COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Third River Basin Management Plans Second Flood Hazard and Risk Maps and Second Flood Risk Management Plans Member State: Romania 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: Romania, 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) 20 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Third River Basin Management Plans  Second Flood Hazard and Risk Maps and Second Flood Risk Management Plans Member State: Romania  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) 14 final} - {SWD(2025) 15 final} - {SWD(2025) 16 final} - {SWD(2025) 17 final} - {SWD(2025) 18 final} - {SWD(2025) 19 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 

Romania 

ENVIRONMENT 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Content 

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

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

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

2. Horizontal aspects ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 

2.1 Governance ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9 

2.2 Characterization of River Basin District .............................................................................................................. 10 

3. Policy elements contributing to biodiversity and climate change adaptation ...................................... 12 

3.1 Surface Water: what is their ecological status or potential .................................................................... 12 

3.2 Hydromorphological changes and artificialization (HMWBs and AWBs) .......................................... 14 

3.3 Groundwater bodies - have they sufficient water – quantitative status ......................................... 15 

3.4 Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) ........................................... 16 

3.5 What is being done to prevent/reduce hydromorphological pressures ............................................ 18 

3.6 What Romania is doing for abstractions and water scarcity ................................................................. 19 

3.7 Adaptation to climate change .................................................................................................................................. 20 

4. Policy elements contributing to zero pollution ........................................................................................................ 21 

4.1 Surface Water: what is their chemical status ................................................................................................. 21 

4.2 Groundwater Bodies: what is their chemical status .................................................................................... 23 

4.3 What Romania is doing to combat pollution from agriculture .............................................................. 24 

4.4 What Romania is doing to combat pollution from other sectors ......................................................... 25 

4.5  What  Romania  is  doing  to  combat  significant  pressures  –  overall  assessment  of  the 
Programmes of Measures .................................................................................................................................................. 26 

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

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

5.2 Use of economic analysis and water pricing – cost recovery ................................................................ 29 

6. WFD recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................ 31 

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

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

7.1 Flood hazard and risk maps ...................................................................................................................................... 35 

7.2 Flood risk management plans .................................................................................................................................. 36 

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

2 

 
 
 
SECTION A: 
WATER FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE 

3 

 
 
 
1. General info, member state characterisation

Romania is a large country as a population of 19.4 million inhabitants1 and a surface area of 238 
400 km2 2. It has a population density 82 people/km2) lower than the EU average. Romania is bordered 
by five countries: Hungary and Serbia to the west, Ukraine in the north, Republic of Moldova to the 
northeast and Bulgaria in the south. It consists of the Carpathians mountains, hills, and plains. Before 
reaching the Black Sea, the Danube forms a delta, most of it being in Romania with the northern part 
of it in Ukraine. The entire surface of Romania is part of the international Danube River Basin District 
(iRBD), representing approximately 29 % of the iRBD surface area. The Romanian part of the Danube 
iRBD encompasses 11 sub-units / river sub-basins. 

Even though Romania has designated a single River Basin District i.e. the Danube, more than three 
quarter of the Danube river itself is making the border in the south of the country with Serbia and 
Bulgaria. That means that most of the territory does not overlap with the Danube river itself which 
flows mainly along the southern border of Romania. 

Romania has a total of 1 550 protected areas, comprising 944 sites designated under national laws 
and 606 recognized as Natura 2000 sites.3 All in all, 23.4 % of land and 21.4 % of marine waters 
are covered by protected areas. The share of species with good conservation status is 45.7%. 

1 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/12743486/14207633/RO-EN.pdf 
2 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.SRF.TOTL.K2?locations=RO 
3 https://biodiversity.europa.eu/countries/romania 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 (MS) 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  Romania  submitted  full electronic  reporting and therefore the assessment is 
based on this dataset. 

Despite the cut-off date 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. 

5 

 
 
 
Changes in Status, Pressures, Exemptions & Measures 

Surface 
Water 
Bodies 
(3025) 

Trend (% good 
status/potential) 

Main Pressures & Changes & Exemptions 

ECOLOGICAL 
STATUS 

The significant pressures affecting highest percentage of surface water bodies are diffuse source pressures from discharges not connected to 
the sewerage network and diffuse source pressures from agriculture. Nutrient and organic pollution are the most significant impacts affecting 
the highest percentage of surface water bodies. This has not changed significantly from the 2nd RBMP 

Approximately 67 % of all water bodies are in good ecological status / potential being at a similar level with a minor improvement compared 
to the 2nd RBMP. Monitoring programmes have improved, and new monitoring sites have been added.According to the prediction for Romania, 
87.7 % of surface water bodies will be in good ecological status / potential by 2027. This would be a large improvement in comparison to the 
results now; however, there is a gap in achieving the good ecological status / potential of all water bodies. 

As in the 2nd RBMP, the exemptions according to Article 4(4) in the 3rd RBMP have been justified on the grounds of technical feasibility, 
disproportionate costs and natural conditions. 

Article 4(5) have been justified on the grounds of infeasibility (for 3 surface water bodies) and disproportionate costs (for 16 surface water 
bodies). 

6 

 
 
CHEMICAL 
STATUS 

The chemical status assessment shows that 97.6 % of water bodies are in good status, with 2.4 % in poor status. The reasons for failing to 
achieve good status are largely due to uPBT substances, particularly mercury and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs).  
The confidence in classification has improved. 

According to the prediction for Romania, the percentage of surface water bodies which will be in good chemical status / potential by 2027 will 
be approximately the same as compared to the results of 3rd RBMP. 

As in the 2nd RBMP, the exemptions according to Article 4(4) in the 3rd RBMP have been justified on the grounds of technical feasibility and 
natural conditions. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ground 
Water 
Bodies 
(143) 

Trend (% good 
status/potential) 

Main Pressures & Changes & Exemptions 

QUANTITATIVE 
STATUS 

The 3rd RBMP reports that 100.0 % of total GWBs are in good quantitative status by 2021 and no GWBs are at risk of failing to achieve 
good quantitative status by 2027, similarly to the 2nd RBMP. Classification with high confidence has increased from 83.2 % of the 
assessments in the 2nd RBMP to 84.6 % of the assessments in the 3rd RBMP.  

However, a significant portion of the classifications have still been conducted with low confidence in the 3rd RBMP (i.e., 15.4 % of the 
assessments), with only minor improvement since the 2nd RBMP (i.e., 16.8 % of the assessments). 

There were no exemptions. 

8 

 
 
 
CHEMICAL 
STATUS 

There is a slight improvement in terms of good chemical status from 89,5% in the 2nd RBMP to 91,6% of GWBs in the 3rd RBMP.   

There is a single pollutant causing failure to achieve good chemical status for all GWBs, namely nitrate 

Classification with high or medium confidence has remained the same since the 2nd RBMP at 97.9 % of the assessments.  
In the 3rd RBMP, 12 GWBs (i.e., 8.4 % of total GWBs) are expected to fail to achieve good chemical status by 2027. 

As in the 2nd RBMP, the exemptions according to Article 4(4) in the 3rd RBMP have been justified on the grounds of natural conditions (8.4 
%). 

9 

 
 
 
2. Horizontal aspects 

2.1 Governance 

Romania has designated a single River Basin District (RBD): the Danube. This RBD is divided into 11 
sub-basins / sub-units. Almost all of Romania’s territory is part of the international Danube RBD4: 
97.4 %. The rest are mainly coastal waters and associated small tributaries, which are attached to 
the Danube RBD (100 %).  

There are two competent authorities in Romania: the National Administration “Romanian Waters”5 
responsible  among  others  for  the  preparation  of  River  Basin  Management  Plan  as  well  as  the 
reporting to the European Commission, and the Ministry of the Environment, Waters and Forests6  
responsible for the coordination of the implementation and enforcement of regulations. 

Noteworthy,  Romania’s  3rd  RBMP  clearly  indicates  the  synergies  with  the  Flood  Risk  Management 
Plan7, including Floods Directive measures, in particular those that are win – win measures i.e. Nature 
Water  Retention  Measures.  Moreover,  in  developing  the  programme  of  measures  as  well  as  the 
exemptions,  the  integrated  aspects  between  the  2  plans  that  are  schematically  presented  in  the 
RBMP8 were taken into account.   

It is positively noted that Romania’s 3rd RBMP also pays attention to the objectives of Marine Strategy 
Framework  Directive  and  includes  those  addressing  e.g.  aquaculture  industry,  preserving  the 
morphological status of the Romanian Black Sea coast, sturgeon species (protection measures for 
sturgeon, preservation and restoration of ecological corridors) to mention just a few. 

The timetable, work programme, consultation plan for the 3rd RBMP, overview of significant water 
management issues and the draft RBMP were submitted for consultation for six months in accordance 
with the WFD. However, the process was delayed, and the public consultation was ending at the time 
when, according to the WFD, the 3rd RBMP should have been nationally adopted. The RBMP has a 
chapter on public information, consultation and participation which includes the results of the public 
consultation9. The RBMP includes a summary of the consultation which was uploaded on the website. 
It is worth noting that Romania held joint consultations on its RBMP and the FRMPs prepared under 
the Floods Directive10.  

The  Danube  Basin  level  coordination  is  performed  by  an  international  River  Basin  Commission 
(International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River  – ICPDR) to which Romania is a 
contracting party. In addition, Romania has bilateral agreements with all its neighbouring countries.  

4 Romanian RBMP: "2. GENERAL PRESENTATION OF THE HYDROGRAPHIC BASINS/SPACES" (p. 27): the RBMP states that 
Romania has an area of 238 397 km2, and that of the total area of the country, 232,193 km2 are inside the Danube 
basin (representing 97.4% of the total of the country) 
5 Administratia Nationala “Apele Romane”, https://rowater.ro  
6 Ministerul Mediului, Apelor si Padurilor https://www.mmediu.ro  
7 Romanian 3rd RBMP, A. Flood risk management  
8 See Figure 3.25 of the RBMP 
9 Source: 3rd RBMP, Chapter 122 Public information, consultation and participation (p.431), Annexes 12.1 and 12.2 of the 
3rd RBMP) 
10 Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks entered into force on 26 November 2007  

10 

 
 
The  international  and  bilateral  cooperation  activities  are  centrally  coordinated  by  the  Ministry  of 
Environment,  Waters  and  Forests  and  the  National  Administration  “Apele  Române”  through  the 
respective commissions. 

