most  advanced  flood  protection  and  preparedness  legislation  worldwide65.  It  has  led  all 
Member States to take action concurrently, under the same framework, to prevent or reduce 
social, economic and environmental damage from flood risk66. 

The Commission’s assessment report of the first FRMPs found that all Member States have 
set  objectives  and  that  most  Member  States  have  put  in  place  a  monitoring  system.  At  the 
same time, the Commission’s report found that in several Member States there is still scope 
to  better  detail  the  objectives  and  explain  more  clearly  how  the  chosen  measures  will  be 
effective in achieving these objectives. 

5.1.2:  ‘How  have  the  Directives  changed  water  management  practices  and  influenced 
governance and policy-making in Member States?’ 

Overall response:  

The  Directives  have  changed  water  management  in  the  Member  States.  The  Water 
Framework Directive introduced the principle of integrated water management, addressing 
aquatic  ecosystems  as  a  whole.  To  protect  and  restore  ecosystems  as  a  whole,  integrated 
water  management  requires  an  in-depth  understanding  of  river  basins.  The  WFD’s 
governance  mechanisms  provide  for  monitoring  and  public  participation  to  guarantee 
evidence-based  policy-making.  The  increased  understanding  and  knowledge  that  result 
from  the  preparation  of  the  RBMPs  and  FRMPs  and  from  the  sharing  of  good  practices 
between Member States have led to increased implementation of concrete measures on the 
ground.  

Because  river  basins’  natural  and  socioeconomic  conditions  differ  from  each  other,  the 
WFD  introduced  the  organisation  of  water  governance  based  on  river  basins  (i.e.  natural 
boundaries)  rather  than  administrative  or  national  borders,  in  line  with  the  principle  of 
subsidiarity.  Consequently,  Member  States  have  set  up  many  river  basin  authorities  and 
increased public and stakeholder participation in management planning. Finally, given that 
almost  all  Member  States  share  river  basins,  the  WFD  also  provides  for  international 
cooperation, which has  become stronger  as  a result. However,  for both  the WFD and the 
Floods Directive, cross-sectoral and cross-border cooperation are not yet carried out to the 
fullest. 

The Floods Directive substantially changed the way floods are dealt with, moving from a 
local  protection  approach  to  comprehensive  flood  risk  management  based  on  prevention, 
preparedness  and  protection.  It  introduced  governance  structures  and  processes  similar  to 
those  of  the  WFD.  As  a  result,  in  many  river  basins,  the  authorities  are  identical  and 
RBMPs and FRMPs drawn up in coordination.  

64 Trinomics and Wood (2019). 
65 EEA report 1/2013. 
66 EEA report 1/2016. 

37 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Integrated  water  management:  taking  into  account  the  complexity  of  ecosystems  to 
enable effective water management 

The  Water  Framework  Directive’s  governance  mechanism  is  based  on  integrated  water 
management, to enable effective and efficient protection and restoration of Europe’s waters. 
Even though the traditional management practices predicated upon the command-and-control 
paradigm have been effective and have enabled developed industrial societies to address the 
most serious health-threatening environmental impacts, they are less suitable for addressing 
complex environmental problems caused by multiple stressors. This is because the traditional 
command-and-control  approaches  consider  pressures  in  isolation  and  reduce  environmental 
systems to their constituent elements  without taking into account the interdependencies and 
the integrity of the ecosystem as a whole67. An additional comment to the public consultation 
from an energy industry representative acknowledged that the WFD’s systemic approach has 
proven beneficial. 

The  WFD’s  governance  mechanism  is  therefore  designed  in  such  a  manner  that  it  enables 
Member States to address aquatic ecosystems as a whole, set up management plans based on 
river  basins,  collaborate  across  borders  and  bring  together  all  the  relevant  knowledge  and 
analyses.  

Water management targeting the ecosystem as a whole 

One  of  the  most  innovative  aspects  of  the  WFD  is  to  base  management  decisions  on  the 
ecological effects of pollution rather than on pollution itself, acknowledging that sensitivity 
and resilience to pollution vary substantially across ecosystems68. Rather than defining ‘good 
status’  of  waters  merely  based  on  the  absence  of  pollutants,  the  WFD  aims  to  protect  and 
restore ecosystems as a whole, by requiring that waters also have good ecological status. This 
means  that the water needs to  have sufficient quality to sustain  ‘life’ (fauna and flora)  at  a 
level comparable to what would exist in the absence of anthropogenic pressures. Ecological 
status is measured by ‘biological quality elements’ such as fish, invertebrates, macrophytes, 
phytobenthos and phytoplankton. 

Apart  from  the  absence  of  pollutants,  fauna  and  flora  also  depend  on  physico-chemical 
elements  such  as  temperature,  nutrients,  acidification  and  dissolved  oxygen,  as  well  as  on 
hydromorphology.  These  are  therefore  included  in  the  assessment  of  ecological  status  as 
‘supporting elements’.  

Hydromorphology  is  a  pressure  that  on  average  affects  40%  of  the  EU’s  surface  waters. 
Changes  in  the  hydrology  and  morphology  of  surface  waters  (e.g.  dams,  straightening  and 
channelling  of  rivers,  etc.)  have  been  and  are  being  introduced  to  allow  for  expansion  of 
urban areas and agriculture, to produce energy or to ensure flood protection. They generally 
have a large impact on ecosystems, e.g. by eliminating migration routes for fish or destroying 
spawning areas. Many dams and other barriers are obsolete and can be removed. Degradation 
of  riparian  areas  may  cause  a  loss  of  their  capacity  to  prevent  pollutants  from  entering  the 
water streams. Measures such as re-meandering of rivers which were straightened in the past 
slow  down  flow  velocity  significantly,  which  can  increase  water  retention  in  the  soil,  help 
control the risk of floods, allow for the re-creation of spawning areas for fish and generally 
contribute to the development of biodiversity in the riparian areas. 

67 Voulvoulis et al (2017). 
68 Hering et al (2010). 

38 

 
 
 
                                                 
River basin-based governance 

The WFD introduced water governance based on river basins (i.e. natural boundaries) rather 
than on administrative or national borders. This is because river basins differ from each other 
both  in  their  natural  and  socioeconomic  conditions  and  because  the  status  of  water  bodies 
downstream depends on appropriate measures being taken upstream, in line with the principle 
of subsidiarity.  As a consequence,  all Member States have adapted their administrative and 
governance  systems:  some  Member  States  have  established  specific  river  basin  district 
authorities, while several others have adapted existing water administrations to ensure better 
implementation.  

Transboundary cooperation 

A part of this new approach to the governance of river basin management introduced by the 
WFD  is  the  legal  requirement  for  transboundary  cooperation.  This  is  important  because  all 
Member  States  except  Cyprus  and  Malta  share  international  river  basins  (60%  of  the  EU’s 
territory).  Under  the  WFD,  a  river  basin  covering  the  territory  of  more  than  one  Member 
State  must  be  designated  as  an  international  river  basin  district,  and  the  Member  States 
concerned must together ensure coordination with a view to producing a single RBMP. Even 
if there is quite some variation in the implementation practices in Member States or regions, 
the  Commission’s  latest  implementation  report  found  that  the  WFD  has  generally 
strengthened  cooperation  among  Member  States  and  with  third  countries  on  water 
management  in  shared  river  basins.  Governance  structures  have  been  improved  and  further 
formalised,  while  RBMPs  and  the  approaches  developed  in  response  to  pressures  have 
become  more  joined  up.  Overall,  the  implementation  report  found  that  the  stronger  the 
governance of the basin and the more developed the RBMP, the better the results in terms of 
achieving WFD objectives. Nonetheless, the Commission’s implementation report also found 
that  there  is  still  some  room  for  improvement,  for  example  on  ensuring  a  harmonised 
approach  for  status  assessment  or  the  coordination  of  programmes  of  measures.  The 
increased  exchange  of  information  between  Member  States  is  also  seen  as  an  important 
achievement of the Floods Directive. 

Evidence-based policy-making 

Integrated water management requires in-depth understanding of river basins. This is why the 
WFD  adopted  the  ‘drivers-pressures-state-impacts-responses’  (DPSIR)  framework,  which 
aims to provide a systemic understanding of the relationship between environmental effects, 
their causes and measures taken. To gather all the evidence and knowledge needed to deliver 
the programme of measures (i.e. responses), the WFD requires Member States to:  

  undertake an assessment of drivers and pressures affecting the water environment and 

carry out an economic analysis of water uses (Article 5);  

  establish monitoring programmes to ensure that the state of the water environment is 

known (Article 8); and  

  encourage active involvement of all interested parties (Article 14).  

Monitoring 

In  traditional  environmental  management  approaches,  monitoring  is  mostly  used  to  enforce 
and  monitor  compliance.  By  contrast,  the  Water  Framework  Directive  gives  monitoring  a 
much  more  prominent  and  functional  role,  using  it  to  provide  a  clear  and  comprehensive 
overview  of  the  status  and  pressures  within  each  river  basin  district.  While  some  Member 

39 

 
 
 
States already had monitoring networks in place, the WFD has led to a number of innovations 
on  monitoring,  including  the  monitoring  of  all  types  of  water  bodies,  the  monitoring  of 
biological elements and the use of a cost-effective, targeted approach (see also Section 5.2.3). 

First,  the  WFD  requires  the  monitoring  of  all  types  of  water  bodies.  Member  States  which 
already carried out some monitoring prior to the WFD tended to focus on rivers, but often did 
not  monitor  lakes  and  coastal  waters69.  The  GWD  has  significantly  contributed  to  the 
increased  monitoring  of  groundwater  pollutants.  Aside  from  groundwater  monitoring  under 
the  Nitrates  Directive70,  there  was  no  EU  requirement  to  monitor  the  diffuse  pollution  of 
groundwater, even though this had been a known issue since the 1960s. As a result, the level 
of knowledge of groundwater was weak and patchy71. Second, the WFD introduced a more 
holistic  concept  of  monitoring,  which  also  includes  the  monitoring  of  biota  and  sediments. 
This  innovative  monitoring  method  makes  it  possible  to  detect  long-term  effects  as  well  as 
very small amounts of pollutants accumulating in the food chain or binding to sediments.  

The  tangible  results  of  this  monitoring  approach  are  discussed  further  in  detail  in  Section 
5.1.3, while the fitness of the monitoring requirements is discussed in Section 5.2.3. 

Public participation 

Integrated water management requires expertise on a wide range of disciplines, ranging from 
hydrology,  hydraulics,  ecology,  chemistry,  soil  sciences,  to  technology,  engineering  and 
economics. In some cases, local stakeholders also hold specific knowledge of the ecosystem 
at  stake that is  not  always available to  water managers. This  is  why the  WFD introduced a 
requirement  to  seek  the  active  involvement  of  all  interested  parties.  As  a  consequence, 
Member States  have opted, in  addition  to  the formal public consultation  processes  required 
by the WFD, to set up a broad range of consultation activities from the national to the sub-
basin  scale,  ranging  from  water  councils  or  water  management  boards  to  round-table 
discussions  on  specific  topics.  Representatives  from  industry  indicated  in  the  public 
consultation  that the WFD’s water  governance approach, in  which all relevant  stakeholders 
are  included,  has  contributed  to  providing  a  more  complete  picture  of  the  status  of  water 
bodies in Europe and is a good basis for further improvement (see also Section 5.2.4).  

The  Commission’s  latest  implementation  report  showed  that  Member  States  have  made 
considerable efforts to improve public consultation and strengthen the active involvement of 
stakeholders. In almost all Member States, a broad range of stakeholder groups were actively 
involved, in particular NGOs and nature protection groups, local and regional authorities, and 
representatives from industry and the water supply and sanitation sector. These efforts have 
led  to  tangible  results.  Several  Member  States  made  changes,  for  example,  to  the 
methodologies or made other changes such as: (i) adding new river water bodies; (ii) better 
coordination of policies and finance; (iii) integration of RBMPs in regional programmes; and 
(iv) improved linkages with flood risk management plans. Several Member States also made 
commitments  on  further  research  and  on  action  to  be  taken  in  the  next  cycle.  Another 
advantage  of  the  WFD’s  public  participation  requirements  is  that  they  can  increase  local 
ownership. Research has shown that when local communities and business become aware of 
the specific benefits from good water conditions (e.g. recreation and health, water security), 

69 Collins et al (2012). 
70 Council Directive 91/676/EEC. 
71 Trinomics and Wood (2019). 

40 

 
 
 
                                                 
they are more likely to embed in their own agenda actions that support the WFD objectives 
(e.g. river restoration, water reuse72).  

Examples of governance changes and implementation measures  

Even  if  there  is  as  yet  no  visible  impact  on  the  status  of  water  bodies,  the  increased 
understanding and knowledge that result from the preparation of the RBMPs and FRMPs and 
from  the  sharing  of  good  practices  between  Member  States  has  led  to  increased 
implementation of concrete measures on the ground. A recent study on how Member States 
have  used  the  DPSIR  framework  to  develop  the  second  RBMPs  has  demonstrated  in  detail 
how Member States have changed their governance systems to address challenges related to 
nutrients, chemicals, hydromorphology and abstraction73. Examples include: (i) revisions of 
the  permitting  procedures;  (ii)  measures  to  better  manage  pesticides  (e.g.  a  ‘pesticide 
passport’  in  Czechia  and  a  pesticide  tax  in  Denmark);  and  (iii)  the  establishment  of  water 
accounts  to  keep  water  managers  informed  on  water  stocks  and  flows.  Another  example  is 
Estonia’s Water Act of 2009, which made it mandatory to guarantee fish passage on barriers 
in  water  basins  with  migratory  fish.  Although  this  requirement  was  made  discretionary  in 
2016, many new fish passes have been installed over the last 10 years thanks to the regulatory 
requirement  to  consider  fish  passage74.  A  report  from  an  environmental  NGO  similarly 
presents concrete examples of how the WFD has made a difference in some Member States 
with  regard  to  agriculture,  hydropower,  navigation,  nature-based  solutions,  waste  water 
treatment and water pricing75. 

The  improved  implementation  of  water  pricing  and  volumetric  charging  is  also  a  concrete 
measure  that  can  be  attributed  to  the  Water  Framework  Directive.  While  its  potential  as  a 
source  of  revenues  is  addressed  in  Section  5.2.1,  water  pricing  alone  is  unlikely  to  be 
sufficient to ensure sustainable water management and water efficiency. Indeed, because the 
price  elasticity  of  demand  for  water  is  relatively  low,  the  impact  of  water  pricing  on  water 
demand can be relatively limited, even though a recent study from the European Environment 
Agency  indicates  that  households  facing  a  water  price  increase  do  react  by  reducing  their 
water consumption76. Nonetheless, the same study finds that water efficiency is best achieved 
through  a  combination  of  pricing  and  non-pricing  instruments.  Research  shows  that  if  all 
domestic water-using products were covered by the Ecodesign Directive, a 19.6% reduction 
in  EU  total  public  supply  could  be  achieved  (around  10%  if  only  energy-related  products 
were  included,  excluding  dishwashers  and  washing  machines).  This  would  correspond  to  a 
3.2% reduction in the EU’s total annual abstraction volume77. 

Floods Directive 

The  Floods  Directive  has  also  substantially  changed  the  governance  of  floods  compared  to 
the  situation  before  the  Directive’s  introduction:  as  opposed  to  thinking  narrowly  in  ‘local 
flood protection’ terms, the Directive installed a framework that enables more comprehensive 
flood  risk  management.  More  specifically,  the  Floods  Directive  has  ensured  that 
responsibility is  allocated to  specific authorities, while at  the same time covering the entire 
catchment  area.  Its  integrated  approach  includes  prevention,  preparedness  and  protection. 

72 Pistocchi et al (2019). 
73 Wood (2019). 
74 Wood (2019). 
75 WWF (2018). 
76 EEA briefing 4 July 2017. 
77 Bio Intelligence Service and Cranfield University (2009). 

41 

 
 
 
                                                 
This is important because, as the EEA points, out a single weak point in the system, which 
otherwise  may  consist  of  many  excellent  elements,  may  render  the  overall  system 
performance unsatisfactory78. Asked about the positive impacts of the Directive in the 2016 
survey79,  flood  risk  managers  from  13  Member  States  pointed  to  the  strengthened 
coordination  and  collaboration  between  different  sectors,  decision-makers  and  other 
stakeholders.  They  also  found  that  cooperation  at  cross-border  basins/coasts  has  improved 
since the Directive’s introduction.  

One  concrete  achievement  of  the  Directive  is  that  it  has  significantly  improved  the 
availability  of  information  about  flood  risks,  which  will  lead  to  increased  flood  risk 
awareness.  Article  6  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  prepare  flood  hazard  and 
flood risk maps (at river basin level and at the most appropriate scale) for areas of potential 
significant flood risk80. Flood hazard maps must show the geographical area which could be 
flooded  under  different  scenarios  (Article  6.3),  whereas  flood  risk  maps  must  show  the 
potential  adverse  consequences  of  these  flood  scenarios  (Article  6.5).  Figure  15  shows  an 
example of such a flood risk map in Romania. 

Figure 15: Example of a flood risk map from Romania (green = low risk, yellow = reduced 
risk, orange = medium risk, red = high risk)81  

5.1.3:    ‘Which  main  factors  have  contributed  to  or  stood  in  the  way  of  achieving  the 
Directives’ objectives?’ 

Overall response:  

Factors  that  have  contributed  to  the  effectiveness  of  the  Directives  in  progressing  towards  their 
objectives  include:  (i)  the  list  of  priority  substances;  (ii)  the  (binding)  cross-references  to  the 
Water  Framework  Directive’s  objectives  in  other  EU  policies;  (iii)  EU  funding;  (iv)  the  widely 

https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/9ab5926d-bed4-4322-9aa7-9964bbe8312d/library/ec110327-9521-468f-

78 EEA report 1/2013. 
79 
b6b8-cc32b1245c3c?p=1&n=10&sort=modified_DESC 
80 Identified under Article 5 or 13(1)(a), or for the areas for which Member States decided to prepare flood maps 
in accordance with Article 13(1)(b). 
81 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/MS%20examples.pdf 

42 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
applicable non-deterioration principle; and (v) the Directives’ monitoring requirements.  

The  WFD  has  generated  a  significant  body  of  data,  knowledge  and  expertise  through  its 
requirements  for  analysis  and  monitoring,  which  has  in  turn  facilitated  implementation.  The 
dedicated  implementation structure  set  up  by  Member  States  and  the  Commission  (the  common 
implementation  strategy)  has  in  turn  significantly  contributed  to  the  EU-wide  harmonisation  of 
methodologies  and  the  exchange  of  good  practices  through  the  development  of  extensive 
guidance, including for the Floods Directive. 

However, overall, the level of effort needed from the different authorities and economic sectors, 
including  the  technical  knowledge  required  to  harmonise  standards  and  set  up  governance 
structures,  has  been  underestimated.  Furthermore,  there  is  a  need  to  tackle  legacy  pollution  and 
when measures are implemented it takes time for ecosystems to recover.  

Furthermore,  for  the  WFD  and  its  daughter  directives,  effective  implementation  has  been 
hampered by: (i) the extensive use of exemptions; (ii) the lack of prioritisation of the measures to 
achieve good water status versus other economic activities; and (iii) the resulting lack of allocation 
of  sufficient  financial  resources  in  Member  States.  The  Directives’  effectiveness  is  further 
hampered by the tendency to focus on (mandatory) basic measures only, without using a systems 
understanding required for integrated river basin management, and by insufficient use of voluntary 
supplementary  measures to  reach  good  status.  Although  at  an  earlier  stage  of  implementation, a 
lack  of  funding  is  quite  likely  to  also  have  an  impact  on  the  implementation  of  the  Floods 
Directive. 

Enforceability  is  hampered  by  the  Directives’  complexity,  which  is  a  consequence  of  the 
flexibility  provided  to  adapt  water  management  to  location-specific  conditions.    Furthermore, 
there are today still some gaps at national level in the mechanisms to ensure appropriate controls, 
enforcement  procedures  and  access  to  justice  for  civil  organisations  and  individual  citizens.  In 
some cases, there is no system of inspections or effective system of penalties in place. 

An EU-wide framework 

The setting of EU-wide requirements for the quality and quantity of water bodies has led to 
various  concrete  measures  to  improve  the  situation  and  has  contributed  to  creating  a  level 
playing  field.  When  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  indicated  which  factors 
contributed most to achieving the Directives’ objectives, the three factors rated most widely 
as  ‘substantially’  achieving  the  objectives  were  the  planning  approach  based  on  river  basin 
districts (53%, n= 687), the monitoring requirements (39%, n=680) and the setting of quality 
standards for pollutants at EU level (41%, n=67582).  

Binding cross-references included in other EU policies 

As a framework directive, the WFD sets  objectives that are taken into account  in  other EU 
legislation. An explicit obligation to consider the WFD’s objectives features in, for example, 
the Biocidal  Products  Regulation, the Plant Protection Products  Regulation,  the Sustainable 
Use  of  Pesticides  Directive,  the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive,  the  Urban  Waste  Water 
Treatment Directive and REACH. Likewise, the GWD quality standards need to be taken into 
account for the authorisation and use of pesticides. 

82  For  each  of  the  three  factors  discussed  above,  the  most  common  groups  of  respondents  indicating 
‘substantially’ were EU citizens (33%, 34% and 37% respectively) and industry representatives (29%, 28% and 
22% respectively). 

43 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
One reason for the effectiveness of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive in relation 
to  metals  is  the  close  link  between  the  WFD  and  the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  (IED), 
under which emission limit values83 have been set to ensure that the EQSs set under the WFD 
are met. France provides a concrete example of how this has been implemented successfully. 
There, the need to comply with the WFD and the EQSD led to the development of a national 
action plan for research and the reduction of releases of hazardous substances in water from 
classified installations (for environmental protection). This national plan further strengthens 
the link between the WFD and EQSD on the one hand, and the IED on the other. Similarly, 
Sweden recently concluded that it needs to introduce advanced treatment for pharmaceutical 
residues in waste water treatment in order to comply with the WFD and the EQSD. 

Coherence with other EU policies is discussed in further detail in Section 5.3.2. 

EU funding 

About 65% of all river basin districts indicated having received support through EU funding 
in  the  first  RBMP,  through  various  funding  instruments  such  as  the  LIFE  programme,  the 
European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds,  Horizon  2020  and  the  common  agricultural 
policy. This is discussed in more detail in Section 5.3.2.  

Widely applicable objectives 

The  WFD  leaves  a  considerable  degree  of  flexibility  and  policy  discretion  to  the  Member 
States  when  implementing  the  Directive.  However,  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European 
Union  has  clarified  in  the  Weser  ruling  (C-461/13,  see  text  box)  that  the  WFD’s 
environmental  objectives,  and  in  particular  the  non-deterioration  objective,  are  not  merely 
objectives  for  management  planning,  but  also  apply  to  individual  projects84.  Its  scope  is 
therefore widely applicable. 

The Weser ruling 

The case concerns a planning decision to deepen the Weser river in northern Germany, which was 
challenged  by  an  environmental  NGO.  Despite  the  project’s  significant  negative  effects,  such  as 
disposal of the dredged materials and increased salinity in parts of the lower Weser, the authorities 
concluded  that  deterioration  of  the  river’s  status  was  not  expected  because  the  river’s  overall 
ecological status would not decrease.  

The Court ruled that Member States must not authorise projects which may cause a deterioration of 
the status of a surface water body unless it is possible to grant a derogation under Article 4(7) of the 
Directive, subject to the conditions set out in it85. Further, the Court held that there is deterioration 
as soon as the status of at least one of the quality elements determining the status of the water body 
falls by one class, even if that fall does not result in a fall in classification of the body of surface 
water as a whole86.  

83 Emission levels associated with the use of best available techniques (BAT AELs). 
84  I.e.  the  Court  ruled  that  Articles  3,  5,  8,  11,  13  and  Annex  V  are  interconnected  and  serve  to  enable  the 
Member States to implement  measures  in order to prevent  deterioration and ensure a good status of all  water 
bodies, as set out in Article 4(1). 
85 Conditions relate to reasons justifying the derogation, such as: (i) overriding public interest/benefits to human 
health; (ii) safety or sustainable development outweighing benefits of achieving the objectives of WFD; and (iii) 
absence of less costly technical solutions and the need for appropriate mitigation measures. 
86 Where the water body is already in the lowest class, any deterioration of the quality element causing the body 
to be in that class will be considered ‘deterioration’. 

44 

 
 
 
                                                 
The ruling confirmed the balanced approach of the WFD, which establishes a framework for 
the  sustainable  management  of  water  by  providing  mechanisms  to  balance  economic 
development  dependent  on  water  and  the  protection  of  water  resources  and  the  ecosystems 
linked  to  it.  The  Court  argued  that  the  effectiveness  of  the  Directive  would  be  seriously 
hampered  if  the  non-deterioration  requirement  meant  that  there  is  only  deterioration  if  the 
water body as a whole were to drop to a lower status class87. On the other hand, the one-out-
all-out  approach  is  not  as  strict  as  it  may  seem,  as  not  every  small  decline  of  one  of  the 
quality elements causes a deterioration in class, since classes are defined as ‘ranges88’. 

Some  stakeholders,  mainly  representatives  from  industry  and  the  hydropower  sector,  raised 
concerns  during  the  consultation  about  the  application  of  the  Weser  case,  which  is  seen  as 
having  led  to  uncertainty  and  excessive  precaution  in  the  permit  schemes  in  some  Member 
States. The concerns relate to the assessment of deterioration at quality element level, which 
is  seen  as  too  stringent,  as  compared  to  considering  deterioration  in  overall  status.  Some 
industry  representatives  also  expressed  concerns  about  the  limited  scope  of,  and  restrictive 
conditions for, the exemption laid down by Article 4(7). They view these as too restrictive in 
that  the  exemption  only  allows  for  deterioration  as  a  result  of  new  modifications  to  the 
physical characteristics of water bodies or as a result of new ‘sustainable human development 
activities’, which is applicable for deterioration from high to good status only. This implies 
that  in  all  other  cases,  for  instance  deterioration  of  chemical  status  as  a  result  of  new 
activities, there is no possibility for derogations. 

Increased knowledge 

More data, knowledge and expertise 

In  its  2012  State  of  Water  report,  the  EEA  confirmed  that  ‘[…]  compared  to  the  situation 
before the WFD, there has been a significant improvement of the knowledge base (supported 
by  many  EU  research  projects  over  successive  Framework  Programmes)  and  increased 
transparency by bringing together information on all characteristics, pressures and impacts on 
water bodies at basin level89’. As discussed in Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, the WFD requirement 
for  adequate  characterisation  of  the  status  of  water  bodies  has  led  to  the  Member  States 
developing  extensive  monitoring  networks  and  scientific  methodologies  for  status 
classification.  This  is  important  for  example  with  regard  to  mercury.  Understanding  spatial 
and temporal trends for mercury is crucial in assessing measures taken both at European and 
at global level. It is only by understanding the movement and interaction of mercury within 
our environment that this persistent problem can be tackled. 

In concrete terms, this means that for the second RBMPs the status of European waters has 
been  monitored  in  more  than  130,000  sites.  This  has  led  to  a  significant  reduction  in  the 
number of water bodies with ‘unknown status’ and an increase in the confidence of the status 
assessment. Comparing the first and second RBMPs, the number of water bodies in unknown 
status went from 16% to 4% of the total for ecological status, and from 39% to 16% of the 

87 Such interpretation would not be effective, as it would imply that where the water body is already in a certain 
class as a result of one of the quality elements being in that class, this would imply that all other elements could 
be reduced without this having legal consequences. In addition, researchers (e.g. Hering et al, 2010) point out 
the  importance  for  biodiversity  of  water  bodies  in  high  status,  noting  that  water  bodies  with  high  status  are 
characterised by species richness and the number of sensitive species for which they provide a habitat. 
88 van Rijswick et al (2015). 
89 EEA report 8/2012. 

45 

 
 
 
                                                 
total  for  chemical  status90.  This  is  not  an  insignificant  achievement  given  that  in  the  1990s 
even for rivers, only half of the European countries were assessing biological parameters in 
addition  to  physiochemical  monitoring91.  As  one  group  of  researchers  puts  it:  ‘One  major 
obstacle was that no consistent biological datasets were generally available for lakes, rivers 
and  coastal  waters.  A  major  achievement  of  the  WFD  is  that  many  sampling  and  analysis 
procedures  have  been  standardised  across  Europe,  there  has  been  taxonomic  training  and 
extensive monitoring programmes including physical, chemical and biological variables have 
been implemented92’. 

The  increased  knowledge  is  not  limited  to  the  results  from  monitoring  and  reporting.  A 
critical reading of the second RBMPs also shows that Member States have greatly increased 
their  technical  knowledge  about  water  management,  with  examples  ranging  from  improved 
insight  into  the  cost-effectiveness  of  measures,  to  modelling  tools  to  assess  the  gap  to 
compliance, and to improved understanding of environmental costs93. Likewise, the adoption 
of  the  Floods  Directive  has  stimulated  the  use  and  further  development  of  available 
technologies in flood risk management, such as one dimensional, 2D, or even 3D hydraulic 
modelling for assessing flood risk. The visualisation of the potential flood extent and depth 
through  geographical  information  systems is  another example, which requires the  existence 
of an accurate digital terrain model. The 2016 survey showed that in many Member States, 
these  digital  terrain  models  had  been  created  or  significantly  updated,  while  digital 
inundation  maps  were  introduced  or  significantly  updated  after  the  introduction  of  the  FD. 
Finally,  with  respect  to  innovation  and  technology  development,  the  European  Innovation 
Partnership  on  Water94,  set  up  by  the  Commission,  has  also  contributed  to  sharing  good 
practice. 

Common  implementation  strategy:  harmonisation  of  methodologies  and  exchange  of  good 
practices 

Another factor that has positively influenced the implementation of the EU’s water acquis is 
the  work  under  the  common  implementation  strategy  (CIS),  which  has  significantly 
contributed  to  improving  the  knowledge  base.  Work  under  the  CIS  has  resulted  in  the 
adoption  of  a  considerable  number  of  guidance  documents  on  technical  aspects,  which  are 
seen as providing significant support for the Directives’ implementation. Even if the guidance 
documents are non-binding and their development is relatively resource-intensive, the overall 
results  are  positive  and  include  harmonised  methodologies,  improved  understanding,  and 
exchange of information and good practice, leading to better implementation.  

90 In the second cycle of RBMPs, Member States reported, for the water bodies and quality elements for which 
the classification had changed since the first RBMPs, whether the change was a real one or was due to improved 
methodology, improved monitoring, or both. For example, Germany reported that the changes observed for the 
quality  element  macrophytes  were  in  almost  50%  of  the  cases  due  to  improvements  in  monitoring  and/or 
methodologies.  Although  there  are  large  variations,  this  effect  of  improved  knowledge  makes  comparisons 
between the status in the first and second RBMP cycles very difficult. 
91 Birk et al (2012). 
92 Hering et al (2010). 
93 See e.g. Wood (2019). 
94 https://www.eip-water.eu/ 

46 

 
 
 
                                                 
Common implementation strategy guidance documents 

Guidance Document No 31 on ecological flows 95 is a concrete example of where the CIS has been 
useful  in  helping  Member  States  to  implement  the  WFD.  It  provides  guidance  on  establishing 
coherent  rules  on  setting  the  flow  regimes  that  have  to  be  maintained  in  order  to  safeguard 
ecosystems  downstream  of  large  infrastructures  such  as  dams.  Another  example  is  Guidance 
Document No 36 on Art 4(7) exemptions96, which clarifies the steps that need to be taken if a new 
project risks causing a deterioration in the status of a water body (how to assess deterioration, extent 
of justification, mitigation). Many Member States have transposed the guidance or implemented it, 
in  particular in relation  to (small)  hydropower  projects  (e.g.  in  Italy,  Slovenia, Bulgaria,  Slovakia 
and Romania). However, it could be argued that the limitations of the CIS process become evident 
on issues that are absent from the text of the WFD, for instance the wide but not full coverage by 
Member  States  of  measures  suggested  in  Common  Implementation  Guidance No 24  ‘River  Basin 
Management in a changing climate’ from 2009. For example, according to the latest implementation 
report, climate checks of the programmes of measures are still not carried out in six Member States, 
and  penetration  rates  of  other  suggested  adaptation  measures  range  from  31%  (forecasting  the 
economics of water supply and demand) to 78% (flood risk management) of the RBDs. 

Underestimation of efforts needed 

Setting-up of the governance framework and harmonisation of standards 

Intercalibration 

Implementing  the  WFD  has  taken  longer  than  expected.  One  reason  for  this  is  that  more 
resources  than  anticipated  were  needed  to  make  the  changes  necessary  to:  (i)  set  up  an 
integrated  water  management  governance  framework  that  accommodates  subsidiarity  (see 
also  Section  5.1.2);  and  (ii)  harmonise  the  standards  used  by  different  Member  States.  A 
concrete example is the ‘intercalibration exercise’, the process needed to harmonise standards 
for ecological status across the EU (see text box below). Intercalibration required a a major 
effort  and  was  one  of  the  reasons  for  the  delay  in  the  publication  of  the  first  RBMPs. 
Nevertheless, researchers regard intercalibration as something that other policy areas or third 
countries forming transboundary river basins can benefit from97, given that the comparability 
of sampling and analytical practices is a challenge in many fields. Intercalibration is said to 
have ‘engendered more collaboration and capacity building between scientists and managers 
responsible  for  surface  water  monitoring  and  assessment  than  could  have  been  possibly 
imagined’98 and to be a ‘major achievement’ that has led to ‘a new understanding of applied 
aquatic ecology’99. 

Intercalibration of ecological assessment methods 

Water  body  types  differ  not  only  in  terms  of  size,  climatic  conditions  and  catchment  geology,  but 
also  in  the  species  that  inhabit  them.  Furthermore,  stressors  affecting  aquatic  ecosystems  differ 
among regions, and the effects of different stressors (e.g. acidification or eutrophication) cannot be 
assessed with the same metrics. In addition, sampling methods and knowledge on the taxa differed, 
so  uniform  taxonomy-based  assessment  methods  could  not  account  for  all  these  differences  to  be 

95 https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/4063d635-957b-4b6f-bfd4-b51b0acb2570/Guidance%20No%2031%20-
%20Ecological%20flows%20%28final%20version%29.pdf 
96 N° 36 — Article 4(7) Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives 
97 Poikane et al (2014). 
98 Birk et al (2013). 
99 Hering et al (2010). 

47 

 
 
 
                                                 
applicable  throughout  Europe.  In  line  with  the  subsidiarity  principle,  the  WFD  indicates  which 
characteristics of the biological quality elements should be assessed (e.g. ‘abundance’, ‘community 
composition’), but does not specify which indices or metrics should be used.  

The purpose of intercalibration was thus to make sure that a water body classified with good status in 
Member State X following the methods of Member State X would also be classified with good status 
by Member State Y if following the methods of Member State Y100. This was a rather challenging 
exercise,  particularly  as  existing  methods  differed  significantly,  because  experts  were  unwilling  to 
change them, or because some Member States did not have any methods in place at all. 

Setting up the integrated water management governance framework 

Similarly,  Member  States  underestimated  the  level  of  effort  needed  to  implement  the 
Directive. This included administrative resources, technical expertise and sufficient funding, 
especially  in  the  period  immediately  after  the  adoption  of  the  WFD  and  during  the  first 
management cycle. The  characterisation of river  basins, due by 2004 (including analysis of 
pressures,  impacts  and  economic  analysis),  proved  to  be  a  challenge  for  many  Member 
States.  The  quality  of  the  information  provided  and  the  level  of  detail  varied  considerably. 
Most Member States managed to establish monitoring networks for both surface and ground 
water by 2006 as expected, but significant gaps in some river basin districts, for some water 
categories and for some quality elements or chemical pollutants were present at the time and 
some of those gaps remain almost 20 years after the adoption of the WFD.  

The  adoption  of  the  first  RBMPs  also  proved  to  be  challenging.  Two  years  after  the  2009 
deadline,  four  Member  States  had  still  not  finalised  their  RBMPs,  and  three  of  them  have 
been  condemned  by  the  Court  of  Justice  for  this  failure101.  The  Commission’s  latest 
assessment report, however, found that much progress was made in the second cycle on the 
characterisation of river basins.  

Legacy pollution and the time needed to restore ecosystems 

from 

to  address  pressures 

Another reason why the scale of the efforts needed to reach good status was underestimated 
is that they depend not only on mitigation measures to address current pressures, but also on 
restoration  measures 
the  past.  One  example  are 
hydromorphological  pressures.  Surface  waters  have  undergone  changes  as  a  result  of 
economic activities for decades.  In some river basins, the continuity of rivers is  interrupted 
every second kilometre102. EU-funded research projects like AMBER are helping to work out 
how  to  cost  effectively  restore  connectivity  in  waters  to  restore  aquatic  biodiversity103. 
Another  example  is  chemical  pollution.  Chemical  pollutants  are  or  have  been  emitted  into 
water bodies through a range of pathways and from a variety of sources, including industry, 
agriculture, transport, mining and waste disposal, as well as from our own homes. Significant 
levels of some priority substances have built up from historical use and this legacy pollution 
may persist in water bodies long after pollutant discharges and inputs have ended104. 

100 Birk et al (2013). 
101 European Commission — SWD(2012)393. 
102 EEA report 8/2012. 
103 https://amber.international/about/. 
104 EEA report 18/2018. 

48 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Restoration  measures  to  address  legacy  pollution  can  be  costly,  even  though  the  available 
evidence shows that the benefits outweigh the costs (see Section 5.2.1). Some measures can 
take a long time before they can be implemented, e.g. to acquire space for restoration of river 
floodplains. Moreover, where measures are implemented it can take a long time before they 
take  effect.  Reduction  of  phosphorus  loads,  for  example,  only  leads  to  a  new  equilibrium 
after  10  to  15  years105.  Likewise,  recovery  of  biotic  communities  takes  many  years, 
sometimes even decades106.   

The one-out-all-out principle 

The one-out-all-out principle, which implies that the overall status can only be classified as 
‘good’  if  all  the  elements  it  is  comprised  of  are  at  least  considered  ‘good’,  makes  it  more 
difficult  to  make  progress  visible.  The  one-out-all-principle  embodies  the  precautionary 
principle and ensures that all pressures capable of causing degradation are addressed. In the 
public consultation, this point was strongly emphasised in the consultation by representatives 
from industry and agriculture. In contrast, representatives from NGOs and respondents to the 
campaign  emphasised  the  benefits  of  maintaining  the  one-out-all-out  principle  and  the 
dangers of weakening the ‘non-deterioration’ requirement107.  

Given  the  importance  of  better  communicating  the  progress  made  to  citizens  and 
stakeholders, work is under way to facilitate more detailed communication about the state of 
water. This approach was adopted in the 2018 European Environment Agency report on the 
state of water, which showed that there are clear improvements for all of the most commonly 
used biological quality elements in rivers and for phytoplankton in transitional waters. It also 
showed  that  20%  of  the  EU  surface  water  bodies  (about  16,000  water  bodies)  improved  in 
ecological status/potential class, even if there was no improvement in the percentage of water 
bodies in good or high status108. Further means to ensure transparent communication towards 
citizens on this should be considered. 

Insufficient ambition in the implementation 

In addition to the long time lags needed for ecosystems to be restored and the difficulties to 
communicate progress due to the one-out-all-principle, the benefits of water in good quality 
and quantity are also not always fully visible and tend to be undervalued by economic actors 
and  policy-makers  (see  Section  5.2.1).  This  has  probably  had  an  impact  on  the  level  of 
ambition regarding the implementation of the WFD, leading to insufficient and less effective 
measures in the programmes of measures and insufficient funding, two interlinked problems. 
Respondents  who  participated  in  the  campaign  find  that  the  lack  of  political  will  from 
governments to deal with the main pressures on freshwater ecosystems is the main challenge 
to sustainable water management in Europe.  

Funding 

The lack of funding is currently still a major obstacle to better implementation of the WFD, 
as concluded in the Commission’s most recent implementation report. In the second RBMPs, 
only 46% of RBDs reported that funding was secured to implement measures in all relevant 

105 Jeppesen et al (2005). 
106 See e.g. Jones et al  (2019). 
107 Trinomics and Wood (2019). 
108 EEA Report 7/2018. 

49 

 
 
 
                                                 
sectors,  while  17%  reported  having  no  financing  secured  at  all.  Possible  reasons  for  this 
include:  

  budgetary constraints;  
 

insufficient  implementation  of  cost  recovery  and  the  polluter  pays  principle  (see 
Section 5.2.1);  
the  lack  of  policy  integration  (different  ministries  in  charge  of  implementing 
measures); 
the insufficient use of cost-benefit analysis;  
the  fact  that  benefits  of  measures  only  come  at  a  later  stage  and  do  not  always 
generate a cash flow. 

 

 
 

Funding is also a challenge in Member States in relation to flood risk management. Although 
the large majority of the FRMPs assessed identified funding sources for measures, they only 
made  a  generic  reference  rather  than  making  budgetary  commitments109.  In  addition,  even 
though  the  FRMPs  are  adopted  officially  in  all  Member  States,  they  are  legally  binding  in 
less  than  half  of  them,  in  some  cases  because  of  uncertainty  over  funding  of  measures.  At 
least three Member States mention in their FRMPs that there might be a shortfall in funding, 
or  that  funding  is  not  secured.  Reflecting  this  potentially  precarious  situation,  a  recently 
published  European  Court  of  Auditors  report110  recommended  that  Member  States  improve 
the identification of financial resources when they draw up their FRMPs. 

Widespread use of exemptions  

Given the significant challenges in achieving the WFD’s objectives, the Directive includes a 
safety  mechanism  that  allows  Member  States  to  use  an  exemption  to  postpone  the  2015 
deadline or lower the level of ambition. These exemptions require a thorough assessment and 
justification  of  all  conditions  set  by  the  relevant  articles.  The  Commission,  Member  States 
and  stakeholders  have  agreed  on  different  guidance  documents111  to  ensure  a  common 
understanding of these requirements.  In practice, however, the use of exemptions, currently 
applied  over  half  of  Europe’s  water  bodies,  is  often  not  duly  justified  in  the  RBMPs.  The 
justifications  tend  to  be  provided  in  a  generic  manner,  which  raises  questions  on  how  this 
would  help  achieve  the  WFD’s  overall  objective.  The  possibilities  for  exemptions  will  be 
reduced  after  2027,  as  time  extensions  under  Article 4(4)  can  only  be  authorised  in  cases 
where  all  the  measures  have  been  put  in  place,  but  the  natural  conditions  are  such  that  the 
objectives cannot be achieved by 2027.   

Programmes of measures are not always based on integrated water management 

One of the major obstacles to achieving better results towards the environmental objectives of 
the WFD is what a group of researchers has described as ‘a reductionist implementation of a 
systems directive112’, pointing out that in practice the programmes of measures are not always 
based  on  the  integrated  planning  approach  required  under  the  Directive.  This  view  was 
confirmed in the Commission’s latest implementation report. Based on concrete case studies, 
researchers found that in some cases there is a tendency to rely on easy technological fixes 
that  address  point  source  pollution,  while  leaving  other  sources  of  pollution  largely 

109 Member States’ own budgets (at national, regional and local levels) are the most cited source of funding. 
110 European Court of Auditors Special Report 25/2018. 
111 Common Implementation Strategy Guidance No 20 (2009) and Guidance No 36 (2017). 
112 Voulvoulis et al (2017). 

50 

 
 
 
                                                 
untargeted113.  This  leads  to  ineffective  implementation,  because  the  pressures  and  impacts 
analysis and monitoring data are key elements that provide the in-depth understanding of the 
catchment  needed 
the  appropriate 
pressures114,115.  

to  develop  programmes  of  measures 

targeting 

The  management  actions  in  the  programmes  of  measures  are  also  often  based  on  an 
assumption of linear causality, assuming that easy, rapid ecological status improvements will 
be  achieved  by  compliance  with  certain  standards  for  the  monitored  indicators.  This  is  a 
missed opportunity because most European waters are exposed to multiple pressures. In other 
words, if the interlinkages and feedback between pressures are not taken into account, there is 
a risk that the appropriate mitigation measures will not be identified116.    

The  Commission’s  latest  implementation  report  found  that  in  many  cases  Member  States 
have  only  estimated  how  far  existing  measures  will  contribute  to  achieving  the  WFD’s 
environmental  objectives  and  have  mostly  continued  with  traditional  management  practices 
focusing on regulating individual monitored pollutants, rather than planning all the necessary 
measures to achieve good status. The Commission’s fourth implementation report also noted 
that  there  is  a  tendency  to  focus  on  (mandatory)  basic  measures  only  without  the  systems 
understanding required for integrated river basin management. The system of leaving policy 
discretion to the Member States through voluntary supplementary measures may thus hamper 
the effectiveness of the Directives. 

Some  examples  of  good  practice  can  be  found  in  specialist  literature.  For  example,  in  the 
German  federal  states  of  Schleswig-Holstein  and  Thuringia,  management  decisions  have 
been  based  on  large-scale  consideration  of  ecological  status  and  on  the  WFD  requirements 
concerning biological quality elements.  

Lack of integration into other sectoral policies 

Achieving the WFD’s environmental objectives is closely linked to and dependent on the full 
implementation  of  legislation  regulating  the  sources  of  pollution,  such  as  the  Nitrates 
Directive  and  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  and  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  (see 
Section 5.3.2). Figure 16 shows a thematic overview of a programme of measures of a river 
basin district in one Member State. It includes 84 measures, of which 51 are basic measures 
and  33  are  supplementary  measures.  The  different  colours  indicate  the  sectors  that  are 
targeted. This shows that reaching the Directives’ objectives requires the integration of water 
quality into various policy areas that are beyond the competence of water managers. 

In many Member States, the lack of integration of water objectives into other sectoral policies 
has been a major impediment towards reaching better results. In some cases, certain measures 
listed  in  the  programme  of  measures  cannot  be  implemented  because  the  (local)  water 
managers do not have the competence to implement them. Several cases, documented in the 
academic literature and in the Commission’s implementation reports, show that programmes 
of measures do not include enough measures that target particular environmental problems or 

113 Giaokoumis et al (2019). 
114 Giaokoumis et al (2019). 
115 Also, the assessment of the pressures and impacts has not been sufficient to establish how intensive the use 
of chemicals has been, e.g. there are no comprehensive data on the quantities  of chemicals used and emitted at 
national and river basin level. 
116 Giaokoumis et al (2019). 

51 

 
 
 
                                                 
only  include  measures  that  mainly  concern  the  water  management  sector117.  This  issue  is 
particularly  acute  with  respect  to  diffuse  pollution,  where  it  is  generally  impossible  to 
attribute  water  quality  problems  to  specific  polluters  or  specific  water  users.  This  in  turn 
makes  enforcement  by  Member  States  much  more  problematic  than  is  the  case  for  point 
sources of pollution, where the polluter can in most cases be precisely identified. 

Figure 16: Schematic overview of  a programme  of  measures, presenting measures by type, 
mechanisms and sectors targeted (Source: Giakoumis et al.118) 

The WFD’s coherence with other EU policies is further discussed in Section 5.3.2. 

Enforcement 

Correct implementation and enforcement is a key factor for the effectiveness of legislation. 

Legal action by the European Commission 

The  correct  implementation  and  legal  enforcement  of  the  Directives,  as  transposed  into 
national law, is in the first place the responsibility of the Member States, who have a key role 
in  ensuring  the  objectives  of  the  Directives  are  reached.  Nonetheless,  the  Commission  has 
pursued targeted legal action to enforce the implementation of the Directives covered by this 
fitness  check,  as  documented  in  the  Commission’s  implementation  reports.  Between  2003 
and  2017,  this  led  to  20  court  rulings119.  There  have  also  been  six  preliminary  rulings 

117 See e.g. Junier et al (2012). 
118 Giaokoumis et al (2019). 
119 17 on the Water Framework Directive, 2 on the Floods Directive and 1 on the Groundwater Directive. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
addressing issues of interpretation of the Directive120 and one ruling that arose from an action 
for  annulment121.  In  addition,  many  cases  to  enforce  the  correct  transposition  and 
implementation  of  the  Directives  have  been  resolved  in  the  pre-litigation  phase,  which  has 
also  prompted  considerable  steps  forward  in  terms  of  correct  implementation  and 
enforcement. 

The bad application cases, where legal action focuses on deficiencies in the implementation 
of  the  correctly  transposed  national  law,  can  be  classified  into  two  main  categories  (in 
addition to failure to meet reporting requirements):  
(1) Targeted  follow-up  to  the  assessment  of  RBMPs:  10  investigation  procedures  were 
initiated based on the first RBMPs. Four remain open, and one was taken forward to the 
infringement stage. The assessment of the second RBMPs will enable the Commission to 
identify where further bad application cases should be pursued.  

(2) Cases  arising  from  complaints  from  citizens  and  NGOs,  from  parliamentary  questions 
and from petitions122: in line with the general policy on the enforcement of EU law, the 
Commission focused on structural and systemic cases which can make a difference to the 
overall  practices  in  a  particular  Member  State.  Key  issues  concerned  existing  or  future 
discharges  or  abstractions,  interpretation  of  key  concepts  in  the  WFD  (e.g.  ‘water 
services’), and the justifications for exemptions under Article 4, including as regards new 
modifications  having  an  impact  on  water  status  (such  as  hydropower  and  navigation 
projects). 

Access to justice and enforcement 

Effective national enforcement can only happen if there are sufficient possibilities for access 
to justice, allowing citizens and organisations to challenge the decisions and actions related to 
water management. Member States need to guarantee this in accordance with the national law 
transposing  the  Aarhus  Convention  on  Access  to  Information,  Public  Participation  in 
Decision-Making  and  Access  to  Justice  in  Environmental  Matters.  The  majority  of  the 
respondents  (65%,  n=555)  consider  that  the  WFD  and  its  daughters  are  not  effectively 
enforced  and  implemented  in  their  country123.  This  is  possibly  due  to  the  Directives’ 
complexity, which is a consequence of the flexibility provided to adapt water management to 
location-specific conditions.  

