MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Miljø- og Fødevareudvalget 2024-25
MOF Alm.del Bilag 291
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 4.2.2025

SWD(2025) 13 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

EU Overview

Third river basin management plans

Second flood hazard and risk maps and second flood risk management plans

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) 14 final} - {SWD(2025) 15 final} -

{SWD(2025) 16 final} - {SWD(2025) 17 final} - {SWD(2025) 18 final} -

{SWD(2025) 19 final} - {SWD(2025) 20 final} - {SWD(2025) 21 final} -

{SWD(2025) 22 final} - {SWD(2025) 23 final} - {SWD(2025) 24 final} -

{SWD(2025) 25 final} - {SWD(2025) 26 final} - {SWD(2025) 27 final} -

{SWD(2025) 28 final} - {SWD(2025) 29 final} - {SWD(2025) 30 final} -

{SWD(2025) 31 final} - {SWD(2025) 32 final} - {SWD(2025) 33 final} -

{SWD(2025) 34 final} - {SWD(2025) 35 final}

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Staff working document

EU overview

ENVIRONMENT

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Introduction

This Commission Staff Working Document accompanies

the Commission’s 7

implementation report

prepared as required by Article 18 of the Water Framework Directive

(WFD) and Article 16 of the

Floods Directive

(FD) respectively. It is based on the

Commission’s

assessment of the third River

Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) and second Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs), and second

Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs), prepared and reported by Member States for the period 2022-

2027. This document is complemented by country-specific Staff Working Documents describing the

results of the assessment by the Commission of the RBMPs and the FRMPs, and FHRMs, for each

Member State that reported on time.

Twenty Member States have adopted and reported their third RBMPs and twenty-one Member States

adopted and submitted their second FRMPs in time for this 7th implementation report (see more

detail in section 2 below).

Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Malta, and Portugal failed to submit both their RBMPs and FRMPs in time to

be considered for the assessment in this report

. Slovenia and Ireland only reported their FRMPs,

whilst Slovakia only reported its RBMPs. For Spain, RBMPs for the Canary Islands have not yet been

reported. Therefore, the present report does not cover these countries or regions.

The State of European Waters 2024 report by the European Environment Agency (EEA) published on

15 October 2024

provides further insights on the status of Europe’s water

bodies, as reported by

the Member States. It should be noted however that the EEA report covers a slightly smaller (19 EU

Member States) and different subset of Member States, since it is purely based on electronic data

submitted in WISE as of a June 2024.

–Additional

information, including country dashboards, will be

made available through the Freshwater Information System for Europe (WISE Freshwater) portal in

the coming months

. WISE is a web-portal hosted by the European Environment Agency containing

water-related information ranging from inland waters to marine.

1.1 Approach to the assessment of the River Basin Management Plans

(RBMPs) and Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs)

Both RBMPs and FRMPs are comprehensive documents, consisting of hundreds to thousands of pages

of information, published in national languages. Their assessment, entailing processing extensive

information in more than 20 languages, has been a very challenging and complex task.

Member States agreed that besides submitting their RBMPs and their FRMPs to the Commission they

would report pre-defined key information electronically through the WISE Freshwater portal.

The quality of the Commission assessments relies on the quality of the Member States' reports.

Incomplete or deficient reporting can lead to wrong and/or incomplete assessments. It is recognised

that reporting is a big effort for Member States, in particular the electronic reporting to WISE. There

2000/60/EC; supplemented by Groundwater (2006/118/EC) and Environmental Quality Standards (2008/105/EC)

Directives.

2007/60/EC

The cut-off date for consideration in this report was September 2023.

EEA Report 7/2024, Europe's state of water 2024. The need for improved water resilience published on 15 Oct 2024

(https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/europes-state-of-water-2024).

https://water.europa.eu/freshwater

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

are examples of very good, high-quality reporting. However, there are also cases where reporting

contains gaps or contradictions.