It is worth highlighting a very recent agreement signed11 between Romania, Moldova and Ukraine for 
Prut River basin, a tributary of the Danube River Basin to strengthen the transboundary cooperation. 
A relevant working group is being formed under the ICPDR. This is a very welcomed initiative that will 
help the countries to further improve their cooperation on the management of one of the longest 
tributaries of the Danube River. 

2.2 Characterization of River Basin District 

Romania has designated 3026 surface water bodies and 143 groundwater bodies (see below the 
number of water bodies per category).  

Table 1: Overview of Romania ‘s River Basin Districts (RBDs) and waterbodies 

RBD 
(Index) 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 
Waters 

Coastal 
Waters 

Territorial 
Waters 

Groundwater 
Bodies 

Danube 
(RO1000) 

2754 

TOTAL 

2754 

265 

265 

2 

2 

4 

4 

1 

1 

143 

143 

It is noted very positively that overall, there have been substantial improvements in the number of 
surface water types with type-specific reference/type-specific conditions established. Indeed, 90 % 
of river types, 89 % of lake types and 100 % of coastal water types have type-specific reference 
conditions established for all relevant biological quality elements.  

Moreover, 75 % of river types, 100 % of lake types, 50 % of transitional water types and 100 % of 
coastal  water  types  have  type-specific  conditions  established  for  all  relevant  hydromorphological 
quality elements. 100 % of river types, 95 % of lake types, 50 % of transitional water types and 100 
% of coastal water types have type-specific conditions established for all relevant physico-chemical 
quality  elements.  100  %  of  transitional  water  body  types  have  all  but  fish  fauna  type-specific 
reference conditions for biological quality elements which is the same as in the 2nd RBMP. It is worth 
mentioning that the harmonisation of water types and reference conditions has been coordinated at 
the international level (ICPDR) for the whole Danube River basin.  

The methodology for the identification of significant pressures and the assessment of the impact on 
surface water bodies has been revised and presented in the 3rd RBMP. Romania defines significant 
pressures as follows: if the environmental objectives of the water body are achieved, the potentially 
significant  pressures  identified  are  not  considered  significant  pressures;  if  the  environmental 
objectives are not met, then all potentially significant pressures are considered significant pressures.  

11 https://eu4waterdata.eu/images/pdf/library/MD-UA-RO_PrutDeclaration_Final_20102023.pdf 

11 

 
 
 
Romania’s agriculture is characterised by a structure with a very large number of small individual 
holdings, many of which are practicing agriculture on small plots of land. Romania is the country with 
the highest number of farmers in the EU, amounting to almost 3.5 million. However, 90% of these 
are small farms of less than 5 hectares. Romania is one of the biggest producers of cereals in the 
EU and the largest producer of sunflower seeds, honey  and plums. However, the share of organic 
farming is less than 5% of the total utilised agricultural area. The report on the implementation of 
the Nitrates Directive12 shows that Romania adopted a whole territory approach having 51% percent 
of  the  monitoring  points  already  in  eutrophic  state  (41%)  or  the  possibility  to  become  eutrophic 
(10%).  

The pressure posed by invasive alien species on waters is recognised in the RBMP. In total, there are 
84 aquatic species of EU concern in Romania13. The RBMPs referred also to the work agreed in the 
frame of the international RBMP for the Danube e.g. to improve the methodology of assessing the 
invasive alien species. 

Surface waters 

In Romania, hydropower capacity has slightly increased from 2008 to 2022.  In 2021, they accounted 
for 29.8%14 electricity generation. The number of hydropower plants is estimated to be between 545 
and  67415.  Evidence  shows that  49%  of  the  documented  545  hydropower  plants  in  Romania  are 
located in Natura 2000 or other protected areas, 5% are located in water bodies with ‘very good’ 
ecological  status,  and  another  12%  in  water  bodies  with  ‘good’  ecological  status  and  ‘very good’ 
hydromorphological status according to the EU Water Framework Directive.   

Worth mentioning is that very large part of this electricity is provided by 2 hydropower plants: Iron 
Gate 1 and Iron Gate 2, the largest dam on the Danube river and one of the largest hydropower plants 
in Europe. They are located on the  Iron Gate gorge, between Romania and Serbia. While they have 
succeeded  in  providing  a  considerable  amount  of  renewable  energy,  they  have  also  had  a  very 
significant impact on the sturgeons, an iconic migratory fish. In the frame of the ICPDR and funded 
by the European Commission, the project We Pass aimed to facilitate fish migration in the Danube 
River Basin, for the preservation and reestablishment of endangered fish species migration routes in 
the Danube and its tributaries, and specifically at the Iron Gates. These fish passes would open up 
960 km of the Danube.  

As  recognised  by  Romania,  additional  efforts  are  needed  to  comply  with  the  Urban  Waste  Water 
Treatment Directive (UWWTD).  As shown by the graph below only 12% of the urban waste water 
meet all the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. 

12 https://water.jrc.ec.europa.eu/arcgis/rest/services/nid/msNidReporting7/MapServer/2/1167/attachments/214 
13 EASIN - European Alien Species Information Network: https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin/  
14 https://www.iea.org/countries/romania  
15 A review of hydropower plants in Romania: Distribution, current knowledge, and their effects on fish in headwater 
streams - ScienceDirect 

12 

 
 
Figure 1 Proportion of urban waste water that meets all requirements of the UWWTD 

Source: http://water.europe.eu/freshwater/countries/uwwt/romania  

Just as it was the case for the previous cycle, the significant pressures having the biggest impact on 
surface water bodies are diffuse pollution from discharges not connected to the sewerage network 
(affecting 26 % of surface water bodies in this cycle and 25% in the previous) and diffuse pollution 
from  agriculture  (affecting  15  %  of  surface  water  bodies  in  this  cycle  and  12%  in  the  previous), 
visible in the eutrophication of surface waters in agricultural areas (see fig 2). Hence the pressure 
coming from agricultural pollution has increased. In terms of impacts, nutrient pollution and organic 
pollution are the most significant pressures affecting the highest percentage of surface water bodies 
respectively: 23% (27% in the previous cycle) and 21 % (17% in the previous cycle). 

Figure 2 Map of the monitoring points showing eutrophication assessment in Romania, according to the 
reporting of the Nitrates Directive 

13 

 
 
 
Source: JRC NITRATES DIRECTIVE - Reporting Period 7 (2016-2019) Trophic Status 

Note : 0% of the monitoring stations are above the threshold of 50mg/l 

Groundwater bodies 

Just  as  for  surface  water  and  mirroring  to  the  2nd  RBMP,  the  most  significant  pressures  on 
groundwater bodies are also diffuse source pressures from discharges not connected to the sewerage 
network  (8%  of  the  groundwater  bodies  in  the  3rd  and  10%  in  the  2nd  RBMP)  and  diffuse  source 
pressures from agriculture (8% of the groundwater bodies in the 3rd and 10% in the 2nd RBMP). In 
terms of impact, the highest percentage of groundwater bodies (8%) is affected by chemical pollution, 
a small decrease comparing with 10% in the 2nd RBMP. 

3. Policy elements contributing to biodiversity and 

climate change adaptation 

3.1 Surface Water: what is their ecological status or potential 

Monitoring 

In  the  3rd  RBMP,  the  number  of  monitoring  sites  and  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  covered  by 
monitoring has significantly increased for surveillance and operational monitoring, especially in rivers 
and lakes. Surveillance and operational monitoring16 are undertaken in most surface water categories 
as follows: in rivers, 51.2 % and 38.0 %, respectively and in lakes, 41.6 % and 37.5 % of lake area, 
respectively. Coastal and transitional water bodies are 100% covered with operational monitoring. If 
no monitoring was performed, the principle of grouping of water bodies was applied, which consists 
of the use of monitoring data collected from another site, located on another body of water that 
presents the same typology, the same types, and the same magnitudes of anthropogenic pressures. 

Romania  reports  that  the  monitoring  network  of  the  3rd  RBMP  has  been  re-adjusted  after  the 
evaluation of the findings from the 2nd RBMP on pressures, status and impacts. One thing to notice 
is  a  decrease  in  surveillance  monitoring  whereas  there  is  an  increase  in  operational  monitoring. 
According to the 3rd RBMP, changes of monitoring sites from surveillance to operational monitoring 
ensure higher frequency of monitoring, of those SWBs at risk of failing to achieve good chemical 
status due to pollution.  

Status assessment 

All surface water bodies have been classified for ecological status or potential for all RBDs/sub-units. 
This classification relies on both surveillance and operational monitoring, as well as on grouping and 
expert judgment (see figure below). It is worth highlighting the progress achieved by Romania in the 

16  The WFD distinguishes between surveillance and operational monitoring: i) operational monitoring to determine the 
status and which covers all water bodies at risk and ii) surveillance monitoring aimed at identifying impacts and long-
term changes 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
evaluation of ecological status/potential by e.g. finalising the intercalibration exercise at the European 
level based on biological elements, adjusting the system of evaluation of physico-chemical quality 
elements etc. However, there is still a gap in the intercalibration of reference conditions for fish fauna 
in  lakes  and  transitional  waters.  Moreover,  confidence  has  improved  since  the  2nd  RBMP  since 
Romania took into account the increase in the number of monitored water bodies and of monitored 
quality elements.  

Figure 2 depicts the evolution of the good ecological status of surface water bodies in Romania. It 
shows that, for the share of surface water bodies in good ecological status, there is almost no real 
change  compared  to  the  previous  cycles.  Moreover,  a  certain  deterioration  can  be  seen  in  the 
moderate status since there are now more water bodies in poor or bad status. Rather than only an 
actual deterioration, this may be partly due to the improvement of knowledge and the assessment 
of ecological status with higher confidence. 