Action  by  environmental  organisations  has  focused  mainly  on  challenging  the  permits  or 
authorisations  for specific projects,  followed by  ad hoc investigations into specific cases of 
serious  environmental  harm.  Environmental  organisations  have  also  challenged  established 
environmental quality standards and gaps in the monitoring programmes. For example, civil 
society action led to a Spanish Supreme Court ruling in 2019124 on a claim filed by various 
citizen  organisations  and  small  municipalities  about  the  RBMP  that  covers  the  Tagus  river 

120  If  provisions  are  insufficiently  clear  to  ensure  proper  enforcement,  national  courts  can  raise  questions  of 
interpretation before the European Court of Justice. In the case of the Water Framework Directive, this has led 
to  six  preliminary  rulings  (with  three  other  requests  ongoing).  This  is  a  relatively  low  number  given  that  it 
concerns a framework directive. Compare this with the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC, which has led 
to nine preliminary rulings (with five more requests ongoing). 
121 As retrieved from the database of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which contains 24 ECJ rulings 
concerning the WFD between 2003 and 2017. 
122 European Commission, COM 2017/C 18/02. 
123 Trinomics and Wood (2019). 
124 Judgments of the Supreme Court, Chamber 3 to, No 339/2019, 14 March 2019 (Rec. 4430/2016). 

53 

 
 
 
                                                 
basin. The ruling held that the RBMP disregards the minimum ecological flow established by 
the Tagus River Basin Authority in 2010. The ruling required the establishment of ecological 
flows to avoid the environmental decline of the river and its riparian ecosystems. 

According to representatives from civil society, however, the possibilities for individuals and 
organisations  to  challenge  issues  related  to  the  RBMPs  or  FRMPs  differ  widely  among 
Member States. Furthermore, where decisions can be challenged, procedures are reported to 
be  excessively  lengthy  and/or  costly,  or  scarcely  implemented  in  practice125.  An  important 
case  in  this  respect  has  been  the  ‘Protect’  ruling  of  20 December  2017  in  case  C-644/15, 
where  the  Court  recognised  the  right  of  certain  environmental  organisations  to  contest  a 
permitting decision before a national court where the decision may result in deterioration of a 
water  body.  This  will  further  strengthen  environmental  organisations’  role  in  the  effective 
implementation of the Directive. 

One  NGO  that  participated  in  the  targeted  consultation  also  cited  the  issue  of  judicial 
compliance  mechanisms,  claiming  that  in  many  Member  States  there  is  a  critical 
implementation gap due to the absence of a system of inspections or other checks and of any 
follow-up of detected non-compliance with obligations in the programmes of measures under 
Art 11(3) WFD. 48% of respondents (n=42) in the targeted consultation (mostly NGOs, one 
international river basin district and one competent authority) indicated that they do not find 
the  system  of  penalties  for  non-compliance  with  permit  conditions  or  authorisations  to  be 
effective, proportionate and dissuasive.  

Towards reaching good status in 2027 

By the time the third RBMPs are adopted in 2021, it can be expected that many more of the 
measures  undertaken  in  the  first  and  second  RBMPs  will  have  resulted  in  positive  effects 
towards  good  status126.  Because  achieving  good  status  depends  on  addressing  multiple 
location-specific stressors, which can be done in various ways, it is difficult to estimate at EU 
level  how  long  it  will  take  to  reach  compliance.  At  the  same  time,  there  are  a  number  of 
implementation  issues,  such  as  the  lack  of  finance  or  the  insufficient  integration  of  water 
policy  in  sectoral  policies,  that  are  currently  an  obstacle  to  compliance.  These  issues  are 
common to most Member States. 

5.2.  Efficiency 

The  efficiency  analysis  considers  the  relationship  between  the  costs  of  implementing  the 
Directives and the benefits achieved (Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2). It also looks into the fitness of 
the  monitoring  and  reporting  requirements  (Section  5.2.3)  and  whether  there  are  any 
opportunities  to  simplify  the  legislation  or  reduce  unnecessary  regulatory  cost  without 
undermining the Directives’ objectives (Section 5.2.4). 

5.2.1:  ‘What  are  the  costs  of  the  legislation  and  to  what  extent  are  the  costs  of  the 
legislation justified, given the benefits achieved?’ 

Overall response:  

For  measures  under  the  Water  Framework  Directive  and  its  daughters,  the  costs  reported  by 
Member States amount to €13.8 billion. In many cases, however, these costs do not include what is 

125 EEB (2018). 
126 EEA Report 7/2018. 

54 

 
 
 
                                                 
needed to bridge the implementation gap: programmes of measures are often determined by what 
can be delivered with the budgets and policies that are already in place.  For the Floods Directive, 
the costs of measures reported in the flood risk management plans amount to €12.5 billion between 
2016 and 2021.  

Implementing Article 9 of the Water Framework Directive on cost recovery and water pricing has 
so  far  had  mixed  results,  while  exemptions  based  on  disproportionate  costs  are  not  always 
adequately justified. This incomplete implementation deprives Member States of a potential source 
of revenue to finance measures and translates into a hidden cost to society when the environmental 
and resource costs are not taken into account. The insufficient contribution from certain water users 
is  an  issue  that  is  emphasised  by  respondents  to  the  campaign  organised  by  environmental 
organisations  in  response  to  the  public  consultation.  Representatives  from  the  water  sector  also 
point to the increasing costs of treatment, which are passed on to the consumer rather than being 
paid for by the polluter. In contrast, representatives of the agricultural sector oppose water pricing 
and the monetisation of ecosystem services. 

Studies on the value of ecosystem services and the restoration of rivers indicate that the benefits of 
measures to improve the status of water bodies outweigh the costs and that citizens’ willingness to 
pay  exceeds  current  expenditure  on  water  measures.  The  costs  businesses  avoid  through  having 
water of good quality and in good quantity are also significant. In the public consultation, a large 
majority  of  respondents127  indicated  that  they  find  the  costs  involved  in  implementing  the  WFD, 
GWD, EQSD and FD to be justified given the benefits that will be achieved in the long term. 

Costs 

Costs reported in the RBMPs 

The costs of WFD-specific measures reported by Member States  in  the second RBMPs  are 
€13.8 billion  per  year  (less  than  0.1%  of  EU  GDP).  This  includes  capital  investment  and 
operation and maintenance.  

To put this number into perspective, two important qualifications should be made. First, these 
figures include non-recurring capital investments, which should be annualised over a period 
of several years. A study128 based on data from the first cycle of RBMPs (which were of the 
same order of magnitude) found that this means that actual costs are more realistically in the 
range  of  €6.5 billion  per  year.  Second,  these  numbers  do  not  always  include  the  cost  of  all 
measures to be taken to close the implementation gap, so these numbers should be seen as an 
underestimation. Indeed, according to the Commission’s fifth implementation report, several 
Member  States  planned  their  measures  based  on  ‘what  is  in  place  and/or  in  the  pipeline 
already’ and ‘what is feasible’, without adequately identifying the most appropriate and cost-
efficient measures to ensure that their waters achieve ‘good status’ and adding a price tag to 
that.  

In the public consultation,  the majority of respondents  indicated that they  agree or strongly 
agree that the costs involved in implementing the WFD (72%), GWD (70%), EQSD (65%) 
and FD (73%) are justified given the benefits that will be achieved in the long term129130.  

127  (72%,  n=518,  half  of  which  are  EU  citizens,  followed  by  NGOs,  competent  authorities  and  industry 
associations). 
128 ACTeon (2012). 
129 Trinomics and Wood (2019). 

55 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Difficulties with accurately quantifying costs related to the Water Framework Directive  

The  accurate  quantification  of  costs  related  to  the  WFD  is  challenging,  because  to  reach  the 
objectives Member States need to implement location-specific measures to address a wide range of 
pressures.  Member  States  are  required  to  report  on  implementation,  but  the  data  available  are 
insufficiently  detailed  and  do  not  allow  for  meaningful  conclusions  to  be  drawn.  In  addition,  the 
reported costs need to be put into perspective and are difficult to compare: in order to compare the 
cost  estimates,  it  is  first  necessary  to  take  into  account  variables  such  as  the  size  and  number  of 
water bodies affected and how far they are from reaching good status. However, it is also necessary 
to  consider that  certain  parameters such  as  the estimated life  span  of the  measures (30, 40  or  100 
years131)  and  the  discount  rate  (4%,  6%, …)  may  lead  to  results  that  are  impossible  to  compare. 
Differences in costs also partly depend on the extent of monitoring and assessment: if the status of 
water bodies is not properly monitored and assessed, it is unlikely that the necessary measures will 
be  planned  for  and  implemented.  Lower  costs  are  thus  not  necessarily  a  sign  of  more  efficient 
implementation. 

Costs to business 

Costs  to  business  related  to  the  WFD  include:  (i)  administrative  costs;  (ii)  waste  water 
treatment costs; (iii) taxes and fees for the cost recovery of water services and activities with 
a significant impact on the environment; and (iv) in certain cases, opportunity costs. Because 
the WFD is a framework directive, no data can be specifically attributed to it.  

The costs of pollution are mostly internalised through the Industrial Emissions Directive and 
the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive132.  A  series  of  studies  on  the  cost  of  EU 
regulation  carried  out  for  the  Commission133  found  that  for  many  industries  these  costs  are 
small  to  negligible.  Indeed,  these  studies  found  that  EU  legislation  has  sometimes  been  a 
significant driver of environmental protection investments. However, they also found that: (i) 
in some countries, industry was subject to environmental permitting well before the adoption 
of even the IPPC Directive; (ii) national regulations were not necessarily less stringent than 
the  emission  levels  recommended  in  the  BAT134  reference  documents  (BREFs);  and  (iii) 
operators also find that there are positive effects of BATs on operation plants. The case study 
below  on  the  costs  of  implementation  in  a  specific  RBD  provides  further  insight  into  the 
order of magnitude of the mitigation costs for industry. 

In additional  comments  submitted as part of the  public consultation, four respondents from 
industry  and  industry  associations  for  Member  State  and  third  countries  argued  that  cost-
benefit  analyses  should  be  carried  out  more  often  and  that  these  analyses  should  also  take 
account of indirect and maintenance costs. Researchers, on the other hand, caution against the 
excessive  use  of  cost-benefit  analysis  to  inform  environmental  policy  decisions,  as  not  all 
benefits  can  be  monetised,  in  particular  the  benefits  from  ecosystem  services135.  Several 

130 Of the respondents indicating they agree or strongly agree, most were EU citizens (44%, n=258)  — Floods 
Directive only. 
131 The second implementation report found that only a minority of Member States included depreciation in their 
calculations. 
132 The IED replaced the IPPC Directive. 
133 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/final-report-assessment-cumulative-cost-impact-aluminium-industry-

0_en and https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/cumulative-cost-assessment-cca-eu-ceramics-and-glass-industry-
published_en 

134 Best available techniques. 
135 Feuillette et al (2016). 

56 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
reference  works  provide  guidance  on  the  methodologies  that  can  be  used136,  and  several 
Member  States  have  undertaken  extensive  studies  or  developed  guidelines  or  databases  for 
citizens  and  practitioners137.  Nonetheless,  some  methodologies  can  be  relatively  resource-
intensive, which can lead to a trade-off between resources and uncertainty of the results138.  

Costs to agriculture 

Costs to agriculture related to the WFD include: (i) administrative costs; (ii) costs related to 
fertiliser and pesticide management, adjusted feed techniques and sampling, and waste water 
treatment;  (iii)  taxes  and  fees  for  the  cost  recovery  of  water  services  and  activities  with  a 
significant impact on the environment; and (iv) in certain cases, opportunity costs. 

No data are available on precise costs to agriculture that can be attributed to the WFD. The 
case study below on the costs of implementation in a specific RBD provides further insight 
into the order of magnitude of the WFD implementation costs for agriculture. 

One response in the public consultation, which came from a representative of the European 
agricultural sector, indicated opposition to any endeavour to valorise water and stressed that 
the  existing  approaches  for  water  pricing  are  costly,  time  consuming  and  highly 
administrative.  

Costs related to the Floods Directive 

Estimating  the  costs  related  to  the  Floods  Directive  specifically  is  even  harder  than  for  the 
Water Framework Directive as the FD leaves discretion to the Member States to set their own 
objectives and then set and implement the appropriate measures accordingly. Member States 
setting  higher  levels  of  flood  protection  and  prevention  will  incur  higher  implementation 
costs. Given the large climate variability, benefits and costs of adaptation also show a large 
variability across countries/regions139. In a survey of flood risk managers, no Member State 
indicated that the administrative costs induced by the Floods Directive are significant. 

According  to  the  costs  of  measures  reported  in  the  FRMPs,  Member  States  should  invest 
upwards  of  €12.5  billion  between  2016  and  2021.  According  to  recent  studies140,  under  a 
‘change nothing’ scenario, flood damage exclusively from rivers in the EU is projected to rise 
due to the combined effect of climate and socioeconomic change from €6.9 billion/year141 to 
€20.4 billion/year by the 2020s. Based on scientific modelling, it is  estimated that the total 
costs of adaptation to a once-every-100-year flood event for Member States amount to 0.01-
0.4% of GDP142. Cost-benefit ratios differ for every project, but are found to be higher than 
one and to pay back several times over143. 

136 E.g. European Commission’s Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects (DG REGIO, 2015) or 
OECD (2018) ‘Cost Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Further Developments and Policy Use. 
137 E.g. https://natuurwaardeverkenner.be/, https://www.atlasnatuurlijkkapitaal.nl/ 
138 Feuillette et al (2016). 
139 Rojas et al (2013). 
140 Rojas et al (2013). 
141 For the period 1981-2010. 
142 Rojas et al (2013). 
143 Kron et al (2019). 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Case study example 

The  case  study  presented  below  is  based  on  figures  from  a  river  basin  district  in  western 
Europe. While every RBD is different, the case study provides some insight in the order of 
magnitude of the costs of measures144.  

Overall, the total public budget for water management, including water supply and sanitation 
and floods, amounts to €1.8 billion, which is a bit less than 1% of GDP. Around 45% of the 
public budget is spent on sanitation. The costs for ‘management of water systems’ represent 
less than 17% of the total water management budget.   

The additional private costs145 borne by households, business and agriculture are estimated to 
account for €600 million 0.3% of GDP. Part 2 of the case study below presents further details 
on the financing of measures and the rate of cost recovery. 

Case study example — the costs of water management in an RBD in the EU (Part 1/2) 

>> Characteristics: 

-  Population: 6 million 
-  GDP: €200 billion 
-  Number of water bodies in good status: 0% 

o  Surface: ecological: <50%; chemical <5% 
o  Groundwater: chemical: 20%; quantitative 80% 

-  Key pressures: hydromorphology, point source pollution, diffuse source pollution 

>> Costs of water management: 

:: Public costs: 

Water supply 
Sanitation 
Management of water 
systems 
Flood protection 
Total 

Million euro 
(2014) 
600 
800 
300 

100 
1,800 

% of total 

33% 
45% 
17% 

5% 

:: Private costs: (in million euro, 2014) 

Water supply 
Sanitation 
Management of water 
systems 
Total: 600 

Households 
105 
30 
10 

Business 
125 
200 
n.a. 

Agriculture 
20 
110 
n.a. 

145 

325 

130 

Benefits 

The Directives improve the protection of EU waters e.g. by reducing concentrations of some 
metals in the water. They also improve the value of the aquatic ecosystems and wetlands, and 
of  the  services  they  deliver.  The  most  important  benefits  identified  by  respondents  in  the 
public  consultation  (i.e.  the  proportion  of  responses  indicating  ‘major  benefit’  or  ‘very 
significant benefit’) were:  

144 Note: all numbers have been rounded up or down. 
145 These are the costs for self-services 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
reduced emissions (47%);  
improved cooperation (53%);  

  better knowledge of the water environment (67%);  
 
 
  better public information (46%); and  
 

improved chemical  and ecological status (44%146).  

Difficulties in putting a value on benefits that can be attributed to the WFD 

The valuation  of the benefits  that can be attributed to  the WFD is  challenging. First,  this is 
because it is difficult to attribute benefits to specific measures or Directives. For example, the 
distinction  between  basic  and  supplementary  measures  is  not  always  straightforward.  More 
stringent treatment of waste water could be a ‘basic measure’ or a ‘supplementary measure’ 
depending  on  whether  or  not  the  discharges  are  in  a  sensitive  area  (where  such  advanced 
treatment is required by the UWWTD147). In addition, many measures are multifunctional and 
have multiple benefits  that contribute to  the objectives of several  policies. For  example, re-
naturalisation  of  rivers  contributes  to  flood  prevention,  climate  adaptation  and  biodiversity 
conservation. A second challenge is that the valuation of benefits requires taking account of 
various  non-quantifiable  and  location-specific  factors,  which  limits  the  potential  for 
aggregation and accurate monetisation148. This is the case for ecosystem services (see text box 
below). 

Overview of ecosystem services delivered by wetlands and aquatic ecosystems 

Ecosystem services are usually defined as the benefits that people, society and the economy derive 
from nature. Examples of these are water provision and purification, flood control, carbon storage 
and  climate  regulation.  Some  of  these  services  are  exchanged  on  markets  (e.g.  drinking  water, 
fish),  while  others,  such  as  flood  protection,  carbon  sequestration  or  water  purification,  are  not. 
The  table1  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  most  important  ecosystem  services  delivered  by 
wetlands and aquatic ecosystems. 

146  Trinomics  and  Wood  (2019).  Of  the  responses  indicating  ‘major  benefit’  or  ‘very  significant  benefit’,  the 
highest proportion of responses was observed for NGOs. 
147 COWI (2010). 
148 Several Member States have undertaken extensive studies or developed guidelines or databases for citizens 
and practitioners, see e.g. https://natuurwaardeverkenner.be/, https://www.atlasnatuurlijkkapitaal.nl 

59 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Studies  on  the  valuation  of  ecosystem  services  are  relatively  scarce1.  They  are  also  difficult  to 
compare  because  they  use  different  assumptions  and  methodologies.  One  generally  accepted 
figure  was  provided  by  the  Millennium  Ecosystem  Assessment  (20051),  which  estimated  the 
global  economic  importance  of  wetlands  to  be  as  high  as  €13.32  trillion,  which  at  the  time 
represented a bit less than 30% of the global GDP. 

Studies on the benefits of implementing the WFD 

In  spite  of  these  challenges,  two  studies  have  looked  into  the  benefits  of  implementing  the 
WFD. One study found that if 70% of all European water bodies were to reach good status, 
this  would  lead  to  benefits  worth  €11  billion  per  year149.  Another  study  found  that  the 
implementation gap for water bodies failing to reach good ecological status would represent a 
foregone benefit of on average €8 billion per year150. However, these studies are based on a 
series of assumptions and extrapolations and should be interpreted with caution. 

A  review  of  the  academic  literature  has  identified  five  studies  that  carried  out  a  detailed 
valuation  of the benefits of the WFD in  specific locations. This  information  is  presented in 
table  3151.  These  studies  are  generally  more  robust  but  cannot  be  extrapolated152.  The  two 
studies  on  river  restoration  (Finland  and  Switzerland)  show  that  the  benefits  of  river 
restoration  largely  outweigh  the  costs.  The  study  about  the  aquifer  in  Portugal  shows  that 
people’s  willingness  to  pay  for  safe  drinking  water  quality  and  natural  background  levels 
largely exceed the amount on their water bill. 

Overall these studies confirm that citizens’ willingness to pay for water bodies in good status 
is considerable. The studies also indicate that benefits or willingness to pay tend to increase 
with  ecological  status.  This  can  possibly  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  ecosystems  in  good 
ecological  condition  tend  to  correlate  with  higher  delivery  of  regulating  and  cultural 
ecosystem services153.  

Scope 

Location 

Findings 

Total economic 
value (use and 
non-use values) 
of improved 
groundwater 
quality 

Non-market 
benefits of 
floodplain 
restoration  

Portugal 
(Aveiro 
quaternary 
aquifer) 

Danube 
(Austria, 
Hungary and 
Romania) 

Public willingness to pay (WTP) is 20-30% 
higher than residents’ current water bill. 
Aggregated across the aquifer, the total 
economic value is €1.5 million for safe drinking 
water and €3.5 million annual for groundwater 
containing background levels only 

Household WTP amounts to 0.2-0.5% of annual 
household income for good water status 
(16-83 euro/household/year) 

WTP 
(1,500 respondents) 

Brouwer et 
al. 

155

(2016)

Method  

WTP (1,200 
interviews) 

Study 

Brouwer et 
al. 

154

(2018)

149 ACTeon (2012). 
150 COWI and Eunomia (2019). 
151 Valuation studies of rivers, lakes, wetlands and aquatic ecosystems are scarce.  See e.g. Russi et al (2013) ; 
Reynaud et al (2019) or Bergstrom et al (2017). 
152 Brouwer et al (2016). 
153 Grizzetti et al (2019). 
154 Brouwer et al (2018). 
155 Brouwer et al (2016). 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                 
 
 
Scope 

Location 

Findings 

Flanders 
(Belgium) 

Non-market 
benefits of water 
quality, natural 
river banks and 
biodiversity 

Improvement of water quality 
From bad to moderate quality: €158 per 
household per year 
From moderate to good quality: €102 
From bad to good quality: €260 
Extrapolated to Flanders: 
€240,000 per km of river 
€682 million for Flanders 

Method  

WTP 
(800 respondents) 

Study 

De Nocker 
et al. 
(2011)

156

Value of 
recreational 
ecosystem 
services of a river 
rehabilitation 
project  

Cost-benefit 
analysis of two 
river restoration 
projects 

Non-market 
benefits of 
potential water 
quality changes 
for households 

Finland (river 
Pajakkajoki) 

The value of enhanced provision of ecosystem 
services would offset the project costs in 
approximately 3-10 years (conservative 
estimate) 

WTP 
119 respondents 

Polizzi et 
al. 

157

(2015)

Switzerland 
(Thur and the 
Töss rivers) 

England and 
Wales (UK) 

Ecological status evolved from poor to good 
Even if the restoration costs are substantive 
(€2-5 million per km), they are largely 
outweighed by the benefits, even in the most 
conservative scenario 
Net present value CHF 706-885 million 

£2,263-39,168 per km² (values are higher for 
improvements from medium quality 
(poor/moderate ecological status) to high 
quality (good/high ecological status) than they 
are from low quality (bad ecological status) to 
medium quality (poor/moderate ecological 
status) 

Costs based on total 
project costs 
Benefits based on 
total economic value 

Logar et 
al. 

158

(2019)

Stated preference 
(1,060 respondents) 

Metcalfe 
et al. 
(2012)

159

Table 3: Overview of benefit valuation studies relevant to the WFD 

Avoided costs 

Another angle for looking at the benefits of water in good quantity and quality is to estimate 
the  avoided  costs.  For  example,  the  fitness  check  of  the  EU’s  most  relevant  chemicals 
legislation  estimates  that  the  reduced  contamination160  by  pesticides  of  surface  and 
groundwater  reserves  leads  to  €500  million  of  avoided  costs  per  year161.  Similarly,  another 
study  found  that  in  the  hypothetical  scenario  of  reduced  access  to  water,  i.e.  if  enterprises 
were no longer able to access water at present levels of quantity and quality, their direct use 
costs of water would increase by 15 to 55%162. 

The first findings about the economic impact of the 2018 drought also point out the value of 
water  in  the  economy.  A  study  for  the  Netherlands  found  that  the  economic  impact  of  the 
2018  drought  amounted  to  €450  to  2,080  million163.  In  Belgium,  statistics  on  agricultural 
productivity  show  a  decrease  of  net  value  added  of  25%  compared  to  2013-2017164. 
Preliminary numbers about the economic impact of the low water levels  of the Rhine show 

156 De Nocker et al (2011). 
157 Polizzi et al (2015). 
158 Logar et al (2019). 
159 Metcalfe et al (2012). 
160 This reduced contamination is attributed to the Plant Protection Products Regulation, the WFD,  the EQSD 
and the Drinking Water Directive. 
161 European Commission (2019) — SWD(2019) 199. 
162 Ecorys (2019). 
163 Ecorys (2019) Study for the Dutch Ministry for Infrastructure and Water. 
164 https://statbel.fgov.be/nl/nieuws/definitieve-raming-van-de-oogst and 

https://www.boerenbond.be/actualiteit/belgisch-statistiekbureau-bevestigt-moeilijk-landbouwjaar-2018 

61 

 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
                                                 
that freight transport by inland waterways decreased by 11.1%165, having a significant impact 
on  supply  to  major  companies,  some  of  which  had  to  temporarily  stop  or  decrease  their 
production. 

Financing of measures 

Providing adequate financing to reach good status 

The  Commission’s  latest  implementation  report  showed  that  the  objectives  for  the 
programmes of measures  are mostly determined  by what  can be delivered with  the budgets 
and policies that are already in place (see also Section 5.1.3). Insufficient use is being made 
of  the  principle  of  cost  recovery,  while  exemptions  based  on  disproportionate  costs  are  not 
always adequately justified.  

Cost recovery, water pricing and the polluter pays principle 

Article 9  of  the  WFD  requires  Member  States  to:  (i)  take  into  account  the  polluter  pays 
principle  and  the  principle  of  cost  recovery  of  water  services,  including  the  financial, 
environmental  and  resource  costs;  and  (ii)  ensure  an  adequate  contribution  of  the  different 
water uses to the recovery of costs.  

Until  now,  the  implementation  of  Article 9  has  led  to  mixed  results.  On  the  one  hand,  the 
Commission’s  latest  implementation  report  found  that  Article  9  implementation  had  led  to 
better water-pricing policies, including the use of volumetric charging and incentive pricing. 
Several Member States have also introduced taxes or made changes to their legal framework 
to ensure a certain rate of cost recovery for activities that have a significant impact on water 
bodies  or  to  finance  WFD-specific  measures.  Member  States  have  also  made  considerable 
efforts to document the financial costs of measures.  

On the other hand, the Commission’s latest implementation report also indicates that there is 
still significant room for improvement on exactly the same points. Although a large majority 
of respondents regard water pricing as an instrument that strongly contributes to sustainable 
water  use,  the  ‘adequate  contribution’  of  certain  water  uses  remains  low  to  non-existent  in 
several  Member  States.  Incomplete  cost  recovery  represents  a  hidden  cost  to  society, 
especially when the environmental and resource costs are not taken into account. It also puts 
a strain on a potential source of revenue to finance measures, even though cost recovery may 
not  be  technically  feasible  in  all  cases,  e.g.  because  legacy  pollution  makes  it  difficult  to 
identify the polluter or because the transaction costs are high.  

The insufficient contribution from certain water users is an issue emphasised by the responses 
submitted by campaign respondents to the public consultation. Representatives of the water 
sector  also  point  to  the  increasing  costs  of  treatment,  which  are  passed  on  to  the  consumer 
rather than being paid for by the polluter. In contrast, representatives of the agricultural sector 
oppose water pricing and the monetisation of ecosystem services. 

Figure 17 shows that the rate of cost recovery for water supply and sanitation varies widely 
between  Member  States.  While  some  Member  States  manage  to  finance  their  water  supply 
and  waste  water  sector  almost  entirely  through  revenues  from  water  tariffs,  others  rely 
heavily on the public budget. Differences between countries can mostly be explained by (the 
lack  of)  political  decisions  that  are  taken.  According  to  the  OECD,  in  some  countries 
affordability can be a concern for the lowest income households. In  these cases, this should 

165 https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2019/03/PD19_112_463.html. 

62 

 
 
 
                                                 
be  addressed  through  targeted  social  measures,  so  that  tariffs  can  be  designed  to  manage 
demand for water services and to raise funds166. 

No exhaustive data are available on the extent of cost recovery for measures targeting other 
key  pressures  such  as  diffuse  pollution,  abstraction  for  non-domestic  purposes  and 
hydromorphology, yet the last Commission assessment report of the RBMPs points to a large 
variability  between  the  Member  States,  which  can  mostly  be  attributed  to  political  choices. 
Concerning water supply for industry and agriculture competitiveness is sometimes used as 
an  argument.  Data  show,  however,  that  water  as  an  input  to  water-dependent  sectors  only 
represents  around  5%  of  gross  value  added  in  these  sectors167.  Nonetheless    some  good 
practices exist. In France, for example, revenues from taxes targeting pollution or abstraction 
are  used  to  finance  water  measures,  while  in  Portugal  there  is  a  water  resources  tax  that  is 
earmarked for integrated water management. This indicates that an exchange of best practices 
between Member States could be beneficial, especially with a view to improving sustainable 
finance  methods  to  achieve  the  Directive’s  objectives.  The  2019-2021168  CIS  work 
programme  provides  for  the  possibility  of  a  new  ad  hoc  task  group  on  economics,  which 
could contribute to this goal. A joint study project with the OECD on this topic will also be 
launched shortly. 

Figure 17: Sources of finance for water supply and sanitation services per Member State as annual 
average over the period of 2011-2015169. Source: OECD (forthcoming) 

166 OECD (forthcoming)  
167 Ecorys (2019) 
168 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/9ab5926d-bed4-4322-9aa7-9964bbe8312d/library/dd9b4484-2935-4ee8-
b3ce-72f844f3644c?p=1&n=10&sort=modified_DESC 
169  The  OECD  notes  that  there  is  likely  an  overestimate  of  supply-related  expenditures  (and  corresponding 
underestimate of sanitation) in countries where waste water-related charges are included in the water bill. 

63 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Disproportionate costs 

For  water  use  activities  and  water  uses  for  which  the  costs  cannot  be  recovered,  public 
investments are justified because: (i) the many benefits of water in good quantity and quality 
accrue  to  society  as  a  whole,  including  citizens,  business  and  agriculture;  and  (ii)  in  many 
cases  the  benefits  outweigh  the  costs.  However,  when  the  measures  to  be  taken  would  be 
disproportionately  expensive  within  the  WFD  timescale,  Member  States  can  obtain  an 
exemption under certain conditions.  

While  the  notion  of  ‘disproportionate  costs’  is  not  specified  in  the  Directive,  the  CIS  has 
issued two guidance documents that provide some further detail.  Guidance Document No 1 
on  economics  discusses  some  requirements  for  cost-benefit  analysis,  and  states  that  the 
margin by which costs exceed benefits should be appreciable and that the assessment of costs 
and benefits needs to include both quantitative and qualitative aspects. Guidance Document 
No 20 on exemptions discusses affordability issues and points out that alternative financing 
mechanisms  should  always  be  considered,  including  cost  recovery  and  seeking  recourse  to 
the public budget, EU funds and private investments.  

In practice, the methodologies for benefit valuation can lead to variable results depending on 
the parameters used. For example, a recent article in a scientific journal  on the use of cost-
benefit analysis demonstrated how in one Member State the choice of the methodology and 
the parameters had significant impacts on the determination of disproportionate costs170. The 
authors  cite  the  example  of  two  river  basins  for  which  the  costs  and  qualitative  ecological 
benefits  of  restoring  good  water  status  were  similar.  In  the  example,  the  number  of 
inhabitants in one river basin made its estimated monetary value significantly lower than for 
the other. As a result, it was decided that the costs for the former were disproportionate. This 
points to the importance of taking due account of the limitations of monetary valuation and 
also of the need to take qualitative benefits into account. 

Case study example 

Even if every RBD faces different challenges, the example below provides some interesting 
insight in the financing of measures. It shows that in this RBD, full cost recovery is achieved 
for  water  supply  and  80%  for  sanitation.  The  rate  of  cost  recovery  for  the  management  of 
water systems is close to zero171 as these public costs are paid for by general tax revenues.  

Looking at the distribution of the costs172 it can be seen that 80% of the costs are covered by 
direct contributions (i.e. taxes, fees and private contributions) and 20% is provided from the 
general  public  budget.  Households  contribute  the  most  to  the  costs  (55%),  mostly  through 
direct  fees  for  water  supply  and  sanitation.  Industry  contributes  mostly  through  direct  fees 
and private costs; the contribution of agriculture is generally low.  

For  the  second  RBMP,  an  analysis  was  carried  out  for  this  RBD  to  assess  the  costs  and 
feasibility of different scenarios. Based on this analysis, it was decided to aim at 10-30% of 
bodies in good status by 2021, which would come at an additional cost of €70 million (4% of 
the current budget). For all other water bodies, an extension of the deadline is reported, based 
on disproportionate costs and natural conditions. 

170 Feuillette et al (2016). 
171 These cost recovery rates only include financial costs. Environmental and resource costs are not included in 
the calculation. 
172 Public and private 

64 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  ‘maximum’  scenario173  in  which  65%  of  water  bodies  could  reach  good  status  would 
come  at  an  additional  cost  of  €300  million  (17%  of  the  current  budget),  of  which  55%  is 
needed  for  sanitation  infrastructure.  This  scenario  is  stated  to  be  disproportionately  costly, 
even if a theoretical analysis based on affordability criteria indicates that €1 billion could be 
raised from households174, €480 million from industry and €20 million from agriculture.  

In sum, the case study example shows how in practice the adequate contribution of water uses 
is not always secured, how the principle of cost recovery is not used to its full potential and 
how  exemptions  based  on  disproportionate  costs  are  used  beyond  what  they  were  initially 
introduced for. In this RBD, a political decision has been taken to choose a scenario with a 
lower level of ambition, only reaching good status for 10-30% of all water bodies. Reaching 
good status for 65% of all water bodies would be possible with a 17% (€300 million) increase 
in the water budget, most of which would be needed for investments in sanitation. While an 
analysis  based  on  affordability  criteria  shows  that  €1.5  billion  could  be  raised  through  cost 
recovery, it was decided not to do so and to aim only for a scenario involving an additional 
cost  of  €70  million,  which  would  come  from  the  public  budget,  but  which  in  practice  has 
been committed only to a very limited extent. 

Case study example — the costs of water management in an RBD in the EU (Part 2/2) 

>> Costs of water management, cost recovery and distribution of costs 

:: Public costs: 

Million euro 
(2014) 

Direct contributions 
(cost recovery) 

Water supply 
Sanitation 
Management of water 
systems 
Flood protection 
Total 

600 
800 
300 

100 
1,800 

>100%175 
80% 
5% 

unknown  
1,455 million176 

unknown 
245 million 

Indirect 
(public 
budget) 
0% 
20% 
95% 

:: Contribution to costs disaggregated by water user: 

Households 
Industry 
Agriculture 
Other 
Total 

Direct contribution 
40% 
30% 
6% 
4% 
80% 

Indirect contribution 
15% 
5% 
0.1% 
0% 
20% 

Total 
55% 
35% 
6% 
4% 
100% 

173 On the basis of the available assessments 
174 It is noted that for the low income households this would require some social measures. 
175 A cost recovery rate beyond 100% implies cross-subsidisation. 
176  No  data  available  on  the  cost  recovery  of  flood  protection  measures;  the  sum  of  the  contributions 
(1,455+245) therefore equals 1,700 (1,800-100). 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.2.2:  ‘What  factors  have  influenced  the  efficiency  of  implementation?  Have  good 
practices be identified?’ 

Overall response:  

Cooperation between the Member States and the Commission under the common implementation 
strategy  has  significantly  enhanced  the  understanding  of  what  needs  to  be  done  to  reach  the 
Directives’ objectives and how this can be done at the lowest possible cost.  

In addition, four issues could have a positive impact on the efficiency of implementation.  

  First, the proper implementation of integrated water management taking into account the 
interlinkages  and  feedback  loops  between  pressures  makes  it  possible  to  compile  an 
effective and efficient programme of measures.  

  Second,  cost-effectiveness  analysis  is  a  useful  tool  to  support  the  WFD  and  the  FD’s 
approach  based  on  subsidiarity,  which  allows  for  costs  to  be  minimised  by  adapting 
measures to local circumstances. 

  Third,  the  reduction  of  pollution  at  source  can  save  costs  due  to  the  reduced  need  for 

mitigation measures.  

  Finally,  green  infrastructure  or  nature-based  solutions  offer  multiple  benefits  in  many 
cases, thus offering potential for all the affected legislation and policies to be implemented 
more  efficiently.  For  example,  wetland  and  floodplain  restoration  offers  solutions  for 
reducing flood risk that can be very cost-efficient thanks to their  relatively low per unit 
investment and maintenance costs. In addition, they provide a number of indirect benefits 
such as biodiversity preservation, climate change adaptation and groundwater recharge. 

Sufficient  maturity  has  been  reached  in  the  understanding  of  what  needs  to  be  done  to 
achieve the Directives’ objectives and how this can be done at the lowest possible cost. These 
are the fruits of the exchange of good practices under the common implementation strategy 
(CIS),  the  lessons  learned  from  the  Commission’s  implementation  reports  and  the  studies 
carried out  by the Member States. Of course, there is  still significant  room  to  translate this 
knowledge into practical measures. Even if the  challenges are manifold  and never identical 
for  every  Member  State,  four  issues  that  affect  the  efficiency  of  the  implementation  have 
been identified:  

 
 
 
 

implementation of integrated water management;  
the use of cost-effectiveness analysis for the selection of measures;  
reduction of pollution at source; and  
the use of green infrastructure.    

Integrated water management 

Integrated  water  management  —  including  a  thorough  pressures  and  impacts  analysis  and 
identification  of  the  appropriate  measures  to  address  (multiple)  pressures  —  improves  not 
only  the  Directives’  effectiveness  (as  discussed  in  Section  5.1.3),  but  also  their  efficiency. 
Only  when  interlinkages  and  feedback  loops  between  pressures  are  taken  into  account  is  it 
possible to compile a programme of measures that improves the status of water bodies at the 
lowest possible cost, e.g. by prioritising measures that bring multiple benefits. Research has 
also shown that integrated water management can prevent maladaptation against flood risks 
(i.e. under- or over-designing protection measures).  

66 

 
 
 
 
Cost-effectiveness analysis  

Cost-effectiveness analysis is a decision support tool assessing the cost and effectiveness of 
alternative policy options in realising a pre-set objective177. It was given a pivotal role in the 
WFD because it enables Member States to identify a combination of mitigation measures to 
achieve a given environmental objective at the lowest economic cost.  In contrast with cost-
benefits analysis, which requires a lot of data and a comprehensive monetisation of benefits 
(which is not generally accepted), cost-effectiveness analysis compares investment costs with 
management effects, which can be expressed in any unit178. 

Cost-effectiveness  analysis  is  a  useful  tool  to  support  the  WFD  and  the  FD’s  subsidiarity-
based  approach,  which  allows  for  costs  to  be  optimised  by  adapting  measures  to  local 
circumstances.  Studies  have  found  that  identifying  localised,  targeted  and  context-specific 
measures  can  help  achieve  the  Directive’s  objectives  in  a  more  cost-effective  manner  than 
standardised  prescriptions  of  measures179.  For  example,  one  study  found  that  if  the  2009 
programme  of  measures  for  Flanders,  which  was  designed  uniformly  for  the  entire  region, 
were to have been optimised at the scale of individual water bodies, the annual costs could 
have been reduced by 22%, while still achieving similar emission reductions in every water 
body. If emission reduction targets had not been restricted to the water body itself but instead 
had also been realised in upstream areas, the annual costs could have been reduced by 33% 
compared to the uniform approach180. 

Since the adoption of the WFD, several Member States have invested in sophisticated models 
for  the  economic  optimisation  of  measures181.  In  Finland,  researchers  have  developed  a 
tool182 that evaluates cost-effectiveness of phosphorus load-reduction measures at catchment 
level.  The  tool’s  use  in  the  second  RBMP  led  to  the  identification  of  measures  that  would 
achieve  a  load  reduction  rate  of  35%  at  the  same  costs  (compared  to  16%  in  the  first 
RBMP183).  The  increasing  accessibility  of  analytical  models  should  now  allow  for 
widespread  and  systematic  use  of  quantitative  cost-effectiveness  assessments  in  all  river 
basins in order to identify optimal management measures184. 

Reduction of pollution at source 

One policy option that has the potential to make implementation of the WFD more efficient is 
the reduction of pollution at source, which saves costs due to the reduced need for costly end-
of-pipe  measures  or  additional  treatment  of  water  abstracted  for  drinking  water185.  One 
concrete example is the reduction of phosphorus in detergents, which has contributed to the 
decrease of phosphorus in EU waters186 and has further potential in this respect. 

177 Martin-Ortega and Balana (2012). 
178 Boerema et al (2018). 
179 Balana et al (2015). 
180 Broeckx et al (2014). 
181 For an overview of case studies in the UK, the Baltic Sea countries, and Italy, France and Spain, see Balana 
et al (2011). 
182  The  KUTOVA  model.  The  tool  includes  19  different  measures  from  agriculture,  forestry,  scattered 
settlements and peat mining. It focuses on phosphorus, which is a more common growth-limiting nutrient than 
nitrogen in fresh waters. 
183 Trinomics and Wood (2019). 
184 Pistocchi et al (2017). 
185 Articles 10, 16 and 17 WFD include provisions that promote source control. 
186 Bouraoui et al (2014). 

67 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  evaluation  of  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive  shows  that  waste  water 
collection and treatment is an effective strategy to ensure the protection of water bodies and 
human  health.  This  is  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  waste  water  treatment  as  required  under  the 
UWWTD  focuses  on  the  pollutants  deemed  to  be  the  most  relevant  ones  in  the  1990s  (i.e. 
biological oxygen demand, nitrogen and phosphorus). However, collection systems and waste 
water treatment plants have high capital and operation and maintenance costs, which increase 
with  the  amount  of  pollutants  that  need  to  be  removed.  In  addition,  waste  water  treatment 
removes  some  persistent  pollutants  as  a  side  effect,  but  not  all  of  them.  The  remaining 
residues can persist in the environment for centuries. 

Several  Member  States  have  therefore  introduced  programmes  and  strategies  to  reduce  the 
amount of chemical and micro-pollutants entering the aquatic environment. France has set up 
a  comprehensive  monitoring  programme  to  reduce  micro-pollutant  emissions187.  Germany 
has developed a trace substance strategy based on multi-stakeholder dialogue, with the goal 
of  preventing  and  reducing  inputs  of  trace  substances  from  biocides,  human  and  veterinary 
pharmaceuticals, plant protection products, industrial chemicals, detergents and personal care 
products into the aquatic environment188.  

One  area  where  there  is  room  for  improvement  is  diffuse  nutrient  and  chemical  pollution 
from  agriculture.  For  example, balanced  fertiliser application  at  farm level  would allow  for 
improvement  in  agricultural  production  while  reducing  costs  to  farmers  and  minimising 
discharges  to  the  environment.  Nevertheless,  several  good  practices  exist.  Belgium,  Ireland 
and the Netherlands, for example, have opted to set limits for total applicable nitrogen for all 
crops,  as  a  simple  and  clear  way  to  inform  farmers  about  their  obligation  and  to  facilitate 
controls.  

Similarly, for pesticide applications, the ‘Ecophyto’ plan in France set a pesticide reduction 
target of 50% by 2025, while Sweden has set a goal of almost zero pesticides in surface water 
and groundwater by 2020189. 

Green infrastructure 

Green infrastructure or nature-based solutions in many cases offer multiple benefits, offering 
potential to make implementation of all affected legislation and policies more efficient. The 
Commission recently published a guidance document on green infrastructure aimed at scaling 
up  investments190.  The  global  scientific  community  is  also  putting  increased  emphasis  on 
nature-based solutions, securing water resources and restoring ecosystems and their services 
in addressing climate change, adaptation and biodiversity collapse. 

A  report  by  the  European  Environment  Agency  on  green  infrastructure  and  flood 
management  reviewed  the  costs  and  benefits  of  grey  and  green  infrastructure  projects  and 
found  that  wetland  restoration  and  floodplain  restoration  are  particularly  attractive  options 
because  they  offer  a  high  degree  of  flood  risk  protection  and  provide  many  additional 
ecosystem services191. Figure 18 presents the key findings of the report. It shows that wetland 

187 France, Ministère de la transition écologique et solidaire  ‘Plan micropolluants 2016-2021 pour préserver la 
qualité des eaux et la biodiversité’. 
188 See https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/wasser/wasser-bewirtschaften/mikroverunreinigungen-in-
gewaessern#UBA-Empfehlungen 
189 European Commission — SWD(2017) 153. 
190 European Commission — SWD(2019) 193. 
191 EEA report 14/2017. 

68 

 
 
 
                                                 
and floodplain restoration can be very cost-efficient flood risk-reduction solutions thanks to 
their low per unit investment and maintenance costs.  In addition,  they provide a number of 
indirect  benefits  such  as  biodiversity  preservation,  climate  change  adaptation  and 
groundwater recharge.  

Figure 18: Overview matrix of green versus grey infrastructure measures for flood protection 
(Source: European Environment Agency, 2017192) 

Studies on constructed wetlands show similar results. One scientific study compared the cost 
and  performance  of  a  series  of  constructed  wetlands  with  those  of  traditional  grey 
infrastructure. It found that: (i) the green infrastructure performs equally well or even better 
than the grey infrastructure alternative for water purification and flood protection; (ii) it has a 
similar  cost;  and  (iii)  provides  additional  benefits  like  wildlife  support  and  recreation193. 
Another study found that green infrastructure solutions may also be cost-effective and cost-
competitive for business, while simultaneously providing public and ecosystem benefits194. 

192 EEA (2017). 
193 Liquete et al (2016). 
194 Reddy et al (2015). 

69 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The advantages of green infrastructure: the ability of wetlands to filter pharmaceuticals 

Wetlands (such as floodplains) are the most biologically diverse of all ecosystems, serving as home to 
a  wide  range  of  plant  and  animal  life.  They  have  been  described  both  as  ‘the  kidneys  of  the 
landscape’,  because  of  the  functions  they  perform  in  the  hydrological  and  chemical  cycles,  and  as 
‘biological  supermarkets’  because  of  the  extensive  food  webs  and  rich  biodiversity  they  support195. 
Wetlands  provide  resources  such  as  food,  water  and  raw  materials,  contribute  to  mental  health  and 
have scientific, aesthetic and spiritual benefits. 

Constructed  wetlands  can  be  very  effective  and  cost-efficient  at  removing  pollutants  from  waste 
water. These units, which mimic natural wetlands and which require low external energy and are easy 
to operate and maintain, are used worldwide to treat domestic and industrial waste waters from raw 
sewage to tertiary-treated waste waters. Constructed wetlands can also be a viable and cost-efficient 
solution for the removal of emerging pollutants. A recent scientific pilot project has demonstrated the 
potential of constructed wetlands to remove pharmaceuticals from waste water, with removal rates for 
different pharmaceuticals ranging up to 90% (see Figure 19 below). 

Estrone

Androstenedi…

Naproxen

Propranolol

Triclosan

0

20

40

60

80

100

Removal efficiency in % (after 3 years)

Figure 19: Removal efficiency rates after 3 years of a constructed wetland (Source: Vystavna et al. ) 

5.2.3: ‘To what extent are monitoring and reporting requirements fit for purpose?’ 

Overall response:   

The  Directives  entail  comprehensive  monitoring  and  reporting  requirements,  which  are  mostly 
functional instruments to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the measures.  

Monitoring aims to provide a clear and comprehensive overview of the status and pressures within 
each river basin district. Overall, responses to the public consultation find monitoring to be one of 
the  elements  that  has  most  contributed  to  achieving  the  WFD’s  objectives.  In  the  targeted 
consultation,  some  experts  (from  NGOs  and  one  competent  authority)  indicated  that they  regard 
the  difference  between  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  as  an  artificial  division  that  is 
difficult to implement in practice, leading to unnecessary complications. 

There are still significant gaps in the monitoring of the ecological and chemical status of surface 
water  bodies  and  the  chemical  and  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies.  This  is  an 
opportunity forgone, as fulfilment of the monitoring obligations under the WFD is fundamental to 
support robust and cost-efficient decision-making and given that the cost of monitoring is minor 

195 Barbier et al (1997). 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
compared to the cost of mitigation and restoration measures. 

The  Directives’  requirements for  RBMPs,  FRMPs  and  public consultation  are necessary  to  keep 
the policy discretion provided by the WFD and the FD in check and to provide transparency to the 
public about the state of European waters and the choices that are made to improve this.  

The introduction of the WFD led to the repeal of several directives and one decision, all of which 
had required reporting from the Member States.  After significant start-up and learning costs, and 
extensive  consultation  and  agreement  with  the  Member  States,  the  reporting  model  is  now 
reasonably stable. Moreover, in  many cases, data which are not expected to change significantly 
over time will not have to be reported again; this will significantly reduce the reporting effort. The 
approximate annual administrative burden for the WFD was estimated to be ‘fairly large’ and on 
the  same  scale  as  many  other  directives  in  the  fitness  check  of  reporting  and  monitoring  of  EU 
environmental policy. For the FD and the EQSD, the approximate annual administrative burden to 
Member  States  was  estimated  to  be  ‘moderate’.  It  also  found  that  the  benefits  of  reporting 
obligations significantly exceed the costs.  

The  Water  Information  System  for  Europe  (WISE),  developed  by  the  Commission  and  the 
European Environment Agency, has harmonised electronic reporting to build comparable publicly 
accessible EU datasets and stimulated the development of national information systems.  

Monitoring 

The WFD has introduced a targeted approach to monitoring 

As  discussed  in  Sections  5.1.2  and  5.1.3,  the  monitoring  requirements  introduced  by  the 
WFD aim to provide a clear and comprehensive overview of the status and pressures within 
each  river  basin  district,  therefore  allowing  for  informed  decisions  concerning  the 
programmes  of  measures.  The  requirements  concern  both  surface  and  groundwater  bodies 
and  are  applicable  to  the  respective  processes  under  the  EQSD  and  GWD.  To  optimise the 
use of resources, the WFD introduced a monitoring approach that distinguishes between three 
types  of  monitoring,  each  with  a  different  function.  Surveillance  monitoring  is  required  to 
investigate  the  overall  water  body  status  within  a  catchment  or  sub-catchment.  The  results 
from  surveillance  monitoring  should  then  be  used  to  inform  the  locations  for  operational 
monitoring, which is required to assess the status of water bodies identified as being at risk of 
failing to meet the Directive’s objectives. Finally, where a water body is identified as failing 
to  achieve  good  status  and  the  reason  is  unknown,  investigative  monitoring  is  required  to 
diagnose the cause of degradation196.  

Overall,  the  public  consultation  found  monitoring  to  be  one  of  the  elements  that  has  most 
contributed to achieving the WFD’s objectives, with 85% of respondents (n=462) responding 
that they ‘agree’ or ‘substantially agree’. Of the responses indicating ‘agree’ or ‘substantially 
agree’ (n=395), the highest proportion of total responses was observed for EU citizens (37%) 
and  industry  (29%).  Almost  75%  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  agree  that  the 
monitoring obligations of the WFD target the right issues. 

