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 environmental policy, application of EU law, environmental standard, flood, groundwater, natural hazard, pollution control measures, surface water, water management, water pollution, water protection

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.12.2021  COM(2021) 970 final  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  {SWD(2021) 970 final} - {SWD(2021) 971 final}  
 
 
1.  Introduction 

With the adoption of the European Green Deal1, the EU has taken crucial steps to address the 
simultaneous,  interconnected  crises  of  climate  change,  health  risk,  biodiversity  loss  and 
pollution across all environmental media. The sustainable management of water quality and 
quantity plays a pivotal role in the response to this crisis, drawing on the existing legislative 
framework and the ambitious implementation of the European Green Deal and its subsequent 
initiatives. The financing now available for implementing the  Member States’ recovery  and 
resilience  plans  is  an  additional  support,  helping  them  address  existing  pressures  on 
freshwater quality and quantity, thereby also stimulating the transition to a clean, circular and 
carbon-free European economy in respect of the ‘do no harm’ principle. 

In  2021,  Europe  once  again  witnessed  the  impacts  of  extreme  water-related  incidents, 
aggravated by the effects of climate change: dramatic flood events in the Rhine and Meuse 
river basins and unprecedented heatwaves and forest fires caused tragic losses of human lives 
and  many  billions  of  euro  of  damage.  While  only  partially  related  to  proper  water  policy, 
these  events  point  to  the  importance  of  improved  freshwater  management,  consistently 
pursued over a long time, including across national borders.  

The  Water  Framework  Directive2  (WFD)  provides  the  main  framework  and  the  overall 
objectives for water policy in Europe, and for the attainment of good status of all surface and 
ground-waters.  The  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive3  (EQSD)  and  Groundwater 
Directive4  (GWD)  complement  the  WFD  for  surface  water  and  groundwater  standards 
respectively.  The  2019  fitness  check  of EU  water law5, covering these three Directives and 
the  Floods  Directive6,  concluded  that  the  existing  legislative  framework  is  broadly  fit  for 
purpose, with some scope for improvement. It concluded that reaching the objectives of the 
WFD  and  the  Floods  Directive  will  require  sufficient  funding,  faster  implementation,  and 
better  integration  of  their  objectives  in  sectoral  legislation.  Some  of  the  legislation’s 
shortcomings and possible measures on chemicals will be assessed in the impact assessment 
ongoing for the lists of substances in groundwater and surface water.7  

This report aims to provide further insights and will be another checkpoint for progress in the 
overall implementation of the legislation, as a stepping stone towards assessment of the next 
generation  (2022-2027)  of  river  basin  management  plans  (RBMPs)  and  flood  risk 
management plans.  

1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en 
2 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a 
framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1 
3 Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental 
quality standards in the field of water policy, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 84, as amended by Directive 2013/39/EU 
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013, OJ L 226, 24.8.2013, p. 1 
4 Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection 
of groundwater against pollution and deterioration, OJ L 372, 27.12.2006, p. 19 
5 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/fitness_check_of_the_eu_water_legislation/index_en.htm 
6 Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment 
and management of flood risks, OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27 
7 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12662-Integrated-water-management-
revised-lists-of-surface-and-groundwater-pollutants_en 

1 

 
                                                   
It  includes  the  Commission’s  assessment  of  recent  mandatory  water-related  reporting  from 
Member States:  

  Progress  on  implementing  the  programmes  of  measures  (PoMs)  under  the  WFD, 

second cycle (2016-2021); 

  The  monitoring  of  priority  substances  in  surface  water,  added  to  the  list  under  the                                                          

EQSD in 2013; 

  The review and update of the preliminary flood risk assessments from the first cycle 

of the Floods Directive (2016-2021). 

2.  Reporting 

The  second  RBMPs  under  the  WFD  (due  by  December  2015)  were  assessed  by  the 
Commission in 20198. Interim reports on the implementation of PoMs were due by December 
2018. The Commission, under Article 18 of the WFD, has to inform the Parliament and the 
Council  on  progress  in  the  implementation  of  the  PoMs  within  3  years  of  its  assessment 
report  of  the  RBMPs.  All  Member  States  have  reported  on  the  interim  implementation  of 
their PoMs.  