According to the Directives, the deadline for reporting was March 2022. Regrettably, many Member

States adopted their Plans late and most reported with significant delays. This led the Commission to

launch legal proceedings against all Member States in breach of their legal requirements. Even at the

time of the finalisation of this assessment, not all Member States had adopted and submitted to the

Commission their RBMPs and FRMPs.

While all FRMPs considered in this analysis were submitted by the Member States electronically, many

Member States were late in reporting their third RBMPs through the WISE and some did not do it at

all. As a result, the Commission had to rely for its assessment on a mixture of comparable and

electronically submitted data and information manually extracted from the RBMPs, as well as other

relevant sources. The reasons for this include technical challenges with the reporting platform, as well

as limited progress in Member States as regards the digitization of water data. In the context of the

preparation of its assessment, the Commission maintained regular contact with the Member States

to validate its findings and to ensure that the assessment reflects reality.

Updated information on the adoption of the 3

RBMPs and 2

FRMPs is available respectively at

https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/water/water-framework-directive_en#state-of-play-of-3rd-rbmp-adoption-in-eu-

and

https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/water/floods_en#state-of-play-of-2nd-frmp-adoption-in-eu-27

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

SECTION A:

WATER FRAMEWORK

DIRECTIVE

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Main elements of the WFD

The WFD introduced objectives to protect aquatic ecosystems in a more holistic way, considering all

uses and users of water, and managing water on the scale of river basins. It included a number of

key principles into the management and protection of aquatic resources:

1) The integrated planning process at the scale of river basins, from characterisation to the

definition of measures to reach the environmental objectives.

2) A comprehensive assessment of pressures, impacts and status of the aquatic environment,

including from the ecological perspective.

3) The economic analysis of the measures proposed/taken and the use of economic instruments.

4) The integrated water resources management principle encompassing targeting

environmental objectives with water management and related policies objectives.

5) Public participation and active involvement in water management.

The key objective of the WFD is to achieve good status for all water bodies by 2015, or by 2027 at

the latest

. This comprises the objectives of good ecological and good chemical status for surface

waters and good quantitative and good chemical status for groundwater.

The key tool for the implementation of the WFD are the River Basin Management Plans and the

accompanying Programs of Measures (POMs). The RBMP is a comprehensive document describing the

implementation of water management and identifying all actions to be taken in the river basin district

(RBD).

The PoMs reflect how the Member States respond to the relevant pressures identified at River Basin

District level.

The first RBMPs covered the period 2009-2015. The Commission adopted its assessment of the first

RMBPs in 2012

, while a dedicated report, in 2015 assessed the state of implementation of the

associated 1st Programmes of Measures which were due in 2012.

The second RBMPs covered the period 2016-2021. The Commission adopted its assessment of the

second RMBPs in 2019

, with an additional report in 2021

, on the implementation of the second

Programmes of Measures which were due in 2018

Implementation of the WFD continues to be supported by an informal network of Member States,

EEA/EFTA countries and stakeholders under the banner of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS),

led by Water Directors of Member States and the European Commission, with participation from

relevant stakeholders. The CIS has successfully delivered 38 guidance documents

; served as a

valuable platform for exchange of experience and best practice on implementation among Member

States, but also for exploring common issues of concern and joint responses. All documents produced

under the CIS are made public on CIRCABC

, a collaborative platform.

Article 4(4) of the WFD allows for an extension of the deadline for achieving good status or potential beyond 2015 (as set

by Article 4(1)) under well-defined conditions linked to technical feasibility, disproportionate costs or natural conditions.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/impl_reports.htm#third

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2019%3A095%3AFIN

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2021:0970:FIN

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/impl_reports.htm#third

https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/9ab5926d-bed4-4322-9aa7-9964bbe8312d/library/b44c5c7a-508f-4800-91a4-

9acc99c4eec4?p=1&n=10&sort=modified_DESC

https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/9ab5926d-bed4-4322-9aa7-9964bbe8312d/library/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-

16e1caaafc9a

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

2.1

Governance and horizontal aspects

2.1.1 Governance

The WFD creates a robust framework for the integrated management of all aspects of water policy.