In  the  targeted  consultation,  some  experts  (from  NGOs  and  one  competent  authority) 
indicated that they regard the difference between surveillance and operational monitoring as 
an  artificial  division  that  is  difficult  to  implement  in  practice,  leading  to  unnecessary 

196 Collins et al (2012). 

71 

 
 
 
                                                 
complications.  Indeed,  in  many  cases,  Member  States  use  the  same  monitoring  sites  for 
surveillance and operational monitoring197.  

Significant gaps remain in the monitoring networks 

Even though the deadline for setting up the monitoring networks was 2006, significant gaps 
remain in the monitoring of the ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies. The 
same is true for chemical and quantitative status of groundwater bodies. For chemical status 
in  particular,  there  are  five  Member  States  for  which  more  than  60%  of  their  water  bodies 
have  unknown  status.  In  essence,  this  is  an  opportunity  forgone,  as  fulfilment  of  the 
monitoring  obligations  under  the  WFD  is  fundamental  to  support  robust  and  cost-efficient 
decision-making  and  given  that  the  cost  of  monitoring  is  minor  compared  to  the  cost  of 
mitigation and restoration measures198.  

In  Member  States  where  the  level  of  monitoring  is  insufficient,  this  shortcoming  can  be 
attributed  to  organisational  problems  in  the  managing  authorities,  as  well  as  a  lack  of 
resources allocated to monitoring. A large number of substances need to be monitored, and 
this  requires  specialised  knowledge  and  equipment,  which  is  not  always  available  in  all 
Member States. Member States therefore needed either to develop the capacity in their own 
labs to perform those analyses or to contract labs in other countries to perform them, which 
requires time and sufficient financial resources. 

Reporting 

Reporting requirements 

Article 13 of the Water Framework Directive requires Member States to publish and update 
their  RBMPs  every  6  years.  The  elements  that  should  be  included  in  the  RBMPs  are 
described in Annex VII. In addition, Article 15 of the WFD requires Member States to send a 
copy of their RBMPs to the Commission and send an interim report on the implementation of 
the programmes of measures 3 years after each RBMP. Further reports are required under the 
EQSD and the GWD (on monitoring data).  

Similar  requirements  exist  under  the  Floods  Directive  for  FRMPs  every  6  years,  timed  to 
coincide with the reporting on RBMPs as of 2015. 

The Commission needs to publish a report on the implementation of the Directives every 6 
years.  For  the  WFD,  a  review  of  the  status  of  water  bodies  should  be  undertaken  in 
coordination with the European Environment Agency (Art 18(b)). 

The  Directives’  extensive  requirements  for  the  RBMPs  and,  less  so,  for  the  FRMPs  are 
necessary  because  of  the  high  degree  of  flexibility  in  the  framework  approach:  to  be  cost-
effective,  water  management  needs  to  be  adapted  to  local  circumstances  while  keeping  an 
overview on compliance. In other words, reporting is indispensable, irrespective of whether 
the objectives are being reached and the right methodologies are being used. As discussed in 
the section on effectiveness, the requirements on the information that needs to be included in 
the  RBMPs  and  FRMPs  have  led  to  increased  public  participation  and  transparency  (see 
Section 5.1.2), which is acknowledged by all stakeholders. 

197 Trinomics and Wood (2019). 
198 Carvalho et al (2019). 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Electronic reporting 

In order for the Commission to be able to produce the required implementation reports and to 
make  information  on  the  implementation  of  the  Directives  available  to  the  public,  Member 
States have agreed to report electronically on the contents of the RBMPs in an agreed format 
using the European Environment Agency’s Reportnet system. The data collected in this way 
is one of the main bases for the Water Information System for Europe (WISE199). The WISE 
database  contains  data  from  the  first  and  second  cycles  of  river  basin  management  plans 
reported  by  EU  Member  States  and  also,  for  the  second  RBMPs,  by  Norway.  Products 
generated from the WISE database and available through the EEA web site currently include 
structured  information  (maps,  graphs  and  tables)  about  surface  water  bodies  (number  and 
size, water body category, ecological status or potential, chemical status, significant pressures 
and impacts) and  about  groundwater bodies  (number and size, quantitative status,  chemical 
status,  significant  pressures  and  impacts).  Additional  products  are  being  developed  on 
exemptions and measures. Following the example of the RBMPs, the WISE system was then 
also used for the reporting of the first FRMPs. 

The fitness check on reporting and monitoring of environmental policy concluded that WISE 
has contributed to the modernisation of reporting. Since its launch in 2007, it has harmonised 
electronic  reporting  to  build  comparable  publicly  accessible  EU  datasets  (also  beyond  the 
WFD) streamlined with ‘State of the Environment’ reporting to avoid duplication and ensure 
complementarity  (the  ‘provide  once,  use  often’  principle).  It  has  also  stimulated  the 
development  of  national  information  systems  in  countries  like  Sweden,  France,  Spain, 
Austria  and  Ireland200.  Thanks  to  WISE’s  dashboard  format,  such  data  can  be  filtered  and 
sorted, making it possible for citizens, researchers and policy-makers to gain easy access to 
the latest available data. Based on the data in WISE, the Commission and the EEA have also 
developed  a  map  viewer201,  which  enables  the  general  public  to  find  detailed  information 
about every water body in the EU. 

Costs of reporting 
The introduction of the WFD led to the repeal of several directives and one decision202, all of 
which  had  required  reporting  from  the  Member  States.  This  led  to  a  decrease  in  reporting 
requirements by 20% in 2008 and by 40% in 2013, even though the scope of water policy had 
been  broadened203.  Nonetheless,  the  introduction  of  the  WFD  triggered  significant  start-up 
and learning costs. The reporting guidance for the second RBMPs, which was developed after 
extensive consultation  and agreement  with  the Member States, has addressed most of these 
initial problems and the reporting model is now reasonably stable, with only minor changes 
needed  for  the  reporting  of  the  third  cycle  of  RBMPs.  In  many  cases,  data  which  are  not 
expected to change significantly over time (e.g. the spatial location of different elements) will 
not  have  to  be  reported  again,  which  will  significantly  reduce  the  effort  needed  for  the 
reporting. 

The fitness check of reporting  and monitoring of EU environmental  policy204 estimated the 
approximate  annual  administrative  burden  for  the  WFD  to  be  ‘fairly  large’  (i.e.  between 

199 https://water.europa.eu/. 
200 European Commission — SWD(2017) 230. 
201 https://maps.eea.europa.eu/wab/WaterFrameworkDirective/ 
202 See WFD Art 21. 
203 European Commission –SWD (2012) 393. 
204 European Commission (2017) — SWD (2017) 230. 

73 

 
 
 
                                                 
€100 000 and 1 million) and on the same scale as many other pieces of EU legislation, such 
as the Nitrates Directive, REACH and the Waste Framework Directive. For the FD and the 
EQSD, the approximate annual administrative burden to Member States was estimated to be 
‘moderate’ (i.e. between €30,000 and €100,000). However, the fitness check of reporting and 
monitoring  of  EU  environmental  policy205  also  found  that  the  benefits  of  reporting 
obligations significantly exceed the costs, as without reporting on obligations there can be no 
confidence in implementation or whether legislation is working or not.  

Electronic reporting: good practice example 

Together  with  efforts  at  EU  level  to  optimise  electronic  reporting,  some  Member  States  are 
developing  their  own  national  reporting  systems  in  order  to  reduce  the  cost  of  reporting.  One 
example is the system currently being developed by Spain, which mirrors the WISE database in a 
system that enables water managers to update information in the database when it changes, without 
being linked to the reporting cycle. The required reporting to the Commission can then be done by 
taking  a  ‘snapshot’  of  the  situation  at  the  required  points  in  time,  without  the  burdensome  data 
collection involved in the reporting of the first and second cycles of RBMPs. This shows that the 
administrative burden on regional and local authorities partly depends on the governance set-up at 
national level. 

5.2.4:  ‘To  what  extent  are  there  opportunities  to  simplify  the  legislation  or  reduce 
unnecessary regulatory cost without undermining the objectives of the Directives?’ 

Overall response:  

The results  of  the consultation and  experience  to  date  suggest  that  there is  some  limited room  to 
simplify and reduce the Directives’ administrative burden without jeopardising their objectives. 

As to the performance of the EQSD, the list of priority substances is today considered as partially 
not up-to-date. For both the EQSD and the GWD, the potential should be explored for streamlined 
methods to prepare updates in line with scientific developments in a more efficient manner. 

On  monitoring,  the  uptake  of  innovative  monitoring  technologies,  including  satellite  data  and 
automated sensing technologies, has great potential to better standardise collection of specific types 
of data across Europe and enhance confidence in WFD classification. Furthermore, the growing use 
of  citizen  science  and  smartphone  applications  can  provide  not  only  greater  coverage  and 
potentially  reduced  costs,  but  can  also  deliver  greater  public  understanding  and  engagement  in 
water management. 

For  the  WFD,  simplification  of  the  reporting  process  is  ongoing,  mainly  to  avoid  repeating 
information which does not change over time and to avoid repetition of data in different parts of the 
report. For the FD, simplifications to reporting for the upcoming second cycle of implementation 
have already been developed by the Commission in close cooperation with Member States. 

The  harmonisation  of  spatial  reporting  under  different  directives  is  also  ongoing,  as  is  the 
preparation, by the EEA, of a new generation system, Reportnet 3.0, which is expected to enable a 
much  higher  degree  of  coordination.  Together  with  the  full  implementation  of  the  INSPIRE 
Directive,  this  should  eventually  lead  to  the  replacement  of  most  of  the  formal  reporting  to  the 
Commission/EEA  with  the  availability  at  national  level  of  all  the  information  through  INSPIRE-
compliant  ‘services’.  In  some  Member  States,  the  application  of  digital  solutions  has  helped  to 
reduce the administrative burden further, but additional potential remains. 

205 European Commission — SWD (2017) 230. 

74 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
While the requirement to consult the public as such was not challenged in the public consultation, a 
position paper from a group of Member States’ Water Directors (the ‘Consultation group’) argues 
that  the  public  consultation  requirements  should  allow  for  more  flexible  consultation  periods. 
Respondents who participated in the NGO campaign acknowledge that public consultation has led 
to  a  substantial  improvement  in  transparency  and  public  participation,  but  indicate  that  the 
consultations insufficiently involve environmental groups and the general public.  

Less  than  a  third  (27%)  of  the  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  (mostly  EU  citizens, 
industry and industry associations, n=537) agreed or strongly agreed that simplification206 of 
the  Directives  is  possible  (e.g.  reducing  monitoring  and  reporting  requirements),  whereas 
30%  of  respondents  disagreed  or  strongly  disagreed  (the  respondents  include  mostly  EU 
citizens and NGOs). 

Chemicals 

The list of priority substances and EQS 

As  to  the  performance  of  the  EQSD,  the  list  of  priority  substances  is  today  considered  as 
partially not up-to-date. On the one hand, some substances proven to be toxic to people and 
the environment are not on the list, whereas it still contains other substances no longer found 
in  a  significant  number  of  water  bodies207  and  which  therefore  may  be  considered  for  de-
listing. The process of listing substances in the Annex to the WFD208 has proven cumbersome 
and  rather  time  consuming,  making  it  a  challenge  to  keep  the  list  fully  relevant.  Further 
reflection on the approach taken could thus be useful. 

The revision of the WFD Annex requires an ordinary legislative procedure and adoption by 
the European Parliament and Council; the same holds for revisions to Annex II to the GWD. 
The  watch  list209  is  revised  through  an  implementing  act  adopted  by  the  Commission  after 
consultation  of  a  committee  of  Member  State  representatives.  In  all  cases,  however,  the 
revisions  have  to  be  made  on  solid  scientific  grounds  to  ensure  that  the  most  relevant 
substances are included. Collecting the necessary data to support the addition or removal of a 
substance from one list or the other is a time-consuming process. Furthermore, the substances 
included in the watch list or in the Annex to the WFD will have to be monitored by Member 
States,  so  new  substances  can  be  added  only  when  adequately  sensitive  analytical  methods 
for  their  monitoring  exist  and  are  not  disproportionally  costly.  The  development  of  such 
analytical methods can itself be a lengthy and expensive process. 

The lack of an automatic link between the watch list and the priority substances list appears 
to be a source of uncertainty. In fact, when sufficient data are available on a substance from 
the watch list  process,  that substance is  removed from  the watch list  and the data collected 
will be used to inform the next revision of Annex X to the WFD. This can take several years. 

206 ‘Simplification’ is understood as achieving the same results but with fewer resources. 
207 EEA Report 18/2018. 
208 The EQSD includes a provision for a watch list mechanism designed to allow targeted EU-wide monitoring 
of  substances  of  possible  concern  to  support  the  prioritisation  process  in  future  reviews  of  the  priority 
substances list. 
209 Since 2013, the Directive has also required Member States to monitor substances on a  watch list to gather 
information to support the review of the priority substances list (see Section 2.1). 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Monitoring 

Innovative technologies to improve data and reduce costs 

Looking  towards  the  future,  experts  have  indicated  in  interviews  that  the  uptake  of  novel 
technologies  could  be better and that some technical  annexes and guidance documents take 
too  prescriptive  an  approach.  However,  there  seem  to  be  no  legal  barriers  in  the WFD  that 
would  prevent  the  uptake  of  innovative  monitoring  technologies,  should  these  provide 
equivalent results in terms of accuracy and reliability. Guidance documents could be adapted 
to cater for such novel technologies. The use of satellite data for surveillance and operational 
monitoring has for example great potential to better standardise collection of specific types of 
data across Europe and enhance confidence in WFD classification by enhancing both spatial 
coverage  and  frequency  of  monitoring  of  variables.  Currently  there  are  several  ongoing 
projects  developing  satellite  products  for  WFD  monitoring  from  the  European  Space 
Agency’s  Copernicus  programme210.  Furthermore,  the  growing  use  of  citizen  science  and 
smartphone applications can not only provide greater coverage and potentially reduced costs, 
but  can  also  deliver  greater  public  understanding  and  engagement  in  water  management211. 
Significant progress has also been made on monitoring aquatic ecosystems using automated 
sensor  technologies  and  flying,  floating  and  submerged  drones  equipped  with  multi-
sensors212.  

Surveillance vs operational monitoring 

The distinction made in the WFD between surveillance and operational monitoring has led, in 
some  cases,  to  double  reporting  of  monitoring  sites  which  are  used  for  both  purposes.  As 
surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  are  often  included  by  Member  States  in  different 
monitoring  programmes,  which  are  not  necessarily  fully  coordinated,  this  distinction  may 
also lead, in some cases, to a sub-optimal use of monitoring sites. 

A  simplification  of  the  types  of  monitoring  required  by  the  WFD  could  have  some  limited 
impact in terms of resources needed for monitoring and reporting, reducing the likelihood of 
duplicating the reporting and providing an incentive for a better overall coordination of the 
monitoring  effort.  It  would  also  eliminate  the  possibility  for  different  interpretations  of  the 
monitoring requirements. 

Alignment of reporting with other directives 

One  way  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden  of  reporting  is  by  making  cross-references  and 
using  available  data  for  several  purposes.  For example,  several  reporting elements  have been 
aligned  between  the  WFD  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD),  with  a 
common  typology  of  measures  being  used  for  the  two  directives.  Another  example  is  the 
streamlining  between  the  RBMPs  and  the  EEA’s  State  of  Waters  report,  through  which  all 
spatial data on river basin districts and sub-units, water bodies and environmental monitoring 
sites are now managed jointly and have to be reported only once when common to the two 
reporting  flows.  Nonetheless,  in  some  cases  differences  in  data  requirements  can  be  justified 
because of differences in the Directives’ objectives and provisions in the same policy area.  

210 E.g. EOMORES www.eomores-h2020.eu; CYMONS https://business.esa.int/projects/cymons; 
CHLO4MSFD http://chlo4msfd.azti.es/; EUNOSAT: Joint Monitoring Programme of the EUtrophication of the 
NOrth-Sea with SATellite data. 
211 E.g. www.brc.ac.uk/app/bloomin-algae-app; www.ub.edu/fem/index.php/ en/inici-riunet-en or EU Project 
groundtruth2.0 http://gt20.eu/. 
212 Duffy et al (2018). 

76 

 
 
 
                                                 
There  are  some  examples,  however,  where  similar  data  are  being  requested,  reported  and 
published  separately.  The  assessment  of  action  programmes  (or  derogations)  under  the  Nitrates 
Directive requires more detailed and specific data linked to pollution than the more generic need 
under  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  which  looks  at  all  sources  of  nutrient  pollution.  The 
reporting also happens at different times, not allowing for the direct use of information reported 
under  one  directive  to  provide  data  for  the  other.  It  is  therefore  important  to  coordinate  these 
reporting  processes  better  and  improve  communication  of  the  results  to  the  public  in  order  to 
explain the differences in a better way213. 

However,  according  to  the  fitness  check  of  reporting  and  monitoring  of  EU  environmental 
policy there are limits on how far reporting can be streamlined. One reason for this is that less 
frequent  reporting  would  lead  to  reduced  information  benefits  and  would  jeopardise  the 
Directives’ correct application and enforcement. More importantly, however, Member States 
may not have the capacity to carry out all reporting at the same time. Overall, this may only 
lead to rather limited savings. For example, savings have been estimated at €159,000 if the 
reporting  cycle  of  the  Nitrates  Directive  and  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive 
were to be aligned with the WFD cycle214. 

Modernisation of data management and digital transformation of the water community 

In some cases  Member  State authorities have not  yet  sufficiently modernised their data and 
information  management;  doing  so  would  contribute  to  delivering  on  the  efficient 
implementation of the Directives. Some Member States have started initiatives in the context 
of  the  2016-2020  EU  eGovernment  action  plan215,  which  has  helped  them  to  minimise 
administrative  burden.  Work  is  also  ongoing  in  the  research  community  to  set  out  the 
necessary steps the water community needs to take to ensure digital transformation216. 

Simplification of the reporting process 

The majority of respondents in the public consultation (60%, n=461) consider that the current 
reporting  needs  to  be  revised,  improved  or  simplified.  Of  the  respondents  indicating  they 
consider this to be the case, the highest proportion is among EU citizens (34%) and industries 
(18%),  public  authorities  (15%)  and  industry  associations  (12%).  Overall,  the  survey 
respondents highlighted that while reporting and monitoring are essential to implementing the 
vision and ambitions of the Directives, the reporting  system in place is  complex. Reporting 
systems  also  require  a  very  large  amount  of  data  and  are  resource-intensive,  requiring 
significant human and financial resources. At the same time, the positive role of the common 
implementation  strategy  in  establishing  and  streamlining  reporting  procedures  has  been 
noted.  Input  from  NGOs  in  the  public  consultation  (additional  comments)  pointed  to 
significant  differences  in  the  information  to  be  reported  between  WISE  and  the  RBMPs, 
noting that there is scope to improve the efficient use of resources. 

Simplification  of  the  reporting  process  is  ongoing,  as  described  above,  mainly  to  avoid  the 
need to report every 6 years information that does not change over time, such as the spatial 
location of different features (RBDs, water bodies, monitoring points), and to avoid repetition 
of data in different parts of the report. 

213 European Commission — SWD(2017) 230. 
214 ICF, IEEP and Denkstatt (2017). 
215 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/european-egovernment-action-plan-2016-2020 
216 See e.g. the Digital Single Market for Water services Action Plan developed by EU funded ICT4Water FP7 
& H2020 projects' cluster: https://www.ict4water.eu 

77 

 
 
 
                                                 
One  case  in  which  significant  progress  has  been  made  concerns  reporting  on  the 
implementation  of  measures.  Due  to  large  differences  in  the  way  individual  measures  were 
defined by different Member States, the information on the implementation of those measures 
was  in  many  cases  very  complex,  and  it  was  almost  impossible  to  draw  conclusions  from 
them.  For  the  second  RBMPs,  an  agreed  set  of  key  types  of  measures  was  developed, 
allowing for the grouping of all measures into a relatively small number of key types, which 
then formed the basis for the reporting on implementation. 

Similarly, a number of common indicators has been defined for the assessment of the gap to 
good status and of the contribution of measures to fill that gap. Although Member States have 
the  possibility  to  report  additional  indicators  they  regard  as  more  appropriate  in  their 
situation,  this  common  set  of  indicators  has  significantly  improved  the  Commission’s 
capability to aggregate data from different Member States. 

For the Floods Directive, the reporting guidance for the second implementation period (2016-
2021)  has  been  updated  by  the  Commission  in  close  cooperation  with  the  Member  States. 
This has led to a significant reduction in terms of textual information to be provided by the 
Member States and the introduction of predefined lists of options to choose from.  

Harmonisation of spatial data 

In addition to the more permanent character of spatial data, mentioned above, which enables 
Member States to avoid having to repeat the same information every 6 years, spatial data also 
plays  a  major  role  in  the  ability  to  jointly  analyse  information  from  different  sources. 
However,  as  the  reporting  under  different  obligations  is  generally  managed  by  different 
organisations in the Member States, the spatial data reported under them were generally not 
harmonised and were presented in  ways which  were not  compatible  among each other.  For 
this reason, the Commission and the EEA have been working on harmonising the spatial data 
reported  under  different  reporting  requirements  (EU  directives,  ‘State  of  Environment’ 
voluntary requirement to the EEA). 

This  harmonisation  has already led to  the merger of the spatial  databases for the WFD, the 
‘State of Environment’ reporting and the Bathing Water Directive. It  will also be gradually 
expanded to other instruments. In a more limited way, some harmonisation has been reached 
with the UWWTD and the Habitats  and Birds Directives concerning reporting on protected 
areas relevant to the WFD.  

In addition to this work on harmonisation of spatial reporting, the EEA is currently working 
to replace its current Reportnet system with a new generation system, Reportnet 3.0, which is 
expected  to  enable  a  much  higher  degree  of  coordination.  Together  with  the  full 
implementation of the INSPIRE Directive, this should eventually lead to the replacement of 
most  of  the  formal  reporting  to  the  Commission/EEA  with  the  availability  of  all  the 
information  at  national  level  through  INSPIRE-compliant  ‘services’,  which  can  be  used  by 
the Commission and the EEA to extract all the information needed for the assessments. 

Public consultation 

As discussed in the section on effectiveness, the requirement to hold public consultations on 
the RBMPs and FRMPs has increased public participation and led to tangible changes to the 
plans  (see  Section  5.1.2).  While  the  requirement  of  public  consultation  as  such  was  not 
challenged in the public consultation, a position paper from a group of Member States’ Water 

78 

 
 
 
Directors (‘Consultation  group’) argued that the public consultation  requirements should be 
less  prescriptive,  e.g.  allowing  more  flexible  consultation  periods.  The  need  for  publicly 
understandable  information  is  also  mentioned  in  this  regard.  Respondents  to  the  NGO 
campaign  acknowledged  that  the  public  consultation  requirement  has  led  to  a  substantial 
improvement  in  transparency  and  public  participation,  but  they  also  indicate  that  the 
consultations  insufficiently  involve  environmental  groups  and  the  general  public.  This  is 
particularly relevant as 98% of the respondents involved in the campaign are members of the 
public.  In  their  contributions  to  the  public  consultation,  environmental  groups  and 
representatives  of  the  water  sector  also  pointed  to  the  importance  of  being  involved  at  an 
early stage in the RBMP development process, while the first group also highlighted the need 
to have access to background documents 

5.3.  Coherence 

The coherence analysis assesses the Directives’  

 

 

‘internal’  coherence,  meaning  the  assessment  of  how  different  components  of  the 
intervention operate together (Section 5.3.1);  
‘external’  coherence,  meaning  the  Directives’  interaction  with  other  interventions  at 
EU level (Section 5.3.2); and  

  coherence with the EU’s international obligations (Section 5.3.3).  

The analysis in this section is supplemented in Annex 5. 

5.3.1: ‘To what extent is the legislation coherent internally?’ 

Overall response:  

Having  been  devised  in  sequence  and  in  a  way  that  is  complementary  to  each  other,  the  WFD, 
EQSD,  GWD  and  FD  for  the  most  part  form  an  internally  coherent  package.  Their  introduction 
reduced the number of different EU water acts.  

The main issue identified on internal coherence relates to chemicals, specifically to  the distinction 
made  between  ‘priority  substances  and  certain  other pollutants’,  which  are listed  at  EU level and 
included in  the  chemical  status,  and  ‘river  basin-specific  pollutants’ (RBSPs), which  are  listed  at 
Member State level and included in the ecological status. The variability in the RBSPs is broader 
than can be explained by location-specific conditions, and there are significant differences between 
the environmental quality standards set by different Member States for the same substances. This is 
an example of an issue where the flexibility left to the Member States has led to sub-optimal results. 

The WFD, complemented by the EQSD and GWD, introduced streamlining and simplification  

Achieving  greater  policy  coherence  within  European  water  policy  was  a  key  reason  for 
introducing  the  Water  Framework  Directive.  Indeed,  the  Water  Framework  Directive  has 
brought  about  a  very  significant  streamlining  and  simplification  of  EU  water  legislation, 
progressively  reducing217  the  number  of  Water  Directives  from  18  to  9.  As  such,  the 
Directive  has  eliminated  potential  double  requirements  in  the  field  of  water  legislation  and 
considerably reduced the risk of contradiction between different instruments.  

217 Until 2013, see Article 22 of the Water Framework Directive. 

79 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The EQSD and GWD were introduced after the WFD to complement it by providing specific 
requirements  that  were  not  spelled  out  in  detail  in  the  WFD  itself  (regarding  the  list  of 
relevant pollutants, the setting of threshold values for chemical status, monitoring, assessment 
of trends and the drawing up of measures for groundwater). 

Therefore no major issues of incoherence have been found with regard to how the different 
components of the Directives’ respective intervention logics operate together.  

Of those respondents to the public consultation who answered on this point, 75% considered 
the Directives to be mostly or fully coherent internally218. 

The Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive 

The WFD and the FD have a high level of synergy between them. The FD contributes to the 
objectives  of  the  WFD  by  reducing  the  risks  from  floods  to  the  aquatic  environment,  e.g. 
from polluting substances carried by floodwaters. Conversely, WFD measures to restore the 
hydromorphology  of  water  bodies  can  contribute  strongly  to  reducing  flood  risk.  The 
re-meandering of rivers reduces the speed of water flow (by forcing the river to run in curves) 
and increases the length of the river and consequently the volume of water it is able to carry. 
In cases where there are conflicts between the objectives of the FD and the WFD, e.g. when 
modifications  to  water  bodies  are  necessary  to  protect  human  lives  and  settlements  from 
floods, the WFD has provisions enabling assessment of whether an intervention is  properly 
justified and whether the mitigation of any negative effects is required219.  

The objectives and reporting cycles of the FD are aligned with those of the WFD. In practice, 
coordination between the WFD and the FD takes place in several ways: a few Member States 
have prepared joint plans, and in at least nine Member States, the FRMPs describe measures 
in terms of their WFD objectives. In more than half of the Member States, consultations on 
the draft FRMPs and RBMPs were carried out together, while in nearly all Member States the 
same  authorities  prepared  both  plans,  and  almost  all  Member  States  designated  units  of 
management under the FD corresponding to the RBDs designated under the WFD. During the 
targeted consultation, two Member State representatives and NGOs commented that there are 
some  potential  shortcomings  in  implementation,  in  particular  in  ensuring  that  the  measures 
taken to implement the WFD and FD are coherent in achieving each other’s objectives. 

Despite the overall conclusion that the four Directives are largely coherent with one another, 
a few inconsistencies were identified. 

Priority substances vs river basin-specific pollutants 

The main area where the Directives lack coherence is in relation to chemicals, in particular 
the distinction made in the WFD between ‘priority substances and certain other pollutants’, 
which  are  listed  at  EU  level  and  included  in  chemical  status,  and  river  basin-specific 
pollutants (RBSPs), which are listed at Member State level and included in ecological status.  

218 NGOs appear to find the Directives more fully coherent internally than the average respondent does. Most of 
the respondents who viewed the Directives as not coherent are EU citizens. 
219 In the past, the Commission and Member States produced a document on the links between the FD and the 

WFD. A document on the links between the FD and the Nature Directives is in preparation. 
https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/9ab5926d-bed4-4322-9aa7-9964bbe8312d/library/a2edd7d0-8d12-4550-
a8de-9579423b457c?p=2&n=10&sort=modified_DESC 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The table below gives an overview of the main differences: 

Priority substances 

River basin-specific pollutants 

Scope 

EU-wide  

River basin-specific  

Legal basis 

Listed in Annex X to the WFD; 
corresponding EQS set in the 
EQSD, updated every 6 years 

Deadlines 

2015, 2021 or 2027 depending on 
the date of inclusion in Annex X to 
the WFD/date of any tightening of 
the EQS 

Identified by Member States based on WFD 
Annexes II (1.4 Identification of pressures) 
and VIII (Indicative list of the main 
pollutants); corresponding EQS set following 
Annex  V (1.2.6) as updated by CIS 
Guidance Document No 27 

2015 with possibility of exemptions until 
2027 

Contributes to  Chemical status (2 classes) 

Ecological status (5 classes) 

Inventory of 
emissions 

Required for priority substances 
and 8 other pollutants 

Not required 

While the flexibility to leave the definition of RBSPs to the Member States is justified based 
on  differences  in  legacy  pollution,  current  polluting  activities  or  natural  background 
concentrations, the second-cycle RBMPs show a larger variability than can be explained by 
location-specific  conditions.  Indeed,  although  some  Member  States  have  a  considerable 
number of common challenges, the number of RBSPs identified by the Member States ranges 
from  2  to  more  than  100  substances  listed  nationally.  In  many  cases,  RBSPs  have  been 
selected  because  monitoring  data  already  existed  or  because  there  had  been  a  significant 
problem with a given substance in the past220.  

Member  States  should  use  a  harmonised  methodology221  to  derive  EQSs  for  (potential) 
RBSPs, but they often derive different EQSs for the same substance. This means that they do 
not consistently identify all relevant substances as RBSPs222, or do not report the same extent 
of failure to meet the EQSs for the relevant RBSPs, even when a substance is present at the 
same  concentration223.  This  is  an  instance  where  the  flexibility  left  to  the  Member  States 
leads  to  sub-optimal  results.  This  is  also  a  case  of  incoherence  that  several  stakeholders 
(including  industry  associations  and  one  Member  State  representative)  mentioned  in  the 
consultation. The fact that the legal deadline for meeting the environmental quality standards 
for RBSPs cannot be adapted does not  encourage Member States to add substances to their 
lists, even though it is  important  to  regularly update the lists of substances based on up-to-
date knowledge.  

The role of hydromorphological quality elements in the assessment of ecological status 

A  further  point  of  incoherence  in  the  WFD  concerns  the  role  of  hydromorphology  in 
determining the ecological status of water bodies. In contrast to the physico-chemical quality 
elements,  which  are  explicitly  required  for  the  classification  of  good  and  high  ecological 
status,  the  hydromorphological  quality  elements  are  explicitly  only  required  for  the 

220 Wood (2019). 
221 CIS (2018) Guidance Document No 27. 
222 Because they may not identify a risk at all if the EQS is less stringent. 
223  There  are  also  differences  in  the  way  Member  States  have  distinguished  between  priority  substances  and 
RBSPs in their reporting. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
classification of high status. This has led to differences in the way Member States have used 
those  elements  for  status  classification  and  in  the  information  reported.  For  example,  a 
significant  number  of  Member  States  have  not  reported  any  assessment  results  for 
hydromorphological  quality  elements  in  their  second  RBMPs.  This  is  problematic  because 
the  assessment  of  supporting  quality  elements  for  each  class  is  necessary  for  several 
important aspects of the implementation. For example, defining ecological flow is necessary 
for the development of appropriate measures. 

5.3.2: ‘To what extent is the legislation consistent with wider EU policy?’ 

Overall response:  

There are a multitude of links between the legislation under this fitness check and other EU laws 
and policies.  

The Directives are broadly coherent with the other parts of the EU’s water acquis. The measures set 
under  the  Drinking  Water,  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  and  Nitrates  Directives  are  listed  in 
Annex  VI  to  the  WFD  as  ‘basic  measures’.  If  fully  implemented,  they  should  contribute  to 
achieving the WFD objectives, along with the additional ‘supplementary measures’ also laid down 
by  the  WFD.  Similarly,  the  WFD  and  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  are  interlinked  and 
complementary.  

As  regards  wider  environmental  policy,  there  is  overall  strong  coherence  and  complementarity, 
even  though  there  is  still  room  to  increase synergies and  streamline implementation,  for  example 
with (other) EU chemicals legislation.  

Concerning  EU  sectoral  policies,  progress  has  been  made  on  better  integration  of  water-related 
issues thanks to the adoption of the water legislation and of instruments to reduce the impacts of 
economic activities on water. However, there are still issues of incoherence with sectoral policies, 
which  can  hinder  the  achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  daughter  directives;  areas 
identified  include  agriculture,  energy  and  transport.  These  issues  could  be  related  to  a  lack  of 
integration between policies at early stages of the strategy development or the planning processes. 
Full integration of the WFD and daughter directives’ objectives into the strategic orientations and 
incentives  of  the  economic  sectors  responsible  for  the  main  pressures  on  water  is  not  yet  fully 
achieved, and in some sectors would require a paradigm shift in approach.  

Given  the  omnipresence  of  water  in  nature  and  the  economy,  there  are  many  interactions 
between the Directives covered by this fitness check and other pieces of EU legislation. This 
section first assesses coherence with the other pieces of EU water legislation, then coherence 
with  other  environmental  policies,  and  finally  coherence  with  other  sectoral  policies.  The 
analysis  of  this  section  is  complemented  by  Annex  5.  For  coherence  with  other  EU  water 
legislation,  Annex  5  includes  additional  information  on  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive  and  the  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  Directive.  For  coherence  with  other 
environmental policies, it covers nature and biodiversity, the strategy for climate change and 
the  green  infrastructure  strategy,  chemicals,  industrial  emissions,  air  quality,  waste  and 
sewage  sludge  and  soil  protection.  Finally,  for  coherence  with  other  EU  policies,  Annex  5 
includes complementary information on agriculture, transport — inland navigation, the Union 
Civil Protection Mechanism, fishing and aquaculture, and non-energy extractive industries.   

82 

 
 
 
 
Figure  20:  Interlinkages  between  the  Directives  subject  to  this  fitness  check  and  the  most 
relevant pieces of EU legislation 

Consistency  with  other  components  of  the  EU’s  environmental  legislation  affecting 
water quality 

The WFD, its daughter directives and the FD address both environmental and human health 
protection. They are broadly consistent with the other parts of the EU’s water acquis, such as 
the  Drinking  Water  Directive  (DWD224),  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive 
(UWWTD),  the  Bathing  Water  Directive,  the  Nitrates  Directive,  and  the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework Directive. 

The objectives of these directives complement each other by addressing different aspects of 
water protection. The objectives of the Drinking Water and Bathing Water Directives address 
human health issues, while the objectives of the Nitrates Directive and the UWWTD (in turn 
complemented  by  the  Sewage  Sludge  Directive225)  focus  on  reducing  pressures  on  the 
environment  (nutrient enrichment, organic pollution and contamination by metals) and thus 
contribute to achieving the WFD objectives226. The implementation of these directives is part 
of the ‘basic measures’ under the WFD (see Section 2). However, the contribution of those 
measures  to  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  is  not  always  assessed,  even  though  it  is 
crucial for planning supplementary measures under the WFD.  

224  Coherence  with  the  Drinking  Water  Directive  is  addressed  through  the  protection  of  sources  of  drinking 
water under the Water Framework Directive Article 7. While the standards in the Drinking Water Directive for 
nitrates and pesticides are explicitly included in the GWD in Annex I, this is not the case for surface water. 
225 See Annex 5 on Coherence — additional information on the coherence of water policy with wider EU policy. 
226  In  particular,  Article 10  of  the  WFD  introduced  the  concept  of  the  ‘combined  approach’  that  connects 
achieving the objective of good status with the control of diffuse and point pollution sources under the Urban 
Waste  Water,  Nitrates,  Environmental  Quality  Standards  and  Industrial  Emissions  Directives.  Article 6  of  the 
WFD  stipulates  that  Member  States  should  make  a  register  of  protected  areas.  The  register  should  include 
drinking  water  protected  areas  (DWPAs),  areas  covered  by  the  Bathing  Water  Directive,  Nitrates  Directive 
(nutrient-sensitive areas) and Natura 2000 sites, and waters with economically significant aquatic species. 

83 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
A few challenges in this wider framework of EU water legislation have been identified, these 
are set out below. 

The Drinking Water Directive 
The evaluation of the DWD227 found no legal discrepancies between the DWD and WFD and 
GWD. However, it concluded that insufficient implementation of the WFD stands in the way 
of achieving the objectives of the DWD, despite the obligation for Member States to identify 
bodies of water for the abstraction of drinking water and to protect them in accordance with 
Article 7 of the WFD.  

The  parametric  values  (standards)  for  pesticides  (individual  and  total)  and  for  nitrates  in 
drinking water are supported by identical quality standards in the GWD. However, EQSs for 
pesticides in surface waters are often different from the DWD and GWD individual pesticide 
standards  because  of  the  way  in  which  they  are  determined,  which  among  other  things 
involves taking into account a treatment factor228. Furthermore, there is no standard for total 
pesticides in surface waters, which could mean that even if all individual EQSs are complied 
with, the total might exceed the drinking water parametric value, even when adjusting for the 
treatment factor. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in the conception of and how to deal 
with  relevant  and  non-relevant  metabolites  as  defined  in  Article 3(32)  of  Regulation  (EC) 
No 1107/2009 on the placing of plant protection products on the market. In the consultation, 
representatives  from  the  water  service  companies  pointed  to  insufficient  implementation  of 
the  polluter  pays  principle.  They  stated  that  the  need  to  treat  drinking  water  is  increasing, 
which comes at a cost to consumers. 

The DWD recast proposal229 includes a new specific hazard assessment of areas used for the 
abstraction of drinking water230, while its provisions seek to clarify obligations and increase 
coherence between the DWD and the WFD. 

The Nitrates Directive 

The  Nitrates  Directive  aims  to  protect  water  quality  across  Europe  by  preventing  nitrates 
from  agricultural  sources  polluting  ground  and  surface  waters  and  by  promoting  the  use  of 
good  farming  practices.  It  requires  Member  States  to  establish  a  voluntary  code  of  good 
agricultural  practices  and  a  mandatory  action  programme,  which  is  applied  within  nitrate 
vulnerable zones (NVZs).  

The  main  challenge  regarding  the  interaction  between  the  WFD  and  the  Nitrates  Directive 
lies  in  implementing  the  legislation  rather  than  in  the  legislative  framework  itself.  While 

227 REFIT evaluation of the Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-drink/pdf/SWD_2016_428_F1.pdf 
228 The EQSs for priority substances are set on the basis of the most sensitive protection goal. This goal is often 
aquatic  wildlife,  and  the  standards  are  often  stricter  than  the  DWD  standards  for  the  same  substances.  For 
substances  where  the  most  sensitive  protection  goal  is  human  health  via  drinking  water,  CIS  Technical 
Guidance Document No 27 (2018) explains how the EQSs should be calculated. It states that ‘A treatment factor 
should be applied to the drinking water threshold so that the QSdw, hh relates to the ‘raw’  water (i.e. it is an 
‘environmental’ standard). Drinking  water thresholds and treatment processes used to achieve them  should be 
taken into account in determining quality standards for water abstraction resources. This should have regard to 
Article 7 of the WFD  with reference  where appropriate to simple treatment.’ The  guidance document  favours 
the use of the WHO drinking water guideline value as the threshold if different from the DWD parametric value. 
229 European Commission COM(2017) 753 final. 
230  To  avoid  any  duplication  of  obligations,  when  Member  States  carry  out  the  hazard  assessment  they  are 
required to make use of the monitoring and measures performed under the WFD. 

84 

 
 
 
                                                 
Member States can in theory adopt compulsory measures outside the NVZs and deadlines in 
order to meet the WFD objective, in practice this is not often done. Furthermore, there is also 
some  inconsistency  between  the  designation  of  NVZs  (and  sensitive  areas  under  the 
UWWTD) and the assessment of ecological status. This is because not all Member States link 
the  assessment  of  ‘eutrophication’  required  by  the  Nitrates  Directive  with  WFD  ecological 
status.  To  improve  coherence  and  consistency,  a  CIS  guidance  document  was  published  in 
2009  on  the  assessment  of  eutrophication231.  Nonetheless,  reporting  under  the  Nitrates 
Directive  in  2016  showed  that  the  methodologies  used  to  assess  eutrophication  still  varied 
widely among Member States and often were not well linked to the WFD quality elements232. 
Efforts are continuing to improve coherence and synergies at Member State and EU levels. 

Expert stakeholders in the public consultation also noted, including in some position papers, 
that  effective  implementation  of  the  GWD  requires  full  implementation  of  the  Nitrates 
Directive. 

The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 

The  UWWTD  has  been  evaluated  in  a  parallel  process  to  this  fitness  check.  The  separate 
evaluation  finds  that  while  the  UWWTD  and  WFD  take  different  approaches  to  water 
management and tackling emissions to water, there is no legal incoherence that undermines 
the achievement of the objectives of either piece of legislation. Implementing the UWWTD 
helps Member States reach their objectives under the WFD233. 

However,  the  UWWTD  evaluation  also  found  that  insufficient  implementation  of  the 
UWWTD limits how effectively it can contribute to achieving the WFD objectives234. About 
12% of all surface water bodies fail to meet good status due to waste water pressures.  

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

The WFD and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive are coherent with one another and 
complementary. As the MSFD was introduced after the WFD, in 2008, its drafting was able 
to follow a similar structure to the WFD and complement its content. There are geographical 
overlaps  between  the  MSFD  and  WFD;  coastal  waters  are  covered  by  both,  and  territorial 
waters  are  covered  by  both  as  regards  priority  substances235.  The  Directives  have 
complementary objectives: good status (ecological and chemical) under the WFD and good 
environmental status236 under the MSFD. To ensure consistency between the objectives and 

231 CIS (2003) Guidance Document No 23. 
232 European Commission (2018) — COM (2018) 257 final. 
233 Annex I to the UWWTD states that more stringent treatment needs to be applied to waste water when this 
helps to ensure that the receiving waters satisfy the objectives of any other relevant directives. 
234 Reaching the objectives of the WFD depends on the basic  measures being fully implemented and on those 
measures functioning well. For instance, the UWWTD evaluation has shown that where and when the Directive 
is fully implemented, it has been effective at dealing with urban waste water. According to the latest reporting 
data  under  the  UWWTD,  implementation  levels  reach  an  EU  average  of  80-95%,  although  the  average  hides 
substantial  diversity  among  Member  States’  implementation  levels.  However,  the  UWWTD  evaluation  has 
shown that the Directive  has  some  shortcomings,  for example in  how it addresses storm  water overflows and 
individual and  other appropriate  systems. These shortcomings translate into pressure to surface  waters; 4% of 
EU surface  water bodies  fail  good ecological  status,  with storm  water overflows being one of  the reasons  for 
this. 
235 WFD chemical status is applicable out to 12 nautical miles, while WFD ecological status is applicable only 
out to 1 nautical mile. 
236 There are 11 MSFD descriptors determining good environmental status; these cover ecological and chemical 
issues as well as marine litter and noise. 

85 

 
 
 
                                                 
status  assessments,  the  MSFD  clearly  specifies  that  Member  States  must  use  WFD 
assessment criteria and follow WFD requirements in the overlapping areas237. Around 30% of 
the measures to achieve the MSFD objectives are planned in the RBMPs, and the MSFD and 
WFD use some similar quality elements.  

In  practice,  some  challenges  have  been  encountered.  For  concentrations  of  contaminants, 
Member States have to consider the priority substances and RBSPs already identified under 
the WFD. However, they can also draw up a list of additional contaminants that may give rise 
to pollution effects238. This was done in the 2018 MSFD reporting cycle, in which the 2016 
WFD assessments in coastal and territorial waters were reused239. The fact that some Member 
States used their corresponding Regional Seas Convention (RSC) assessment instead of the 
WFD  data  for  some  descriptors  is  an  indication  that  those  Member  States  do  not  find  the 
WFD results sufficiently compatible with their offshore assessments. This suggests a possible 
need to align the methodologies and quality thresholds used under the WFD and by the RSCs. 
Some expert respondents involved in consultation240 stated that some EQS values used under 
the  WFD  are  not  appropriate  for  marine  waters241,  although  the  EQSD  does  distinguish 
between inland and other surface waters.  

A further area is sediments. Sediments are transported from river basins to marine areas, but 
in many river basins there are insufficient or no management measures for sediments at river 
basin  level.  This  can  be  an  issue  for  marine  habitats  when  the  supply  of  sediment  is 
insufficient to prevent or compensate for coastal erosion. The MSFD status assessment places 
specific  emphasis  on  contaminants  in  sediments.  In  contrast,  the  WFD,  while  allowing 
Member  States  to  set  EQSs  for  sediments,  addresses  such  contamination  primarily  in  the 
context  of  the  trend-monitoring  requirement  under  the  EQSD.  Some  stakeholders,  in 
particular from the navigation sector, expressed concern that the interplay between the WFD 
and MSFD does not function well enough on sediment management. 

Further information is included in Annex 5. 

Coherence with other EU policies addressing environmental protection  

The WFD and FD are closely linked with other environmental directives and policies, such as 
those  on  nature  and  biodiversity,  chemicals  and  air  quality.  As  the  objectives  of  EU  water 
policy contribute to those of other EU environmental policies and vice versa, they should be 
implemented in a synergetic way242. 

237 For eutrophication and contaminant assessments, MSFD descriptors 5 and 8. 
238  As  stated  in  the  MSFD  Commission  Decision  2017/848  of  17 May  2017  laying  down  criteria  and 
methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters and specifications and standardised 
methods for monitoring and assessment, and repealing Decision 2010/477/EU. 

239 As required by Decision (EU) 2017/848. 
240 Information from interviews (with representatives from the navigation sector, the Regional Sea Convention 
and others). 
241 For example, concerns were raised that it may not be appropriate to use food standards when other toxicity 
data are not available, and that when biota standards are applied there are differences in the corrections applied 
for ‘trophic level’ (how far up the food chain the sampled organism is) and in whether whole organisms or only 
certain tissues are analysed. 
242  Coherence  with  EU  climate  action  is  discussed  in  Section  5.3.3  and  Annex  5,  which  complements  the 
analysis of this section; in addition, climate change and its links to the Directives covered by this fitness check is 
discussed in Section 5.4.1. 

86 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Nature and biodiversity 

The  WFD  and  the  EU’s  nature  and  biodiversity  policies  and  legislation  are  fully  coherent 
with each other, and have mutually supportive objectives. Water bodies with good ecological 
status, for example, create resilient and healthy ecosystems that support rich biodiversity, and 
which also  make aquatic ecosystems  better able to  withstand the presence of invasive alien 
species.  The  WFD  requires  the  objectives  of  the  Nature  Directives  to  be  fully  taken  into 
account in river basin planning and other water management decisions to be fully consistent 
with objectives for protected areas243.  

The EU biodiversity strategy sets targets for ecosystem restoration that are consistent with the 
objectives of the WFD and that contribute to the protection of freshwater ecosystems in the 
broader  EU  biodiversity  protection  context.  Some  conflicts  have  been  mentioned  in  the 
implementation of the WFD and the Nature Directives in specific cases.  

Information exchanges at EU level during the implementation of the WFD, FD, MFSD and 
Nature  Directives  have  become  common244.  A  process  has  been  established  to  periodically 
bring  together  the  heads  of  EU  and  national  administrations  to  discuss  ways  to  enhance 
synergies and avoid potential conflicts. Further information is included in Annex 5. 

Synergies with the FD occur through the implementation of natural water retention measures. 
These  aim  to  protect  and  manage  water  resources  using  natural  means  and  processes  by 
replacing grey infrastructure (e.g. dams or dykes) with green infrastructure (e.g. floodplains 
restoration).  This  also  has  a  positive  impact  on  protected  habitats  and  species.  Further 
information is included in Annex 5. 

An integrated approach to protecting the sturgeon 

An  example  of  integration  between  several  policies  is  the  protection  of  the  sturgeon.  Once 
abundant  in  many  European  rivers  and  adjacent  coastal  areas,  the  sturgeon  is  today  among 
the most threatened species at global scale and is facing extinction in Europe. Concerted EU 
action  has  been  launched  to  react  to  this  problem,  where  the  WFD’s  objectives  are  being 
pursued  in  coordination  with  and  complemented  by  other  EU  laws  (the  UWWTD,  the 
Nitrates  Directive,  the  MSFD,  Nature  Directives,  Wildlife  Trade  Regulations  and  CITES), 
policies  (biodiversity  strategy,  common  fisheries  policy,  macro-regional  strategies),  EU 
funding instruments (LIFE, ESI Funds including Interreg245) and awareness-raising activities 
via  the  #EU  protects  campaign.  A  concrete  case  of  such  action  is  the  International 
Commission  for  the  Protection  of  the  Danube  River  (ICPDR),  which  is  searching  for 
solutions to manage dams that prevent the migration of sturgeon and other fish species in the 
Danube  River  Basin.  With  EU  funding,  the  ICPDR  started  the  work  on  a  feasibility  study 
analysing options for fish (i.e. sturgeon) migration and conservation at the Iron Gates. 

243 See e.g. Article 6 WFD and Annexes IV and VI, which contain explicit cross-references to protected areas 
mentioned in the Nature Directives. 
244 European Commission (2015) - Workshop Summary Report. 
245 Interreg provides a framework for joint action between Member States to address common challenges such as 
water  management,  including  opportunities  for  cross-border,  transnational  and  interregional  cooperation, 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/ 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Chemicals 

The  European  framework  of  legislation  on  chemicals  includes  more  than  40  policies, 
covering  all  aspects  of  the  lifecycle  of  chemicals  produced  in  and  imported  into  Europe.  It 
aims to protect human health and the environment from hazard and risks, thus contributing to 
achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD,  EQSD  and  GWD.  No  major  incoherences  between 
water  and  EU  chemical  legislation  were  found  in  the  analysis  carried  out  for  this  fitness 
check; this was confirmed by the feedback from stakeholders including public authorities and 
the  chemicals  industry246.  However,  the  need  for  a  more  coordinated  approach  in 
implementation was identified. 