As  regards  the  EQSD  this  report  assesses  progress  on  the  implementation  of  requirements 
related  to  the  12  new  substances  added  to  the  list  of  priority  substances  in  surface  water, 
agreed  in  2013.  Specifically,  Directive  2008/105/EC,  amended  by  Directive  2013/39/EU, 
Article  3  (1a)  (ii),  requires  Member  States  to  establish  and  submit  to  the  Commission  a 
supplementary  monitoring  programme  and  a  preliminary  programme  of  measures  covering 
the newly listed substances. All Member States reported on the new priority substances.  

Finally,  as  regards  the  second  reporting  cycle  of  the  Floods  Directive,  Member  States  are, 
under  Article  14,  required  to  have  reviewed  and  updated,  by  22  December  2018,  their  first 
cycle  preliminary  flood  risk  assessments  (PFRAs).  Reporting  to  the  Commission  was 
required by 22 March 2019. Almost all Member States reported on the updates of their first 
PFRAs.9  

3.  Second programmes of measures – interim assessment 

Article 11 of the WFD requires Member States to develop PoM for each River Basin District 
(RBD)  and  specify  their  content,  consisting  of  basic  measures  (Article  11(3))  and 
supplementary  measures  (Article  11(4)),  as  well  as  additional  measures  (Article  11(5)),  as 
necessary. 

Member States were asked to report on progress in implementing their defined ‘key types of 
measures’  (KTMs).  KTMs  are  typical  measures  taken  to  reduce  pressures  like  removing 

8 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/impl_reports.htm 
9 Several Member States did not report by the deadline. The Commission has launched infringement 
proceedings for late reporting. To date, only two infringement procedures are still pending.  

2 

 
                                                   
obstacles  from  rivers,  upgrading  waste  water  treatment  plants,  phasing  out  priority 
substances, etc.10  

This  PoM  assessment  reflects  the  situation  as  reported  in  the  WISE  database.  Wherever 
possible,  a  separate  analysis  has  been  made  for  basic  measures  under  Article  11(3)  of  the 
WFD and for the supplementary and additional measures under Articles 11(4) and 11(5) of 
the WFD.  

A direct comparison of data in the RBMPs and in the PoMs of 2018 is often not possible due 
to  methodological  problems  such  as  changes  in  measures,  different  base  line  years  and 
changes  in  water  body  limits.  However,  the  information  provided  for  2016  and  2018  and 
projected  for  2021  still  provides  quantitative  data  on  the  progress  made  on  implementing 
PoMs.  The  data  are  as  far  as  possible  reflected  in  this  document  and  the  associated  Staff 
Working Document. 

Overall situation 

By mid-term of the 2016-2021 cycle, the implementation of measures was on its way in all 
Member States, with delays in some cases. Compared to the 2015 PoMs, all Member States 
reported KTMs and several11 completed their reporting and now cover all their RBDs. 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. For those Member States (18) who reported data allowing for a more in-depth analysis 
and comparison, it can be noted that 70-100% of the objectives have been met for RBDs in 
312  of  them,  whereas  in  a  further  413,  30-80%  of  the  indicators  signal  a  move  towards  the 
objective of closing the gap. In a further Member State14, objectives have been met in 16 out 
of 25 RBDs. This is an encouraging improvement that will allow for better identification and 
prioritisation of the measures.  

For Member States that identified other pressures in addition to the significant ones, 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. 

10 List of KTMs in WFD Reporting Guidance 2022, page 387 
11 Denmark, Greece, Croatia and Slovenia 
12 Estonia, Latvia, Malta   
13 Austria, Czech Republic, France and Portugal 
14 Spain 

3 

 
 
                                                   
Me
mb
er 
Stat
e 

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 

RBD 

All measures 
completed 

All planned 
measures 
completed 

Some measures 
completed 

Some planned 
measures 
completed 

No measures 
completed 

1 

8 

1 

1 

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 

2 

3 

5 

1 

1 

3 

10 

3 

14 

25 

7 

2 

3 

3 

2 

1 

4 

9 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

3 

4 

7 

4 

4 

4 

10 

1 

5 

Table 1: Status and progress since the second RBMPs for RBDs.  

