COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT European Overview - Implementation of planned Programmes of Measures and New Priority Substances Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008/105/EC amended by Directive 2013/39/EU) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Implementation of planned Programmes of Measures New Priority Substances Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk
Date: 2021-12-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU environmental policy, application of EU law, environmental standard, groundwater, pollution control measures, surface water, water management, water pollution, water protection

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.12.2021  SWD(2021) 970 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT European Overview -          Implementation of planned Programmes of Measures and New Priority Substances Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008/105/EC amended by Directive 2013/39/EU) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)              Implementation of planned Programmes of Measures      New Priority Substances      Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk         {COM(2021) 970 final} - {SWD(2021) 971 final}  
 
 
Contents 

ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ................................................................................... 4 

POM TERMINOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 5 

1.  FOREWORD ............................................................................................................... 6 

2.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 7 

2.1.  Overall progress in the implementation of PoM ............................................... 7 

2.2.  Obstacles to the implementation of the PoM .................................................... 8 

2.3.  Progress on reducing pressures to achieve Environmental objectives ............ 10 

2.4.  Progress on KTMs to achieve Environmental objectives ................................ 14 

2.5.  Measures to tackle main pressures on water bodies ........................................ 16 

2.5.1.  Agricultural measures ........................................................................ 20 

2.5.2.  Wastewater treatment and chemical pollution................................... 20 

2.5.3.  Water abstraction ............................................................................... 20 

2.5.4.  Hydromorphological alterations ........................................................ 20 

2.5.5.  Drinking water protection .................................................................. 21 

2.5.6.  Water pricing policy .......................................................................... 21 

2.5.7.  Research............................................................................................. 21 

2.5.8.  Pollution from urban areas, transport and infrastructure ................... 21 

2.5.9.  Other pressures .................................................................................. 22 

2.6.  Costs and financing of POMs .......................................................................... 23 

2.6.1. 

Investments ........................................................................................ 23 

2.6.2.  Cost explanation ................................................................................ 25 

2.6.3.  Funding sources ................................................................................. 25 

2.7.  Progress on EQS monitoring of new substances ............................................. 26 

3.  MEMBER STATE POM INFORMATION .............................................................. 29 

3.1.  Targeted  questions  on  Basic  measures  on  water  use/water 

abstraction/groundwater (article 11.3.c-f) ....................................................... 29 

3.2.  Basic measures on wastewater (article 11.3.g) ................................................ 35 

3.3.  Basic measures on diffuse pollution from agriculture (article 11.3.h) ............ 37 

3.4.  Basic measures on hydromorphology (article 11.3.i) ...................................... 39 

3.5.  Basic measures on direct discharges to groundwater (article 11.3.j) .............. 40 

3.6.  Basic  measures  on  Priority  substances  for  surface  water  (article 

11.3.k) .............................................................................................................. 41 

3.7.  Supplementary measures on water Reuse ....................................................... 42 

1 

 
3.8.  Supplementary measure on Ecological Flow .................................................. 43 

3.9.  Supplementary measures on Climate Change ................................................. 45 

3.10.  Supplementary measure on MSFD coordination ............................................ 46 

4.  THE COST AND FUNDING OF POMS ................................................................. 49 

4.1.  Total cost of measures ..................................................................................... 49 

4.1.1.  Cost Explanation – methods used ...................................................... 50 

4.1.2.  Funding sources ................................................................................. 53 

5.  OBJECTIVES OF THE WFD ................................................................................... 56 

5.1. 

Indicator gap to achieving good status ............................................................ 56 

6.  REPORTING OF KEY TYPE OF MEASURES (KTM) ......................................... 59 

6.1.  KTM overview ................................................................................................ 60 

6.2.  Progress on KTMs to achieve Environmental objectives ................................ 63 

6.3.  Progress  with  implementation  of  measures  to  reduce  pressures  from 

agriculture ........................................................................................................ 66 

6.3.1.  KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture ......................... 66 

6.3.2.  KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture ...................... 68 

6.3.3.  KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture ...................................... 69 

6.4.  Progress  with  implementation  of  measures  to  reduce  pressures  from 

urban and industrial wastewater treatment and chemicals .............................. 71 

6.4.1.  KTM1  -  Construction  or  upgrades  of  wastewater  treatment 

plants .................................................................................................. 71 

6.4.2.  KTM15  -  Measures  for  the  phasing-out  of  emissions, 
discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for 
the  reduction  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  Priority 
Substances ......................................................................................... 73 

6.4.3.  KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater 

treatment plants (including farms). .................................................... 74 

6.5.  Progress  with  implementation  of  measures  to  reduce  pressures  from 

water abstraction .............................................................................................. 76 

6.5.1.  KTM7  -  Improvements  in  flow  regime  and/or  establishment 

of ecological flows............................................................................. 76 

6.5.2.  KTM8  -  Water  efficiency,  technical  measures  for  irrigation, 

industry, energy and households ....................................................... 78 

6.6.  Progress  with  implementation  of  measures  to  reduce  pressures  from 

hydromorphological alterations ....................................................................... 80 

6.6.1.  KTM5  -  Improving  longitudinal  continuity  (e.g.  establishing 

fish passes, demolishing old dams) ................................................... 80 

6.6.2.  KTM6  -  Improving  hydromorphological  conditions  of  water 

bodies other than longitudinal continuity .......................................... 81 

2 

 
6.7.  Progress  with  implementation  of  other  measures  relating  to  drinking 

water protection ............................................................................................... 83 

6.7.1.  KTM4  -  Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical 

pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil) ............................ 83 

6.7.2.  KTM13 

-  Drinking  water  protection  measures 

(e.g. 

establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc) ......................... 84 

6.8.  Progress with implementation of measures relating to water pricing ............. 86 

6.8.1.  KTM9 

the 
-  Water  pricing  policy  measures 
implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from 
households ......................................................................................... 86 

for 

6.8.2.  KTM10 

the 
-  Water  pricing  policy  measures 
implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from 
industry .............................................................................................. 87 

for 

6.8.3.  KTM11 

the 
-  Water  pricing  policy  measures 
implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from 
agriculture .......................................................................................... 89 

for 

6.9.  Progress with implementation of measure relating to Research ..................... 90 

6.9.1.  KTM14  -  Research, 

improvement  of  knowledge  base 

reducing uncertainty .......................................................................... 90 

6.10.  Progress  with  implementation  of  measure  relating  to  pollution  from 

urban areas, transport and built infrastructure ................................................. 92 

6.10.1.  KTM21  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of 

pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure ........... 92 

6.11.  Progress with implementation of other Key Type of Measures ...................... 94 

6.11.1.  KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and 

surface run-off ................................................................................... 94 

6.11.2.  KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts 

of invasive alien species and introduced diseases ............................. 95 

6.11.3.  KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts 

of recreation including angling .......................................................... 95 

6.11.4.  KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts 

of fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal and plants ........ 97 

6.11.5.  KTM22  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of 

pollution from forestry ...................................................................... 98 

6.11.6.  KTM23 - Natural water retention measures .................................... 100 

6.11.7.  KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change .......................................... 101 

6.11.8.  KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification ............................... 103 

6.11.9.  KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM .................. 104 

3 

 
 
 
 
ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS 

Acronym  Explanation 

CDR  Central Data Repository 

EQS Directive  Environmental Quality Standards Directive 

FD   Floods Directive  

GW  Groundwater 

KTM   Key Type of Measure  

MSFD  Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

NWRM  Natural Water Retention Measures 

PoM   Programme of Measures  

RBD   River Basin District 

RBMP   River Basin Management Plan  

SW  Surface Water 

WFD   Water Framework Directive  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
POM TERMINOLOGY 

Term 

Description 

KTMs reported 

Indicator/KTM 

KTM99 

Indicator gap 

For each significant pressure type and chemical substance reported, 
predefined Key Types of Measure (KTMs) are reported that will be made 
operational to reduce the pressure or chemical substance. 

For each KTM a set of quantitative indicators are pre-defined. There may be 
more than one indicator for each KTM and vice versa. The same KTM and 
the same indicator can thus be introduced more than once.  

If the pre-defined KTMs are not appropriate, ‘KTM99 – Other key type 
measure reported under PoM’ may be selected by the Member State. Each 
Member State should report details of the other (new) KTMs developed by 
the Member State. 

For each significant pressure type or chemical substance reported, a pre-
defined quantitative indicator is reported by the Member State. The 
indicator states the scale and extent of the pressure or chemical substance, 
that is to be reduced by measures to achieve the environmental objectives of 
the WFD. This is the gap to be filled to meet the objectives. 

Indicator value 2021  For each pre-defined quantitative indicator, the Member State reports the 
expected value of that indicator at the start of the third cycle in 2021. The 
value for 2021 should give an indication of the expected situation in 2021 in 
terms of remaining measures needed to achieve environmental objectives 
(i.e., good ecological status or potential or good chemical status). The 
difference between the indicator value in 2015 and 2021 should provide an 
indication of the progress expected in the second cycle.  

Indicator value = 0 

If all measures needed to achieve the environmental objectives are expected 
to be fully operational, the value of the indicator should be 0. 

Mapping indicators  Mapping indicators to a specific pressure means that Member State in their 

reporting link pre-defined quantitative indicators to relevant pressures or 
chemical substances, and report on the progress on these indicators over 
time. 

5 

 
 
 
1.  FOREWORD 

Directive  2000/60/EC  also  known  as  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)1  requires 
Member States, under Article 11, to set up a Programme of Measures (PoM) as part of 
the  River  Basin  Management  Plan  (RBMP)  that  must  be  submitted  every  six  years. 
According to Article 15 (3) of the WFD, Member States must submit an interim report of 
the  implementation  of  the  planned  PoM  within  three  years  of  the  publication  of  the 
RBMP  or  any  update  thereof.  The  Commission,  under  Article  18  of  the  WFD,  should 
inform  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  on  the  progress  in  the  implementation  of 
the WFD. 

According  to  the  WFD,  the  2nd  RBMP  was  due  by  December  2015  and  therefore  the 
interim reports on the implementation of PoM were due by December 2018. As with the 
previous  interim  reporting,  the  Commission  carries  out  an  assessment  with  the  aim  of 
having an implementation  report to  inform  the European Parliament and the Council at 
the latest three years later. 

The  PoM  assessments  reflect  the  situation  as  reported  electronically  to  the  WISE 
database by each Member State to the Commission by end 2018.  

The electronic reporting is based on the PoM reported within the 2nd RBMP. Wherever 
information  is  available  in  the  Member  States’  reporting,  a  separate  analysis  has  been 
done  for  basic  measures,  Article  11.3  of  the  WFD  and  supplementary  and  additional 
measures, Articles 11.4 and 11.5 of the WFD. 

Since the publication of the Member States’ 2nd RBMP and within the reporting period 
2016–2018,  the  measures  listed  in  the  2nd  RBMP  have  been  implemented  in  different 
manners in the Member States. 

A direct comparison of indicator values given in 2016 in the RBMP and in 2018 is often 
not possible due to different KTM indicators and indicator values provided in the PoM 
reporting  for  KTMs  and  indicator  gaps.  However,  the  information  provided  for  years 
2016  and  2018  and  projected  for  2021,  still  provides  quantitative  data  on  the  progress 
made on the implementation of PoM. This is as far as possible reflected in the document. 

Some  Member  States  have,  since  the  2nd  RBMPs,  introduced  changes  in  their  PoM, 
generally  by  adding  measures  that  were  not  foreseen  at  the  time  of  drafting  the  2nd 
RBMP, or measures that were expected to be finished by the time of adoption of the 2nd 
RBMP but were delayed. When this reporting was not available in the WISE database, 
supplementary  information  from  national  reports  has  been  extracted  from  the  Central 
Data Repository (CDR) on EIONET2, whenever available. 

1 Directive2000/60/EC of the European and of the Parliament Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a 
framework for Community action in the field of water policy, 2000, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060, Accessed 1 December 2020. 
2 EIONET Central Data Repository, 2020, https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/. Access 2020. 

6 

 
 
                                                 
2.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Whilst  Member  States  have  made  progress  in  implementing  the  first  programmes  of 
measures  (PoMs),  these  PoMs  have  not  been  fully  implemented.  A  lack  of  adequate 
finance  is  likely  to  continue  to  present  an  obstacle  also  to  implementing  the  2nd  PoMs 
(2015-2021)  as  no  less  than  64%  of  RBDs  are  yet  to  secure  finance  for  all  relevant 
sectors. 

Most Member States have made some progress in identifying the gap to good status for 
each  significant  pressure,  and  the  level  of  implementation  of  measures  required  to 
achieve good status. This significant improvement will allow for better identification and 
prioritisation  of  the  measures.  However,  more  work  is  needed  to  refine  this  for  the  3rd 
PoMs (2021-2027). 

For  those  Member  States  that  have  identified  other  pressures,  measures  are  in  place  to 
address  them,  the  gap  to  good  status  has  generally  been  identified,  and  indicators 
developed to identify the level of implementation required to achieve good status. 

2.1.  Overall progress in the implementation of PoM 

Each  Member  State  have  provided  a  status  and  progress  of  the  PoM  established  to 
address  the  significant  issues  identified  and  to  allow  the  achievement  of  the  objectives 
established under Article 4. The Directive further specifies that the POMs shall include 
as  a  minimum  'basic  measures'  and  where  necessary  to  achieve  objectives,  also 
'supplementary measures'. An overview of the reported status can be seen in Table 1.  

7 

 
 
 
Table 1: Status and progress achieved since the adoption of the second RBMP for RBDs in each 
Member State. Numbers indicate number of RBDs in each country, where measures were fully, 
partly or not completed. 

Member 
State 

RBD 

All (2015) 
measures 
completed 

All planned (until 
2021) measures 
completed 

Some measures 
completed 

Some planned 
measures  
completed 

No measures 
completed 

1 

8 

1 

1 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

3 

8 

4 

1 

3 

10 

4 

3 

14 

25 

8 

14 

2 

1 

3 

8 

4 

2 

4 

1 

4 

10 

10 

1 

5 

2 

1 

3 

5 

1 

1 

3 

10 

3 

14 

25 

7 

2 

3 

3 

2 

1 

4 

9 

1 

2 

1 

3 

4 

7 

4 

4 

4 

10 

1 

5 

2 

SK 
According to Table 1, all planned measures have been reported as completed in all RBDs 
only in Finland (FI) in 8 RBDs and in Hungary (HU) in one RBD.  Five Member States 
(DK,  LT,  LV,  PL,  SE)  report  some  planned  measures  completed  for  all  RBDs  and  15 
Member States (AT, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, HR, IE, LU, MT, NL, RO, SI, SK) report 
some  measures  have  been  completed  in  all  RBDs.  The  BE  Rhine  RBD  report  all 
measures completed, whilst the BE Seine RBD report no measures completed. 

2 

2.2.  Obstacles to the implementation of the PoM 

In  the  POM  reporting,  Member  States  were  asked  to  report  on  the  obstacles  to  the 
implementation of the POM. Table 2 shows the reported obstacles by Member State.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2: Obstacles to the implementation of the POM. Member States report the number of RBDs 
where obstacles are relevant. 

Obstacles 

Member 
State 

RBD  Governance 

Delays 

Lack of 
finance 

Lack of 
mechanism 

Lack of 
measures 

Not cost 
effective 

Extreme 
events 

Other 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

3 

8 

4 

1 

3 

10 

4 

3 

14 

25 

8 

14 

2 

1 

3 

8 

4 

2 

4 

1 

4 

10 

10 

1 

5 

2 

3 

25 

14 

1 

3 

5 

3 

3 

4 

3 

10 

4 

3 

14 

25 

14 

2 

1 

5 

1 

4 

3 

8 

1 

3 

3 

4 

3 

25 

8 

14 

2 

1 

3 

8 

4 

4 

3 

9 

1 

2 

2 

1 

3 

10 

3 

25 

8 

14 

2 

1 

7 

3 

1 

5 

1 

9 

1 

1 

4 

2 

10 

4 

14 

1 

3 

2 

4 

5 

1 

3 

7 

3 

2 

4 

4 

8 

1 

3 

4 

1 

6 

1 

4 

2 

8 

2 

SK 
2 
According to Table 2, AT, CY and LT have reported no obstacles to the implementation 
of the POM. The Member States with the most reported obstacles were HU, CZ and PL. 

2 

2 

2 

The remaining Member States have reported different obstacles to the implementation of 
the POM: 

In five Member States (CZ, ES, FR, HU and IE) governance issues were reported for all 
RBDs. Two Member States (IT and PL) reported governance related issues in some 
RBDs.  The  remaining  20  Member  States  did  not  report  any  governance  issues 
presenting obstacles to the implementation of the POM. 

Two thirds of the Member States reported unexpected planning delays as an obstacle to 
the  implementation  of  the  POM.  Fourteen  Member  States  reported  delays  in  all 

9 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
RBDs,  four  Member  States  reported  delays  in  some  RBDs,  and  the  remaining  nine 
Member States reported no delays in the planning process. 