Much of the EU’s chemicals legislation concerns the authorisation, approval or management 
of substances for particular uses. In this respect, it is ‘upstream’ of the WFD, and critical as a 
tool  for  controlling  ‘at  source’  the  presence  of  chemical  pollutants  in  the  aquatic 
environment,  by  reducing  or  phasing  out  emissions.  The  WFD  and  its  daughter  directives 
can,  by  ensuring  comprehensive  monitoring,  inform  decisions  taken  under  the  upstream 
legislation, and thus strengthen management measures. 247 

There  are  formal  links  between  the  WFD  and  the  EQSD  and  several  pieces  of  chemicals 
legislation. Under the WFD, the identification of substances posing a significant risk to or via 
the aquatic environment (the priority substances) has to take into account the risk assessments 
carried out  under the REACH Regulation,  the  Plant  Protection Products  Regulation and the 
Biocidal Products Regulation248. Conversely, those pieces of legislation are  required to take 
account of the monitoring of substances under the WFD, EQSD and GWD, and of the overall 
objectives  of  the  WFD.  If  necessary,  the  management  measures  in  place  for  particular 
substances should be reviewed to ensure that quality standards are met and emissions phased 
out if relevant. This ensures extensive coherence. The Classification, Labelling and Packaging 
(CLP)  Regulation  aims  to  ensure  that  risks  to  the  environment  or  human  health  from  using 
chemicals  are  minimised.  For  example,  the  labelling  under  the  CLP  Regulation  identifies 
substances that are toxic to the aquatic environment.  

In  terms  of  coherence  between  EU  chemicals  legislation,  the  WFD  was  referred  to  in  the 
recent  fitness  check  of  the  chemicals  legislation  except  REACH249  as  a  piece  of  legislation 
covering  chemical  risk  assessment  and  risk  management  measures.  The  chemicals  fitness 
check noted that the act of listing a substance as a priority substance does not in itself trigger 
action under other legislation, and that there may be no action in response to monitoring data 
until a substance is up for renewal, resulting in delay. The chemicals legislation fitness check 
also highlighted that risk assessment data linked to the authorising legislation are not always 
available for the priority substances review. The chemicals fitness check did, however, note 
that efforts are under way more widely in the EU to bring together risk assessment processes 
to avoid duplication of effort and to reduce the likelihood of divergent conclusions.  

Regarding  the  evidence  on  the  overall  body  of  chemicals  legislation,  the  chemicals  fitness 
check concluded that targeted EU policy and regulatory action on chemicals has resulted in 
successful reduction or, in many cases, minimisation of human and environmental exposures 
to a number of well-known individual hazardous chemicals (e.g. Tributyltin, TBT). However, 

246 This includes feedback received during specific interviews and workshops. 
247 EEA Report 7/2018. 
248 Co-formulants should be considered as well as active substances. 
249 European Commission (2019) — COM(2019) 264 and SWD(2019) 199. 

88 

 
 
 
                                                 
there are some ongoing  concerns including the widespread occurrence of persistent harmful 
substances such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers and the risks from exposure to mixtures of 
chemicals. 

On the designation of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and very persistent, very 
bioaccumulative (vPvB) substances, the chemicals fitness check concluded that there may be 
inconsistencies  in  the  conclusions  drawn  from  different  pieces  of  legislation.  These 
inconsistencies  are  due  to  differences  in  the  range  of  information  taken  into  account:  the 
WFD  process  takes  into  account  a  very  wide  range  and  the  evaluation  relying  on  expert 
judgement, whereas the Plant Protection Products Regulation takes a more narrow approach. 

The  possibility  for  the  pharmaceuticals  legislation  to  contribute  to  controlling  emissions  at 
source  is  mentioned  in  the  EQSD,  but  there  is  no  reference  to  the  WFD  objectives  in  the 
legislation on human or veterinary medicinal products. The pharmacovigilance legislation250 
refers to examining the scale of the problem of pharmaceuticals in the environment. This was 
reinforced by the obligation in the EQSD amendment of 2013 to adopt a strategic approach to 
pharmaceuticals in the environment, complementing the EQSD. The approach was translated 
into  a  communication251  in  March  2019,  identifying  actions  that  could  be  taken  under  the 
pharmaceuticals legislation to reduce emissions to the aquatic environment. 

The Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive252 aims to reduce the risks from pesticide use to 
human health and the environment and to promote integrated pest management. Overall, the 
legislation  is  coherent  with  the  WFD  and  its  proper  implementation  should  contribute  to 
achieving the WFD’s objectives. However, assessment of the Member States’ national action 
plans shows weaknesses in the implementation of integrated pest management and no robust 
strategy to reduce the use of pesticides. This compromises the ability of the Sustainable Use 
Directive to reduce water pollution. 

The  Detergents  Regulation  and  Fertilisers  Regulation  have  recently  been  evaluated253.  The 
Detergents  Regulation254  has  achieved  improved  biodegradability  of  detergent  products  and 
reduced the phosphorus content of detergents, thus reducing the discharge of phosphorus into 
surface waters, but it has not yet been possible to say how far this has reduced eutrophication. 
A  recent  evaluation  of  the  Fertilisers  Regulation255  looked  at  whether  the  Regulation 
sufficiently addresses the presence of contaminants that could run off into surface waters or 
leach  into  groundwater.  The  resulting  proposal256  led  to  a  new  regulation257  which  includes 
limits on the level of cadmium and some other metals in fertilising products, as well as limits 
on  polyaromatic  hydrocarbons.  It  remains  to  be  seen  how  far  the  new  restrictions  will 
improve  the  status  of  water  bodies  that  currently  fail  to  achieve  good  status  due  to  the 
presence of these substances. 

Further information is included in Annex 5. 

250 Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007. 
251 European Commission (2019) — SWD(2019) 128. 
252 Directive 2009/128/EC. 
253 European Commission (2019) — SWD(2019) 298 and SWD(2019) 299. 
254 Regulation (EC) No 648/2004. 
255 Regulation (EC) 2003/2003. 
256 European Commission (2016) — COM(2016) 157. 
257 Regulation (EU) 1009/2019. 

89 

 
 
 
                                                 
Industrial Emissions Directive 
The  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  (IED258)  requires  Member  States  to  prevent  or  reduce 
industrial  emissions  and  their  impact  on  the  environment.  It  includes  in  Article 18  an 
obligation to set stricter permit conditions if necessary to achieve compliance with (existing) 
environmental  quality  standards,  a  requirement  corresponding  to  Article 10  of  the  WFD259. 
Several  Member  State  representatives  have  expressed  concern  that  it  is  difficult  to  have 
conditions that are stricter than the best available technique-associated emission levels (BAT-
AELs) set under the  IED, which are not  always sufficient. Some industrial sectors say they 
have  encountered  difficulties  obtaining  permits  for  new  activities.  These  and  other  issues 
were discussed at a workshop on the implementation of the WFD and IED260.  

In the public  consultation,  305 stakeholders considered  coherence with  industrial  emissions 
policy, out of which 112 described it as fully coherent (37%), 98 as partially coherent (32%), 
35 as neither coherent nor incoherent (11%) and 60 as incoherent (20%261).  

The ongoing evaluation of the IED will complement these discussions and the findings of the 
present  fitness  check,  including  as  regards  whether  water  should  be  better  addressed  in  the 
best available techniques reference documents.  

Linked to the IED, the Regulation on the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register 
(E-PRTR262)  requires  registration  of  emissions.  The  Regulation  refers  to  the  WFD  priority 
substances,  and  Member  States  can  use  the  registration  exercise  for  their  inventories  of 
emissions  under  the  EQSD.  However,  additional  information  is  also  needed  because  of  the 
thresholds in the register and because not all sources are covered, in particular not all diffuse 
emissions.  

Further information is included in Annex 5. 

Air quality 
There  is  a  strong  link  between  the  EU  policies  on  water  and  air  quality263,  in  particular 
because  atmospheric  deposition  of  chemicals  and  of  nitrogen  is  identified  as  one  of  the 
pressures affecting water. It is important that Member States implement measures to meet the 
objectives  in  these  two  policy  areas  in  an  integrated  manner  so  that  overall  emissions  are 
reduced rather than shifted from air to water or vice versa. Feedback from expert stakeholders 

258 Directive 2010/75/EU. 
259 Recital 3 of the IED states the following: ‘Different approaches to controlling emissions into air, water or soil 
separately  may  encourage  the  shifting  of  pollution  from  one  environmental  medium  to  another  rather  than 
protecting  the  environment  as  a  whole.  It  is,  therefore,  appropriate  to  provide  for  an  integrated  approach  to 
prevention and control of emissions into air, water and soil, to waste management, to energy efficiency and to 
accident  prevention.  Such  an  approach  will  also  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  a  level  playing  field  in  the 
Union by aligning environmental performance requirements for industrial installations.’ 
260 See  Berlin Workshop: BAT for industrial  waste  water treatment and its contribution to  water quality, Nov 
2017 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/2057802a-f097-4631-a42c-65399df53c5f 
261 The most positive groups (i.e. viewing the policies as fully coherent with one another) were citizens (35%) 
and NGOs (25%); the most negative groups (i.e.  who see the policies as not coherent with one another) were 
business associations (31%) and company/business organisations (24%). 
262 Regulation (EC) No 166/2006. 
263  The  EU  clean  air  policy  framework  sets  standards  for  air  quality  in  the  Ambient  Air  Quality  Directive 
2008/50/EC  and  in  Directive  2004/107/EC  relating  to  arsenic,  cadmium,  mercury,  nickel  and  polycyclic 
aromatic  hydrocarbons  in  ambient  air.  It  also  sets  national  emission  reduction  commitments  in  the  National 
Emission Ceilings Directive 2016/2284/EU. 

90 

 
 
 
                                                 
noted  that  linking  the  standards  for  air  with  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  EQSD  remains 
challenging,  and  a  need  for  assistance  to  Member  States  and  economic  operators  on  this 
matter was identified. 

An example of the shifting of pollution from air to water has arisen from the implementation 
of the Sulphur Directive264, especially as tighter limits on the sulphur content of marine fuels 
have come into force. With ship owners increasingly opting for exhaust gas-cleaning systems 
(‘scrubbers265’) instead of low sulphur fuel, there is particular concern about the composition 
of  the  ‘washwater’  discharged  in  ports  and  other  coastal  waters,  which  includes  PAHs, 
nitrates  and  heavy  metals,  some  of  which  accumulate  in  sediments.  The  Commission  and 
Member States have been looking at how to resolve the issues, including under the auspices 
of  the  International  Maritime  Organization’s  Marine  Pollution  (MARPOL)  Convention. 
Concern has also been raised internationally about the consequences of discharges from the 
rising number of ships being equipped with scrubbers instead of using low sulphur fuel. The 
IMO recently agreed to launch an activity proposed by the EU to investigate whether the use 
of scrubbers should be restricted in sensitive sea areas.  

Further information is included in Annex 5. 

Strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment 

Strategic  environmental  assessment  (SEA)  and  environmental  impact  assessment  (EIA) 
contribute  to  improving  coherence  between  the  different  public  policies  overall.  The 
Commission’s assessment report of the second river basin management plans found that most 
Member States carried out an SEA procedure for the RBMPs in all their river basin districts. 

The  WFD  requires  a  specific  environmental  assessment  under  Article 4(7)  for  projects 
leading to failure to achieve the objectives of the WFD because of physical alteration. Some 
projects  require both  EIA assessment and Article 4(7) assessment.  While the EIA Directive 
stipulates that streamlining of the EIA Directive and the Habitat Directive is mandatory, it is 
optional for the WFD. It is, however, recommended that WFD procedures be streamlined to 
improve  efficiency,  ensure  consistency  and  reduce  costs.  Practical  guidance  and  best 
practices are provided in different Commission guidance documents266. 

Whereas it is not a requirement in the FD that flood risk management plans undergo an SEA, 
most  Member  States’  plans  did  also  undergo  an  SEA  in  at  least  some  of  their  units  of 
management.  

Coherence with other EU policies 

Coordination  with  other  sectoral  policies  and  policy  coherence  has  improved  in  many 
Member  States  thanks  to  the  implementation  of  the  WFD  and  its  daughter  directives. 
Nonetheless,  as  concluded  by  the  EEA  in  its  2018  State  of  Water  report,  European  waters 
remain  under  significant  pressure  from  both  diffuse  pollution  (e.g.  agriculture,  transport, 
infrastructure) and point source pollution (e.g. industry or energy production), as well as from 
over-abstraction and hydromorphological changes stemming from a range of human activities 
(see  Section  3).  This  indicates  that  there  is  significant  scope  to  better  integrate  the  EU’s 
environmental objectives for water into other sectoral policies.  

264 Directive 2016/802. 
265 These are allowed provided they have no significant negative impacts on the environment. 
266 CIS (2017) Guidance No 36 and European Commission — COM 2016/C 273/01. 

91 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 21 sets out the detailed results of the public consultation on the question of coherence 
between the Directives covered by this fitness check and sectoral policies. 

Civil protection policy

79 

119 

38 

11 

156 

Regional policy

22 

182 

Life+ Funding

Research and innovation

110 

93 

45 

27 

27 

16 

136 

135 

54 

8 

123 

134 

143 

Agricultural policies

26 

75 

28 

216 

94 

Health protection

110 

104 

44 

28 

118 

Transport policy

11 

70 

46 

124 

Environmental crime

81 

85 

37 

22 

Environmental liability

Resource efficiency

Waste policies

Air quality policies

Industrial emissions policy

104 

98 

104 

84 

112 

93 

32 

27 

100 

79 

46 

40 

48 

33 

74 

65 

40 

160 

180 

151 

137 

140 

141 

98 

35 

60 

115 

Climate change adaptation and mitigation policy

42 

201 

53 

65 

88 

Marine protection policy

Chemicals policy

Biodiversity policy

138 

119 

163 

131 

18 

7 

121 

111 

24 

71 

93 

97 

133 

18 

13 

23 

14 

173 

EU Strategy on Green Infrastructure

104 

102 

Fully coherent

Partially coherent

Neither coherent nor incoherent

Incoherent

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure  21:  Results  of  the  public  consultation  on  the  question  of  coherence  between  the 
Directives covered by this fitness check and sectoral policies (Source: Trinomics and Wood, 
2019) 

Agriculture 

Agriculture  is  one  of  the  main  sources  of  pressure  preventing  water  bodies  from  achieving 
good  ecological  status  across  Europe.  This  is  mainly  due  to  diffuse  pollution  of  nutrients 
(nitrogen and phosphorus) and pesticides (see Section 3.1). Around 38% of the EU’s surface 
water bodies are under pressure from diffuse pollution (of which agricultural production is a 
major  source  (25%)),  from  water  abstraction  for  irrigation,  and  from  hydromorphological 
changes  (e.g.  due  to  drainage).  The  delicate  balance  between  agriculture  and  water-related 
objectives has been addressed at EU level by the evolving EU environmental and agricultural 
legislation267.  Results  from  the  public  consultation  show  that  agriculture  is  the  sector  rated 
with  the  highest  rate  of  ‘incoherent’  replies  (see  Figure  21  above).  Of  those  who  replied 
‘incoherent’, most were EU citizens (29%) and NGOs (21%). 

While  the  interaction  with  the  Nitrates  Directive  and  the  Sustainable  Use  of  Pesticides 
Directive is  certainly of  importance (as discussed above), the main legal  interaction is  with 
the common agricultural policy. Overall, the WFD has helped facilitate better integration of 

267 European Commission (2017) — SWD(2017) 153. 

92 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
water  issues  in  the  CAP,  although  the  general  perception  is  that  there  are  many  conflicts 
between the water protection objectives  and  agricultural  policy.  In the consultation,  several 
groups  of  respondents  (industry/economic  organisations/trade  unions,  as  well  as  NGOs  and 
environmental  organisations)  stated:  (i)  that  efficient  implementation  of  the  WFD  required 
better  integration  of  its  objectives  within  the  CAP;  and  (ii)  the  CAP  does  not  sufficiently 
consider  WFD  obligations/objectives.  Similar  views  were  expressed  as  part  of  the  targeted 
consultation  where  the  lack  of  implementation  of  ‘win-win’  situations  was  highlighted  by 
NGOs. Some competent authorities responding to the consultation highlighted the challenges 
involved in ensuring coherence between agricultural and water policies. 

The CAP consists of two ‘pillars’. The first pillar includes payments and market mechanisms 
to stabilise farm revenues, and remunerates farmers for environmentally friendly farming and 
delivering  public  goods  not  normally  paid  for  by  the  markets.  The  second  pillar  concerns 
rural development policy, addressing the specific needs and challenges rural areas are facing. 

With regard to the first pillar, instruments have been put in place to ensure coherence of the 
CAP’s  payments  with  environmental  legislation,  in  particular  through  cross-compliance, 
which links CAP payments to compliance with EU legislation. As reported by the European 
Court of Auditors, six cross-compliance requirements have a direct impact on water quality 
and  water  quantity,  while  several  other  cross-compliance  requirements  have  an  indirect 
impact  on  water  protection268.  Cross-compliance  has  also 
improved  awareness  of 
environmental concerns among farmers, but its impact has been limited by the fact that it has 
not  sufficiently  integrated  the  WFD’s  objectives,  as  reported  by  the  European  Court  of 
Auditors in 2014269. On this specific Court of Auditors statement, the Commission considers 
that ‘remaining (beyond nitrates and pesticides) water-related issues should be addressed by 
Member States in fulfilling the obligations of the WFD … The relevant measures under the 
WFD  will  be  introduced  in  due  course  into  the  scope  of  cross‑compliance  when  the 
obligation at farm level is sufficiently clear.’ That report also concluded that weaknesses in 
the implementation of EU water policy have hindered its integration into the CAP.  

A 2016 European Court of Auditors report270 shows that the effects of cross-compliance are 
also limited by the fact that not all farmers supported by the CAP have to comply with cross-
compliance (approximately 68% have to comply). However, organic farmers are considered 
as ‘green by definition’ and small farmers are exempted from greening obligations due to the 
need  for  simplification  and  cost-benefit  consideration271.  Several  standards  present 
infringement  rates  of  less  than  1%,  while  the  rate  of  non-compliance  for  the  statutory 
management requirement stemming from the Nitrates Directive is 10%. This latter figure has 
been  mainly  attributed  by  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  to  the  complexity  of  the 
instruments  and  deficiencies  in  controls272.  The  Commission  considers  that  the  number  of 
infringements is not an appropriate indicator for the performance of cross-compliance. A high 
rate  of  non-compliance  in  a  certain  sector  can  also  be  an  indicator  that  cross-compliance 
controls are effective. 

268 2014, European Court of Auditors Special Report No 4/2014. 
269 European Court of Auditors (2014). Special Report No 4/2014. 
270 European Court of Auditors Report No 26/2016. 
271 European Court of Auditors Special Report No 21/2017. 
272 European Court of Auditors (2016) Report No 26/2016. 

93 

 
 
 
                                                 
In 2015, a  greening scheme was introduced  for  agricultural  practices that are beneficial  for 
the  climate  and  the  environment273.  While  the  main  focus  of  greening  measures  are 
biodiversity, soil and carbon sequestration, they also have benefits  for water. A preliminary 
evaluation  of  this  scheme  of  ‘greening  direct  payments’  was  carried  out  in  2017274.  The 
evaluation  found  that  environmental  priorities  were  not  the  main  drivers  influencing  the 
choice of measures when Member States have the flexibility to do so, and that the impact of 
greening measures on the environment was often difficult to assess due to the lack of data. A 
report  from  the  European  Court  of  Auditors275  shows  that  its  impact  on  increasing  the 
environmental performance of farms, and therefore on reducing pressure on water resources, 
has  been  limited.  Indeed,  while  the  area  subject  to  greening  covers  78%  of  all  utilised 
agricultural  area276,  the  result  in  changes  of  practices  is  estimated  at  approximately  5%  of 
farmland277. However, the Commission considers that the number of holdings affected is the 
best  indicator  of  the  impact  of  the  introduction  of  the  greening  and  in  this  respect  the 
Commission  notes  that  greening  entailed  changes  for  13%  of  holdings  as  regards  crop 
diversification and 37% of holdings as regards EFAs. In addition, greening is supporting the 
preservation  of  existing  practices  and  areas  (e.g.  fallow  land,  protection  of  hedges,  buffer 
strips, etc.) beneficial for the environment and climate.  

However, there is still room for improvement in the implementation of the instruments and of 
the WFD in order to increase synergies. For this, a number of regulatory changes have been 
proposed  by  the  Commission  to  enhance  the  environmental  performance  of  the  CAP,  for 
example  the  ban  of  pesticides  on  ecological  focus  areas.  In  addition,  a  good  level  of 
consistency  between  RDPs  and  RBMPs  is  necessary  to  avoid  negative  side  effects  from 
water-related support278. The development of the required strategic plans under the next CAP 
will also offer an important tool for further integration and enhanced synergies. The proposal 
for the next CAP includes enhanced conditionality to be applied to all farmers. This includes 
several ‘good agricultural and environmental conditions’ that are important for water quality 
and  quantity,  and  a  specific  WFD  statutory  management  requirement.  There  is  also  better 
consideration of the objectives and needs of environmental policies, including the WFD. 

The  EU  rural  development  programme,  the  second  pillar  of  the  CAP,  has  contributed 
significantly  to  the  implementation  of  WFD,  as  it  has  been  reported  as  the  main  source  of 
funding for the programmes of measures in the second-cycle RBMPs. Conversely, a detailed 
assessment of rural development programmes for the period 2007-2013 shows that Member 
States have allocated 51% of their rural development programme budgets to measures that, to 
a greater or lesser extent, relate to water (€75 billion for 2007-2013279). Member States have 
implemented  basic  and  supplementary  measures  within  the  programmes  of  measures. 
However,  the  supplementary  measures  are  generally  voluntary  and  the  voluntary  nature  of 
these measures means that water issues may not be effectively addressed.   

273 European Court of Auditors (2016) Report No 26/2016. 
274 Alliance Environnement (2017). 
275 European Court of Auditors (2017): Special Report No 21/2017. 
276 European Commission — Final Report 2017. 
277 European Court of Auditors (2017): Special Report No 21/2017; The Commission considers that the number 

of holdings (not the area) affected is the best indicator of the impact of production. 

278 European Court of Auditors (2014). Special Report No 4/2014. 
279 European Court of Auditors (2014) Special Report No 4/2014. 

94 

 
 
 
                                                 
The assessment of the 2014-2020 rural development programmes under the CAP280 showed 
that  most  programmes  are  largely  consistent  with  WFD  information  on  the  status  of  water 
bodies and identification of key pressures such as nutrient pollution, pesticide pollution, and 
hydrological  alterations  associated  with  abstraction  for 
irrigation.  However,  some 
inconsistencies  remain  in  relation  to  other  pressures  such  as  dredging,  irrigation  and  other 
physical modifications of water bodies. The assessment also identified some measures under 
the  programmes  which,  if  not  properly  designed,  could  contribute  to  maintaining  and/or 
increasing agricultural pressures, in particular the expansion of irrigation, new land drainage 
and new embankments,  even if legal  requirements  exist to  avoid  these adverse  effects  (e.g. 
WFD  requirements  on  non-deterioration281  and  Article 46  of  the  Rural  Development 
Regulation282). One particular example in this context is water abstraction. While investments 
in  irrigation  funded  by  the  EAFRD  must  comply  with  its  Article  46,  which  includes 
conditions  related  to  water  savings  (when  improvements  of  existing  irrigation  installations 
are  supported),  it  does  allow,  under  certain  conditions283  for  investments  leading  to  an 
extension of irrigated areas where water bodies are in less than good status, which has been 
observed in many cases.  

In terms of promoting best practices and fostering the transfer of knowledge on sustainable 
management  of  water  in  agriculture,  the  European  Innovation  Partnership  for  Agricultural 
Productivity  and  Sustainability  and  the  European  Network  for  Rural  Development,  both 
funded through the CAP, carry out important activities284.   

Finally,  on  implementation,  the  integrated  assessment  of  the  second  RBMPs285  shows  that 
there  is  often  a  lack  of  cooperation  between  agricultural  and  water  authorities  and  that  the 
integration  of  agricultural  and  water  policy  processes  at  Member  State  level  has  been 
unsuccessful in many instances.  

In  relation  to  the  Floods  Directive,  there  is  no  explicit  reference  to  agriculture  in  the 
Directive. However, looking at the EAFRD, the planned EU financing over the period 2014-
2020 for “Climate Change Adaptation & Risk Prevention” is roughly €21 billion286, and such 
measures could also be beneficial for flood risk management if properly designed. 

Agricultural practices can have a significant impact on flooding events,  due in particular to 
the potential for rapid run-off of water from compacted cultivated land, in combination with 
the rapid delivery of drainage water from agricultural land that has been artificially drained 
into water bodies at risk of flooding. There is therefore scope for better integration between 
flood risk management and farm management. 

280 WRc (2016). 
281  Requirements  of  the  WFD  to  prevent  deterioration  and  not  to  compromise  the  achievement  of  good 
status/potential, with a possible exemption under specific conditions as outlined in Article 4(7). 
282 Regulation (EU)  No 1305/2013, Article 46 on  support for  rural development by the European  Agricultural 
Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD)  sets  the  conditions  on  accessing  the  Fund  to  support  investments  in 
irrigation.  In  particular,  when  existing  installations  are  improved  they  must  offer  potential  water  savings  of  a 
minimum of between 5% and 25% in general, and for water bodies whose status has been identified as less than 
good for reasons related to water quantity, an actual reduction in water use of at least 50% of the potential water 
savings made possible by the investment.. 
283 See Article 46(6) EAFRD 
284   https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/node/3699/related and https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/enrd-thematic-
work/greening-rural-economy/water-and-soil-management_en 
285 Wood (2019). 
286 https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/themes/5# 

95 

 
 
 
                                                 
A  study  has  been  launched  by  the  Commission’s  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and 
Rural Development in parallel to this fitness check to evaluate in more detail the interaction 
between the CAP and EU water policy. The study will provide a complementary analysis to 
the fitness check.  

Also  on  agriculture,  227  respondents  (out  of  493)  in  the  public  consultation  cited  the 
conversion  of  farmland  to  urban  or  industrial  use  as  an  unintended  negative  effect  of  the 
Directives. EU citizens were the largest group making this claim, followed by industries and 
competent authorities.  

Further information is included in Annex 5. 

Energy — hydropower  

The Renewable Energy Directive (REDII) establishes a binding renewable energy target for 
the  EU  for  2030  of  at  least  32%  of  energy  to  be  generated  from  renewable  sources287.  To 
date,  there  are  more  than  21,000  hydropower  plants  in  Europe288,  which  generate  about 
36%289  of  renewable  electricity  in  the  EU.  Hydropower  is  an  important  driver  for 
hydromorphological pressures; such pressures affect 40% of water bodies. 

There  are  some  potential  trade-offs  between  the  use  of  water  to  generate  energy  and  the 
protection  of  natural  flows  and  hydromorphology.  The  RED  mentions  that  environmental 
requirements  should  be  taken  into  account  in  the  planning  of  new  renewable  energy 
installations, and the WFD allows for the possibility of exemptions (under certain conditions) 
to  the  objectives  for  the  construction  of  new  hydropower  plants290.  Technical  support  has 
been  provided  to  Member  States  in  the  form  of  several  common  implementation  strategy 
meetings, reports and guidance documents. Proper implementation of WFD Article 4(3) and 
(7)  contributes  to  decreasing  the  impacts  of  hydropower  on  water  and  to  ensuring  a  level 
playing field for the hydropower sector291. Approaches used by Member States to reconcile 
these competing water uses include the review of permits, the identification of priority rivers 
for which river continuity is to be restored, and the development of assessment tools292.  

The feedback from stakeholders is split between energy and hydropower experts and NGOs. 
The  hydropower  industry  claims  that  the  WFD  obligations  have  led  to  uncertainty  in  the 
granting  of  new  permits  for  hydropower  and  the  operation  of  existing  plants,  while  also 
pointing out that the requirements of Article 4(7) can make it a challenge to meet the EU’s 
renewable energy targets. Conversely, NGOs highlight that hydropower has an environmental 
impact that should not be underestimated, and that it should be ensured that existing and new 
hydropower  does  not  undermine  the  objectives  of  the  WFD.  However,  it  is  difficult  in 
practice to quantify the potential ‘loss’ of renewable energy production due to environmental 
protection  measures.  A  2011  study  estimated  the  potential  loss  of  production  due  to 

287 Directive 2018/2001/EU. 
288  WWF  (2019);  According  to  the  study  there  are  21,387  hydropower  plants  in  Europe  with  another  8,785 
under construction. 33% of all planned hydropower in the EU is in protected areas. 91% of the plants recorded 
by the study are small plants that produce less than 10MW. 
289 Eurostat (2017). 
290 Article 4(7) or for setting specific objectives for existing plants Article 4(3). 
291 CIS Guidance Document No 4 (2004) and Guidance No 36 (2017) 
STC Nestra (2018). 
292 Trinomics and Wood (2019). 

96 

 
 
 
                                                 
mitigation measures to be around 2-3% of total production293. It is also not clear how many 
hydropower plants have not been built due to the WFD.   

Significant progress has been made to integrate the objectives of renewable energy and water 
policies, in particular through environmental impact assessments294 and justified applications 
of  exemptions  under  Article 4(7)  of  the  WFD,  but  there  is  still  room  for  improvement. 
Renewable  energy  action  plans  and  RBMPs  are  key  instruments  to  guarantee  coherence 
between  the  policies.  However,  further  efforts  are  needed  to  ensure  that  the  WFD 
requirements are integrated from the early stages of the planning process for existing and new 
hydropower plants. This in turn should contribute to increased certainty for investors and help 
meet  European  energy  and  climate  targets,  while  minimising  the  impact  of  hydropower  on 
the environment. 

CIS Guidance Document No 36 provides support for the implementation of Article 4(7), and 
support  is  provided  to  help  Member  States  better  integrate  the  WFD  requirement  in  the 
planning of new projects. For example, the Commission has organised several workshops and 
training  sessions  in  Member  States,  and  the  European  Investment  Bank  has  developed  a 
‘checklist  tool’  to  support  Member  States  in  implementing  Article 4(7).  This  guidance 
document is equally relevant for the transport sector (see below). 

Transport — inland navigation 

In the public consultation, transport was among the sectors with the largest number of replies 
pointing to incoherence between the transport sector and water legislation (124 replies out of 
251). Of those who took this view, the most negative groups were citizens (31%) and NGOs 
(28%). 

The  Trans-European  Transport  Network  (TEN-T)  is  an  EU  policy  directed  towards  the 
development of a Europe-wide network of roads, railway lines, inland waterways, maritime 
shipping routes, ports, airports and rail–road terminals. It includes a number of priorities for 
inland  waterway  infrastructure  development,  to  increase  connectivity  and  guarantee  ‘good 
navigation  status’.  These  navigation  projects  should  comply  with  all  environmental 
legislation and go through an environmental assessment. 

The requirements  associated with  good navigation  status,  which often imply  changes in  the 
morphology and hydrology of rivers, can conflict with the objectives of the WFD. This issue 
has been raised in the consultation. Commission guidelines on good navigation status include 
recommendations to limit the impact of works on WFD status and to find the right balance 
between environmental objectives and navigation295.  

The  Commission’s  2019  implementation  report  found  that  navigation  is  among  the  main 
sectors  responsible  for  hydromorphological  alterations  and  for  which  exemptions  under 
Article 4(7) are applied. The report also showed that progress has been made on integration 
between those two policies, but, as with hydropower, there remains room for improvement. 
One particular issue is the lack of proper methodologies for environmental assessment, while 
another  is  the  failure  to  integrate  environmental  requirements  at  the  early  stages  of  project 
planning, often leading to delays and uncertainties in permitting procedures.  

293 Arcadis  (2011). 
294 See also above in the section on strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment. 
295 European Commission (2018). Guidelines towards achieving a Good Navigation Status. 

97 

 
 
 
                                                 
Representatives from the navigation sector have stated that the WFD has caused delays and 
uncertainty  in  procedures  and  projects.  As  stated  in  the  2019  report  from  the  Connecting 
Europe Facility Rhine Danube Corridor support report296, a more integrated approach should 
help  increase  local  and  national  acceptance  of  the  projects,  and  consequently  address  this 
problem. 

An evaluation of the 2013 Regulation TEN-T Guidelines297 has been launched, with the aim 
of contributing to the preparation of the new guidelines for the next programming period. 

Further information is included in Annex 5. 

Fishing and aquaculture 

Fishing  and  aquaculture  activities  require  good  water  quality.  At  the  same  time,  they  exert 
pressures  on  some  water  bodies,  for  example  due  to  the  use  of  anti-parasitic  substances. 
Implementation of the WFD is therefore important to these activities on both of these issues. 

One  concrete  example  of  interaction  between  the  WFD  and  fisheries  policy  concerns  the 
preservation  of  the  European  eel  population.  The  decline  in  the  eel  stock  has  numerous 
causes, including human activities such as fishing, hydropower turbines and pumps, pollution, 
habitat  modification and the creation of obstacles  to  eel  migration. This  is  why in  2007 the 
EU adopted the Eel Regulation298. The WFD contributes to the protection and preservation of 
the  EU  eel  stock  through  its  requirement  to  ensure  continuity  along  rivers.  Nonetheless, 
insufficient links have been made between RBMPs and the eel management plans established 
by EU Member States under the Eel Regulation and there is a lack of coordination among the 
competent  authorities299.  The  Eel  Regulation  is  currently  being  evaluated,  including  its 
coherence with the WFD. 

The  Directive  on  the  quality  of  shellfish  waters300  was  repealed  by  the  WFD  in  2013,  but 
Member  States  were  required  under  WFD  rules  to  maintain  at  least  the  same  level  of 
protection  against  pollution  of  shellfish  waters  through  their  new  status  as  protected  areas. 
However,  the  Commission’s  implementation  report  on  the  second  RBMPs  found  that 
implementation  of this obligation has been uneven. While about  half of the Member States 
have maintained the same requirements, the others have set different standards or no specific 
standards at all301. In the public consultation and interviews, the aquaculture sector expressed 
concern that the level of protection for production areas under the WFD is insufficient. 

In 2013, the Commission issued a communication on strategic guidelines for the sustainable 
development of EU aquaculture302, with the aim of helping Member States and stakeholders 
overcome the challenges facing the sector. In 2016, it adopted a guidance document303 on the 
application  of  the  WFD  and  the  MSFD  in  relation  to  aquaculture.  This  includes  good 
practices  on  benthic  impacts  and  nutrients,  disease  and  parasites,  chemical  discharges  from 
aquaculture,  escapees  and  alien  species,  and  physical  impacts,  disturbance  and  predator 

296 INEA (2018). 
297 Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013. 
298 Regulation (EC) No 1100 /2007. 
299 Hanel, R (2019). 
300 Directive 2006/113/EC. 
301 Trinomics and Wood (2019). 
302 European Commission (2013) — COM(2013) 229 final. 
303 European Commission (2016) SWD(2016) 178 final. 

98 

 
 
 
                                                 
control. The revision of the 2013 Strategic Guidelines is ongoing and adoption is expected in 
2020. 

Further information is included in Annex 5. 

Non-energy extractive industries 

The  relevance  of  pressures  from  extractive  activities  depends  on  the  materials  being 
extracted, the characteristics of the hosting  rock  and the  chemicals  that  may  be used in  the 
industrial  processes.  Mining  activities  have  been  reported  in  the  second-cycle  RBMPs  as 
exerting significant pressures on the chemical quality of water resources, particularly due to 
the  discharge  of  heavy  metals304.  Important  progress  has  been  made  towards  sustainable 
extraction  of  raw  materials  through  Environmental  Impact  Assessments,  but  there  is  still 
room for improvement, in  particular concerning pollution from  historic mining activities305. 
To reduce the environmental impacts of mining activities, the Directive on the management 
of waste from extractive industries306 requires industry to provide measures, procedures and 
guidance to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of the management of waste from extractive 
activities.  

In their response to the public consultation, representatives from the mining industry pointed 
to  the  possible  trade-offs  between  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  the  2008  Raw  Materials 
Initiative307, which aims to secure the supply of raw materials. The concerns of the industry 
relate  to  the  difficulties  they  encounter  in  obtaining  a  permit  to  (re-)open  a  mine  in  cases 
where the additional emissions would lead to the deterioration of chemical status. This cannot 
be  granted  because  no  exemptions  are  applicable  in  such  cases  under  the  WFD.  They  also 
point  out  that  mines  are  often  located  in  areas  where  some  elements  occur  at  higher 
concentrations due to natural conditions.  

Further information is included in Annex 5. 

EU funding 

European  Commission  funding  instruments  such  as  the  LIFE  programme,  the  European 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds,  Horizon  2020  and  the  common  agricultural  policy  have 
facilitated the implementation of the WFD and FD’s objectives. 

European Structural and Investment Funds 

In the 2014-2020 period, the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) include the 
Cohesion  Fund,  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development,  the  European 
Regional  Development  Fund,  the  European  Social  Fund  and  the  European  Maritime  and 
Fisheries  Fund.  The  water  sector  has  been  a  key  focus  of  cohesion  policy  environmental 
investments:  it  received  most  of  the  ESIF  funding  dedicated  to  the  environment  and 
accounted for just over half of all direct  environmental  allocations in  2000-2006 and 2007-
2013, falling to just over 40% for 2014-2020. In the new Member States especially, support 

304 Significant pressure from diffuse pollution from mining has been reported for 7% of groundwater body areas 
and for less than 1% of surface water bodies. Point source pollution from mining has been reported for 3% of 
groundwater body areas and for less than 1% of surface waters. Significant pressure from mining waste disposal 
has been reported for 4% of water bodies. 
305 Vidal-Legaz, et al (2018).  
306 Directive 2006/21/EC. 
307 European Commission (2008) — COM(2008) 699. 

99 

 
 
 
                                                 
to  investments  in  waste  water  treatment  (€10.8  billion  from  the  European  Regional 
Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund) has significantly contributed to the improvement 
of  water  quality.  In  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  €3.0  billion  was  allocated  to 
measures  of  direct  relevance  to  the  WFD,  such  as  water  metering,  water  reuse,  monitoring 
and studies. Almost €8 billion is allocated to climate change adaptation and risk prevention, 
the bulk of which is being invested in flood prevention and flood risk management308.  

Coherence  between  the  ESIFs  and  the  WFD’s  objectives  was  ensured  through  ‘ex  ante 
conditionalities’, which required Member States to fulfil certain conditions in order to receive 
funding. The ex ante conditionalities were designed to increase the effectiveness of the funds, 
and have contributed to the timely adoption of river basin management plans and to changes 
in  water-pricing  policies.  They  have  also  improved  coordination  between  national  and 
regional  authorities  in  the  Member  States.  One  reason  for  this  was  that  the  ex  ante 
conditionalities raised awareness of water policy requirements in other  ministries309. 

LIFE(+) 

Water sector projects  are also  an important  part of the  LIFE programme. From 2000 to  the 
2012, LIFE co-financed 421 projects with an estimated budget of €1.1 billion310. Most LIFE 
projects  in  the  field  of  water  address  aspects  relevant  to  WFD  objectives.  These  aspects 
include  waste  water  treatment  technology,  lowering  the  impact  of  hydropower  and  river 
renaturing.  

Horizon 2020 

Significant funding has been allocated for water under Horizon 2020 (2014-2020). This was 
particularly the case during 2014-2015, when water was a focus area. This funding is spread 
across different parts of Horizon 2020, but a significant part of it was allocated under Societal 
Challenge  5  ‘Climate  action,  environment,  resource  efficiency  and  raw  materials’  which 
contributes  to  the  objectives  of  EU  water  policy  (mainly  the  WFD  and  FD).  EU  funding 
allocated to water-related projects during 2014-2017 under Societal Challenge 5 was around 
€375 million (66 projects). Most of the water projects are inter-disciplinary and many address 
the cross-sectoral aspects of water resource protection and management. 

5.3.3: ‘To what extent is the legislation coherent with international obligations?’ 

Overall response:  

The Water Framework Directive, its daughter directives and the Floods Directive are fully coherent 
with the EU’s international obligations related to water, such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable 
Development,  the  UNECE  Water  Convention,  the  Regional  Sea  Conventions  and  the  Sendai 
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Meeting the Directives’ objectives contributes to meeting 
the commitments under these international obligations. 

2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 

The  EU  is  a  signatory  to  the  2030  Agenda  for  Sustainable  Development and  its  17 
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Directives subject to this fitness check are fully 
coherent  with  the  SDGs.  Sustainable  Development  Goal  6  (SDG  6)  ‘Clean  water  and 

308 WRc (2017). 
309 European Commission — SWD(2017) 127. 
310 European Commission (2012) — COM(2012) 673. 

100 

 
 
 
                                                 
sanitation’,  for  example,  includes  six  targets  that  cover  issues  such  as  improving  water 
quality  by  reducing  pollution,  implementing  integrated  water  management  and  restoring 
water-related  ecosystems311.  Along  with  other  pieces  of  EU  water  legislation,  the  Water 
Framework  Directive  and  its  daughter  directives  are  a  tool  that  contributes  significantly 
towards fulfilling several targets under SDG 6 at EU level. 

The  Floods  Directive  also  contributes  to  several  SDGs,  including  SDG  11  on  Sustainable 
Cities and Communities and SDG 13 on Climate Action. 

UNECE’s Water Convention 

The  integrated  approaches  taken  by  the  WFD  and  its  daughter  directives  are  fully  coherent 
with the EU’s commitment to UNECE’s312 Water Convention313, which aims to promote the 
protection  and  management  of  transboundary  surface  waters  and  groundwaters  in  the 
European region and beyond. Several of the commissions in charge of international RBDs are 
also signed up as joint bodies under the Water Convention. 

Regional seas conventions 

The EU is also a contracting party in several intergovernmental organisations set up to protect 
the  marine  environment,  such  as  the  Baltic  Marine  Environment  Protection  Commission  or 
‘Helsinki  Commission’  (HELCOM314),  the  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  the  Marine 
Environment  of  the  North-East  Atlantic  (OSPAR315)  and  the  Barcelona  Convention316,317,. 
Measures undertaken to implement the WFD contribute to the objectives of the conventions. 
In  the  HELCOM  Baltic  Sea  Action  Plan,  for  example,  a  nutrient  reduction  scheme  was 
introduced  in  2007,  which  includes  reduction  targets  per  country  compared  to  a  reference 
period (1997-2003). WFD implementation and the development of programmes of measures 
at Member State level are then coordinated with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, in 
line  with  the  Baltic  Sea  action  plan318.  Some  issues  have  been  raised  regarding  the  lack  of 
consistency between the indicators and thresholds set by Member States for the assessment of 
status required for the regional sea conventions, the MSFD and the WFD (see above). 

Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 
The  Sendai  Framework  for  Disaster  Risk  Reduction319  is  a  global  agreement  to  reduce  and 
prevent disaster risks across the globe. It aims to strengthen social and economic resilience to 
ease the negative effects of climate change and man-made hazards. In 2016, the Commission 

311 https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/water-and-sanitation/. 
312 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 
313  Convention  on  the  Protection  and  Use  of  Transboundary  Watercourses  and  International  Lakes  — 
http://www.unece.org/env/water.html. 
314 http://www.helcom.fi/ 
315 https://www.ospar.org/ 
316 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/international-cooperation/regional-sea-conventions/barcelona-
convention/index_en.htm. 
317 The Commission is also an observer in the Bucharest Convention, see 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/international-cooperation/regional-sea-
conventions/bucharest/index_en.htm. 
318 Trinomics and Wood (2019). 
319 The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (Sendai Framework) is the first major 

agreement of the post-2015 UN Sustainable Development agenda. 
https://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/sendai-framework 

101 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
launched  an  action  plan  on  the  implementation  of  the  Sendai  Framework320.  The  Floods 
Directive is referred to several times in the plan, which will support action in the EU Member 
States  towards  four  Sendai  priorities:  understanding  risks,  strengthening  governance, 
investing in risk reduction and increasing preparedness for response.  

Paris Climate Agreement 

One  of  the  key  instruments  to  meet  the  goals  set  in  the  Paris  Climate  Agreement  will  be 
sustainable  water  management.  Water  holds  great  potential  for  adaptation  to  a  changing 
climate  and  mitigation  of  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  as  also  illustrated  in  the  priorities 
outlined in Member States’ national climate change adaptation strategies. The WFD and the 
FD have both allowed Member States to account for impacts (or expected impacts) of climate 
change on the management of water quality and quantity.  

Ramsar Convention 

The  objectives  and  tools  of  the  WFD  and  the  FD  enable  Member  States  to  meet  their 
commitments  under  the  Ramsar  Convention  on  Wetlands  of  International  Importance321. 
While the EU is not a contracting party, many Member States are. In 1995, the Commission 
reported that between 1900 and the 1980s Europe had lost two thirds of its wetlands, and that 
the  remaining  ones  were  under  significant  pressures  such  as  nutrients,  land  use  change, 
abstraction or hydromorphological changes322. Wetlands are also key to the EU’s biodiversity 
objectives.  Many  species  in  EU  wetlands  are  still  reported  to  be  under  severe  threat323.  As 
wetlands  offer  huge  potential  as  carbon  sinks,  their  protection  or  restoration  through  WFD 
and FD implementation would be an important climate mitigation action.  

5.4. Relevance 

The  assessment  of  the  Directives’  relevance  considers  whether  their  intervention  logic  still 
addresses societal needs and whether they are fit for purpose to address emerging challenges 
(Section 5.4.1). It also looks at how relevant the Directives are to citizens (Section 5.4.2) and 
to the EU’s external policy objectives (Section 5.4.3).   

5.4.1: ‘To what extent are the objectives still relevant and properly addressing the key 
problems and concerns related to water that ecosystems and the society presently face? 

Overall response:  

Water is an essential societal need. The objectives of the Directives to ensure water protection and 
non-deterioration of water quality and to address the adverse consequences of floods are still very 
relevant today and even increasingly so. They enable authorities to address the key issues related 
to water both in terms of quality and quantity. 

The  Directives  are  sufficiently  flexible  to  address  emerging  societal  challenges  such  as  water 
scarcity,  climate  change,  and  pollutants  of  emerging  concern  such  as  (micro)plastics  or 
pharmaceuticals  (some  of  which  are  already  listed  in  the  surface-water  watch  list).  However, 
climate change or micro-plastics are not explicitly mentioned in the WFD and daughter directives.  

The process of keeping up with science has proven to be slow and more difficult than expected, in 

320 European Commission (2016) — SWD(2016)205. 
321 https://www.ramsar.org/ 
322 European Commission (1995) — COM(1995)189. 
323 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (2018). 

102 

 
 
 
                                                 
particular for the EQSD (in terms of listing relevant new priority substances). In addition, while 
taking  account  of  some  groups  of  substances,  the  EQSD  does  not  generally  address  mixtures  of 
substances. The knowledge and modelling of the impact of climate change on all sources of floods 
should also be improved. 

Water is a key environmental challenge, now and in the future 

Water and aquatic ecosystems 

Water  is  an  essential  societal  need.  The  objectives  of  the  directives  covered  by  this  fitness 
check are as relevant now as they were when the Directives were adopted, if not more. The 
objectives  of  the  directives  subject  to  this  fitness  check  contribute  towards  improving  the 
situation  with  regard  to  six  of  the  nine  planetary  boundaries  (freshwater  use,  nitrogen  and 
phosphorus cycles, ocean acidification, chemical pollution, biodiversity and climate change, 
see Figure 22). 

Figure 22: Planetary boundaries (Source: Rockstrom et al., 2009324) 

The relevance of the Directive’s objectives is confirmed in the EEA’s report on the State of 
European  Waters,  which  points  to  the  significant  pressures  on  the  aquatic  environment  in 
Europe (see also Section 3.1). Other landmark reports have come to similar conclusions. The 
World  Economic  Forum’s  Global  Risks  Report  of  2019  for  example  lists  extreme  weather 
events  and  water  crises  as  the  third  and  fourth  most  important  risks325.  The  OECD’s 

324 Rockstrom et al (2009). 
325 World Economic Forum (2019). 

103 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Environmental Outlook until 2050326 list pollution and increasing water use as key challenges 
for the future. More recently, a report of the  Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on 
Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem  Services  (IPBES)  on  a  global  assessment  of  biodiversity  and 
ecosystem services found that biodiversity, including in aquatic ecosystems, is under serious 
threat in Europe327.  

The  continued  relevance  of  the  WFD  and  its  daughter  directives  was  confirmed  by  Water 
Directors of the EU and the European Economic Area countries, who repeatedly confirmed 
the  need  to  maintain  the  current  level  of  ambition  of  the  WFD  (see,  for  example,  the 
conclusions of the Vienna meeting of Water Directors328).  

Floods 

The  continued  relevance  of  floods  management  is  also  undisputed.  According  to  the  EIB, 
floods are the largest source of GDP losses from natural disasters in Europe (€150 billion in 
2002-2013329). Reported disaster losses, however, only reflect structural damages to tangible 
assets,  neglecting  damage  to  health,  the  integrity  of  ecosystems  and  intangible  cultural 
heritage  value.  Therefore  these  economic  figures  should  be  seen  as  a  lower-bound 
estimate330.  Estimates  indicate  that  coastal  and  inland  floods  killed  more  than  2,000  people 
and affected 8.7 million people in Europe331 between 2000 and 2014332. 

A  report  from  the  Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change  (IPCC)  on  the  impacts  of 
global warming of 1.5 °C estimated a doubling in the population affected by fluvial floods333. 
Figure 23 shows the increasing occurrence of floods in Europe. 