Member States also reported obstacles encountered in implementing their PoMs. As set out in 
Table  2  below,  the  lack  of  finance,  delays,  and  governance  are  the  most  significant 
impediments.  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

RBD  Governance  Delays 

Lack of 
finance 

Lack of 
mechanism 

Lack of 
measures 

Not cost 
effective 

Extreme 
events 

Other 

Obstacles 

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 

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 

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 

2 

3 

3 

4 

3 

25 

8 

14 

2 

1 

3 

8 

4 

4 

3 

9 

1 

2 

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 

2 

3 

4 

1 

6 

1 

4 

2 

8 

3 

7 

3 

2 

4 

4 

8 

1 

2 

Table 2:  Obstacles to implementation of PoMs as per RBDs  

Table 3 below summarises the expected trends in achieving objectives for different pressures and 
relevant KTMs, as predicted by each Member State at mid-term for the second half of the cycle 
(2018-2021).  An  upward  trend  indicates  moving  away  from  the  objectives  of  the  legislation,  a 
downward trend indicates the gap towards the objective is becoming smaller. 

5 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Table 3: Reported expected progress on KTMs 2018-2021  

6 

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 
 
 
3.1 

Tackling Pollution 

With the European  Green Deal, the fight  against pollution has  taken  centre stage. The  zero 
pollution ambition was translated into a comprehensive Zero Pollution Action Plan15 and the 
Sustainable Chemicals Strategy16. The Farm-to-Fork Strategy17 (focusing amongst others on 
reduction  of  nutrient  losses  and  pesticides  and  the  increase  of  organic  agriculture)  and  the 
Pharmaceuticals  Strategy18  (aiming  amongst  others  to  reduce  the  presence  of  antibiotics  in 
the environment) will also make it possible to accelerate towards reducing water pollution.  

Pollution from agriculture 

Agriculture  is  reported  as  one  of  the  main  drivers  for  failure  to  achieve  good  status  in  EU 
water  bodies.  It  can  cause  diffuse  pollution  by  nitrates  and  pesticides  in  surface  and 
groundwater19. Aside from diffuse pollution, water abstraction for agriculture is also a major 
pressure causing failure of good quantitative status of groundwater bodies.  

Member  States  are  in  particular  working  on  measures  to  reduce  nutrient  pollution  from 
agriculture  (KTM  2),  reduce  pesticide  pollution  from  agriculture  (KTM  3)  and  implement 
agricultural advisory services (KTM 12). Reporting also shows that all Member States have 
general rules on discharges from agriculture.  

Ten  Member  States  apply  those  rules  across  the  entire  territory  while  the  others  apply 
different rules depending on the RBD or, in two cases, only in nitrate vulnerable zones.  To 
the  extent  Member  States  reported,  the  picture  is  rather  positive  for  KTM  2  with  indicator 
gaps closing which means that the measures are effective at improving status and closing the 
gap to good status, followed by no discernable trend meaning the pressures are not effective 
at improving water status and more effort is needed in these cases. For KTM 3 and KTM 12 
the picture is mixed, with many Member States not reporting or mapping these KTMs. Where 
mapped, it shows the majority of indicator gaps closing but no discernable trend reported by a 
substantial  number  of  Member  States,  meaning  the  pressures  under  these  KTMs  are  not 
effective at improving water status and more effort is needed in these cases.   

Member States’ measures in the context of their PoMs include measures stemming from the 
Nitrates  Directive20,  whose  latest  implementation  report21  recommends  reinforced  measures 
in polluted areas, and measures in the new common agricultural policy (CAP) strategic plans, 
due  for  submission  to  the  Commission  no  later  than  1  January  2022.    A  recent  European 
Court of Auditors report analysed to what extent the CAP and EU water policy promote the 
sustainable  use  of  water  in  agriculture.22  The  view  of  the  Commission  is  that  the  CAP 

15 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/zero-pollution-action-plan_en 
16 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/chemicals-strategy_en 
17 EUR-Lex - 52020DC0381 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
18 https://ec.europa.eu/health/human-use/strategy_en 
19 EEA 2018 water assessment — European Environment Agency (europa.eu) 
20 Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution 
caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1 
21 EUR-Lex - 52021DC1000 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)  
22 Special Report 20/2021: Sustainable water use in agriculture: CAP funds more likely to promote greater 
rather than more efficient water use, September 2021 

