COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Third River Basin Management Plans Second Flood Hazard and Risk Maps and Second Flood Risk Management Plans Member State: Austria 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) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Third River Basin Management Plans Second Flood Risk Management Plans
Date: 2025-02-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Austria, adaptation to climate change, application of EU law, environmental risk prevention, flood, risk management, water, water management, water pollution, watercourse

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 4.2.2025  SWD(2025) 14 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Third River Basin Management Plans       Second Flood Hazard and Risk Maps and Second Flood Risk Management Plans    Member State: Austria          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) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)    Third River Basin Management Plans  Second Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2025) 2 final} - {SWD(2025) 13 final} - {SWD(2025) 15 final} - {SWD(2025) 16 final} - {SWD(2025) 17 final} - {SWD(2025) 18 final} - {SWD(2025) 19 final} - {SWD(2025) 20 final} - {SWD(2025) 21 final} - {SWD(2025) 22 final} - {SWD(2025) 23 final} - {SWD(2025) 24 final} - {SWD(2025) 25 final} - {SWD(2025) 26 final} - {SWD(2025) 27 final} - {SWD(2025) 28 final} - {SWD(2025) 29 final} - {SWD(2025) 30 final} - {SWD(2025) 31 final} - {SWD(2025) 32 final} - {SWD(2025) 33 final} - {SWD(2025) 34 final} - {SWD(2025) 35 final}  
 
 
y
n
a
r
V
n
a
p
e
t
S

|

m
o
c
s
l

.

e
x
e
P
©

Country specific staff working document 

Austria 

ENVIRONMENT 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Content 

Content ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 

SECTION A: WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE .......................................................................................................................... 3 

1. General info, member state characterisation ............................................................................................................. 4 

2. Horizontal aspects ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7 

2.1 Governance ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7 

2.2 Characterization of River Basin District ................................................................................................................. 7 

3. Policy elements contributing to biodiversity and climate change adaptation ......................................... 8 

3.1 Surface Water: what is their ecological status or potential ....................................................................... 8 

3.2 Hydromorphological changes and artificialization (HMWBs and AWBs) .......................................... 11 

3.3 Groundwater bodies - have they sufficient water – quantitative status ......................................... 12 

3.4 Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) ........................................... 13 

3.5 What is being done to prevent/reduce hydromorphological pressures ............................................ 14 

3.6 What Austria is doing for abstractions and water scarcity ..................................................................... 15 

3.7 Adaptation to climate change .................................................................................................................................. 19 

4. Policy elements contributing to zero pollution ........................................................................................................ 20 

4.1 Surface Water: what is their chemical status ................................................................................................. 20 

4.2 Groundwater Bodies: what is their chemical status .................................................................................... 22 

4.3 What Austria is doing to combat pollution from agriculture .................................................................. 23 

4.4 What Austria is doing to combat pollution from other sectors............................................................. 26 

4.5  What  Austria  is  doing  to  combat  significant  pressures  –  overall  assessment  of  the 
Programmes of Measures .................................................................................................................................................. 27 

5. Exemptions and economics ............................................................................................................................................... 27 

5.1 To what extent are exemptions applied in Austria ....................................................................................... 27 

5.2 Use of economic analysis and water pricing – cost recovery ................................................................ 28 

6. WFD recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................ 29 

SECTION B: FLOODS DIRECTIVE .................................................................................................................................................. 33 

7. Flood risk management under floods directive (FD) ............................................................................................ 34 

7.1 Flood hazard and risk maps ...................................................................................................................................... 34 

7.2 Flood risk management plans .................................................................................................................................. 35 

8. FD recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................ 38 

2 

 
 
 
SECTION A: 
WATER FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE 

3 

 
 
 
1. General info, member state characterisation

Austria is as a landlocked country situated largely 500 m above sea level. Austria (9 million) has a 
population  density  of  108  per  km2,  almost  exactly  EU  average.  Austria  benefits  from  abundant 
freshwater due to the Alps. Contrary to floods, water scarcity has so far been less of a problem, but 
this could change due to global warming and demographic pressures. Most of Austria is drained via 
the Danube to the Black Sea, only small areas via the Rhine (2,366 km²) or Elbe (918 km²) to the 
North Sea.

Reporting 

The deadline for reporting the 3rd RBMPs was in March 2022. The Commission and the EEA together 
with Member States developed an electronic reporting system in WISE (Water Information System 
for  Europe).  Its  use  was  voluntary.  Some  Member  States  used  it  to  fulfil  their  obligations,  others 
reported the plans in pdf format. The cut-off date for the WISE e-reporting was September 2023 and 
the MS were assessed based on the datasets available by this date.  

By September 2023 Austria submitted full electronic reporting and therefore the assessment is based 
on this dataset. 

Despite the cut off dates for the production of this report, reporting continued and, for the State of 
Water report, the EEA aggregated the results available by July  2024 in their products and dashboards 
available at WISE Freshwater web portal. 

4 

 
 
Changes in Status, Pressures, Exemptions & Measures 

Surface 
Water 
Bodies  

Trend (% good 
status/potential) 

Main Pressures & Changes & Exemptions 

ECOLOGICAL 
STATUS 

CHEMICAL 
STATUS 

The ecological status of surface water bodies slightly improved since the 2nd RBMP. Main pressures are impoundments for hydropower and 
flood protection. In the 3rd RBMP, Austria increased the designation of heavily modified river bodies from 627 to 880 (+ 40%), thereby 
lowering their WFD objective from good ecological "status" to a good ecological "potential", only. Austria has mapped measures to reduce 
hydromorphological pressures from impoundments. Austria aims at increasing hydropower by 5 TWh until 2030 which may further increase 
pressures on rivers. Austria invoked Article 4(4) WFD as regards 4044 SWBs (49.4 % - a decrease from 53 % in the 2nd RBMPs) and Article 
4(5) for 1817 SWB (an increase from 1718 SWB in the 2nd RBMPs). Austria also invoked Article 4(7) for 28 SWB in the 3rd RBMPs, increasing 
from 11 SWB in the 2nd RBMPs. 

The 100% failure to achieve a good chemical status is due to 2 uPBTs, mercury and brominated diphenyl ethers. Austria reported that these 
two substances result from atmospheric pollution. If excluded from the assessment, 98.4% of Austria’s SWBs could be in good status and the 
trend would be slightly positive compared to the 2nd RBMP. For chemical status 8077 SWBS (98.8 %) have been exempted in the 3rd RBMP 
due to their ubiquitous nature (a slight decrease from 100 % in the 2nd RBMP). Austria has not mapped measures to reduce pressures from 
mercury and brominated diphenyl ethers.  

5 

 
 
 
 
Ground 
Water 
Bodies  

Trend (% good 
status/potential) 

Main Pressures & Changes & Exemptions 

QUANTITATIVE 
STATUS 

CHEMICAL 
STATUS 

Like in the 2nd RBMP, all GWBs in Austria achieved a good quantitative status in the 3rd RBMP. However, the 3rd RBMP also reports 3% of 
GWBs at risk of failing good quantitative status by 2027 due to abstractions. 4 GWBs are flagged at risk for failing good status in the 
coming years. A report commissioned by Austria’s government suggests that farmland irrigation may increase by up to 80% until 2050 in a 
worst-case scenario. Austria has been taking action since the 2nd RBMP to reduce pressures on some of these ground water bodies and the 
programme of measures has mapped key types of measures (KTMs) for all but one GWB under pressure.  

In the 3rd RBMP, 5 GWB (3.5%) failed good chemical status which is due to diffuse pollution from agriculture. This is a deterioration 
compared to the 2nd RBMP when only 2.9% failed good chemical status. Contrary to surface water bodies, where nutrient pollution has 
decreased since the 2nd RBMP, the chemical status of groundwater bodies seem to be deteriorating due to nitrates (from fertilisers) and 
dimethachlor (a herbicide). Austria indeed reports that pollution from nitrates, ammonium and arsenic are increasing and that 22 GWB 
(15%) are at risk of failing good status until 2027. The use of pesticides in Austria’s agricultural sector – still comparatively low on EU 
average due to a high percentage of organic farming- is on the rise according to Eurostat data.  
For the 5 GWBs failing to achieve a good chemical status in the 3rd RBMP, Austria has invoked the exemption of Article 4(4) WFD. 

6 

 
 
 
 
2. Horizontal aspects 

2.1 Governance 

According to Austria’s federal system, the competence to conduct environmental impact assessments 
in regards of exemptions from the WFD lies with regional governments of Austria’s “Länder”.  

The consultation process for the Austrian National  RBMP has a high level  of transparency, as the 
central  public  consultation  portal  includes  written  responses  to  submitted  comments  during  the 
consultation process and this portal allows stakeholders to see  all comments and suggestions for 
change.  

2.2 Characterization of River Basin District 

Austria participates to three River Basin Districts which are transboundary: Danube, Rhine and Elbe. 
The Rhine, Elbe and the Danube are all governed by international River Basin Commissions. Each of 
these  elaborates  an  International  River  Basin  Management  Plan  showing  the  coordination  on 
monitoring, status assessment, significant water management issues etc.  

Table 1: Overview of Austria‘s River Basin Districts (RBDs) Source: 3rd RBMPs electronic reporting 

RBD 

Name 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Number of 
water bodies 

Number of water 
bodies 

GWB 

AT1000 

Danube 

7 769 

55 

134 

AT2000 

Rhine 

AT5000 

Elbe 

246 

101 

5 

2 

7 

1 

Total 

8 116 

62 

142 

Austria’s 3 River Basin Districts count 8188 surface water bodies. The number of groundwater bodies 
in Austria increased from 138 (2nd RBMP) to 142 (3rd RBMP), but the total groundwater body area 
did not change. 
Austria is a party to the Danube commission and holds an observer status at the Rhine and Elbe 
commissions. As a result, the three international river basins on Austrian territory all have some form 
of transboundary cooperation.  

Significant pressures on Austria’s surface water bodies are due to the energy sector, more specifically 
hydropower.  In  2020,  hydropower  made  up  36.5%  of  Austria’s  share  in  gross  final  energy 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
consumption1 and about 56%2 of electricity is produced with hydropower. Not surprisingly, Austria’s 
river basin districts are therefore characterised by significant hydromorphological alterations due to 
dams and straightening of rivers.  

Austria has gradually reduced chemical pressures on surface water bodies with the exception of two 
ubiquitous substances (brominated ethers and mercury), which fail all surface water bodies in Austria. 
99% of Austria’s surface water bodies would achieve good chemical status in 2021 absent these 
uPBTs. The pressure of agriculture is in Austria mainly present in the most intensively used regions. 
The main pressures on groundwater bodies in Austria come from the agricultural sector. Austria has 
the highest share of agricultural land under organic farming in the EU.3 Nevertheless, nitrates from 
agriculture are the most important impact on the quality of groundwater.  

Invasive  Alien  Species:  According  to  Austria’s  Biodiversity  Strategy,  28  of  66  invasive  species  of 
European  Union  concern  exist  in  Austria.  The  3rd  RBMP  mentions  that  five  lakes  are  in  particular 
affected  by  invasive  fish  released  by  hobby  anglers  release.  Also,  the  North  American  crayfish 
represents a challenge for biodiversity and a good ecological status of surface water bodies. Released 
during the 1970s in Austria and other EU Member States, the crayfish has been spreading also to 
neighbouring  countries.  Austria’s  Naturschutzbund  qualified  the  North  American  signal  crayfish 
(Pacifastacus leniusculus) as invasive alien species “of the Year” in 2022.4 North American crayfish 
are resistant to and carry the crayfish plague (aphanomyces astaci) which kills local crayfish astacus 
astacus. Signal crayfish have been introduced in Austria already during the 1970s. To reduce this 
pressure on the good ecological status of surface water bodies, Austria should adopt measures to 
reduce invasive crayfish populations, such as releasing predator fish that feast on invasive crayfish 
as well as dragonfly larvae, which successfully destroy juvenile crayfish. Other methods include the 
sterilization of males or emptying fish ponds to allow them to freeze during winters. 