Two  thirds  of  the  Member  States  reported  lack  of  finance  as  an  obstacle  to  the 
implementation of the POM. Fourteen Member States reported lack of finance in all 
RBDs,  four  Member  States  reported  lack  of  finance  in  some  RBDs,  and  the 
remaining nine Member States reported no lack of finance. 

Half of the Member States reported lack of a mechanism for implementing measures as 
an obstacle to the implementation of the POM. Ten Member States reported lack of a 
mechanism  as  an  obstacle  to  implementing  measures  in  all  RBDs,  four  Member 
States reported lack of a mechanism for implementing measures in some RBDs, and 
the remaining 13 Member States reported no lack of a mechanism for implementing 
measures. 

Only five Member States (BG, DE, HU, IT, PL) reported lack of effective measures as 
an obstacle to the implementation of the POM. In HU this was the case in all RBDs. 
The  remaining  22  Member  States  reported  no  lack  of  effective  measures  as  an 
obstacle to the implementation of the POM. 

Only five Member States (CZ, IE, NL, RO and SK) reported planned measures no longer 
being  cost  effective  in  all  RBDs,  therefore  presenting  an  obstacle  to  the 
implementation  of  the  PoM.  Another  four  Member  States  reported  this  obstacle  in 
some  RBDs.  The  remaining  18  Member  States  reported  no  planned  measures  no 
longer being cost effective, therefore a changed cost- effectiveness of the measures 
did not present an obstacle to the implementation of the PoM in most Member States. 

Few Member States reported that unexpected extreme events presented an obstacle to the 
implementation of the PoM. Only three Member States (CZ, HU, and LV) presented 
this for all RBDs, whereas DE, IT, LU, PL, and PT presented this obstacle for some 
RBDs. The remaining 19 Member States did not report unforeseen extreme events as 
an obstacle. 

Nine  Member  States  reported  other  obstacles  to  the  implementation  of  the  PoM  in  all 
RBDs. Two Member States reported other obstacles in some RBDs. The remaining 
16 Member States did not report other obstacles to the implementation of the PoM. 
Example  of  other  obstacles  were  e.g.,  for  DE:  Acceptance  of  the  measure  by  the 
public, staff resources for the planning process and land availability. 

2.3.  Progress on reducing pressures to achieve Environmental objectives 

Member States have been asked to report the progress in reducing pressures to  achieve 
the  Environmental  objectives.  According  to  the  PoM  terminology,  for  each  significant 
pressure  type  or  chemical  substance  reported,  a  pre-defined  quantitative  indicator  is 
reported by the Member State. The indicator states the scale and extent of the pressure or 
chemical  substance,  that  is  to  be  reduced  by  measures  to  achieve  the  environmental 
objectives  of  the  WFD.  This  is  the  indicator  gap  to  be  filled  to  meet  the  objectives. 
Member States have reported on the indicator gaps remaining in 2021 on the identified 
pressures reported in the RBMPs in 2015.  

The  main  challenges  in  comparing  reported  indicator  gaps,  and  thereby  describing  the 
progress in reducing pressures, can be summarised as follows: 

Some Member States do not provide indicator gaps in their WFD 2016 reporting. 

Some Member States do not provide indicator gaps in their POM 2018 reporting. 
Member States report using annex 0 (meaning objectives are already met). 

10 

 
Data  reported  on  indicators  in  2015  do  not  match  indicators  reported  for  the  POM 

reporting in 2018. 

Nineteen Member States (AT, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, El, ES, FR, HR, HU, LT, LV, MT, 
PL, PT, SI, SK) have reported comparable indicator gaps in the 2nd RMBP reporting in 
2016 and the POM reporting in 2018 for the period 2015- 2021 (Figure 1).  

In  three  out  of  the  18  Member  States  (EE,  LV,  MT),  70-100%  of  the  objectives  have 
been met for their RBDs. For ES, 16 out of their 25 RBDs also report that objectives 
have been met.  

A large decreasing trend is particularly observed for  four Member States (AT, CZ, FR, 

PT). In most of the RBDs, 30-80% of the indicators have a decreasing gap.  

No change in indicator gaps is also observed. This is particularly relevant for 9 out of 10 
RBDs in PT, in 6 out 14 RBDS in EL, almost half of the RBDs in PL and DE, and 
both RBDs in SI and SK.  

An  increasing  indicator  gap  is  observed  in  ES,  DK,  DE,  HU,  HR,  and  SE.  For  these 
Member  States  it  is  only  for  some  RBDs  with  increasing  indicator  gaps  varying 
between 3-30%. 

In CY (not shown in the figure), there has been no updates to the 2021 values provided 
in  2015  but  all  measures  (except  one)  have  met  their  objective  by  2021.  The  only 
pressure remaining is diffuse pressure from agriculture. It is reported to be reduced 
by 4 tonnes of nitrogen load per year between 2015 and 2021. 

11 

 
 
Figure continues on the following page. 

12 

 
 
 
 
Figure continued from previous page.

Figure 1: Trend in indicator gap 2015-2021 reported for the implementation of planned 
Programme of Measures (2018). “Objectives met” equals all measures needed to 
achieve the environmental objectives are fully operational.3. 

3  Figure  illustrates  only  18  out  of  27  Member  States,  because  those  Member  States  have  reported 
comparable indicator gaps in the WFD 2016 reporting and POM 2018reporting. CY and EL are missing in 
figure 

13 

 
 
                                                 
 
In  three  Member  States  (BE,  BG,  and  LU)  did  not  provide  indicator  gaps  in  the  WFD 
2016 reporting. It is therefore not possible to describe progress in reducing pressures.  

In  BE,  the  Scheldt  RBD  is  the  only  RBD  reporting  indicator  gaps.  The  reporting  from 
WFD 2016 and PoM 2018 show no updates to the indicator gaps. 

In  FI  all  indicator  gaps  for  2021  in  both  the  WFD  2016  and  PoM  2018  reporting  are 
reported included in annex 0, i.e., indicating that all objectives will be met by 2021.  

In the remaining three Member States (IE, IT, and NL), due to the data structure of the 
2nd  RBMP  in  2016  and  the  PoM  2018  reporting,  it  was  not  possible  to  make  a  1:1 
comparison between pressures or substances failing and the corresponding indicator gap. 
Therefore,  an  analysis  of  the  trend  in  indicator  gaps  between  2015  and  2021  is  not 
possible. 

2.4.  Progress on KTMs to achieve Environmental objectives 

Similar  to  the  reported  difficulties  in  comparing  the  indicator  gaps,  the  reported  KTM 
indicator  values  are  only  comparable  between  2016  and  2018  in  17  Member  States 
(Figure 2). 

In 22 out of 25 RBDs in ES, more than 50% of the objectives have been meet. A similar 
trend is seen for half the RBDs in PT. 

In FR, PT, and SE most RBDs have met their objectives and/or indicator values have a 
decreasing trend, i.e., indicator gaps are closing over time with the PoM. 

In eleven Member States (DE, DK, EL, HR, HU, LT, LV, PL, RO, SI, SK), many of the 
indicator value trends have shown no progress. 

Increasing indicator gaps are seen in CZ (all RBDs), DE (all RBDs), EE (two RBDs), EL 
(ten RBDs), ES (eight RBDs), HR (all RBDs), LV (one RBD), RO (all RBDs), SE (two 
RBDs), SI (one RBD) and SK (all RBDs). 

14 

 
Figure continues on the following page. 

15 

 
 
 
Figure continued from previous page.

Figure 2: Trend in Key Type Measure indicator gap from the 2nd RBMP to the PoM 
progress reporting (2016-2018) reported for the implementation of planned Programme 
of Measures (2018). “Indicator objectives met” equals measure is fully operational to 
achieve the environmental objectives.  

2.5.  Measures to tackle main pressures on water bodies 

Table  3  presents  an  overall  qualitative  assessment  of  the  planned  trends  in  achieving 
objectives for different pressures and relevant KTMs based on the information reported 
16 

 
 
for years 2018-2021 by each Member State. Please note that due to lack of data from the 
reporting,  it  was  not  possible  to  assess  for  all  Member  States  progress  on  the 
implementation  of  measures  between  2016  and  2018.  Instead  this  table  shows 
information  on  progress  expected  between  2018  and  2021  based  on  planned  measures. 
Please find a description below of the assessment methodology used. Later chapters will 
elaborate on the reported progress for each KTM.  

17 

 
 
 
Table 3: Reported expected progress on KTMs by Member State, 2018-2021  

Box 1 Assessment Methodology for Table 3 

The  expected  progress  of  KTM  implementation  is  assessed  qualitatively  based  on  the 
information  provided  in  the  PoM  2018.  Progress  is  interpreted  from  the  text,  and/or 
numbers whenever available, for each KTM in each Member State, based on information 
reported  for  2018-2021.  The  progress  is  overall  and  looks  across  several  indicators  for 
both surface water and groundwater, and across all RBDs.   

Table 3 should therefore be interpreted with caution. Implementation progress is labelled 
the following way:   

18 

Legend Upward trendObjectives met in 2021 Trend cannot be reportedMixed trendNo progress/StagnantDownward trendNot mappedPressureKTMATBEBG CYCZ DE DKEE ELES FI FR HR HUIE IT LT LULV MT NL PL PT RO SESISK231211516785641391011Research14Urban*21171819202223242599*Pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructureDrinking water protectionWater pricing policyOtherMember StatesAgricultureWastewater treatment and chemicalsWater abstractionHydromor-phological alterations 
 
 
Upward  trend:  Most  indicators  show  upward  trend,  i.e.,  moving  away  from  the 
objective  of  closing  the  gap.  Some  indicators  may  be  stagnant,  but  no  indicators  show 
downward trend.   

Mixed trend: Different indicators show both upward and downward trends.   

Downward  trend:  Most  indicators  show  downward  trend,  i.e.,  moving  towards  the 
objective  of  closing  the  gap.  Some  indicators  may  be  stagnant,  but  no  indicators  show 
upward trend.  

Objectives planned to be met in 2021: All indicators must be met by 2021 according to 
planned  information  reported  by  Member  States.  If  this  is  not  the  case,  and  some  are 
downward, then the progress is assigned “downward trend”.  

No  progress/stagnant:    Most  indicators  show  stagnant  trend/no  progress,  i.e.,  no 
changes have occurred or are expected for the respective period.   

Not mapped: The KTM has not been mapped by the Member State.   

Trend  cannot  be  reported:  For  some  Member  States  and  KTMs  the  trend  cannot  be 
reported. There are several reasons for this, some being:   

A - Indicator values have not been reported within the considered period   

B  -  Indicators  within  periods  are  not  comparable,  e.g.,  because  original  indicators  are 
changed with new indicators, so there is not 1:1 link between respective years  

C- Indicator values are not mentioned in the PoM.  

D- Some Member States do not report any trends, and it cannot be interpreted from the 
text or numbers (e.g., values only reported for one year).   

E- Issues related to the “labelling approach”:   

Objectives met: In general, indicators receive a value of zero if objectives are met. This 
is however not always the case for all Member States, and in some cases a reported zero 
may mean “no indicator value”. For example, PL report that objectives have been met for 
KTM3 as values in 2018 and 2021 are zero.  

Assigning  trends:  For  some  Member  States,  very  little  information  is  provided  in  the 
PoM, which makes the progress assessment more uncertain. For example, BG formulated 
for KTM1 “Values of the indicators are provided for most of the indicators but mostly for 
year 2018. Values for year 2021 are provided only for the East Aegean RBD for KS01. 
The indicator decreases for point pollution (urban wastewater) and remains the same for 
diffuse  pollution.”  The  latter  part  of  the  formulation  reflects  the  issue  relating  to 
assigning trends of progress, whereas the first part clearly illustrates the very limited data 
the assigned trends can be based on. This is important to have in mind when interpreting 
the results.     

The following paragraphs provide a brief overview of the reported progress on tackling 
the  main  pressures  across  the  Member  State.  Trends  are  based  on  Table  3  and  the 
underlying Member State reporting. 

19 

 
2.5.1.  Agricultural measures 

On  the  measures  tackling  the  main  pressures  from  agriculture,  e.g.,  nutrient  and 
pesticides  pollution  from  agriculture,  twelve  Members  States  are  reporting  to  progress 
well  towards  closing  their  gaps  and  achieving  good  ecological  status  and  reporting 
positive  trends:  AT,  CZ,  DE,  EL,  ES,  IE,  IT,  LT,  LV,  PL,  RO,  and  SK.  Six  Member 
States  do  not  report  progress  towards  closing  their  gaps:  CY,  HR,  HU,  PT,  SE  and  SI. 
Finally, in nine Member States it was not possible to comment on the state of progress: 
BE, BG, DK, EE, FI, FR, LU, MT, NL.  

2.5.2.  Wastewater treatment and chemical pollution 

The  progress  with  the  planned  implementation  of  measures  to  reduce  pressures  from 
urban  and  industrial  wastewater  treatment  and  chemicals  is  showing  a  positive  trend 
towards  closing  gaps,  when  it  comes  to  reducing  pressures  from  wastewater  treatment 
plants. Eighteen Member States are reporting to progress well towards closing their gaps 
and  achieving  good  ecological  status  and  reporting  positive  trends:  AT,  BG,  CY,  CZ, 
DE, DK, EL, ES, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, PL, RO, SE, and SK. One Member State, PT, 
does not report progress towards closing their gaps. Finally, in 8 Member States it was 
not  possible  to  comment  on  their  expected  progress,  due  to  missing  values,  difficult 
interpretation or no mapping: BE, EE, FI, FR, LU, MT, NL, and SI.  

2.5.3.  Water abstraction 

The  progress  with  the  planned  implementation  of  measures  to  reduce  pressures  from 
point hydrological alterations, water abstraction and flow diversion is showing a positive 
trend  for  7  Member  States,  including  AT,  EL,  ES,  HU,  IE,  IT  and  RO  report  with 
indicator gaps closing over time with the PoM and 6 Member States, including CY, HR, 
LT, LV, MT and PL reporting achieving the objective by 2021. Two Member States BG 
and PT reported no change in the trend towards closing the gaps. In DE, a mixed trend 
across the 10 RBDs was reported. For one Member State, SE, indicators are projected to 
increase  from  2018  to  2021.    Finally,  in  10  Member  States  it  was  not  possible  to 
comment  on  the  state  of  progress  due  to  missing  values,  difficult  interpretation,  or  no 
mapping: BE, CZ, DK, EE, FI, FR, LU, NL, SI, and SK. 

2.5.4.  Hydromorphological alterations 

The  progress  with  the  planned  implementation  of  measures  to  reduce  pressures  from 
hydromorphological alterations other than longitudinal continuity, is showing a positive 
trend for 10 Member States including AT, EL, ES, HU, IE, IT, PL, RO, SE, and SI report 
with  indicator  gaps  closing  over  time  with  the  implementation  of  the  PoM,  and  3 
Member  States  including  CY,  LT  and  LV  reporting  achieving  the  objective  by  2021. 
Two  Member  States  BG  and  PT  reported  no  change  in  the  trend  towards  closing  the 
gaps.  In  DE  and  SK,  a  mixed  trend  across  the  RBDs  was  reported.  For  one  Member 
State,  SE,  indicators  for  hydromorphological  alterations  (KTM6)  are  projected  to 
increase  from  2018  to  2021.    Finally,  in  10  Member  States  it  was  not  possible  to 
comment  on  the  state  of  progress  due  to  missing  values,  difficult  interpretation,  or  no 
mapping:  BE, CZ, DK, EE, FI, FR, HR, LU, MT, and NL. 

20 

 
2.5.5.  Drinking water protection 

The progress with the planned implementation of measures to reduce pressures affecting 
drinking water resources, is showing a positive trend for 9 Member States including AT, 
DE, HU, IE, IT, LV, PL, RO and SE reporting indicator values indicating a decreasing 
(positive)  trend,  with  indicator  gaps  closing  over  time,  achieving  the  objective  of 
improving drinking water protection, by establishing  safeguard zones, buffer zones  etc. 
LV and PL report achieving the objective already by 2021. In DE and SE, a mixed trend 
across the RBDs was reported. For one Member State, EL, indicator values are projected 
to  increase  from  2018  to  2021  (negative  trend).  Five  Member  States  BG,  CZ,  ES,  HR, 
and SK reported indicator values indicating no change in the trend. In 12 Member States 
it was not possible to comment on the state of progress due to missing values, difficult 
interpretation, or no mapping:  BE, CY, DK, EE, FI, FR, LT, LU, MT, NL, PT and SI. 

2.5.6.  Water pricing policy 

The  progress  with  the  planned  implementation  of  measures  to  reduce  pressures  by 
introducing  water  pricing  policies  and  cost  recovery  in  households,  industry  and 
agriculture  is  showing  a  positive  trend  for  3  Member  States  including  EL,  ES  and  IT 
reporting  indicator  values  indicating  a  decreasing  (positive)  trend,  with  indicator  gaps 
closing over time, achieving the objectives of introducing water pricing policies and cost 
recovery.  One  Member  State  ES  reports  achieving  the  objectives  for  households  and 
agriculture already by 2021. Two Member States, BE and HR, reported indicator values 
indicating no change in the trend. In the remaining 22 Member States it was not possible 
to comment on the state of progress due to missing values, difficult interpretation, or no 
mapping. 