7 

 
                                                   
 
contributes  to  this  objective  through  various  instruments  and  measures.  The  new  CAP 
provides an important opportunity to increase the ambition and finance  additional measures 
benefitting  sustainable  water  management  in  agriculture  through  the  new  eco-schemes  in 
pillar  I  and  the  rural  development  programme  in  pillar  II.  The  new  CAP  focuses  on  nine 
specific objectives  defined  in  Article 6 of the Commission  proposal23, with  three beneficial 
for environment24. When Member  States are developing their  Plans they must  contribute to 
these specific objectives. There is also a requirement to contribute to the Green Deal targets 
including the Farm to Fork target on reducing nutrient losses by 50% and reducing the overall 
use and risk of chemical pesticides by 50% and these are outlined amongst others in the CAP 
recommendations25 sent to Member States.  

Pollution from households and industry 

The  reporting  shows  a  positive  trend,  particularly  on  measures  related  to  construction  or 
upgrades of waste water treatment plants (KTM 1)26, phasing out priority / priority hazardous 
substances  (KTM  15)  and  upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial  waste  water  treatment 
plants (KTM 16). Almost all Member States have an authorisation and/or permitting regime 
to control wastewater point source discharges, which applies to both groundwater and surface 
water. However, at least half of the Member States still allow small discharges,  although in 
some  cases  registration  of  such  discharges  is  required.  Almost  without  exception,  Member 
States have taken measures to eliminate pollution reaching surface waters.  

The planned revision of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive27 (Commission proposal 
in  2022)  should  further  reduce  pollutants  in  European  surface  and  groundwater,  both  by 
increasing  the  volume  of  waste  water  covered  under  the  Directive,  and  by  ensuring  more 
waste  water  is  treated  with  advanced  treatment  technology.  The  revised  Drinking  Water 
Directive’s  28  new  risk-based  approach  will  boost  interactions  between  water  operators  and 
those in charge of implementing the WFD. 

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=59355 
The Commission considers that the CAP contributed to the objectives of the WFD through various mechanisms; 
notably cross-compliance, payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment and 
greening, payments to beneficiaries for costs and income foregone resulting from the implementation of the 
WFD and rural development support and investments. 
23 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules on support for 
strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the Common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) 
and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development (EAFRD), COM/2018/392 final 
24 SO4 – contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, including by reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions and enhancing carbon sequestration, as well as promote sustainable energy; SO5 – foster sustainable 
development and efficient management of natural resources such as water, soil and air, including by reducing 
chemical dependency; SO6 – contribute to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, enhance ecosystem services 
and preserve habitats and landscapes. 
25 CAP strategic plans | European Commission (europa.eu) 
26 18 Member States are reporting to progress well towards closing their gaps. 
27 Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, OJ L 135, 
30.5.1991, p. 40 
28 Directive (EU) 2020/2184 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on the quality 
of water intended for human consumption, OJ L 435, 23.12.2020, p. 1 

8 

 
                                                                                                                                                              
Similarly, the planned revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive29 (Commission proposal 
in 2022) should improve compliance with water quality standards in the case of both direct 
and indirect discharges, and emphasise the need for an environmental management system to 
address water reuse and resource efficiency. 

New Priority substances  

A separate assessment was made of the current status regarding monitoring and measures of 
the  new  substances  in  the  2013  EQSD.  Under  the  2013  EQS  Directive  an  additional  12 
substances30 should be monitored by all Member States.  

Most Member States are already monitoring the 12 substances that were added in 2013. Four 
Member States31 reported the chemical status of all substances monitored and defined KTMs for 
all  substances  failing.  A  further  11  Member  States  covered  most  substances  monitored  and 
defined KTMs for all substances failing. As regards the other Member States, information was 
incomplete, with RBDs and / or substances missing. Sometimes substances were monitored 
in  a  different  matrix  than  that  described  in  the  EQS  Directive.  Often  no  information  was 
provided on the derivation for these substances in this matrix. 

In  2022,  the  Commission  will  propose  a  revision  of  the  list  of  substances  in  surface  and 
groundwater.  This  will  potentially  add  further  pesticides,  pharmaceuticals  and  industrial 
chemicals to the list of substances for which emissions to water must be reduced or phased 
out.  