3. Policy elements contributing to biodiversity and 

climate change adaptation 

3.1 Surface Water: what is their ecological status or potential 

Monitoring 

Austria’s surveillance and operational monitoring5 for surface water bodies has sufficient density to 
provide status reports for almost all surface water bodies. The surveillance monitoring network for 
rivers comprises a total of 100 monitoring sites in all three RBDs, which are the Danube, Rhine and 
Elbe. To record long-term trends of priority substances, additional six surveillance monitoring sites 
are established to monitor accumulation in sediments and/or biota (fish). In rivers, a total of 355 
operational monitoring sites are investigated in the period 2015-2021. 6685 RWBs (82%) and 43 

1 See the 2022 European Semester Report on Austria.  
2 Statista 2023, Energy Sources 2022.  
3 Regarding the share of the utilised agricultural area under organic farming, compared to the EU average of 9.1%, in 2020 
it reached more than 25% in Austria, and was above 20% in Estonia and Sweden. See EU Commission, Agricultural Economic 
Briefs (europa.eu), January 2023, page 5.  
4 Alien des Jahres 2023: Signalkrebs (neobiota-austria.at).  
5 There are two types of monitoring: i) operational monitoring to determine the status and which covers all water bodies 
at risk and ii) surveillance monitoring aimed rather at identifying impacts and long-term changes. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
LWBs (69%) are monitored for at least one quality element. Only 1.5 % are still reported as unknown. 
Austria  also  classified  more  SWBs  for  ecological  status/potential  with  high  confidence  in  the  3rd 
RBMP, namely 18 % up from 15 % in the 2nd RBMP.  

However, the ecological status for a significant part of Austria’s SWBs is still being assessed without 
including hydromorphological quality elements (‘hymo’). This could imply, for instance, that Austria is 
not  assessing  whether  the  construction  of  new  boat  jetties  on  lakes  has  repercussions  on  the 
ecological  status.  Also,  almost  no  river  basin  specific  pollutants  are  measured  in  Austria’s  rivers. 
Austria’s  three  river  basin  specific  pollutants  are  EDTA,  Zinc  and  Ammonia.  Regrettably,  Austria  is 
monitoring these pollutants in no more than 1.3% of all river bodies. Regarding these River Basin 
Specific Pollutants, Austria uses grouping for the assessment. Austria has estimated through impact 
assessments that EDTA is everywhere. To the contrary, it is very positive that 100% of Austria’s rivers 
and lakes are monitored for physico-chemical substances. This is important as nutrients represent a 
big pressure.   

Gap to Target 

Austria’s monitoring results suggest that the ecological status/ecological potential of its 8188 surface 
water  bodies  steadily  improved  since  the  1st  RBMP  from  42%  good  status  (2008)  to  46%  good 
status (2015) and 49.3% good status (2021). However, still the majority of SWB fail to achieve the 
objective in 2021. This failure is particularly acute in the Danube where most river water bodies are 
located (94.5 %), much fewer of them in the Rhine RBD (4.6 %) and the Elbe RBDs (0.9 %).  

Figure 1 Ecological status / potential of SWB in 1st, 2nd and 3rd RBMPs 

Source: WISE electronic reports 

9 

 
 
 
 
Pressures 

The most significant pressure on the ecological status of surface water bodies comes from structural 
alterations.6 Almost 875 kilometres of Austria's rivers and almost all larger rivers in Austria (Enns, 
Mur,  Inn  and  Drau)  are  said  to  be  affected  by  hydropeaking,  that  is  the  sudden  release  of  large 
volumes of water from reservoirs to generate hydroelectric power production at moments of peak 
demand. Data of the International Danube RBMP from 2021 suggest that most hydropeaking events 
in the Danube RBD are actually caused in tributaries located in Austria (27 of 38 hydropeaks in 2015). 
Since the 2nd RBMP, major hydropeaking events in the Danube increased from 38 to 42.7  

Austria’s rivers also suffer from transversal structures (such as dams and weirs) intended for flood 
protection, hydropower, agriculture, water supply, navigation and other hydro-engineering purposes. 
Out of the 975 water bodies in the Danube RBD, 357 are affected by significant interruptions for fish 
migration, out of which only 93 are passable for fish. Consequently, 264 water bodies in the Danube 
RBD, this is 27% of the total number of Danube RBD, are significantly altered by interruption of river 
continuity  and  are  un-passable  for  fish.  On  the  Danube  River,  only  35  out  of  81  significant 
interruptions are passable for fish in 2021.  

According to the International River Basin Management Plan for the Danube of 2021, Austria causes 
the largest number of interruptions for the migration of fish in the Danube. Progress has, however, 
been made as today 6 out of 10 migration barriers in the Austrian chain of hydropower dams on the 
Danube have been equipped with fish migration aid so far. However, the remaining interruptions due 
to hydropower dams hamper river continuity.8 

Figure 2 Number of interruptions to fish migration in the Danube and its tributaries  

6 Water abstraction is a significant pressure for 6,4 %, 17,6 % and 2,3 % of surface water bodies in the Danube, Rhine, and 
Elbe RBDs, respectively. 
7 While there is no update on the break down according to countries for 2021, there are no indications either that the 
relative break down of such events between Austria and other riparian countries has changed. 
8 See section 2.1.6.2.1 Interruptions of River Continuity for Fish Migration of the International Danube RBMP 2021. 

10 

 
 
 
Source: International Danube RBMP 2021, page 99 

The Commission is receiving complaints claiming that some of the last remaining spawning grounds 
of the declining Danube salmon (Hucho hucho), a species protected under the EU Habitats Directive, 
are threatened by existing and new impoundments for hydropower in Austria. 

Diffuse pollution from agriculture is another important ecological pressure on Austria’s surface water 
bodies. Nutrients (nitrates) are after mercury the second most important pollutant of surface water 
bodies  (13.4%  of  SWB)  –  see  below  section  4.3.  Some  of  Austria’s  lakes  suffer  from  invasive 
predatory  fish  species  which  were  released  by  hobby  anglers  and  lakes  like  Weissensee  and 
Wörthersee are also under ecological pressure from tourism, for instance due to construction of boat 
jetties.  

3.2 Hydromorphological changes and artificialization (HMWBs and AWBs) 

Austria  designated  10.8 %  of  river  bodies  and  9.7  %  of  lake  bodies in  the 3rd  RBMP  as “heavily 
modified” and 1.1 % of river bodies and 30.6 % of lake bodies as “artificial”. Strikingly, the number 
of heavily modified river bodies has increased since the 2nd RBMP (2015) from 627 to 880 in the 
3rd RBMP, an increase by + 40%. 12.3% of all rivers measured by length (not in numbers of river 
water bodies) are by now heavily modified in Austria. Apparently, the increase of +40% is due to a 
re-classification of river bodies located in urban areas.  

Table 2 Heavily Modified & Artificial Water Bodies in Austria 

Modifications 

Rivers 

Heavily modified 

10.8% 

Artificial 

1.1% 

Lakes 

9.7% 

30.6% 

According to Austria’s 3rd RBMP, 44% of all rivers and lakes in Austria miss good ecological status 
because of morphological changes causing impacts related to sediment deposition, the amount of 
solid particles in circulation and other changes to the hydromorphological characteristics of surface 
water  bodies  such  as  the  dynamics  of  water  flow,  the  connection  of  surface  water  bodies  to 
groundwater bodies, river continuity, river depth, river width and their variation in structure as well 
as the substrate of the riverbed structure of the riparian zone.  

There are more than 28,435 obstacles blocking fish from migrating up and downstream in Austria’s 
rivers and beaks. Austria also has over 5,200 hydropower plants, the majority of which are small and 
very small hydropower plants in beaks and rivers. Not surprisingly, Austria’s 3rd RBMP underlines that 
insufficient flows hamper continuity. More than 80% of obstacles are located in smaller water bodies 
below 100 km2, 11% are due to hydropower dams, 85% are due to flood protections. Due to these 
disruptions, 34.6% of surface water bodies are at risk of failing good ecological status. The majority 

11 

 
 
of obstacles for fish migration are located in small surface water bodies.9  The lack of sufficient flows 
and  longitudinal  continuity  causes  sediment  pollution.  Downstream  to  the  dams,  sediments  are 
clogging the riverbed and destroying fish breeding habitats. 10  

In this context, it is of note that Austria plans to add until 2030 another 5 TWh of hydropower capacity 
to  the grid  as  per  Austria’s  Renewables  Energy Law.  This  seems possible  from  a  purely  technical 
perspective,  the  capacity  could  –  it  seems  –  be  increased  by  8.69  TWh to  10.12  TWh.  Austria, in 
particular, plans to substantially increase pump storage hydropower plants which already account for 
around 34 percent of the total power plant capacity of around 26,200 megawatts (MW) installed in 
Austria. These power plants are important for smoothening the intermittency of renewable electricity 
and for balancing power grids.  

From an environmental perspective, it is important to note that some of these pump storage plants 
can  be  created  by  connecting  existing  lakes.  This  happens,  for  example,  at  the  Limberg  III  and 
Tauernmoos power plants, or the Obervermuntwerk II and the Lünerseewerk II where pump storage 
capacity was added to an existing reservoir lake and ecological impacts remained more limited.11 On 
the other hand there are also projects for building new pump capacity by flooding untouched Alpine 
valleys.  These  projects  have  substantial  impacts  on  terrestrial  and  aquatic  ecosystems  alike  and 
require  scrutiny,  amongst  others,  against  the  cumulative  conditions  of  Article 4 (7)  WFD  which 
requires not only that a public interest is established but also that the beneficial objectives served by 
the alterations of a water body cannot for reasons of technical feasibility or disproportionate cost be 
achieved by other means, which are a significantly better environmental option. Where new dams are 
to be built in arid Alpine valleys, future-proofing of the hydropower project is advisable under the “no 
regrets”  approach  to  climate  adaptation.12  As  all  pump  storage  hydropower  plants  release  large 
volumes of water within short intervals, hydropeaking can destroy spawning grounds of local fish 
habitats (for hydropeaking pressures see above, section 3.1). 

3.3 Groundwater bodies - have they sufficient water – quantitative status 

Monitoring 

The  number  of  monitoring  sites  used  for  quantitative  status  assessment  in  the  2021  cycle  was 
reported as 3 745. This is a decrease of 424 monitoring points (11.3%) compared to the 2nd RBMP 
reported number of locations.13  

Status 

All  groundwater  bodies  monitored  showed  a  good  quantitative  status  in  2021.  Four  groundwater 
bodies are, however, under pressure and risk losing good quantitative status by 2027 because of 
abstractions: 

9 See Austria’s Gewässerbewirtschaftsplan 2021 on page 50. Insgesamt 1431 Restwasserstrecken wurden aufgrund 
unzureichender Dotation ebenfalls als nicht fischpassierbar bewertet. Ca. 80% aller Wanderhindernisse befinden sich in 
Gewässern < 100 km². 
10 Pages 52 and 53 of Austria’s 3rd RBMP contain a detailed analysis of the problem, but the programme of measures 
lacks specific actions to address the pressures which are identified in detail.  
11 Kraftwerk Tauernmoos - ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG (oebb.at). 
12 It is of note that one larger project in Kaunertal of Tyrol would be built in a valley that is known for its aridity, and 
hence represents a particular maladaptation risk.  
13 Because numbers of the 2nd RBMP (2016) reporting and the 3rd RBMP (2021) reporting are not comparable. In practice, 
according to Austria, monitoring stations for groundwater had not decreased. 