Figure 3 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd RBMPs 

Source: 3rd RBMP e-reporting 

Romania  has  estimated that  by  2027,  87.7  %  of  surface  water  bodies  will  be  in  good  ecological 
status / potential by 2027, respectively 12.3% of surface water bodies not achieving the objective. It 
is argued that the later will reach good status after 2027 due to natural conditions.  

3.2 Hydromorphological changes and artificialization (HMWBs and AWBs) 

Romania made some progress in the implementation of the provisions related to hydromorphology 
e.g.  specific methodologies are in place for rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters to assess 
hydromorphological criteria leading to a robust assessment of AWBs/HMWBs. For assessing the good 
ecological potential, Romania has a well-developed method which has been improved by adding to 
the lake assessment a new quality element (i.e. macrophytes).  

15 

 
 
According to the 3rd RBMP, the national methodological instructions were revised in 2020, following 
the  Driver  -  Pressure  -  State  -  Impact  –  Response  concept.  As  a  follow-up,  potentially  significant 
hydromorphological pressures and possible changes in the ecological status / potential of the water 
body have been identified, and for each type of hydromorphological pressure responses have been 
developed  (i.e.  measures  taken  to  improve  hydromorphology  and  achieve  good  ecological 
status/potential). Furthermore, an impact assessment has been carried out based on monitoring data 
relevant to ecological status / potential for the period 2018 - 2020. Thus, the potentially significant 
hydromorphological pressures identified before this period have also been validated considering the 
monitored impacts on the water bodies and the gaps to environmental objectives. 

The 3rd RBMP reports that good ecological potential has been defined by using a hybrid approach 
which  combines  elements of  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy Guidance approach  based  on 
biological  quality  elements17  and  the  so  called  “Prague  approach”  based  on  the  identification  of 
mitigation measures18. Good ecological potential (GEP) has been defined at the water body level or 
for  groups  of  heavily  modified  water  bodies  /  artificial  water  bodies.  Physico-chemical  quality 
elements have been used in the definition of GEP. Good ecological potential is reported to have been 
defined in terms of biology. The biological quality elements for which biological values are used to 
define  maximum  ecological  potential  and  good  ecological  potential  for  rivers  are  phytobenthos, 
benthic invertebrates, fish, and macrophytes. Macrophytes are used for lakes and they have been 
introduced  in  the  evaluation  of  the  ecological  status  and  ecological  potential  of  heavily  modified 
lakes in the 3rd RBMP.  

In terms of human intervention in the water system, rivers remain fairly natural whereas lakes and 
coastal water considerably impacted by human intervention as it can be seen in the table below. A 
much smaller percent of water bodies is artificial (around 2%) i.e. water bodies created by human 
activity.  

Table 2: Overview of Romania ‘s HMWBs and AWBs 

Modifications 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 
Waters 

Coastal 
Waters 

Territorial 
Waters 

Total (% of 
total SWBs) 

HEAVILY 
MODIFIED 

12.10% 

57% 

ARTIFICIAL 

2.50% 

0.40% 

0% 

0% 

50% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

16.50% 

2.28% 

The 3rd RBMP reports a slight increase in the number of Heavily Modified Water Bodies (from 488 to 
500) while the Artificial Water Bodies remain unchanged i.e. 69.  According to the authorities, this 
increase is due to changes in delineation and categories of water bodies (mostly from river to lake) 
and to the new methodological approaches.  

17 CIS guidance document no 4  
18 CIS guidance document no 37  

16 

 
 
 
The main causes for which water bodies are designated as heavily modified or artificial  are flood 
protection (41.3 % of water bodies), hydropower (13.5 %), fisheries and aquaculture (18.5 %), and 
drinking water for urban settlements (10.2 %).19 

3.3 Groundwater bodies - have they sufficient water – quantitative status 

The share of GWBs with quantitative monitoring is 77.6 % of total GWBs (111 out of 143) whereas 
it  was  79.0  %  in  the  previous  cycle.  Romania  explained  that  the  slight  decrease  in  quantitative 
monitoring is related to changes made i.e. re-adjusting the monitoring network after the evaluation 
of the findings from the 2nd RBMP on pressures, status and impacts. Similar to the 2nd RBMP, grouping 
of GWBs was not used in the assessment of the quantitative status of GWBs. Romania reports that, 
where monitoring results are lacking, the assessment of quantitative status has been based on a risk 
assessment for the identified pressures in each GWB.  

While classification with high confidence has increased from 83.2 % in the 2nd RBMP to 84.6 % in the 
3rd RBMP, only minor improvement can be seen for low confidence i.e. from 16,8 % in the 2nd RBMP 
to 15, 4% in the 3rd RBMP respectively.  

Progress  has  been  made  by  Romania  in  that,  the  consideration  of  the  needs  of  groundwater 
dependent terrestrial ecosystems is now included together (unlike the 2nd RBMP) with the needs of 
groundwater associated surface waters.   

Figure 4 Groundwater bodies quantitative status 

Source: 3rd RBMP e-reporting 

The  sufficient  replenishment  of  the  groundwater  bodies  seems  to  be  secured  since  all  GWBs  are 
considered in good quantitative status. Moreover, no GWBs are reported to be at risk of failing to 
meet good quantitative status by 2027. 

19 Percentages exclude missing data 

17 

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

Surface water and groundwater protected areas have been identified for all relevant directives within 
Romania. Protected areas for surface waters include Bathing Waters, Nationally Designated Areas 
(CDDA)  and  areas  for  the  protection  of  economically  significant  aquatic  species,  including  areas 
protected under the repealed Shellfish Directive20.  

As can be seen in the figure below, a number of protected areas are associated with both surface 
and groundwaters including Article 7 WFD Drinking Water Protection areas and Natura 2000 sites 
protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives. It is worth noting that Romania has adopted a 
whole territory approach for nitrate vulnerable zones and nutrient sensitive areas. 

Table 3 Number of water bodies associated with protected areas in Romania in 2021  

Number of Water Bodies associated with protected areas in Romania 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Coastal 

Transitional 

Groundwater 

Protected area type 

Bathing waters 

Drinking water protection area 

207 

Nationally-designated Area (CDDA) 

340 

35 

60 

Natura 2000 protected site 

1637 

190 

Shellfish designated water 

Source: 3rd RBMPs e-reporting 

3 

2 

4 

3 

1 

2 

1 

135 

45 

In terms of the number of water bodies associated with different types of protected areas, since the 
2nd RBMP the number of Natura 2000 sites has decreased from 507 to 473 while the number of 
drinking  water  protection  areas  has  increased  from  2790  to  3374.  This  is  because  Romania  has 
grouped a number of protected areas i.e. 245 nationally designated areas. Coastal bathing areas 
designations have not changed since the 2nd RBMP (49 bathing areas).  

Monitoring  of  protected  areas  is  carried  out  in  surface  waters  associated  with  drinking  water 
protection areas, nationally designated areas and Natura 2000 sites. Monitoring of bathing area is 
carried out and reported under the Bathing Waters Directive. Due to the ‘whole country’ approach, 
the Nitrates Action Plan is applicable to the whole territory thus applying the principle of prevention 
in the context of nitrate pollution. The monitoring of the compliance of the water bodies is done by 
monitoring the concentration of nitrates and the parameters indicating the eutrophication process.  

It can be seen from the figure 4 below that there has been a slight improvement in the status of 
water bodies associated with protected areas between 2016 and 2022.  

20 The Governmental Decision (201/2002 with subsequent amendments) which transposes the Directive is still in place in 
Romanian legislation. 

18 

 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
Figure 5 Progress in the status of water bodies associated with protected areas by 2016 and 2022 

0%

2022

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ecological status/potential SWB

e
p
y
T
s
u
t
a
t
S

Chemical status SWB

Chemical status GWB

Quantitative status GWB

High

Good

Moderate

Poor

Bad

Unknown

% of water bodies associated with PAs

Source 3rd RBMP e-reporting 

No additional objectives have been reported or found in the RBMP related to water bodies associated 
with Natura 2000 protected areas (Birds and Habitats Directives): this is because good WFD status 
was  deemed  sufficient  to meet  the environmental  objectives for  these  areas. However,  the  RBMP 
indicates that work is ongoing to determine possible additional needs in these areas.  

The electronic reporting indicates that objectives have been set for surface waters associated with 
drinking water protection areas (318) and for areas associated with the Shellfish Directive (7).  8 out 
of  318  surface  water  bodies  associated  with  drinking  water  protection  areas  have  not  met  the 
objectives set for different reasons e.g. due to exceeding the following indicators: Total  Coliforms, 
Faecal  and  Faecal  Streptococci,  Manganese.  For  the  water  bodies  associated  with  the  Shellfish 
Directive all fixed objectives have been met. 

Additional measures are described in the RBMP for surface waters associated with Natura 2000 sites 
(e.g. supporting the collection and management of data on the fishing sector) as well as measures 
for protection of drinking water zones such as restriction of the use of land to prevent the risk of 

19 

 
 
 
contamination of water, because of human, economic and social activity. No exemptions are reported 
for water bodies associated with protected areas. 

3.5 What is being done to prevent/reduce hydromorphological pressures 

An authorisation and / or permitting regime was reported to be in place during the 2nd RBMP and 3rd 
RBMP, to control physical modifications, which covers changes to the riparian area of water bodies 
as well as a register of physical modifications of water bodies. 

Win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD  and Floods Directive, drought 
management and use of nature-based solutions / natural water retention measures were reported 
in the 3rd RBMP. An example was the creation or restoration of wetland retention areas. Also, the 
design  of  new  and  existing  structural  measures,  such  as  flood  defences,  storage  dams  and  tidal 
barriers, are reported to have been adapted to take into account WFD objectives.  