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

t
n
e
v
e

d
o
o
l
f

f
o

s
y
a
d
e
v
i
t
a
l
u
m
u
C

0
8
9
1

2
8
9
1

3
8
9
1

1
8
9
1
Moderate Severity

4
8
9
1

5
8
9
1

6
8
9
1

7
8
9
1

8
8
9
1

9
8
9
1

0
9
9
1

1
9
9
1

2
9
9
1

3
9
9
1

4
9
9
1

5
9
9
1

6
9
9
1
High Severity

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

e
g
a
r
e
v
a

/

s
t
n
e
v
e

d
o
o
l
f

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

t
n
e
v
e

d
o
o
l
f

r
e
p

s
y
a
d

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

8
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
2
2
Very High Severity

1
1
0
2

Total Sum of FP_Duration

Linear (Days/flood event)

Days/flood event

Linear (Total Sum of FP_Duration)

Figure  23  Evolution  of  number  and  length  of  flood  events  and  their  severity,  1980-2015 
(Source: EEA-ETC-ICM Flood Phenomena dataset, 2015) 

326 OECD (2012). 
327 IPBES (2018). 
328 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/9ab5926d-bed4-4322-9aa7-9964bbe8312d/library/e4abb053-ea21-4962-

8671-425624cd872e/details 

329 EIB (2016). 
330 EEA report 14/2017. 
331 European Environment Agency (EEA) member countries. 
332 Data from the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region, based on a combination of data from the 
Emergency  Events  Database  (EM-DAT)  and  the  Dartmouth  Flood  Observatory  (DFO),  quoted  by  EEA 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/floods-and-health-1/assessment 
333 https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/  extract from a table in Chapter 3, page 247. 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the Directives fit for purpose to address emerging challenges? 

To establish whether the Directives are fit for purpose, it is also necessary to assess whether 
they  cover  all  societal  needs  related  to  water,  including  emerging  challenges  such  as  water 
scarcity, climate change, mixtures of chemicals, and pollutants of emerging concern. 

Water scarcity 

Figure 24 shows that water scarcity, while having some seasonal variability, is a concern that 
is not limited to the south of Europe, affecting regions in different parts of the EU. 

Figure  24:  Seasonal  water  exploitation  index  plus  (WEI+),  sub  river  basin  district  scale, 
2015 (Source: EEA) 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
The  results  of  the  public  consultation,  in  particular  from  the  workshops,  focus  groups  and 
interviews,  show that  many  stakeholders are  concerned that the WFD does not  pay  enough 
attention to water quantity334.  

included 

While  it  is  true  that  the  Directive  does  not  include  any  explicit  requirements  on  water 
quantity335,  it  does  address  water  quantity  in  several  ways.  Water  quantity  is,  for  example, 
implicitly 
in 
hydromorphological  elements  (i.e.  flow  regime).  Furthermore,  good  quantitative  status  is 
required for  groundwater, where Member States  must ensure a balance between abstraction 
and recharge rates. The requirement of water pricing also aims to provide incentives for water 
users to use water resources efficiently. 

the  definition  of  good  ecological  status  and  explicitly 

in 

Nonetheless,  the  Commission’s  latest  implementation  report  noted  that  there  are  still  some 
issues  that  raise  concern,  e.g.  exemptions  from  controls  and  permits  for  small  abstractions, 
even when this leads to groundwater bodies not achieving good quantitative status. This is a 
problem given that 16% of the area of groundwater is affected by over-abstraction in Europe.  

To contribute to the alleviation of water scarcity, the Commission adopted a draft regulation 
of the European Parliament and the Council on minimum standards for water reuse in May 
2018336. In the context of integrated water management, this instrument aims to stimulate the 
uptake  of  water  reuse  by  offering  a  sustainable,  alternative  water  supply  for  agricultural 
irrigation. 

Climate change 

Climate change has accelerated and its effects are being felt on a wider and larger scale. The 
less  prominent  place  given  to  the  issue  of  water  quantity  in  the  WFD  does  not  seem  to 
subtract significantly from the legislation’s potential to address the impacts of climate change 
on  water  management.  Even  though  the  WFD  and  daughter  directives  do  not  explicitly 
require Member States to include climate change in the RBMPs, Annex II to the WFD refers 
to  the  need  to  identify  all  ‘significant  pressures’  affecting  water  bodies  (see  Section  2.2  on 
Article 5 WFD/pressures and impacts analysis). This identification of pressures, together with 
the  cyclical  nature  of  the  implementation,  provides  the  framework  for  Member  States  to 
incorporate  the  expected  impacts  of  climate  change  (both  on  quantity  and  quality)  and  the 
updated scientific and technical knowledge into their planning process. For groundwater for 
example, the inclusion of a water balance (availability of groundwater resource vs abstraction 
rate)  in  the  classification  of  quantitative  status  contributes  to  a  better  response  to  new  or 

334 Some stakeholders have related this to the fact that the  Treaty on European  Union provides  for  unanimity 
voting for water quantity issues in its Article 192(2)(b). 
335 The sufficient supply of water is indirectly referred to in Article 1 ‘The purpose of this Directive is to […] 
promote  sustainable  water  use  based  on  a  long-term  protection  of  available  water  resources  […]  and  thereby 
contributing  to  […]  the  provision  of  the  sufficient  supply  of  good  quality  surface  water  and  groundwater  as 
needed for sustainable, balanced, and equitable water use’. Quantitative aspects are also included in recital 19 
‘This Directive aims at maintaining and improving the aquatic environment in the Community. This purpose is 
primarily  concerned  with  the  quality  of  the  waters  concerned.  Control  of  quantity  is  an  ancillary  element  in 
securing good water quality and therefore measures on quantity, serving the objective of ensuring  good quality, 
should  also  be  established.’  Recital  34  also  refers  to  quantitative  aspects  ‘For  the  purposes  of  environmental 
protection there is a need for a greater integration of qualitative and quantitative aspects of both surface waters 
and  groundwaters,  taking  into  account  the  natural  flow  conditions  of  water  within  the  hydrological  cycle’. 
Measures related to ecological flows (Art. 11.c, e, f, i,) are also quantity-related. 
336 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/pdf/water_reuse_regulation.pdf 

106 

 
 
 
                                                 
growing  climate  change-related  pressures,  provided  that  climate  change  scenarios  are 
adequately considered when identifying pressures and the necessary measures. 

The  document  prepared  by  the  ‘Consultation  Group’  of  Water  Directors337  highlights  the 
importance  of  dealing  with  the  impact  of  climate  change  and  with  pollutants  of  emerging 
concern. However, it does not elaborate on how the WFD and daughter directives currently 
allow, or hamper, the management of such issues. 

Unlike  the  WFD,  the  FD  does  have  an  explicit  requirement  for  Member  States  to  take  the 
impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods into account. This requirement applies 
from  the  second  PFRAs  and  FRMPs  onwards  (Article 14).  The  increasing  relevance  of  this 
need is reflected by the fact that no less than 24 Member States provided evidence of having 
started to take account of climate change impacts already from the first cycle. Out of those, 14 
made  links  between  their  FRMPs  and  their  national  climate  change  adaptation  strategies. 
More than half of the Member States have included measures to raise awareness on insurance 
schemes in their FRMPs, even though insurance is not explicitly mentioned in the FD338.   

Keeping up with science  

Regarding  the  EQSD,  the  process  of  keeping  up  with  science  (i.e.  listing  relevant  new 
priority substances) has proven to be slow and more difficult than expected. The prioritisation 
exercise and the determination of the EQSs themselves take time. Not all necessary hazard or 
monitoring data are necessarily available to enable a risk assessment to be completed. This is 
particularly  true  for  some  pollutants  of  emerging  concern.  In  some  cases,  sufficiently 
sensitive analytical methods do not exist. Moreover, the legislative process itself, by ordinary 
legislative  procedure,  is  burdensome.  Although  the  prioritisation  processes  have  already 
drawn on risk assessments available from the EU agencies dealing with the authorisation of 
chemicals,  all  opportunities  for  strengthening  those  agencies’  involvement  should  be 
explored. Another area where improvement is needed is the connection between monitoring 
and modelling for the development of emission inventories, which are necessary to measure 
progress  in  the  reduction  of  pollution. An  EU-scale  analysis339  highlights  that  inventories, 
particularly of diffuse sources, can indeed be produced, although in  various Member States 
they are generally not available or publicly accessible. 

Following  up  the  report  of  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  on  the  Floods  Directive,  the 
Council recently issued conclusions340 emphasising the need to improve the knowledge and 
modelling of the impact of climate change on all sources of floods. The Council called upon 
the  Commission  to  work  together  with  the  Member  States  to  reinforce  and/or  develop 
appropriate tools that better analyse and forecast these impacts. Currently, the Commission is 
considering how to best respond to the Council’s call to support Member States, for example 
within the common implementation strategy framework. 

337 A group of water directors who contributed to this Fitness Check — see Section 4.1 
338 In a 2018 report on the FD, the European Court of Auditors recommended that Member States plan action to 
raise  public  awareness  of  the  benefits  of  insurance  coverage  against  flood  risks  and  increase  coverage.  The 
Commission  in  turn  recommended  in  its  latest  implementation  report  that  Member  States  assess  whether 
encouraging  economic  instruments  promoting  flood  risk  reduction  (possibly  including  insurance)  would  be 
relevant to their particular situation and mix of measures. 
339 Pistocchi et al (2019). 
340 European Council (2019) Conclusions 7115/19. 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Mixtures of chemicals 

Whereas the EQSD and the GWD mainly take a single substance approach, in the real world 
there are no cases where only a single substance occurs in the environment. Emissions data 
and research show that the aquatic environment wildlife and humans are exposed to mixtures 
of  chemicals,  including  many  more  substances  than  just  priority  substances341.  These 
pollutants originate from urban, industrial and agricultural activities, from point and diffuse 
sources, and include pollutants from storm waters, transport and atmospheric deposition. 

One scientific study of three European rivers detected 426 organic chemicals, including 173 
pesticides,  128  pharmaceuticals,  69  industrial  chemicals  and  56  other  compounds342.  These 
include  the  neonicotinoid  insecticides  imidacloprid,  thiacloprid  and  acetamiprid,  as  well  as 
antibiotic drugs such as azithromycin, erythromycin and clarithromycin, and herbicides, e.g. 
diuron  and  isoproturon. These  chemicals  can  have  an  effect  on  the  nervous  system,  disrupt 
photosynthesis  in  plants  or  interact  with  the  hormone  system  of  humans  and  animals.  The 
challenge is to figure out if combined adverse effects result from this and which of the many 
substances present are the most important for the toxicity of a mixture. 

Furthermore, the focus on individual substances, together with the slow process for updating 
the  Annex  to  the  EQSD,  make  it  possible  that  the  excessive  concentrations  of  some 
substances may be addressed through their replacement with other substances that are not yet 
listed in the Directive, but  which may have similar or even worse effects on health and the 
environment.  A  long  time  may  pass  before  the  problems  caused  by  a  new  substance  are 
identified  and  the  substance  is  added  to  the  list  of  priority  substances  or  even  included  by 
Member States as an RBSP. 

Under  the  common  implementation  strategy,  extensive  work  has  been  undertaken  on  the 
possibility of using effect-based methods to determine the risk from chemical pollutants. This 
work is continuing. 

Pollutants of emerging concern 

The Water Framework Directive has been found to be sufficiently prescriptive regarding the 
pressures  to  be  addressed,  yet  flexible  enough  to  accommodate  emerging  challenges.  The 
inclusion of new substances in the annexes to the EQSD or the GWD, when justified by new 
knowledge,  is  provided  for  in  the  Directives.  The  GWD  also  requires  Member  States  to 
identify  and  consider  all  pollutants  putting  groundwater  bodies  at  risk,  and  data  are  being 
gathered  for  emerging  pollutants  through  the  voluntary  watch  list  mechanism.  For  surface 
waters  there  is  the  surface-water  watch  list.  In  addition,  pollutants  of  emerging  concern 
should  be  identified  by  Member  States  as  RBSPs.  These  pollutants  should  therefore  be 
adequately managed even if the pollutants in question are not listed in the priority substances 
list. 

The  presence  of  macro-  or  micro-plastics  is  increasingly  highlighted  as  a  problem  for 
Europe’s water. Micro-plastics are ubiquitous in the environment, including in all of Europe’s 
marine and freshwaters.  The WHO is calling for:  (i) further assessment of micro-plastics in 
the environment and their potential impacts on human health; and (ii) a reduction in plastic 
pollution to benefit the environment and reduce human exposure. The reporting of the second 
RBMPs showed that although the presence of (micro)plastics in water in the EU is a known 

341 EEA report 18/2018. 
342 Busch et al (2017). 

108 

 
 
 
                                                 
problem, litter was only identified as a significant pressure for a very small number of surface 
water bodies in only a few Member States. 

Responding to the EQSD requirement to develop a holistic concept to address the emerging 
issue  of  pharmaceuticals,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Communication  on  an  EU  Strategic 
Approach to Pharmaceuticals in the Environment in March 2019343. As also signalled in the 
evaluation of the UWWTD, the presence of pharmaceuticals in water and soil is increasing 
across  Europe.  A  small  proportion  of  these  (including  some  anti-depressants,  contraceptive 
substances,  cytostatica,  x-ray  contrast  media,  antibiotics  and  antiparasitics)  have  effects  on 
wildlife (fish, birds, insects and consequential effects on the wider ecosystem), and may pose 
risks to human health. Even the most advanced waste water treatment technologies currently 
in  place  cannot  remove  all  pharmaceuticals  from  water,  and  upgrading  treatment  for  this 
purpose  alone  may  in  any  case  be  disproportionally  expensive  and  resource-intensive.  The 
WFD  can  offer  part  of  the  response  to  this  problem  by  focusing  action  on  the  problematic 
substances, on particular pathways (e.g. livestock farming) and on water bodies more likely 
to receive such substances.  

A workshop344 on pollutants of emerging concern organised in the context of the consultation 
concluded on the importance of prevention at source. While waste water treatment plants are 
pathways for some of these substances, they are not the origin of the pollution. There is no 
single  treatment  technique  that  can  address  all  pollutants  of  emerging  concern.  In  addition, 
tackling substances individually is not an effective approach, and broad treatment approaches 
are better suited, also in taking into account mixtures. 

5.4.2: ‘How relevant are the Directives to EU citizens?’ 

Overall response:  

The  Directives  are  very  relevant  to  citizens  directly  in  their  daily  lives,  for  their  health  and  
livelihoods.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  large  number  of  replies  from  citizens  to  the  public 
consultation, and is demonstrated by the strong dependence of the economy on the availability of 
water.  

The  Directives’  legal  provisions  allow  for  the  public’s  main  concerns  in  relation  to  water 
management to be addressed, both in terms of quality and availability.  

Water is an important environmental issue for EU citizens 

Water  is  important  to  European  citizens.  The  public  consultation  for  this  fitness  check 
received  more  than  370,000  responses  in  total,  an  exceptionally  high  number.  The  vast 
majority of the responses (those of more than 368,000 citizens) were identified as being part 
of  campaigns  promoted  by  several  environmental  organisations345.  The  respondents  stated 
that they think the WFD is fit for purpose and that they are opposed to changing it (see text 
box below).  

343 European Commission — SWD (2019) 128. 
344 See Annex 2 — Consultation activities — synopsis report. 
345 Trinomics and Wood (2019). 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Final  comment  provided  by  more  than  368,000  citizens  who  responded  to  the  public 
consultation for this fitness check as part of  the WWF #ProtectWater campaign  

‘I  care  about  the  current  and  future  state  of  our  freshwater  ecosystems  and  I  agree  with  the 
environmental groups that the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) is fit for purpose, and it has 
delivered on protection and restoration of our waters, as well as yielded benefits for economy and 
society. Please consult my more detailed response on why the WFD is effective, efficient, relevant, 
coherent and of added value in the comment box of Part II of the survey. 

As a citizen who cares about the environment, I am opposed to changing the WFD, and want to see 
its high standards upheld and met across Europe. Currently, Member States show little ambition in 
implementing the WFD. This is evident in ineffective river basin management plans, programmes of 
measures  that  are  poorly  delivered,  insufficient  funding  allocated  to  implement  control  measures, 
and  excessive  use  (and  misuse)  of  various  types  of  exemptions  provided  within  the  WFD.  WFD 
needs  full  implementation  by  Member  States,  and  enhanced  enforcement  from  the  European 
Commission.’ 

Other surveys and campaigns have also demonstrated the importance of water to EU citizens. 
In 2013, a large campaign called Right2Water gathered 1.8 million signatures across the EU 
to  underline that many  citizens consider guaranteed water and  sanitation  a principal  human 
right346. More recently, a 2017 Eurobarometer study347 showed that more than a third (36%) 
of EU citizens picked the pollution of rivers, lakes and groundwater as one of the four most 
important environmental issues in their lives348. Some 25% of EU citizens also listed frequent 
flood and drought events as one of the four main environmental issues349,350. 

A  large  majority  of  individual  responses  from  citizens  and  stakeholders  to  the  public 
consultation  (1,279,  representing  73%  of  total  responses  n=1,755351)  found  that  flooding 
prevention  and  protection  is  of  high  or  medium  priority  and  believe  that  flood  risk  is  a 
problem  that  needs  to  be  tackled  in  their  country  or  region.  Less  than  half  of  respondents 
replied to all consultations that the risk of flooding is higher in their area than it was a decade 
ago352. 

The EU’s economy is fully dependent on water in good quantity and quality 

Water is also of great value in the EU economy: 80% of European companies state that the 
availability  of  sufficient  good  quality  freshwater  is  important  or  vital  to  their  operations353. 
The  EU’s  water-dependent  sectors  generate  €3.4  trillion  or  26%  of  the  EU’s  annual  gross 

346 See https://www.right2water.eu/ 
347 European Commission — Special Eurobarometer 468/2017. 
348 After climate change, air pollution and waste management. 
349 Respondents were asked to list the four most important environmental issues. 
350 Trinomics and Wood (2019). 
351 This response was equally high through all categories of stakeholders. 
352  There  was  no  specific  written  reference  in  either  the  public  or  the  targeted  consultations  to  pluvial/flash 
floods, apart from one contribution from the insurance sector that proposed to extend the scope of the FD to 
include pluvial flooding. The FD does, however, include pluvial floods, owing to the wide definition of what a 
flood  is  (cf.  Article 2(1):  ‘“flood”  means  the  temporary  covering  by  water  of  land  not  normally  covered  by 
water.’) There are no exclusions except potentially for floods from sewerage systems. 

353 CDP (2018); Based on a survey filled in by 183 companies. In terms of market capitalisation, the number of 
companies that use CDP represent 80% in Europe, and 55% globally. 

110 

 
 
 
                                                 
value added and employ around 44 million people354 (see Figure 25). Continued availability 
of good quality water, in sufficient quantity to serve all uses, is therefore imperative. 

Figure  25:  Employment  generated  by  the  EU’s  water-dependent  sectors  (million  full-time 
equivalents and % of total EU), 2015355 

5.4.3:  ‘How  relevant  are  the  Directives  for  EU  external  policy  objectives  (considering 
the development, cooperation and transboundary water dimensions)?’ 

Overall response:  

The  EU  water  legislation  being  evaluated  is  a  key  instrument  used  by  the  EU  to  respect  its 
commitments  at  global  level,  in  line  with  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals.  In  particular,  the 
need for transboundary cooperation in water management is enshrined in EU water legislation. 

The  objectives  of  the  Directives  have  been  the  building  block  for  international  cooperation  in 
important  river  basin  conventions  such  as  those  for  the  Danube  and  the  Rhine,  and  for  bilateral 
river basin cooperation between EU Member States and non-EU Member States. They provide the 
basis  for  the  building  of  appropriate  water  policies  in  candidate  countries  and  allow  for 
comprehensive cooperation with major international partners. 

Candidate and pre-accession countries 

The  legislation  forming  the  focus  of  this  fitness check  provides  a  key  reference  framework 
for cooperation with candidate countries, which  are at varying stages of transposing the EU 
water  acquis  and  implementing  policies  on  that  basis.  The  fact  that  the  EU  has  now 
considerable  experience  with  implementation  is  very  useful  when  helping  the  candidate 
countries find the most effective path towards creating the same policy framework.  

354 Ecorys (2019). 
355 Ecorys (2019). 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  addition,  non-Member  States,  in  particular  the  EFTA  countries,  have  implemented  the 
WFD and daughter directives, acknowledging their relevance for sustainable management of 
water  resources.  In  the  consultation,  the  Norwegian  Environment  Agency  commented  that 
since Norway’s adoption of the WFD, agreements for transboundary cooperation were made 
based on the Directive’s legal framework, which greatly supported cooperation. For example, 
in 2014, Sweden and Norway agreed on the details of river basin coordination356. 

The  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  FD  have  also  been  the  building  block  for  international 
cooperation in important river basin conventions such as for the Danube357 and the Rhine358, 
both of which include EU Member States and non-EU Member States.  

Cooperation with international partners 

Water in particular is an area where many countries around the world are keen to cooperate 
with the EU, often in a construct that involves several ministries, Member States and business 
representatives.  EU’s  international  partners,  such  as  China  and  India,  have  demonstrated  a 
keen  interest  in  particular  in  the  concepts  of  the  WFD,  especially  the  governance  elements 
and the technological solutions applied to addressing water problems. 

Bilateral cooperation on water has been further stepped up. Specific examples include: (i) the 
China  Europe  Water  Platform359  (since  2012)  and  a  new  EU-China  Water  Policy  Dialogue 
established  in  2017;  (ii)  the  India-EU  Water  Partnership  created  in  2015;  (iii)  the  2018 
cooperation  roadmap  with  Iran,  which,  among  other  topics,  covers  water  issues;  and  (iv) 
water cooperation agreed with Brazil in 2018 (and currently under development). 

UN sustainable development and disaster risk reduction agendas  

The  EU’s  well-established  acquis  on  water  policy,  including  a  holistic  approach  to  water 
management  (WFD)  and  flood  risk  management  (FD)  has  served  it  well  in  the  context  of 
international  cooperation  on  sustainable  development  and  disaster  risk  reduction.  For 
example, EU countries were able to unite around these issues during the negotiations on the 
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2015), the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk 
Reduction and the Addis Ababa action agenda (the ‘means of implementation’ element of the 
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development). The Directives covered by this fitness check are 
the  main  tools  for  implementation  in  the  EU  Member  States  of  Sustainable  Development 
Goal No 6 on clean water and sanitation (see Section 5.3.3). 

5.5.  EU added value 

The  assessment  of  the  Directives’  EU  added  value  considers  what  changes  are  due  to 
intervention at EU level and what Member States would have done without EU action. This 
considers  whether  the  Directives  are  in  line  with  the  subsidiarity  principle,  which  requires 
that EU action only be taken when it is better achieved at EU level and not by Member States 
individually. 

356 Trinomics and Wood (2019). 
357 International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). 
358 International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine. 
359 https://cewp.eu/ 

112 

 
 
 
                                                 
5.5.1:  ‘What  is  the  additional  value  resulting  from  these  Directives  compared  to  what 
could have reasonably  been expected from  Member States acting  at  national,  regional 
and/or international (including non-EU) level?’ 

Overall response:    

60% of the EU’s territory lies in river basins that cross at least one national border.  There is clear 
EU  added  value  in  transboundary  management  of  water  and  of  flood  risks,  as  actions  by  one 
Member State that affect the water of a lake or river shared with another Member State directly 
affect the status of that water body in both Member States.  Similarly, flood risks for downstream 
regions are strongly affected by events and actions in upstream regions. 

The Directives have triggered or reinforced action at European level to address the transboundary 
pressures on water resources and flood risk at river basin level, both nationally and internationally. 
Experts interviewed during the consultation  highlighted the power of a long-term binding policy 
target  and  the  fact  that  the  Directives’  level  of  ambition  is  higher  than  what  could  have  been 
expected  without  them.  At  the  same  time,  the  Directives  leave  sufficient  flexibility  to  Member 
States  to  adapt  water  management  to  local  conditions,  in  line  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity. 
However, in some cases this has led to sub-optimal levels of implementation. 

Natural interconnections between countries 

The  Directives’  EU  added  value  stems  in  the  first  place  from  the  natural  interconnections 
between  Member  States  and  even  third  countries.  Globally,  over  310  lake  and  river  basins 
stretch across national borders360. Around 60% of international river basins lack any type of 
cooperative management framework. In the EU, 60% of the territory lies in river basins that 
cross at least one national border. Action by one Member State that affects the water of a lake 
or river shared with another Member State therefore directly affects the status of that water 
body in both Member States. In addition, hydrological cycles are so interconnected that land 
use  in  one  country  can  even  affect  precipitation  beyond  its  borders.  This  is  even  more 
relevant for floods: fluvial flood risks for downstream regions are strongly affected by events 
and  actions  in  upstream  regions.  A  harmonised  approach  in  terms  of  water  management 
principles  and  water  quality  parameters  secures  an  EU-wide  level  playing  field  and 
contributes to the functioning of the internal market.  

This  natural  interconnectivity  is  the  basis  for  the  Directives’  requirements  on  the 
transboundary  management  of  water  and  of  flood  risks.  This  transboundary  management 
already existed in some cases, but was not a generalised approach to water management or to 
flood risk management, not only among different countries, but even among different regions 
in  the  same  country.  Even  where  it  already  existed,  this  transboundary  approach  was 
significantly  strengthened  after  the  Directives  entered  into  force  (e.g.  through  the 
development  of  common  river  basin  management  plans).  At  the  same  time,  the  Directives 
leave  sufficient  flexibility  to  the  Member  State  to  adapt  water  management  to  local 
conditions, in line with the principle of subsidiarity (see Sections 2.2 and 5.1.2).   

Higher level of ambition  

It could be argued that some European countries would not have national legislation on water 
management  in  the  absence  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive.  This  is  an  argument  for 

360 IUCN 'Water cooperation: diplomacy from source to sea'  - https://www.iucn.org/news/water/201912/water-
cooperation-diplomacy-source-sea (last accessed 05/12/2019) 

113 

 
 
 
                                                 
seeing the WFD as the major driver for the improvement of water quality in recent years361. 
As stressed by experts interviewed during the consultation (including NGOs, Member States 
and  industry  associations),  the  power  of  a  long-term  binding  policy  target  and  framework 
beyond national election and policy cycles should not be underestimated and neither should 
the fact that Member States can be held legally accountable for the correct transposition and 
implementation of the EU water acquis (see also Section 5.1.3)362. Rather than being due to 
shortcomings  in  the  legislation,  the  WFD’s  objectives  have  not  yet  been  reached  (see 
Sections  5.1.1  and  5.1.3)  largely  due  to  insufficient  funding,  insufficient  implementation 
(basic and supplementary measures) and insufficient integration of environmental objectives 
in sectoral policies. This picture in fact confirms the need to set objectives at EU level that 
are in line with societal needs (see also Section 5.4.1).  

On the Floods Directive, putting in place minimum requirements enforceable by law, ensured 
that  progress  in  the  Member  States  is  at  a  comparable  level  and  takes  place  within 
comparable timeframes. Indeed,  the analysis carried out for this fitness check found that at 
least three Member States did not have a flood risk management process in place before 2007 
at  all  and  were  not  likely  to  develop  one  either363.  As  a  result,  requiring  a  good  practice 
approach to flood risk management has increased the average level of flood risk management 
planning across the EU364, with improved information to the authorities and to the public and 
reduced risks overall as a result. However, as there is no information available on the baseline 
policy  situation  before  each  country’s  adoption  of  the  Directive,  there  is  no  information 
available on the magnitude of the effect. 

Benefits of cooperation on technical aspects 

One  practical  example  of  the  EU  added  value  of  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards 
Directive is that it has most likely meant that the Member States have avoided considerable 
duplication  of  scientific,  administrative  and  legislative  efforts.  In  particular,  the  work  to 
prioritise  substances  and  draw  up  and  revise  the  watch  list  has  led  to  knowledge  sharing, 
including  on  analytical  methods  for  the  monitoring  of  certain  chemicals  in  water,  biota  or 
sediments. Member States have also been prompted to collaborate on the derivation of EQSs 
for RBSPs. Not all Member States would have been in a position to acquire this knowledge, 
not  least  because  of  the  potential  cost.  Furthermore,  without  the  Directive,  Member  States 
would have had to develop their own standards. 

The  added  value  of  joint  work  at  EU  level  to  identify  problematic  substances  and  develop 
standards  can  reasonably  be  assumed.  This  assumption  is  based  on  the  fact  that  for  the 
Groundwater  Directive,  Member  States  chose  a  similar  approach  to  that  for  the  EQSD  and 
worked on a voluntary basis with the Commission to establish a watch list for groundwater 
pollutants. For example, a total of 11 Member States or participating countries have provided 
monitoring  data  on  voluntary  basis  on  per-  and  polyfluoroalkyl  substances (PFAs)  and  13 
have done so for pharmaceuticals. The Commission has supported the process on an ad hoc 
basis with limited resources. A long-term commitment of resources and additional scientific 

361  NGOs  (76%  of  69  respondents),  public  authorities  (65%  of  69  respondents)  and  EU  citizens  (61%  of  226 
respondents) gave the highest proportion of positive responses to the value added by the WFD. 
362 Trinomics and Wood (2019). 
363 Trinomics and Wood (2019). 
364 Over 8,000 areas of potential significant flood risk have been identified since 2010 throughout the EU. 

114 

 
 
 
                                                 
support  are  therefore  needed.  This  would  be  of  particular  importance  for  proposing  sound 
European quality standards for potential pollutants to be included in Annex I to the GWD365. 

6.  Conclusions 

This fitness check assessed how a significant part of EU water law — the Water Framework 
Directive,  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive,  the  Groundwater  Directive,    and 
the  Floods  Directive  —  has  functioned  to  date  (considering  the  Directives’  intervention 
logic),  whether it has lived up to its intentions, and whether or not it is still fit for purpose. 
The  findings  of  the  fitness  check  draw  on  the  results  of  an  extensive  consultation  process 
with stakeholders and the public, a support study including a large literature review, and other 
sources.  Participation  in  the  public  consultation  was  significant  with  around  370,000 
responses, with more than 368,000 responses identified as being part of campaigns promoted 
by several  environmental  organisations.  The  fitness check was  carried out  in  parallel  to  the 
evaluation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. 

The key findings of this fitness check to a large degree concur with the overall findings of the 
recent  evaluation  of  the  7th  environment  action  programme366,  identifying  the  main 
challenges  for  EU  environment  policy  as:  (i)  a  lack  of  ambition  in  the  implementation  of 
measures;  (ii)  a  lack  of  targeted  investment;  and  (iii)  insufficient  integration  with  other 
sectoral policies.  

6.1. Key points regarding the evaluation criteria 

Effectiveness 

The objectives of the Water Framework Directive include: (i) ensuring that the status of water 
bodies does not deteriorate; (ii) achieving good status for water bodies; and (iii) establishing a 
framework to protect EU waters. The WFD and the Floods Directive have been successful in 
setting up a governance framework for integrated water management. This includes evidence-
based  policy-making  based  on  monitoring  data,  management  per  river  basin  district, 
increased transboundary cooperation and public participation.  

The  WFD,  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  and  the  Groundwater  Directive 
have  considerably  improved  knowledge  of  and  data  about  pollutants  in  water  and  aquatic 
ecosystems. The monitoring requirements included in the WFD and EQSD have led to very 
significant developments in analytical methods for certain substances.   

However, progress towards good status of EU water bodies has been slower than anticipated. 
Factors to consider in this context are:  

 

the  ‘one-out-all-out’  principle  (all  quality  parameters  measured  for  a  river  or  lake 
need to be at a certain level for the overall status to be ‘good’);  

  ubiquitous,  persistent  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  substances  (including  legacy 

pollution);  

365 Annexes I and II are two of the  supporting annexes to the GWD. Annex I establishes groundwater quality 
standards that must be applied as part of the assessment of chemical status for groundwater bodies, while Annex 
II identifies a minimum list of pollutants or indicators of pollution for which Member States have to establish 
their own standards. 
366 European Commission, COM(2019) 233 final. 

115 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 

long time lags for ecosystem restoration367; and 
the  fact  that  achieving  the  WFD’s  environmental  objectives  is  conditional  on  full 
implementation  of  a  number  of  other  pieces  of  EU  law  such  as  the  Urban  Waste 
Water  Treatment  Directive  and  the  Nitrates  Directive,  which  appear  as  ‘basic 
measures’ in the programmes of measures.  

In spite of this slow progress some improvements have taken place, for example a reduction 
in the number of water bodies failing to meet standards for several metals which are listed as 
priority  substances.  For  groundwater,  progress  is  slower  due  to  the  low  flow  rates,  but 
improvements  can  be  observed,  and  groundwater  is  overall  in  comparatively  better  status 
than surface water. . 

For the Floods Directive, all Member States have taken action and are in the middle of the 
first  flood  risk  management  plan  implementation  period  (2016-2021).  They  have  set  flood 
risk objectives and are implementing measures to achieve these. No information is available 
yet on the degree of flood risk reduction achieved. 

Factors that have contributed to the effectiveness of the Directives include:  

the legal link to the WFD’s objectives in other EU policies;  

 
  EU funding;  
  enforcement and access to justice;  
 
  data about the functioning of aquatic ecosystems.  

the widely applicable non-deterioration principle and increased knowledge; and  

The  common  implementation  strategy,  the  dedicated  implementation  structure  set  up  by 
Member  States  and  the  Commission,  has  significantly  contributed  to  the  harmonisation  of 
methodologies  and  exchange  of  good  practices  through  the  development  of  extensive 
guidance, including for the Floods Directive. 

Factors  that  have  hindered  the  achievement  of  better  results  include  the  fact  that  those 
involved  underestimated  the  efforts  needed  to  establish  a  governance  framework  that  takes 
into account the Member State-specific conditions. In addition, good status depends not only 
on  mitigation  measures  to  address  current  pressures,  but  also  on  restoration  measures  to 
address  pressures  from  the  past,  including  hydromorphological  changes  and  chemical 
pollution.  The  lack  of  funding  is  a  major  obstacle  for  both  the  WFD  and  the  FD.  Member 
States’  programmes  of  measures  are  often  insufficiently  based  on  the  analysis  of  pressures 
and  impacts,  and  there  is  a  tendency  to  rely  on  easy  technological  fixes  that  address  point 
source  pollution  while  leaving  other  sources  of  pollution  largely  untargeted.  Finally,  good 
status of water bodies also critically depends on the integration of water objectives in other 
policy areas such agriculture, energy or transport, something which is not always the case.  

Efficiency 

Accurately  quantifying  costs  and  benefits  related  to  the  WFD  and  the  FD  specifically  is 
challenging. The costs of WFD-specific measures reported by Member States in the second 
cycle of RBMPs are €13.8 billion per year, less than 0.1% of EU GDP. This number does not 
include the cost of all measures to be taken to close the implementation gap, so it should be 

367  Of  the  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  (n=516),  86%  consider  EU  water  legislation  to  have  been 
moderately to very effective in preventing deterioration of status. Of those responses (n=443), most come from 
EU citizens (38%) and industry (28%). 

116 

 
 
 
                                                 
seen as an underestimation. Studies on the value of ecosystem services and the restoration of 
rivers indicate that the benefits of measures to improve the status of water bodies outweigh 
the costs and that citizens’ willingness to pay exceeds current expenditure on water measures. 
The  avoided  costs  to  business  thanks  to  water  being  of  good  quality  and  quantity  are  also 
significant. According to the costs of measures reported in the FRMPs, Member States should 
invest upwards of €12.5 billion between 2016 and 2021 on flood protection, prevention and 
preparedness. 

The objectives for programmes of measures for river basin districts are mostly determined by 
what can be delivered with budgets and policies already in place. Insufficient use is made of 
the  principle  of  cost  recovery,  while  exemptions  based  on  disproportionate  costs  are  not 
always adequately justified. Factors that can lower the cost of implementation include:  

identifying the appropriate measures based on integrated water management;  
the use of cost-effectiveness analysis;  
reduction of pollution at source;  
the use of green infrastructure; and  

 
 
 
 
  water efficiency.  

Good practices exist but there is still significant room for improvement.   

The  monitoring  requirements  introduced  by  the  WFD  aim  to  provide  a  clear  and 
comprehensive  overview  of  the  status  and  pressures  within  each  river  basin  district.  These 
monitoring requirements have led to a significant knowledge base that has also fed into other 
policies.  Nonetheless,  gaps  still  exist,  mostly  due  to  lack  of  capacity  and  resources.  The 
Directives'  extensive  reporting  requirements  are  necessary  because  of  the  high  degree  of 
flexibility  of  the  framework  approach:  to  be  cost-effective  water  management  needs  to  be 
adapted to the local circumstances, yet to keep an overview on compliance, i.e. whether the 
objectives are being reached and whether the right methodologies are being used, reporting is 
indispensable.  There  is  no  evidence  of  excessive  administrative  burden  in  terms  of 
that,  citizens,  Member  State 
monitoring  and  reporting  requirements.  Having  said 
representatives, environmental groups and the water sector have indicated that there is room 
for  improvement,  both  in  the  accessibility  of  information  and  in  the  level  of  detail.  The 
requirement  to  hold  a  public  consultation  as  part  of  the  integrated  water  management 
approach  is  useful  to  gather  expertise  and  improve  stakeholder  acceptance;  this  has  led  to 
tangible improvements  in  the RBMPs. The public consultation  requirement  as such has not 
been challenged, but some authorities have criticised as too long the prescribed length of the 
first  two  stages  (the  work  programme  and  the  overview  of  significant  issues).  Respondents 
who  participated  in  the  campaign  organised  by  environmental  organisations  acknowledged 
that the public consultation  requirement has led to substantial  improvement in  transparency 
and  public  participation,  but 
involve 
that 
environmental groups and the general public. 

the  consultations 

insufficiently 

indicate 

Coherence 

Having been devised in sequence and complementary to each other, the WFD, EQSD, GWD 
and FD form for the most part an internally coherent package. The main issue identified on 
internal coherence relates to chemicals. Whereas the quality standards for ‘priority substances 
and  certain  other  pollutants’  are  set  uniformly  at  EU  level,  the  identification  of,  and 
derivation  of  quality  standards  for,  river  basin-specific  pollutants  are  conducted  at  Member 
State  level  in  line  with  the  subsidiarity  principle.  In  practice,  variability  in  the  number  of 
117 

 
 
 
substances  identified  as  RBSPs  is  larger  than  can  be  explained  by  national  circumstances. 
There  are  also  significant  differences  between  the  environmental  quality  standards  set  by 
different Member States for the same substances. This is an instance where the flexibility left 
to the Member States has led to sub-optimal results. 

The Directives are largely coherent with  and complementary to the EU’s  wider climate and 
environmental  policy,  even  though  there  is  still  room  to  increase  synergies  and  streamline 
implementation, for example with (other) EU chemicals legislation.  

On EU sectoral policies, progress has been made on better integration of water-related issues, 
thanks  to  the  adoption  of  the  water  legislation  and  of  instruments  to  reduce  the  impact  of 
economic  activities  on  water.  However,  there  are  still  issues  of  incoherence  with  sectoral 
policies,  for  example  on  agriculture,  energy  and  transport,  and  these  can  hinder  the 
achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  daughter  directives.  Full  integration  of  the 
WFD and daughter directives’ objectives into the strategic orientations and incentives of the 
economic  sectors  responsible  for  the  main  pressures  on  water  is  not  yet  fully  achieved.  In 
some sectors, this would require a paradigm shift in approach.  

The Directives are fully coherent with the EU’s international obligations related to water such 
as  the  2030  Agenda  for  Sustainable  Development,  the  UNECE  Water  Convention,  the 
Regional Sea Conventions and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. 

Relevance 

Water is an essential societal need. The importance of the policy challenges related to water 
and floods has been confirmed by various international institutions, including the OECD, the 
World Economic Forum and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity 
and  Ecosystem  Services  (IPBES).  The  relevance  of  the  Directives  to  EU  citizens  has  also 
been  confirmed by more than 368,000 people who participated in  the WWF #ProtectWater 
campaign,  stating  that  they  are  opposed  to  changing  the  WFD  and  want  to  see  its  high 
standards upheld and met across Europe.  

The  objectives  of  the  Directives  covered  by  this  fitness  check  are  as  relevant  now  as  they 
were  when  the  Directives  were  adopted,  if  not  more  so.  They  contribute  to  improving  the 
situation  with  regard  to  six  of  the  nine  planetary  boundaries  (freshwater  use,  nitrogen  and 
phosphorus cycles, ocean acidification, chemical pollution, biodiversity and climate change).  

The  Directives’  in-built  flexibility  and  cyclicality  leaves  sufficient  room  also  for  emerging 
concerns to be adequately addressed, such as the threat from climate change and its impact on 
water  quantity  in  particular  but  also  on  water  quality;  or  from  water  pollution  by  new 
pollutants such as (micro)plastics or pharmaceuticals. The process of keeping up with science 
has  proven  to  be  slower  than  anticipated,  in  particular  for  the  EQSD  and  the  updating  of 
relevant substances. In addition, the EQSD does not address mixtures of substances.  

EU added value 

60%  of  the  EU’s  territory  lies  in  river  basins  that  cross  at  least  one  national  border.  This 
fitness check confirms that the Directives have led to stronger transboundary cooperation and 
to a higher level of ambition for the environmental objectives for water bodies and flood risk 
management than could have been expected without them. At the same time, the Directives 
leave  sufficient  flexibility  to  the  Member  States  to  adapt  water  management  to  local 
conditions, in line with the principle of subsidiarity.   

118 

 
 
 
6.2.  Key issues per directive 

Water Framework Directive 

Deadlines and exemptions  

The 2015 timeline for  good status  has not  been  met for a  majority of water bodies, leaving 
more  than  half  under  one  of  the  Directive’s  exemptions.  The  challenges  faced  by  Member 
States are therefore more than substantial. While the conditions for application of the various 
exemptions  have been clarified somewhat over time, the justifications provided by Member 
States are often too generic, and the provisions on exemptions have been interpreted in very 
different ways.  

The possibilities for exemptions are reduced after 2027, as time extensions under Article 4(4) 
can only be authorised in cases where all the measures have been put in place but the natural 
conditions are such that the objectives cannot be achieved by 2027. The next round of river 
basin  management  plans  and  programmes  of  measures  will  play  a  key  role  in  ensuring  the 
necessary progress towards achieving the environmental objectives by the 2027 deadline. To 
support  and  steer  Member  States 
formulated 
recommendations addressed to all of them in its latest implementation report, complemented 
by  Member  State-specific  recommendations.  The  EU  recommendations  call  on  Member 
States to: (i) continue improving stakeholder involvement; (ii) clearly identify the gap to good 
status  for  individual  pressures  and  water  bodies  and  design,  fund  and  implement  targeted 
PoMs to close it; (iii) reduce reliance on exemptions and improve transparency in relation to 
the justifications used; and (iv) ensure the proper implementation of cost recovery.  

the  Commission 

the  process, 

in 

The non-deterioration objective 

One  factor  that  has  contributed  to  the  effectiveness  of  the  WFD  is  the  fact  that  its 
environmental  objectives,  and  in  particular  the  non-deterioration  objective,  are  not  merely 
objectives  for  management  planning,  but  also  apply  to  individual  projects,  as  confirmed  in 
the  Court  of  Justice’s  Weser  ruling.  Industry  representatives  find  that  the  non-deterioration 
objective  leads  to  uncertainty  and  excessive  precaution  in  the  permit  schemes  in  some 
Member States. However, the strict one-out-all-out approach is not as strict as it may seem, as 
not  every  little  decline  in  one  of  the  quality  elements  causes  a  deterioration  in  class,  since 
classes are defined as ‘ranges’. 

The one-out-all-out principle 

Views from  the public consultation  are split  on the appropriateness  of the  principle of ‘one 
out  all  out’.  While  the  one-out-all-out  principle  is  broadly  supported  by  respondents  from 
NGOs and via the campaign, representatives of industry and agriculture raised concerns that 
applying the principle makes it more difficult to show progress resulting from investments in 
water  quality.  Given  the  importance  of  better  communicating  progress  to  citizens  and 
stakeholders,  work  has  begun  to  facilitate  more  detailed  communication  about  the  state  of 
water.  

Ubiquitous persistent bioaccumulative and toxic substances 

A limited number of ubiquitous substances, such as mercury and other persistent pollutants, 
are largely responsible for good chemical status not being achieved in surface waters. While 
significant progress is being made in addressing both European and (to some extent) global 
sources, concentrations are expected to reduce only very slowly over time.  

119 

 
 
 
Integration in other policy areas 

The  WFD  offers  the  necessary  instruments  to  reconcile  the  objectives  of  other  sectoral 
policies.  However,  in  practice  the  integration  of  the  WFD  objectives  with  other  sectors  has 
been difficult. This fitness check concluded that there are trade-offs to be explored between 
the WFD’s objectives and pressures arising from sectors such as:  

  agriculture (strong pressures from nitrates and pesticides and from water abstraction);  
  energy/climate  (including  generation  of  hydropower  and  production  of  biomass  for 

energy); 
transport; and  

 
  non-energy raw materials.  

It will need to be explored how to best ensure synergies. The enhanced conditionality in the 
Commission  proposal  for  the  future  of  the  common  agricultural  policy  and  the  higher 
ambition for environment and climate (including the WFD) could  ensure stronger synergies 
between  the  CAP  and  the  WFD.  However,  Member  States’  implementation  choices  are 
expected  to  remain  a  decisive  factor  in  whether  or  not  these  synergies  are  successfully 
achieved. 

Enforcement 

Enforcement at EU level has focussed mostly on the formal or procedural requirements, and 
on  ‘systematic’  cases  of  incorrect  implementation  (‘pilot’  cases  to  test  the  interpretation, 
issue  arising  in  more  than  one  Member  State),  e.g.  on  water  pricing,  small  hydropower, 
nutrient pollution, insufficient justification of exemptions.  
Legal  enforcement  of  the  WFD  is  above  all  the  Member  States’  responsibility.  Legal 
enforcement  largely  depends  on  the  possibility  for  interested  parties  to  take  part  in  and 
control  decision-making  through  national  administrative  or  judicial  review  procedures  and 
access  to  justice.  Enforcement  also  rests  on  a  national  system  of  inspections  to  detect 
non-compliance  and  ensure  appropriate  follow-up.  Civil  society  representatives  claim  that 
there is a need to improve access to and effectiveness of national enforcement procedures, as 
well as to have better organised systems of inspections and more effective penalties. 

Emerging challenges 

The  WFD  is  sufficiently  prescriptive  with  the  pressures  to  be  addressed,  and  yet  flexible 
enough to reinforce its implementation as necessary with regard to emerging  challenges not 
explicitly  mentioned  in  the  legislative  texts,  such  as  climate  change,  water  scarcity  and 
pollutants  of  emerging  concern  (e.g.  micro-plastics).  The  mechanism  whereby  management 
plans are periodically revised based on an analysis of drivers and pressures can therefore deal 
with  these newly identified pressures. However, integration of these pollutants of emerging 
concern in RBMPs has been quite limited so far and will require far greater attention in the 
future. Properly accounting for the existing chemicals and their mixtures in water, and adding 
emerging pressures to well-established ones, could raise the profile of pollutants of emerging 
concern  in  terms  of  implementation.  These  findings  are  consistent  with  the  findings  of  the 
evaluation  of  the  UWWTD,  which  also  identified  contaminants  of  emerging  concern  as  an 
increasingly  important  problem.  Waste  water  treatment  reduces  the  amount  of  some 
contaminants of emerging concern entering the aquatic environment, but upstream solutions 
are essential, particularly for diffuse source pollutants. 

120 

 
 
 
 
The  Directive  provides  a  comprehensive  framework  for  protecting  and  managing  the 
quantitative aspects of water bodies. Sound water management requires joint management of 
qualitative  and  quantitative  aspects,  the  latter  being  implicit  in  the  definition  of  good 
ecological  status  and  explicit 
in  hydromorphological  elements  (i.e.  flow  regime). 
Furthermore,  good  quantitative  status  is  required  for  groundwater,  where  Member  States 
must ensure a balance between water abstraction and recharge rates. As quantitative issues in 
particular are bound to become yet more salient in the coming period due to the impacts of 
climate  change,  Member  States  will  need  to  make  the  best  possible  use  of  the  framework 
offered by the WFD to address them. It is worth exploring how this process can be facilitated 
at EU level. 

Monitoring and reporting 

The Commission’s analysis of the first and second cycles of RBMPs concluded that in most 
Member States there is still insufficient monitoring to allow for appropriate characterisation 
of  water  bodies.  For  some  types  of  data,  the  uptake  of  innovative  monitoring  technologies, 
including satellite data and automated monitoring technologies, has great potential to improve 
data  collection,  reduce  the  costs  of  monitoring  and  enhance  confidence  in  WFD  status 
classification. 

Reporting  cycles  are  not  fully  aligned  between  different  directives,  as  also  previously 
indicated in the fitness check on environmental monitoring and reporting. Many feel reporting 
should  be  further  simplified  and  automatised  as  the  current  system  is  seen  as  too  extensive 
and resource demanding. Scope for streamlining should therefore be further explored.  
Progress has been made in moving towards digitalisation of the reporting and visualisation of 
results  (e.g.  moving  from  reporting  to  harvesting  of  data,  allowing  re-use  of  data),  but  the 
potential is far from fully exploited. Electronic reporting has also proved to be a useful tool 
for  communication  and  comparison  purposes  between  planning  cycles.  In  some  Member 
States, digital solutions  have helped to reduce the administrative burden further, but further 
potential remains.  To tap into this potential, available EU funds such as  the Digital  Europe 
programme368 can support Member States in this transition. 

Environmental Quality Standards Directive 
The list of priority substances  was identified by respondents in the public consultation369 as 
one of the factors that  contributed the most to  progress  towards the WFD’s objectives. The 
stakeholder  categories  that  were  the  most  positive  included  EU  citizens,  environmental 
organisations and industry/industry associations. 

The  lengthy  six-year  cycles  to  update  the  priority  substance  list  means  that  new  substances 
cannot be added swiftly to the list. Furthermore, the prioritisation exercise and determination 
of EQSs for the priority substances is a complex process which requires expertise and time to 
gather  and  assess  the  scientific  information  and  to  put  in  place  monitoring  for  the  new 
substances. All opportunities for strengthening the involvement of EU agencies with relevant 
expertise in this process should be explored to reinforce the capacity and increase efficiency.  

368 COM/2018/434 final — 2018/0227 (COD). 
369  40%  (274  out  of  675)  of  respondents  indicated  that  the  list  ‘substantially’  contributed  to  meeting  the 
objectives of the Directives. 