12 

 
 
•  2 deep GWBs in Styria “GK100168 TGWK Steirisches and Pannonian Basin” and “GK100169 

TGWK East Styrian Basin” 

•  1 shallow GWB in Carinthia, „GK100064 Krappfeld“  
•  1 shallow GWB in Burgenland „GK100135 Seewinkel“  

Pressures on deep groundwater bodies are of particular concern because the speed of groundwater 
recharge in deep groundwater bodies is very low, deep ground water can be hundred years old. It is 
therefore all the more regrettable that there is still no balance between groundwater recharge rates 
and water abstractions from these deep groundwater bodies. 

A report of Austria’s Court of Auditors moreover suggests that groundwater bodies in Lower Austria 
are coming under significant pressure from irrigation, and that there are insufficient controls of water 
abstractions in the region.14 

3.4 Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 

29.2% of Austria terrestrial territory is designated as protected areas, slightly above the EU value of 
26.4% and close to the EU Biodiversity Strategy  of 30% protected area coverage. 

Protected surface water areas have been identified for all relevant Directives (Habitats, Birds and 
Bathing). For groundwater, protected areas have been identified in relation to Article 7 - for drinking 
water - and for the Habitats and Birds Directives areas dependent on groundwater.  Austria has not 
reported specific Nitrates Vulnerable Zones pursuant to the Nitrates Directives as a whole territory 
approach  was  applied.  No  protected  area  for  economically  important  aquatic  species  has  been 
designated. 

There  has  been  little  change  in  ecological  and  chemical  status  of  water  bodies  associated  with 
protected areas since the 2nd RBMPs.  

There  are,  however,  concerns  as  regards  the  ecological  status  of  lake  Neusiedl,  a  Pannonian  salt 
steppe lake famous for its birds’ habitat in the region of Burgenland,15 and among the most important 
Natura 2000 sites in Austria. To prevent floods, the region of Burgenland has in the past connected 
lake Neusiedl to the Danube downstream through a canal, draining waters form the lake in Winter 
and Spring. More recently, the region of Burgenland also launched plans for a second canal to pump 
water  upstream  from  the  Danube  into  the  lake  during  dry  months  in  Summer.16  This  raises 
environmental concerns for the ecological status of the lake as well as for the Natura 2000 protected 
area which the like nurtures. The infiltration of waters from the Danube could upset the balance of 
the  saline  steppe  lake  and  jeopardise  the  viability  of  ecosystems  linked  to  the  lake,  potentially 
reducing the lake's salinity and affecting turbidity, thereby causing eutrophication, unless the water 
from the Danube is treated before being introduced into lake Neusiedl. 

It is noteworthy that these plans to abstract waters from the Danube would add to pressures on the 
Danube due to plans of neighbouring region Lower Austria for expanding irrigation of arable land 
(see below section 3.6). Such measures could exacerbate existing pressures on the ecological status 

14 https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home/2024_1_Wasserwirtschaft_Niederoesterreich.pdf. 
15 By decree of Burgenland dated  19.1.2023, 
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Ergebnis.wxe?Abfrage=Lgbl&Lgblnummer=25/2013&Bundesland=Burgenland&BundeslandDefau
lt=Burgenland&FassungVom=&SkipToDocumentPage=True.  
16 See at Die Presse 2023. As outlined in Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, the projected artificial injection of Danube 
water into Lake Neusiedl would require an appropriate assessment in view of the sites’ conservation objectives. If, in spite 
of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, the projected 
injection of Danube waters would nevertheless need to be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, 
Austria shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is 
protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted. 

13 

 
 
of  the  Danube  and  may  have  compound  impacts.  A  joint  transboundary  assessment  of  all  these 
infrastructure measures together is advisable. Austria should cooperate with neighbouring countries 
to map all planned abstractions form the Danube in the next integrated river basin management plan 
of the Danube. The measures may qualify as “a new modification” to “the physical characteristics of 
a  surface  water  body”  within  the  meaning  of  Article  4  (7)  WFD  and  consequently  require 
environmental impact assessments. 

3.5 What is being done to prevent/reduce hydromorphological pressures 

a. Legally binding standard for e-flows not always implemented 

It is welcomed that Austria has set a standard for e-flows that is legally binding for all regions in 
Austria. The relevant decree17 is in force since 30 March 2010 and sets values for the biological, 
hydromorphological and general physical-chemical quality components for the ecological status of 
all  surface  waters.  However,  despite this  decree,  and  according  to  Austria’s  3rd  RBMP,  river  flows 
remain  often  insufficient  to  prevent  sediment  deposition  that  destroy  habitats.18  Austria’s  water 
management  authorities  usually  define  ecological  flows  for  river  stretch  between  hydropower 
impoundments and the re-injection of water (“Restwasservorschreibung”). However, as Austria’s court 
of  auditors  underlined  in  its  2024  report  on  water  management  in  Niederösterreich,  this  legally 
binding standard is apparently not yet implemented in older water permits.19  

b. Measures to reduce impacts of hydropeaking and improve river continuity 

Austria has in the past mapped measures to reduce the impact of hydropeaking along the tributaries 
of  the  Danube.  Not  many  of  these  projects  have,  however,  been  fully  implemented  so  far,  as 
hydropeaking maps of ICPRD20 would suggest. Maps published by the ICPRD  suggest that a large 
number of projects that are deemed “very important” for longitudinal river continuity on the Danube 
remain to be implemented in Austria’s part of this international river basin.21 28,435 obstacles are 
blocking fish migration in Austria’s rivers and beaks, and sediment deposition harms their spawning 
grounds.  

c. Stretches of rivers with high ecological value identified, but not legally binding 

Austria’s Umweltbundesamt identified stretches of rivers that are particularly worth protecting from 
an ecological viewpoint.22 This assessment on stretches of rivers that deserve protection due to their 
particularly high ecologic value is of relevance for defining duly justified and specific circumstances 
restricting the application of Article 16f Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of 18 October 2023 (RED III). The 
same report also finds that a significant part of additional hydropower potential could be realised by 
retrofitting existing hydropower plants, that is up to 4.73 TWh and almost as much as the 5 TWh of 
additional  hydropower  which  Austria  plans  to  add  by  2030  under  its  Renewables  Energy  Law. 
Regrettably, however, these guidelines appear to be non-binding for Austria’s Länder, as are the ICPRD 
Guidelines on sustainable expansion of hydropower23. It therefore remains to be seen whether and 

17 Verordnung über die Festlegung des ökologischen Zustandes für Oberflächengewässer (Qualitätszielverordnung 
Ökologie Oberflächengewässer), BGBl. II Nr. 99/2010, in the version of BGBl. Nr. 185/1993 zuletzt geändert durch BGBl. I 
Nr. 114/2020. 
18 See section 3.3. a) above.  
19 https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home/2024_1_Wasserwirtschaft_Niederoesterreich.pdf, section 27.1. 
20 The map dates from 2021 and is available for download here. 
21 The map date from 2021 and is available for download here.  
22 Szenarien für realisierbare erneuerbare Stromerzeugung im Jahr 2030 und 2040, Begleitdokument zum integrierten 
Netzinfrastrukturplan, 2023, Bundesumweltamt.  
23 Die „Leitlinien zum nachhaltigen Ausbau der Wasserkraft im Einzugsgebiet der Donau“, available for download here.  

14 

 
 
how far retrofitting of hydropower will take priority above new build to safeguard Austria’s remaining 
stretches of rivers in pristine condition.   

d. A target for “good ecological potential” defined, but not legally binding 

It is welcomed that Austria’s government started to develop practical guidelines for what it means to 
achieve a good ecological potential in river stretches affected by hydropower dams (“Ökoresch24”). 
However, the federal government has so far only issued recommendations, but no binding decree, for 
regional  authorities  to  define  the  threshold  of  a  “good  ecological  potential”.  The  „Leitfaden  zur 
Ableitung  und  Bewertung  des  ökologischen  Potentials  bei  erheblich  veränderten  Wasserkörpern“25 
does not have the legal position of a binding administrative decree. Considering the large number of 
Austria’s  smaller  hydropower  plants,  and  the  heterogeneity  of  local  administrations,  this  is 
regrettable. Similar to the definition of ecological flows, it would be beneficial to define the standard 
for “good ecological potential” in a legally binding way to ensure achievement of WFD objectives.  

e. Funding to reduce pressures has been earmarked 

It is positive that Austria’s Umweltförderungsgesetz earmarked since 2020 ca. EUR 200 million for 
measures to tackle hydromorphological modifications and reduce pressures until 2027, including also 
measures to improve longitudinal continuity (e.g. by establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams) 
and to mitigate sediment alterations. It is not clear how much of this funding has been spent already 
in practice and whether it suffices. To the contrary it is uncertain how far operators of hydropower 
plants  are  already  contributing  themselves  to  cover  expenses  for  achieving  a  good  ecological 
potential by removing sediments, repairing spawning grounds and building fish ladders. Article 9 WFD 
foresees the possibility of making polluters pay. 

f. Transboundary cooperation works generally well 

It is positive that Austria has a long tradition of cooperating with countries along the river Danube 
through the International Commission for the Protection of the River Danube. Austria also cooperates 
closely with Czechia through various Interreg projects to re-naturalise – with EU financial support – 
some stretches of transboundary rivers like Thaya, thereby restore spawning grounds for local fish 
populations.26 Trans-boundary cooperation with riverine countries along the Danube will also be of 
importance if  Austria  proceeds  with plans  to  abstract  water  from  the  Danube,  see  right  below in 
section 3.6. 

3.6 What Austria is doing for abstractions and water scarcity 

As set out previously in section 3.2. all groundwater bodies in Austria still have enough water. That 
said, the 3rd RBMP for the first time flags four GWB at risk.  

a. Measures defined for three of four GWB under pressure  

The  3rd  RBMP  suggests  that  Austria  has  so  far  adopted  measures  for  three  of  four  GWB  under 
pressure.  

As regards two deep groundwater bodies in Styria at risk of failing good quantitative status by 2027, 
i.e.: GK100168 TGWK Steirisches and Pannonian Basin” and “GK100169 TGWK East Styrian Basin”, 

24 https://dafne.at/projekte/okoresch. 
25 https://info.bml.gv.at/dam/jcr:94bddc31-4431-425f-83c0-
748439bae762/20210104%20Leitfaden%20zur%20Bewertung%20des%20guten%20%C3%B6kologischen%20Potentia
ls%20%20gsb.pdf. 
26 https://2014-2020.at-cz.eu/at/ibox/pa-2-umwelt-und-ressourcen/atcz7_dyje-2020-thaya-2020. 

15 

 
 
steps have been taken at the regional level. Austria’s region of Styria passed a regulation in 2017 to 
secure the quality and quantity of its deep groundwater bodies.27 Artesian wells without permits are 
being dismantled. Styria also cooperates with Burgenland to jointly protect the deep groundwater 
bodies they share, a good administrative practice.28 It is also positive that no  more new irrigation 
permits are being issued for these deep groundwater bodies.  