3.2 

Enhancing Water efficiency  

As part of the Green Deal, water efficiency is now a solid part of the EU policy agenda. The 
Circular  Economy  Action  Plan32  highlighted  the  future  role  of  the  Regulation  on  minimum 
requirements for water reuse33, which will facilitate an alternative water supply for irrigation, 
as part of integrated water management. The action plan also announced that the Commission 
will  facilitate  water  efficiency  in  industrial  processes  (e.g.  by  revising  the  Industrial 
Emissions  Directive).  The  2021  EU  Strategy  on  Adaptation  to  Climate  Change34  calls  for 
safeguarding freshwater access and more efficiency of water use in all sectors and announced 
that the Commission will help reduce water use by raising the water-saving requirements for 
products.  Transition  to  water-saving  technologies  and  practices  needs  to  be  supported  with 
relevant economic instruments.  

29 Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial 
emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17 
30 Substances added in 2013: Dicofol, perflurooctanesulfonic acid and its derivatives, quinoxyfen, dioxins and 
dioxin-like compounds, aclonifen, bifenox, cybutryne, cypermethrin, dichlorvos, hexabromocyclododecanes, 
heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide, terbutryn. 
31 Croatia, Estonia, Slovakia and Sweden 
32 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_en 
33 Regulation (EU) 2020/741 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 2020 on minimum 
requirements for water reuse, OJ L 177, 5.6.2020, p. 32 
34 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0082&from=EN 

9 

 
                                                   
Through the revised Drinking Water Directive (Article 4(3)), Member States will have to take 
measures to address the high leakage rates that are a reality at present. The Renovation Wave 
and  European  Bauhaus  initiatives35  relate  to  water  efficiency  in  the  building  sector.  In 
addition,  the  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  203036  calls  on  Member  State  authorities  to  review 
water  abstraction  and  impoundment  permits  to  implement  ecological  flows.  The  aim  is  to 
achieve good status or potential of all surface waters and good status of all groundwater by 
2027 at the latest. 

Water  efficiency  was,  and  continues  to  be,  a  high  priority  for  Member  States.  Over  half  of 
them  took  measures  in  the  previous  cycle  (2010-2015)  and  will  continue  to  do  so  in  the 
future.  A  further  group  of  10  took  measures  in  the  previous  cycle  but  report  no  additional 
plans for measures in future. 

Most  Member  States  reported  abstraction  and  flow  diversion  as  main  pressures.  The  most 
relevant  measures  associated  with  reducing  the  pressures  and  impacts  arising  from 
abstractions  are    improvements    in    flow    regime    and/or    establishment    of    minimum  
ecological    flow  (KTM  7,  reported  in  the  section  on  hydromorphology)  and  measures  to 
address  water efficiency, technical  measures for irrigation,  industry, energy  and households 
(KTM 8). Such quantitative measures were reported by almost half the Member States. Also 
in anticipation of the new Regulation on minimum requirements for water reuse, 11 Member 
States included reuse of water in the PoMs as a measure to manage water resources. 

Significant  progress  can  be  seen  on  basic  measures  addressing  water  abstraction.  Member 
States’  reporting  on  abstraction  shows  that  almost  all  of  them  have  a  permitting  regime  or 
register  to  control  abstractions  of  groundwater  and  surface  water  (see  Figure  1).  Similarly, 
most  Member  States  have  a  concession,  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  to  control 
water  impoundment,  and/or  a  register  of  impoundments.  However,  about  half  reported  that 
small abstractions are exempted from controls.   

35https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1603122220757&uri=CELEX:52020DC0662; 
https://europa.eu/new-european-bauhaus/index_en  
36 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en 

10 

 
                                                   
Figure 1: Permit or register to control water abstractions 

As  regards  authorisation  for  artificial  recharge  or  augmentation  of  groundwater  bodies  (see 
Figure 2), most Member States have either taken measures, carried out such measures in the 
previous cycle, or planned them in the current cycle. This will enable them to deal better with 
water scarcity and pollution.  

11 

 
 
Figure 2: Authorisation for artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies 

3.3  Adaptation to climate change 

With  the  increasing  impact  of  climate  change,  pressures  on  the  availability  of  clean 
freshwater in sufficient quantity are expected to increase37, so adequate measures are required 
to ensure WFD objectives. According to the reporting on adaptation to climate change (KTM 
24),  only  6  Member  States  reported  actions  for  surface  water,  and  4  reported  actions  for 
groundwater.  Most  of  the  Member  States  reported  diffuse  pollution,  abstraction  or  flow 
diversion,  physical  alteration  and  dams,  barriers  and  locks  as  the  main  pressures.  Other 
important pressure types reported are point sources.  