121 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  setting-up  of  a  watch  list  was  generally  welcomed  by  most  contributors  to  the 
consultation370.  While  the  watch  list  has  been  helpful  in  identifying  relevant  pollutants,  the 
relationship between the watch list and prioritisation process for priority substances could be 
improved. 

The  list  of  priority  substances  was  revised  in  2013,  with  all  existing  priority  substances 
retained because they could still pose a risk due to their persistence or ongoing use. However, 
it may be possible to remove some when the list is next revised. The approach to listing and 
monitoring specific individual substances (as opposed to mixtures of substances or measuring 
the  combined  effect  rather  than  individual  concentrations)  has  proven  to  be  ineffective  at 
catching  the  effects  of  combinations  of  chemicals  and  possible  substitutes  for  the  active 
substance. Work is ongoing to explore the feasibility and the practical implications of taking a 
more holistic effect-based approach. 

the  emerging 

To  address 
the  Commission  adopted  a 
issue  of  pharmaceuticals, 
Communication  on  an  EU  Strategic  Approach  to  Pharmaceuticals  in  the  Environment  in 
March 2019.  

Groundwater Directive 

Overall, the GWD has been successful in setting specific objectives, protecting groundwater 
resources  and  avoiding  their  deterioration.  Although  groundwater  presents  a  slow  onset  of 
impacts, and measures require time to take effect, groundwater bodies are generally in better 
status than surface waters at EU level.   

The GWD has been particularly useful in setting details for addressing chemical pollution of 
groundwater  and  setting  the  necessary  requirements  to  control  upward  trends  of  pollutants, 
while providing a definition of starting points for trend reversal and requiring Member States 
to take action when a risk is detected.  

Annex  II  to  the  GWD  sets  a  minimum  list  of  pollutants  that  could  cause  a  risk  that  the 
objectives  will  not  be  met;  for  these,  threshold  values  (quality  standards)  have  to  be  set  by 
Member  States.  There  is,  however,  very  large  variability  in  the  ranges  of  threshold  values 
across the EU. This in part can be due to the flexibility the Directive allows when it comes to 
setting  the  values,  taking  several  factors  into  consideration  (e.g.  receptors,  risks,  pollutants, 
background  levels).  However,  the  wide  range  of  threshold  values  is  much  larger  than  what 
can be explained by local differences. This issue is being addressed through the 2014 review 
of the GWD and the on-going technical works to better harmonise values. 

Overall, it appears from the feedback from stakeholders throughout the consultation that more 
time is needed to assess whether the parameters included in the annexes are pertinent, as the 
last update entered into force in 2016. 

The  process  of  keeping  up  with  science  has  largely  occurred  thanks  to  the  voluntary 
engagement  of  Member  States  and  stakeholders  who  supported  the  Commission.  The 
potential for more secure long-term technical and scientific support to carry out such updates 
should be explored, as should the potential for a more efficient manner in which to update the 

370  Of  the  respondents  to  the  relevant  question  in  the  expert  part  of  the  public  consultation  (n=550),  49% 
considered the surface water watch list monitoring requirements to be  appropriate for the intended purpose. A 
higher proportion of NGOs (69%, n=51) and environmental organisations (66%, n=29) than EU citizens (46%, 
n=199) responded ‘yes’ on this aspect. 

122 

 
 
 
                                                 
annexes. The fact that a voluntary process for establishing a watch list has been set in motion 
shows the value Member States attach to the objectives of the Directive. 

Floods Directive 

The FD has introduced a flexible and integrated approach to floods management in the EU, in 
line  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity.  The  approach  includes  prevention,  preparedness  and 
protection, covers the whole catchment and coasts, and provides the opportunity to take into 
account uncertainties through its cyclical approach. The Directive has successfully achieved 
its objective to put in place an effective governance framework.  

All  Member  States  have  set  objectives,  and  most  of  them  have  put  in  place  a  monitoring 
system. Due to the Directive’s early stage of implementation, there is no information yet on 
whether it has achieved its objective to reduce damage via concrete measures. With the first 
cycle  concluded,  Member  States  will  need  to  implement  additional  elements,  such  as 
implementing  the  measures  of  the  first  and  subsequent  cycles,  assessing  progress  towards 
reaching  the  objectives  and  the  likely  imminently  worsening  impact  of  climate  change. 
Implementation of these additional elements  will need to  start  from  Member States’ second 
preliminary  flood  risk  assessments  and  FRMPs  onwards.  The  full  potential  of  the  Floods 
Directive can thus only be reached in the future. 

Citizens, experts and officials contributing to the public consultation found that the Directive 
has improved flood risk management. There is, however, scope to strengthen awareness and 
foster synergies between the Directive, the various pieces of water law and other related EU-
level instruments. In addition, the knowledge and modelling of the impact of climate change 
on all sources of floods should also be improved. 

The  analysis  in  this  fitness  check  did  not  find  evidence  that  the  Floods  Directive  creates 
unnecessary administrative burden. Cost-benefit ratios differ for every project, but are found 
to be higher than 1 and to pay back several times over. 

6.3. Lessons learned for future follow-up 

The  insufficient  level  of  implementation  by  Member  States  and  by  those  sectors  of  the 
economy  with  an  impact  on  water  has  come  to  the  forefront  across  the  different  criteria  of 
evaluation  and  for  all  Directives,  and  is  at  odds  with  the  widespread  support  for  the  water 
acquis.  Any  follow-up  to  this  fitness  check  will  need  to  explore  how  best  to  facilitate 
significant  acceleration  of  implementation  towards  reaching  the  Directives’  objectives  and 
whether new methods or forums to support compliance promotion could contribute to this.  

It would seem beneficial to reflect with all concerned on progress towards implementation of 
measures.  Such  reflection  should  focus  on  how  to  assess  the  effectiveness  of  the  measures 
being put into operation, and whether they are sufficient to achieve the objectives. Identifying 
and  applying  innovative  technology  aiding  the  cause  of  the  WFD  can  also  play  a  role  in 
advancing towards the 2027 deadline. 

Enhanced awareness raising, training and education, access to justice and public participation 
will also be key factors, considering the important role citizens and businesses play as agents 
for  transformation.  The  national  courts  must  play  an  important  role  in  ensuring  effective 
implementation  of  the  Directives,  complemented  by  enforcement  at  EU  level  where 
warranted. 

123 

 
 
 
For both the EQSD and the GWD, the potential for streamlined methods to prepare updates in 
line with scientific developments should be explored. 

To achieve sustainable protection and use of water resources, which will become even more 
important due to climate change, it is particularly relevant to ensure a balanced and coherent 
approach  to  the  sometimes  competing  uses  of  water  by  different  sectors.  Energy  and 
agriculture are particularly pertinent in this respect. It will also be necessary to consider how 
further  integration  of  the  Directives  with  other  policy  areas  can  best  be  advanced  in  a 
mutually supportive way; this is especially important in view of the emerging challenges for 
water  management  caused  by  climate  change  and  pollutants  of  emerging  concern.  Work  in 
this field includes the allocation of funds under other policies in a way that promotes, and in 
no way hinders, the achievement of the Directives’ objectives.  

To  address  the  financing  gap,  implementation  of  water  policy  requires  considerable 
investment  as  well  as  operation  and  maintenance  financing.  While  national  contributions 
should play the principal role, EU funding has played a considerable role, often as part of the 
cohesion  policy  funds  and  in  the  accession  process,  as  well  as  through  the  common 
agriculture policy. International financial institutions (the EIB, the EBRD, the World Bank) 
have  also  invested  heavily  in  this  sector.  Insufficient  implementation  of  the  Water 
Framework  Directive’s  Article 9  provisions  on  cost  recovery  and  water  pricing  deprives 
Member  States  of  a  potential  source  of  revenue  to  finance  measures,  which  generates  a 
hidden cost for society. 

This fitness check also concluded that there is limited room for simplification and reduction 
of the Directives’  administrative burden without jeopardising their objectives. Some further 
streamlining  of  monitoring  and  electronic  reporting,  together  with  a  continuation  of  the 
ongoing digitalisation, could help alleviate the required administrative effort.  

124 

 
 
 
 
 
7.  Annexes  

Annex 1 - Procedural information  

1.1. Lead DGs and internal references  

This evaluation is led by DG Environment. It was included as item PLAN/2017/1661 in the 
DECIDE/Agenda Planning database. 

1.2. Organisation of the work and timing 

The  Commission  announced  this  fitness  check  in  October  2017  with  the  publication  of  the 
roadmap.  The  roadmap  received  82  contributions  during  the  feedback  period371,  with  wide 
participation from Member States’ national and regional authorities, industrial and economic 
representatives, and environmental organisations (see Annex 2 for details). The roadmap set 
out  the  evaluation  framework  and  the  scope  for  this  fitness  check,  and  the  Commission 
prepared  a  number  of  general  evaluation  questions  to  assess  the  evaluation  criteria.  These 
were then broken down into more targeted questions to make the analysis more specific (see 
Annex 3).  

In  2018,  to  support  this  fitness  check,  the  Commission  awarded  a  study  contract  to  a 
consortium  of  experts  led  by  Trinomics  and  Wood  (formerly  Amec  Foster  Wheeler).  The 
consortium worked in close cooperation with the Commission throughout the different phases 
of the study. The objective of the study was to provide support to the Commission evaluation 
of  the  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  the  Water 
Framework  Directive, 
the 
Environmental Quality Standards Directive, and the Floods Directive. This work included the 
consultation activities. 

the  Groundwater  Directive  and 

its  daughter  directives 

In 2017, a steering group comprising all relevant Commission services (Interservice Group, 
ISG) was set up to oversee and contribute to the evaluation and its conclusions. The ISG was 
set  up  jointly  for  this  fitness  check  and  for  the  evaluation  of  the  Urban  Waste  Water 
Treatment Directive, acknowledging the significant links between the two evaluations. This 
was also to ensure that the group tackled both processes in an efficient manner. 

The following Directorate-Generals were represented: 

Secretariat-General (SG) 
Legal Service (SJ) 
Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) 
Climate Action (CLIMA) 
Communications Network, Content and Technology (CNECT) 
Economic and Financial Affairs (ECFIN) 
Environment (ENV) 
Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (EMPL) 
Energy (ENER) 
European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations (NEAR) 
European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) 
Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union (FISMA) 
Health and Food Safety (SANTE) 

371 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-5128184/feedback_en?p_id=122600. 

125 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROW) 
Joint Research Centre (JRC)  
Justice and Consumers (JUST) 
Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MARE) 
Migration and Home Affairs (HOME) 
Mobility and Transports (MOVE) 
Regional and Urban Policy (REGIO) 
Trade (TRADE) 
Research and Innovation (RTD) 

The  group  met  four  times  during  the  evaluation  process.  On  a  number  of  deliverables,  the 
group  was  consulted  in  writing.  The  members  of  the  group  were  invited  to  all  events 
organised in the context of the consultation process described in Annex 2. 

Table 1 ISG meeting dates and topics of discussion  

DATE 

TOPICS OF DISCUSSION 

8 November 2017 
3 April 2019 
27 May 2019 
1 October 2019 

First  ISG meeting 
Second  ISG meeting  
Third  ISG meeting  
Fourth ISG meeting 

In addition to the meetings, the ISG was regularly kept informed and consulted in writing on 
the different steps of the process. These were chiefly the following: (i) the overall process and 
roadmap; (ii) the consultation strategy; (iii) the terms of reference of the support study; (iv) 
the draft public consultation questionnaire;  (v) the results of the consultation  activities; (vi) 
the  draft  staff  working  document  and  revised  draft  staff  working  document  following  the 
opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. 

1.3. Exceptions to the Better Regulation Guidelines 
No exceptions were made to the Better Regulation Guidelines372 during this fitness check.  

1.4. Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

The  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  (RSB)  delivered  a  positive  opinion  with  comments  on 
15 November 2019. The following table provides information on how the RSB’s comments 
have been addressed in this staff working document. 

RSB comments 
The report does not discuss whether Member 
States tend to have the same implementation 
problems or different ones. 

The report does not comprehensively assess 
the administrative burden of the various 
elements of the Water Framework Directive. 

Reflection in text 
Clarifications  have  been  added  to  Sections  5.1.1  and 
5.1.3. It has now been made clearer that some issues 
are  location-specific,  while  others,  such  as  insufficient 
finance  or  integration  of  water  objectives  in  sectoral 
policies, are common to all Member States.  
the  Directives  entail 
Section  5.2.3  explains 
comprehensive monitoring and reporting requirements, 
which are mostly functional instruments to increase the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the measures. Likewise, 
integrated  water 
Section  5.1.2  explains 
management  requires  the  necessary  knowledge  and 
cross-boundary  collaboration,  which  inevitably  entails 
some additional administrative processes. 

that 

that 

372 https://ec.europa.eu/info/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en 

126 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
RSB comments 
The fitness check does not explain why the 
(self-) financing model of the Water Framework 
Directive had only limited success in solving 
funding problems. 

The report should analyse why the 
implementation of various elements is so mixed 
across Member States, i.e. whether Member 
States struggle with the same or different 
problems. For example, is there more political 
will in some Member States to implement the 
provisions on cost recovery and water pricing, 
or do they simply face fewer practical 
obstacles? The report should not advocate for a 
more uniform approach unless it can show that 
the variation across countries stems from 
something else besides different local 
situations. 

Many elements of the Water Framework 
Directive produce an administrative burden, for 
example, maintaining cross-border governance 
structures, drawing up plans, assessing 
pressures and impacts, doing economic 
analysis on water uses, doing monitoring and 
reporting, etc. The report should analyse 
systematically where the burden is 
disproportionate and the analysis could be 
simplified. 

The conclusion on the extent to which the Water 
Framework Directive was able to address 
deterioration of water quality needs to be 
consistent across the report, including in the 
executive summary. 

Reflection in text 
Clarifications have been added in Section 5.2.1 on why 
the  implementation  of  the  cost  recovery  principle  has 
been uneven and incomplete. Furthermore, in the sub-
section  on  the  financing  of  measures,  the  report 
explains  that  public  investments  are  justified  for  water 
use activities for which the costs cannot be recovered.  
The  issue  of  the  variability  in  implementation  between 
Member States has been clarified in Section 5.1.1. The 
reasons for the differences in the rate of cost recovery 
have been clarified in Section 5.2.1. 

Section  5.2.3  set  out  that  the  fitness  check  on 
environmental  monitoring  and  reporting  estimated  the 
administrative  burden for the WFD as ‘fairly  large’ and  
at  the  same  level  as  many  other  environmental 
the 
the  FD  and 
Directives.  For 
administrative  burden  was  estimated  to  be  ‘moderate’. 
Section  5.2.3  further  also  explains  that  some  of  the 
administrative requirements are necessary to keep the 
policy  discretion  provided  by  the  Directives  in  check 
and to provide transparency to citizens. 

the  EQSD, 

The section on non-deterioration has been redrafted to 
ensure  consistency  throughout  the  report  and  the 
wording in the executive summary has been changed. 

The report should be shortened. It is still very 
long. Readability would be improved with less 
bold type. A greater effort to make the executive 
summary simpler and more understandable 
would help communication of the results of the 
evaluation. 

thoroughly  edited  by 

the 
The  report  has  been 
Commission’s  Editing  Service.  While  this  has  only 
shortened  the  text  in  certain  sections,  it  has  greatly 
increased  the  readability  of  the  report  in  its  integrity. 
The excessive use  of bold has been removed and the 
executive  summary  has  been  edited  to  make  it  more 
accessible to non-experts. 

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board had previously provided a negative opinion with comments 
on 19 July 2019. The following table provides information on how the comments made were 
addressed in this staff working document: 

RSB comments 

Reflection in text 

127 

 
 
 
 
RSB comments 
The  report  does  not  clearly  set  out 
the 
objectives  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive.  It 
does  not  objectively  assess  the  success  of  the 
Directive against these. 

The  report  should  not  give  the  objective  of 
halting  deterioration  of  water  quality  more 
weight  than  the  other  objectives  of  the  Water 
Framework  Directive,  in  particular,  achieving 
good environmental status by 2015.  

for 

plans 

Especially  in the conclusions and the executive 
summary, the report should objectively describe 
which objectives were largely met (for example, 
setting  up  a  monitoring  system,  drafting  cross-
border 
river  basins,  halting 
deterioration)  and  which  objectives  were  not  or 
only  partially  met  (for  example,  implementing 
triggering 
the  most  cost-efficient  measures, 
additional 
good 
environmental status).  
The  report  does  not  adequately  examine  why 
the  objective  to  achieve  good  environmental 
status in 2015 was missed.  

investments, 

achieving 

The  report  should  analyse  why  the  target  date 
of achieving good environmental status in 2015 
was missed. It could more clearly explain that it 
takes  time  before  measures  show  their  full 
effect,  so  that  in  hindsight  the  target  may  have 
been unrealistic.  
In  order  to  manage  expectations  for  the  future, 
the report should discuss to what extent current 
measures  are  on 
to  achieve  good 
track 
environmental status by 2027. 

The  report  should  also  explain  how  the  impact 
of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  depends  on 
the 
for 
example on agriculture.  

implementation  of  other 

legislation, 

Reflection in text 
The  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  other  Directives 
covered by the fitness check are now clearly explained 
in  Section  2.1  (Description  of  the  Directives  and  their 
objectives).  The  analysis  of  progress  towards  the 
objectives is now more balanced throughout the SWD. 
Progress  towards  reaching  the  individual  objectives 
(non-deterioration, good status, etc.) is now covered in 
detail  in  the  section  on  effectiveness  (Section  5.1 
Question  1  assesses  performance  in  terms  of  the 
objectives;  Question  2  analyses 
the 
governance structures intended by the Directives have 
been set up). 
In  addition,  the  assessment  of  relevance  (Section  5.4) 
puts 
the  perspective  of  new 
developments  (such  as  climate  change  and  new 
pollutants).  
The  executive  summary  and  conclusions  have  been 
substantially  redrafted  to  reflect  the  updated  analysis 
following  the  comments  from  the  RSB.  They  now 
include both a summary of the state of play and of the 
results of the fitness check process and its assessment 
of the five evaluation criteria. 

the  objectives 

in  how 

into 

far 

the  gaps 

information  on 

the  suitability  of 

More  qualitative 
in 
implementation and reasons behind is now included in 
Section  2  (state  of  implementation),  drawing  on  the 
analysis  of  the  Commission’s  latest  implementation 
report. 
Question  3  in  the  effectiveness  section  (Section  5.1) 
elaborates  on  the  factors  that  have  contributed  to  the 
delays  in  achieving  good  status  for  all  water  bodies 
(factors  that  stood  in  the  way),  e.g.  by  looking  at  the 
one-out-all-out principle and the slow response time of 
nature. 
An  assessment  of 
the  current 
measures  to  achieve  the  environmental  objectives  is 
now  included  in  the  effectiveness  section  (Section  5.1 
Question 3). 
In  addition,  the  crucial  role  of  the  third  river  basin 
management plans and programmes of measures (due 
in  2021)  in  setting  the  course  for  the  2027  deadline  is 
now highlighted (in  Section 3.2 Assessment of second 
river  basin  management  plans  and  first  flood  risk 
management plans). 
More  accessible  information  on  how  source  legislation 
interacts with the Water Directives, notably the concept 
of  ‘basic  measures’,  is  included  in  Section  2.2  on 
integrated water and floods management (for example, 
the Nitrates Directive). 
The  fact  that  the  implementation  crucially  depends  on 
the  implementation  of  other  sectoral  policies  is  then 
explained  in  detail  in  the  coherence  section  (Section 
5.3 Question 2). 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
RSB comments 
The  report  does  not  sufficiently  assess  the 
effectiveness  and  room  for  simplification  of  the 
planning and monitoring processes set up under 
the Directives.  

The  report  treats  putting  in  place  a  system  for 
monitoring,  reporting  and  drafting  plans  as  an 
end, and hence a success, in itself.  

river 

The  report  should  further  discuss  which  of  the 
mandatory 
risk 
basin 
management  plans  appear  to  have  delivered 
effective  measures  to  achieve  better  water 
quality and quantity and decrease flood risk. 

flood 

and 

The  evaluation  should  report  on  any  obstacles 
identified. It should explain what was missing in 
implementation to achieve the plans’ objectives.  

and 

adjustment 

considerations 

Further 
requirements 
The  evaluation  should  explain  why  the  (self-) 
the  Water  Framework 
financing  model  of 
Directive  had  only  limited  success  in  solving 
funding problems. 

The  report  should  describe  the  problems  that 
individual  Member  States  face  and  discuss  the 
reasons  for  these  problems.  Graphs  and  maps 
would also help to present the situation.  

The narrative could explain that Member States 
had the freedom to decide how to achieve better 
water quality and quantity. 

is  explained  how 

increased  knowledge 

Reflection in text 
The effectiveness of the monitoring requirements of the 
Directives  is  now  assessed  with  more  clarity  in  the 
effectiveness section (Section 5.1 Question 3); notably 
it 
from 
monitoring impacts on effectiveness. 
The  efficiency  section  discusses  the  possibilities  for 
simplifying 
the  planning/reporting  and  monitoring 
processes (Section 5.2 Question 4). 
The language of the SWD has been changed to make 
clear  that  monitoring,  reporting  and  drafting  plans  are 
instruments to translate the objectives of the Directives 
into results and impacts and not an end in themselves. 
This is now stated in the intervention logic (Section 2.3) 
and further analysed under: (i) effectiveness, in the part 
dealing with governance change (Section 5.1 Question 
2); (ii) enabling factors (Question 3); and (iii) efficiency, 
with  particular  emphasis  on 
the  monitoring  and 
reporting (Question 3). 
Changes  have  been  made  in  the  intervention  logic 
(Section  2.3),  making  it  clearer  that  RBMPs  are  tools 
that  help  Member  States 
the  correct 
implement 
measures to achieve the desired impacts.  
In  the  effectiveness  section  (Section  5.1  Question  2), 
concrete  examples  of  successful  measures  are 
included 
the 
towards 
illustrate  how  progress 
objectives can be made with individual measures. 
Section  3  (Implementation  and  state  of  play)  sets  out 
both  how  far  the  objectives  have  been  achieved  and 
what  is  still  missing.  This  analysis  is  based  on  the 
findings of the EEA and the Commission’s latest Water 
Framework 
Directive 
Floods 
implementation report (of February 2019). 
In  addition,  the  effectiveness  section  (Section  5.1 
Question  1)  elaborates  on  the  obstacles  encountered 
and how they are linked to the Directives’ performance. 

Directive 

and 

to 

The  Section  on  efficiency  (Section  5.2)  has  been 
redrafted  to  include  a  more  detailed  analysis  of  the 
implementation of the cost recovery principle and water 
pricing practices (Question 1). 

The analysis in Section 3.1 (State of European waters) 
has  been  refined  and  complemented,  including  with 
maps  on  status  and  bar  charts  on  pressures  per 
Member State.  
In  addition,  more  explanatory  text  on  why  Member 
States  experience  problems  in  reaching  the  objectives 
has  been  added,  drawing  also  on  the  Commission’s 
analysis in its latest implementation report. 
This point is addressed in Section 2 on the background 
to the initiative and in the efficiency section (Section 5.2 
Question 2), notably by explaining the character of the 
Directive  (‘Framework  Directive’)  and  how  Member 
States  can  implement  it.  The  analysis  of  EU  added 
the 
(Section  5.5)  also  briefly  discusses 
value 
subsidiarity perspective. 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RSB comments 
Based  on  the  collected  evidence,  the  report 
should  draw  operational  conclusions  on  the 
deficiencies  that  would  need  to  be  tackled  to 
achieve good water quality and quantity. 

The  efficiency  analysis  should  discuss  whether 
it  is  possible  to  simplify  rules  and  reduce 
burdens without compromising the objectives.  

It  should  also  discuss  the  proportionality  of  the 
administrative  burden  for  (regional  and  local) 
authorities. 

Given  that  the  bulk  of  the  responses  of  the 
public consultation were part of a campaign, it is 
particularly  important  not  to  aggregate  across 
responses and to better indicate  what  is known 
about the views of different stakeholder groups. 

The report could be substantially shortened. 

Reflection in text 
The  analysis  in  the  effectiveness  section  (Section  5.1) 
discusses  this  point,  and  Section  3.2  now  includes  a 
summary  of  the  Commission’s  recommendations  to 
Member  States  in  its  latest  implementation  report  (of 
February 2019).  
The  analysis  in  the  efficiency  section  (Section  5.2 
Question 4) now discusses a range of areas in the light 
of  possibilities 
such 
simplification  is  already  ongoing,  further  potential  is 
identified. 
The  analysis  in  the  efficiency  section  (Section  5.2 
Question  4)  now  discusses 
the 
administrative  burden  and  costs  of  the  Directives,  in 
particular with regard to reporting.  

simplification.  While 

in  more  detail 

for 

Stakeholder responses have been described in more 
detail  throughout,  indicating  as  much  as  possible 
which group held a particular view.  
In  addition,  Annex  2  (Consultation  activities  — 
synopsis report) includes some further details, as well 
as a summary of the views expressed by those  who 
participated  in  the  consultation  within  the  WWF 
campaign.  
Compared  to  the  previous  draft,  all  redundancies  and 
repetitions have been removed. The revised draft SWD 
now  includes  a  lot  more  facts  (e.g.  from  the  EEA’s 
State  of  Water  report  and  the  Commission’s  latest 
implementation  report)  and  concrete  examples  (e.g. 
from the study contract), as well as pictures and graphs 
to better illustrate the arguments. 
While  there  has  not  been  a  substantial  reduction  in 
length,  the  document  is  ‘lighter’,  with  less  dense  text 
and more visual support. 

1.5. Evidence, sources and quality 

The  evaluation  was  supported  by  a  study  that  provided  support  focused  on  stakeholder 
consultation.  The  ‘Fitness  check  (evaluation)  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  and  the 
Floods Directive’ support study was completed in June 2019373. The support study sufficiently 
satisfies the necessary quality requirements. 

The  project  included  support  for  the  stakeholder  consultation  (see  Annex  2).  In  addition, 
many  other  sources  were  used,  including  reports  from  the  European  Environment  Agency, 
the  Commission’s  own  implementation  reports  and  several  other  studies  (see  Annex  4  for 
complete list). 

373 See Trinomics and Wood (2019). 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex 2 - Consultation activities - synopsis report 

Introduction 

This synopsis report summarises the results of all of the consultation activities undertaken as 
part of the fitness check of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive. 

It  provides  an  outline  of  the  consultation  strategy,  describes  the  consultation  activities 
undertaken,  and  presents  the  stakeholder  groups  that  participated.  It  also  includes  a 
description  of  the  methodology  and  tools  used  to  process  the  data  gathered.  The  results  of 
each consultation activity are briefly presented. A list of all position papers submitted during 
the  consultation  is  attached  as  an  appendix,  and  the  feedback  received  on  the  evaluation 
roadmap is summarised. Finally, this synopsis report explains how the information gathered 
during the consultation process has been used in the analysis. 

The consultation strategy 

The  consultation  strategy  for  the  fitness  check  was  published  by  the  Commission  in  May 
2018374. The consultation strategy targeted both the fitness check and the parallel evaluation 
of  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive  (UWWTD).  As  such,  the  consultation 
strategy  was  wide  ranging,  so  as  to  cover  several  aspects  of  the  EU  water  legislation.  This 
synopsis  report  summarises  those  elements  of  the  consultation  strategy  with  particular 
relevance for the fitness check. 

Objectives 

The objectives of the consultation are set out below.  

  To complement conclusions based on existing and already known data and literature.  
  To  gather  further  evidence  to  substantiate  the  analysis  of  relevance,  effectiveness, 
efficiency, coherence and EU added value. Coherence and links with other EU legislation 
such as the UWWTD, the Nitrates Directive, the Bathing Water Directive and the Sewage 
Sludge Directive were regarded as particularly relevant and were specifically analysed.  
  To  gather  additional  information  going  beyond  pure  implementation  information,  thus 
helping to assess: (i) the functioning of the Directives; and (ii) the benefits and costs that 
different stakeholders attach to them. 

Stakeholders 

The following stakeholders were identified as relevant for the fitness check; all of them were 
consulted and their views recorded. 

  Member  States  and  their  public  authorities  responsible  for  the  environment,  water 
management,  health,  infrastructure  and  urban  planning,  disasters,  and  economic  uses  of 
water.  For  the  fitness  check  it  was  considered  important  to  include  International  River 
Basin District Commissions as well.  

  The working groups under the common implementation strategy. 

374 Fitness Check of the Water Framework Directive, its associated Directives and the Floods Directive, and 
Evaluation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, Consultation Strategy, 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-
urbanwaste/legislation/pdf/2018.04.20%20Consultation%20Strategy%20UWWTD_WFD_FD.pdf 

131 

 
 
 
                                                 
 

Industrial/economic  actors,  including  SMEs,  in  sectors  with  an  impact  on  water  or  that 
are affected by the Directives. 
  NGOs and citizens’ initiatives. 
 

International organisations relevant to the Directive, e.g. those providing funding, advice 
on health, technical or governance issues, or local implementation aid. 

  Academia, research and innovation organisations and institutes.  
  Citizens. 

Methods for engagement  

The consultation strategy planned to use the following methods to involve and interact with 
stakeholders; all of them were applied: 

1.  feedback on the evaluation roadmap; 
2.  an  open  public  consultation 

through  an  online  questionnaire, 

including  expert 

consultation as part of the same exercise, using the Commission consultation’s website; 

3.  targeted consultations including: 

o  a targeted online survey; 
o  focus groups; 
o  stakeholder workshops;  
o 

interviews. 

Public consultation 

The public consultation aimed to gather the opinion of any interested citizen or organisation. 
It targeted in particular stakeholders that would be unlikely to be involved in the other, more 
specialist/targeted strands of the consultation activities.  

The  questionnaire  was  drafted  to  be  accessible  to  the  public.  To  this  end,  it  included  two 
parts:  

  a general part, containing 28 questions, with a limited amount of technical language in 

relation to the Directives; and  

  an  expert  part,  containing  52  questions,  which  included  more  specific  details  and 
made reference to evaluation terminology (e.g. unintended effects, efficiency375).  

the  ‘Have  your  say376’  website  between 
The  public  consultation  was  held  on 
17 September 2018  and  12 March 2019.  The  survey  was  available  in  23  EU  languages.  To 
maximise the response rate, a number of organisations were also contacted directly and asked 
to help disseminate the link to the questionnaire.  

All questions, except those identifying the respondent, were optional. 

The  consultation  received  385,088  responses  in  total.  The  first  step  in  the  analysis  of  the 
responses  was  to  remove  duplicates  (i.e.  multiple  identical  responses  from  the  same 
respondent).  A  total  of  15,010  responses  were  removed,  leaving  370,078  responses  to 
analyse.  Out  of  these,  368,764  responses  were  identified  as  being  part  of  three  different 
campaigns, while 1,944 responses were non-campaign responses. Out of these non-campaign 

375 https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/home/welcome 
376 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-5128184_en. 

132 

 
 
 
                                                 
respondents,  all  provided  some  replies  to  Part  I  of  the  questionnaire,  while  less  than  half 
provided at least one reply to Part II of the consultation. 

Campaign responses 

The  campaign  with  the  greatest  number  of  participants  was  the  #ProtectWater  campaign 
organised  by  the  Worldwide  Fund  for  Nature  (WWF).  This  campaign  supported  a  positive 
view of the Water Framework Directive and sought to ensure that: (i) the Directive remains 
intact; (ii) it is fully implemented by Member States; and (iii) it is enforced by the European 
Commission. The #ProtectWater campaign organisers guided respondents on how to reply to 
questions in both Parts I and II of the questionnaire. The WWF stated on its website that the 
campaign generated 375,386 replies. According to the results retrieved from the consultation, 
368,303  respondents  answered  exactly  as  suggested  by  this  campaign,  with  the  following 
opinions:  

-  The approach set out in WFD is appropriate to prevent deterioration, restore freshwater 
ecosystems  and  ensure  a  reliable  supply  of  clean  water  for  all  legitimate  water  uses. 
WFD led to  more stringent national  water protection laws to  be adopted, and EU-level 
action is also justified because freshwater ecosystems do not recognise borders. WFD is 
flexible enough to accommodate socio-economic concerns, governance structures, local 
cultural preference and traditions.  

-  WFD  remains  relevant  to  addressing  diverse  pressures  faced  by  EU  waters  and  water-
related  societal  and  economic  challenges  (including  climate  change  and  new 
technological developments such as fracking). Describing ecosystem health with WFD’s 
‘one-out-all-out principle’ remains critical,  as does the use of appropriate water pricing 
in line with polluter/user pays principle. 

-  Where  properly  implemented,  WFD  has  proved  to  be  effective  in  protecting  and 
restoring  freshwater  ecosystems.  The  current  poor  state  of  EU  waters  is  caused  by  my 
government’s  lack  of  ambition  and  political  will  to  address  the  main  pressures  on  our 
waters; it is NOT the result of WFD legal provisions and approach to water management. 

-  As  well  as  protecting  nature,  WFD  has  added  value  to  the  economy  and  yielded 
additional social benefits (e.g. avoided costs for treatment of water, prevented economic 
losses due to droughts and floods, health benefits).  

-  WFD is coherent with other pieces of EU environmental law and supports EU economic 
development-related  objectives.  However,  achievement  of  WFD  objectives  has  been 
significantly undermined by unsustainable practices promoted under EU sectoral policies 
(esp. agriculture, energy, transport).  

Two more campaigns in addition to the #ProtectWater campaign were identified and named 
as  Campaign  2  and  Campaign  3.  These  campaigns  were  unidentified  because  it  is  unclear 
which interest groups were responsible for preparing them.  

Out  of  the  368,303  responses  retrieved  from  WWF’s  #ProtectWater  campaign,  361,275 
(98%)  were  from  EU  Member  States.  Of  the  responses  from  the  EU  Member  States,  46% 
were  from  Germany,  6%  from  the  Netherlands,  5%  from  Austria,  Sweden,  Spain,  Belgium 
and Italy each, 4% from France and Hungary each, 3% from Finland and the UK each, and 

133 

 
 
 
2% from  Bulgaria and Poland each. The remaining responses were spread relatively evenly 
among the other EU Member States. 

All the responses received from Campaign 2 were from EU Member States. Out of the 409 
responses,  69%  were  from  Germany,  30%  were  from  Austria,  and  the  remaining  five 
responses were split between Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece and Belgium.  

For Campaign 3, out of the 52 responses, 51 were from Germany and 1 was from a non-EU 
country. 

Non-campaign responses 

As visible in the figure below, a substantial majority of respondents providing non-campaign 
responses  (69%)  were  members  of  the  public.  This  is  to  be  expected  for  such  an  exercise, 
particularly  considering  there  was  a  great  deal  of  publicity  around  the  consultation,  with 
several organisations encouraging interested members of the public to respond. 

EU citizen

1,346 

Company/business organisation

160 

Public authority

Business association

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

Other

Environmental organisation

Academic/research institution

98 

98 

82 

61 

43 

33 

Trade union

12 

Non-EU citizen

Consumer organisation

6 

3 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Overview of response number per category of respondents 

Respondents  came  from  inside  the  EU  and  beyond.  More  than  half  were  from  Germany 
(1,116  respondents),  followed  by  France,  Austria  and  Spain.  Non-EU  respondents 
represented 2% (32) responses. A breakdown of respondents is presented in the ‘Overview of 
respondents’ country’ figure below. 

134 

 
 
 
 
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Others
Other EU

123 

68 

141 

98 

17 
12 
4 
12 
14 
2 
15 

5 
12 
16 

49 

3 
2 
4 
3 

10 
8 
8 
2 
5 

23 
20 
32 

117 

154 

1116 

Position papers 

Overview of respondents’ country 

As  part  of  the  consultation  process,  stakeholders  were  invited  to  submit  additional 
information,  including  position  papers.  More  than  100  separate  submissions  were  received. 
Some  documents  were  submitted  multiple  times  by  different  stakeholders.  Such  position 
papers  were  logged  and  reviewed  only  once.  In  total,  90  unique  position  papers  were 
submitted (see the list in the Appendix).  

Targeted consultation  

The  targeted  consultation  took  the  form  of  an  online  survey,  focus  group  workshops, 
stakeholder workshops, and interviews.  

Targeted online survey 

A  targeted  survey  was  held  online  from  1-29 March  2019.  Expert  stakeholders  including 
Member States, international organisations, European Commission services, NGOs, industry 
representatives and academics were invited to provide views on a range of topics. The survey 
was split into 10 short questionnaires focusing on: 

135 

 
 
 
 
1.  the Floods Directive 

2.  water body status: ecological, chemical and quantitative status 

3.  environmental objectives and exemptions 

4.  the Groundwater Directive 

5.  costs and benefits of the Directives 

6.  cost recovery and pricing 

7.  monitoring 

8.  public participation and opportunities for engagement 

9.  coherence of the legislation 

10. EU added value. 

The  number  of  responses  varied  for  each  part  of  the  survey.  In  total,  205  respondents  took 
part. Several  respondents  also  took the opportunity to  submit useful  supporting information 
and evidence. 

Focus group workshops 

A  series  of  focus  group  workshops  were  organised  by  the  project  team.  The  aim  of  the 
gatherings  was  to  explore  in  detail  one  specific  topic,  selected  based  on  the  need  for 
additional information. 

The following focus groups were held: 

  Floods  Directive  —  held  following  the  Floods  Working  Group  meeting  (Lisbon, 

28/29 March)  

  Groundwater Directive (Brussels, 29 April) 
  Costs and benefits — interactions organised in writing (questions sent to experts). 

Ahead  of  each  focus  group  workshop,  participants  received  a  short  background  document 
with a series of questions/points to explore as part of the discussions. 

Participants were selected based on their expertise and involvement in the topics, also taking 
into account the geographical spread and occupation of participants. 

Some of the key points discussed are summarised below (in addition, minutes of the meetings 
were prepared for sharing with participants and beyond). 

Event 

Key points discussed 

Focus group 
workshop on Floods 
Directive 

 

It  is  still  too  early  to  know  whether  the  Directive  has  been  entirely 
successful as it is somewhat dependent on the occurrence of flood events 
to test the modelling and measures employed.  

  The Directive has positively contributed to coordination and development 

of a framework for managing flood risks.  

  The Directive has positively contributed to raising public awareness about 

flooding and flood risk management.  

  Two  main 

indicators  of  success  were 

identified:  (i) 

implementing 

136 

 
 
 
 
Event 

Key points discussed 

Focus group 
workshop on 
Groundwater 
Directive 

measures  and  (ii)  risk  reduction.  The  latter  was  considered  difficult  to 
measure.  Furthermore,  flood  risk  reduction  is  difficult  to  monitor  due  to 
factors  such  as  climate  change  and  increases  in  population  in  certain 
areas.  

  The flexibility and framework of the Directive have helped Member States 
to  work  together,  communicate  with  the  public  and  understand  risk 
concepts. 

 

It is up to date and many relevant scientific research streams were driven 
by  the  GWD.  As  a  result,  the  knowledge  of  groundwater  has  increased 
immensely (both for groundwater quantitative and chemical status). 

  There  are  still  significant  scientific  gaps  for  the  implementation  of  the 
GWD,  especially  on  aspects  for  protected  areas  (risk  assessment  for 
drinking  water,  groundwater-dependent 
terrestrial  ecosystems  and 
groundwater-associated  aquatic  ecosystems).  For  work  targeted  on 
ecosystems,  these  gaps  are  around  understanding  the  sensitivities  of 
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to groundwater quality and quantity.  
  Effects  of  climate  change  are  difficult  to  model/predict.  Climate  change 

can be seen as an additional pressure.   

  Groundwater quantity is tackled in the WFD, not in the GWD. Issues with 
monitoring  and  quantitative  status  assessment  need  clarification,  for 
instance  on  how  to  deal  with  karstic  aquifers,  on  assessing  risks  for 
groundwater-dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  and  on  groundwater  level 
and/or groundwater flow. 

  Overall, it is difficult to compare costs and benefits. However, there was a 

 

general view that the benefits were higher than the costs.  
In  some  instances,  costs  have  been  reduced  by  the  GWD  as  it  reduced 
the burden in comparison to other legislation (e.g. in Denmark). Similarly, 
in the Netherlands, costs for monitoring for groundwater specifically have 
been reduced. 

In  addition,  a  specific  expert  workshop  on  pollutants  of  emerging  concerns  was  held  in 
coordination with the evaluation of the UWWTD. The key points discussed are listed below. 

Event 

Key points discussed 

Expert workshop on 
pollutants of emerging 
concerns 

the  substances  have  demonstrated 

While waste water treatment plants (WWTPs) are points of release of 
substances,  they  are  not  the  origin  of  the  pollution.  As  such, 
elimination and/or prevention at source of the pollution should also be 
considered as part of the analysis. 
the 
Some  of 
environment (e.g. diclofenac on aquatic species). However, there are 
also large data gaps. 
Several  projects  have  been  completed  on  sampling  and  removing 
specific substances (e.g. micro-plastics, pharmaceuticals) from waste 
water. 
There is no single treatment technique that can address all pollutants 
of emerging concern; costs of treatment vary by Member State and by 
size of the WWTPs. In addition, tackling substances individually is not 
an effective approach. Broad treatment approaches are better suited, 
as they also take mixtures into account. 

impacts  on 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
Event 

Key points discussed 

can  be 

influenced  by  demographics 

The  needs  for  treatment  vary  according  to  the  type  of  waste  water 
generated.  This 
in 
agglomerations  (e.g.  more  pharmaceutical  products  with  older 
populations)  but  also  by  industries  and  their  activities  (i.e.  more 
effluents produced during the week than the weekend). 
It  is  legitimate  that  the  UWWTD  does  not  adequately  deal  with 
pollution  from  pollutants  of  emerging  concern  because  it  was  not 
designed with such pollution in mind.  

Stakeholder workshops 

A  series  of  three  workshops  were  organised  to  introduce  the  fitness  check  process  in  more 
detail to stakeholders, to present the findings to date and to gather feedback. The workshops 
had  more  than  120  participants,  including  representatives  from  Member  State  competent 
authorities, industry, NGOs, EU institutions, academia and international organisations. Their 
purpose was as set out below. 

  Workshop  1  (10 October  2018,  Brussels):  An  emphasis  on  process:  it  was  important  at 
the early stage for stakeholders to understand their opportunities for interacting with the 
project and the overall fitness check process. 

  Workshop  2  (3 April  2019,  Brussels):  to  present  preliminary  messages  based  on  the 
analysis of the literature and the initial results from the public consultation. Emphasis was 
put  on  discussions,  with  opportunities  for  stakeholders  to  share  their  views  on  the 
messages being presented. 

  Workshop  3  (3 June  2019,  Brussels):  Presentation  of  conclusions  on  the  effectiveness, 
efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  the  Directives  covered  by  the 
fitness check. The workshop offered live streaming in order to enable a large number of 
people to participate. 

Ahead  of  each  workshop,  participants  received  a  short  background  document  summarising 
key points. As part of the workshops, participants were asked to provide their views on the 
information presented and additional thoughts and materials in relation to these topics. 

All  workshops  were  attended  to  full  capacity,  demonstrating  the  large  interest  from 
stakeholders. 

Interviews 

Interviews with selected stakeholders were organised in April and May  2019. A total of 74 
individuals  were  approached  for  interviews.  These  included  Member  State  competent 
authorities,  International  River  Basin  Districts,  NGOs,  industry  representatives,  research 
organisations  and  Commission  services.  Interviewees  were  selected  in  such  a  way  as  to 
address  remaining  gaps,  in  particular  with  regard  to  costs  and  benefits,  transboundary 
cooperation and coherence of the legislation. 

In  addition,  the  Strategic  Coordination  Group  of  the  common  implementation  strategy  was 
approached  and  offered  interviews.  Following  this,  an  additional  11  stakeholders  requested 
an opportunity to be interviewed. 

138 

 
 
 
 
Feedback received on the evaluation roadmap 

A  total  of  82  stakeholders  provided  feedback  on  the  evaluation  roadmap  during  the 
consultation period377. The opinions raised and evidence provided in this feedback were used 
in the study directly, with a number of the respondents providing further material as part of 
the  other  consultation  activities  undertaken.  The  key  feedback  is  summarised  in  the  table 
below, organised per evaluation criteria. 

General comments on the fitness check: 

  The  public  consultation  should  be  well  publicised  and  accompanied  by  clear  background 

documents. 

  The process should consider costs and benefits. 
  The  process  should  be  transparent,  taking  the  example  of  common  implementation 

strategy processes. 

  The  focus  is  not  only  freshwater;  the  WFD  also  covers  transitional,  coastal  and 

groundwater. 

  The  scope  of  the  fitness  check  is  broad  and  should  focus  on  key  issues:  environmental 
targets,  EQS,  water  management  plans,  the  concept  of  non-deterioration,  costs  of  water 
services, shrinking resources and high energy intensity. 

  The scope does not mention the European citizen’s initiative on the right to water378, which 

should be included as a relevant source of information. 

Efficiency 

  Cost-effective measures: more guidance might be needed on cost-effective measures, as 
well as investigation on whether the WFD has encouraged the efficient use of measures. 

  Polluter pays principle: the principle is not applied enough. 
  Funding: it is unclear to which extent EU funding has supported the implementation of the 

Floods Directive. 

Effectiveness 

  Enforcement:  better  enforcement  of  the  WFD  is  needed,  including  more  infringement 

proceedings at EU level. 

  Objectives: the goal of 2015 has not been met, so there is a need to re-evaluate objectives. 
  Monitoring: monitoring of the WFD should be integrated with the monitoring of groundwater 
status  and  of  quality  of  discharged  waste  water;  it  should  also  consider  potential 
requirements in drinking water monitoring. 

Coherence 

  There is a need for more linkages between the WFD and other directives, in particular the 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the requirements of the former Shellfish Waters 
Directive. 

  There  is  a  need  for  better  integration  of  climate  change  into  the  Directives  through  more 

encouragement of alternatives such as reuse (including raw waters reuse). 

  The assessment should consider the Sustainable Development Goals. 
 

Internal  coherence:  there  is  no  common  definition  or  practices  about  ‘sensitive  areas’  in 
Member States for the WFD. There is no definition for the ‘frequent flooding’ and ‘extreme 
flooding’ provisions in the FD. 

Relevance 
 
  Energy efficiency: this should be better considered in the Directive,  in particular linking to 

Innovation: whether the Directives are sufficiently encouraging innovation. 

climate change mitigation. 

  Assessment of chemical status using the ‘one out all out’ principle should be reviewed and 

considered if justified. 

377 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-4989291/feedback_en?p_id=121146. 
378 http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/initiatives/successful/details/2012/000003. 

139 

 
 
 
                                                 
Use of the information gathered  

All  of  the  information  gathered  as  part  of  the  data  collection  exercise,  both  through  the 
consultation  streams  highlighted  in  this  synopsis  report,  as  well  as  literature  review  and 
collected evidence was  processed by the team  of consultants. This  formed the basis for the 
examination  against  each  evaluation  question,  noting  relevant  sources  of  evidence  that  are 
then  quoted  in  the  main  body  of  the  fitness  check.  Data  were  analysed  to  identify 
contradictory  or  supportive  statements  and  evidence  to  reach  the  conclusions  in  the  final 
evaluative study. The last stakeholder workshop was used to confirm the findings based on 
this  information  and  to  adjust  as  appropriate  the  conclusions  according  to  stakeholders’ 
views.  All  widely  supported  views  were  considered  in  the  final  report,  with  less  widely 
supported views identified as such. 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
Appendix: Overview of position papers received 

Author 

AGW 

Title  

agw-Position anlässlich der  „Öffentlichen Konsultation als 
Beitrag zur Eignungsprüfung der EUWasserrahmenrichtlinie 
und der damit verbundenen Richtlinien‘ 

AN FORAM UISCE The water forum  PUBLIC CONSULTATION TO INFORM THE FITNESS 

AöW 

Arbeitsgemeinschaft der 
Wasserwerke im Einzugsgebiet der 
Elbe (AWE) 

BAB 

CHECK OF THE EU WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE 
Wie weiter mit der Europäischen Wasserrahmenrichtlinie? 