In Carinthia, the good quantitative status of the shallow ground water body „GK100064 Krappfeld“, 
may no longer be achieved in 2027. This deterioration is expected due to the already high degree of 
abstractions for irrigation in agriculture. The 3rd RBMP does not report which measures Carinthia will 
take to remove pressures on GK100064 Krappfeld.  

In Burgenland, the shallow groundwater body „GK100135 Seewinkel“ is also at risk, due to the bad 
status of surface water bodies linked  to this groundwater body.29 In the region around Seewinkel 
agriculture drains significant volumes of groundwater for irrigation. Since the 1990s, irrigation has 
steadily increased. Potentially between 40% and 100% of new water in these shallow groundwater 
body is being abstracted for irrigation.30  

b. Increase of irrigation in reaction to water scarcity 

Since 2018, the region of Lower Austria weighs plans to expand the existing surface area of irrigated 
farmland using water from the Danube (“flächendeckende Wasserversorgung”).  

According to Austria’s Court of Auditors, Lower Austria is among the driest regions of Austria where 
44% of Austrian crop production takes place.31 According to this report, ca. 100.000 hectares are 
already being irrigated in Lower Austria and the regional government plans to expand the surface of 
irrigated land by another 159.400 hectares at the expense of EUR 140 million. To do so, water from 
the Danube would be pumped through pipes of 240 km longitude.32  

27 LGBl. No. 76/2017. 
28 3rd RBMP of Austria, page 270. 
29 See page 261 of Austria’s 3rd RBMP.  
30 According to estimates of WWF, Austria authorises water abstractions of ca. 20 million m3 every year in the region of 
Seewkinkel while only around 16 million m3 groundwater are being reproduced annually. This overabstraction is gradually 
draining the groundwater body. From WWF’s estimates, the irrigation needs of the local agriculture sector appear 
unsustainable, ranging between 10.6 million m3 and 41.4 million m3 annually depending on the weather (WWF, 
Machbarkeitsstudie Wasserbewirtschaftsungsplan, 21.03.2023).   
31 Between November 2022 and March 2023, the Court reviewed challenges for water management in Lower Austria in 
the face of the climate crisis. The audited bodies were the Province of Lower Austria and the Federal Ministry of 
Agriculture, Forestry, Regions and Water Management. 
32 Report of Austria’s Court of Auditors page 68, available here: 
https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home/2024_1_Wasserwirtschaft_Niederoesterreich.pdf.   

16 

 
 
Figure 3: Tentative plans for expanding irrigation of arable land in Lower Austria (07/2018) 

This infrastructure project may qualify as “a new modification” to “the physical characteristics of a 
surface water body” within the meaning of Article 4 (7) WFD. 

From Austria’s 3rd RBMP, it remains unclear how far and whether Austria is exploring alternatives to 
increased abstractions of water from the Danube, including, for instance, the use of economic tools 
(Article 9 WFD)33 to enhance incentives for efficiency; and/or subsidies to change water hungry crops 
to  reduce  the  total  need  for  water  consumption.  Austria  has  also  opted  out  from  the  European 
Regulation on Water Reuse.34  There is clearly scope to ensure Austria’s water resilience more long-
term through better management of soils, more nature-based solutions to better retain water in the 
landscape,  priority  for  less  water-intensive  crops  and  water  reuse  above  investing  in  more  water 
abstractions and increased irrigation..35 

Large  scale  abstractions  of  water  from  the  Danube  may  also  have  serious  repercussions  on  the 
ecological  status  of  the  river  as  well  as  on  terrestrial  and  aquatic  ecosystems  that  depend  on  it, 
including ecosystems in downstream countries.36    

33 Article 9 WFD foresees economic tools which Member States should use to maintain the status of water bodies. Based 
on Austria’s 3rd RBMP reporting, there is still potential to use economic tools for pricing groundwater. The risk of over 
abstraction is higher as long as users perceive groundwater as a resource that is “free to have”. 
34 According to Article 10 of the Water Reuse Regulation, Member States can opt out to reuse wastewater. Austria has 
made of this possibility.  
35 See the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council ”Summary of CAP Strategic Plans for 2023-
2027: joint effort and collective ambition”, page 7 of 23.11.2023, COM(2023) 707 final. 

36 Article 4(8) WFD. 

17 

 
 
 
c. An inadequate system of controls  

There also seem to be problems with the effectiveness of Austria’s controls of water abstractions. 
According to Austria’s Court of Auditors, in case of overexploitation of groundwater resources or acute 
water  shortage,  it  should  always  be  possible  to  modify  existing  water  irrigation  permits.  This, 
however, appears quite difficult for practical reasons (the lack of digitalisation of permit registers) 
and  legal  reasons  -  very  long  duration  of  water  abstractions  permits  for  irrigation  and  the 
“grandfathering”  of  timely  unlimited  abstraction  permits.37  Austria‘s  regions,  it  seems,  do  not 
sufficiently establish reliable water balances prior to granting water abstraction permits and/or do 
not link permits to water availability. 

It is on the other hand positive that Austria operates a comprehensive regime for water abstractions 
and water impoundments as per its Wasserrechtsgesetz of 1958. Regional governors are in theory 
obliged  to maintain  regional  registers (“Wasserbücher”)  of  water  abstraction  permits.  Regrettably, 
though, these registers are in practice  not always complete  and/or not always available in digital 
form  and  therefore  cannot  serve  as  a  factual  basis  for  curbing  legal  rights  under  existing  water 
abstraction permits.  

A  point  of  concern  is  the duration  of  water  abstraction  permits.  Austria’s  water  law  of  1958  still 
foresees in § 21 (1) that permissions to use water bodies shall be granted for the longest possible 
duration38 taking into account the needs of the applicant, economic interests and the state of the 
technological  development.  Abstraction  permits  are  to  be  granted  for  90  years  and  25  years  for 
irrigation.  As  regards  the  25  years  duration,  Austria’s  federal  law  was,  it  seems,  amended  in 
November 2018 to double the maximum duration of irrigation permits from then 10-12 years to 25 
years. There are also still a significant number of old irrigation permits which were at the time granted 
for a timely unlimited period. In some regions these timely unlimited permits account for 11% of all 
permits in force (“grandfathering”).39   

The  fact  that  irrigation  permits  can  be  obtained  up  to  a  quarter  of  a  century  despite  increasing 
pressures on groundwater and that some permits remain timely unlimited may be in tension with 
Austria's requirement to ensure that relevant permits and authorisations are regularly “examined and 
reviewed” (Article 11 (5) WFD). Moreover, Austria’s broadly formulated carve-outs from permitting in 
§§ 10 and 32 Wasserrechtsgesetz may lead to a significant number of water abstractions “under the 
radar”, as they do not appear in permit registers (Wasserbücher) at all, making it more difficult if not 
impossible for water management authorities to establish the total water balance.40 There is certainly 
scope for improving the monitoring of water balances by metering groundwater abstractions more 
comprehensively than is currently the case. 

In  conclusion,  Austria’s  3rd  RBMP  does  not  seem  to  adopt  enough  measures  to  respond  to  the 
concerns raised in Austria’s own “Waterschatz” (see section 3.7 below) climate change analysis for 
groundwater. Austria does in particular not plan reforms to its legal framework for water permitting, 
in particular the long duration of water abstraction permits for irrigation, the significant carveouts 
from permitting, and measures to gradually phase out timely unlimited irrigation permits where they 
still exist. The ack of digitalisation weighs on the administration’s ability to properly review permits 

37 Bericht des Rechnungshofes: Klimakrise - Herausforderungen für die Wasserwirtschaft in Niederösterreich. 

38 “jeweils längste vertretbare Zeitdauer”. 
39 See the report of Austria’s Court of Auditors at 21.1. 
40 § 10 Wasserrechtsgesetz allows owners of real estate to abstract groundwater without a permit as long as volumes of 
groundwater abstracted are in proportion to the size of the real estate. This leaves a wide margin of interpretation when 
groundwater abstractions require a permit at all. The larger an estate, the more freedom the owner has to abstract 
groundwater without a permit.  

18 

 
 
and adapt them as needed. Austria has also, it seems, not mapped measures for reducing abstraction 
pressures on GWB Krappfeld in Carinthia. 

3.7 Adaptation to climate change 

As regards floods, the Floods Directive requires to consider the impacts of climate change on the 
occurrence of floods, and therefore in the preparation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) and 
Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs). More information on the FHRMs and the FRMPs can be found 
in Section B. However, considering the close relationship between overall water management and 
floods management and the importance of climate change on both, the considerations of climate 
change are jointly addressed in this section. 

In Austria, climate change was already considered in the first FHRMs and the second HRMs feature 
no apparent change. Austria, however, updated the study “Climate Change - Adaptation Strategies 
for Austria’s water management” in 2017. The SEA for the FRMP cites this climate change adaptation 
study and provides an overview of key effects of climate change on flood occurrences:  

Firstly, over the last three decades, floods have increased in around one fifth of Austria’s catchment 
areas. Also, a small shift towards winter floods can be observed, and these floods are increasing in 
frequency more than summer floods. Furthermore, although the increase in floods in recent decades 
is  still  within  the  range  of  natural  variability,  there  are  signs  that  climate  change  is  behind  the 
increase. In general, the variability of runoff is increasing. Lastly, regarding the discharge volume in 
the event of a 100-year flood recurrence, varying changes in discharges are to be expected regionally, 
ranging  from  +5  %  to  +8  %.  The  2017  update41  also  concludes  that  an  increase  in  precipitation 
volumes during intensive rainfall events can be  expected42, though the frequency  of such intense 
rainfall events should remain the same for the next few decades.  

Austria has taken no further measures to mitigate the expected effects of climate change on the 
likelihood and potential adverse consequences of flooding. The FRMP stated that no specific ‘factor’ 
regarding climate change and floods needed to be considered when designing measures. The FRMP 
also stated that all measures in the plan were in line with the recommendations made in the Austrian 
Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, and it referred to research reports and forecasts accompanying 
the  strategy.  The  FRMP  states that the  results  of  this  work  were  that  the  uncertainties  regarding 
extreme events were very significant, and much stronger than the expected effects of climate change 
on extreme events. Consequently, the FRMP did not provide any indication on if or how climate change 
might  affect  the  occurrence  of  extreme  events  or change  the  number  of  recurrences.  In  addition, 
there were neither concrete scenarios presented, nor any timeframes mentioned in the FRMP. 

In regards of drought risks and water scarcity, Austria has traditionally been a water rich country, 
although landscape and geological characteristics may cause significant differences in the regional 
or  local  availability  of  fresh  surface  water  and  groundwater,  compared  to  the  country  average.43 
Climatologic and demographic projections, however, suggest that Austria’s ground water resources 
could drop by up to 23% until 2050 in a worst-case scenario.44 Increasing air temperature, longer 
growing seasons, greater evaporation, more frequent heavy rain events in which water runs off the 
surface instead of seeping away, and comparatively less snow are consequences of climate change. 
Therefore, less groundwater will be formed in the future. 

41 SEA, p. 63. 
42 SEA for the FRMP, pp. 65-66. 
43 The average volume of renewable fresh surface water and groundwater is 10,000 m3/capita/year which was above the 
EU average between 2000 and 2021. 
44 See Wasserschatz Österreich, BMLfRW, 2023, page 8.  