37 https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/water-stress-is-a-major 

12 

 
 
                                                   
3.4  Addressing hydromorphological pressures 

Hydromorphological  alteration  continues  to  be  the  single  biggest  type  of  pressure  on  water 
bodies. Through the Green Deal, and in particular the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the 
Smart  and Sustainable  Mobility Strategy38,  further opportunities  have  opened up to  address 
hydromorphological  pressures  such  as  dams,  weirs,  altered  groundwater  levels  etc.  The 
Biodiversity’s aspirational target of 25, 000 km of free flowing rivers in Europe stresses the 
importance of rivers reconnecting laterally and longitudinally to fully reintegrate ecosystems. 

The  WFD  (Article  11(3)(i))  requires  Member  States 
the 
hydromorphological conditions of water bodies which may take the form of a requirement for 
prior  authorisation  or  registration.  The  information  reported    and  presented  below  indicates 
which Member States have permitting regimes to control the physical modifications to water 
bodies.  

to  ensure  controls  on 

Figure 3: Permits to control physical modifications to water bodies.  

Almost all Member States have permitting regimes to control physical modifications to water 
bodies. Among these, almost all cover riparian areas. Most Member States have a register of 
physical modifications.  

38https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12438-Sustainable-and-Smart-
Mobility-Strategy_en 

13 

 
 
                                                   
The most relevant measures in this context are improving longitudinal continuity  (KTM 5), 
other  hydromorphological 
longitudinal  continuity  (KTM  6), 
improvements  in  flow  regime  and  ecological  flow  (KTM  7)  and  natural  water  retention 
measures (KTM 23). 

improvements  beyond 

Measures to improve longitudinal continuity (KTM 5) have been reported for surface waters 
in 20 Member States. Most reported dams, barriers and locks as the main pressure associated 
with these measures.  

Seven  Member  States39  expect  progress  on  establishing  longitudinal  continuity  based  on 
measures planned to be implemented between 2018 and 2021. In addition, 2 Member States40 
expected to have met the objectives by then.  

Measures  to  improve  hydromorphology  other  than  longitudinal  continuity  (KTM  6)  have 
been reported for surface waters in most Member States, and for groundwater in 4 of them. In 
most  cases,  these  measures  plan  to  address  pressures  related  to  physical  alteration  of  the 
channel, bed, riparian area and/or shore.  

Member States are required to first derive ecological flow objectives (a prerequisite to reach 
good status in rivers) in their water bodies, and then to implement all necessary measures to 
reach these objectives (grouped in KTM 7), which include reducing abstraction or releasing 
enough water for downstream waters when operating dams.  

In the second RBMPs ecological flows had been reported to be derived and implemented for 
all  relevant  water  bodies  in  only  very  few  Member  States.  Most  reported  that  work  was 
planned to address this gap in this cycle.  

The  information  subsequently  reported  for  PoM  reporting  in  2018  shows  that  7  Member 
States  have  derived  ecological  flows  objectives  in  all  or  some  of  the  water  bodies.  This  is 
similar to what was reported in 2016, indicating no apparent progress. For the others, work is 
ongoing, but the reported indicators do not make it possible to assess detailed progress. 

In terms of measures  implemented to  reach ecological  flow,  20  Member States reported on 
KTM7 for surface water, while only 5 reported on KTM 7 for groundwater.  

4.  Second preliminary flood risk assessments  

A framework for flood risk management is now firmly established in the EU as attested by a 
Commission evaluation published in 201941.  

Also  for  the  second  cycle  of  implementation  (2016-2021),  the  first  step  under  the  Floods 
Directive  was  the  preparation  of  preliminary  flood  risk  assessments  (PFRAs)  and  the 

39 Austria, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Romania and Sweden 
40 Cyprus and Latvia 
41 To confirm this, the European Commission carried out an evaluation of the Floods Directive and published its 
findings in 2019 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/fitness_check_of_the_eu_water_legislation/index_en.htm 

14 

 
                                                   
identification  of  areas  of  potential  significant  flood  risks  (APSFRs),  by  the  end  of  2018. 
Preliminary assessments are largely based on available information about past floods and on 
forecasts of potential future floods. 