As mentioned earlier, Romania is also working towards opening the migration route for sturgeon and 
other migratory fish species at the Iron Gates through the feasibility study “Making Iron Gates dams 
passable for Danube sturgeons”21 known as ‘We Pass’ project. Once this project is finalised, Romania 
will need to ensure the necessary funds for the actual construction of the fish passes.  

Noteworthy also is that Romania started in 2019 an inventory of all hydrotechnical works and update 
the relevant geospatial dataset to these works to support the update of the RBMP, the update of the 
FRMP and the update of the Cadastre of Romanian Waters. 

3.6 What Romania is doing for abstractions and water scarcity 

Just as it was the case in the previous cycle, Romania has not considered that water abstraction, 
understood as consumptive use or net consumption, is a significant pressure at the RBD level. As 
mentioned earlier, all GWB are considered to be in good quantitative and none would be at risk of 
failing by 2027.  

Nevertheless general, basic and supplementary measures to address water abstraction have been 
planned. There is a register of abstractions from surface water and groundwater and a register of 
impoundments. Small abstractions are defined with certain thresholds (0.2 l/s) and those under the 
threshold  are  exempted  from  controls.  Permits  are  issued  by  competent  water  management 
authorities,  who  define  their  duration  based  on  data  and  information  contained  in  the  technical 
documentation. Furthermore, permits can be refused or revised under specific conditions, in order to 
maintain or achieve the environmental objectives.  

It is worth highlighting that even though the water abstraction and water scarcity are not identified 
as a significant pressure, steps have taken by Romania to prevent these to happen by performing a 
water demand forecast in which three scenarios were examined with a time horizon up to 2030, 
comparing with 2020. The forecasts show that the water demand is expected to be similar for public 
water supply, but it may increase around 20 % for industry and 16% for aquaculture, and triple for 
irrigation. Moreover, climate change is expected to cause an increase of water scarcity conditions in 
the country. According to the 3rd RBMP, each river basin is required to prepare plans for restrictions 
in use of water during periods of scarcity. The plans are updated yearly by river basin authorities, 

21 https://www.cdmsmith.com/en-EU/News/Helping-Danube-Fish-To-Pass-The-Iron-Gate-Dams  

20 

 
 
outlining  responsibilities  of  water  users  during  drought  periods.  A  dedicated  chapter  in  the  RBMP 
outlines projected water availability and water demands.  

In this context of increasing water demands, it is very welcome that Ecological flows (e-flows) have 
been defined for all relevant water bodies. Yet they are being implemented only in a number of water 
bodies, but  work is  still  on-going.  For  those  water bodies  where  e-flows  have  been  implemented, 
Romania has established an explicit link between the implementation of e-flows and the authorisation 
process  and  /  or  review  of  permits  to  control  water  abstractions  and  impoundments22.  National 
authorities  may  conduct  relevant  sample  checks  after  authorisation  or  targeted  checks  after 
complaints to prevent cases of unauthorised abstractions or violation of permit conditions.  

3.7 Adaptation to climate change 

Romania  has  not  adopted  a  specific  Drought  Management  Plan  but  at  national  level  there  are 
different pieces of legislation that are applied during drought  events23. Regarding climate change, 
Romania has also in place the “National Strategy of Romania regarding climate change 2013 - 2020” 
and  the “National  Action  Plan  2016  -  2020  regarding  climate  change”  which is  being  updated  to 
include among others the European strategy regarding adaptation to climate change. 

The 3rd RBMP has a dedicated chapter on quantitative aspects and climate change, which includes an 
analysis  on  the  evolution  of  flow  rates  until  2050.  The  analysis  outlines  that  9  out  of  10  rivers 
analysed are projected to decrease in flow rate under climate change scenarios. Furthermore, the 
projected  climate  change  impacts  show  an  increase  in  drought  intensity  and  frequency  in  some 
regions of the Danube, with a 20 % probability of severe droughts occurring in the next 10 years. 
The impacts are projected to affect 50 % of total agricultural land. Also, according to the European 
Droughts Atlas24 the projections for Romania show an increase in risk e.g. for agriculture, water supply, 
hydropower production, terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems.  

Climate  change  adaptation  measures,  based  on  the  projected  impacts  of  climate  change,  were 
prioritised against three principles: benefits to implement the requirements of the European water 
directives (win-win); no-regret and low- regret that are flexible enough for varied conditions (floods, 
drought, biodiversity). The climate adaptation measures include implementation and integration of 
the national climate change action plan, study impacts of drought on aquifers, plans for restrictions 
and use of water in periods of scarcity.  

Furthermore, a range of drought measures are planned to be implemented in the 3rd cycle, including 
measures  to  improve  knowledge  on  climate  change  impacts  on  drought,  scenario  development, 
identification and implementation of water efficiency, water saving and analysis of possible water 
reuse,  and  the  promotion  and  implementation  of  natural  water  retention  measures.  It  is  worth 
highlighting that Article 4(6) exemptions have not been applied in Romania. 

22 The situations that can lead to a deterioration of the hydrological regime are taken into account in the procedure for 
issuing the water management opinion. A preliminary analysis is performed taking into account the availability of water 
resource, the existing uses, but also the ecological requirements (ensuring e-flows). This preliminary analysis can lead to 
the modification of the solutions proposed by the project and provided in the technical documentation subject to approval. 
23 Plans for Water Restrictions and Use in Deficit Periods", “National Strategy for reduction of the effects of droughts on 
short-, medium-, and long-term” (2007) and “National Strategy and Action Plan / Plan of Measures for Mitigating the 
Effects of Drought and, Combatting Land Degradation and Desertification on short-, medium-, and long-term” (2008) 
24 European Drought Risk Atlas https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC135215 

21 

 
 
Flooding is a common occurrence in Romania, with climate change exacerbating the issue. 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 these 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, consideration climate change is jointly addressed in this section.  

Compared to the first FHRMs, when climate change was not taken into account, for the second FHRMs 
a scenario for medium probability of occurrence was developed considering climate change. 

In  the  PFRA  stage,  climate  change  scenarios  and  data  from  Romanian-partnered  international 
projects  were  considered25.  Scenario  A1B  developed  by  the  Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate 
Change (IPCC) was used to estimate the impact of climate change on maximum river discharges (for 
floods with a 0.1% probability, i.e. once in 100 years). The projections for 2021-2050 were compared 
with a reference period of 1970-2000. Three geographical areas were identified: (1) regions where 
the  maximum  discharge  will  not  change  (stationary);  (2)  regions  with  a  moderate  increase  of 
maximum discharge (10 %)  and (3) regions with a significant increase of discharge (20 %)26.. The 
FRMPs  refer  to  Romania’s  national  adaptation  strategy  and  discuss  projected  impacts  of  climate 
change on flooding. The MCA for measures includes criteria for climate adaptation and mitigation. 
Measures directly for improving knowledge for climate change are included in the FRMPs. The FRMPs 
identify several very high priority measures at national level to address climate change and to be 
completed  by  2027.  Compared  to  the  first  FRMPs,  the  second  FRMPs  refer  to  Romania’s National 
Climate  Change  Strategy  and  provide  information  on  the  potential  impacts  of  climate  change  on 
floods.  

4. Policy elements contributing to zero pollution 

4.1 Surface Water: what is their chemical status 

Monitoring  

It is positively noted that there has been an increase in the monitoring network in Romania between 
the 2nd and the 3rd cycles, from 24% to 35%. The 3rd RBMP states also that based on the previous 
round  of  monitoring  (under  the  2nd  RBMP)  a  risk  based  approach  has  been  adopted  with  greater 
numbers of monitoring sites and a focus on high risk areas where exceedances may be expected, 
and less in other areas. In the 3rd RBMP greater effort has been placed on operational monitoring and 
less  on  surveillance,  again  to  address  the  confidence  in  chemical  status.  Grouping  and  expert 
judgement have been used for water bodies where monitoring is not undertaken. 

Efforts have been also made to increase the number of substances, and analytical capabilities apart 
from  short  chain  chlorinated  paraffins  (C10-13)  and  tributyltin  in  water,  and  dioxins  and  dioxin-like 

25 Second PFRAs, Danube UoM (RO1000), p. 82: IPCC scenarios, and Romanian-partnered EU projects (e.g. CLIMHYDEX, CC 
Waters, CC Ware) were taken into account. 
26 Anx1_Meto Modelare si Cartografiere Hazard Inundatii, p. 131. The geographical distribution of the three categories is 
presented in Fig. 10.1, p. 132. Based on these estimates, FHRMs for T100 scenario were developed and can be 
downloaded as a PDF from the portal.  

22 

 
 
 
compounds in biota. According to the authorities, for these substances either standards do not exist, 
or  there  are  unacceptable  risks  to  personnel  in  terms  of  collecting  and  analysing  samples.  It  is 
welcome that monitoring in biota was further expanded in 2021 to include new substances, with a 
particular focus on PFOS. 

The 3rd RBMP states that the monitoring frequency is according to the WFD requirements.  

Status assessment  

In Romania, 95 % of all water bodies are river water bodies, whilst the remaining 5% (seven water 
bodies in total) is the sum of coastal, transitional, and territorial water bodies.  

Romania assessed in the 3rd RBMP that 97% of the water bodies (2954 water bodies) are in good 
chemical status and 3% (71 water bodies which are all rivers) fail to achieve good chemical status 
(see Figure 5). These results are more positive than in other Member States upstream in the Danube 
river basin. Also the results published by the ICPDR suggest that, as in other countries, ubiquitous PBT 
substances  such  as  mercury  are  present  in  the  Romanian  part  of  the  Danube.  Hence,  the 
comparability of the Romania chemical status assessment will have to be further investigated.   

Figure 6 Evolution of chemical status for surface water bodies in Romania between the 1st, 2nd and 3rd 
RBMP (i.e. by 2009, 2015 and 2021)  

Source: 3rd RBMP e-reporting 

Romania’s forecast is that by 2027 less than 2% of the water bodies would still fail to achieve good 
chemical status. 