19 

 
 
Figure 4 Groundwater Abstractions in a worst-case scenario by 2050  

Public Water Supply (worst case, 2050) 

Irrigation in Agriculture (worst case, 2050) 

Source: Wasserschatz Österreich 

In the worst-case hypothesis, pressures from public water supply and irrigation could significantly 
increase particularly in Eastern regions of Austria, Lower Austria and Burgenland. Farmland irrigation 
is  predicted  to  then  increase  by  up  to  80%  until  205045.  Note  that  90%  of  irrigated  farmland  is 
concentrated in only nine areas of Austria amongst them Marchfed, Seewinkel, Weinviertel, Südliches 
Wiener Becken. 

Austria’s response to climate challenges and water scarcity could therefore be geared towards more 
abstractions  of  waters  from  the  Danube.  Climate  change  adaptation  strategies  should,  however, 
follow  a  “no  regrets”  approach.  Tapping  more  water  from  the  Danube  could  have  long  term 
consequences for ecosystems dependent upon the Danube.   

Austria does not consider a national drought management plan necessary at this stage. In view of 
Austria’s own climate change predictions in Wasserschatz, however, this current orientation seems 
problematic,  and  a  drought  management  plan  advisable  at  least  for  regions  where  groundwater 
resources are under already pressure (Burgenland, Styria, Carinthia, Lower Austria). While not legally 
required,  the  establishment  of  a  specific  drought  management  plan  is  beneficial  to  enhance 
transparency  about  the  magnitude  of  drought  risks  and  measures  that  will  be  taken  in  case  of 
prolonged droughts and water scarcity. Austria’s strategy for the future of agriculture should also 
better consider drought risks and promote practices to change crops in the longer term in regions 
where water becomes scarcer. More sustainable soil management practices through organic farming 
would help reduce pressures, too. Nature-based solutions to restore soils and give them back their 
sponge  function  are  advisable  and  would  also  help  Austria  achieve  its  goals  under  the  Nature 
Restoration Law.  

4. Policy elements contributing to zero pollution 

4.1 Surface Water: what is their chemical status 

Monitoring: In the 3rd RBMP (2021), 98 % of surface water bodies were classified for chemical status 
with medium confidence and 0.8 % with high confidence. This represents an improvement from the 

45 See Wasserschatz Österreich, BMLfRW, 2023, page 15. 

20 

 
 
 
 
2nd  RBMP  (2015)  where  98  %  of  water  bodies  were  classified  for  chemical  status  with  low 
confidence46.  

Gap to target: Austria reported 100% of surface water bodies in a poor chemical status.  

Figure 5: Chemical Status SWB in Austria  

Source: WISE electronic reports 

The poor chemical status of surface waters in Austria is attributed to two specific priority substances: 
mercury  and  its  compound  as  well  as  brominated  diphenylethers.  Both  substances  are  uPBTs, 
ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulable and toxic substances.47  

Other  than  for  these  two  uPBTs,  merely  51  water  bodies,  that  is  less  than  1%,  still  exceed 
environmental quality standards (EQS), that is less than in the 2nd RBMP. Austria has successfully 
reduced pollution from ammonium, nitrate and hexachlorbutadien since 2015. 

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are a group of man-made organobromine compounds. They 
have been used as flame retardants in polyurethane foams in upholstery and in polymer resins and 
plastics used as components in electrical equipment. These contaminants mainly occur in food of 
animal origin, such as fish, meat and milk.  Foods contaminated with polybrominated diphenyl ethers 

46 Confidence ratings are defined in 2nd RBMP reporting from the 2016 as: 
 Low = no monitoring data.  
Medium = limited or insufficiently robust monitoring data for some or all Priority Substances that are discharged in the 
RBD; and 
High = good data for all Priority Substances that are discharged in the RBD.  
47 According to article 8(a) of the EQS Directive, eight priority substances and groups of priority substances are  behaving 
like ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulable and toxic substances. These substances include mercury and PBDE. They are 
generally expected to cause widespread exceedances and their emissions can be challenging to tackle (e.g. due to long-
range atmospheric transport and deposition). In order to show the progress made in tackling other priority substances, 
Member States have the possibility to present the information related to chemical status separately for these substances. 

21 

 
 
 
 
(PBDEs) pose a health risk to all age groups. Experts concluded that PBDEs may have an adverse 
effect on the reproductive and nervous systems. 48 

Mercury (Hg) presents the biggest risk in rivers, lakes and oceans where it takes a highly toxic form 
that is absorbed by animals, including fish. Mercury presents a particular and significant risk to the 
neurological development of foetuses, newborn babies and children. 

The 3rd RBMP of Austria does not map measures to reduce PBDE and mercury in Austria’s surface 
water  bodies.  Already  in  the  2nd  RBMP,  Austria  took  the  view  in  relation  to  mercury  and 
polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs) require action at an international level, only.  

4.2 Groundwater Bodies: what is their chemical status 

Monitoring: 95.7% of the groundwater body area is covered by chemical status monitoring. Austria’s 
the confidence in the status assessment is high, with less than 7 % of water bodies classified with 
medium confidence. The criteria for confidence rating is not reported but is likely to be related to the 
presence  or  absence  of  monitoring  data.  Austria  can  take  credit  for  considering  groundwater 
dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  in  the  chemical  status  assessments  of  ground  water  bodies. 
Namely, a key criterion for assessing the good groundwater chemical status of a GWB is that the 
concentrations  of  pollutants  are  not  at  levels  which  would  result  in  poor  status  of  surface  water 
bodies  which  are  identified  as  groundwater  associated  aquatic  ecosystems  (GWAAEs)  or  lead  to 
significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTE). There were 93 GWBs 
(or groups of groundwater bodies) containing groundwater-dependent habitat types that could be 
identified. 

Gap to target: Compared to 2015 when 4 out of 138 GWB were in poor chemical status, by 2021 5 
out of 142 groundwater bodies were at risk of failing good status until 2027.  

48 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/efsa-opens-consultation-health-risks-associated-polybrominated-diphenyl-ethers-
food.  

22 

 
 
 
Figure 6: Chemical Status GWB in Austria (2021) 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

While this appears to be a small deterioration in relative terms, it happened against the background 
of a high share of organic farming in the country (26%) with Austria being the sole EU Member State 
in 2020 reaching the 25% EU target for organic farming.  

The groundwater pollutants posing risks are nitrates, pesticides, ammonium and sulphate. 

The  deterioration  of  the  chemical  status  of  GWBs  may  suggest  that  Austria’s  programme  of 
measures  for  agricultural  pollution  after  the  2nd  RBMP  needs  a  lot  of  time  to  take  effect  for 
groundwater, or it may imply that Austria’s measures have simply been insufficient. While nitrates 
have  declined  in  rivers  and  lakes,  nitrates  are  still  increasing  in  groundwater.  More  than  13%  of 
Austria’s groundwater bodies remain subject to this pressure. Overall, Austria  expects that by 2027 
the number of GWBs failing good status due to nitrates could double from 5 to 10 GWBs.49  

4.3 What Austria is doing to combat pollution from agriculture 

Austria’s  agriculture  is  characterised  by  small-scale  structures,  often  in  areas  where  farming  is 
difficult. Except for Eastern Austria, the vast majority of farm holdings are located in mountain areas 
and  areas  facing  natural  or  other  specific  constraints  for  farming.  Of  the  total  area,  32%  is 
agricultural land while forests cover 44%. About half of the utilised agricultural area is arable land 
and the other half is mostly permanent grassland.50  

49 See section 2.2.5 Austria’s 3rd RBMP. 

50 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-08/csp-at-a-glance-austria_en_0.pdf  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
Nutrients (nitrates) and pesticides (dimethachlor) remain the most important pollutants of Austria’s 
ground  water  bodies  affecting  16%  of  GWB.  Nitrates  are  also  -  after mercury  -  the  second most 
important pollutant of surface water bodies affecting 13.4% of SWB.  

According to Austria’s 3rd RBMP, almost 10% of all measuring points exceed the threshold of 45 mg/l 
nitrate in groundwater bodies and in around 8% of drinking water areas the limit of 50 mg/l was 
exceeded, too (predominantly in the dry areas of Eastern Austria).  

a. Austria used less pesticides than others but the trend is upwards  

According to Eurostat, Austria used around 1.8 kg of pesticides per ha which is among the lowest 
values in the EU 27. However, data from 2021-22 also suggest that the use of pesticides in Austria 
is increasing. The high % in increased sales must be seen in correlation with the low amount sold 
before 2021. In total, Austria is still buying a low amount of pesticides. The increased use can however 
negatively affect the chemical status of Austria’s surface and groundwater bodies.   

Figure 7: Sales of pesticides in selected EU countries (2021-22)  

b. Austria’s measures to reduce nutrients in surface water bodies  

Austria attributes the improved ecological status of its surface water bodies to lower nutrient loads. 
The  trend  is,  however,  not  entirely  clear.  On  the  one  hand,  pollution  from  nitrates  has  indeed 
decreased slightly compared to the 2nd RBMP. On the other hand, Austria’s 3rd RBMP also warns that 
pressures on groundwater bodies (from ‘diffuse – agricultural’) are such that by 2027 the number of 
GWB failing good status due to nitrates could effectively double from currently 5 to 10 GWB; and the 
number of GWBs at risk of failing good status due to pesticides pollution may increase from 4 to 7 
GWB.51  

51 See section 2.2.5 Austria’s 3rd RBMP.  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In terms of regional concentration, according to Austria’s 3rd RBMP, nitrates pollution of groundwater 
occurs mainly where agriculture is intensive and where there is comparatively less precipitation. In 
these regions (for instance Parntorfer Platte, Marchfeld, Ikvatal etc), nitrogen excess not absorbed by 
agricultural  crops  regularly  contaminates  the  groundwater.52  Data  reported  under  the  Nitrates 
Directive moreover suggest that nitrate concentrations are also high in Upper Austria and in parts of 
Styria.  

Figure 8: Groundwater Bodies polluted with ≥ 50 NO3 mg/l (2021) (in red) 

Source: JRC Nitrates Directive at NUTS Level 2  

Austria’s new Nitrate Action Programme Ordinance applies as from 1 January 2023. The previous 
version already included certain requirements concerning the application of nitrogenous fertilisers in 
agricultural areas and comprises: 

•  Time restrictions on the application of fertiliser (prohibition periods) 
•  Quantitative restrictions (on the use of farmyard manure and upper limits for the quantity of 

fertiliser that may be applied per crop) 

•  Local restrictions (e.g. in the vicinity of waters) 
•  Provisions on the way of application 
•  Requirements on the capacity of manure storage facilities 
•  Farm-related recording obligations in connection with the application of fertilisers 

The amended decree now also foresees the increased consideration of the N content in irrigation 
water, revised upper limits for fertiliser use on vegetable crops and wine; a ban on the application of 
fertiliser  on  arable  land  in  autumn  after  harvesting  (some  exceptions  apply),  the  specification  of 
the storage of farmyard manure on technically impermeable surfaces; a buffer strip at least 3 metres 
wide besides water bodies, cover with living plants all over the year is required. Notably, the new 
ordinance also obliges water authorities to conduct checks on at least 1.5 % of all holdings that are 
subject to recording of N.  