The Commission assessed Member States’ second cycle PFRAs.42 Since the previous cycle, 
half have improved data collection and/or methodologies to carry out preliminary flood risk 
assessments.  In  12  Member  States  the  criteria  for  identifying  significant  future  floods  have 
been updated based on current methodologies. Although the discourse around floods in urban 
areas  and  sea  level  rise  has  intensified,  it  is  still  river  floods  that  are  most  frequently 
registered (two thirds of the total) as a source of significant flooding in the EU. For the vast 
majority of Member States there is some or strong evidence that the consequences of future 
flooding on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity are being 
considered.  Attention  to  environment  and  cultural  heritage  appears  to  have  risen  since  the 
first cycle since the percentage of areas of potential significant flood risk where environment 
and cultural heritage were not found to be relevant dropped by around 10 percentage points. 
The  situation  surrounding  the  recording  of  impacts  from  floods  is  clearer  compared  to  the 
first  cycle  with  nearly  two  thirds  of  Member  States  presenting  strong  evidence  of  a  clear 
methodology for the assessment  of past  floods.  However, in  60% of river basins in  the EU 
there are no data on the costs from flood damages. There is therefore room for improvement 
since collecting such data aids the calculation of costs and benefits and the  prioritisation of 
measures.  Long  term  developments  (socio-economic,  infrastructure,  land  use)  have  been 
considered in most Member States but with varying degrees of rigour. There is also evidence 
that all Member States have considered climate change in their preliminary assessments; this 
is an improvement on the first cycle when 6 had not considered climate change and the case 
was unclear for another 5. 

5.  Cost and financing  

Table 2 in section 3 shows that the two main impediments to timely implementation reported 
by  Member  States  are  a  lack  of  financing  and  delays  incurred  over  the  course  of 
implementing projects.  

While Member States’ reporting on costs and financing of the PoMs appears overall patchy, a 
consultant’s study estimates43 that the measures set out in the ensemble of the second RBMPs 
require investments of at least EUR 142 billion. This is an underestimation for the total costs, 
as there are significant data gaps and it excludes operational and infrastructure maintenance 
costs.  For  the  FRMPs,  the  same  source  estimates  a  total  of  EUR14  billion,  again  most 
probably  an  underestimation.  Member  States  are  using  a  range  of  financing  sources,  in 
particular  water  and  sanitation  tariffs,  EU  funds  and  national  public  funds  and  to  a  lesser 
extent  abstraction  and  pollution  charges.  As  a  whole,  they  make  less  use  of  private 
investment (contributions) and the more innovative forms of financing such as  payment for 
ecosystem services (PES) schemes.  

42 For the first cycle (2010-2015) see https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/overview.htm 
43 Woods &ACTeon (2021), Economic data related to the implementation of the WFD and the FD and the 
financing of measures,” forthcoming report on behalf of DG environment.  

15 

 
                                                   
On the financial capacity of the water sector, the study mentioned above found that about half 
of  the  Member  States  have  a  financial  cost  recovery  rate  of  over  90%.  The  OECD44  has 
reported that for the EU as a whole, users pay about 70 % of the financial cost of providing 
water services (through water tariffs), while the government sector finances the remaining 30 
%. The two reports indicate large differences both across Member States and over the broad 
sectors of households, agriculture and industry.  

In addition, the cost recovery of environmental and resource costs appears less successful.  A 
recent European Court of Auditors report45 points to the challenges related to pollution costs. 
In  particular,  it  notes  that  is  difficult  to  recover  the  cost  increases  of  water  services  due  to 
pollution originating from diffuse sources. A wider and better application of the polluter-pays 
principle  would  provide  more  incentives  to  polluters  to  abate  and  avoid  pollution,  also 
through their own environmental investments. Judging from the large number of water bodies 
not  in  good  quantitative  status46,  the  potential  for  water  prices  to  better  reflect  the  actual 
scarcity of water does not seem fully appreciated; there is also need for sustained investments 
in water use efficiency. These efforts on incentives and efficiency contribute to determining 
the  amount  of  capital  investments  needed  for  efficient  sustainable  management  of 
increasingly scarce water resources.  