The top ten Priority Substances list causing failure to achieve good chemical status is dominated by 
ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (uPBT) substances. Those are mercury, PBDEs and 
heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, as well as Benzo(a)pyrene and metals such as cadmium, lead and 

23 

 
 
nickel. These uPBT substances are causing 52 water bodies to fail to achieve good chemical status.  
If the uPBT would be excluded the number of water bodies failing would drop from 71 to 19.  

Figure 7 Top ten priority substances causing failure to achieve good chemical status 

Source: 3rd RBMP e-reporting 

Figure  8  Top  ten  priority  substances  causing  failure  if  the  new  priority  substances  added  by  the 
2008/105/EU as amended by 2013/39/EU are also included27 

Note: Assessment report figure does not include hexachlorobenzene, atrazine, hexachlorocyclohexane, and 
hexachlorobutadiene. Each of these affects 0.03% of SWBs in RO. 

Source: 3rd RBMP e-reporting 

27 Directive 2008/105/EC as amended by Directive 2013/39/EU added 12 new substances i.e. numbered 34 to 45 to the 
priority substance list. For the 3rd RBMP, Member States have only had the obligation to monitor them. Compliance with 
the Environmental Quality Standard values for these 12 new priority substances will be assessed in 2027. 

24 

 
 
 
 
4.2 Groundwater Bodies: what is their chemical status 

Monitoring 

As mentioned earlier, there has been a decrease in surveillance monitoring in parallel with an increase 
in operational monitoring.  According to the 3rd RBMP, changes of monitoring sites from surveillance 
to operation monitoring ensure higher frequency of monitoring, of those GWBs at risk of failing to 
achieve good chemical status due to pollution. 

All substances causing risk of deterioration, i.e. GWD Annex I and Annex II (Part B) substances and 
WFD  Annex  V  (Point  2.4.2)  core  parameters  are  monitored.  Other  parameters  are  also  included, 
depending on water use.  

Status assessment 

The assessment of the general chemical situation of a groundwater body is based on the harmonised 
methodology proposed in the EU Guidelines,28 which is considered as good practice.  

It is worth noting that it is assessed in the 3rd RBMP, that 91,6% of GWB are in good chemical status 
revealing a slight improvement compared to the previous cycle. Romania forecasts that 8,4 % of the 
total GWB i.e. 12 GWBs are to be expected to fail to achieve food chemical status by 2027. The cause 
for  failure for  all  these GWB  is the  concentration  of  nitrates.  Furthermore, the  top  five pollutants 
showing sustained upward trends in GWBs are nitrates, chloride, arsenic and its compounds, nitrite 
and phosphate. 

Figure 9  Chemical status of groundwater bodies by 2009, 2015 and 2021 

Source: RBMP e-reporting 

28 CIS Guidance document 18 (2009): Groundwater status and trend assessment, derived as a ‘conceptual model’ in line 
with point 3 of Annex III (Assessment of groundwater chemical status) of the GWD. 

25 

 
 
 
4.3 What Romania is doing to combat pollution from agriculture 

Agriculture is considered to be one of the main sources of point and diffuse pollution with nutrients, 
organic  and  hazardous  substances  present  in  surface  water.  It  is  very  welcome  that  the  RBMP 
presents an overview of the quantified gaps and how much the planned measures are expected to 
achieve in terms of closing the gaps as follows:  

•  Need for reduction of the nitrogen load from agriculture: 15662 tons per year and area of 
agricultural land where the nutrient load from agriculture needs to be reduced: 28025 km²; 
•  Area of agricultural land where pesticides from agriculture need to be reduced29: 1918 km²;  
•  Area of agricultural land where pesticides from agriculture  need to be reduced in relation to 

brominated diphenyl ethers: 2421 km² (as reported by Romania); 

•  Area of agricultural land where pesticides  used in agriculture need to be reduced in relation 

to heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide: 1795 km²; and 

•  Area of agricultural land where pesticides  used in agriculture (among other sectors) need to 

be reduced in relation to hexachlorobenzene: 114 km²(as reported by Romania); 

•  Number of groundwater bodies not reaching target due to nitrate concentration exceedances: 

12 (out of 143 ground water bodies). 

The agricultural area of Romania is about 146,300 km². It means that for example the requirement 
to reduce the nutrient load from agriculture covers around 18 % of the utilised agricultural area. 

Most water protection measures are mandatory measures for farmers i.e. measures following the 
existing  legislation  such  as  the  Nitrates  Directive  or  being  required  as  Good  Agricultural  and 
Environmental  and  Climate  and  management  requirements  practices  in  order  to  receive  CAP 
funding30. In terms of key supplementary/additional measures for agricultural activities, the following 
are  planned  to  be  implemented  for  the  period  2022  –  2027:  the  reduction  of  soil  erosion,  the 
application  of  cultivation  practices  to  reduce  the  use  /  pollution  with  phytosanitary  products,  the 
protection of water bodies against pesticide pollution, consultancy / training for farmers, conversion 
of arable land to pasture, creation and maintenance of buffer zones along water at a distance greater 
than that provided by the legislation in force, the application of organic farming, the prevention and 
combatting  of  pollution  from  agricultural  activities  in  areas  facing  natural  constraints,  significant 
natural constraints or other specific constraints (e.g. conversion of arable land to pastures). 

One  of  the  important  additional  measures  is  the  construction  of  communal  manure  storage 
platforms. Through the “Integrated control of nutrient pollution in Romania” project, 68 communal 
platforms for the storage and management of manure in the amount of EUR 29 million were built at 
the  national  level.  The  RBMP  states  that  the  operation  and  maintenance  of  communal  manure 
storage platforms, an average cost of approximately EUR 25,000 per year per platform is expected. 
In  the  period  2022  -  2027,  it  is  planned  to  build  communal  platforms  for  the  storage  and 
management of manure in the amount of EUR 95 million covering investment and other costs. 

The RBMP also includes information on the cost related to the implementation of measures for the 
protection  of  water  against  nutrient  pollution  from  agricultural  sources  e.g.  477  million  EUR  for 
manure storage facilities, 5.4 million EUR for the creation of buffer strips and 91 million EUR for 

29 Reported by two entries: 1482 km² and 436 km²  
30 Mapping and analysis of CAP strategic plans (2023 2027) Mapping and Analysis of CAP Strategic Plans - European 
Commission (europa.eu)  

26 

 
 
monitoring of surface and groundwater bodies. There is a reference to the international Danube River 
Basin  to  which  Romania  is  part  of  in  particular  about  the  specific  coordination  of  the  needs  for 
agricultural measures to reduce the nutrient loads. Two of the four Romanian coastal water bodies 
show deterioration of their ecological status in the biological quality elements since de 2nd RBMP and 
even more since the 1st RBMP. There is a continued pressure of nitrogen conditions in all four coastal 
waterbodies since the 2nd RBMP. The River Basin Specific Pollutants have also some negative impacts 
on the status of two coastal waters. It is important to note that specific measures established at 
international  level  (presented  in  the  Danube  River  Management  Plan)  were  taken  on  board  by 
Romania and included at the national level. 

4.4 What Romania is doing to combat pollution from other sectors 

The  3rd  RBMP  addresses  pollution  from  other  sectors  than  agriculture  including  the  measures  to 
address chemical pollution. Therefore, there are measures planned to address both point and diffuse 
pollution sources.  

The  3rd  RBMP  includes  investments  in  construction  and  upgrading  of  wastewater  collection  and 
treatment infrastructures. This is very welcome since, as mentioned earlier, considerable efforts must 
be done to comply with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD).  

Apart from the waste water treatment related measures, the 3rd RBMP described in generic terms 
at national level and in detail at sub-units level other planned measures to reduce chemical pollution 
including  Priority  Substances  and  other  pollutants:  remediation  of  contaminated  sites  (historical 
pollution  including  sediments,  groundwater  and  soil),  measures  for  the  phasing-out  of  emissions, 
measures  to  reduce  sediment  from  soil  erosion  and  surface  run-off,  research  to  improve  the 
knowledge  base   etc.  The RBMP  includes  an  assessment  of  the  expected  effect(s)  of the  planned 
measures. It is stressed that the effect of measures on the water bodies status takes more time, 
especially for the groundwater bodies.  

Romania presented also gap indicators such as:   

•  Length (km) of river network requiring measures to achieve objectives: 124 km 
•  Number of urban wastewater treatment plants associated with specific pollutants requiring 

measures to achieve the objectives: 48 

•  Number of discharges required to be connected to sewerage network to achieve objectives: 

3705 

•  Area  (km2)  of  groundwater  bodies  affected  by  discharges  not  connected  to  sewerage 

network: 19,897 km2   

•  Population equivalent where wastewater treatment plants need construction or upgrade: 3.5 

million p.e..  

4.5 What Romania is doing to combat significant pressures – overall 

assessment of the Programmes of Measures 

It is noted with concern that over half of the planned measures from the 2nd RBMP have not been 
implemented. A small percentage of these measures are deemed to be no longer necessary (4%) 
and  the  majority  of  those  that  were  not  implemented  (56  %)  have  been  postponed  for 
implementation in the 3rd RBMP (36 %). 

Romania did a prioritisation of measures based on a number of factors that include: 

27 

 
•  Measures which aim to prevent deterioration of water bodies;  
•  Measures which apply to sectors where legal mechanisms and enforcement is available to 

comply with the EU and national obligations;  

•  Focus  on  sectors  that  have  traditionally  been  regulated  and  subject  to  improvement  of 

measures; 

•  Measures  to  reach  the  environmental  objectives  of  water  bodies  according  to  the  DPSIR 

concept and analysis. 

In  addition,  the  measures  are  prioritised  based  on  the  investments  needed  to  comply  with  the 
obligations arising from the community acquis. 

Measures listed in the 3rd RBMP are split between basic and supplementary measures against each 
KTM. There are a total of 140 measures, 52 basic measures and 88 supplementary measures. 