52 See Austria’s 3rd RBMP, page 69.  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  CAP  Strategic  Plan  of  Austria  spends  60%  of  the  country’s  rural  development  budget  on 
environmental  and  climate  objectives,  such  as  area-based  payments  for  environmentally  friendly 
practices beyond those legally required. Austria has one of the highest shares of organic production 
in the EU, but aims to further increase this to 30% of the agricultural land in 2030 with the help of 
CAP support53. In the CAP Strategic Plan it is also planned that over 56% of the agricultural area will 
be covered with commitments to improve water quality between 2023 and 2027.54 

The 3rd RBMP, however, is less clear on Austria’s measures to effectively monitor compliance with 
the Nitrates Directive. Controls of nitrate use in agriculture are currently foreseen only for 1.5% to 
10% of total arable land, the so-called “hot spot” regions, of the Nitrates Directive. 

4.4 What Austria is doing to combat pollution from other sectors 

As regards priority substances, pollution from nickel, nonylphenols and tributyltin compounds were 
identified due to emissions from point sources. In the category of nationally regulated pollutants the 
3rd RBMP mentions ammonium and EDTA.  

The  RBMPs  include  18  national  basic 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.  

It is welcome that in the 3rd RBMP the total number of measures for the control of industrial and 
wastewater pollution has increased. Austria’s programmes of measures mapped measures against 
all pollutants causing failure of objectives in groundwater and surface water.  

Using  state-of-the-art  wastewater  emission  controls  and  upgrading  old  waste-water  treatment 
plants have allowed Austria to reduce pollution from point sources significantly. This is particularly 
evident  regarding  exposure  to  ammonium.  In  the  2nd  RBMP  there  were  still  15  water  bodies 
downstream of sewage treatment plant discharges failing to meet the targets for ammonium. This 
is currently only the case in two water bodies.55  

From 1993 to 2019 in average an annual investment volume of around 740 million euros was spent 
for improving wastewater treatment. These measures focused on the construction of new wastewater 
treatment infrastructures and the adaptation of existing plants older than 40 years. However, the 
funding  guidelines  for  wastewater  have  meanwhile  expired  with  some  final  payouts  still  taking 
place.56  According to  the  3rd  RBMP,  measures  have  already been taken  to  address  the  remaining 
point pollutions from wastewater treatment plants that should show results soon.  

Some  water  bodies  are  apparently  also  polluted  with  PFOS.  PFOS  was  identified  as  a  priority 
substance by Directive 2013/39/EU and was introduced for the first time in the 3rd RBMP. The analysis 

53 Under the CAP Strategic Plan 24% of the utilised agricultural area (UAA) is planned to receive support for organic 
farming (Mapping and Analysis of CAP Strategic Plans. Assessment of joint efforts for 2023-27) 
54 At a glance: Austria’s CAP Strategic Plan (europa.eu) 
55 See Austria’s 3rd RBMP page 180.  
56 See Austria’s 3rd RBMP page 179.  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
suggests that PFOS pollution results often from point sources. However, measurements are still not 
complete, and estimations were used for the 3rd RBMP. As Austria started monitoring PFOS only more 
recently, no key types of measures (KTMs) were mapped yet for point pollution with PFOS.  

In this context, Article 11(3) WFD enumerates the “basic measures”, the minimum requirements the 
programmes  of  measures  shall  comply  with.  Among  these  basic  measures  are  included  (g)  the 
requirements  for  prior  regulation/prior  authorization  for  point  source  discharges  liable  to  cause 
pollution, including controls that shall be also periodically reviewed and, where necessary, updated.  

Austria should continue efforts to reduce chemical pollution from priority (hazardous) substances, for 
which EU wide environmental quality standards – EQS – have been set, already on a good downward 
trend  from  0.89%  (2015)  to  0.62%  (2021).  Austria  should  also  identify  remaining  point  source 
pollutions of PFOS in SWBs and GWBs and address point pollutions with concrete measures. 

Austria’s programmes of measures to reduce mercury is not ambitious enough. The uPBT mercury 
can be reduced at a regional level as emissions from combustion processes matter, too. It should be 
explored  if  the  regional  concentration  of  mercury  is  correlated  to  traffic  and  the  combustion  of 
biomass.  

4.5 What Austria is doing to combat significant pressures – overall 

assessment of the Programmes of Measures 

Gap assessment: The RBMP includes a quantitative and qualitative gap assessment.   

Cost-effectiveness: The RBMP includes a cost-effectiveness analysis, using qualitative, quantitative 
or a combination of both qualitative and quantitative assessments.  In general, the cost-effectiveness 
analysis is based on a solid impact assessment of main pressures/impacts, a thorough assessment 
of  the  effectiveness  of  existing  measures  and  an  identification  of  the  main  shortcomings  (gap 
analysis), and the identification of a longlist and selection of possible additional measures (shortlist) 
based on effectiveness, technical feasibility, support, costs and benefits.  

5. Exemptions and economics 

5.1 To what extent are exemptions applied in Austria 

The 3rd RBMP applies exemptions under Article 4(4), Article 4(5) and Article 4(7) WFD. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9: Type of exemptions for SWB and GWB in Austria 

Article 4(4) exemptions were applied for surface water ecological status/potential to 49.4 % of SWBs 
(4044 SWBs) decreasing from 53 % of SWBs in the 2nd RBMPs. For chemical status 98.8 % (8077 
SWBS) have been exempted in the 3rd RBMP (largely due to ubiquitous substances) down from 100 
% in the 2nd RBMP. Article 4(4) exemptions for groundwater chemical status have been applied to 
five groundwater bodies (3.5 % of GWBs) increasing from zero in the 2nd RBMPs. No exemptions 
were applied to groundwater quantitative status in the 3rd and 2nd RBMPs.  

Article 4(5) exemptions have been applied to 18 surface water bodies (decreasing from 17 in the 
2nd RBMPs). Austria has not applied Article 4 (6) WFD to any water body. Importantly, Article 4(7) 
has been applied in 28 surface water bodies in the 3rd RBMPs increasing from 11 water bodies in 
the 2nd cycle. A critical factor in the success of the implementation of the PoM and reaching set 
objectives is the availability of funding to support the measures required. There is clear information 
on the prioritisation of measures, including those for which funding is already available distinguishing 
between  costs  to  the  public  budget  and  for  private  operators.  In  this  respect,  Austria  fulfilled  a 
Commission recommendation in the 2nd RBMP.  

However, only limited details are provided on justifying Article 4 exemptions. Austria achieved only 
limited progress with justifying the application of Article 4(4), 4(5) and 4(7) as detailed justifications 
are still lacking.  

5.2 Use of economic analysis and water pricing – cost recovery 

Progress regarding improvements in the economic analysis is reported both in WIFO (2021) and in 
the 3rd River Basin Management Plan, but only generally, without specifying what has been improved. 
Nevertheless, the analysis of economic significance of water use sectors is based on the most recent 
datasets (i.e., after 2015). 

As regards requirements under Annex III of the WFD, the 3rd RBP contains: 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
•  Long  term  forecasts  of  water  supply  and  demand,  differentiated  over  source  type:  water 
supply projections could not be found in WIFO or the National Water Management Plan. 

•  Long  term  forecasts  of  water  demand,  differentiated  over  source  type:  some forecasts to 
2030 are provided. In the case of agriculture,  WIFO and the National  Water Management 
Plan include forecasts on the development of the sector, taking into account measures from 
the  CAP  and  the  Rural  Development  Programme;  however,  these  forecasts do not  include 
water  use  projections  to  2030.  Estimates  of  the  future  need  for  irrigation  in  agriculture 
around  2050  were  presented  in  the  BMLRT  study  Austria's  Water  Treasure  (2021)  and 
reported in the National Water Management Plan. For water supply and sanitation, the two 
documents  provide  water  consumption  forecasts  from  2018  to  2030  under  different 
scenarios, based on population growth and water technologies projections  – also with the 
objectives  of  determining  future  investment  needs  in  the  sector.  Other  forecasts  are  not 
provided; forecasts to 2030, however, cannot be considered as long-term. 

•  Volume  estimates  associated  with  the  various  water  services:  WIFO  provides  volumetric 
estimates  of  the  followings  (based  on  2019  data):  total  water  resources  available  in  the 
country each year, volumes abstracted each year, in total and by sector (households, industry 
and commerce as one sector, and agriculture); average consumption per person per day and 
average consumption per household per year. 

•  Cost estimates associated with the various water services, although not differentiated by use 

types / sectors, are included in WIFO and the National Water Management Plan. 

•  Price estimates associated with the various water services, although not differentiated by 

use types / sectors, are included in WIFO and the National Water Management Plan. 

•  Estimates of relevant investment including forecasts of such investment: both WIFO and the 
National Water Management Plan report estimates of investment needs in water supply and 
wastewater collection and treatment to 2030. Estimates of investment needs for other use 
sectors could not be found. 

The economic analysis does not discuss the effects of policy measures and water pricing on water 
use efficiency, neither combined or individually.  

In  Austria,  the  provision  of  water  services  is  ensured  by  public  operators,  which  charge  fees  on 
customers. These fees are divided into ongoing fees (usage fees), recovering operating costs, and 
one-off fees (connection fees – the document does not specify whether such fees are only paid once, 
or rather once per period. Cost recovery rates vary a lot across the country (in line with water and 
sanitation tariffs, which also show large variations at the local level). On average, settlement with 
1 000 to 10 000 inhabitants achieve full financial cost recovery, larger settlements can achieve even 
higher  rates,  whereas  settlements  with  less  than  1  000  inhabitants  generally  remain  (even  well) 
below full financial cost recovery.  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. WFD recommendations 

Recommendations - Austria should: 

1.  Austria should accelerate action and enhance the overall level of ambition for restoring to good ecological 
status (natural water bodies) or good ecological potential (heavily modified water bodies) all rivers and 
lakes. This presupposes that Austria increases resources to:  

a. 

implement Austria’s legally binding guidelines for ecological flows by removing barriers that 
are no longer needed and that should be removed to restore ecological flows in rivers and 
beaks where the speed of flows has become insufficient for a good ecological status; and 
b.  adopt a legally binding standard for the ecological potential of river stretches that are qualified 
as “heavily modified” within the meaning of Article 4 (7) WFD to induce more measures at 
regional and local level; and implement this standard in water permits;  

c.  define the ecological flow in all water permits for hydropower, without exception, and assess 
comprehensively their impact on ecosystems; fund the removal of sediments, the restoration 
of fish spawning grounds and other measures for reducing the impact of hydropeaking on 
habitats bearing in mind the need to safeguard in particular protected species; and 

d.  oblige operators of hydropower plants through conditions in permits to contribute financially 
over the lifetime of the permit to fund the mitigation of adverse impacts on the ecological 
status of the surface water body concerned, including the removal of sediments and the 
restoration of fish spawning grounds and other appropriate measures for reducing as far as 
possible also the impact of hydromorphlogical changes and hydropeaking on habitats, unless 
public funding is earmarked and suffices to cover such expenses in the long term; and  
carefully future-proof new projects for additional impoundments in Alpine valleys bearing in 
mind changing precipitation patterns and the repercussions of glacier melting (“no regrets” 
approach);  
retrofit where technically possible existing hydropower plants to realise as much of the 
additional 5 TWh hydropower capacity needed to reach Austria’s climate neutrality goals as 
opposed to building additional impoundments that would deteriorate the ecological status of 
rivers and beaks concerned; and 

e. 

f. 

g.  monitor and contain more aggressively invasive alien species and in particular adopt measures 

to constrain the spreading of North American crayfish. 