The Directive defines the RBD as the main unit for management of river basins. Some of the key

governance aspects are: an adequate territorial approach, the clear identification of responsibilities,

coordination and cooperation across sectors, interests and borders as well as ensuring adequate

human and financial resource are allocated.

Member States have designated a range of competent authorities for the implementation of the

WFD

. Most have more than one competent authority.

Out of the 20 Member States assessed, significant changes in governance were reported in the third

RBMPs only by 6 Member States (Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden).

In France, an important step has been taken to strengthen coordination at the scale of River Basin

District

. Since 2014, France has undergone a significant reform of local authorities, aiming for a

more efficient implementation at the local level and a better integration of the ecological and flood

management aspects. This resulted in assigning a mandatory competence for the management of

the aquatic environment and flood prevention to all municipalities

. In Italy, River Basin Authorities

have now full competence to elaborate the RBMPs, while the Regions can elaborate regional plans

(Piani di Tutela della Acque) which are now developed and adopted under the umbrella of RBMPs and

constitute subplans of the RBMPs. In Estonia, while the Ministry of Environment has the overall

coordination of the implementation, the number of authorities in charge of water management has

risen from three to nine compared to the second RBMPs. Germany has streamlined its governance

with the river basin approach by reducing the number of competent authorities to one for each of the

10 (instead of 16 before) RBDs thereby improving coordination arrangements between the German

federal states (‘Länder’). This may be one reason why all 10 RBDs have been finalised and published

on time. In Poland, the number of RBMPs published decreased from 10 to 9 for the third RBMPs. This

is due to the new division specified in the updated Water Law from 2017. Poland did not provide

further information on the reason of this change.  In Sweden, sub-plans have been produced for the

third RBMPs regarding drought and water scarcity in the South Baltic due to the clear effects of

climate change in this RBD. The other water basins did not proceed with a sub-plan regarding drought

and water scarcity, but instead incorporated the issue as into the RBMPs.

Public consultation and the active involvement of stakeholders

Member States must ensure consultation and access to background information used for the

development of RBMPs and to encourage active involvement of all interested parties.

This requirement was respected in almost all Member States that have generally undertaken

considerable efforts in consulting stakeholders and the public and have used a variety of different

outreach methods, which during the pandemic were adapted, exploring also new methods for online

public consultations. However, there are also examples where consultation could have been better

Please note that in their RBMP reporting, Member States indicated the names of their competent authorities: the

categories and the categorisation were created for the purpose of the assessment for this report. It should also be noted

that the Member States have indicated authorities responsible for key aspects of the development and implementation of

their RBMPs: these may include authorities additional to those reported under Article 3 of the WFD.

With the Law 221/2015, and in particular Article 51 “Norms concerning River Basin Authorities”.

This new decentralised

competence is called “GEMAPI”

- gestion des milieux aquatiques et la prévention des

inondations.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

since in some cases incomplete set of documents were submitted for public consultation. For instance,

in Latvia and Poland, there was no consultation on an overview of the significant water management

issues. In France, for the Mayotte RBD, only the draft RBMP was made available for consultation and

in Italy for the North Apennines RBD, the draft RBMP presented for consultation was incomplete and

not comprehensive enough to allow proper public feedback. In Lithuania, the draft RBMPs were

available for public consultation only for 5 months instead of the mandatory 6 months. In Croatia, no

information is provided regarding the duration of the consultation of the timetable and work

programme. In addition, a lack of actual engagement (diversity of sectors reached, activities put in

place) was noted in some countries or RBDs.

Despite clear improvements, it is not clear for all Member States or RBMPs whether the stakeholder

consultations significantly influenced the adopted RBMPs and whether this has contributed to

enhanced ownership by all parties involved.