Romania’s 3rd RBMP indicates that 83 % of the budget allocated for investment costs is for measures 
for human agglomerations and is related to the financing of measures to ensure drinking water and 
wastewater infrastructure. This matches well the most significant pressures identified in the Member 
State. The 3rd RBMPs report a summary overview of financing sources for the PoMs, including details 
presented per RBD per type of measure for the entire programme of measures for the period 2022-
2027, i.e. approx. 18 872 billion Euros (excluding operation-maintenance costs).  

Gap analyses are presented for all significant pressures, with quantitative pressure indicators and 
measure indicators and gap values for 2021. Regrettably, no gap has been presented for 2027. 

5. Exemptions and economics 

5.1 To what extent are exemptions applied in Romania 

Romania has used the possibility to apply exemptions under Article 4(4), Article 4(5), and Article 4(7). 
The figure below shows the percentage of water bodies subject to each type of exemption and the 
main justification. 

In a nutshell, there has been less than 2% increase in the number of Article 4(4) exemptions applied 
to surface water bodies and a very small increase (by  one surface water body) in the number of 
Article 4(5) exemptions applied. The number of applied exemptions under Article 4(7) has increased 
from four to five while the number of groundwater bodies for which exemption to the achievement 
of good chemical status was applied, has decreased from 15 to 12 groundwater bodies. Exemptions 
under Article 4(6) of the Water Framework Directive and Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive 
have not been applied in the 2nd and 3rd RBMPs. 

In terms of justification and level of detail provided, it should be noted that the RBMPs provide a 
detailed  explanation  as  regards  the  methodology  used  for  applying  exemptions  (how  and  when) 
including some useful concrete  examples, but the individual descriptions established at the water 
body level only focused on the measures necessary to implement to reach good status. However, 
Article 4 of the WFD applies at the level of the water bodies, which in turn implies that justifications 
presented in the RBMP should also be specific to the water bodies for which the exemption is invoked. 
Therefore, the individual descriptions established at the level of the water body should include more 
detailed  explanations  on  the  reasons  for  applying  the  exemption  or  refer  to  publicly  available 
documents including such more detailed justifications. 

28 

 
Zooming in on the water bodies on the Danube river itself (seven in total) which are reported to the 
ICPDR,  six  out  of  seven  water  bodies  are  in  bad  ecological  and/or  chemical  status.  As  a  result, 
Romania applied Article 4(4) exemptions for six out of seven water bodies.  

Figure  10  Type  of  exemptions  applied  to  surface  water  and  groundwater  bodies  for  the  3rd  RBMP  in 
Romania 

Source: 3rd RBMP e-reporting 

Note: Ecological status and groundwater quantitative status exemptions are reported at the water body level. Chemical 
exemptions for groundwater are reported at the level of each pollutant causing failure of good  chemical status, and for 
surface waters for each Priority Substances that is causing failure of good chemical status. For the purposes of this figure 
the number of water bodies exempted for chemical status is used. Please note that while the WISE reporting uses a label 
“Article 4(5)- Technical feasibility” it should be read as “Article 4(5)- Infeasibility”. Article 4(7) exemption are not visible in 
the graph. 

Article 4(4) exemptions (time related exemptions which can be applied on the grounds of 
technical feasibility, disproportionate costs or natural conditions) 

As  in the  2nd  RBMP,  the  exemptions  under  Article  4(4)  in  the  3rd  RBMP  have  been  justified  on  the 
grounds of technical feasibility, disproportionate costs and natural conditions. It is to be noted that 
natural conditions were not used as exemption ground in the 2nd RBMP. 

Article 4(5) exemptions (lowered objectives) 

The exemptions under Article 4(5) have been justified on the grounds of infeasibility (for 3 surface 
water bodies) and disproportionate costs (for 16 surface water bodies). 

Article 4(6) exemptions (temporary deterioration for reason of ‘force majeure’) 

Similar to the 2nd RBMP, no exemptions according to Article 4(6) have been applied in the 3rd RBMP.  

Article 4(7) exemptions  

29 

 
 
Exemptions under Article 4(7) to justify deterioration/non achievement of good status/potential as a 
result of new modifications or new sustainable human development activities, have been applied to 
five surface water bodies (four surface water bodies with new modifications and one surface water 
body for which investment works began in the year 2000 and not fully completed at the time of 
RBMP reporting). The projects have been subject to an impact assessment. The RBMP also provides 
the general indication that in case of Article 4(7) applications, steps have been taken / will be taken 
to mitigate the adverse impacts on the status of the affected water bodies. 

5.2 Use of economic analysis and water pricing – cost recovery 

The economic analysis in the 3rd RBMP reports all items as listed in WFD Annex III. While it does not 
discuss explicitly the actual progress since the 2nd RBMP as regards the economic analysis and the 
implementation of Article 9 of the WFD. However, the discussion below suggests that progress has 
been made.   

Water services and water uses are clearly defined in the RBMP.  There are two primary water services 
which corresponds to the definition of broad water services in the WFD i.e. provision of water supply 
services related to the delivery of drinking water and obtained from surface and / or groundwater; 
and wastewater collection and treatment services.  

Water  services  are  administered  at  the  communal,  city,  or  county  level.  Furthermore,  the  water 
services  can  be  disaggregated  into  the  three  main  water  user  sectors:  industry,  households,  and 
agriculture. In addition to the water services mentioned, other water uses have also been identified 
e.g.  hydropower  generation  use  (the  users  are  economic  operators  producing  electricity  through 
hydroelectric  power  stations);  cooling  water  use  (the  users  are  economic  operators  producing 
electricity and thermal energy through thermal power stations, nuclear power stations) and irrigation 
use. Figure 10 below presents the water abstraction by economic sector in Romania between 2009 
and 2019. 

Figure 11   water abstraction by economic sector in Romania between 2009 and 2019.   

30 

 
 
Source: EEA Wise (using Eurostat data, but also OECD and own data) as Eurostat data are not available for all economic 
sectors in all MS[1]. 

The forecasts for water demand run until 2030, but it is reported that the National Administration 
"Romanian  Waters"  together  with  National  Institute  of  Hydrology  and  Water  Management  have 
started the preparation for producing long-term water demand scenarios considering the influence 
of climate change with 2050 as time horizon. 

As regards cost recovery, Romania gives an overview of the methodological principles and references 
to national laws on cost recovery, but no clear account of the calculations. The reported rates pertain 
to  both  financial  and  broader  cost  recovery,  with  the  latter  encompassing  Environmental  and 
Resource Cost (ERC). The information reported on cost recovery indicates full financial cost recovery 
for all water services. The rates were provided for the different water services and user sectors..  

Romania  explains  also  that  the  cost  recovery  rates  are  influenced  by  the  established  practice 
exemption  at  macro  and  sectorial  levels.  Although  WFD  Article  9(4)  on  established  practice 
exemption(s) asks that the RBMP specifies for which “water use activities” the exemption applies and 
for what reasons, the RBMP does not provide further details on the application of this exemption. 

As  regards  the  environmental  and  resource  costs,  the  RBMP  refers  to  the  documentation  of  the 
national methodology for calculating these costs. It covers both the broad water services (drinking 
water abstraction (surface and/or groundwater), treatment and distribution, sewage collection and 
wastewater treatment). Furthermore, the calculation of the (broad) cost recovery rates takes these 
ERC on board. 

The RBMP does not provide an explicit account as to whether the current water pricing policies provide 
adequate incentives for an efficient water consumption. However, Romania presents the national 
legislative  framework31  underlying  the  tariffs  for    for  public  water  supply  and  sewerage  services, 
including  their  regional  variation.  The  tariff  for  wastewater  discharges  depends  on  the  type  of 
pollutant and their effects on the water resources and are expressed in lei32/tonne of pollutant. Some 
key features of the water supply tariffs suggest an incentivising effect, such as the full financial cost 
recovery, volumetric pricing, the possibility of penalties when exceeding authorized water volumes, 
and the possible variation in tariffs and charges across water user sectors and regions, but as only 
average prices are reported, it is not fully clear whether these prices incentives can be considered 
adequate. H 

The consideration of the polluter pays principle is clearly specified in different sections of the RBMP. 
However,  with  its  focus  on  policy  principles  and  legislation,  the  RBMP  does  not  explicitly  indicate 
whether the contribution from different water uses/ user sectors to the water services costs can be 
considered adequate. However, it is clearly indicated that the water uses for electricity generation 
through  hydro,  thermal,  and  nuclear  power  plants,  aquaculture,  irrigation  fall  under  the  water 

[1] Conventional statistic abstraction data of Eurostat, EEA and OECD exclude water disappearing after abstraction via 
leakages or evaporation from the surfaces of reservoirs and canals. Leakage and evapotranspiration losses can however 
be significant in MSs with many reservoirs and/or older distribution systems, as is illustrated by French data. Page 14, 
French analytical note on total water consumption (incl. evapotranspiration and losses) adding up to 54.000 million m3 
abstracted, instead of 30.000 million m3 used: https://www.strategie.gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/fs-
2024-na_136_enjeux_et_usages_de_leau_avril.pdf 
31 Order no. 65 of February 28, 2007, approving the Methodology for establishing, adjusting, or modifying prices/tariffs 
for public water supply and sewerage services, 
32 Romanian currency 

31 

 
 
resource  management  payment  system,  with the  number  of  contributions  (payment instruments) 
presented. 

6. WFD recommendations 

Recommendations - Romania should: 

1. 

2. 

increase the level of ambition and accelerate actions to reduce the compliance gap as much as possible by 
2027. This implies tackling obstacles identified in the implementation of measures such as administrative 
capacities and resources. 