2.  To reach good status objectives for the chemical status of Austria’s surface and groundwater bodies, 

Austria should increase its ambition by: 

a. 

conducting a more comprehensive gap assessment for diffuse pollutant loads from agriculture 
(nutrients, agri-chemicals, sediment, organic matter) across waters in RBDs and link them clearly 
and directly to mitigation measures in the 3rd RBMPs (as per WFD Article 11(3)(h)), to facilitate 
the achievement of WFD objectives; and  

b.  where necessary to meet WFD objectives reduce nitrates beyond measures required under the 
Nitrates Directive and adopting more nutrient related measures funded the Common Agricultural 
Policy;  
identifying and removing remaining point sources of pollution for ubiquitous PBTs such as mercury 
and brominated diphenylethers as well as PFOS 

c. 

30 

 
 
 
 
3.  On the use of economic tools, Austria should apply the polluter pays principle and consider a better 
pricing of water related service according to Article 9 WFD where public funding or other WFD tools 
are not enough to achieve good status or good potential of water bodies; this applies in particular for 
measures to enhance river continuity, to remove sediments and to reduce the impact of hydropeaking 
on river  stretches  affected  by hydropower  plants  where plant operators  should  contribute  to  cover 
related expenses if needed to achieve WFD objectives;  

4.  As regards adaptation to climate change, it is recommended that Austria:  

a.  Explores in more detail repercussions of accelerated glacier melting and reduced snow fall in 
Alpine areas on Austria’s surface and groundwater bodies and in particular how this could 
influence the biological quality elements of surface water bodies and how far it will reduce 
flows in surface water bodies like eth Danube and the groundwater resource; and related to 
this  which  measures  are  needed  as  a  consequence  to  further  decrease  anthropogenic 
pressures when accounting for these climatologic developments?;  

b.  verifies more comprehensively if there is a need to adapt water permits for reducing ongoing 
abstractions of groundwater at least in regions affected by water scarcity (e.g.: in Burgenland, 
Carinthia, Styria, Lower Austria) such that ground water bodies under pressure/at risk do not 
lose their good quantitative status; and 

c.  financially supports additional irrigation projects in rural areas only after establishing a water 
balance; abstains from funding the expansion of the net surface of irrigated arable land in 
regions where additional irrigation projects would put groundwater bodies and/or terrestrial 
or aquatic ecosystems connected to them at risk;   

d.  amends  its  Wasserrechtsgesetz  1958  such  that  water  management  authorities  can more 
easily adapt the volume of water abstractions during the lifetime of the permit, reviews the 
duration of irrigation permits in regions that are at risk of water scarcity and ensures a more 
regular review of abstractions and of the effectiveness of their controls; phases out timely 
unlimited water irrigation permits and makes irrigation permits dependent on the existence 
of  sufficient  water  in  the  sub-basin  concerned  which  in  turn  presupposes  better  (digital) 
metering of abstractions;  

e.  ensures that regional water authorities more regularly verify the compliance of users with 
water  abstraction  permits;  digitises  all  of  Austria’s  registries  of  permits  (“Wasserbücher”); 
regularly update the water balance in each river sub-basin based on reliable data;  

f.  Reviews, and where appropriate, tightens the scope of carve-outs from the requirement of 

water permitting for abstractions in Austria’s Wasserrechtsgesetz; 

g.  adopts measures to reduce abstractions to preserve the good status of groundwater body 

h. 

i. 

Krappfeld in Carinthia which the 3rd RBMP flags as being “at risk”; 
carefully  impact  assesses  plans  to  abstract  more  water  from  the  Danube  in  response  to 
climate change, be it for expanding the net irrigated surface of arable land in Austria (and 
Southern  Czechia)  ,  be  it  for  regulating  the  level  of  lakes  or  building  new  canals;  this 
assessment  should  take  into  account  repercussions  on  ecosystems  downstream  to 
abstraction including in neighbouring countries such as Slovakia, Hungary etc, and coordinate 
such assessments through transboundary river basin management planning (ICPDR); 
adopts  measures  to  reduce  the  sealing  of  soils in  regions where  groundwater  bodies  are 
under pressure due to over abstractions and/or where climate change predictions suggest 
that pressures will increase significantly;  

31 

 
 
 
j. 

k. 

adopts drought management plans in river sub-basins where ground water bodies are at risk 
(Burgenland, Styria) or may soon be at risk due to the evolution of pressures  (e.g.: Lower 
Austria); and  
for  agriculture  explores  climate  adaptation  measures  other  than  the  sole  expansion  of 
irrigation,  in  particular  also  crop  diversification  and  more  sustainable  soil  management 
techniques and reduced sealing of soil to allow for a better retention of rainwater; consider 
better using economic incentives such as volumetric pricing to prevent water waste. 

5.  As regards Austria’s progress with applying the Water Framework Directive, Austria should in the next 
cycle of River Basin Management Planning in particular improve the monitoring of the ecological status 
of lakes and rivers by  

a.  more consistently measuring hydro morphological pressures on lakes and also assess river 
continuity as a hydromorphological quality element for classifying the ecological status and 
potential of all river water bodies, including those that are heavily modified and artificial; and  
b.  better monitoring the river basin specific pollutants in rivers (eg.: EDTA, zinc and ammonia), 
currently measured in only 1.3% of all river bodies, to identify point sources of pollution; and  
improving the monitoring of water abstractions from groundwater and surface water through 
continuous digital metering at the point of abstraction, in particular for irrigation; 

c. 

6.  As regards the use of exemptions, Austria should generally improve the transparency and enhance the 
details of its justifications to apply Article 4 exemptions. Austria is also advised to carefully review the 
environmental impact of large-scale infrastructure projects that abstract waters from transboundary 
rivers or create large new impoundments against the four cumulative conditions of Article 4 (7) WFD. 
In view of the high number of existing impoundments (dams, barriers etc) along Austria’s rivers, and 
their impacts, it is recommended that Austria defines in a binding manner those stretches of rivers 
which should not be further deteriorated by building additional impoundments. When classifying a river 
body as “heavily modified”, Austria should always determine in the permit and thus in a legally binding 
way which good ecological potential this water body must achieve precisely – not in abstract generic 
terms  –  and  permits  for  the  construction  of  new  impoundments  should  request  operators  to  fund 
measures that are needed to achieve the good ecological potential such as fish passes and the removal 
of sediments. 

7.  Regarding transboundary cooperation, it is recommended that Austria involves neighbouring countries 
affected  by  potential  future  large-scale  water  abstractions  from  the  Danube,  such  as  through 
involvement of the International Commission for the River Danube, and the transboundary cooperation 
process leading to the establishment of the Danube’s river basin management plan. 

32 

 
 
 
 
  
 
SECTION B: 
FLOODS DIRECTIVE 

33 

 
 
 
7. Flood risk management under floods directive (FD) 

The Directive requires each Member State (MS) to scan its territory for flood risks, assess the potential 
adverse  consequences  of  future  floods  for  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage  and 
economic  activity,  identify  the  significant  risks,  map  the  flood  extent  and  the  potential  adverse 
consequences, and take measures to reduce the flood risk. These activities are reflected in (a) the 
preliminary  flood  risk  assessments,  or  PFRAs  (including  the  identification  of  areas  of  potential 
significant flood risk, or APSFRs), (b) the preparation of flood hazard and risk maps, or FHRMs, and (c) 
the establishment of flood risk management plans, or FRMPs. The preliminary assessments, mapping 
and planning for flood risk are repeated in six-yearly cycles. 

There are three Units of Management (UoMs) in Austria, which are the same as the Water Framework 
Directive’s  River  Basin  Districts  (RBD).  Fluvial  and  pluvial  floods  are  considered  as  potentially 
significant sources of flooding in Austria. Austria has designated 416 Areas of Potential Significant 
Flood Risk (APSFRs)57. The impacts of climate change on flood risk have been considered in Austria 
at the time of the second preliminary flood risk assessment, mainly in the form of an updated study 
on the consequences of climate change for the Austrian water management sector (originally from 
2011, updated in 2017). The study - and the PFRA document - concludes that both fluvial and pluvial 
floods will  show greater variations in the future, both upwards and downwards (i.e. reduced flood 
peaks) in terms of quantities. 

As regards the consideration of climate change effects in the preparation of flood hazard and risk 
maps, reference is made to section 3.7 on ‘adaptation to climate change’.    

7.1 Flood hazard and risk maps 

Austria is using an open access GIS-portal58 for their FHRMs. FHRMs were prepared at the national 
level  and  covered  two  out  of  three  UoMs,  since  for  the  Elbe,  no  APSFRs  were  identified,  and, 
consequently, no hazard and risk maps have been reported. All APSFRs are covered by the FHRMs. 
Maps for floods with low probability (1/300 years), with medium probability (1/100 years) and with 
high probability (1/30 years) are provided, with legends and explanation of features. Flood extent is 
clearly shown on all maps. Water depth is clearly shown on all maps, with a clear legend. Number of 
inhabitants is clearly shown on all maps, with a clear legend. The type of economic activity potentially 
affected is shown on the flood risk map in terms of land use. IED installations are shown. Potentially 
affected protected areas identified in Annex IV(1)(i), (iii) and (v) to Directive 2000/60/EC are depicted 
but not clearly distinguishing between them (e.g. not distinguishing between drinking water protected 
areas and other protected areas, although Natura 2000 areas and “water preservation” areas are 
highlighted). 

The main change in the contextual information (i.e. the way in which information about the maps is 
conveyed to the public) found in the second FHRMs compared to the first FHRMs is to have in place 
only a single GIS portal instead of several maps for each APSFR. Besides, several aspects have been 
changed since the first FHRMs, e.g., a disclaimer has been added, as well as a tutorial for the general 
public (e.g. to check if their home/work is threatened in a flood event). A minor issue identified in the 
first FHRMs was to add contact information: a general email address is now provided. Furthermore, 
the  technical  language  was  identified  as  an  issue  in  the  assessment  of  the  first  FHRMs;  some 
improvements are visible in the tutorial, but for example the title(s) of the map (the tabs) are possibly 
still difficult to understand for non-experts. 

57 In the first cycle, 391 APSFRs were reported. The 416 APSFRs reported for the second FHRMs correspond with the 
number of APSFRs as identified in the second PFRA. 
58 https://maps.wisa.bml.gv.at/gefahren-und-risikokarten-zweiter-zyklus?g_card=hwrisiko_gefahren_ueff  

34 

 
 
There have been no obvious changes to the methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps since 
the first FHRMs in Austria. Still, besides the move from pdf maps to a GIS portal there have been 
improvements in the accessibility of the maps’ content, e.g. from a fixed scale to a dynamic scale, 
from generalised background layers to single object info, tutorials have been added and information 
is based on buildings not on grids. More importantly, of relevance to pluvial flooding, Austria produced 
an indicative hazard map that shows surface water flows due to heavy rain events. 

In terms of changes in methodologies used to prepare flood risk maps since the first FHRMs, the 
database has been improved in some cases (e.g. the housing registry, and inhabitants exposed). Also, 
bathing  waters  are  not  depicted  as  point  symbols  anymore,  and  National  Parks  and  Natura2000 
areas are now depicted separately (in the first FHRMs, the same colour coding was used). 

7.2 Flood risk management plans 

Objectives and measures 

Austria submitted a single FRMP for the whole country. The FRMP was prepared by the Ministry for 
Agriculture,  Forestry,  Regions  and  Tourism59.  The  FRMP  and  accompanying  documents  can  be 
downloaded online60. 