2.5.7.  Research 

The  progress  with  the  planned  implementation  of  measures  to  reduce  pressures  by 
introducing  research  and  knowledge  development  is  showing  a  positive  trend  for  7 
Member  States  including  AT,  EL,  HR,  IE,  IT,  PL  and  RO  reporting  indicator  values 
indicating  a  decreasing  (positive)  trend,  with  indicator  gaps  closing  over  time.  Five 
Member  States  CY,  DK,  ES,  LT  and  MT  reports  achieving  the  objectives  already  by 
2021. In DE a mixed trend across the RBDs was reported. Six Member States BG, CZ, 
HU, PT, SI and SK reported indicator values indicating no change in the trend. In eight 
Member States, BE, EE, FI, FR, LU, LV, NL, and SE it was not possible to comment on 
the state of progress due to missing values, difficult interpretation or no mapping. 

2.5.8.  Pollution from urban areas, transport and infrastructure 

The  progress  with  the  planned  implementation  of  measures  to  reduce  pressures  from 
pollution from urban areas, transport and infrastructure, is showing a positive trend for 8 
Member States including CY, HU, IT, LV, PL, RO, SE and SK reporting indicator values 
indicating  a  decreasing  (positive)  trend,  with  indicator  gaps  closing  over  time.  Three 
Member States ES, IE and LT reports achieving the objectives already by 2021. In DE a 
mixed  trend  across  the  RBDs  was  reported.  Two  Member  States  AT  and  PT  reported 
indicator  values  indicating  no  change  in  the  trend.  In  13  Member  States,  BE,  BG,  CZ, 
DK, EE, EL,  FI, FR,  HR,  LU, MT,  NL,  and SI it was not possible to  comment  on the 
state of progress due to missing values, difficult interpretation, or no mapping. 

21 

 
2.5.9.  Other pressures 

The  progress  with  the  planned  implementation  of  measures  to  reduce  pressures  from 
other  sources,  e.g.,  invasive  alien  species  and  introduced  diseases,  recreation  including 
angling, fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal and plants and pollution from 
forestry,  as  well  as  additional  measures,  e.g.      Natural  water  retention  measures, 
Adaptation to climate change, Measures to counteract acidification, and the progress on 
“Other  key  type  measure  reported  under  PoM”  (KTM99)  are  described  in  section  6.11 
Progress with implementation of other Key Type of Measures. 

22 

 
 
 
2.6.  Costs and financing of POMs 

2.6.1.  Investments 

Member  State  have  reported  the  total  investment  expenditure  (in  millions  of  Euros)  of 
measures  under  Article  11.3.a,  Articles  11.3.b-l  and  Articles  11.4  and  11.5  that  were 
effectively implemented between 2015 and 2018 (Table 4). 

The  second  column  present  the  level  of  reporting,  i.e.,  River  Basin  District  level  or 
Member State (national) level.  

The third column presents  the total investment expenditure under Article 11.3.a. These 
include, for example, expenditure on construction of waste water treatment plants (third 
column) 

The fourth column presents the total investment expenditure under Articles 11.3.b‐l and 
Articles  11.4  and  11.5.  These  include,  for  example,  expenditure  on  infrastructure  to 
control over‐abstraction. 

23 

 
 
 
Table 4: Total investment expenditure (in millions of Euros) by Member State in the period 2015-
2018. (NA= Not applicable) 

Country 

Level (cost of 
measures scale) 

Article 11.3.a. 
Investments in Basic 
Measures 2015-2018 

Articles 11.3.b‐l and 
Articles 11.4 and 11.5. 
Investments in Basic 
Measures 2015-2018 

Articles 11.3.a‐l and Articles 11.4 and 
11.5. Investments in Basic Measures 2015-
2018 
(aggregated data) 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

  Member State 

  RBD 

  Member State 

  Member State 

  RBD 

  RBD 

  Member State 

  RBD 

  Member State 

  RBD 

  Member State 

  RBD 

  Member State 

  Member State 

  Member State 

  RBD 

  Member State 

  Member State 

  RBD 

  Member State 

  RBD 

  RBD 

  RBD 

  RBD 

  Member State 

  Member State 

  RBD 

400 

217 

- 

80 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1134 

224 

- 

710 

2884 

- 

2067 

- 

55 

5 

- 

1062 

90783 

2739 

- 

- 

15 

35 

1 

- 

28 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1166 

450 

- 

230 

1210 

- 

8089 

- 

42 

49 

- 

151 

71506 

1775 

- 

- 

0 

- 

589 

1228 

- 

650 

58 

140 

126 

NA 

- 

- 

9229 

- 

- 

- 

- 

2700 

360 

- 

- 

NA 

0 

- 

- 

944 

- 

1151 

Member States have reported the investments between 2015 and 2018. For some Member 
States, the period of reporting is  2016-2017 and  others  respond to  2015-2018. Thirteen 
Member States report investments on RBD level and 14 Member States on Member State 
level. Some Member States report on both investment expenditures relating to measures 
under  Article  11.3.a  and  investment  expenditures  under  Articles  11.3.b-l  and  Articles 
11.4  and  11.5.  Where  disaggregated  data  is  not  available  some  Member  States  report 
total expenditure under Article 11.3.a, Articles 11.3.b-l and Articles 11.4 and 11.5.  

Two Member States (IE and SI) reported 0 investments and two Member States (NL and 
EL) reported -9999 and has therefore been marked NA (not applicable).  

24 

 
 
 
 
2.6.2.  Cost explanation 

Member States were asked to report on the calculation methods for assessing the updated 
costs.  A  qualitative  assessment  of  the  provided  information  in  the  PoM  was  made.  In 
general,  the  level  of  detail  was  low  with  no  reference  to  background  documentation  or 
only a limited description in the PoM. 

Fourteen Member States provided no information on the calculation methods.  

Three  of  these  Member  States  reported  that  a  methodology  for  updating  costs  was 
lacking (BE, BG, CY).  

Five Member States (AT, ES, LV, PT, SK) provided enough information (high level of 
detail) to understand the calculation methods used for assessing the costs. 

Four  Member  States  (IT,  PL,  RO,  SI)  provided  some  information  on  the  calculation’s 
methods (medium level of detail). 

These  nine  Member  States  (that  provided  enough  or  some  information  as  mentioned 
above) reported the following methodologies:  

Existing measures: Updated costs were based on already existing measures (AT) 
National database: A national database provided the updated costs (ES) 

Implementing authorities: Authorities in charge of implementing the measures provided 

the costs. How they derived the costs is not clear (IT, PL, PT, RO)  

Experts: Updated costs provided by experts. Most likely using unit values (SK) 
Unit values: Updates costs based on standardized unit values (SK) 

Public sources: Updated costs based on public sources. Most likely based on unit values 

(LV, RO) 

Only two Member States (AT, SI) reported the methodology for assessing the costs for 
operation  and  maintenance.  AT  used  a  fixed  percentage  of  the  investment  cost  as  an 
estimate,  whereas  SI  evaluated  annual  material  (no  further  specification)  and  labour 
costs.   

Thirteen Member States did not mention operation and maintenance in the PoM. 

2.6.3.  Funding sources 

Member States were asked to report on the sourcing from the EU funds for the financing 
of Article11.3.b to l basic measures.  

Only one Member State (ES) report sources from  non-EU funds. Other  Member States 
report various EU funds (e.g., LIFE+, INTEREG) in connection with public, private and 
governmental  budgets.  The  most  reported  EU  fund  (for  eight  Member  States)  is  the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). 

Some  Member  States  reported  EU  funding  but  did  not  specify  the  sources  of  this  EU 
funding (CZ, EE, HR, LU).  

25 

 
2.7.  Progress on EQS monitoring of new substances 

A  separate  assessment  was  made  of  the  current  status  in  the  Member  States  regarding 
monitoring and measures with respect to the new substances of the 2013 Environmental 
Quality Standard (EQS) Directive4. According to the 2013 EQS Directive an additional 
of 12 substances should be monitored by all Member States. 

For this assessment an extract of the WISE database from the European Environmental 
Agency (EEA), including monitoring data, type and frequency of monitoring, pressures, 
key  type  measures  and  associated  costs,  was  analysed.  Additionally,  background 
documents  and  QA/QS  analysis  data  were  requested  from  each  Member  State.  Not  all 
Member States provided the required information for the assessment5 (Table 5).   

HR,  EE,  SK  and  SE  provided  information  on  the  chemical  status  of  all  substances 
monitored  and  defined  Key  Type  Measure  (KTMs)  for  all  substances  failing.  Member 
States BE, CZ, DK, FI, IT, LV, LT,  LU, NL, PL, and RO provided information on the 
status of most substances monitored and defined KTMs for all substances failing. In MT 
information on the status of all substances was provided, but no substances failed and as 
such no KTMs were defined. EL only provided information on the status of heptachlor 
and heptachlor epoxide, no KTM was provided as no substance failure was identified. IE, 
PT  and  ES  provided  information  on  the  chemical  status  of  some  substances,  but  no 
substances failed and as such no KTMs were defined. IE, however, provided information 
on KTMs in the background information. Member States AT, BG, CY, FR, SI, and HU 
provided  no  information  on  the  status  of  the  substances  monitored,  therefore  also  no 
KTMs were determined. AT provided this information in background documents.  

Table 5: Metadata per Member State, compiled from the extracts from the WISE database and 
the  background  documents.  I:  No  background  documents,  II:  Only  general  information,  III: 
Required  information  in  native  language,  IV:  Required  information  in  English,  Dutch  or 
German. 

MS  Monitoring 

Background 
documents* 

QA/QC 
analysis 

Information 
EQS 
exceedance 

Pressures 

KTM 

Costs 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

X 

X 

 - 

X 

X 

X 

II 

IV 

II 

IV 

II 

I 

X 

X 

 - 

X 

 - 

 - 

X 

X 

 - 

 - 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 - 

- 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 - 

 - 

X 

X 

 - 

 X 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

4  DIRECTIVE  2013/39/EU  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL  of  12 
August 2013 amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards priority substances in the 
field of water policy 

5 ASSESSMENT OF THE REPORTING ON THE NEW SUBSTANCES IN THE 2013 EQS DIRECTIVE 

– FINAL REPORT (2021).  

26 

 
                                                 
DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

X 

X 

 - 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 X 

X 

II 

II 

III 

IV 

IV 

I 

III 

I 

IV 

II 

II 

IV 

II 

IV 

II 

II 

II 

II 

III 

 III 

III 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

X 

 - 

X 

 - 

X 

 - 

 - 

X 

X 

X 

 - 

 X  

 -  

 -  

X 

 X 

X 

X 

X 

 - 

X 

X 

- 

X 

 - 

 - 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 - 

 - 

X 

 - 

X 

 - 

 - 

 - 

X 

X 

X 

 - 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 - 

 - 

X 

 - 

X 

 - 

X 

 - 

X 

X 

X 

 - 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 - 

- 

i.e, 

the  substances 

Table 6 show the number of RBDs where substances failed fulfilling the EQS directive 
for each of the Member States where this assessment was possible. The most widespread 
in  most  Member  States,  was  PFOS 
substances, 
(perfluorooctane  sulfonic  acid  and  its  derivatives)  in  13  Member  States  (out  of  16  in 
total),  followed  by  heptachlor  and  heptachlor  epoxide  failing  in  10  Member  States.  In 
contrast,  no Member States reported issues with  dicofol  and quinoxyfen.  Out of the 12 
substances (Table 6), some Member States found that more than seven substances were 
failing in at least one RBD. These Member States included BE, DE, HR, and NL.  

failing 

Table 6: Number of River Basin Districts (RBD) in each Member State where substances failed 
the EQS directive. This assessment is only based on WISE data, and not the provided background 

27 

 
 
documents.  *Dioxins  and  dioxin-like  compounds,  **Heptachlor  and  heptachlor  epoxide, 
***Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD), **** Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its derivatives. 

MS 
(RBD) 

AT (3) 

n
e
f
i
n
o
l
c
A

x
o
n
e
f
i
B

e
n
y
r
t
u
b
y
C

h
t
e
m
r
e
p
y
C

n
i
r

s
o
v
r
o
h
c
i
D

l

l

o
f
o
c
i
D

*
s
n
i
x
o
D

i

l

r
o
h
c
a
t
p
e
H

*
*

*
*
*
D
D
C
B
H

*
*
*
*
S
O
F
P

n
e
f
y
x
o
n
u
Q

i

n
y
r
t
u
b
r
e
T

No information provided 

BE (8) 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

- 

2 

6 

- 

5 

- 

- 

BG (4) 

CY (1) 

CZ (3) 

- 

DE (10) 

2 

DK (4) 

EE (3) 

- 

- 

No information provided 

No information provided 

- 

3 

- 

- 

- 

3 

- 

2 

1 

3 

- 

- 

2 

4 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 

2 

- 

- 

- 

7 

- 

1 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

7 

4 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

7 

- 

- 

EL (14) 

No substances failed (Only heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide monitored) 

ES (25) 

No substances failed (Only some substances monitored) 

FI (8) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

- 

FR (14) 

No information provided 

HR (2) 

- 

- 

1 

1 

1 

- 

1 

2 

1 

1 

- 

- 

HU (1) 

IE (3) 

IT (8) 

LT (4) 

LU (2) 

LV (4) 

MT (1) 

NL (4) 

PL (10) 

PT (10) 

RO (1) 

SE (5) 

SI (2) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

4 

- 

1 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

4 

- 

- 

- 

- 

2 

- 

- 

4 

- 

1 

1 

No information provided 

No substances failed (Only some substances monitored) 

- 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

2 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 

3 

- 

- 

- 

- 

No substances failed (All substances monitored) 

- 

- 

4 

- 

- 

- 

4 

- 

4 

6 

- 

3 

3 

- 

2 

1 

4 

3 

No substances failed (Only some substances monitored) 

- 

1 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

5 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

5 

No information provided 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

SK (2) 

- 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

1 

1 

1 

1 

- 

- 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  MEMBER STATE POM INFORMATION 

3.1.  Targeted 

questions 

on  Basic  measures 

on  water 

use/water 

abstraction/groundwater (article 11.3.c-f) 

Figure  3  shows  Member  State  reporting  on  planned  measures  promoting  efficient  and 
sustainable water use in order to avoid compromising the achievement of the objectives 
specified in Article 4 (Article 11.3.c)  

Figure  3:  Planned  basic  measures  promoting  efficient  and  sustainable  water  use.  The  total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

Figure 4 shows Member State reporting on planned measures to meet the requirements 
of  Article 7  (Article 11.3.d), including  measures to safeguard water quality in  order to 
reduce the level of purification treatment required for the production of drinking water 
(i.e. have safeguard zones have been established). 

29 

 
 
 
Figure 4: Planned basic measures to safeguard water quality. The total number of RBDs for each 
Member State reported in brackets. 

30 

 
 
 
 
Figure 5 shows Member State reporting on whether there is a concession, authorisation 
and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  water  abstractions  (Article  11.3.e),  and  whether 
there  is  a  register  of  abstractions  (Article  11.3.e).  The  total  number  of  RBDs  for  each 
Member State reported in brackets. 

Figure 5: Permit or register to control water abstractions. The total number of RBDs for each 
Member State reported in brackets. 

31 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6 shows Member State reporting on whether there is a concession, authorisation 
and/or  permitting  regime  to  control  water  impoundment,  and/or  a  register  of 
impoundments (Article 11.3.e). 

Figure 6: Permit or register to control water impoundment. The total number of RBDs for each 
Member State reported in brackets. 

32 

 
 
 
 
Figure  7  shows  Member  State  reporting  on  whether  there  are  thresholds  below  which 
abstractions do not require permits and are not subject to registration (Article 11.3.e). 

Figure 7: Thresholds for water abstractions. The total number of RBDs for each  Member State 
reported in brackets. 

33 

 
 
 
 
Figure 8 shows Member State reporting on whether controls are in place, including a 
requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater 
bodies (Article 11.3.f). 

Figure 8: Authorisation for artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies. The total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

34 

 
 
 
 
3.2.  Basic measures on wastewater (article 11.3.g) 

Figure  9  shows  Member  State  reporting  on  whether  there  is  an  authorisation  and/or 
permitting  regime  to  control  wastewater  point  source  discharges  (Article  11.3.g),  and 
whether there is a register of wastewater discharges (Article 11.3.g). 

Figure 9: Permit or register on wastewater point source discharges. The total number of RBDs 
for each Member State reported in brackets. 

35 

 
 
 
 
Figure  10  shows  Member  State  reporting  on  whether  there  are  thresholds  below  which 
wastewater discharges do not require permits and are not subject to registration (Article 
11.3.g). 