Position of AWE in the context of the consultation of the 
WFD 

UK Farming Unions Response to the Public Consultation to 
inform the Fitness Check of the EU Water Framework 
Directive, its associated Directives and the Floods Directive 

Bayerischen Bauernverbandes  

Stellungnahme zur WFD und FD 

BDI 

Businesseurope 

CDP 

CEMR 

CLEARANCE 

Coldiretti 

COPA-COGECA 

CSOs in Spain 

Danish Environment Technology 
Associations 
DBV 

Deutscher Stadtetag 

DIHK 

DVGW 

ECCR 

ECPA 

ECSA 

EDF 

BDI’s proposals for the review of the Water Framework 
Directive (WFD) 
Response to the public consultation on the WFD 

CDP Europe’s comment on European Commission’s 
Fitness Check of the EU Water Framework Directive, its 
associated Directives (Groundwater Directive and 
Environmental Quality Standards Directive) and the Floods 
Directive 
Fitness check of the WFD and FD 

Restoring riparian wetlands for clean water and agriculture 
— policy recommendations for the European Water 
Framework Directive, Fitness Check and review process, as 
well as the Common Agricultural Policy review process 

WFD remarks 

FITNESS-CHECK OF THE WATER FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE (WFD)  
Contribution from CSOs in Spain to the WFD Fitness Check 

Position on the evaluation and fitness check of WFD 

Stellungnahme zur offentlichen Konsultation zur 
Waaserrahmenrightlinie, damit verbundener Richtilinien 
sowie der Hochwasserrichtlinie 
Überprüfung der EU‑Wasserrahmenrichtlinie 2019 

DIHK-Stellungnahme 

POSITION PAPER  Fitness Check of the EC Water 
Framework Directive 

Response to the Public Consultation WFD 

ECPA Position paper in the context of Public Consultation 
for the Fitness Check of the Water Framework Directive and 
the Floods Directive 
Answer to the public consultation WFD and FD 

EDF’s Key messages on the ongoing WFD review 

141 

 
 
 
 
Author 

EFBW 

ENEL 

Euracoal 

EurAqua 

EurEau  

Eurelectric 

Eurochambres 

EUROFER  

Euromines 

European Water Association  

EUWMA 

Finnish Energy 

Finnish Forest Industries 

Fortum 

Fortum Sverige 

German Association for Water, 
Wastewater and Waste / Deutsche 
Vereinigung für Wasserwirtschaft, 
Abwasser und Abfall e. V. (DWA) 

IAWR 

ICOMIA 

IHK Nord (2018) 

Innogy 

Insurance Europe 

IPO 

Irrigants d’Europe 

KEMIRA 

Landbrug & Fødevarers  

LANTBRUKARNAS RIKSFÖRBUND 
FEDERATION OF SWEDISH 
FARMERS 

Title  

Fitness check of WFD and FD 

ENEL VIEWS ON THE EU WATER FRAMEWORK POLICY  

Position paper on WFD 

Research and Innovation Needs for Enhanced WFD 
Implementation 
Post 2027 scenario: Realising the Water Framework 
Directive 
Water Framework Directive: Experiences & 
Recommendations from the Hydropower Sector  
Statement of the fitness check of the WFD and FD 

EUROFER Position Paper on the Fitness Check Water 
Framework Directive and Daughter Directives for the Public 
Consultation  
Euromines position on the current evaluation of the Water 
Framework Directive (WFD)  
EWA Position — Commitment to the Water Framework 
Directive — further development of the WFD while 
maintaining its objectives 
EUWMA Frankfurt Declaration on Water Framework 
Directive  
Response to the Public Consultation on the Water 
Framework Directive 
Response to the consultation on the WFD 

FITNESS CHECK OF THE EU WATER FRAMEWORK 
Fortum’s views for the public consultation 
COMMENTS FROM FORTUM SVERIGE AB  

Review of the Water Framework Directive 2019 

Position of the  International Association of Waterworks in 
the Rhine Basin (IAWR) concerning the Public Consultation 
to inform the Fitness Check of the EU Water Framework 
Directive and its associated Directives 
Contribution to the public consultation as part of the Fitness 
Check of the EU Water Framework Directive 
Expertise zu den wirtschaftlichen folgen der WRRL in 
NordDeutschland 
Public Consultation to inform the Fitness Check 

Insurance Europe comments on the Fitness Check of the 
EU Floods Directive 
IPO Position Paper — EU waterrichtlijnen  

WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (WFD) — POSITION 
PAPER  
Evaluation of the UWWTD 

Erhvervsorganisationen Landbrug & Fødevarers indspil til 
WFD Fitness Check 
Some views from the Federation of Swedish Farmers on the 
review of the Water Framework Directive 

Living Rivers Europe 

The EU Water Framework Directive. Fit for Purpose 

142 

 
 
 
Author 

MARS (2018) 

MEDEF 

MEDEF 

Miljø- og Fødevareministeriet  

NABU 

No author 

No author 

No author 

Norsk Industri 

Norwegian Environment Agency  

ÖVGW  

PAN Europe and PAN Germany  

Port of Antwerp 

Port of Rotterdam 

Royal Norwegian Ministry of Climate 
and Environment 
RWE Group 

Title  

MARS Recommendations on how to best assess and 
mitigate impacts of multiple stressors in aquatic ecosystems 
Directive Cadre sur l’Eau — remarques et propositions du 
MEDEF  
Water Framework Directive  

Høringssvar i forbindelse med kvalitetskontrollen af EU’s 
vandrammedirektiv, dets datterdirektiver 
(grundvandsdirektivet og direktiv om miljøkvalitetskrav) og 
oversvømmelsesdirektivet  
Flussgebietsübergreifende Stellungnahme des NABU zu 
den Bewirtschaftungsplänen und den 
Maßnahmenprogrammen der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie 
(WRRL)  
Below we summarise our core messages  

Contribution à la consultation sur la révision de la DCE 

Zu den Zielen der WRRL 

Position on the current fitness Check of the WFD 

How we organised implementation in Norway, and lessons 
learnt from evaluation 
ÖVGW Position concerning EU Water Framework Directive  

PAN Europe and PAN Germany position concerning the 
current review of the  Water Framework Directive (WFD)  
and its Daughter Directives 
Position paper on WFD 

Contribution to the public consultation as part of the Fitness 
Check  of the EU Water Framework Directive  
Norwegian inputs to the Fitness Check of the WFD 

Questionnaire statement 

Seafish (2019) 

Response to the Fitness Check of the EU Water legislation 

Société Internationale de 
Biospéologie (SIBIOS) / International 
Society for Subterranean Biology 
(ISSB) 

Statkraft 

Stockholm University Baltic Sea 
Center 
SWA 

Swedenergy 

Swedish Association of Local 
Authorities and Region 

Review Process of WFD: Expert consultations Statement on 
Groundwater Ecosystems and Riverbed Colmation 

Main challenges related to the Implementation of the Water 
Framework Directive (WFD) 
Statkraft’s viewpoint 

General views regarding the WFD 

Key issues to address in the Water Framework Directive 
(WFD) to reach a sustainable water management — 
description and examples from the Swedish Water Alliance 
(SWA)  
Remarks on modernisation of the Water Framework 
Directive to efficiently balance local and global 
environmental needs 
Fitness check on the WFD 

143 

 
 
 
Author 

Title  

The Norwegian Biodiversity Network 
(Sabima), The Union of Outdoor 
Recreation Organisations in Norway, 
The Norwegian Hunters’ and 
Anglers’ Association, WWF Norway, 
The Norwegian Trekking Association 
and Friends of the Earth Norway 

UKELA 

Union Française de l’Electricité  

UNIPER 

UPM 

VATTENFALL 

VKU 

Waste water Management in the 
Danube Region 
Water UK 

Wattenfall and Fortum 

Wetlands International 

Wiener Wasser 

WKO 

Input to the Fitness Check of the WFD  

Response to Fitness Check of the EU Water Legislation 

Propositions du secteur hydroélectrique français pour la 
révision de la DCE 
Position on the Fitness Check of the EU WFD 

Fitness check of the WFD 

Key messages on the Water Framework Directive (WFD)  

ÜBERPRÜFUNG DER EUWASSERRAHMENRICHTLINIE 
2019 
Is the UWWTD implementation delivering results for the 
people, the economy and the environment? 
Fitness check of the Water Framework Directive and Floods 
Directive 
Key messages on the WFD 

Feedback to the EU Fitness Check of the WFD 

Position Wiener Wasser 

Position der Wirtschaftskammer Österreich  

REFIT Wasserrahmen-Richtlinie 

Xylem 

Xylem Position on Fitness Check on the WFD 

Zentralverband der deutschen 

Vorschlage zur Optimierung der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie 

Zurich 

Zurich Insurance Group — Response to public consultation 
on the fitness check of the EU Water Framework Directive 
and the Floods Directive (February 2019) 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3 - Methods used in preparing the fitness check 

This annex provides background to the steps taken and methods used in preparing the fitness 
check and the support study. It then sets out how the more detailed evaluation sub-questions 
addressed  in  the  support  study  related  to  the  overall  evaluation  questions.  Finally,  it 
summarises the limitations encountered in the process.  

Methods and steps in the evaluative process 

The process of the fitness check and the support study was divided into several distinct steps, 
including  a  comprehensive  literature  review,  a  consultation  process,  and  finally  the 
compilation and analysis of all evidence gathered. 

Literature review 

The first step in the analysis consisted in an extensive literature review. The different sources 
of  information  were  identified  and  screened  so  that  they  could  be  categorised  for  targeted 
analysis. The sources included academic studies, implementation reports, position papers and 
evaluations/fitness  checks/impact  assessments.  Additional  sources  included  websites,  EEA 
reports,  JRC  reports,  Commission  studies,  independent  studies,  datasets,  policy  documents, 
common implementation  strategy technical  reports, infringement  cases  and project  funding. 
The list of references quoted in this report can be found in Annex 4. 

Public consultation 
The second step of the process was the public consultation, which included: 

1.  an  open  public  consultation  through  an  online  questionnaire,  including  expert 
consultation  as  part  of  the  same  exercise,  using  the  Commission  consultation’s 
website; 

2.  targeted consultations, including: 
  a targeted online survey; 
 
  stakeholder workshops; and 
 

focus groups; 

interviews. 

Feedback received on the evaluation roadmap was equally part of this step. 

The  details  of  the  consultation  process  are  described  in  Annex  2  (synopsis  report  of 
consultation activities). 

Compilation of results 

Following  all  evidence  gathered,  the  results  were  analysed  and  compiled.  An  evaluation 
matrix was applied during the drafting of the support study: specific judgement criteria and 
indicators  were  used  for  each  evaluation  criterion  (effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence, 
relevance and EU added value). 

145 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Example of evaluation matrix — efficiency 

Evaluation question 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Method 

Sources379 

EQ.4 – What are the costs and benefits of the legislation and to what extent are the costs of the legislation justified, 
given the benefits achieved? 

Review of 
literature.  

Analysis of 
survey 
answers.  

Follow-up 
interviews. 

Focus groups. 

Workshops. 

Investments and 
other expenses 
(including non-
monetary costs) have 
been incurred by 
Member States since 
2012 in connection 
with adoption of the 
Directives. 

The relationship 
between estimated 
costs/benefits (as per 
impact assessments) 
with reported 
costs/benefits is a 
close one, with 
rational explanations 
available where 
differences are 
observed. 

Amount of money 
(absolute and relative 
e.g. in relation to GDP 
per capita), as well as 
non-monetary costs from 
measures to implement 
the Directives. 

Direct benefits of 
improved wellbeing such 
as avoided health effects, 
avoided emissions to the 
environment, reduced 
contribution to climate 
change and direct 
financial/economic 
benefits. 

Ratio of reported costs to 
estimated costs. 

4.1  What are the costs 
incurred (monetary 
and non-monetary) 
since the adoption of 
the Directives in the 
Member States and in 
the EU, in particular 
since the last 
evaluation in 2012? 

How do these actual 
costs compare to 
those which were 
estimated in the 
Impact Assessments 
for the FD, GWD and 
the EQSD? 

What are the reasons 
for differences 
between foreseen and 
actual impacts? 

What are the benefits 
arising since the 
adoption of the 
Directives in the 
Member States and in 
the EU?  

How do these 
compare to those 
which were estimated 
in the Impact 
Assessments for the 
FD, GWD and the 
EQSD?  

What are the reasons 
for differences 
between foreseen and 
actual benefits? 

Evaluation of first 
RBMPs (2012). 

Blueprint to safeguard 
Europe’s water 
resources (2012). 

Implementation 
reports: first in 2007, 
second in 2009, third 
in 2012, fourth in 
2015.  

Evaluation of the 
UWWTD and Fitness 
Check of the chemical 
legislation. 

Impact Assessments 
of the Directives. 

Fitness Check of 
Water legislation 
(2011). 

“Flood risk 
management in the 
EU and the Floods 
Directives’ first cycle 
of implementation 
(2009-2015) A 
questionnaire-based 
report”. 

European Overview 
Assessment of 
Member States’ 
reports on Preliminary 
Flood Risk 
Assessment and 
Identification of Areas 
of Potentially 
Significant Flood Risk. 

2018 evaluation report 
to Parliament and 
Council based on 
Article 16 of the FD. 

European Court of 
Auditors – 
performance audit 
regarding floods. 

379  The  list  is  not  exhaustive.  It  presents  the  literature  sources  considered  key  to  providing  information  for  a 
specific sub-question. In addition to the sources mentioned here, use was made of the outcomes or intermediate 
results of relevant European research projects (under the 7th framework programme and Horizon 2020). 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation questions analysed in the support study 

The support study looked into the general evaluation questions, as well as the more specific 
ones set  in  the terms  of reference for each evaluation  criteria. The table  below presents  the 
mapping  of  the  correspondence  between  the  overall  and  the  specific  evaluation  questions, 
which were the basis for the analysis of the study. 

Overall evaluation questions 

Evaluation sub-question 

Effectiveness 

To  what  extent  are  the  Directives 
performing as expected? 

Which main  factors  have  contributed 
to  or  stood  in  the  way  of  achieving 
the  Directives’  objectives  (including 
flexibility of the Directives)? 

the  Directives 

Have 
unexpected 
either positive or negative? 

significant 

led 

to  any 
changes, 

Efficiency 

What  are  the  costs  and  benefits  of 
the legislation and to what extent are 
the  costs  of  the  legislation  justified, 
given the benefits achieved?  

To  what  extent  do  the  costs  and 
benefits  vary  between  Member 
States or regions? 

time 

What  progress  have  Member  States  made  over 
in 
implementing the WFD and achieving the objectives set out in the 
Directive? 
What  progress  have  Member  States  made  over 
in 
implementing the EQSD and achieving the objectives set out in the 
Directive? 
What  progress  have  Member  States  made  over 
in 
implementing the GWD and achieving the objectives set out in the 
Directive? 

time 

time 

in 
What  progress  have  Member  States  made  over 
implementing the Floods Directive and achieving the objectives set 
out in the Directive? 

time 

How have the Directives facilitated transboundary cooperation? 

Which  main  factors  have  contributed  to  or  stood  in  the  way  of 
achieving the Directives’ objectives? 

To  what  unexpected  significant  changes,  either  positive  or 
negative, have the Directives led? 

What  are  the  costs  incurred  (monetary  and  non-monetary)  since 
the adoption of the Directives in the Member States and globally in 
the EU? 

How  do  these  actual  costs  compare  to  those  estimated  in  the 
impact  assessments  for  the  FD,  GWD  and  the  EQSD?  What  are 
the reasons for differences between foreseen and actual impacts? 

What are the benefits arising since the adoption of the Directives in 
the Member States and globally in the EU? How do these compare 
to  those  estimated  in  the  impact  assessments  for  the  FD,  GWD 
and  the  EQSD?  What  are  the  reasons  for  differences  between 
foreseen and actual benefits? 
Can  any  costs  be  identified  that  are  out  of  proportion  with  the 
benefits  achieved  and  vice  versa?  In  particular,  are  the  costs  of 
compliance proportionate to the benefits brought by the Directives? 
the 
Taking  account  of 
Directives,  is  there  evidence  that  they  have  caused  unnecessary 
administrative burden to authorities or operators? 

the  objectives  and  costs/benefits  of 

If  there  are  significant  differences  in  costs  or  benefits  between 
Member States and regions, what is causing them? 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
Overall evaluation questions 

Evaluation sub-question 

factors 

What 
influenced 
efficiency, and can good practices be 
identified? 

have 

are 
simplify 

there 
extent 
To  what 
opportunities 
the 
to 
legislation  or  reduce  unnecessary 
regulatory  cost  without  undermining 
the objectives of the Directives? 

To  what  extent  are  monitoring  and 
reporting 
for 
requirements 
purpose? 

fit 

Coherence 

To  what  extent  is  the  legislation 
coherent internally?  

To  what  extent  is  the  legislation 
coherent with wider EU policy? 

What  factors  have  influenced  efficiency  (flexible  legislation,  CIS 
process  clarifications  and  harmonisation  on  certain  issues)?  Can 
good  practices  be  identified,  particularly  in  terms  of  cost-efficient 
implementation of the Directives in Member States and regions? 

Are  there  opportunities  to  simplify  legislation  or  create  synergies 
between  the  four  Directives,  thereby  reducing  regulatory  cost 
without undermining the objectives of the Directives? 

To  what  extent  are  monitoring  and  reporting  requirements  fit  for 
purpose?  How  timely  and  efficient  is  the  Directives’  process  for 
reporting and monitoring? Is it clear, flexible and simple enough to 
support timely decision-making? 

Are the Directives coherent internally? 

Are the GWD and the EQSD coherent with the WFD? 

Are  the  WFD  and  daughter  directives  coherent  with  the  Floods 
Directive? 
To  what  extent  are  the  objectives  specified  by  the  Directives 
coherent  with  other  pieces  of  EU  legislation  addressing  the 
management of water resources? 
To  what  extent  are  the  Directives  satisfactorily  integrated  and 
coherent with other parts of EU environmental law/policy, including 
as 
strategic 
environmental assessment and fundamental principles such as the 
polluter pays principle? 

regards  environmental 

impact  assessment, 

sectoral  policies  affecting 

To  what  extent  do  the  WFD  and  FD  complement  or  interact  with 
other  EU 
land  and  water 
use/management  at  EU  and  Member  State  level.  Policy  areas 
covered are: agriculture and pesticides, nature, industry, chemicals 
(including  biocides  and  cosmetics),  regional  development  and 
cohesion, urban/land use, energy, transport and climate change. 

To  what  extent  is  the  legislation 
coherent 
international 
obligations? 

with 

How  coherent  are  the  Directives  with  international  and  global 
commitments  on  water  management  and  flood  risk  management 
(e.g.  UN  SDGs,  UNECE,  Paris  Climate  Agreement,  Sendai 
Framework, OSPAR)? 

Relevance 

How  well  adapted  are  the  Directives 
to  take  into  account  technical  and 
scientific  progress?  Have  they  been 
adapted based on this progress? 

What  has  been  the  most  significant  technical  and  scientific 
progress  in  the  areas  covered  by  the  Directives  since  they  were 
designed.  This  relates  in  particular  to  better  knowledge  of  the 
dynamics,  or  services,  of  aquatic  ecosystems  and  new  pressures 
(including  climate  change),  recent  knowledge  related  to  risk 
assessment,  and  to  the  effectiveness  of  the  applied  measures. 
Which  elements  of 
the 
implementation of the Directives? 
How well adapted are the Directives to take into account technical 
and scientific progress? 

this  progress  are 

relevant 

for 

To what extent are the objectives still 
relevant and properly addressing the 

How  relevant  is  EU  water  legislation  to  EU  citizens  and  what  is 
their level of support for it? 

148 

 
 
 
Overall evaluation questions 

Evaluation sub-question 

the 

key  problem  that  ecosystems  and 
society  presently  face?  This  relates 
in 
adverse 
to 
particular 
the 
consequences  of 
insufficient  water  status  of  (selected) 
water  bodies  in  the  EU,  as  needed 
for 
and 
equitable water use.  

sustainable, 

floods  and 

balanced 

EU added value 

What is the additional value resulting 
from  these  Directives  compared  to 
what  could  have  reasonably  been 
expected from Member States acting 
and/or 
national, 
at 
international level? 

regional 

To what extent do the issues covered 
by the Directives still require action at 
EU level? 

What  are  the  key  pressures  threatening  the  good  status  of  water 
bodies  in  the  EU,  how  frequent  and  severe  are  the  floods  that 
ecosystems and the EU society currently face, and how have these 
pressures become stronger or weaker? 
What  defines  sustainable  management  of  water  resources  in  the 
EU,  what  is  the  need  for  it  and  how  do  the  four  Directives 
contribute to it? 
What  are  the  needs  of  EU  society  in  relation  to  the  quantity  of 
available  water  (water  scarcity)  and  to  what  extent  do  the 
objectives of the Directives address these needs? 

What  is  the  additional  value  resulting  from  these  Directives 
compared  to  what  could  reasonably  have  been  expected  from 
Member States acting at national and/or regional level? 

What  would  have  been  the  effect  of  non-implementation  of  the 
Directives  and  what  are the costs/foregone benefits  of only  partial 
implementation of the Directives, if this is the case? 

To what extent do the issues covered by the Directives still require 
action at EU level? 

Conclusions on robustness of the evidence gathered 

An individual assessment of the completeness of evidence was carried out for each evaluation 
question.  The main difficulties encountered during the analysis were also identified. 

  Given  the  different  starting  points  for  each  Member  State,  it  was  challenging  to 
distinguish  the  impacts  actually  observed  from  those  that  would  have  happened 
without  the  Directives.  To  address  this,  a  baseline  scenario  was  drawn  up,  adding 
quantitative  and  qualitative  elements.  The  baseline  was  used  as  part  of  the  analysis, 
while acknowledging the limitations imposed by such an approach. 

  Constraints in the consultation: it was apparent from the materials received that some 
stakeholders based their answers on their subjective opinion without providing further 
explanations  or  data  to  support  their  statements.  This  increased  uncertainty  and  the 
risk of misleading/biased answers. 

  Triangulation was not possible for all questions owing to varying levels  of evidence 
being  available  from  different  sources.  Therefore,  in  some  cases  consultation 
responses and consultants’ expert judgement had to be relied on to a larger extent than 
available literature and vice versa. 

  Data  on  costs  and  benefits  were  largely  missing  and  only  ‘case  studies’  could  be 

presented in the analysis.  

Despite the difficulties, the support study found that the evidence gathered provided a solid 
basis for the analysis. Any gap in the data available was signalled in the final report. 

149 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Annex 4 - References 

Studies, articles, reports and policy documents 

ACTeon  (2012)  ‘Comparative  study  of  pressures  and  measures  in  the  major  River  Basin 
Management Plans in the EU — Task 4b: Costs and benefits of WFD implementation 

Alliance  Environnment  (2017)  ‘Evaluation  study  of  the  payment  for  agricultural  practices 
beneficial for the climate and the environment: executive summary’ 

Amec  Foster  Wheeler  (2016),  ‘Groundwater  Watch  List:  Pharmaceuticals  Pilot  Study, 
Monitoring Data Collection and Initial Analysis’ 

Arcadis  (2011) ‘Hydropower generation in the context of the EU WFD’  

Balana et al (2015) ‘Integrated cost-effectiveness analysis of agri-environmental measures for 
water quality’ — Journal of Environmental Management 161 (2015) 163-172  

Barbier  et  al  (1997)  ‘Economic  valuation  of  wetlands:  a  guide  for  policy  makers  and 
planners’ — Ramsar Convention Bureau 

Bergstrom et al (2017) ‘Economic valuation of river restoration: An analysis of the valuation 
literature and its uses in decision-making’ 

Bide  et  al  (2019)  'Report  on  the  datasets  available  relating  to  social  and  environmental 
dimensions  of  extraction',  H2020  ORAMA  (Optimizing  quality  of  information  in  RAw 
MAterial data collection across Europe)  

Bio  Intelligence  Service  and  Cranfield  University  (2009)  ‘Water  Efficiency  Standards’ 
quoted  in  ACTeon  et  al.  (2017)  ‘Pricing  and  non-pricing  measures  for  managing  water 
demand in Europe’ 

Birk et al (2012) ‘Three hundred ways to assess Europe’s surface waters: An almost complete 
overview of biological methods to implement the Water Framework Directive’ — Ecological 
Indicators 18 (2012) 31-41 

Birk  et  al  (2013)  ‘Intercalibrating  classifications  of  ecological  status:  Europe’s  quest  for 
common  management  objectives  for  aquatic  ecosystems’  —  Science  of  the  Total 
Environment (2013) 490-499 

Boerema et al (2018) ‘Cost-effectiveness analysis of ecosystem management with ecosystem 
services: from theory to practice’ — Ecological Economics 152, 207-218 

Bouraoui  et  al  (2014)  ‘  Scenario  analysis  for  nutrient  emission  reduction  in  the  European 
inland waters’ — Environmental Research Letters 9, 1-14 

Broeckx et al (2014) ‘An economic optimisation model to set up a cost-effective programme 
of measures to improve surface water quality at different geographical scales’ — Published in 
Pulido-Velazquez  et  al  ‘Modelling  the  economics,  science  and  engineering  of  water 
management. Applications to water policy in the EU and beyond’ (Springer). 

Brouwer  et  al  (2016)  ‘Valuation  and  transferability  of  the  non-market  benefits  of  river 
restoration in the Danube river basin using a choice experiment’  — Ecological Engineering 
87, 20-29 

Brouwer  et  al  (2018)  ‘Economic  valuation  of  groundwater  protection  using  a  groundwater 
quality ladder based on chemical threshold levels’ — Ecological Indicators 88, 292-304 

150 

 
 
 
Busch et al (2017) ‘Micropollutants in European rivers: a mode of action survey to support 
the  development  of  effect-based  tools  for  water-monitoring’  —  Environmental  Toxicology 
and Chemistry 576, 720-737 

Carvalho  et  al  (2019)  ‘  Protecting  and  restoring  Europe’s  waters:  An  analysis  of  the  future 
development needs of the Water Framework Directive’ — Science of the Total Environment 
658 (2019) 1228-1238  

CDP (2018) ‘Higher ambitions, higher expectations: CDP Europe report 2018’ 

CEPS (2013) ‘ Assessment of Cumulative Cost Impact for the Steel and Aluminium Industry’ 

CEPS (2017) ‘ Assessment of Cumulative Cost Impact for the Ceramics and Glass Industry’ 

Collins  et  al  (2012)  ‘Implementing  the  Water  Framework  Directive:  a  transition  from 
established monitoring networks in England and Wales’ —  Environmental Science & Policy 
17 (2012) 49-61 

COWI  (2010)  ‘Defining  Water  Framework  Directive  and  pre-Water  Framework  Directive 
measures’ 

COWI and Eunomia (2019) ‘The costs of not implementing EU environmental law’. 

De los Santos et al (2019) ‘Recent trend reversal for declining European seagrass meadows’ 
— Nature Communications (2019) 10:3356 

De  Nocker  et  al  (2011)  ‘Economische  waardering  van  verbetering  ecologische  toestand 
oppervlaktewater op basis van onderzoeksresultaten uit Aquamoney’  

Dolega et al (2016), 'Report on Outlining Environmental Challenges in the Non-Fuel Mining 
Sector', H2020 STRADE (Strategic Dialogue on Sustainable Raw Materials for Europe) 

Duffy et al (2018) ‘Spatial assessment of intertidal seagrass meadows using optical imaging 
systems and a lightweight drone — Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 200, 169-180 

Ecorys (2019) ‘Economische schade door droogte in 2018’ — study for the Dutch Ministry 
for Infrastructure and Water 

Ecorys  (2019)  ‘The  economic  value  of  water  —  Water  as  a  key  resource  for  economic 
growth  in  the  EU’  —  Task  A2  of  the  BLUE2  project  ‘Study  on  EU  integrated  policy 
assessment for the freshwater and marine environment, on the economic benefits of EU water 
policy and on the costs of its non-implementation’ — based on latest available data for 2015. 

EEA (2012) ‘European waters: assessment of status and pressures’ — EEA report 8/2012 

EEA (2012) ‘Towards efficient use of water resources in Europe’ — EEA report 1/2012 

EEA (2013) ‘Late lessons from early warnings — Chapter 15: Floods — lessons about early 
warning systems’ — EEA report 1/2013 

EEA  (2016)  ‘Flood  risks  and  environmental  vulnerability:  Exploring  synergies  between 
floodplain restoration, water policies and thematic policies’ — EEA report 1/2016 

EEA  (2017):  Climate  change,  impacts  and  vulnerability  in  Europe  2016,  EEA  Report 
No 1/2017 

EEA (2017) Green infrastructure and flood management: Promoting cost-efficient flood risk 
reduction via green infrastructure solutions’ — EEA report 14/2017 

151 

 
 
 
EEA  (2017)  ‘Water  management  in  Europe:  price  and  non-price  approaches  to  water 
conservation’ — EEA Briefing 04 Jul 2017 

EEA  (2018)  ‘Chemicals  in  European  waters  —  Knowledge  developments’  —  EEA  report 
18/2018 

EEA  (2018)  ‘European  waters  —  assessment  of  status  and  pressures  and  2018’  —  EEA 
Report 7/2018 

EEA (2019) ‘The European environment - state and outlook 2020. Knowledge for transition 
to a sustainable Europe’ 

European  Environmental  Bureau  (2018)  ‘Challenge  Accepted?  How  to  Improve  Access  to 
Justice for EU Environmental Laws’ 

EIB (2016) ‘Restoring EU competitiveness: 2016 updated version’ 

ERMITE-Consortium  et  al  (2004)  'Mining  Impacts  on  the  Fresh  Water  Environment: 
Technical and Managerial Guidelines for Catchment Scale Management', Mine Water and the 
Environment, Volume 23 2:80 

European Commission (1995) ‘Wise use and conservation of wetlands’ — COM(1995)189 

European  Commission  (2008)  ‘  The  raw  materials  initiative:  meeting  our  critical  needs  for 
growth and jobs in Europe’ — COM(2008) 699 

European Commission (2010) ‘Report from the Commission in accordance to Article 3.7 of 
the  Groundwater  Directive  2006/118/EC  on  the  establishment  of  groundwater  threshold 
values’ — SEC(2010) 166 final 

European  Commission  (2012)  ‘The  Fitness  Check  of  EU  Freshwater  policy’  — 
SWD(2012)393 

European  Commission  (2012)  ‘A  Blueprint  to  Safeguard  Europe’s  Water  Resources’  — 
COM(2012) 673  

European  Commission  (2013)  ‘Strategic  Guidelines  for  the  sustainable  development  of  EU 
aquaculture’ — COM(2013) 229 final 

European Commission (2015) ‘Better Regulation Guidelines’ — SWD(2015) 111  

European  Commission  (2015)  ‘Better  regulation  for  better  results  —  An  EU  agenda.’  — 
COM/2015/0215 final 

European Commission (2015) ‘Summary Report: Workshop on coordinated implementation 
of nature, biodiversity, marine and water policies’ (2-3 December 2014, Brussels) 

European  Commission  (2016)  –  ‘On  the  application  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive 
(WFD) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in relation to aquaculture’ — 
SWD(2016) 178 

European  Commission  (2016)  ‘Action  Plan  on  the  Sendai  Framework  for  Disaster  Risk 
Reduction  2015-2030  —  A  disaster  risk-informed  approach  for  all  EU  policies’  — 
SWD(2016)205 

European  Commission  (2016)  ‘Proposal  for  a  Regulation  laying  down  rules  on  the  making 
available on the market of CE marked fertilising’ — COM(2016) 157 

‘Commission  guidance  document  on  streamlining 
European  Commission 
environmental  assessments  conducted  under  Article 2(3)  of  the  Environmental  Impact 
152 

(2016) 

 
 
 
Assessment Directive (Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, 
as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU)’ — COM 2016/C 273/01 

European Commission (2016) ‘On the application of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 
and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD)  in  relation  to  aquaculture’ 
SWD(2016) 178 final 

European Commission (2016) ‘REFIT Evaluation of the Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC’ 
— SWD(2016) 428 final  

European Commission (2017) ‘The Value Added of Ex ante Conditionalities in the European 
Structural and Investment Funds’ — SWD(2017) 127 

European Commission (2017) ‘Better Results through Better Application’ (2017/C 18/02) 

European Commission (2017) ‘Agriculture and sustainable water management in the EU’ — 
SWD(2017) 153 

European  Commission  (2017)  ‘Attitudes  of  European  citizens  towards  the  environment.’ 
Special Eurobarometer 468/2017 

European  Commission  (2017)  ‘Evaluation  study  of  the  payment  for  agricultural  practices 
beneficial for the climate and the environment’ — Final Report 2017 

European  Commission  (2017)  ‘Fitness  Check  of  Reporting  and  Monitoring  of  EU 
Environmental Policy’- SWD(2017) 230 

European Commission (2017) ‘Proposal for a  Directive of the European Parliament and of 
the  Council  on  the  quality  of  water  intended  for  human  consumption  (recast)’  —  
COM(2017) 753 final 

European Commission  (2018) ‘Guidance on the  requirements for hydropower in  relation  to 
Natura 2000’  

European  Commission  (2018)  ‘Report  on  the  implementation  of  Council  Directive 
91/676/EEC  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution  caused  by  nitrates  from 
agricultural sources based on Member State reports for the period 2012-2015.’- COM(2018) 
257 final 

European  Commission  (2018)  ‘Evaluation  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  No  1307/2013  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  December  2013  establishing  rules  for  direct 
payments  to  farmers  under  support  schemes  within  the  framework  of  the  common 
agricultural  policy  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  673/2008  and  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 concerning the greening in direct payments’ — SWD(2018) 479 

European Commission (2019) ‘European Union Strategic Approach to Pharmaceuticals in the 
Environment’ — SWD(2019) 128 

European Commission (2019) ‘Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  31 March  2004  on  detergents’  —  SWD(2019)  298  and 
SWD(2019) 299 

European Commission (2019) ‘Findings of the Fitness Check of the most relevant chemicals 
legislation  (excluding  REACH)  and  identified  challenges,  gaps  and  weaknesses’  — 
COM(2019) 264  

153 

 
 
 
European  Commission  (2019)  ‘Fitness  Check  of  the  most  relevant  chemicals  legislation 
(excluding  REACH),a  s  well  as  related  aspects  of  legislation  applied  to  downstream 
industries’ — SWD(2019) 199 

European Commission (2019) ‘Guidance on a strategic framework for further supporting the 
deployment of EU-level green and blue infrastructure’ — SWD(2019) 193 

European Commission (2019) ‘The fifth Water Framework Directive Implementation Report 
—  assessment  of  the  second  River  Basin  Management  Plans  and  the  first  Floods  Directive 
Implementation  Report  —  assessment  of  the  first  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans’ 
COM(2019) 95 final    

European Council (2019) ‘Council conclusions in relation to the European Court of Auditors’ 
Special  Report  No 25/2018  titled  ‘Floods  Directive:  progress  in  assessing  risks,  while 
planning and implementation need to improve’ ‘ — 7115/19 

European Court of Auditors (2014). ‘Integration of EU water policy objectives with the CAP: 
a partial success’. Special Report No 4/2014 

European Court of Auditors (2016): ‘Making cross compliance more effective and achieving 
simplification remains challenging.’ Report No 26/2016 

European Court of Auditors (2017): ‘Greening: a more complex income support scheme, not 
yet environmentally effective.’ Special Report No 21/2017 

European  Court  of  Auditors  (2018)  ‘Floods  Directive:  progress  in  assessing  risks,  while 
planning and implementation need to improve’ Special report No 25/2018 

European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials (2018) 'Raw Materials Scoreboard'  

from 
Eurostat 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/energy/data/shares   

energy 

(2017) 

Share 

of 

renewable 

sources 

in 

2017, 

Feuillette  et  al  (2016)  ‘The  use  of  cost-benefit  analysis  in  environmental  policies:  Some 
issues raised by the Water Framework Directive implementation in France’ — Environmental 
Science and Policy 57 (2016) 79-85 

Finlayson et al (2005) ‘Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water — Synthesis’ 
— A report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 

Giaokoumis  et  al  (2019)  ‘Water  Framework  Directive  programmes  of  measures:  Lessons 
from the 1st planning cycle of a catchment in England’ — Science of the Total Environment 
668 (2019) 903-9016 

Grizetti  et  al.  (2017)  ‘Human  pressures  and  ecological  status  of  European  rivers’  — 
www.nature.com Scientific Reports, volume 7, Article number: 205  

Grizzetti et al (2019) ‘Relationship between ecological condition and ecosystem services in 
European rivers, lakes and coastal waters’ — Science of the Total Environment 671, 452-465 

Hanel,  R  (2019).  Research  for  PECH  Committee  —  ‘Environmental,  social  and  economic 
sustainability  of  European  eel  management’,  European  Parliament,  Policy  Department  for 
Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels. 

Hering et  al  (2010) ‘The European Water  Framework Directive  at  the age of 10:  A critical 
review  of  the  achievements  with  recommendations  for  the  future’  —  Science  of  the  Total 
Environment 408 (2010) 4007-4019 

154 

 
 
 
ICF, IEEP and Denkstatt (2017) ‘Support to the Fitness Check of monitoring and reporting 
obligations arising from EU environmental legislation’ — quoted in SWD(2017) 230 

INEA (2018) CEF Support to Rhine Danube Corridor — Report, February 2018   

IPBES (2018): The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services 
for  Europe  and  Central  Asia.  Rounsevell,  M.,  Fischer,  M.,  Torre-Marin  Rando,  A.  and 
Mader,  A.  (eds.).  Secretariat  of  the  Intergovernmental  Science-Policy  Platform  on 
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 

Jeppesen  et  al  (2005)  ‘Lake  responses  to  reduced  nutrient  loading  —  an  analysis  of 
contemporary long-term data from 35 case studies’ — Freshwater Biology 2005 (50) 1747-
1771 

Jones et al  (2019) ‘Restoration and repair of Earth’s damaged ecosystems’ — Proceedings of 
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 285 

Junier  et  al  (2012)  ‘The  implementation  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  in  the  The 
Netherlands:  Does  it  promote  integrated  management?’  —  Physics  and  Chemistry  of  the 
Earth (47-48) 2-10 

Kron  et  al  (2019)  ‘Efficiency  of  flood  protection  measures:  selected  examples’  —  Water 
Policy 21 

Liquete  et  al  (2016)  ‘Integrated  valuation  of  a  nature-based  solution  for  water-pollution 
control. Highlighting hidden benefits’ — Ecosystem Services 22, 392-401 

Logar et al (2019) ‘Do the societal benefits of river restoration outweigh their costs? A cost-
benefit analysis’ — Journal of Environmental Management 232, 1075-1085 

Martin-Ortega  and  Balana  (2012)  ‘Cost-effectiveness  analysis  in  the  implementation  of  the 
Water Framework Directive: A comparative analysis of the United Kingdom and Spain’  — 
European Water 37, 15-25 

Metcalfe  et  al  (2012)  ‘An  assessment  of  the  nonmarket  benefits  of  the  Water  Framework 
Directive for households in England and Wales’ — Water Resources Research 48, 1-18 

Millennium  Ecosystem  Assessment  or  Intergovernmental  Science-Policy  Platform  on 
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) 

OECD (2012) ‘OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: The Consequences of Inaction’ 

OECD  (forthcoming)  ‘Investment  needs  and  financing  capacities  for  water-related 
investment in EU member countries’ 

OECD  (forthcoming)  ‘Addressing  the  social  consequences  of  tariffs  for  water  supply  and 
sanitation’ 

Pistocchi  et  al  (2017)  ‘An  integrated  assessment  framework  for  the  analysis  of  multiple 
pressures in aquatic ecosystems and the appraisal of management options’ — Science of The 
Total Environment, Volume 575, 1477-1488 

Pistocchi  et  al  (2019)  ‘River  pollution  by  priority  chemical  substances  under  the  Water 
Framework  Directive:  A  provisional  pan-European  assessment’  —  Science  of  The  Total 
Environment, Volume 662, 434-445 

Poikane  et  al  (2014)  ‘Intercalibration  of  aquatic  ecological  assessment  methods  in  the 
European  Union:  Lessons  learned  and  way  forward’  —    Environmental  Science  &  Policy, 
Volume 44, 237-246 

155 

 
 
 
Polizzi et al (2015) ‘Is ecosystem restoration worth the effort? The rehabilitation of a Finnish 
river affects recreational ecosystem services’ — Ecosystem services 14, 158-169 

Ramsar  Convention  on  Wetlands  (2018)  ‘Global  Wetland  Outlook:  State  of  the  world’s 
wetlands and their services to people 2018’ 

Reddy  et  al  (2015)  ‘Finding  solutions  to  water  scarcity:  Incorporating  ecosystem  service 
values  into  business  planning  at  The  Dow  Chemical  Company’s  Freeport,  TX  facility’  — 
Ecosystem Services 12, 94-107 

Reynaud et al (2017) ‘A global meta-analysis of the value of ecosystem services provided by 
lakes’- Ecological Economics 137, 184-194 

Reynaud et al (2019) ‘A global meta-analysis of the ecosystem services provided by lakes’ 

Rockström  et  al  (2009)  ‘Planetary  boundaries:  exploring  the  safe  operating  space  for 
humanity’ — Ecology and Society 14(2): 32 

Rojas et al (2013) ‘Climate change and river floods in the EU: Socio-economic consequences 
and the costs and benefits of adaptation’ — Global Environmental Change (23) 1737-1751 

Russi  et  al  (2013)  ‘The  Economics  of  Ecosystems  and  Biodiversity  (TEEB)  for  Water  and 
Wetlands’  

STC-Nestra (2018) ‘Guidelines towards achieving a Good Navigation Status’ 

Trinomics  and  Wood  (2019)  ‘Fitness  Check  Evaluation  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive 
and the Floods Directive’ — study contract for DG ENV 

van  Puijenbroek  et  al  (2015)  ‘Evaluation  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  metrics  to 
analyse  trends  in  water  quality  in  the  Netherlands’  —  Sustainability  of  Water  Quality  and 
Ecology 6 (2015) 40-47 

van  Rijswick  et  al  (2015)  ‘Ground-breaking  landmark  case  on  environmental  quality 
standards?’ — Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law (12) 363-377 

Vidal-Legaz  et  al  (2018)  'Non-energy,  non-agriculture  raw  materials  production:  data  to 
monitor the sector’s water use and emissions to water' – JRC technical report 

Voulvoulis  et  al  (2017)  ‘The  EU  Water  Framework  Directive:  From  great  expectations  to 
problems with implementation’ — Science of the Total Environment 575 (2017) 358-366 

Vystavna  et  al  (2017)  ‘Removal  efficiency  of  pharmaceuticals  in  a  full  scale  constructed 
wetland in East Ukraine’ — Ecological Engineering 108, 50-58. 

Wood (2019) ‘Integrated Assessment of the 2nd River Basin Management Plans — EU-wide 
storyline report’ 

World Economic Forum (2019) ‘Global Risks Report 2019’ 

WRc  (2016)  European  level  report:  Key  descriptive  statistics  on the  consideration  of  water 
issues  in  the  Rural  Development  Programmes  2014-2020  Report  Reference:  UC12064.01, 
September 2016 

WRc  (2017)  ‘European  level  support:  Evaluation  of  the  contribution  of  Operational 
Programmes to the implementation of EU water policy‘  

WWF (2018) ‘Briging life back to Europe’s waters: The EU water law in action’ 

WWF (2019) 'Hydropower pressure on European rivers: The story in numbers' 

156 

 
 
 
EU legislation 

Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  570/2019  of  8 April  2019  laying  down  rules  for 
the  implementation  of  Decision  No 1313/2013/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  as  regards  rescEU  capacities  and  amending  Commission  Implementing  Decision 
2014/762/EU (notified under document C(2019) 2644), OJ L99/41, 10.4.2019 

Directive 82/176/EEC Council Directive on limit  values and quality objectives for mercury 
discharges by the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry, OJ 81, 27.3.1982 

Directive 83/513/EEC Council Directive on limit values and quality objectives for cadmium 
discharges L291, 24.10.1983 

Directive 84/156/EEC  Council Directive on limit  values and quality objectives for mercury 
discharges by sectors other than the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry, OJ74, 17.3.1984 

Directive 84/491/EEC Council Directive on limit values and quality objectives for discharges 
of hexachlorocyclohexane, OJ 274, 17.10.1984 

Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular 
of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture, OJ L181/6, 4.6.1986 

Directive  86/280/EEC  Council  Directive  on  limit  values  and  quality  on  objectives  for 
discharges  of  certain  dangerous  substances  included  in  List  I  of  the  Annex  to  Directive 
76/464/EEC, OJ 181, 4.7.1986 

Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment, L134, 30.5.1991 

Directive  91/676/EEC  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution  caused  by 
nitrates from agricultural sources, OJ 374, 31.12.1991  

Directive 2000/60/EC  establishing a framework for Community action in the field  of water 
policy (Water Framework Directive), OJ 327, 22.12.2000 

Directive 2006/113/EC on the environmental quality of shellfish waters 

Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the management of 
waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, OJ 102, 11.4.2006 

Directive 2006/118/EC on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration, 
OJ 372, 27.12.2006 

Directive  2008/105/EC  on  environmental  quality  standards  in  the  field  of  water  policy, 
amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Council  Directives  82/176/EEC,  83/513/EEC, 
84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council (EQS Directive), OJ 348/84, 24.12.2008 

Directive  2008/114/EC  on 
infrastructures and the assessment of the need to improve their protection  

identification  and  designation  of  European  critical 

the 

157 

 
 
 
Directive  2009/90/EC,  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,  for the strictest  standards applied (Urban Waste Water Treatment  Directive 
(UWWTD)), OJ L 201, 1.8.2009 

Directive  2009/128/EC  establishing  a  framework  for  Community  action  to  achieve  the 
sustainable use of pesticides, OJ 309, 24.11.2009 

Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 
on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), OJ L 334, 17.12.2010 

Directive  2014/89/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  July  2014 
establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning, OJ L 257, 28/08/2014 

Directive  2016/802/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  May  2016 
relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels, OJ L 132, 21.5.2016 

Directive 2018/2001/EU on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, OJ L 
328, 21.12.2018 

Directive 2019/782/EU amending Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council as regards the establishment of harmonised risk indicators, OJ L127, 16.5.2019 

Regulation  (EC)  2003/2003  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13 October 
2003 relating to fertilisers, OJ L 304 21.11.2003 

Regulation  (EC) No 648/2004  of the European Parliament  and of the Council  of 31 March 
2004 on detergents, OJ L104, 8.4.2004 

Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and 
supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European 
Medicines Agency, OJ L136, 30.4.2004  

Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 
2006 concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register and 
amending Council Directives 91/689/EEC and 96/61/EC, OJ L 33, 4.2.2006  

Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing measures for the recovery 
of the stock of European eel, OJ L248, 22.9.2007 

Regulation  (EC)  No  1394/2007  on  advanced  therapy  medicinal  products,  OJ  L324, 
10.12.2007 

Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 
2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council 
Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC, OJ L 309 24.11.2009 

158 

 
 
 
Regulation  (EU)  No  1235/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15 
December  2010  amending,  as  regards  pharmacovigilance  of  medicinal  products  for  human 
use, OJ L348, 31.12.2010 

Regulation  (EU)  No  1305/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17 
December  2013  on  support  for  rural  development  by  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for 
Rural  Development  (EAFRD)  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1698/2005,  OJ  L 
347, 20.12.2013 

Regulation  (EU)  1313/2013  on  a  Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism,  as  amended  by 
Decision (EU) 2019/420, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013 

Regulation  (EU)  No  1315/2013  on  Union  Guidelines  for  the  development  of  the  trans-
European transport network, OJ L 348, 20.12.2013 

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy 

Regulation  (EU)  No  852/2017  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  May 
2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008, OJ L 137, 24.5.2017 

Regulation  (EU)  No  1009/2019  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  5  June 
2019 laying down rules on the making available on the market of EU fertilising products and 
amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 and repealing Regulation 
(EC) No 2003/2003, OJ L 170, 25.6.2019 

Common implementation strategy 

Common  Implementation  Strategy  (2004)  ‘Heavily  Modified  Water  Bodies’  Guidance 
Document No 4 

Common  Implementation  Strategy  (2009)  ‘Exemptions  to  the  environmental  objectives’ 
Guidance Document No 20 

Common Implementation Strategy (2009) ‘Guidance document on eutrophication assessment 
in the context of European water policies’ Guidance Document No 23 

Common  Implementation  Strategy  (2017)  ‘Exemptions  to  the  Environmental  Objectives 
according to Article 4(7)’ Guidance Document No 36   

Common  Implementation  Strategy  (2018)  ‘Deriving  Environmental  Quality  Standards’ 
Guidance Document No 27 

Common Implementation Strategy (2019) ‘Threshold value variability analysis — Technical 
report’. 

159 

 
 
 
 
Annex 5 - Coherence - additional information on the coherence of water policy with 
wider EU policy  

The information below complements the analysis in Section 5.3 on coherence.  

For coherence with other EU water legislation, the annex includes additional information on 
the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive.  

For  coherence  with  other  environmental  policies,  it  covers  nature  and  biodiversity,  the 
strategy  for  climate  change  and  the  green  infrastructure  strategy,  chemicals,  industrial 
emissions, air quality, waste and sewage sludge and soil protection.  

Finally, for coherence with other EU policies, the annex includes complementary information 
on agriculture, transport (inland navigation), the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, fishing 
and aquaculture, and non-energy extractive industries.   

Question 5.3.2: ‘To what extent is the legislation coherent with wider EU policy?’ 

Coherence  with  other  components  of  EU  environmental  legislation  affecting  water 
quality  

Marine Strategy Framework Directive and Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 

and 

benthic 

biology, 

eutrophication, 

chemicals/contaminants 

The similar quality elements used under the MSFD and the WFD include those for assessing 
pelagic 
and 
hydromorphology/hydrographical  changes.  The  MSFD  complements  the  WFD  by  also 
including additional quality elements on other aspects of environmental protection (including 
marine  birds,  mammals,  fish  and  reptile  species,  and  additional  pressures  such  as  litter  and 
underwater noise). Apart from  the specific links established in  Decision (EU) 2017/848  for 
descriptors  5  and  8  (eutrophication  and  concentration  of  contaminants),  the  relationship 
between  WFD  assessments  in  coastal  waters  (as  expressed  in  MSFD  Article 3(1)(b))  and 
MSFD assessments needs further clarity to ensure complementarity. As regards the issue of 
WFD  EQS  not  being  appropriate  for  marine  waters,  in  principle  there  is  no  barrier  to 
harmonisation with the MSFD as the WFD generally includes different water EQS values for 
coastal and transitional waters (cf. inland surface waters). However, the issue of whether to 
use food standards as the basis for biota EQS is more complicated. Further work would help 
to achieve better coordination. 

In addition to using some different criteria, the assessments operate on different scales: water 
bodies are assessed under the WFD, while marine regions or subregions  are assessed under 
the  MSFD.  Consequently,  even  when  the  methods  and  indicators  are  similar,  there  can  be 
differences  between  the  final  assessments  of  the  same  area  because  of  the  different  spatial 
aggregation of the results. 

The Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD)380 also  applies to Member States’ coastal 
waters  (Article 2.1), including their seabed  and subsoil  (Article 3(4)). These waters include 
coastal waters “as defined in point 7 of Article 2 of Directive 2000/60/EC and their seabed 

380 Directive 2014/89/EU. 

160 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
and their subsoil (Article 3(4))”. There are therefore possible interactions between the WFD 
and the MSPD.  At the stakeholder workshop of 3 June 2019 some stakeholders raised this 
issue, for example in relation with shellfish aquaculture.  

The MSPD is intended to contribute to achieving the aims of the WFD and MSFD, and there 
are clear interactions between them. However, there has been no detailed analysis at EU level 
of how the Member States’ Maritime Spatial Plans and RBMPs link together. 

Coherence with other EU policies addressing the protection of the environment 

Nature and biodiversity 

The EU has a number of policies aimed at protecting biodiversity that interact with the WFD 
and FD. These are, in particular, the Nature Directives, the biodiversity policy, the Invasive 
Alien Species Regulation and the Eel Regulation.  