6.  Conclusions 

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  of  water  bodies.  This  is  an  encouraging  improvement  that  will  allow  for  better 
identification  and  prioritisation  of  the  measures.  Significant  progress  on  implementing 
measures  could  be  identified  particularly  in  relation  to  tackling  pollution  as  well  as 
abstraction and water efficiency. It is positive to note that Member States are taking action to 
reduce the gap. It is clear, however, that the distance to be covered to full compliance with 
the  Water  Framework  Directive’s  objectives  is  still  considerable.  In  this  context  several 
obstacles are reported as keeping Member States from implementing their measures at speed, 
chiefly a lack of adequate finance.  

With  the  present  and  future  impacts  of  climate  change,  the  challenge  of  water  quantity 
management is becoming ever more urgent across Europe, affecting the achievement of the 
objectives of the water legislation. With the Floods Directive, the EU has a legal framework 
that  is  fit  for  purpose.  Reducing  flood  risk  where  and  when  it  matters  most  is,  however,  a 
matter  of  scrupulous  and  consistent  implementation  that  requires  sustained  attention  over  a 
long period and cooperation across borders. The dramatic events of summer 2021 in Europe 
show that much remains to be done to reduce flood risk effectively. 

Dealing with too little water is a matter of similar urgency. Unsustainable patterns of water 
use  across  Europe  are  compounded  by  climate  change,  generating  higher  levels  of 
evaporation  and  longer  periods  of  extreme  droughts  which  add  to  already  existing  water 

44 OECD, Financing Water Supply, Sanitation and Flood Protection, 2020 
45 ECA’s Special Report 12/2021, “The Polluter Pays Principle: Inconsistent application across EU 
environmental policies and actions”, July 2021. 
46 5th Implementation Report Water Framework Directive and Floods Directive, COM (2019) 95 final 

16 

 
                                                   
scarcity in increasingly large parts of Europe. A multifaceted water resilience agenda has to 
be  part  of  the  response,  in  the  context  of  global  climate,  health,  biodiversity  and  pollution 
challenges. 

Through  the  European  Green  Deal  a  water  resilience  agenda  has  started  to  emerge,  with 
attention to water efficiency in various legislative reviews and in horizontal strategies such as 
the  Circular  Economy  Action  Plan  and  EU  Climate  Adaptation  Strategy.  There  is  also 
progress on this issue at sectoral level, for instance in agriculture, energy and transport; it is 
vital that this is strengthened further. 

Water pricing is a powerful tool to improve water efficiency contributing to a more effective 
and sustainable water demand management. It requires a careful design in order to do justice 
to local conditions and social concerns (such as vulnerable household’s access to affordable, 
high-quality  drinking  water,  as  promoted  by  the  revised  Drinking  Water  Directive).  It  also 
works  best  when  aligned  with  policy  measures  on  pollution  abatement  and  support  to 
innovation and investments in water efficiency. 

Investments  in  water  are  win-win  solutions  –  benefitting  water  and  biodiversity/nature  at 
large,  while  providing  a  stimulus  for  recovery  and  creating  jobs.  The  resources  put  at  the 
disposal  of  Member  States  through  INVEST  EU  and  the  multi-annual  financial  framework 
should therefore be used to their full potential. Supported by the Taxonomy Regulation47 for 
sustainable investments, they can be catalysts for systemic transformation and help mobilise 
efforts from  national  and private  sources. Horizon Europe provides additional  opportunities 
to invest in EU water research and innovation and better link implementation to society and 
citizens' needs.48 

Europe has arrived at a turning point in water management, with the crucial next river basin 
management plans and flood risk management plans due in spring 2022. There is not much 
time  left  to  2027,  when  most  possibilities  for  exemption  from  the  obligations  of  the  Water 
Framework Directive run out, and water bodies have to be in good status.   

With still a majority of EU water bodies not in good status, a further acceleration of action by 
Member States is urgently needed. When taking the necessary measures, the European Green 
Deal is a unique opportunity that should be seized by Member States and stakeholder alike to 
secure a water-resilient future.  

47 Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the 
establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, OJ L 198, 22.6.2020, p. 13 
48 Including a new generation of objective-driven and more ambitious partnerships (European Partnership Water 
security for the planet (Water4All); Partnership for a climate neutral, sustainable and productive Blue Economy 
(SBEP)), and R&I Missions, (“Oceans and waters”, “Adaptation to Climate Change” and “Healthy Soils”). 

17