Figure  10:  Thresholds  below  which  wastewater  discharges  do  not  require  permits.  The  total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

36 

 
 
 
 
3.3.  Basic measures on diffuse pollution from agriculture (article 11.3.h) 

Figure 11 shows Member State reporting on whether there are general binding rules for 
the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture. 

Figure 11: Binding rules for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture. The total number of 
RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

37 

 
 
 
 
Figure 12 shows the Member State reporting on the specific issues covered, in relation to 
diffuse pollution from agriculture, if there are general binding rules. 

Figure 12: Specific issues covered, in relation to diffuse pollution from agriculture, if there are 
general binding rules. The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

38 

 
 
 
 
3.4.  Basic measures on hydromorphology (article 11.3.i) 

Figure  13  shows  Member  State  reporting  on  whether  there  is  an  authorisation  and/or 
permitting  regime  to  control  physical  modifications  to  the  water  bodies,  whether  the 
regime covers changes to the riparian area of water bodies, and whether there is a register 
of physical modifications of water bodies. 

Figure  13:  Permits  to  control  physical  modifications  to  the  water  bodies.  The  total  number  of 
RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

39 

 
 
 
 
3.5.  Basic measures on direct discharges to groundwater (article 11.3.j) 

Figure  14  shows  Member  State  reporting  on  whether  there  is  a  prohibition  of  direct 
discharges (Article 11.3.j). 

Figure 14: Prohibition of direct discharges. The total number of RBDs for each  Member State 
reported in brackets. 

40 

 
 
 
 
3.6.  Basic measures on Priority substances for surface water (article 11.3.k) 

Figure  15  shows  Member  State  reporting,  in  accordance  with  action  taken  pursuant  to 
Article 16, whether there are measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters by those 
substances  specified  in  the  list  of  Priority  Substances  agreed  pursuant  to  Article  16(2) 
and to progressively reduce pollution by other substances which would otherwise prevent 
Member States from achieving the objectives for the bodies of surface waters as set out 
in Article 4 (Article 11.3.k). 

Figure 15: Measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters by Priority Substances. The total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported the measures in brackets. 

41 

 
 
 
 
3.7. 

Supplementary measures on water Reuse 

Figure  16  shows  Member  State  reporting  on  whether  reuse  of  water  (e.g.,  from 
wastewater  treatment  or  industrial  installations)  is  considered  to  have  a  lower 
environmental  impact  than  other  alternative  water  supplies  (e.g.,  water  transfers  or 
desalination). 

Figure  16:  Member  State  reporting  on  RBDs  where  reuse  of  water  has  lower  environmental 
impact than other alternative water supplies. wrRBD = RBD with water reuse potential, tRBD = 
total number of RBDs. 

Figure  16  also  shows  Member  State  reporting  on  whether  reuse  of  water  has  been 
included  in  the  RBMP  as  a  measure  in  terms  of  managing  water  resources.  The  11 
Member States in Figure 16 all included water reuse as a measure in selected RBMP. 

42 

 
 
 
 
3.8. 

Supplementary measure on Ecological Flow 

Figure 17 shows Member State reporting on whether ecological flows have been derived 
for all water bodies at  risk of failing the Environmental  Objectives due to abstractions, 
flow diversions or impoundments. Only five Member States (BG, HR, LU, MT, and SK) 
did not report on whether ecological flows had been derived for all water bodies at risk. 

Figure 17: Member State reporting on whether ecological flows have been derived for all water 
bodies  at  risk  of  failing  the  Environmental  Objectives  due  to  abstractions,  flow  diversions  or 
impoundments. efRBD = RBD where ecological flows have been derived fully or partly. tRBD = 
total number of RBDs.  

43 

 
 
 
 
Figure  18  shows  Member  State  reporting  on  whether  budgets  for  assuring  ecological 
flows  have  been  allocated  for  all  or  some  measures  in  relevant  RBDs,  but 
implementation  has  not  yet  started.  Most  Member  States  state  that  budgets  have  been 
allocated for some measures, but implementation not yet started. 

Figure 18: Member State reporting on whether budgets for ecological flows have been allocated. 
efRBD = RBD where ecological flows have been derived fully or partly. tRBD = total number of 
RBDs. 

44 

 
 
 
 
3.9. 

Supplementary measures on Climate Change 

Figure  19  shows  Member  State  reporting  on  whether  projected  climate  changes  have 
been  assessed  and  considered  in  the  second  RBMP  and  PoM.  Most  Member  States 
reported that some measures relating to Climate change had started. Four Member States 
(LV,  SE,  SK  and  IT  for  few  RBDs)  reported  that  no  measures  have  started.  Only  two 
Member States (LT and SI) did not report on climate change related measures. 

Figure  19:  shows  Member  State  reporting  whether  measures  that  manages  water  resources 
under  climate change  have  been  implemented.    If  no specific  measures  were planned,  Member 
State  reported  'No  measures  have  started.  ccRBD  =  RBD  where  climate  change  measures  are 
relevant. tRBD = total number of RBDs. 

45 

 
 
 
 
3.10.  Supplementary measure on MSFD coordination 

Figure 20 shows Member State reporting on whether the preparations of the RBMP and 
PoM have been coordinated with the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive  (MSFD).  Only  four  Member  States  (BE,  IT,  LT,  and  LV)  reported  that 
preparations of the RBMP and PoM did not consider the implementation of the MSFD. 
Five landlocked countries naturally did not report on this. 

Figure 20: Member State reporting whether the preparations of the RBMP and PoM have been 
coordinated  with  the  implementation  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive.  The  total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

46 

 
 
 
 
Figure  21  shows  Member  State  reporting  on  whether  there  is  a  need  for  additional 
measures  or  more  stringent  measures  beyond  those  required  by  the  WFD  in  order  to 
achieve  the  relevant  MSFD  objectives  in  coastal  and  marine  environments  have  been 
considered in the PoM. Nine Member States reported a need for additional measures. 

Figure 21: Member State reporting whether the need for additional measures or more stringent 
measures  beyond  those  required  by  the  WFD  in  order  to  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the 
relevant MSFD objectives in coastal and marine environments have been considered in the PoM. 
The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

47 

 
 
 
 
Figure 22 shows Member State reporting on the types of additional measures or more 
stringent measures in order to achieve the relevant MSFD objectives in coastal and 
marine environments. 

Eight Member States described additional measures needed.  

Figure 22: Member State reporting the types of additional measures needed to meet the MSFD 
objectives. 

48 

 
 
 
 
Figure  23  shows  the  Member  State  reporting  on  the  status  of  implementation  of  the 
additional measures needed to meet the MSFD objectives. Only 2 Member State (DE and 
SE) have started all these measures. 

Figure  23:  Member  State  reporting  the  status  of  implementation  of  the  additional  measures 
needed to meet the MSFD objectives. 

4.  THE COST AND FUNDING OF POMS 

4.1.  Total cost of measures 

The  Member  States  were  asked  to  report  the  total  costs  of  measures  (not  annualised). 
Reported  expenditures  are  presented  in  Table  5.  Twenty  three  Member  States  reported 
expenditures  relating  to  Article  11.3.a  or  11.3b-l,  11.4  and  11.5  investment,  or  both 
(aggregated).  

Member  states  reported  costs  for  different  periods  (Cost  of  measures  period),  and  on 
different levels (Cost of measures scale). Twelve Member States reported costs for each 

49 

 
 
RBD, where some RBDs even had different periods. For example, IT had three different 
periods for different RBDs.  

23 Member States  reported that they received EU funding between 2015-2018. Section 
4.1.2 provides more detail on the different funding sources.  

Table 7: Costs being reported by Member States (MS). 

Member 
State 

Article 11.3a 
Investment 2015-
2018 

Article 11.3b-l, 
11.4, 11.5 
Investment 
2015-2018 

Article 11.3a-l, 
11.4, 11.5 
Investment 2015-
2018 
(aggregated) 

Cost of measures 
period 

Level (Cost of 
measures scale) 

EU Funds 
2015-2018 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

2016-2018 

2016-2017 
2015-2018 
2015-2018 
2016-2018 

2015-2018 

2015-2018 

2016-2018 

2016-2018 

2015-2017 

2015-2017 

2016-2018 

2015-2017 
2016-2017 

2015-2018 

2015-2018 

2015-2018 

2015-2018 
2016-2017 
2016-2018 

2015-2018 

2016-2018 

2016-2018 

2015-2018 

2016-2018 

2015-2017 
2016-2017 

2016-2018 

2016-2017 

2015-2018 

2015-2018 

MS 

RBD 

MS 

MS 

RBD 

RBD 

MS 

RBD 

MS 

RBD 

MS 

RBD 

MS 

MS 

MS 

RBD 

MS 

MS 

RBD 

MS 

RBD 

RBD 

RBD 

MS 

MS 

RBD 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

4.1.1.  Cost Explanation – methods used 

Member States were asked to report on the calculation methods for assessing the updated 
costs. A qualitative assessment of the provided information in the PoM was made (Table 
8):  

Low  level  of  detail:  Lacking  description  in  the  PoM  and  there  is  no  reference  to  a 

background document (assuming more details) 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Medium level of detail: Description in PoM, but no reference to background document, 

or no limited description in PoM but reference to background document 
High level of detail: Description in PoM and reference to background document  

14 Member States provided no information on the calculation methods (Table 6). Three 
of these Member States reported that a methodology for updating costs was lacking (BE, 
BG, CY).  

Five Member States (AT, ES, LV, PT, SK) provided enough information (high level of 
detail) to understand the calculation methods used for assessing the costs. 

Four  Member  States  (IT,  PL,  RO,  SE)  provided  some  information  on  the  calculation’s 
methods  (medium  level  of  detail).  These  nine  Member  States  reported  the  following 
methodologies (Table 8):  

Existing measures: updated costs were based on already existing measures (AT) 
National database: a national database provided the updated costs (ES) 
Implementing authorities: authorities in charge of implementing the measures provided 

the costs. How they derived the costs is not clear (IT, PL, PT, RO)  

Experts: updated costs provided by experts. Most likely using unit values (SK) 
Unit values: updates costs based on standardized unit values (SK) 

Public sources: updated costs based on public sources. Most likely based on unit values 

(LV, RO)  

Only two Member States (AT, SI) reported the methodology for assessing the costs for 
operation  and  maintenance.  AT  used  a  fixed  percentage  of  the  investment  cost  as  an 
estimate, where SI evaluated annual material (no further specification) and labour costs. 
15  Member  States  did  not  mention  operation  and  maintenance  in  the  PoM  (Table  8). 

51 

 
Table  8:  A  qualitative  assessment  of  the  details  provided  for  the  calculation  methods  of  the  updated  cost.  If  available,  the  methodology  for  estimating 
investment cost and operation and maintenance cost (O&M) is provided. 

Member 
State 

High level 
of detail 

Medium 
level of 
detail 

Low level 
of detail 

Existing 
measures 

National 
database 

Implementing 
authorities 

Experts 

Unit 
values 

Public 
sources 

Lack of 
methodology 

% of 
investment 

Annual 
material and 
labour cost 

Not 
mentioned 

Investment 

O&M 

X 

X 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.1.2.  Funding sources 

Member  States  were  asked  to  report  on  the  source  of  EU  funds  for  the  financing  of 
Article 11.3.b to l basic measures. The breakdown of sources of funding are shown in Table 9. 
Note  that  some  funds  are  overlapping.  For  example,  The  European  Regional  Development 
Fund  (ERDF)  and  The  European  agricultural  fund  for  rural  development  (EAFRD)  (named 
“rural  development”)  are  part  of  the  European  structural  and  investment  funds  (named 
“structural funds” in Table 9).  

Only one Member State (ES) has reported sources from non-EU funds. Other Member States 
have reported various EU funds (e.g., LIFE+, INTEREG) in connection with public, private 
and governmental budgets. The most reported EU fund is The European agricultural fund for 
rural  development  (EAFRD)  (named  “rural  development”  in  Table  9)  reported  by  eight 
Member State. 

Some  Member  States  have  reported  EU  funding  (Table  7),  but  not  specified  the  sources  of 
that EU funding (CZ, EE, HR, LU).  

53 

 
 
Table 9: Breakdown of sources of funding. Some sources are overlapping (e.g., Structural and regional development fund), thus this table indicates the level of 
detail provided by the Member State. 

Member 
State 

LIFE+ 

Public 
budgets (e.g., 
tax) 

Private 
budgets 

Government/ 
National/ Federal 
resources 

Structural 
funds 

Rural 
development 
program 

Regional 
development 
fund 

INTREREG 

 Cohesion 
funds 

Horizon 
2020 

Erasmus+ 

European 
social fund 

European 
maritime and 
fisheries fund 

Natura 
2000 

Non-EU 
funds 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.  OBJECTIVES OF THE WFD 

For  each  significant  pressure  type  or  chemical  substance  reported,  a  pre-defined 
quantitative indicator of the scale and extent of the pressure or chemical substance that is 
to be reduced by measures to achieve Environmental Objectives has been reported. This 
is the gap to be filled to meet the objectives. 

5.1. 

Indicator gap to achieving good status 

Eighteen Member States have reported  comparable indicators for the period 2015-2021 
(AT,  CY,  CZ,  DE,  DK,  EE,  ES,  FR,  HR,  HU,  LT,  LV,  MT,  PL,  PT,  SI,  SK)  and  it  is 
therefore  only  possible  to  comment  the  indicator  gap  trend  for  theses  Member  States 
(Figure 24, CY not included). 

In  three  out  of  the  18  Member  States  (EE,  LV,  MT),  70-100%  of  the  objectives  have 
been  met  for  their  RBDs.  For  ES,  16  out  of  their  25  RBDs  also  report  that  objectives 
have been met. 

A large decreasing trend is particularly observed for one third of the Member States (AT, 
CZ, FR, PT). In most of the RBDs, 30-80% of the indicators have a decreasing gap. 

No change in indicator gaps is also observed. This is particularly relevant for 9 out of 10 
RBDs in PT, almost half of the RBDs in PL and DE, and both RBDs in SI and SK. 

An  increasing  indicator  gap  is  observed  in  ES,  DK,  DE,  HU,  HR,  and  SE.  For  these 
Member States it is only for some RBDs with increasing indicator gaps varying between 
3-30%. 

In CY (not shown in the figure), there has been no updates to the 2021 values provided in 
2015 but all measures (except one) have met their objective by 2021. The only pressure 
remaining is diffuse pressure from agriculture. It is reported to be reduced by 4 tonnes of 
nitrogen load per year between 2015 and 2021. 

56 

 
Figure continues on the following page. 

57 

 
 
 
 
Figure continued from previous page. 

Figure  24:  Trend  in  indicator  gap  2015-2021  reported  for  the  implementation  of  planned 
Programme  of  Measures  (2018).  “Objectives  met”  equals  all  measures  needed  to  achieve  the 
environmental objectives are fully operational. Data on CY not available. 

58 

 
 
6.  REPORTING OF KEY TYPE OF MEASURES (KTM)  

In 2018, Member States were asked to report on the progress in the implementation of 
their defined Key Types of Measures (KTM). KTMs are expected to incorporate Article 
11.3 (b to l) basic measures and supplementary measures. Their implementation and 
completion are expected to deliver the bulk of the actions required to achieve WFD 
objectives, i.e., to reduce significant pressures to the extent required to achieve good 
status or to prevent deterioration of status in high and good status water bodies. A key 
type of measure is expected to be reported by Member States only if it was related to a 
significant pressure in that Member State. Member States can identify a limited number 
of key types of measures for each RBD and provide for those quantitative indicators of 
progress in implementation. The progress is expressed as KTM indicator values 
expressing the gap from full implementation. Member States were also given the 
possibility to report different or additional KTMs according to their specific situations 
and requirements (under KTM99). Table 10 provides an overview of the KTMs 
explained in the following sections. 

59 

 
 
 
Table 10: Overview of Key Type of Measures 

KTM 

Title 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants 

Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 

Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture 

Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil) 

Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g., establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams) 

Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity 

Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows 

Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy, and households 

Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from households 

Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from industry 

Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from agriculture 

Advisory services for agriculture 

Drinking water protection measures (e.g., establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones, etc.) 

Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty 

Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges, and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of 
emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Substances 

Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms) 

Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off 

Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive alien species and introduced diseases 

Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of recreation including angling 

Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal and plants 

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

Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from forestry 

Natural water retention measures 

Adaptation to climate change 

Measures to counteract acidification 

Other key type measure reported under PoM 

6.1.  KTM overview 

There  are  large  differences  in  the  numbers  of  KTMs  reported  by  Member  States 
reflecting differences in pressures, and also between the RBDs within the Member States 
(Figure  25).  FR  and  IE  have  reported  the  most  KTMS  (24)  and  have  also  reported 
KTM99.  Compared  to  the  previous  2015  PoM  assessment,  DK,  EL,  HR,  and  SI  have 
now reported KTMs for all their RBDs (Figure 25 and Table 9).  