The objectives of the Nature Directives and WFD are coherent with one another as they all 
aim  to  achieve  healthy  ecosystems.  There  are  differences  in  terminology  used  in  the 
Directives, which reflect their different focus: the WFD aims to achieve ‘good status’, while 
the  Nature  Directives  aim  to  achieve  ‘favourable  conservation  status’  for  the  habitats  and 
species they seek to protect. The WFD requires that the objectives of the Nature Directives be 
fully taken into account in river basin planning and that other water management decisions be 
fully  consistent  with  objectives  for  protected  areas  so  that  effective  water  management  can 
contribute  to  the  objectives  of  EU  biodiversity  policy.  The  WFD  also  requires  the 
establishment  of  a  register  of  all  protected  areas  designated  under  EU  law  to  protect 
freshwater or species and habitats dependent on water in each river basin district, as well as 
the  inclusion  of  such  areas  in  water  monitoring  programmes.  The  WFD  and  the  Nature 
Directives are complementary in the sense that the Nature Directives set specific protection 
objectives  for  certain  species  and  habitats,  while  the  WFD  sets  more  general  objectives  to 
ensure  protection  and  restoration  of  healthy  ecosystems  which  benefit  all  species.  An 
example of successful  complementarity was  reported in  the scientific literature for seagrass 
conservation  in  Europe,  which  found  that  both  the  WFD  and  the  Habitats  Directive  have 
contributed  in  a  complementary  way  to  reversing  seagrass  population  decline381.  The  legal 
coherence is therefore clear, although interaction on the ground needs interpreting on a case-
by-case basis by the Member States.  

The EU biodiversity strategy is a crucial instrument to secure and sustain the natural resource 
base  our  economy  needs  to  thrive.  It  is  also  designed  to  deliver  on  the  EU  international 
commitments  under  the  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity  and  is  strictly  linked  to  the 
policy objectives of a number of EU legislative acts, including the WFD. Achieving the WFD 
policy objectives will also contribute to achieving the biodiversity strategy target, while vice 
versa  the  strategy  frames  the  protection  of  freshwater  ecosystems  in  the  broader  EU 
biodiversity protection context. 

Two  targets  of  the  biodiversity  strategy  are  particularly  relevant  to  the  objectives  of  the 
WFD:  

  Target 1 - Halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU 
nature  legislation  and  achieve  a  significant  and  measurable  improvement  in  their 
status by 2020 compared to current assessments. 

381 De los Santos et al (2019). 

161 

 
 
 
                                                 
  Target  2  -  By  2020,  ecosystems  and  their  services  are  maintained  and  enhanced  by 
establishing  green infrastructure  and restoring at least  15% of degraded  ecosystems.  

Freshwater ecosystems (open water and wetlands) cover only less than 5% of the area of 
the EU-28 but hold a higher number of species per unit area than land or sea, and provide 
a number of key ecosystem services. They are thus key for the achievement of this target. 

The WFD is also entirely compatible with the Invasive Alien Species Regulation382, which 
sets out to protect native biodiversity from invasive alien species, and the WFD and the IAS 
Regulation support each other. The presence of alien aquatic fauna or flora in a water body 
can  severely  affect  biological  quality  elements,  as  well  as  physico-chemical  elements  or 
hydrology  of  a  water  body.  Compliance  with  the  IAS  Regulation  can  therefore  support  the 
achievement  of  good  ecological  status  in  water  bodies.  Conversely,  water  bodies  in  good 
ecological  status  are  resilient  and  healthy  ecosystems  able  to  support  rich  biodiversity, 
making such ecosystems better able to withstand the presence of alien species and less prone 
to invasion. 

Strategy for climate change and the green infrastructure strategy 

Floods and droughts have already affected large parts of the EU and have a significant impact 
on  socioeconomic  developments.  In  the  future,  climate  change  will  probably  increase  both 
the number and magnitude of these hydrological extremes383.  

The WFD and daughter directives do not explicitly address the relationship between climate 
change  and  RBMPs,  although  all  qualitative  and  quantitative  water  aspects  referred  in  the 
Directive will be affected by climatic change. That said, Annex II to the Directive refers to 
the need to identify ‘significant pressures’ affecting water bodies and provides a framework 
for incorporating the impacts of climate change in the water planning process. In addition, the 
cyclical  approach  of  the  Directive  makes  it  possible  to  incorporate  scientific  and  technical 
progress. Given that climate change will certainly aggravate future anthropogenic pressures, 
expected  impacts  should  therefore  be  considered  within  the  framework  of  the  Directive. 
Guidance  Document  No 24  provides  more  direct  support  for  incorporating  climate  change 
projections  into  the  second  and  third  planning  cycles  and  more  specifically  into  the 
assessment  of  pressures  and  impacts,  monitoring  and  establishment  of  measures.  Based  on 
that guidance document, Member States agreed that from the second planning cycle onwards 
climate-related  threats  and  adaptation  planning  should  be  incorporated  in  their  RBMPs. 
Climate change was mentioned as being linked to the WFD in nearly all river basin districts 
in various ways. Climate change has been considered when setting objectives, when selecting 
robust  adaptation  measures,  when  monitoring  change  at  reference  sites  and  when  assessing 
direct and indirect climate pressures.  

Climate change is also considered in the context of drought management and water scarcity. 
32%  of  Member  States  have  adopted  supplementary  measures  related  to  climate  change 
adaptation in their RBMPs. Member States’ work is sometimes linked to national strategies 
on climate change adaptation under the EU climate change adaptation strategy384.  

382 Regulation (EU) 1143/2014. 
383 EEA Report No 1/2017. 
384 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/what_en 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The Floods Directive makes no reference to the EU’s green infrastructure strategy, nor to the 
EU adaptation strategy385. However, climate change is considered in flood risk management, 
and both  strategies  are continuously promoted in the Commission’s work with  the Member 
States. Encouragingly, the information compiled from the Member States indicates that all 26 
Member  States  assessed  included  nature-based  solutions  or  a  subset  of  these  (i.e.  natural 
water retention measures), in some or all of their FRMPs386. 

Chemicals 

This analysis only focuses on the legislation considered as most relevant for the WFD, EQSD 
and GWD.  

Regarding the authorisation process, the REACH Regulation is a central piece of legislation 
as  it  establishes  procedures  for  collecting  and  assessing  information  on  the  properties  and 
hazards  of  substances.  Companies  are  responsible  for  evaluating  and  managing  the  risk 
associated with the substances they manufacture and market, and are required to register them 
at  EU  level.  The  substances  then  need  to  be  evaluated  by  the  European  Chemicals  Agency 
and  Member  State  authorities,  which  can  decide  to  ban  them  if  the  risk  is  considered 
unmanageable. This process is linked to the WFD and EQSD as the risk analysis should take 
into account  the monitoring results of the WFD, as  required by the EQSD. Conversely, the 
identification of substances to be included in the WFD and EQSD lists takes into account the 
identification  process  under  REACH,  therefore  the  identification  of  substances  should  be 
coherent  between  the  two  policies.  There  is,  however,  evidence  showing  that  the  use  of 
REACH data for the WFD is limited by the fact that data on REACH data are structured in a 
format which makes their use for environmental considerations less easily applicable. 

The  Pollutant  Release  and  Transfer  Register  Regulation  (Regulation  No 166/2006)  requires 
operators to report emissions of pollutants exceeding a specific threshold (i.e. only from large 
installations) in a European Pollutant Register, providing access to information on pollution. 
Under the WFD, an inventory of emissions should cover all losses, emissions and discharges 
of priority substances, and therefore the values in the inventory are expected to complement 
and be higher than the E‑ PRTR data for the same substances. The information is, however, 
difficult  to  compare as different  sources are considered, and as there  are  weaknesses in  the 
way Member States have reported the emissions under the WFD387. 

The  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  (2010/75/EU)  (IED)  plays  a  very  important  role  in  the 
control of point source emissions to surface water. The coherence with the IED is analysed in 
the next sub-section. 

The  Sustainable  Use  of  Pesticides  and  the  Plant  Protection  Regulation  regulate  the  use  of 
pesticides in agriculture.  

The Plant Protection Products Regulation regulates the authorisation of active substances and 
co-formulants  of  those  products,  and  their  use.  A  substance’s  impact  on  the  aquatic 
environment  should  be  considered  during  authorisation,  as  should  the  availability  of 
alternatives.  Alternatives,  however,  are  often  lacking.  On  the  application  of  products, 

385 Both strategies were adopted in 2013, after the introduction of the FD. 
386 Climate change is discussed under ‘Relevance’. 
387 EEA Report No 18/2018. 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
according  to  Article 67,  producers  have  the  obligation  ‘to  undertake  post-authorisation 
monitoring  on 
the  competent  authorities’.  However,  feedback  on 
implementation  shows that  such monitoring is  rarely performed and that Member States do 
not have sufficient resources to check that products are being applied correctly. 

the  request  of 

The implications of designating a substance as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) or 
very  persistent,  very  bioaccumulative  (vPvB)  vary  widely  under  the  different  pieces  of 
chemicals  legislation:  such  substances  are  not  approved  at  all  under  the  Plant  Protection 
Products  Regulation,  whereas  under  other  legislation  the  final  decision  depends  on  the 
conclusions  of  a  socioeconomic  analysis.  Under  the  WFD,  this  means  that  a  PBT  or  vPvB 
might  not  necessarily  be  designated  as  a  priority  hazardous  substance  if  it  would  not  be 
socioeconomically realistic or appropriate to expect emissions to the aquatic environment to 
be phased out completely. 

The  Sustainable  Use  Directive  (Directive  2009/128/EC388)  (SUD)  sets  out  to  achieve 
sustainable pesticide use practices by reducing the risks from pesticide use to human health 
and  the  environment.  It  does  this  by  requiring  the  establishment  of  national  action  plans 
setting quantitative objectives, targets, measures, timetables and indicators to reduce risks and 
impacts  of  pesticide  use  in  Member  States.  In  May  2019,  an  amendment  to  the  SUD 
(Commission Directive (EU) 2019/782) established harmonised risk indicators to help meet 
objectives  under  the  SUD  at  EU  level  and  to  enable  Member  States  to  manage  and  report 
risk389. 

Articles  4(1)  and  11(2)  of  the  SUD  oblige  the  Member  States  to  take  suitable  measures  to 
protect  surface  and  ground  waters,  as  well  as  drinking  water  supplies,  against  the  negative 
impacts  of  plant  protection  products.  Article 11  also  requires  the  measures  in  the  national 
action plans to be compatible with WFD requirements. In particular, measures to protect the 
aquatic environment should refer to, and be compatible with, relevant provisions on priority 
hazardous substances in Article 16(3) of the WFD, clearly linking the chemical aspects of the 
directives  in  question.  The  SUD  has  been  recognised  as  providing  a  useful  contribution  to 
fulfilling the objectives of good water status under the WFD.  

The  above-mentioned  Directive  (EU)  2019/782  amending 
the 
Commission’s ambition for harmonised risk indicators to act as incentives for both Member 
States  and  individual  users  to  switch  to  low-risk  active  substances  and  non-chemical 
methods,  in  a  bid  to  help  fully  achieve  the  goals  of  the  SUD.  Furthermore,  integrated  pest 
management, which is a cornerstone of the SUD (Article 14), and a requirement for Member 
States, aims to achieve the lowest possible use target for pesticide application by promoting 
an integrated approach to the use of alternatives to pesticides in pest management.  

the  SUD  furthers 

However,  an  evaluation  of  the  first  national  action  plans  conducted  by  the  Commission  in 
2017390 shows that, even though integrated pest management is a key aspect of how the plans 
tackle  pesticide  pollution,  it  is  implemented  at  different  levels  across  Member  States.  The 
evaluation  shows  in  particular  that  Member  States  had  not  converted  integrated  pest 
management principles into prescriptive and assessable criteria, and had no measures in place 

388 Directive 2009/128/EC. 
389 Directive 2019/782/ EU. 
390  Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Member State National Action 
Plans  and  on  progress  in  the  implementation  of  Directive  2009/128/EC  on  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides. 
2017 https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/pesticides_sup_report-overview_en.pdf 

164 

 
 
 
                                                 
to assess compliance. Twenty-seven national action plans cover the protection of the aquatic 
environment  against  plant  protection  products,  but  in  the  absence  of  measurable  targets  in 
most cases, the report states that it is difficult to observe and quantify progress. 

In  essence, the legislation is  coherent  with  the  WFD, and its proper implementation  should 
contribute  to  achieving  the  WFD’s  objectives.  However,  the  assessment  of  national  action 
plans points to weaknesses in the implementation of integrated pest management and to the 
lack of a robust strategy to reduce the use of pesticides, which compromises the effectiveness 
of  this  instrument  to  reduce  water  pollution.  The  European  Court  of  Auditors  is  drafting  a 
report on action taken at EU level to ensure sustainable use of plant protection products; the 
report will is expected to include observations on the SUD and the national action plans.  

The Biocidal Products Regulation requires the registration at Member State level of ‘active’ 
substances  of  products.  This  includes  consideration  of  toxicological  effects,  efficacy  and 
effects on non-target species. The legislation allows Member States to restrict or ban the use 
of  products  in  the  water  supply  system  or  to  target  biocides  for  substitution  in  case  of 
potential  groundwater  contamination.  It  also  requires  Member  States  to  report  measures 
adopted  against  contamination  of  surface  water  and  groundwater.  As  the  Regulation  is 
intended to promote prevention of the use of substances in connection with their risk to water, 
it allows for close links with the WFD and EQSD. The integrated assessment of the second 
RBMPs391,  however,  shows  that  the  objectives  and  data  structure  for  biocides  are  very 
different  from the needs of the WFD and are consequently considered as less useful.  Some 
contributors  to  the  consultation  commented  that  there  was  a  very  limited  overlap  between 
priority  substances  and  biocides,  which  made  the  topic  less  relevant  for  their  planning. 
However, some biocides are listed as priority substances. 

The Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) Regulation transposes the Stockholm Convention at 
EU  level.  The  Regulation  regulates  the  production,  placing  on  the  market,  exportation  and 
use  of  chemicals,  management  of  stockpiles  and  wastes,  and  requires  measures  to  reduce 
unintentional  releases  of  persistent  organic  pollutants.  Persistent  organic  pollutants  pose  a 
significant  risk  for  the  environment  as  they  accumulate  for  a  long  time,  making  the 
Regulation  of  particular  relevance  for  the  achievement  of  the  EQSD’s  objectives.  The 
Regulation  is  also  particularly  relevant  when  such  substances  are  transported  over  long 
distances and it addresses problems associated with substances coming from outside the EU 
that may contribute to the pollution of EU waters and vice versa.  

The  Detergents  Regulation  provides  key  measures  to  reduce  the  environmental  impact  of 
detergents.  It  deals  in  particular  with  the  concept  of  biodegradability,  and  legislates  on  the 
content of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in products. The latest requirements 
were introduced in 2012 in order to reduce the damage caused by phosphates from detergents 
on  the  aquatic  environment  due  to  eutrophication.  A  2019  evaluation  of  the  Detergents 
Regulation  shows  that  it  has  been  effective  (to  a  certain  extent)  in  reducing  the  amount  of 
phosphorus/phosphates  used  in  consumer  laundry  and  dishwashing  detergents.  While  this 
requirement contributes to meeting the objectives of the WFD, the evaluation did not provide 
a precise assessment of the Regulation’s contribution to reducing eutrophication because of a 

391 Acteon and Wood (2019). 

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
lack of data and the difficulty in isolating the effects of detergents among the whole range of 
other pressures.  

EU water law has the potential to address pollution from pharmaceutical substances. Indeed, 
some pharmaceuticals have been included in the watch list under the EQS. Pharmaceuticals 
in  the  environment  and  anti-microbial  resistance  are  inter-related  issues  that  have  become 
more pronounced in the environment. An increased volume and diversity of pharmaceuticals 
are now found in water and soil all over Europe, having an impact on the environment and 
warranting  vigilance  as  regards  their  impact  on  human  health.  To  address  the  problem,  the 
European  Commission  adopted  the  One  Health  Action  Plan  on  anti-microbial  resistance  in 
2017 and a strategic approach on pharmaceuticals in the environment in 2019. The aim is to 
use  opportunities  offered  by  legislative  and  non-legislative  tools  at  European,  national  and 
sectoral  levels.  So  far,  the  current  water,  industry  and  health-related  legislation  gives  an 
indication  of  how  the  issues  of  pharmaceuticals  in  the  environment  and  anti-microbial 
resistance might be tackled. 

Mercury  is  one  of  the  substances  involved  in  the  largest  number  of  failures  to  meet  good 
chemical  status  in  surface  water  bodies392.  Out  of  some  111,000  European  surface  water 
bodies identified in an EEA study (2018393), more than 45,000, across 24 Member States, are 
failing  to  reach  good  chemical  status  due  to  mercury  pollution.  A  new  EU  Mercury 
Regulation394,  applicable  since  1 January  2018,  seeks  to  limit  further  mercury  use  and 
emissions  by  regulating  trade  in  mercury  and  mercury  compounds  and  by  improving  the 
management  of  mercury  waste.  It  covers  the  full  life  cycle  of  mercury  and  complements  a 
large body of existing EU environmental law on mercury.  

Thanks to this long-standing EU mercury policy, a 73% reduction of mercury emissions to air 
was  achieved  between  1990  and  2014.  The  EU  now  accounts  for  less  than  3%  of  global 
mercury  emissions  to  air.  Furthermore,  emissions  to  water  were  reduced  by  71%  between 
2007  and  2014395.  However,  both  atmospheric  deposition  and  point  source  pollution  are 
drivers for the bad chemical status of European surface waters. Although a decrease can be 
seen in mercury releases to water from industry, urban waste water treatment plants are still 
named as one of the biggest sources for mercury pollution. 

At global level, the Minamata Convention, which entered into force in 2017, aims to protect 
human health and the environment against anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury 
and  mercury  compounds.  The  Convention  promises  to  curb  and  eventually  eliminate  the 
global increase in mercury emissions. 

392 2019, 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 
(https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:bee2c9d9-39d2-11e9-8d04-
01aa75ed71a1.0005.02/DOC_1&format=PDF). 

Management 

Flood 

Plans 

Plans 

First 

Risk 

and 

393 EEA Report No 18/2018. 
394 Regulation No 852/2017/EU. 
395  EU  Rules 
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/ENV-17-011-IndustrialEmissionsFactsheet-
MERCURY-E-web.pdf). 

in  Action:  Reducing 

on  Mercury 

emissions 

and 

use 

of  mercury 

166 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
It  is  too  soon  to  evaluate  the  impact  of  the  new  Mercury  Regulation  and  the  Minamata 
Convention, but it is very likely that they will contribute to reducing pressure from mercury 
emissions to water. 

Understanding  spatial  and  temporal  mercury  trends  is  crucial  in  assessing  measures  taken 
both  at  European  and  global  level.  European  waters  still  suffer  extensively  from  mercury 
pollution.  It  is  only  by  understanding  the  movement  and  interaction  of  mercury  within  our 
environment that this persistent problem will be tackled. 

The  food  standards  legislation  on  residues  standards  in  fish  sets  standards  in  terms  of  the 
maximum amount of substances in commercialised fish. There have been debates on the links 
between the boundaries set by the EQSD for human health and the boundaries set by the food 
legislation, which can be different. The technical guidance recently published for the EQSD 
has addressed this issue. 

Industrial Emissions Directive 

The Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) covers industrial installations of a minimum size in 
a  broad  range  of  sectors,  including  power  plants,  chemical  installations,  waste  incinerators, 
pig farms and poultry farms. Small sites falling below IED requirements are not covered. The 
Directive requires installations to operate with a permit which sets emission limit values for 
pollutant emissions to air, water and soil. The emission limit values must be based on ‘best 
available techniques’ (BATs) set at EU level. The IED and the WFD both include provisions 
requiring  them  to  be  mutually  coherent.  Indeed,  Article  10(2)  of  the  WFD  requires 
compliance  with  the  IED  and  Article  10(3)  requires  stricter  permit  conditions  to  be  set  if 
necessary  to  achieve  compliance  with  a  quality  objective  or  quality  standard.  A  similar 
requirement  exists  in  Article  18  of  the  IED.  Assessment  of  the  second  RBMPs  shows  that 
most programmes of measures mention regulatory permitting of emissions as a key measure 
for chemical status.  

Also noteworthy in this area is the recent Commission decision under the IED (Decision (EU) 
2017/302) establishing maximum nitrogen emission levels for poultry and pig producers and 
laying down techniques  for reducing emissions of nitrogen to  soil and water resulting from 
manure  spreading.  These  requirements  should  contribute  to  reducing  nutrient  pollution  by 
agriculture,  which  has  been  identified  as  a  major  pressure  for  good  water  status  under  the 
WFD.  The  results  of  consultations  and  previous  work396  show  that  full  coherence  has  not 
been reached for some aspects and/or in some areas. Concerns have been raised in particular 
that the process for adopting BAT reference documents (BREFs) and corresponding emission 
levels under the IED does not sufficiently address releases of priority substances into water. 
Furthermore, the relationship between the objectives of the EQSD and the emission levels set 
under the IED is not sufficiently well addressed, particularly on the role of mixing zones and 
on  how  to  address  cumulated  and  indirect  releases.  Some  consultation  respondents  also 
highlighted inconsistency between the general obligation of the WFD to cease and phase out 
emissions of priority hazardous substances and the existence of maximum concentrations or 
emission  levels  for  the  same  substances  under  the  EQSD  and  the  IED.  During  the 
consultation  some  stakeholders  also  expressed  their  concern  about  the  fact  that  the  Best 
Available  Technique  reference  documents  insufficiently  cover  the  issue  of  industrial  water 

396  In  particular  the  joint  workshop  organised  by  European  Commission  (DG  Environment)  and  the  German 
Ministry for the Environment. 27-28 November 2017, Berlin, Germany. 

167 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
efficiency.    It  has  been  agreed  at  EU  level  that  further  work  on  these  issues  is  needed, 
possibly in the form of exchanges of good practices, worked examples and/or guidance397.  

Air quality 

reduction 

commitments in 

The EU clean air policy framework sets standards for air quality in the Ambient Air Quality 
Directive (2008/50/EC) and in Directive 2004/107/EC relating to arsenic, cadmium, mercury, 
nickel  and  polycyclic  aromatic  hydrocarbons  in  ambient  air.  The  EU  has  also  set  national 
the  National  Emission  Ceilings  Directive 
emission 
2016/2284/EU. This policy is linked with the WFD in two main respects: first, atmospheric 
deposition of chemicals and of nitrogen is identified as one of the pressures affecting water 
(cf. assessment of the second RBMPs); second, measures put in place to reach the objectives 
of  both  Directives  are  closely  linked.  Feedback  from  the  consultation  shows  that  there  is  a 
lack of clear guidance on how to deal with atmospheric deposition to water, especially as the 
links between the standards in air and water are not clearly established.  

There  are  synergies  on  eutrophication:  the  National  Emission  Ceilings  Directive  includes 
reduction  commitments  for  nitrogen  oxides  and ammonia  emissions,  as  well  as  mandatory 
and optional measures for reducing ammonia emissions from agriculture (National Emission 
Ceilings Directive, Annex III). This contributes to reducing eutrophication in water. There is 
also  ongoing  work  under  the  same  directive  to  monitor  impacts  from  air  pollution  on 
ecosystems,  including  the  use  of  eutrophication  indicators  and  the  link  to  nitrogen 
deposition/pollution.  Member States must put  in  place  a monitoring network to  analyse the 
impacts  from  air  pollution  on  a  representative  selection  of  their  ecosystems;  the  first  data 
were  due  by  1 July  2019. If  Member  States  do  not  take  all  environmental  objectives  into 
account in an integrated manner, there can be a risk of negative effects e.g. when measures to 
reduce  ammonia  emissions  lead  to  nitrate  pollution  in  water  or  vice  versa  (i.e.  shifting 
pollution instead of reducing it). To support the agricultural community and Member States 
to avoid such effects, the European Commission and the UNECE Air Convention (CLRTAP) 
are developing a guidance document on integrated sustainable nitrogen management, taking 
into  account  nitrogen  pollution  into  air,  water  and  soil  in  a  complete  and  comprehensive 
manner. 

Waste and sewage sludge 

Sewage  sludge  originates  from  the  process  of  treatment  of  waste  water  and  can  be  used  in 
agriculture;  it  is  rich  in  nutrients  such  as  nitrogen  and  phosphorous  and  contains  valuable 
organic matter that is useful when soils are depleted or subject to erosion. However, sewage 
sludge  can  also  contain  substances  such  as  metals,  industrial  organic  compounds  or 
pharmaceuticals, as well as particulate matter such as micro-plastics, that can be released into 
water and be a source of contamination. The Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC398) seeks 
to encourage the use of sewage sludge in agriculture and to regulate its use in such a way as 
to  prevent harmful effects  on soil, vegetation, animals  and humans. Although the Directive 
focuses  on  protecting  soil  and  agricultural  products,  it  also  states  that  sludge  application 
should  not  endanger  surface  or  groundwaters.  The  higher  the  level  of  treatment  under  the 
UWWTD,  the  more  likely  the  sludge  is  to  be  polluted,  including  by  a  wide  range  of 

397 Report of the joint workshop organised by DG ENV and the German Ministry for the Environment, Berlin, 
https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/06f33a94-9829-4eee-b187-

27-28 November 
21bb783a0fbf/library/56767bcd-4958-4e36-9b24-3690fd2723c2/details 

2017 

398 Directive 86/278/EEC. 

168 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
micropollutants  (including  micro-plastics).  This  highlights  the  value  and  efficiency  of 
reducing pollution at source, as promoted by the WFD. 

The Sewage Sludge Directive sets limit values for the concentrations of seven heavy metals 
in  sludge  and  soils,  and  imposes  certain  monitoring  obligations.  The  focus  on  metals  that 
could run off into surface waters or leach into groundwater is useful from the perspective of 
the  Water  Directives,  especially  given  that  metals  have  been  identified  as  one  of  the  key 
groups  affecting  good  status.  However,  some  Member  States  have  over  recent  years  set 
stricter requirements, including for additional substances, or banned the use of (certain types 
of)  sludge  for  certain  purposes  or  in  certain  areas399,  thus  going  beyond  EU-level 
restrictions400.  One  of  the  issues  triggering  this  action  is  concern  about  contamination  with 
organic pollutants such as PFOS401. Sewage sludge use must also take account of the risk of 
causing eutrophication. 

A 2010 study on the environmental, economic and social impacts of the use of sewage sludge 
on  land  shows  that  ‘most  Member  States  have  adopted  stricter  standards  and  management 
practices  than  those  specified  in  the  Directive,  either  through  binding  rules  or  via  codes  of 
practice and other voluntary agreements402’. 

Article 8 of the Sewage Sludge Directive also specifies that ‘the sludge shall be used in such 
a way that account is taken of the nutrient needs of the plants and that the quality of the soil 
and  of  the  surface  and  ground  water  is  not  impaired’.  In  addition,  Member  States  have  to 
follow rules stemming from other legislation related to water when using sewage sludge. The 
Nitrates  Directive  requires  balanced  fertilisation  and  therefore  encompasses  all  sources  of 
nitrogen into agricultural land, including sewage sludge which falls within the definition of 
fertilisers. Therefore, the rules outlined in the Directive to reduce water pollution should also 
apply  to  the  spreading  of  sewage  sludge.  Furthermore,  Member  States’  efforts  to  meet  the 
requirements of the Nitrates Directives may restrict the use of sludge on land in local areas. 

In  the  available  studies  carried  out  in  the  context  of  the  potential  revision  of  the  Sewage 
Sludge  Directive  in  2010,  the  environmental  impact  of  sewage  sludge  on  water  and 
groundwater  was not/could  not  be quantified as it was highly uncertain403. The studies also 
state that ‘much of the literature and many responses to the first consultation indicate that the 
current levels adequately protect environment and human health’.  

The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) sets out the basic concepts and definitions in 
the area of waste management, and states that waste should be managed without endangering 
human  health  and  harming  the  environment,  and  in  particular  without  risk  to  water.  In 
addition to this framework, specific legislative acts aim to regulate specific aspects of waste 
management. 

399 German ‘Verordnung über die Verwertung von Klärschlamm, Klärschlammgemisch und 
Klärschlammkompost’; https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/abfkl_rv_2017/index.html including 
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/abfkl_rv_2017/__15.html. 
400 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/index.htm 
401 https://www.lubw.baden-wuerttemberg.de/-/landesweit-pfc-eintrage-durch-kompost-und-klarschlamm-
untersucht. 
402  Environmental,  economic  and  social  impacts  of  the  use  of  sewage  sludge  on  land  —  Part  II.  2010. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/waste/sludge/pdf/part_i_report.pdf 
403 Part II of the study (pp. 6-7) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/waste/sludge/pdf/part_ii_report.pdf. 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Landfill of waste can potentially lead to water pollution due to leachate that escapes from the 
landfill404.  Landfills  can  continue  to  produce  leachate  for  several  hundred  years  after  they 
have ceased to operate. A 2010 study on ‘Economic Valuation of Environmental Externalities 
from Landfill Disposal and Incineration of Waste’ shows that ‘very few attempts have been 
made  to  quantify  and  valuate  soil  and  water  externalities  from  landfills’  as  ‘pollution 
pathways  of  emissions  to  soil  and  water  are  quite  site  specific  and  difficult  to  measure405’. 
Directive  1999/31/EC  sets  requirements  on  the  landfill  of  waste,  which  aim  to  prevent  or 
reduce as far as possible negative effects from the landfilling of waste on the environment, in 
particular on surface water, groundwater, soil, air, and on human health. Section 3 of Annex 3 
to  the  Directive  sets  requirements  and  sampling  frequencies  for  monitoring  surface  water, 
leachate, gas emissions and atmospheric pressure, while Section 2 of Annex I lays down the 
general requirements for water control and leachate management. The implementation report 
for the Directive covering the period 2013-2015 shows that all Member States declared that 
they  have  in  place  provisions  for  the  required  monitoring  and  have  undertaken  technical 
measures  to  ensure  that  the  requirements  of  Annex  I  on  water  control  and  leachate 
management  are  in  place.  The  most  common  measures  were  drainage  systems  to  collect 
surface  and  groundwater,  the  collection  and  treatment  of  leachate,  and  cover  and  vertical 
sealing  structures.  A  revised  legislative  proposal  included  in  the  circular  economy  package 
was  adopted in  2014 and sets  new targets  to  reduce landfilling. These will further limit the 
impact on water of improper waste disposal.  

For the management of biowaste, the requirements on the separate collection of biowaste laid 
down  in  Article 22  of  Directive  2008/98  demand  a  high  level  of  environmental  protection, 
which  will  lead  to  higher  quality  compost  and  digestate  and  thus  prevent  risks  of  water 
contamination. 

Soil protection 

Soils  are  key  to  the  delivery  of  a  wide  array  of  ecosystem  services,  including  water  and 
nutrient cycle regulation, water purification, food and fibre production, providing a physical 
basis for construction and habitat for various species. Soil can also accumulate contaminants 
and  transfer  them  to  water,  while  soil  erosion  can  alter  aquatic  ecosystems.  Protecting  soil 
ecosystems,  preventing  erosion  and  pollution  of  soil  is  therefore  essential  for  water 
protection. 

Water  protection  policies  are  playing  an  important  role  in  protecting  Europe’s  soils. 
Nonetheless, there is no specific requirement in water quality legislation (e.g. in the WFD) to 
remediate or protect soils in situ. Instead, the goal of water legislation is to prevent negative 
impacts on water bodies; this could be delivered in multiple ways, including reducing diffuse 
pollution or hydromorphological changes due to soil erosion.   

To  identify  significant  anthropogenic  pressures  that  affect  water  bodies,  the  WFD  requires 
Member  States  to  collect  relevant  information  such  as  the  estimation  of  land  use  patterns. 
More specifically, Article 5 of the Directive requires soil protection aspects and the possible 
impact  of  soil  degradation  as  a  pressure  on  water  quality  to  be  taken  into  account  in  the 

404http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/volume_leachate_environmental_impact_l
andfills_reduced_legacy_effects_remain_483na3_en.pdf 
405  European  Commission,  DG  Environment.  A  Study  on  the  Economic  Valuation  of  Environmental 
Externalities  from  Landfill  Disposal  and  Incineration  of  Waste  Final  Main  Report,  October  2000 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/econ_eva_landfill_report.pdf 

170 

 
 
 
                                                 
characterisation  of  river  basin  districts.  For  the  WFD,  Member  States  report  on  diffuse 
pollution from agriculture or from forestry, part of which may be due to  soil erosion. They 
can also report on hydromorphological changes, which may in some cases also be due to soil 
erosion.  

To  achieve  the  WFD’s  objectives,  Member  States  need  to  draw  up  and  implement  the 
necessary measures. Among these are demand management and coordination with other plans 
and programmes, including land management and soil protection action aimed at reducing the 
risk of desertification. For more on this issue, see the European Court of Auditors’ report on 
desertification406.  Measures  to  reduce  sediment407  from  soil  erosion  and  surface  run-off  are 
also included in the second RBMPs and have been reported for 34 RBDs. 

There  is  no  comprehensive  legislation  on  soil  contamination  at  EU  level  due  to  the 
Commission’s withdrawal in 2014 of the proposal for a Soil Framework Directive. However, 
the soil thematic strategy (COM (2006) 231) provides a set of overarching principles on soil 
protection  at  EU  level,  while  the  Environmental  Liability  Directive  obliges  polluters  to 
remediate water and land damages caused by activities that took place after the entry of force 
of the Directive (30 April 2004). 

Coherence with other EU policies 

Agriculture  

Cross-compliance  is  a  link  at  farmer  level  between  common  agricultural  policy  (CAP) 
payments  and  compliance  with  rules,  in  particular  for  water  policy,  stemming  from  EU 
legislation.  Farmers  not  complying  with  these  rules  may  incur  reductions  of  their  CAP 
payments.  In  that  respect,  cross-compliance  has  improved  awareness  among  farmers  of 
environmental concerns. However, its impact has been limited by its not having sufficiently 
integrated  the  WFD  objectives.  The  cross-compliance  scheme  has,  since  its  adoption, 
included rules relevant for the protection of water, such as rules under the Nitrates Directive, 
the  Groundwater  Directive  and  a  number  of  standards  for  good  agricultural  and 
environmental  condition  of  land  such  as  buffer  strips  or  rules  for  the  use  of  water  for 
irrigation. Six cross-compliance requirements have a direct impact on water quality and water 
quantity, while several other cross-compliance requirements have an indirect impact on water 
protection408. Subsequent reforms of the CAP have progressively included more requirements 
on  water  protection,  and  the  Commission  now  proposes  the  introduction  of  several 
requirements  under  the  WFD  in  line  with  the  2013  ‘joint  statement  by  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  on  cross‑compliance’  requesting  such  action409.  An  audit  from 
the  European  Court  of  Auditors  in  2014  showed  in  particular  that  some  important  water-
related  issues  have  not  been  included  in  cross-compliance.  The  issues  mentioned  are 
requirements  for  farmers  to  limit  the  use  of  phosphorus  on  their  land  and  to  limit  the 
application of pesticides in the immediate vicinity of water bodies. This report also concluded 
that weaknesses in the implementation of EU water policy have also hindered its integration 
into the CAP.  

406 https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=48393 
407 Dredging is considered in certain areas of the EU and elsewhere as a tool for flood control. The FRMPs in 
seven Member States include measures for dredging of rivers to increase river channel capacity and its ability 
to convey water for flood alleviation purposes. 

408 European Court of Auditors Special Report No 4/2014. 
409  Joint  statement  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  cross-compliance  attached  to  Regulation 

(EU) No 1306/2013. 

171 

 
 
 
                                                 
Greening  is  a  support  scheme  under  CAP  direct  payments  that  remunerates  environmental 
and  climate  practices  at  farm  level.  These  include  crop  diversification,  the  inclusion  of 
ecological  focus  areas  and  the  protection  of  permanent  pasture.  The  Commission  considers 
that greening has the potential to enhance the environmental and climate performance of the 
CAP compared to the period before its introduction, and overall greening applies to holdings 
representing a large share of its agricultural area (77% in 2016). However, according to the 
staff working document on greening it is clear that environmental and climate objectives have 
not  been  generally  a  major  factor  in  the  Member  States’  implementation  choices410. 
According  to  the  European  Court  of  Auditors,  greening  has  had  a  limited  impact  on  the 
environmental performance of farms at the EU level411. The Court concluded that the scheme 
needed to become more efficient and more consistent with other CAP instruments. This was 
taken into account in the Commission’s proposal for the post-2020 CAP.  

EU rural development programmes (RDPs) under the CAP are the main source of funding for 
the  programmes  of  measures  in  the  second  RBMPs,  and  have  therefore  significantly 
contributed  to  the  implementation  of  WFD.  Conversely,  a  detailed  assessment  of  RDPs  for 
the  period  2007-2013  shows  that  Member  States  allocated  51%  of  their  RDP  budgets  to 
measures that to a greater or lesser extent relate to water. Assessment of the draft RDPs of the 
third programming period (2014-2020) showed that the RDPs are mostly consistent with the 
RBMPs  with  regard  to  significant  pressures  such  as  nutrient  and  pesticide  pollution  and 
hydrological  alterations  associated  with  abstraction  for  irrigation412.    RDPs  fund  a  diverse 
range  of  measures  to  tackle  pollution  pressures,  from  investments  in  infrastructure  and 
equipment to changes in agricultural practices, the establishment of green infrastructure, land 
use  management,  knowledge  transfer,  innovation  management,  and  the  promotion  of 
collaborative  projects.  A  majority  of  RDPs  also  explicitly  promote  improved  water 
management  in  general, while the implementation of RBMPs is considered in the design of 
M10  ‘agri-environment-climate’  in  most  RDPs413.  However,  inconsistencies  exist  in  the 
reporting of pressures linked to dredging, bed and bank reinforcement, river realignment and 
impounding  for  land  drainage,  food  protection  and  irrigation.  It  has  also  been  shown  that 
some  RDP  measures,  if  not  properly  designed,  could  actually  contribute  to  maintaining 
and/or increasing agricultural pressures, particularly measures on the expansion of irrigation, 
new  land  drainage  and  new  embankments414.  However,  instruments  exist  to  avoid  these 
adverse  effects  in  the WFD415 and Article 46 of the Rural  Development  Regulation  dealing 
with  water abstraction416. On this  latter subject,  investments  in  irrigation must comply with 
Article 46,  which  includes  conditions  on  water  savings  to  improve  existing  irrigation 
equipment/infrastructure. In particular, new installations should offer potential water savings 

410 European Commission (2018) – SWD(2018) 479 
411 European Court of Auditors Special Report No 21/2017. 
412 WRc (2016). 
413 WRc (2016). 
414 The analysis of RDPs found a number of sub-measures that can maintain or potentially increase agricultural 
pressures  on  the  water  environment,  including  expansion  of  irrigation  (50%  of  RDPs),  new  land  drainage 
(17%), and new embankments (14%). Source: WRc (2016). 

415  Requirements  of  the  WFD  to  prevent  deterioration  and  not  to  compromise  the  achievement  of  good 
status/potential, with possible exemption under specific conditions as outlined in Article 4(7). 
416 Article 46 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 sets the conditions for obtaining support from the EAFRD for 
investments in irrigation. In particular, new installations should offer potential water savings of a minimum of 
between 5% and 25% in general, and of at least 50% for water bodies whose status has been identified as less 
than good for reasons related to water quantity. 

172 

 
 
 
                                                 
of  a  minimum  of  between  5%  and  25%  in  general,  and  of  at  least  50%  for  water  bodies 
whose status has been identified as less than good for reasons related to water quantity.  

Transport — Inland navigation 

Construction  of  new  navigation  infrastructure  has  impacts  on  water  and  can  hinder  the 
achievement of the WFD objectives. To reduce those impacts, the TEN-T guideline includes 
provisions  requiring  projects  to  comply  with  environmental  law  and  requiring  the 
performance of environmental assessments. In addition, an exemption to the good navigation 
status requirements can be granted in case of environmental damage. Article 16 of the TEN-T 
guidelines  establishes  priorities  for  inland  waterway  infrastructure  development,  whereas 
Article 16(e) outlines that priority should be given (among other things) to ‘paying particular 
attention  to  the  free-flowing  rivers  which  are  close  to  their  natural  state  and  which  can 
therefore be the subject of specific measures’. 

On new navigation projects, there are EU instruments that aim to improve coherence between 
policies. In particular, according to the WFD, new and existing infrastructure for navigation 
should be authorised only if the conditions of the exemptions under Article 4(7) are met. The 
assessment  of  the  second  RBMPs  shows  that  navigation  is  one  of  the  main  sectors 
responsible for hydromorphological alterations, and for which exemptions under Article 4(7) 
are applied. For projects financed by EU funds, the rules on conditionality aim to ensure that 
projects financed by EU funds are compliant with all environmental legislation.  

There has so far been no assessment of the impacts of the TEN-T policy on water status as 
the programme has been implemented too recently. An evaluation of the TEN-T guidelines417 
has been launched, with the aim of contributing to the preparation of the new guidelines for 
the next programming period. The assessment of the implementation of the second RBMPs 
has shown that progress has been made on integration between those two policies, but there 
are  still  issues  in  some  Member  States,  in  particular  regarding  the  implementation  of 
Article 4(7) for new navigation projects. In many cases, the problem is related to the lack of 
proper methodologies at national level. The lack of integration of environmental requirements 
at the early stages of project planning is also an issue in many cases.  

Navigation activities can also affect chemical status, as ships, boats and the infrastructure to 
support  them  can  cause  a  range  of  environmental  problems.  In  particular,  they  can  lead  to 
direct  emissions  of  contaminants  by  boats,  but  also  to  indirect  contamination  by 
remobilisation of contaminated sediments. The use of anti-fouling products has in particular 
led to contamination of water418. Due to aquatic toxicity and persistence, the use of organotin 
compounds in anti-fouling coatings has been banned since 2008. 

Union Civil Protection Mechanism 

While  the  preamble  of  the  Floods  Directive  mentions  the  Union  Civil  Protection 
Mechanism419, the articles of the Directive make no mention of coordination specifically with 

417 Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013. 
418 EEA report No 18/2018. 
419 Replaced by Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism, as amended by Decision 
(EU)  2019/420.  Article 3(1)  of  the  UCPM:  ‘The  Union  Mechanism  shall  support,  complement  and  facilitate 
coordination of Member States’ action in pursuit of the following common specific objectives: (a) to achieve a 
high level of protection against disasters by preventing or reducing their potential effects, by fostering a culture 
of prevention and by improving cooperation between the civil protection and other relevant services;’. 

173 

 
 
 
                                                 
civil  protection. The Commission’s proposal  for a  Directive mentioned in its preamble that 
‘The  flood  risk  management  cycle  which  includes  the  steps  Prevention,  Protection, 
Preparedness, Emergency response and Recovery and review should be one of the underlying 
elements of the flood risk management plans’. In contrast, the FD only stated that ‘flood risk 
management  plans  should  focus  on  prevention,  protection  and  preparedness’.  This  was 
mentioned  twice,  in  the  preamble  and  in  Article 7.  Still,  among  the  broad  range  of 
stakeholders involved in preparing the FRMPs, civil protection authorities were consulted for 
all  FRMPs  assessed  in  14  of  the  26  Member  States,  and  in  19  Member  States  for  at  least 
some units of management. The RescEU Decision420 in its preamble requires Member States 
when  performing  their  risk  assessments  to  make  full  use  of  the  flood  risk  assessments 
performed under the FD. 

According to Council Directive 2008/114/EC of 8 December 2008 on the identification and 
designation  of  European  critical  infrastructures  and  the  assessment  of  the  need  to  improve 
their  protection,  natural  disasters  should  be  taken  into  account  in  the  critical  infrastructure 
protection process. Since the FD precedes the Critical Infrastructure Directive421, it makes no 
reference  to  it.  There  is  nothing,  however,  in  the  FD  that  prevents  Member  States  from 
considering  critical  infrastructure  when  assessing  and  mapping  flood  risk422,  or  when 
deciding on measures.  

Fishing and aquaculture 

Information reported for the second RBMPs shows that aquaculture activities exert different 
types of pressure on some water bodies: point and diffuse source pollution, abstractions and 
hydrological alterations. Aquaculture also requires high water quality and is very sensitive to 
pressures, so adequate implementation of the WFD is  vital  for aquaculture production. The 
Commission  published  in  2016  a  document  offering  practical  guidance  to  facilitate 
implementation  of  the  WFD  and  MFSD  as  part  of  the  development  of  sustainable 
aquaculture423.  

Some representatives of the aquaculture industry consider that the lack of consistency among 
Member  States  in  interpreting  and  implementing  the  WFD  does  not  ensure  a  level  playing 
field among operators in different EU Member States. Although Directive 2006/113/EC for 
the  protection  of  shellfish  waters  was  repealed  by  the  WFD,  the  groundwork  it  provided  is 
maintained through their new status as protected areas. Further protection is also given under 
Directive  91/271/EEC,  which  is  of  considerable  importance  given  the  pressure  that 
inadequately treated and controlled urban waste waters can place on the quality of shellfish 
waters. The Commission’s implementation report on the second RBMPs have found that the 
implementation of this obligation has been uneven, as in around half of cases Member States 
have  continued  to  establish  the  same  requirements  for  the  protected  areas  associated  with 
shellfish production. Representatives from the aquaculture sector consider that the WFD does 

420  Decision  (EU)  2019/420  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13 March  2019  amending 
Decision  No 1313/2013/EU  on  a  Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism,  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2019.099.01.0041.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2019:099:FULL 

421 Council Directive 2008/114/EC  
422 Still, considering that infrastructure identified as critical is supporting vital societal functions, there may be 

limitations on what is publicly communicated via flood maps. 

423 European Commission (2016) – SWD(2016) 178.  

174 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
not  provide  a sufficient  level  of protection  for shellfish production because implementation 
was found to be inconsistent and incomplete. 

An  interim  evaluation  on  the  open  method  of  coordination  between  the  Commission  and 
Member States on aquaculture policy introduced by the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation 
was  recently  carried  out424.  Following  the  evaluation,  a  revision  of  the  strategy  on  the 
sustainable  development  of  EU  aquaculture,  including  the  2013  Commission  Aquaculture 
Strategic  Guidelines  and  the  multiannual  national  strategic  plans  of  EU  Member  States  has 
been  launched  and  adoption  of  the  document  is  expected  in  2020.    Support  to  aquaculture 
from  the  European  structural  and  investment  funds,  and  especially  the  European  Maritime 
and Fisheries Fund, is linked to Member States’ multiannual national strategic plans and the 
link will be maintained under the new programming period. 

Non-energy extractive industries (NEEI) 

The  extraction  of  raw  materials  provides  resources  for  essential  economic  activities  in  the 
EU,  including  raw  materials  needed  to  the  transition  to  a  climate-neutral  economy.  It  is 
estimated  that  extractive  and  processing  industries  generate  3.4  million  jobs,  while 
downstream  industries  generate  around  25  million  jobs425.  The  2008  EU  raw  materials 
initiative aims to secure the fair and sustainable supply of raw materials from global markets, 
the sustainable supply of raw materials within the EU, resource efficiency, and the supply of 
secondary raw materials through recycling.  

Extractive  activities  are  placed  where  the  natural  resources  exist,  with  no  or  very  limited 
possibilities  to  be  relocated.  In  some  cases,  they  involve  high  concentrations  of  certain 
elements due to natural  background levels and/or diffuse pollution. If suitable measures are 
not  implemented,  mining  activities  can  affect  freshwater  ecosystems  in  different  ways 
through changes in  the  groundwater  and surface  water hydrology, or  through the release of 
chemicals  and/or  sediments  in  water.  Impacts  on  water  will  depend  on  the  type  of 
mineral426,427, mining practices, substances used at the processing stage, and the way mining 
waste is handled. If not properly addressed, these impacts can occur during the exploitation of 
the mine, but also long after the cessation of activity. 

The Extractive Waste Directive adopted in  2006 provides measures to  prevent  or reduce as 
far  as  possible  any  adverse  effects  on  the  environment  and  any  resulting  risk  for  human 
health  that  may  result  from  the  management  of  waste  from  the  extractive  industries.  These 
measures should be based, among others, on the  best  available techniques (BATs),  without 
prescribing  the  use  of  any  technique  or  specific  technology,  but  taking  into  account  the 
technical  characteristics  of  the  waste  facility,  its  geographical  location  and  the  local 
environmental  conditions.  The  Extractive  Waste  Directive  does  not  address  emissions  to 
ground or surface water from closed mines that have been flooded with ground water.  

On  preventing  deterioration  in  water  status,  the  Extractive  Waste  Directive  refers  in  its 
Article 13  to  EU  environmental  standards  and  in  particular  to  the  Water  Framework 
Directive.  Historic  mining  activities428  may  result  in  high  background  levels  of  priority 

424 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 
425 European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials (2018). 
426 Dolega et al., 2016. 
427 ERMITE-Consortium et al, (2004). 
428 Bide et al., 2019. 

175 

 
 
 
                                                 
substances  exceeding  the  limits  of  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive. 
Un-rehabilitated former mining sites may be an obstacle to the development of new mines in 
a  given  area.  Although  this  legislative  framework  has  led  to  improvements  in  waste 
management,  there  are  still  issues  regarding  water.  In  particular,  the  situation  is  still 
problematic for mining  operations closed before the adoption of the Directive, as these  can 
still  result  in  discharges  of  mine  drainage  into  water,  even  long  after  closure.  As  for  waste 
facilities  closed  before  the  adoption  of  the  Directive,  Member  States  have  to  prepare  an 
inventory of closed or abandoned waste facilities. Inventories are drawn up on a risk-based 
approach so that priorities can be set for rehabilitation projects.  

The mining industry has provided numerous contributions to the fitness check consultations 
on  the  contradictions  between  the  2008  EU  raw  materials  initiative,  which  is  aimed  at 
supporting EU industrial competitiveness, and the environmental objectives of the WFD and 
its  daughter  directives.  Contributors  have  in  particular  claimed  that  environmental 
requirements  are  hindering  the  development  of  new  mining  activities  and  the  reopening  of 
abandoned sites. This relates to cases where additional emissions could lead to deterioration, 
even  temporarily,  of  the  status  of  water  bodies.  As  no  exemptions  are  applicable  in  such 
cases, these activities cannot be authorised under the WFD.   

176