Austria’s FRMP sets four objectives for flood risk management. The objectives do not refer directly to 
the reduction of adverse consequences of flooding, though they do refer to reducing new and existing 
risks  and  improving  preparedness  and  awareness:  these  elements  should  reduce  adverse 
consequences. Austria’s first  two objectives refer to the reduction of new and  existing flood risks, 
which  include  the  reduction  of  the  likelihood  of  flooding.  The  third  objective  calls  for  improving 
preparedness, and the FRMP explains that this includes operational planning for emergencies. The 
fourth objective calls for strengthening awareness. Neither of the four objectives of the FRMP nor the 
explanations for these objectives refer directly to human health, economic activity, environment or 
cultural heritage. The FRMP and its Programme of Measures (PoM) describe 36 nationally defined 
measure types. For 18 ‘individual’ national measure types, the PoM indicates where measures are 
planned for implementation in Austria’s 416 APSFRs. Austria has reported 3 260 measures to EIONET: 
these  appear  to  include  the  national  measure  types  and  the  measures  planned  in  the  individual 
APSFRs. Austria indicated the priority for all the measures reported to EIONET. The PoM provides a 
prioritisation  of  individual  measure  types  and  the  FRMP  indicates  factors  considered  in  the 
prioritisation. The great majority of measures (2 656 measures or 80 % of the total) are classed as 
high  priority,  while  there  are  436  measures  (13  %)  classed  as  very  high  priority,  and  210  (6  %) 
classed as moderate priority. For measures classed as high priority, 2 498 (94 % of the high-priority 
measures) are for the Danube UoM (AT1000).  

The FRMP provides ranges of costs for some measure types. The FRMP refers to a consideration of 
costs  and  benefits  and  of  cost-effectiveness  as  factors  for  the  establishment  of  priorities  for 
measures,  but  without  going  into  detail.  Qualitative statements  concerning  cost-effectiveness  are 
provided for some measure types. The FRMP indicates that the FHRMs are the basis for planning 
measures  but  does  not  provide  details  on  this  process.  Two  measure  types,  for  agriculture  and 
forestry,  are  primarily  nature-based  measures,  while  three  further measure  types include  links to 
nature-based measures such as water retention. Austria reported to EIONET 1 039 measures which 
include  natural  water  retention  measures.  Nature  conservation  is  specifically  considered  in  two 
measure types, while another two refer to nature conservation. The FRMP includes measure types 
from the RBMP and coordination between the FRMP with the WFD’s objectives and the River Basin 
Management Plan (RBMP) is presented. Austria reported that coordination with the WFD’s objectives 
is addressed in its FRMP. Austria’s first objective calls for avoiding new (flood) risks, to that effect 
Austria reported 520 prevention measures to EIONET. Austria reported 2 192 protection measures to 

59 Since July 2022, the Ministry is called: ‘Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Regions and Water Management’. 
60 https://info.bml.gv.at/themen/wasser/wisa/hochwasserrisiko/risikomanagementplan.html  

35 

 
 
EIONET.  One  of  Austria’s  four  objectives  calls  for  improving  preparedness,  in  line  to  this  Austria 
reported 578 preparedness measures. In the FRMP and its PoM, two measure types are related to 
emergency planning. Four measure types relevant to land use and spatial planning are included in 
the FRMP and PoM. The FRMP refers to the Austria’s adaptation strategy and provides an overview 
of projected climate impacts on flood risks. Adaptation is considered in the prioritisation of measures. 

While the objectives have been revised, they are not linked to timeframes or indicators. The second 
FRMP links the objectives to measure types. The second FRMP explains that the progress of measures 
is monitored, and it provides an overview of the progress of measures in the first FRMP. The FRMP 
states that progress towards the achievement of the objectives in the first FRMP are assessed on the 
basis of the progress of the implementation of measures. Austria has reported on the progress of 
implementation  of  measures  for  the  second  FRMP.  The  measures  were  reported  under  three 
categories  of  progress:  completed,  ongoing  construction  and  in  preparation.  The  majority  of  the 
measures, 2 356 measures (71 % of the total) were reported as completed. Among the completed 
measures,  1 383  are  protection  measures  (59  %),  449  are  prevention  (19  %),  512  (22  %)  are 
preparedness, nine are recovery and review, and three are ‘other’ (both less than 1 % of the total). 
173 measures (5 % of the total) were reported as ongoing construction; all of these are protection 
measures. 773 measures (23 % of the total) were reported as ‘in preparation’. Of these, 636 are 
protection  measures  (82  %  of  the  total),  71  (9  %)  are  prevention  measures,  and  66  (9  %)  are 
preparedness  measures.  For  the  Danube  UoM  (AT1000),  which  has  95 %  of  all  measures,  the 
breakdown of categories of progress is very similar to the national averages. The Rhine UoM (AT2000) 
has a higher share of measures in ongoing construction (14 %) than the national average (5 %). In 
the Elbe UoM (AT5000), all 14 measures are listed as completed. 

The FRMP61 provides an overview of the planned implementation status of measures in the 391 
APSFRs of the first FRMP as compared to their actual implementation status in 2021, through two 
charts per measure type (based on the measure types of the first FRMP). The different classes for the 
change in implementation status from 2015 to 2021 are: already implemented in 2015, planning 
completed in 2015, planned status was not achieved, planned status was achieved, planned status 
was over-achieved, periodic implementation. The FRMP62 indicates that in the monitoring approach of 
the  first  FRMP,  the  non-achievement  of  status  developments  is  often  due  to  the  aggregation  of 
measures at APSFR level. If, for example, three retention basins were planned for an APSFR and one 
of them could not be implemented due to a lack of available land area, the measure is assessed as 
‘Status development was not achieved’ for this APSFR63. The FRMP explains that this approach has 
since been updated, and moreover that some of the categories used have been modified. The FRMP64 
states that a further update to the second FRMP draws on the experience from the first FRMP, which 
showed that the interpretations regarding the status definition per measure type could be subject to 
uncertainties. Thus, implementation status was formulated using a shorter set of closed categories 
to provide clear information in the future rather than broad, interpretable categories such as ‘periodic 
implementation’  or  ‘partially  implemented’  are  no  longer  used.  A  clearer  reference  to  the  overall 
process 
‘planning’  and 
‘implementation’65.  

is  ensured  by  dividing  some  measures 

into  the  sub-processes 

61 FRMP, chapter 6.6, pp. 304-326. 
62 FRMP, pp. 304-305. 
63 The second FRMP moreover notes that, ‘status development not achieved’ can indicate an ambitious planning approach. 
A balance of ‘status development not achieved’ and ‘status development exceeded’ indicates an adjustment of priorities 
to the current framework conditions and shows that the forward-looking planning for the six-year reporting period was 
reliably designed, but requires regular review and updating during the implementation period.  
64 FRMP, chapter 6.4, pp. 301-302. 
65 The FRMP notes that the biggest differences between the planned status development and the actual status achieved 
can be seen in the measure types requiring lengthy preparation and implementation, such as technical structures. In the 
approach chosen in the first FRMP, both the planning process, including obtaining all necessary approvals, and the 
implementation process, including land acquisition and funding applications, were recorded as one measure type. Better 
monitoring can be provided by the revised and updated division of measures into ‘planning’ and ‘implementation’ in the 
second FRMP. 

36 

 
 
The second FRMP66 provides information on the results of measures under the first FRMP: key figures 
are presented regarding funding for structural flood protection measures. A table shows for each year 
from 2014 to 2020: the number of (additionally) protected persons and protected buildings during a 
100-year  flooding  event,  new  retention  areas  and  new  water-body  areas  (in  ha),  new  retention 
volumes (in million m3), number of transverse structures made passable, linear measures (in km) 
and created/preserved green jobs. Similar information is not provided for non-structural measures: 
the FRMP67 notes that an assessment of organisational measures, ecologically oriented measures 
and measures for raising awareness and for disaster prevention can only be carried out through the 
implementation of the measures themselves.  

Regarding measures under the second FRMP, the PoM provides, for all the measures planned in the 
APSFRs, their status in 2021 and their envisaged status in 2027. The possible status indications are: 
0 (not relevant or not planned), 1 (planned), 2 (in development), 3 (in implementation) or implemented 
(for physical measures). The PoM presents this information per measure type for the 18 individual 
measure types, for measures at APSFR level, in four sub-sections. These are: section A (measures 
with status 1 or 2 with status developments until  2027); section B (measures with status 1 or 2 
without  status  developments  until  2027);  section  C  (measures  with  status  3,  so  no  further 
consideration  for  the  current,  second  FRMP)  and  D  (measures  with  status  0  due  to  missing 
framework/unfavourable conditions or a lack of need). 

Governance 

The  FRMP  sets  out  the  international  coordination  that  took  place  via  the  relevant  international 
commissions leading to coordinated international FRMPs. 

The  second  FRMP  presents  a  summary  of  the  approach  to  public  information  and  consultation. 
Regarding  information,  the  FRMP  mentions  that  the  information  for  the  different  implementation 
steps of the Floods Directive has been published through the dedicated water information system 
(Wasserinformationssystem Austria). The Ministry’s website highlights coordination on measures with 
Austria’s federal states, in particular in policy areas where they have competence, including spatial 
planning,  building  regulations,  disaster  preparedness  and  nature  conservation.  The  second  FRMP 
indicates that replies to the reactions/comments received, as well as a summary of how these have 
been  considered,  have  been  published  online  in  a  report  that  lists  the  comments  received  from 
stakeholders and the public. 

Consideration of climate change 

Information on how climate change has been taken into account in the development of the FRMPs 
can be found in section 3.7. 

Progress identified in the second FRMPs 

The FRMP is better connected to the previous steps, i.e. the PFRA and the FHRM. The objectives have 
been revised (e.g. links to civil protection measures were made clearer) and the second FRMP links 
the  objectives  to  measure  types.  the  restructuring  of  measure  types  –separating  aggregated 
measures  to  be  implemented  at  national/federal  state  level  from  individual  measures  that  are 
implemented as APSFR-level – increases the clarity of the Programme of Measures. The priority of 
each measure is now indicated. The second FRMP provides more information on the effects of climate 
change  on  flooding,  including  on  pluvial  floods  linked  to  intense  rainfall  events.  In  addition, 
connections between each measure type and the action plan of the national adaptation strategy are 
described.  Although the  report  does  not  describe  the  specific  changes made  to  the  final  FRMP,  in 
response to the comments from the public consultation, the measures who were reviewed based on 
the consultation are listed (157 measures overall).  

66 FRMP, chapter 6.7, p. 327. 
67 FRMP, p. 327. 

37 

 
 
8. FD recommendations 

On the basis of the assessment performed and in addition to the progress already achieved, Austria should: 

make  its  FHRM  portal  more  user  friendly  by  facilitating  access  to  documents  that  contain  background 
information. 

provide details on how the FHRM was used in the choice of objectives and measures in the FRMP. 

make the FRMP’s objectives more specific and where possible linked to quantitative indicators and be timebound. 

include an assessment of the progress made towards the achievement of the objectives in the FRMP. 

provide information on the cost of measures in the FRMP 

provide information on the methods used to prioritise measures. 

where relevant incorporate Cost Benefit Analysis for the prioritisation of measures that lend themselves to it 
and provide a clear description of the methodology used. 

base the likely impact of climate change in the FRMP also on future climate scenarios. 

where appropriate, consider flow velocity or relevant water flow in the FHRMand flood conveyance routes in the 
FRMP, as these are relevant to emergency response. 

38