60 

 
Figure 25: Number of Key Types of Measure reported by Member States 

KTM1  (Construction  or  upgrades  of  wastewater  treatment  plants)  and  KTM2  (Reduce 
nutrient  pollution from  agriculture) were the most  reported KTMs  (26  Member States), 
whereas KTM25 (Measures to counteract acidification) was the least reported KTM (five 
Member States) (Figure 26). Twenty Member States reported under KTM99, indicating 
that  the  defined  KTMs  did  not  cover  specific  situations  and  requirements.  DE  (10 
RBDs),  ES  (25  RBDs)  and  EL  (14  RBDs)  reported  KTM99  in  nearly  all  their  RBDs 
(Table 9). 

61 

 
 
Figure 26: Number of Member States reporting on the different Key Types of Measures (see KTM 
overview in Table 8. 

Table  9  gives  an  overview  of  the  KTMs  reported  by  Member  States.  Compared  to  the 
2015 PoM, all Member States have reported KTMs. It should be noted that it would not 
necessarily be expected that all KTMs would be reported by Member States as significant 
pressures  types  vary  across  Member  States  and  some  may  not  be  required.  These 
differences may reflect differences in the extent and type of pressures between and within 
Member  States,  but  they  may  in  some  cases  also  reflect  a  lack  of  a  common 
understanding  of  what  is  meant  by  a  “Key  Type  of  Measure”  and  what  should  be 
reported. For example, IE have reported all KTMs, except KTM19, in all their RBDs.  

62 

 
 
 
 
Table 11: Breakdown of the Key Type of Measures reported by Member States in 2018. 

6.2.  Progress on KTMs to achieve Environmental objectives  

Similar  to  section  5.1,  the  reported  difficulties  in  comparing  the  indicator  gaps,  also 
applies to KTM indicator values. Only 16 Member States reported comparable values for 
2016-2018 (Figure 27). 

In 22 out of 25 RBDs in ES, more than 50% of the objectives have been meet. A similar 
trend is seen for half the RBDs in PT. 

In FR, PT, and SE most RBDs have met their objectives and/or indicator values have a 
decreasing trend, i.e., indicator gaps are closing over time with the PoM. 

In seven  Member States (DE, DK, HR, HU,  LT,  LV, PL), many of the indicator value 
trends have shown no progress. 

63 

 
 
Increasing indicator gaps are seen in CZ (all RBDs), DE (all RBDs), EE (two RBDs), ES 
(eight RBDs), HR (all RBDs), LV (one RBD), RO (all RBDs), SE (two RBDs), SI (one 
RBD) and SK (all RBDs).  

Figure continues on the following page. 

64 

 
 
 
 
Figure continued from previous page. 

Figure 27: Trend in Key Type Measure indicator gap from the 2nd RBMP to the PoM progress 
reporting  (2016-2018)  reported  for  the  implementation  of  planned  Programme  of  Measures 
(2018).  “Indicator  objectives  met”  equals  measure  is  fully  operational  to  achieve  the 
environmental objectives. 

The remaining 20 Member States have not  reported indicator values for both  2016 and 
2018,  making  the  comparison  impossible.  Most  Member  States  reported  the  indicator 

65 

 
 
values  for  2018,  2021  and  2027.  Generally,  many  of  the  indicator  values  reveal  a 
downward trend, whereas some report no progress.  

6.3.  Progress  with  implementation  of  measures  to  reduce  pressures  from 

agriculture 

Agricultural activities are significant sources of pressures on water bodies in the EU. The 
three  most  relevant  Key  Types  of  Measures  associated  with  reducing  pressures  from 
agriculture are: 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 
KTM3 - Reduce pesticide pollution from agriculture 

KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture 

The  following  sections  provide  an  overview  of  the  progress  of  implementation  of  each 
measure, as well as an assessment of significant pressures.  

6.3.1.  KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 

The  main  pressures  reported  by  Member  States  relating  to  nutrient  pollution  from 
agriculture in surface water and groundwater are presented in Figure 28 and Figure 29. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 28: Status of Member States reporting on KTM2, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

66 

 
 
 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure  29:  KTM2,  reported  pressures  for  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right). 
Percentage not based on RBDs, but on whether a Member State has stated the pressure or not. 
The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

Most  Member  States  have  reported  diffuse  pollution  (dark  grey),  as  the  main  pressure. 
Other  important  pressure  types  reported  are  point  sources  and  priority  substances  and 
River Basin Specific Pollutants represented by the EEA and CAS columns (incl. N and P 
substances). 

AT, BE, DE, PT have reported Nitrate, Nitrite, Ammonium and Total Nitrogen in surface 
water  (SW)  as  specific  pressures.  It’s  most  likely  other  countries  also  have  issues  with 
Nitrogen in SW, but don’t report it explicitly. 

AT,  BE,  BG,  DE,  El,  IT,  LV,  NL,  PL,  PT  and  SK  have  reported  Nitrate,  Nitrite, 
Ammonium  and  Total  Nitrogen  in  groundwater  (GW)  as  specific  pressures.  Its  most 
likely other countries also have issues with Nitrogen in GW, but don’t report it explicitly. 

DE, NL and PT report Phosphorus; Phosphate and Total  Phosphorus in  SW as specific 
pressures.  Its  likely  other  countries  also  have  issues  with  Phosphorus  in  SW,  but  don’t 
report it explicitly. 

BE,  BG,  IE,  NL  and  PL  report  Phosphate  and  Total  Phosphorus  in  GW  as  specific 
pressures.  Its  likely other countries also  have issues with  Phosphorus in GW,  but  don’t 
report it explicitly. 

For 2018-2021, Member States including AT, CZ, DE, EL, ES, IE, IT, PL, and RO report 
indicator values indicating a decreasing (positive) trend, with indicator gaps closing over 
time  with  the  PoM,  meaning  it  indicates  the  gap  to  good  status  is  closing  with  the 
planned measures in the PoM. LT and LV report indication of achieving the objective of 

67 

 
 
 
 
reduced  nutrient  pollution  from  agriculture  by  2021  by  implementing  the  planned 
measures. 

For  Member  States  CY,  HR,  HU,  PT  and  SI  the  reported  indicator  values  indicate  no 
change in the trend. In SK a mixed trend across the 2 RBDs was reported. 

For SE, indicators are projected to increase from 2018 to 2021. 

For Member States BG, DK, FI, FR and LU no trends can be reported, as only indicator 
values for 2018 were reported. For BE, EE, LU and NL indicator values were generally 
missing or difficult to interpret. In MT this KTM was not mapped. 

6.3.2.  KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture 

The  main  pressures  reported  by  Member  States  relating  to  pesticides  pollution  from 
agriculture in surface water and groundwater are presented in Figure 30 and Figure 31. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 30: Status of Member States reporting on KTM3, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  31:  KTM3,  reported  pressures  for  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right). 
Percentage not based on RBDs, but on whether a Member State has stated the pressure or not. 
The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

Half of the Member States did not report on KTM3. The other half of the Member States 
have  reported  diffuse  pollution  (dark  grey)  as  the  main  pressure.  Other  important 
pressure  types  reported  are  priority  substances  and  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants 
presented by CAS (light green) and EEA (dark green). 

BG, DE and EL have reported specific pressures such as ‘CAS_140-66-9 - Octylphenol 
(4-(1,1',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol)’,  and  ‘CAS_87-68-3  -  Hexachlorobutadiene’, 
and  CAS_117-81-7-‘Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 
CAS_34123-59-6 
(DEHP)’,  CAS_470-90-6-‘Chlorfenviphos’,  CAS_50-29-3-‘DDT,  p,p’’,  EEA_32-03-1-
‘Total  DDT’  (DDT,p,p’  +  DDT,o,p’  +  DDE,p,p’  +  DDD,p,p’)’  and  CAS_7439-98-7  – 
‘Molybdenum and its compounds’. 

Isoproturon 

– 

For  2018-2021,  Member  States  including  CZ,  DE,  EL,  ES,  IE,  IT  and  RO  report 
indicator values indicating a decreasing trend, with indicator gaps closing over time with 
the PoM meaning it indicates the gap to good status is closing with the planned measures 
in the PoM. PL and SE report indication of achieving the objective of reduced pesticide 
pollution from agriculture by 2021 by implementing the planned measures.  

For  Member  States  AT,  HR,  HU,  SI  and  SK  the  reported  indicator  values  indicate  no 
change in the trend. 

For Members States BG, FI and  FR no trends can be reported, as only indicator values 
for  2018  were  reported.  For  BE  and  NL  indicator  values  were  generally  missing  or 
difficult to interpret.  For CY, DK, EE, LT, LV, MT, and PT this KTM was not mapped.   

6.3.3.  KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture 

The  main  pressures  reported  by  Member  State  relating  to  advisory  services  for 
agriculture are presented in Figure 32 and Figure 33. 

69 

 
 
 
 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 32: Status of Member States reporting on KTM12, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure  33:  KTM12,  Advisory  services  reported  pressures  for  surface  water  (left)  and 
groundwater (right). Percentage not based on RBDs, but on whether a Member State have stated 
the pressure or not. The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

Half of the Member States did not report on KTM12 for surface water, and less than half 
of the Member States reported on KTM12 for both surface water and groundwater. Most 
of the Member States reported diffuse pollution (dark grey) as the main pressure. Other 
important  pressure  types  reported  are  point  sources  (black),  abstraction  and  flow 
diversion (light grey), hydrological alteration (purple) and priority substances (very light 
and dark green). 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For 2018-2021, Member States including AT, DE, EL, ES, IE, IT and PT report indicator 
values indicating a decreasing trend, with indicator gaps closing over time with the PoM. 
SE  report  achieving  the  objective  of  improved  agricultural  advisory  services  reducing 
agricultural pres-sures by 2021.. 

For HR the reported indicator values indicate no change in the trend.  

For EE no trend was mentioned in the reporting. For Member States BG, FI and FR no 
trends can be reported, as only indicator values for 2018 were reported. For BE, CY, CZ, 
DK, HU, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, RO, SI and SK this KTM was not mapped. 

6.4.  Progress  with  implementation  of  measures  to  reduce  pressures  from  urban 

and industrial wastewater treatment and chemicals 

6.4.1.  KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants 

The main pressures reported by Member State relating to urban and industrial wastewater 
in surface water and groundwater are presented in Figure 34 and Figure 35. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 34: Status of Member States reporting on KTM1, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

71 

 
 
 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure  35:  KTM1,  Main  pressures  reported  by  Member  State  relating  to  urban  and  industrial 
wastewater pressure on surface water (left) and groundwater (right). The total number of RBDs 
for each Member State reported in brackets. 

All Member States have reported point source pollution (black) as the main pressure on 
surface  waters.  Other  pressure  types  reported  are  diffuse  sources  (grey),  priority 
substances  and  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  (tea  green,  dark  green).  As  the  only 
country DE reported on multiple pressures to be targeted with KTM1. SI did not report 
on  KTM1.  Only  11  Member  States  reported  pressures  on  groundwater  resources  from 
urban and industrial wastewater. 

Many Member States reported pressures and specific points for the discharges, e.g. 1.1-
‘Point-Urban Waste Water’, 1,2 – Point – Storm overflows’, 1.3-‘Point-IED plants’, 1.4-
‘Point-Non  IED  plants’,  2.1  -  Diffuse  -  Urban  run-off,  2.2.-‘Diffuse-Agricultural’,  2.4 
Diffuse – Transport and 2.6-‘Diffuse-Discharges not connected to sewerage network’. 

EE and PL reported many specific priority substances as pressures.  

For 2018-2021, over half of the Member State including AT, BG, CY, CZ, DK, EL, ES, 
HU,  IE,  IT,  LV,  LT,  PL,  RO,  and  SK  report  indicator  values  indicating  a  decreasing 
trend, with indicator gaps closing over time with the PoM. CY, DK, LT, and LV report 
achieving the objective of reduced impact of urban and industrial wastewater in surface 
water and groundwater by 2021. 

For PT the reported indicator values indicate no change in the trend. In DE a mixed trend 
across the 10 RBDs was reported. 

For HR, indicators are projected to increase from 2018 to 2021, most probably due to an 
expected  increase  in  number  of  installations  (wastewater  treatment  plants)  where 
upgrades or improvements are required to achieve the objectives (indicator KN15). 

72 

 
 
 
 
For  Member  States,  FI  and  FR  no  trends  can  be  reported,  as  only  indicator  values  for 
2018  were  reported.  For  BE,  EE,  LU,  MT,  and  NL  indicator  values  were  generally 
missing or difficult to interpret. In SI this KTM was not mapped. 

6.4.2.  KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses 
of  Priority  Hazardous  Substances  or  for  the  reduction  of  emissions, 
discharges and losses of Priority Substances 

The  main  pressures  reported  by  Member  State  relating  to  emissions,  discharges  and 
losses of Priority Substances are presented in Figure 36 and Figure 37. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 36: Status of Member States reporting on KTM15, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure  37:  KTM15,  Main pressures  reported  by  Member  State relating to  Priority  Substances’ 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
pressure  on  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right).  The  total  number  of  RBDs  for  each 
Member State reported in brackets. 

20 Member States reported on KTM15 for surface water, whereas only 10 of the Member 
State reported on KTM15 for both surface water and groundwater. Most of the Member 
State reported point sources (black) and priority substances (light and dark green). 

Many  Member  States  reported  pressures  ad  specific  points  for  the  discharges,  e.g.  1.1-
‘Point-Urban Waste Water’, 1,2 – Point – Storm overflows’, 1.3-‘Point-IED plants’, 1.4-
‘Point-Non  IED  plants’,  2.1  -  Diffuse  -  Urban  run-off,  2.2.-‘Diffuse-Agricultural’,  2.4 
Diffuse – Transport and 2.6-‘Diffuse-Discharges not connected to sewerage network’, as 
well as numerous specific CAS and EEA priority substances as pressures: CAS_118-74-
1 – Hexachlorobenzene, CAS_206-44-0 – Fluoranthene; CAS_36643-28-4 - Tributyltin-
cation; CAS_50-32-8 - Benzo(a)pyrene, etc. 

For  2018-2021,  Member  States  including  DE,  EL,  HR,  IE,  IT,  LT,  PL,  and  RO  report 
indicator values indicating a decreasing trend, with indicator gaps closing over time with 
the PoM. LV reports achieving the objective of reduced emissions, discharges, and losses 
of Priority Substances by 2021. 

For Member States AT, BG, HU, and PT reported indicator values indicate no change in 
the trend. In SK a mixed trend across the 2 RBD was reported. 

For one Member State, SK, indicators are projected to increase from 2018 to 2021. 

For  Member  States  FI  and  FR  no  trends  can  be  reported,  as  only  indicator  values  for 
2018  were  reported.  For  BE,  EE  and  NL  indicator  values  were  generally  missing  or 
difficult  to  interpret.    For  Member  States  CY,  CZ,  DK,  ES,  LU,  MT,  SE,  and  SI  this 
KTM was not mapped. 

6.4.3.  KTM16  -  Upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial  wastewater  treatment 

plants (including farms). 

The  main  pressures  reported  by  Member  States  relating  to  industrial  wastewater 
treatment plants are presented in Figure 38 and Figure 39. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 38: Status of Member States reporting on KTM16, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

74 

 
 
 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 39: KTM16, Main pressures reported by Member State relating to industrial wastewater 
pressure  on  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right).  The  total  number  of  RBDs  for  each 
Member State reported in brackets. 

Seventeen  Member  States  reported  on  KTM16  for  surface  water,  whereas  only  nine  of 
the  Member  States  reported  on  KTM16  for  both  surface  water  and  groundwater.  Most 
reported  point  source  pollution  (black)  as  the  main  pressure  on  surface  waters.  Other 
pressure  types  reported  are  diffuse  sources  (dark  grey),  priority  substances  and  River 
Basin  Specific  Pollutants  (light  green,  dark  green).  As  the  only  Member  State  DE 
reported on multiple pressures to be targeted with KTM16. 

Many Member States reported pressures as specific points for the discharges, e.g., 1.3-
‘Point-IED  plants’,  1.4-‘Point-Non  IED  plants’,.6  -  Point  -  Waste  disposal  sites,  2.2  - 
Diffuse  –  Agricultural1.7  -  Point  -  Mine  waters’    and  ‘2.8  -  Diffuse  -  Mining’,  3.5  - 
Abstraction or flow diversion – Hydropower, as well as numerous specific CAS and EEA 
priority  substances  as  pressures:  Octylphenol  (4-(1,1',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol)’, 
Iron and its compounds’, Manganese and its compounds’, Mercury and its compounds’, 
Hexachlorobutadiene’, CAS_57-12-5 - Free cyanide", CAS_7440-02-0 – ‘Nickel and its 
compounds’;  CAS_7440-38-2  –  ‘Arsenic  and  its  compounds’;  CAS_7440-39-3  – 
‘Barium’;  CAS_7440-66-6  – 
its  compounds’;  CAS_87-86-5  – 
‘Pentachlorophenol’;  EEA_33-19-2  –  ‘Mono  basic  phenols’;  EEA_33-22-7  –  ‘Oil 
fractions  (C10-40)’;  CAS_14797-55-8  –  ‘Nitrate’  (in  Crete),  CAS_7439-97-6-‘Mercury 
and its compounds’ , ‘CAS_7440-50-8 - Copper and its compounds’ ,‘CAS_7440-02-0 - 
Nickel and its compounds’ , CAS_7439-92-1 - Lead and its compounds’ , ‘CAS_7440-
43-9 - Cadmium and its compounds’ ,‘CAS_7440-47-3 - Chromium and its compounds’ 
and ‘EEA_33-64-7 - Total cyanide’ . 