Increase  investments  and  ensure  adequate  funding  including  implementation  of  cohesion  funding  to 
effectively implement the Programmes of Measures to reach the objective of the WFD by e.g. developing 
long – term investment plans and clearly identifying the source of financing for implementation of all 
measures in particular related to waste water treatment or building the fish passes at the Iron Gates dams 

Identify  and  put  in  place  additional  measures  to  reduce  existing  persistent  environmental  challenges 
(pressures) preventing the achievement of good status. This implies for example: 

a) 

b) 

the measures show concretely the expected results to achieve the objectives set for each water bodies  

reduction  of  nutrients  and  other  chemical  pollution  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  WFD  and  Nitrates 
Directive.  

c)  Stepping up efforts in the implementation of all necessary restoration and mitigation measures by 

especially prioritising nature-based solutions 

d)  The mitigation measures show exactly how their implementation improve the status of the various 

BQEs  

e)  The  review  of  permits  for  hydropower  plants  and  the  implementation  of  measures  to  tackle 
modifications to hydrological and physical characteristics of surface waters should be accelerated. 

f)  Step up efforts to achieve the objectives set for protected areas, by setting appropriate objectives and 

measures for all designated areas. 

3. 

In the light of the water scarcity challenge experienced by across the EU, Romania should: 

a)  Finalise  the  implementation  of  e-flows  in  all  the  water  bodies,  and  also  in  cooperation  with 

neighbouring countries if that is the case. 

b)  Enhance the international cooperation on water abstraction and water scarcity considering the climate 

and socio-economic changes in the Danube 

c)  Take effective measures to promote water reuse 

d) 

If/when planning new dams or reservoirs, carefully assess their environmental impacts, including as 
regards  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  ensure  that  such  interventions  are  part  of  coherent  water 
resilience strategies, which, among others duly considers long-term climate scenarios 

4. 

To more effectively achieve the objectives of the WFD, Romania should further enhance transboundary 
cooperation such as:  

32 

 
 
a)  Delineation and characterization of the water bodies as well as status assessment methodologies (e.g. 

commonly agreed reference conditions for biological quality elements) 

b)  Harmonisation efforts towards comparable data, assessment methods, etc  

5.  On the use of economic tools, Romania should present more transparently: 

a) 

b) 

c) 

the calculation of the financial, environmental and resource costs and how they inform the water tariffs 
and  the  contributions of the different users including polluters 

the efficiency incentives of water-pricing policy and 

 a comprehensive overview of estimated investments and investment needs for the longer term. 

6.  Where the objectives of the Directive for specific water body cannot be met and exemptions are invoked, 
this should be done in line with ECJ jurisprudence on the restrictive interpretation of exemptions, providing 
a detailed justification at the level of the water body and it should be ensured that their application is 
regularly reviewed. This implies for Romania: 

a)  Romania has given detailed explanation as regards the methodology used for applying exemptions 
(how and when) including some useful concrete examples but the individual descriptions established 
at the water body level only focused on the measures necessary to implement to reach good status. 
However,  Article 4  of  the  WFD  applies  at  the level  of  the water  bodies,  which in  turn  implies  that 
justifications presented in the RBMP should also be specific to the water bodies for which the exemption 
is  invoked.  Therefore,  the  individual  descriptions  established  at  the  level  of  the  water  body  should 
include  more  detailed explanations  on  the  reasons  for  applying  the  exemption,  or  refer  to  publicly 
available documents including such more detailed justifications 

b)  Recognise that the possibilities for time extensions (Article 4 (4)) are extremely limited and will no 
longer  be  allowed  after  2027  (except  if  duly  justified  for  natural  conditions)  and  taking  action 
appropriately 

c)  Ensure a proper implementation of Article 4(7) in relation to all projects potentially deteriorating status 
of  water  bodies/preventing  water  bodies  from  achieving  good  status  (also  if  this  would  only  be 
temporary).  

7.  As regards monitoring, assessment, data management and reporting Romania should: 

a)  Further continue the work to establish reference conditions for the surface water types where there 

are still gaps  

b) 

Increase the monitoring coverage of priority substances as well as of quality elements in surface water 
bodies. In particular, monitoring should be expanded for the water bodies in good status at the time of 
introducing the biota measurements requirement of the 2008/105/EC as amended by 2013/109/EU 
especially the measurement of mercury in biota 

c) 

include the trend analysis as a result of long-term surveillance undertaken in biota and sediments 

d)  Romania should continue its efforts to implement and report hydro morphological measures for all 
water bodies affected by hydro morphological pressures, and for all RBDs, also to meet international 
commitments to remove obstacles to river continuity. Given the importance of the hydro morphological 
pressures to cause failure in ecological status in Romania mitigating measures should receive priority 
attention 

33 

 
e)  maximise  the  efforts  to  ensure  timely  electronic  reporting  of  WFD  data  to  facilitate  comparison 
between implementation cycles and allow for easier monitoring of progress in reaching the objectives 
of the WFD. 

SECTION B: 
FLOODS DIRECTIVE 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
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 12 Units of Management (UoMs) in Romania, which are the same as the Water Framework 
Directive’s River Basin Districts (RBD).  Fluvial,  pluvial,  groundwater, sea water, and Artificial  Water 
Bearing Infrastructure types of floods are considered as potentially significant sources of flooding in 
Romania.  Romania  has  designated  526  Areas  of  Potential  Significant  Flood  Risk  (APSFRs).  The 
impacts of climate change on flood risk have been considered in Romania at the time of the second 
preliminary flood risk assessment. In the second PFRAs it is stated that in order to determine the 
vulnerability of water resources to climate change, adaptation measures at the level of each river 
basin are required. An analysis of the impact of climate change on the maximum runoff regime of 
various  river  basins  was  carried  out  using  hydrological  flow  simulation  models  with  input  data 
obtained from climate change simulations. 

35 

 
 
7.1 Flood hazard and risk maps 

Romania is using an online map portal33 for their FHRMs. FHRMs were prepared at the national level 
and  show  the  whole  country.  Maps  for  floods  with  low  probability  (1/1 000  years),  with  medium 
probability (1/200 and 1/100 years) and with high probability (1/2.5, 3 and 10 years) are provided. 
Flood extent is shown on all maps. Water depth is presented on the map. The current GIS version of 
the FHRM34 (2023) does not directly show the number of inhabitants potentially affected. The number 
of  potentially  affected  inhabitants  is  available  via  the  GIS  web  viewer  on  the  pdfs  generated  for 
specific locations and return periods. Type of economic activity is shown on all maps. IED installations 
are shown. Potentially affected protected areas identified in Annex IV(1)(i), (iii) and (v) to Directive 
2000/60/EC are not all shown in the FHRMs. Only Natura2000 areas are presented on the map. 

The number of APSFRs increased from 399 to 526 APSFRs for the second PFRAs. Also, for the second 
PFRAs, three costal and 17 pluvial  source APSFR were identified whereas previously  APSFRs were 
designated exclusively for fluvial flood risk. From the point of view of the length of the water courses 
designated as APSFRs, the increase is of 1,962 km (from 17 520 km to 19 482 km). 

In terms of changes of contextual information (i.e. the way in which information about the maps is 
conveyed to the public) since the first FHRMs, for the second FHRMs a harmonized approach was 
developed at the national level, with a similar structure. One single GIS portal was created displaying 
the  FHRMs; in  addition,  pdf  files  can  be  downloaded  for  specific  UoM  and  APSFRs.  The  website is 
bilingual (Romanian and English). Low, medium and high probability scenarios have been developed 
for the FHRMs, including a scenario for climate change impacts (a return period of 100 years was 
considered in this case. The current online version of the FHRMs does not include itself information 
regarding  the  number  of  inhabitants  potentially  affected.  For  technical  reasons  this  type  of 
information is available instead on the pdf files generated for specific APSFRs and return periods. 
Different  economic  activities  such  as  agriculture,  industry,  transport,  culture,  IPCC  and  EPRTR 
installations are presented on the GIS and pdf versions of FHRM. The risks, i.e. total direct tangible 
damages (TDTD) or annual expected damages (AED)35 are presented on the GIS map, while TDTD are 
available also on the pdf versions.  

In terms of changes in methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps since the first FHRMs, when 
only  fluvial  floods  were  mapped,  for  the  second  FHRMs  pluvial,  coastal  and  flash  floods  were 
considered for the FHRMs. In addition, low, medium and high probability scenarios were developed 
for all the above-mentioned type of floods.  

In terms of changes in methodologies used to prepare flood risk maps since the first FHRMs, for the 
first  FHRMs,  all  UoMs  used  the  same  approach  to  determine  the  indicative  number  of  potentially 

33 https://harticiclul2.inundatii.ro/map@45.5281462,23.5955807,7z  
34 https://harticiclul2.inundatii.ro/map@45.4498550,23.5343714,7z 
35 Anx2_Meto_evaluare pagube_cartografiere risc.pdf. Anexa 2 Metodologia de evaluare a pagubelor și cartografierea 
riscului. Testarea metodologiei pentru bazine pilot (Methodology for damage assessment and risk mapping. Testing 
methodology for pilot basins). 
The total damages and losses are calculated based on four components: (1) direct tangible, (2) indirect tangible, (3) direct 
intangible and (4) indirect intangible damages. The FHRM include the total direct tangible damages (TDTD) comprising 
physical damages on goods: buildings, content/inventory, vehicles, infrastructure (p. 8, upper scheme). The other three 
types of damages used to calculate total damages include: (i) indirect tangible – loss of production/incomes due to floods, 
costs of not ensuring public services, disaster response costs; (ii) direct intangible – life losses, morbidity (sick, injured, 
suffering people), land use, nature, cultural heritage; (iii) indirect intangible - the inconveniences of recovery after floods, 
increased vulnerability of survivors (p. 8, upper scheme). The Annual Estimated Damage (AED) is calculated for each type 
of flood on the basis of total damages (p. 50).  

36 

 
 
affected  inhabitants.  Land  use,  property  and  industry  locations  were  not  shown  on  the  map; 
infrastructure  locations  were  accessible  through  the  layers  menu.  The  second  FHRMs  include 
information on the Total Direct Tangible Damages (TDTD) and Annual Expected Damage (AED) and 
present  information  on  utilities,  transport,  cultural  heritage,  Natura2000  sites  and  economic 
activities. The number of potentially affected inhabitants and properties are not presented in the GIS 
version of the FHRM, but this information is available in pdf format. Moreover, except for Natura2000 
areas, no other WFD protected areas were included in the FHRMs (both GIS and pdf versions) – this 
is consistent with the assessment of the first FHRMs. 