‘Zinc  and 

For  2018-2021,  Member  States  including  AT,  DE,  IE,  IT,  RO  and  SK  report  indicator 
values indicating a decreasing trend, with indicator gaps closing over time with the PoM 

75 

 
 
 
 
meaning it indicates the gap to  good status  is  closing with  the planned measures in  the 
PoM.. HR and LV report indication of achieving the objective of reduced emissions from 
industrial  wastewater  treatment  plants  (including  farms)  by  2021  by  implementing  the 
planned measures.  

Member States BG, El and HU reported indicator values indicate no change in the trend. 
In DE a mixed trend across the 10 RBDs was reported. 

For  one  Member  State,  SE,  indicators  are  projected  to  increase  from  2018  to  2021 
indicating it is going further away from achieving good status and the planned measures 
are not closing the gap to good status. 

For Member States BE, FI, FR and PT no trends can be reported, as only indicator values 
for 2018 or 2021 were reported. For EE and NL indicator values were generally missing 
or  difficult  to  interpret.  For  Member  States  CY,  CZ,  DK,  ES,  LT,  LU,  MT,  PL  and  SI 
this KTM was not mapped. 

6.5.  Progress  with  implementation  of  measures  to  reduce  pressures  from  water 

abstraction 

6.5.1.   KTM7  -  Improvements  in  flow  regime  and/or  establishment  of  ecological 

flows 

The main pressures reported by Member State related to water abstraction are presented 
in Figure 40 and Figure 41. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 40: Status of Member States  reporting on KTM7, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

76 

 
 
 
 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure  41:  KTM7,  Main  pressures  reported  by  Member  State  relating  to  water  abstraction 
pressure  on  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right).  The  total  number  of  RBDs  for  each 
Member State reported in brackets. 

Twenty  Member  States  reported  on  KTM7  for  surface  water,  whereas  only  5  of  the 
Member  States  reported  on  KTM7  for  both  surface  and  groundwater.  Most  Member 
States  reported  point  hydrological  alterations  (pink)  as  the  main  pressure  on  surface 
waters.  Another  important  pressure  type  reported  was  abstraction  and  flow  diversion 
(grey). 

The most used pressure groups were 3.1-‘Abstraction or flow diversion-Agriculture’, 3.2-
‘Abstraction or flow diversion-Public water supply’, 3.5- ‘Abstraction or flow diversion-
Hydropower’;  4.1.1-‘Physical  alteration  of  channel,  bed,  riparian  area,  shore-Flood 
protection’, 4.1.2-‘Physical alteration of channel, bed, riparian area, shore- Agriculture’, 
4.1.3  -‘Physical  alteration  of  channel,  bed,  riparian  area,  shore-  Navigation’,  4.1.4  -
‘Physical  alteration  of  channel,  bed,  riparian  area,  shore-  Other’;  4.2.1-‘Dams,  barriers 
and  locks  –  Hydropower’,  4.2.2  -‘Dams,  barriers  and  locks  –  Flood  protection’,  4.2.3-
‘Dams,  barriers  and  locks  –  Drinking  water’,  4.2.4  -‘Dams,  bar-riers  and  locks  – 
Irrigation’, 4.2.6 -‘Dams, barriers and locks – Industry’, 4.2.8 -‘Dams, barriers and locks 
– Other’;4.3.1 – ‘Hydrological alteration – Agriculture’, 4.3.3 - ‘Hydrological alteration 
–  Hydro-power’,  4.3.4  -  ‘Hydrological  alteration  –  Public  water  supply’,  4.3.6  - 
‘Hydrological al-teration – Other’ and 4.5 – ‘Hydromorphological alteration – Other’." 

For  2018-2021,  seven  Member  States  including  AT,  EL,  HU,  IE,  IT  and  RO  report 
indicator values indicating a decreasing trend, with indicator gaps closing over time with 
the  PoM.  CY,  HR,  LT,  LV  and  PL  report  achieving  the  objective  of  reduced  effect  of 
point hydrological alterations, water abstraction and flow diversion by 2021.  

Member States BG and PT reported indicator values indicating no change in the trend for 
2018-2021. In DE, a mixed trend across the 10 RBDs was reported. 

77 

 
 
 
 
For one Member State, SE, indicators are projected ti increase from 2018 to 2021. 

For  BE,  FI  and  FR,  no  trends  can  be  reported,  as  only  indicator  values  for  2018  were 
reported.  For  EE,  LU  and  SK  indicator  values  were  generally  missing  or  difficult  to 
interpret. For CZ, DK, ES, MT, NL and SI, this KTM was not mapped. 

6.5.2.  KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy 

and households 

The  main  pressures  reported  by  Member  States  relating  to  water  efficiency,  technical 
measures for irrigation, industry, energy, and households are presented in Figure 42 and 
Figure 43. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 42: Status of Member States reporting on KTM8, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure  43:  KTM8,  Main  pressures  reported  by  Member  State  relating  to  irrigation,  industry, 
energy  and  households’  pressure  on  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right).  The  total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

Twelve  Member  States  reported  on  KTM8  for  surface  water  and  13  Member  States 
reported on KTM8 for both groundwater and 10 Member States reported on both. Most 
Member States reported abstraction and flow diversion (light grey) as a main pressure.  

The most used pressure  groups  were 3.1  - Abstraction or flow diversion  – Agriculture, 
3.2  -  Abstraction  or  flow  diversion  –  Public  water  supply,  3.3  -  Abstraction  or  flow 
diversion – Industry, 3.5 - Abstraction or flow diversion – Hydropower, 3.6 - Abstraction 
or  flow  diversion  -  Fish  farms,  3.7  -  Abstraction  or  flow  diversion  –  Other,  6.2  - 
Groundwater - Alteration of water level or volume" 

For 2018-2021, Member States including DE, EL, ES, HU, IE, IT and PL report indicator 
values indicating a decreasing (positive) trend, with indicator gaps closing over time with 
the PoM.  

Member  States  BG,  CY  and  HR  reported  indicator  values  showing  no  change  in  the 
trend.  

For  Member  States  FI  and  FR,  no  trends  can  be  reported,  as  only  indicator  values  for 
2018 were reported. For BE and LU, indicator values were generally missing or difficult 
to  interpret.  For  Member  States  AT,  CZ,  DK,  EE,  LT,  LV,  NL,  RO,  SE,  SI  and  SK, 
KTM8 was not mapped.   

79 

 
 
 
 
6.6.  Progress  with  implementation  of  measures  to  reduce  pressures  from 

hydromorphological alterations 

6.6.1.  KTM5  -  Improving  longitudinal  continuity  (e.g.  establishing  fish  passes, 

demolishing old dams) 

The  main  pressures  reported  by  Member  State  relating  to  longitudinal  continuity  are 
presented in Figure 44 and 45. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

See Figure 45 

Figure 44: Status of Member States reporting on KTM5, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 45: KTM5, Main pressures reported by Member State relating to longitudinal continuity 
(fish  passes,  dams  etc.)  for  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right).  The  total  number  of 
RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
20  Member  States  reported  on  KTM5  for  surface  water,  and  only  2  Member  State 
reported on KTM5 for both surface water and groundwater. Most Member State reported 
dams, barriers and locks (blue) as a main pressure.  

The most used pressure groups were, 4.1.5 - Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian 
area/shore - Unknown or obsolete, 4.2.1 - Dams, barriers and locks - Hydropower’ and 
‘4.2.4 - Dams, barriers and locks - Irrigation’, 4.2.2 - Dams, barriers and locks - Flood 
protection’  and  ‘4.2.6  -  Dams,  barriers  and  locks  -  Industry,  .2.5  -  Dams,  barriers  and 
locks  -  Recreation’  and  ‘4.2.7  -  Dams,  barriers  and  locks  -  Navigation’,  4.2.3  -  Dams, 
barriers  and  locks  -  Drinking  water’,  4.2.8  -  Dams,  barriers  and  locks  -  Other’.  3.1  - 
Abstraction or flow diversion – Agriculture, 3.2 - Abstraction or flow diversion - Public 
water supply, 3.3 - Abstraction or flow diversion – Industry. 

For  2018-2021,  Member  States  including  AT,  HU,  IE,  IT,  PL,  RO,  and  SE  report 
indicator values indicating a decreasing trend, with indicator gaps closing over time with 
the implementation of the PoM. CY and LV report achieving the objective of improving 
longitudinal continuity by 2021. 

Two Member States,  BG and EL, reported indicator values indicating no change in the 
trend. In DE and SK, a mixed trend across the RBDs was reported. 

For  Members  States  BE,  DK,  FI  and  FR  no  trends  can  be  reported,  as  only  indicator 
values  for  2018  were  reported.  For  EE,  LU  and  PT  indicator  values  were  generally 
missing or difficult to interpret. For Member States CZ, ES, HR, LT, MT, NL and SI this 
KTM was not mapped. 

6.6.2.  KTM6  -  Improving  hydromorphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other 

than longitudinal continuity 

The main pressures reported by Member State relating to hydromorphological conditions 
of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity are presented in Figure 46 and Figure 
47. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 46: Status of Member States reporting on KTM6, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

81 

 
 
 
 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure  47:  KTM6,  Main  pressures  reported  by  Member  State  relating  to  hydromorphological 
conditions (other than longitudinal continuity) pressure for surface water (left) and groundwater 
(right). The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

23 Member States reported on KTM6 for surface water, and 4 Member State reported on 
KTM6  for  both  surface  water  and  groundwater.  Most  Member  State  reported  physical 
alterations (light blue) as a main pressure.  

The  main  pressure  groups  reported  are  3.1-‘Abstraction  or  flow  diversion-Agriculture’, 
3.2-‘Abstraction  or  flow  diversion-Public  water  supply’,  3.5-‘Abstraction  or  flow 
diversion-Hydropower’; 

4.1.1-‘Physical alteration of channel, bed, riparian area, shore - Flood protection’, 4.1.2-
‘Physical  alteration  of  channel,  bed,  riparian  area,  shore  -  Agriculture’,  4.1.4-‘Physical 
alteration of channel, bed, riparian area, shore - Other’; 4.2.1–‘Dams, barriers and locks – 
Hydropower’,  4.2.2-  ‘Dams,  barriers  and  locks  –  ‘Flood  protection’,  4.2.3  –  ‘Dams, 
barriers and locks – Drinking water’, 4.2.4 – ‘Dams, barriers and locks – Irrigation’, 4.2.6 
–  ‘Dams,  barriers  and  locks  –  Industry’  and  4.2.8  –  ‘Dams,  barriers  and  locks  – 
Other’;4.3.1–‘Hydrological 
alteration-
Hydropower’,  4.3.4-‘Hydrological  alteration-Public  water  supply’,  4.3.6–‘Hydrological 
alteration-Other’; 4.5–‘Hydromorphological alteration – Other’." 

alteration-Agriculture’,  4.3.3-‘Hydrological 

For 2018-2021, Member States including AT, EL, ES, HU, IE, IT, PL, RO, and SI report 
indicator values indicating a decreasing trend, with indicator gaps closing over time with 
improving 
the  PoM.  CY,  LT,  and  LV 
hydromorphological conditions other than longitudinal continuity by 2021.  

the  objective  of 

report  achieving 

Member  States  BG,  PT  and  SK  reported  indicator  values  indicating  no  change  in  the 
trend. In DE a mixed trend across the RBDs was reported. 

82 

 
 
 
 
For  Members  States  BE,  DK,  FI  and  FR  no  trends  can  be  reported,  as  only  indicator 
values for 2018 were reported. For EE and LU indicator values were generally missing or 
difficult  to  interpret.  For  Member  States  CZ,  HR,  MT,  and  NL  this  KTM  was  not 
mapped.   

6.7.  Progress  with implementation of other measures  relating to drinking water 

protection 

6.7.1.  KTM4  -  Remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical  pollution  including 

sediments, groundwater, soil) 

The main pressures reported by  Member State  relating to  contaminated sites  (historical 
pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil) are presented in Figure 48 and Figure 
49. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 48: Status of Member States reporting on KTM4, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

83 

 
 
 
 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure  49:  KTM4,  Main  pressures  reported  by  Member  State  relating  to  contaminated  sites’ 
pressure  on  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right).  The  total  number  of  RBDs  for  each 
Member State reported in brackets. 

17 Member States  reported on KTM4 for surface water, 13 Member States reported on 
KTM4 for both surface water and groundwater, and 3 Member State reported on KTM4 
only for groundwater. Most of the Member State reported point sources (black), diffuse 
sources  (grey)  anthropogenic  pressure  (green),  and  CAS  and  EEA  priority  substances 
(light and dark green). 

For 2018-2021, Member States including HU,  IT, LV, PL, RO, and SE report indicator 
values  indicating  a  decreasing  trend,  with  indicator  gaps  closing  over  time  with  the 
objective of improving remediation of contaminated sites. 

Member  States  AT,  BG,  CZ,  ES,  IE,  and  SK  reported  indicator  values  indicating  no 
change in the trend. 

For  Members  States  BE,  DK,  FI  and  FR  no  trends  can  be  reported,  as  only  indicator 
values for 2018 were reported. For EE and NL indicator values were generally missing or 
difficult to  interpret.   For Member States CY, EL, HR,  LT,  LU, MT, and SI this KTM 
was not mapped. 

6.7.2.  KTM13  -  Drinking  water  protection  measures  (e.g.  establishment  of 

safeguard zones, buffer zones etc) 

The main pressures reported by  Member State relating to  drinking  water  protection are 
presented in Figure 50 and Figure 51. 

84 

 
 
 
 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 50: Status of Member States reporting on KTM13, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 51: KTM13, Main pressures on surface water (left) and groundwater (right) reported by 
Member State relating to drinking water protection. The total number of RBDs for each Member 
State reported in brackets. 

Nine of the Member States reported on KTM13 for surface water,  eight Member States 
reported  on  both  surface  and  groundwater,  and  half  of  the  Member  States  reported  on 
KTM13 for groundwater. Most of the Member State reported point pollution (black) and 
diffuse pollution (grey). Other important pressure types reported are abstraction or flow 
diversion (light grey), anthropogenic pressure (green) and River Basin Specific Pollutants 
(CAS (light green)).  

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For 2018-2021, Member States including AT, DE, HU, IE and IT report indicator values 
showing  a  decreasing  trend,  with  indicator  gaps  closing  over  time,  achieving  the 
objective  of  improving  drinking  water  protection,  by  the  establishment  of  safeguard 
zones, buffer zones etc. LV and PL report achieving the objective already by 2021. 

One Member State, HR, reported indicator values showing no change in the trend.  

In DE and SE, a mixed trend across the RBDs was reported. 

For one Member State, EL, indicator values are projected to increase from 2018 to 2021, 
showing a negative trend. 

For one Member State, FR, no trends can be reported, as only indicator values for 2018 
were reported. For  BE, BG, EE,  LU and PT indicator values were generally missing or 
difficult to interpret.  For Member States CY, CZ, DK, ES, FI, LT, MT, NL, RO, SI and 
SK this KTM was not mapped. 

6.8.  Progress with implementation of measures relating to water pricing 

6.8.1.  KTM9  -  Water  pricing  policy  measures  for  the  implementation  of  the 

recovery of cost of water services from households 

The main pressures reported by Member State relating to water pricing policies and cost 
recovery in households are presented in Figure 52 and Figure 53. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure  52:  Status  of  Member  States  reporting  on  KTM9,  and  the  main  pressures 
associated  with  the  KTM.  Priority  substances  (EEA  and  CAS)  are  included  in  the 
presented pressure groups. 

86 

 
 
 
 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 53: KTM9, Main pressures on surface water (left) and groundwater (right)  reported by 
Member  State  relating  to  water  pricing  policies  and  cost  recovery  in  households.  The  total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

Eight  of  the  Member  States  reported  on  KTM9  for  surface  water,  five  Member  States 
reported on both surface water and groundwater and one Member State (PL) reported on 
KTM9 for groundwater only. Most of the Member State reported point pollution (black) 
and  abstraction  or  flow  diversion  (light  grey).  Other  pressure  types  reported  are 
anthropogenic pressure (green), CAS (light green), EEA (dark green), dams, barriers, and 
locks (dark blue) and hydrological alteration (purple). 

For 2018-2021, Member States EL, IT reported indicator values indicating a decreasing 
trend, with indicator gaps closing over time, achieving the objective of improving water 
savings by water pricing policies and cost recovery in households. ES reported achieving 
the objective already by 2021. 

Member State BE reported indicator values indicating no change in the trend. 

For Member State FR no trends can be reported, as only indicator values for 2018 were 
reported. For BE, IE, PL, and PT indicator values were generally missing or difficult to 
interpret.  For Member States CY, CZ, De, DK, EE, FI, HR, HU, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, 
RO, SE, SI, and SK this KTM was not mapped. 

6.8.2.  KTM10  -  Water  pricing  policy  measures  for  the  implementation  of  the 

recovery of cost of water services from industry 

The main pressures reported by Member State relating to water pricing policies and cost 
recovery in the industry are presented in Figure 54 and Figure 55. 

87 

 
 
 
 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 54: Status of Member States reporting on KTM10, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 55: KTM10, Main pressures on surface water (left) and groundwater (right) reported by 
Member  State  relating  to  water  pricing  policies  and  cost  recovery  in  the  industry.  The  total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

Six of the Member State reported on KTM10 for surface water, and four of the Member 
State reported on KTM10 for both surface water and groundwater. Most of the Member 
State reported point pollution (black) and abstraction or flow diversion (light grey). Other 
pressure  types  reported  are  anthropogenic  pressure  (green),  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants  (CAS  (light  green),  EEA  (dark  green))  and  dams,  barriers,  and  locks  (dark 
blue). 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For 2018-2021, Member States EL and IT report indicator values indicating a decreasing 
trend, with indicator gaps closing over time, achieving the objective of improving water 
savings by water pricing policies and cost recovery in the industry.  

For Member State FR no trends can be reported, as only indicator values for 2018 were 
reported.  For  BE,  BG  and  IE  indicator  values  were  generally  missing  or  difficult  to 
interpret.  For Member States CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, FI, HR, HU, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, 
RO, SE, SI, and SK this KTM was not mapped. 

6.8.3.  KTM11  -  Water  pricing  policy  measures  for  the  implementation  of  the 

recovery of cost of water services from agriculture 

The main pressures reported by Member States relating to water pricing policies and cost 
recovery in agriculture are presented in Figure 56 and Figure 57. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 56: Status of Member States reporting on KTM11, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

89 

 
 
 
 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 57: KTM11, Main pressures on surface water (left) and groundwater (right) reported by 
Member  State  relating  to  water  pricing  policies  and  cost  recovery  in  agriculture.  The  total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

Six  of  the  Member  States  reported  on  KTM11  for  surface  water,  five  Member  States 
reported on both surface water and groundwater and one of the Member State reported on 
KTM11  for  groundwater  only.  Most  of  the  Member  States  reported  on  abstraction  or 
flow diversion (light grey) and diffuse pollution (grey).  

For  2018-2021,  Member  States  EL,  IT  report  indicator  values  indicating  a  decreasing 
trend, with indicator gaps closing over time, achieving the objective of improving water 
savings by water pricing policies and cost recovery from agriculture meaning it indicates 
the  gap  to  good  status  is  closing  with  these  planned  measures.  ES  report  indication  of 
achieving the objective already by 2021 with the planned measures. 

Member State HR reported indicator values indicating no change in the trend. 

For Member State FR no trends can be reported, as only indicator values for 2018 were 
reported. For BG and IE indicator values were generally missing or difficult to interpret. 
For Member States AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, FI, HU, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, 
PT RO, SE, SI, and SK this KTM was not mapped. 

6.9.  Progress with implementation of measure relating to Research 

6.9.1.  KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty 

The main pressures reported by Member State relating to research and the improvement 
of the knowledge base are presented in Figure 58 and Figure 59. 

90 

 
 
 
 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 58: Status of Member States reporting on KTM14, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 59: KTM14, Main pressures on surface water (left) and groundwater (right) reported by 
Member  State  relating  to  Research  and  the  improvement  of  the  knowledge  base.  The  total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

Most of the Member State reported on KTM14 for surface water, and half of the Member 
State reported on KTM14 for both surface water and groundwater, and one Member State 
(MT)  reported  on  KTM14  for  groundwater  only.  Most  of  the  Member  State  reported 
point pollution (black), diffuse pollution (grey), physical alteration (light blue) and River 
Basin  Specific  Pollutants  (CAS  (light  green)).  Other  important  pressure  types  reported 
are hydrological alteration (purple), dams, barriers, and locks (dark blue) and abstraction 
or flow diversion (light grey). 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For  2018-2021,  Member  States  including  AT,  EL,  HR,  IE,  IT,  PL,  and  RO  report 
indicator values indicating a decreasing trend, with indicator gaps closing over time with 
the  PoM.  Member  States  CY,  DK,  ES,  LT  and  MT  report  achieving  the  objective  of 
improving research and the knowledge base by 2021.  

Member States BG, CZ, HU, PT and SK reported indicator values indicating no change 
in the trend. In DE a mixed trend across the RBDs was reported. 

For Member State FR no trends can be reported, as only indicator values for 2018 were 
reported.  For  BE,  EE  and  LU  indicator  values  were  generally  missing  or  difficult  to 
interpret. For Member States FI, LV, NL, and SE this KTM was not mapped. 

6.10.  Progress  with  implementation  of  measure  relating  to  pollution  from  urban 

areas, transport and built infrastructure 

6.10.1. KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban 

areas, transport and built infrastructure 

The  main  pressures  reported  by  Member  State  relating  to  pollution  from  urban  areas, 
transport and built infrastructure are presented in Figure 60 and Figure 61. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 60: Status of Member States reporting on KTM21, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

92 

 
 
 
 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 61: KTM21, Main pressures on surface water (left) and groundwater (right) reported by 
Member State relating to pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure. The total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

Most of the Member State reported on KTM21 for surface water, and half of the Member 
State reported on KTM21 for both surface water and groundwater. Most of the Member 
State  reported  diffuse  pollution  (grey)  and  point  pollution  (black).  Other  important 
pressure types reported are CAS (light green), anthropogenic pressure (green) and EEA 
(dark green). 

For  2018-2021,  Member  States  including  AT,  CY,  HU,  IT,  LV,  PL,  RO,  SE  and  SK 
report  indicator  values  indicating  a  decreasing  trend,  with  indicator  gaps  closing  over 
time  with  the  PoM.  Member  States  ES,  IE  and  LT  report  achieving  the  objective  of 
preventing  or  controlling  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas,  transport  and  built 
infra-structure by 2021. 

Member  State  PT  reported  indicator  values  indicating  no  change  in  the  trend.  In  DE  a 
mixed trend across the RBDs was reported. 

For  Member  States  FI  and  FR  no  trends  can  be  reported,  as  only  indicator  values  for 
2018  were  reported.  For  BE,  BG,  EE,  EL,  HR,  NL  and  LU  indicator  values  were 
generally missing or difficult  to  interpret.  For Member States CZ,  DK,  MT and SI this 
KTM was not mapped. 

93 

 
 
 
 
6.11.  Progress with implementation of other Key Type of Measures 

6.11.1. KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off 

The  main  pressures  reported  by  Member  State  associated  with  KTM17  “measures  to 
reduce  sediment  from  soil  erosion  and  surface  run-off”  are  presented  in  Figure  62  and 
Figure 63. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

See Figure 63 

Figure 62: Status of Member States reporting on KTM17, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 63: KTM17, Main pressures on surface water (left) and groundwater (right) reported by 
Member  State  relating  to  soil-erosion  and  surface  run-off.  The  total  number  of  RBDs  for  each 
Member State reported in brackets. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Almost half of the Member State reported on KTM17 for surface water, but only two of 
the Member State reported on KTM17 for both surface water and groundwater. Most of 
the  Member  State  reported  diffuse  pollution  (grey).  Other  important  pressure  types 
reported  are  point  sources  (black),  physical  alteration  (light  blue)  and  River  Basin 
Specific Pollutants. 

For  2018-2021,  5  Member  States  (AT,  EL,  ES,  IE  and  IT)  report  indicator  values 
indicating a decreasing trend, with indicator gaps closing over time.  

Member State  HU  reported  indicator values indicating no  change in  the  trend.  In DE a 
mixed trend across the RBDs was reported. 

For Member State FR no trends can be reported, as only indicator values for 2018 were 
reported.  For  BE,  BG  and  LU  indicator  values  were  generally  missing  or  difficult  to 
interpret. For 16 Member States (CY, CZ, DK, EE, FI, HR, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, 
RO, SE, SI, and SK) this KTM was not mapped. 

6.11.2. KTM18  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  adverse  impacts  of  invasive 

alien species and introduced diseases 

Ten of the Member State reported KTM18 (BE, BG, DE, ES, FR, IE, IT, PT, SE, SK). 
The main pressures reported by Member State related to the adverse impacts of invasive 
alien species and introduced diseases were ‘5.1 - Introduced species and diseases´. This 
pressure  was  reported  by  all  10  Member  State.  FR  also  reported  pressures  of  diffuse 
pollution and anthropogenic pressure.  

For 2018-2021, Member States ES and IE report indicator values indicating a decreasing 
trend,  with  indicator  gaps  closing  over  time,  achieving  the  objective  of  preventing  or 
controlling the adverse impacts of invasive alien species and introduced diseases.  

For  Member  States  SE  and  SK  indicator  values  are  projected  to  increase  from  2018  to 
2021,  showing  an  expected  increased  impact  on  water  bodies  of  invasive  alien  species 
and introduced diseases. 

Member State DE reported indicator values showing a mixed trend across the RBDs. 

For Member State FR no trends can be reported, as only indicator values for 2018 were 
reported. For BE, BG, LU and PT indicator values were generally missing or difficult to 
interpret. For Member States AT, CY, CZ, DK, EE, EL, FI, HR, HU, LT, LV, MT, NL, 
PL, RO, and SI this KTM was not mapped. 

6.11.3. KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of recreation 

including angling 

The main pressures reported by  Member State relating to adverse impacts of recreation 
including angling are presented in Figure 64 and Figure 65. 

95 

 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

See Figure 65. 

Figure 64: Status of Member States reporting on KTM19, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 65: KTM19, Main pressures on surface water (left) and groundwater (right) reported by 
Member State relating to adverse impacts of recreation including angling.  The total number of 
RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

Five of the Member States reported on KTM19 for surface water, and two of the Member 
State  reported  on  KTM19  for  groundwater.  One  Member  State,  FR,  reported  on  both 
surface water and groundwater. The Member State reported mixed pressures for KTM19. 
Four  of  the  Member  States  reported  abstraction  or  flow  diversion  (light  grey),  but 
pressures of point pollution (black) and CAS (light green) were also important.  

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
For  2018-2021,  two  Member  States  LV  and  PL  report  indicator  values  indicating  a 
decreasing  trend,  with  indicator  gaps  closing  by  2021,  achieving  the  objective  of 
reducing the adverse impacts of recreation including angling.  

For Member State FR no trends can be reported, as only indicator values for 2018 were 
reported. For BE and BG indicator values were generally missing or difficult to interpret.  

For most Member States including CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, HR, HU, IE, IT, 
LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PT, RO, SE, SI, and SK this KTM was not mapped. 

6.11.4. KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of fishing and 

other exploitation/removal of animal and plants 

The main pressures reported by Member State relating to adverse impacts of fishing and 
other exploitation/removal of animal and plants are presented in Figure 66 and Figure 67. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Not relevant 

Figure 66: Status of Member States reporting on KTM20, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

97 

 
 
 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

Not relevant 

Figure  67:  KTM20,  Main  pressures  on  surface  water  reported  by  Member  State  relating  to 
adverse impacts of fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal and plants. The total number 
of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

One  third  of  the  Member  States  reported  on  KTM20  for  surface  water.  The  Member 
States reported mixed pressures for KTM20. Half of the Member States reported diffuse 
pollution  (grey),  but  pressures  of  exploitation  or  removal  of  animals  or  plants  (light 
orange) and point pollution (black) were also important.  

For 2018-2021, Member States IE and RO report indicator values indicating a decreasing 
trend,  with  indicator  gaps  closing  over  time,  achieving  the  objective  of  preventing  or 
controlling the adverse impacts of fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal and 
plants. PL is expected to achieve the objective already by 2021. 

Member  State  EL  reported  indicator  values  indicating  no  change  in  the  trend.  Member 
State DE reported indicator values showing a mixed trend across the RBDs. 

For Member State FR no trends can be reported, as only indicator values for 2018 were 
reported.  For  BG,  NL,  PT  indicator  values  were  generally  missing  or  difficult  to 
interpret. For Member States AT, BE, CY, CZ, DK, EE, ES, FI, HR, HU,  IT,  LT,  LU, 
LV, MT, SE, SI, and SK this KTM was not mapped. 

6.11.5. KTM22 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from forestry 

The  main  pressures  reported  by  Member  State  relating  to  pollution  from  forestry  are 
presented in Figure 68 and Figure 69. 

98 

 
 
 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

See Figure 69. 

Figure 68: Status of Member States reporting on KTM22, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure  69:  KTM22,  reported  pressures  for  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right). 
Percentage not based on RBDs, but on whether a Member State have stated the pressure or not. 
The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

Nine  of  the  Member  States  reported  on  KTM22  for  surface  water,  two  Member  States 
reported both on surface water and groundwater and one Member State (HU) reported on 
KTM22  for  groundwater  only.  Most  of  the  Member  State  reported  diffuse  pollution 
(grey).  Only  FR  reported  pressures  related  point  pollution  (black),  physical  alteration 
(light blue) and hydrological alteration (purple).  

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
For 2018-2021, Member States IE and SE report indicator values indicating a decreasing 
trend,  with  indicator  gaps  closing  over  time  with  the  PoM.  LV  report  achieving  the 
objectives of preventing or controlling pollution from forestry by 2021.  

HU reported indicator values showing no change in the trend.  

For Members States EE, FI and FR no trends can be reported, as only indicator values for 
2018  were  reported.  For  BG  and  LU  indicator  values  were  generally  missing.  For 
Member States AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EL, ES, HR, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, 
and SK this KTM was not mapped.  

6.11.6. KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 

The  main  pressures  reported  by  Member  State  relating  to  natural  water  retention  are 
presented in Figure 70 and Figure 71. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

See Figure 71. 

Figure 70: Status of Member States reporting on KTM23, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

100 

 
 
 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure  71:  KTM23,  reported  pressures  for  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right). 
Percentage not based on RBDs, but on whether a Member State have stated the pressure or not. 
The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

Less than half of the Member State reported on KTM23 for surface water, and only three 
Member States reported on KTM23 for groundwater (FR, HU, MT). Most of the Member 
State  reported  physical  alteration  (light  blue)  for  surface  water  and  abstraction  or  flow 
diversion  (light  grey)  for  groundwater.  Other  important  pressure  types  reported  are 
diffuse pollution (grey), dams, barriers, and locks (dark blue) and hydrological alteration 
(purple).  

For  2018-2021,  Member  States  including  IT  and  RO  report  indicator  values  showing  a 
decreasing (positive) trend, with indicator gaps closing over time with the PoM.  IE, LT 
and MT report achieving the objectives of implementing natural water retention measures 
by 2021.  

HU reported indicator values showing no change in the trend. In DE a mixed trend across 
the RBDs was reported. 

For Members States FI and FR, no trends can be reported, as only indicator values for 
2018 were reported. For BG and LU indicator values were generally missing. For 
Member States AT, BE, CY, CZ, DK, EE, EL, ES, HR, LV, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, and SK 
this KTM was not mapped. 

6.11.7. KTM24 - Adaptation to climate change 

The main pressures reported by Member State relating to climate change are presented in 
Figure 72 and Figure 73. 

101 

 
 
 
 
Surface water 

Groundwater 

See Figure 73. 

Figure 72: Status of Member States reporting on KTM24, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure  73:  KTM24,  reported  pressures  for  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right). 
Percentage not based on RBDs, but on whether a Member State have stated the pressure or not. 
The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

Only six Member States reported on KTM24 for surface water (BE, BG, DE, FR, IE, IT), 
and four Member States reported on KTM24 for groundwater (DE, FI, PL, SK). Most of 
the Member States reported diffuse pollution (grey), abstraction or flow diversion (light 
grey),  physical  alteration  (light  blue)  and  dams,  barriers  and  locks  (dark  blue).  Other 
important  pressure  types  reported  are  point  sources  (black)  and  hydrological  alteration 
(purple). 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
For  2018-2021,  Member  States  including  DE  (for  most  indicators)  and  IT  report 
indicator values showing a decreasing (positive) trend, with indicator gaps closing over 
time  with  the  PoM.  IE  and  SK  report  achieving  the  objective  of  adapting  to  climate 
change by 2021.  

For Members States BE, BG, and FR, no trends can be reported, as only indicator values 
for 2018 were reported. For Member States AT, CY, CZ, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, HR, HU, 
LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE and SI the KTM was not mapped. 