Climate change in the second FHRMs 

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’.    

7.2 Flood risk management plans 

Objectives and measures 

The FRMPs can be downloaded from a webpage36. Romania has set a general aim and nine objectives. 
The general aim of the FRMPs is to manage and reduce the flood risks for the population, economy, 
environment and cultural heritage. Objectives 1 to 5 call for the reduction of negative impacts in 
these  four  areas.  Three  of  the  objectives  target  non-structural  initiatives:  raising  awareness  and 
resilience, capacity-building for early warning, and increasing stakeholder participation. It is noted 
that the fourth objective addresses negative impacts of floods on cultural heritage whereas the fifth 
objective  addresses  the  mitigation  of  flood  impacts  on  the  environment  and  achievement  and 
maintenance  of  WFD  objectives.  The  FRMPs  present  Romania’s  national  catalogue  of  potential 
measures, which provides a national list of measure types. Measures based on the catalogue’s list of 
measure types are identified and selected in the FRMPs for implementation at APSFR and UoM level. 
In addition, measures to be implemented at national level were identified. The FRMPs describe how 
measures are prioritised in ‘strategies’ for the APSFRs, using multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and cost-
benefit  analysis  (CBA).  Romania  reports  the  priority  of  all  measures,  using  all  five  categories  in 
EIONET, from critical to low priority. The largest share of measures is reported as moderate priority 
(1 097, 42 %), while 615 measures are reported as high priority (23 %). The remaining categories 
make up around 12 % of the measures each: 301 measures are reported as critical priority, 306 with 
very high priority and 308 with low priority. The FRMPs list indicators to monitor the progress of their 
measures. For the second FRMPs, Romania has identified indicators that have clear targets linked to 
the level of priority of the APSFR strategies37. Although the FRMPs only provide a link between the 
nine  objectives  and  three  broad  categories  of  measures,  a  national  methodology38  was  used  to 
develop the measures along the lines of the objectives. The FRMPs and the National Synthesis report 
provide the overall costs of the measures and identify funding sources. For the national measures 
(category  A),  EU  funds  and  the  national  budget  are  planned  as  the  primary  funding  sources.  The 
FRMPs  indicate  that  the  feasibility  of  using  these  sources  will  be  examined  and  a  multiannual 
financial plan prepared by the end of 2023. 

36 https://inundatii.ro/en/resources/  
37 Alternative strategies for each APSFR that can be evaluated and compared with each other. 
38  Methodology  for  the  elaboration  of  the  Programme  of  Measures  (Metodologie  de  elaborare  Programe  de  Masuri). 
Document reported to EIONET. The methodology aims to identify prevention and protection measures, viable, likely to be 
financed and implemented, to be included in the Programme of Measures (FRMP RO 1, p. 72).  

37 

 
 
The FRMPs state that the progress of the measures reflects the achievement of the objectives but 
do  not  provide  further  detail.  All  FRMPs  include  a  dedicated  sub-chapter  presenting  the  steps for 
coordination with the WFD. Water retention measures are foreseen in the FRMPs. Romania reported 
192 prevention measures to EIONET; 74 protection measures and 252 preparedness measures to 
EIONET.  Measures  for  territorial  and  urban  planning  are  included  in  the  FRMPs  and  the  MCA  for 
measures includes a criterion on spatial planning. The MCA used to assess measures includes eight 
environmental criteria, including one for biodiversity. The second FRMPs indicate that over half of all 
measures in the first FRMPs are either completed or ongoing. The National Synthesis for the second 
FRMPs mentions that at the national level, 56 % of the measures in the first FRMPs are either finalised 
or on-going39. The five second FRMPs assessed indicate the share of measures in the corresponding 
first FRMPs that are completed  or ongoing  - and state that this reflects the achievement of their 
objectives40.  

Romania reported to EIONET that the majority of its measures – 1 769 out of 2 627 (67 %) – are not 
started. The great majority of these are protection measures: 1 598 measures (90 % of all measures 
not started and 76 % of all protection measures). The next highest share, 425 measures (16 %), are 
in  preparation,  followed  by  382  measures  (11 %)  that  are  ongoing  (recurrent  e.g.,  maintenance 
works).  In  addition,  44  measures  (2 %)  are  in  ongoing  construction,  and  seven  measures  are 
completed: all the measures in ongoing construction and completed are protection measures. More 
than  half  of  the  preparedness  measures  are  reported  as  ongoing  maintenance  (recurrent,  e.g. 
maintenance works): 144 measures, 53 % of all preparedness measures. All 12 recovery and review 
measures  are  in  preparation,  while  the  two  ‘other’  measures  have  not  started.  For  prevention 
measures, 174 measures (72 % of all prevention measures) are either not started or in preparation. 
The National Synthesis states that 1 179 (41.6%) measures in the first FRMPs are completed and 
408 (14.4%) are ongoing (over 1 500 of the total 2 832 measures)41. These include a broad range of 
measures, such as consolidation, rehabilitation and maintenance of river sections, maintenance of 
flood protection structures, and reforestation. The National Synthesis also reports that 1 245 of the 
2 832  measures  in  the  first  FRMPs  (44 %)  are  not  started.  No  explanation  is  given  for  that  high 
number. 

Governance 

The FRMPs assessed state that Romania regularly exchanges information with neighbouring countries 
in the framework of bilateral agreements42 and the ICPDR43. Romania has bilateral agreements on 
water management with Bulgaria, Hungary, Moldova, Serbia and Ukraine. 

The approach used for stakeholder involvement and public consultations is presented in all five FRMPs 
assessed44. The plans refer to using the internet and social media to provide information on floods, 

39 National Synthesis, p. 22 
40 FRMP RO 1000 Danube states that “following the analysis of the progress of implementation of measures proposed by 
River Basin Administrations Buzau-Ialomita (RO5), Dobrogea Litoral (RO6) and Prut Barlad (RO11), as well as of measures 
proposed by other authorities, for the period 2017-2022 the degree of finalized measures is 45%, and by similarity, it is 
considered  that  the  management  objectives  have  been  achieved  45%  (p.  59).  Similar  statement  for  FRMP  RO5  Buzau-
Ialomita, where the proportion of achieved measures is 52, i.e. it is considered that management objectives have been 
reached 52% (p. 64); for FRMP RO 6 – 29% (p. 62); FRMP RO9 – 17% (p. 75); FRMP RO 11 – 38%, p. 68.  
41 National synthesis, sub-chapter 3.4, Table 6, p. 23.  
42 Bilateral agreements, https://rowater.ro/despre-noi/cooperare-internationala/  
43 Sub-chapter 5.6.4: An overview of international coordination for water management can be found on the website of 
Romanian Waters, https://rowater.ro/activitatea-institutiei/cooperare-internationala/ 
44 FRMPs, Chapter 8. 

38 

 
 
including on the draft plans, under the RO FLOODS project. Multiple communication channels were 
used. The draft of the second FRMPs were available for public consultations for nearly one year. It 
appears  that  there  was  less  involvement  from  NGOs,  the  private  sector,  citizen  associations  or 
individuals  The  five  FRMPs  assessed  provide  information  on  changes  to  the  plans  after  public 
consultations.  

Consideration of climate change 

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

Progress identified in the second FRMPs 

In the second FRMPs Romania identified progress indicators that have clear targets linked to the level 
of priority of the APSFR strategies. Although the FRMPs only provide a link between the nine objectives 
and three broad categories of measures, a national methodology45 was used to develop the measures 
along  the  lines  of  the  objectives.  In  addition,  the  second  FRMPs  provide  estimated  costs  for  the 
implementation of the measures and identify funding sources for some of the measures. Romania 
also provides the methodology for prioritisation, which includes a MCA and CBA. The MCA used in the 
prioritisation of measures comprises 23 indicators, including multi-benefits, such as environmental 
benefits,  in  fact,  the  second  FRMPs  identify  ‘win-win’  measures  that  support  both  FD  and  WFD 
objectives.  Compared  to  the  first  FRMPs,  the  second  FRMPs  refer  to  Romania’s  National  Climate 
Change  Strategy  and  provide  information  on  potential  impacts  of  climate  change  on  floods.  In 
addition, robustness tests for vulnerability to climate change have been carried out. The RO FLOODS 
project46 carried out a major public information campaign via internet and social media on flood risks 
and  measures.  The  FRMPs  include  annexes  outlining  the  activities  undertaken  during  the  public 
consultations, some of the feedback received, and the impact on the plans. 

8. FD recommendations 

Based on the reported information and the FHRMs and FRMPs assessed, the following recommendations are 
made to enhance flood risk management: 

• 

The FHRM web-viewer should integrate all relevant information (including pdf version of the FHRM); 

•  Potentially affected protected areas identified in Annex IV(1)(i), (iii) and (v) to Directive 2000/60/EC, 
especially areas designated for the abstraction of water intended for human consumption, should be 
considered in the FHRM; 

• 

The FRMP’s measures should be linked to its objectives; 

45 Methodology for the elaboration of the Programme of Measures (Metodologie de elaborare Programe de Masuri). 
Document reported to EIONET. The methodology aims to identify prevention and protection measures, viable, likely to be 
financed and implemented, to be included in the Programme of Measures (FRMP RO 1, p. 72).  
46 Supported by the World Bank. 

39 

 
 
• 

• 

• 

The  FRMP  should  provide  information  on  the  costs  of  measures  (next  to  the  overall  cost  which  is 
provided); 

The likely impact of climate change in the FRMP should also be based on future climate scenarios; 

The FRMP should provide detail on the public consultation comments received, and how they were 
taken into account; 

•  Where appropriate, the FHRM should consider flow velocity or relevant water flow and the FRMP flood 

conveyance routes, as these are relevant to emergency response. 

40