6.11.8. KTM25 - Measures to counteract acidification 

The main pressures  reported by  Member State relating to  acidification are presented in 
Figure 74. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure  74:  KTM25,  reported  pressures  for  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right). 
Percentage not based on RBDs, but on whether a Member State have stated the pressure or not. 
The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

Only  four  Member  States  reported  on  KTM25  for  surface  water  (DE,  FI,  IE,  SE),  and 
three  Member  States  reported  on  KTM25  for  groundwater  (DE,  FI,  PL).  Most  of  the 
Member States reported diffuse pollution (grey) and CAS (light green). Other important 
pressure types reported are point sources (black) and anthropogenic pressure (green).  

For  2018-2021,  Member  States  including  DE  (for  most  indicators),  IE,  and  SE  report 
indicator values indicating a decreasing trend, with indicator gaps closing over time with 
the PoM. PL report having achieved the objective of counteracting acidification already 
by 2018.  

103 

 
 
 
 
For Members State FI no trends can be reported, as only indicator values for 2018 were 
reported. For Member States AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, HU, IT, 
LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PT, RO, SI, and SK the KTM was not mapped. 

6.11.9. KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM 

The main pressures reported by Member State relating other key type measures reported 
under PoM are presented in Figure 75 and Figure 76. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure 75: Status of Member States reporting on KTM99, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. 

Surface water 

Groundwater 

Figure  76:  KTM99,  reported  pressures  for  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right). 
Percentage not based on RBDs, but on whether a Member State have stated the pressure or not. 
The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
One third of the Member States did not report on KTM99 for surface water, and less than 
half  of  the  Member  State  reported  on  KTM99  for  groundwater.  Most  of  the  Member 
State reported diffuse pollution (grey)  and CAS  (light  green).  Other important  pressure 
types  reported  are  point  sources  (black),  physical  alteration  of  channel/bed/riparian 
area/shore (light blue) and dams, barriers, and lock (dark blue).  

For  2018-2021,  Member  States  including  ES,  IE,  LT,  PL,  RO,  and  SI  report  indicator 
values indicating a decreasing trend, with indicator gaps closing over time with the PoM. 
LV report achieving the objectives already in 2018.  

Member States AT and HU reported indicator values indicate no change in the trend. In 
DE  a  mixed  trend  across  the  RBDs  was  reported,  and  CZ  reported  an  increasing  trend 
widening the indicator gap over time.  

For  Members  States  BE,  DK,  EL,  FI,  FR,  and  MT  no  trends  can  be  reported,  as  only 
indicator values for 2018 were reported. For LU and PT indicator values were generally 
missing. For Member States BG,  CY, EE, HR,  IT, NL, SE, and SK this  KTM  was not 
mapped. 

105 

 
 
List of Tables 

Table 1: Status and progress achieved since the adoption of the second RBMP for RBDs in each 
Member State. Numbers indicate number of RBDs in each country, where measures were fully, 
partly or not completed. .................................................................................................................. 8 
Table 2: Obstacles to the implementation of the POM. Member States report the number of RBDs 
where obstacles are relevant. ........................................................................................................... 9 
Table 3: Reported expected progress on KTMs by Member State, 2018-2021 ............................ 18 
Table  4:  Total  investment  expenditure  (in  millions  of  Euros)  by  Member  State  in  the  period 
2015-2018. (NA= Not applicable)................................................................................................. 24 
Table 5: Metadata per Member State, compiled from the extracts from the WISE database and the 
background documents. I: No background documents, II: Only general information, III: Required 
information in native language, IV: Required information in English, Dutch or German. ........... 26 
Table 6: Number of River Basin Districts (RBD) in each Member State (MS) where substances 
failed  the  EQS  directive.  This  assessment  is  only  based  on  WISE  data,  and  not  the  provided 
background  documents.  *Dioxins  and  dioxin-like  compounds,  **Heptachlor  and  heptachlor 
epoxide,  ***Hexabromocyclododecane  (HBCDD),  ****  Perfluorooctane  sulfonic  acid  and  its 
derivatives. .................................................................................................................................... 28 
Table 7: Costs being reported by Member States (MS). ............................................................... 50 
Table  8:  A  qualitative  assessment  of  the  details  provided  for  the  calculation  methods  of  the 
updated  cost.  If  available,  the  methodology  for  estimating  investment  cost  and  operation  and 
maintenance cost (O&M) is provided. .......................................................................................... 52 
Table  9:  Breakdown  of  sources  of  funding.  Some  sources  are  overlapping  (e.g.,  Structural  and 
regional development fund), thus this table indicates the level of detail provided by the Member 
State. .............................................................................................................................................. 54 
Table 10: Overview of Key Type of Measures ............................................................................. 60 
Table 11: Breakdown of the Key Type of Measures reported by Member States in 2018. .......... 63 

106 

 
 
 
List of Figures 

Figure  1:  Trend  in  indicator  gap  2015-2021  reported  for  the  implementation  of  planned 
Programme  of  Measures  (2018).  “Objectives  met”  equals  all  measures  needed  to  achieve  the 
environmental objectives are fully operational. Nine out of the ten Member States. CY is missing 
in figure. ................................................................................................................................................ 13 
Figure 2: Trend in Key Type Measure indicator gap from the 2nd RBMP to the PoM progress 
reporting  (2016-2018)  reported  for  the  implementation  of  planned  Programme  of  Measures 
(2018).  “Indicator  objectives  met”  equals  measure  is  fully  operational  to  achieve  the 
environmental objectives. ...................................................................................................................... 16 
Figure  3:  Basic  measures  promoting  efficient  and  sustainable  water  use.  The  total  number  of 
RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. .............................................................................. 29 
Figure  4:  Basic  measures  to  safeguard  water  quality.  The  total  number  of  RBDs  for  each 
Member State reported in brackets. ....................................................................................................... 30 
Figure  5:  Permit  or  register  to  control  water  abstractions.  The  total  number  of  RBDs  for  each 
Member State reported in brackets. ....................................................................................................... 31 
Figure 6: Permit or register to control water impoundment. The total number of RBDs for each 
Member State reported in brackets. ....................................................................................................... 32 
Figure 7: Thresholds for water abstractions. The total number of RBDs for each Member State 
reported in brackets. .............................................................................................................................. 33 
Figure 8: Authorisation for artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies. The total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets.............................................................. 34 
Figure 9: Permit or register on wastewater point source discharges. The total number of RBDs 
for each Member State reported in brackets. ......................................................................................... 35 
Figure  10:  Thresholds  below  which  wastewater  discharges  do  not  require  permits.  The  total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets.............................................................. 36 
Figure 11: Binding rules for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture. The total number 
of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. .......................................................................... 37 
Figure 12: Specific issues covered, in relation to diffuse pollution from agriculture, if there are 
general binding rules. The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. .......... 38 
Figure  13:  Permits  to  control  physical  modifications  to  the  water  bodies.  The  total  number  of 
RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. .............................................................................. 39 
Figure 14: Prohibition of direct discharges. The total number of RBDs for each Member State 
reported in brackets. .............................................................................................................................. 40 
Figure  15: Measures to eliminate  pollution of  surface  waters by  Priority  Substances. The total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported the measures in brackets. ....................................... 41 
Figure  16:  Member  State  reporting  on  RBDs  where  reuse  of  water  has  lower  environmental 
impact than other alternative water supplies. wrRBD = RBD with water reuse potential, tRBD = 
total number of RBDs. .......................................................................................................................... 42 
Figure 17: Member State reporting on whether ecological flows have been derived for all water 
bodies  at  risk  of  failing  the  Environmental  Objectives  due  to  abstractions,  flow  diversions  or 
impoundments. efRBD = RBD where ecological flows have been derived fully or partly. tRBD = 
total number of RBDs. .......................................................................................................................... 43 
Figure 18: Member State reporting on whether budgets for ecological flows have been allocated. 
efRBD = RBD where ecological flows have been derived fully or partly. tRBD = total number of 
RBDs. .................................................................................................................................................... 44 
Figure 19: shows Member State reporting whether measures that manages water resources under 
climate  change  have  been  implemented.    If  no  specific  measures  were  planned,  Member  State 

107 

 
reported 'No measures have started. ccRBD = RBD where climate change measures are relevant. 
tRBD = total number of RBDs. ............................................................................................................. 45 
Figure 20: Member State reporting whether the preparations of the RBMP and PoM have been 
coordinated  with  the  implementation  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive.  The  total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets.............................................................. 46 
Figure 21: Member State reporting whether the need for additional measures or more stringent 
measures  beyond  those  required  by  the  WFD  in  order  to  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the 
relevant MSFD objectives in coastal and marine environments have been considered in the PoM. 
The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. ............................................. 47 
Figure 22: Member State reporting the types of additional measures needed to meet the MSFD 
objectives. .............................................................................................................................................. 48 
Figure  23:  Member  State  reporting  the  status  of  implementation  of  the  additional  measures 
needed to meet the MSFD objectives. ................................................................................................... 49 
Figure  24:  Trend  in  indicator  gap  2015-2021  reported  for  the  implementation  of  planned 
Programme  of  Measures  (2018).  “Objectives  met”  equals  all  measures  needed  to  achieve  the 
environmental objectives are fully operational. Data on CY not available. .......................................... 58 
Figure 25: Number of Key Types of Measure reported by Member States ......................................... 61 
Figure  26:  Number  of  Member  States  reporting  on  the  different  Key  Types  of  Measures  (see 
KTM overview in Table 8. .................................................................................................................... 62 
Figure 27: Trend in Key Type Measure indicator gap from the 2nd RBMP to the PoM progress 
reporting  (2016-2018)  reported  for  the  implementation  of  planned  Programme  of  Measures 
(2018).  “Indicator  objectives  met”  equals  measure  is  fully  operational  to  achieve  the 
environmental objectives. ...................................................................................................................... 65 
Figure 28: Status of Member States  reporting on KTM2, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ........... 66 
Figure 29: KTM2, reported pressures for surface water (left) and groundwater (right). Percentage 
not  based  on  RBDs,  but  on  whether  a Member  State  have  stated the  pressure  or  not. The  total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets.............................................................. 67 
Figure 30: Status of Member States  reporting on KTM3, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ........... 68 
Figure 31: KTM3, reported pressures for surface water (left) and groundwater (right). Percentage 
not  based  on  RBDs,  but  on  whether  a Member  State  have  stated the  pressure  or  not. The  total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets.............................................................. 69 
Figure  32:  Status  of  Member  States    reporting  on  KTM12,  and  the  main  pressures  associated 
with the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ... 70 
Figure  33:  KTM12,  Advisory  services  reported  pressures  for  surface  water  (left)  and 
groundwater (right). Percentage not based on RBDs, but on whether a Member State have stated 
the pressure or not. The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. .............. 70 
Figure 34: Status of Member States  reporting on KTM1, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ........... 71 
Figure  35:  KTM1,  Main  pressures  reported  by  Member  State  relating  to  urban  and  industrial 
wastewater pressure on surface water (left) and groundwater (right). The total number of RBDs 
for each Member State reported in brackets. ......................................................................................... 72 
Figure  36:  Status  of  Member  States    reporting  on  KTM15,  and  the  main  pressures  associated 
with the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ... 73 
Figure  37: KTM15,  Main  pressures  reported by  Member  State relating  to  Priority  Substances’ 
pressure  on  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right).  The  total  number  of  RBDs  for  each 
Member State reported in brackets. ....................................................................................................... 73 
Figure  38:  Status  of  Member  States    reporting  on  KTM16,  and  the  main  pressures  associated 
with the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ... 74 

108 

 
Figure 39: KTM16, Main pressures reported by Member State relating to industrial wastewater 
pressure  on  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right).  The  total  number  of  RBDs  for  each 
Member State reported in brackets. ....................................................................................................... 75 
Figure 40: Status of Member States  reporting on KTM7, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ........... 76 
Figure  41:  KTM7,  Main  pressures  reported  by  Member  State  relating  to  water  abstraction 
pressure  on  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right).  The  total  number  of  RBDs  for  each 
Member State reported in brackets. ....................................................................................................... 77 
Figure 42: Status of Member States  reporting on KTM8, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ........... 78 
Figure  43:  KTM8,  Main  pressures  reported  by  Member  State  relating  to  irrigation,  industry, 
energy  and  households’  pressure  on  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right).  The  total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets.............................................................. 79 
Figure 44: Status of Member States reporting on KTM5, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ........... 80 
Figure 45: KTM5, Main pressures reported by Member State relating to longitudinal continuity 
(fish  passes,  dams  etc.)  for  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right).  The  total  number  of 
RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. .............................................................................. 80 
Figure 46: Status of Member States reporting on KTM6, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ........... 81 
Figure  47:  KTM6,  Main  pressures  reported  by  Member  State  relating  to  hydromorphological 
conditions (other than longitudinal continuity) pressure for surface water (left) and groundwater 
(right). The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. ................................. 82 
Figure 48: Status of Member States reporting on KTM4, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ........... 83 
Figure  49:  KTM4,  Main  pressures  reported  by  Member  State  relating  to  contaminated  sites’ 
pressure  on  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right).  The  total  number  of  RBDs  for  each 
Member State reported in brackets. ....................................................................................................... 84 
Figure 50: Status of Member States reporting on KTM13, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ........... 85 
Figure 51: KTM13, Main pressures on surface water (left) and groundwater (right) reported by 
Member State relating to drinking water protection. The total number of RBDs for each Member 
State reported in brackets. ..................................................................................................................... 85 
Figure 52: Status of Member States reporting on KTM9, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ........... 86 
Figure  53:  KTM9,  Main pressures  on  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater (right)  reported  by 
Member  State  relating  to  water  pricing  policies  and  cost  recovery  in  households.  The  total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets.............................................................. 87 
Figure 54: Status of Member States reporting on KTM10, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ........... 88 
Figure 55: KTM10, Main pressures on surface water (left) and groundwater (right) reported by 
Member  State  relating  to  water  pricing  policies  and  cost  recovery  in  the  industry.  The  total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets.............................................................. 88 
Figure 56: Status of Member States reporting on KTM11, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ........... 89 
Figure 57: KTM11, Main pressures on surface water (left) and groundwater (right) reported by 
Member  State  relating  to  water  pricing  policies  and  cost  recovery  in  agriculture.  The  total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets.............................................................. 90 
Figure 58: Status of Member States reporting on KTM14, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ........... 91 

109 

 
Figure 59: KTM14, Main pressures on surface water (left) and groundwater (right) reported by 
Member  State  relating  to  Research  and  the  improvement  of  the  knowledge  base.  The  total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets.............................................................. 91 
Figure 60: Status of Member States reporting on KTM21, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ........... 92 
Figure 61: KTM21, Main pressures on surface water (left) and groundwater (right) reported by 
Member State relating to pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure. The total 
number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets.............................................................. 93 
Figure 62: Status of Member States reporting on KTM17, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ........... 94 
Figure 63: KTM17, Main pressures on surface water (left) and groundwater (right) reported by 
Member  State  relating  to  soil-erosion  and  surface  run-off.  The  total  number  of  RBDs  for  each 
Member State reported in brackets. ....................................................................................................... 94 
Figure 64: Status of Member States reporting on KTM19, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ........... 96 
Figure 65: KTM19, Main pressures on surface water (left) and groundwater (right) reported by 
Member  State  relating  to  adverse  impacts  of  recreation  including  angling.  The  total  number  of 
RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. .............................................................................. 96 
Figure 66: Status of Member States reporting on KTM20, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ........... 97 
Figure  67:  KTM20,  Main  pressures  on  surface  water  reported  by  Member  State  relating  to 
adverse impacts of fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal and plants. The total number 
of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. .......................................................................... 98 
Figure 68: Status of Member States reporting on KTM22, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ........... 99 
Figure  69:  KTM22,  reported  pressures  for  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right). 
Percentage not based on RBDs, but on whether a Member State have stated the pressure or not. 
The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. ............................................. 99 
Figure 70: Status of Member States reporting on KTM23, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ......... 100 
Figure  71:  KTM23,  reported  pressures  for  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right). 
Percentage not based on RBDs, but on whether a Member State have stated the pressure or not. 
The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. ........................................... 101 
Figure 72: Status of Member States reporting on KTM24, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ......... 102 
Figure  73:  KTM24,  reported  pressures  for  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right). 
Percentage not based on RBDs, but on whether a Member State have stated the pressure or not. 
The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. ........................................... 102 
Figure  74:  KTM25,  reported  pressures  for  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right). 
Percentage not based on RBDs, but on whether a Member State have stated the pressure or not. 
The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. ........................................... 103 
Figure 75: Status of Member States reporting on KTM99, and the main pressures associated with 
the KTM. Priority substances (EEA and CAS) are included in the presented pressure groups. ......... 104 
Figure  76:  KTM99,  reported  pressures  for  surface  water  (left)  and  groundwater  (right). 
Percentage not based on RBDs, but on whether a Member State have stated the pressure or not. 
The total number of RBDs for each Member State reported in brackets. ........................................... 104 

110