In line with the requirement of the WFD to involve all interested parties in its implementation, most

of the Member States established advisory groups and involved stakeholders in the drafting.

Stakeholder groups (such as water supply and sanitation, agriculture, local and regional authorities,

non-governmental organisations and nature protection groups) were actively involved in all or some

of the RBDs in all Member States assessed.

In Romania, the RBMP mentions that thematic meetings were held, in which ad hoc working groups

were established, so that the most relevant stakeholders could actively participate in the consultation

process. In Sweden, the mechanisms for active involvement were the establishment of Water councils,

advisory groups involved in drafting of the RBMPs. In Finland organised feedback was sought from

advisory groups (called “cooperation groups”) with

a wide representation of key stakeholders from

both governmental and non-governmental organizations. In Austria, mechanisms for active

involvement of stakeholders included advisory groups (Bundesministerium für Land- und

Forstwirtschaft, Regionen und Wasserwirtschaft), formation of alliances, regular exhibitions, digital

tools, involvement in drafting, and other outreach activities such as stakeholder meetings and

roundtables.

In some RBDs, participative activities were targeted to specific issues. In Belgium, the region of

Flanders set up a co-creation process for the water scarcity and drought plans that are included in

the RBMPs. In Estonia, four online meetings were held during the consultation period, together for all

draft RBMPs on several thematic areas: flooding, water management, abstraction and wastewater,

residual pollution; dams; marine environment; agriculture and land reclamation.

Coordination with the Floods Directive (FD)

Competent authorities under the FD may differ from the ones appointed under the WFD and in certain

Member States

“units

of management” (UoMs) identified in accordance with the FD are not the same

as the RBDs under the WFD. As required by Article 9 of the FD, Member States shall also take

appropriate steps to coordinate actions under the Floods Directive and the WFD.

Overall, 15 of the 21 Member States assessed provided strong evidence in their Flood Risk

Management Plans that coordination was ensured with the WFD, while the remaining six had at least

some evidence.

The Figure 2-1 below shows that most Member States include coordination between authorities in all

UoMs. Denmark was the only Member State not to report coordination between authorities, and is

thus not shown in the figure, and Poland and Belgium reported it only for some UoMs.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

We can distinguish two approaches to the synergies between WFD and FD implementation. Only in 2

Member States (Croatia and Latvia), the Flood Risk Management Plans are fully integrated as a single

plan in all the RBMPs, while for Belgium this was done only for three out of seven RBMPs. The most

integrated plan is the one from Latvia, where the RBMPs and FRMPs are now consolidated in one

single plan for each RBD, which also includes mandatory measures from the Marine Strategy

Framework Directive. They share a common PoM and undergo a joint public consultation. In the case

of Croatia, the document includes separate PoMs for the RBMP and the FRMP. However, some of the

measures (mainly measures related to hydromorphological issues) in the RBMP reference flood risk

management among the relevant sectors.

Figure 2-1: Number of Member States providing evidence of coordination between FRMPs and RBMPs

Source: MS reporting to EIONET

In a vast majority of Member States, RBMPs and FRMPs remain separate planning documents, whose

elaboration has been coordinated to a different degree. In the Netherlands, the RBMPs and FRMPs

are both annexes to the Dutch National Water Programme.

The great majority of the Member States has carried out a

joint consultation

of their RBMPs and the

FRMPs for all RBDs (Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland,

Romania, Spain) or only some RBDs (Belgium, Finland and France). 4 Member States did not carry out

joint consultations (Italy, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Sweden) and 2 did not indicate this information in

their RBMPs (Denmark, the Netherlands). The reasons why certain Members States or RBDs did not

conduct a parallel consultation are mainly related to practical issues, such different timings of the

two planning processes or delays. For instance, in Slovakia, RBMP and FRMP are no longer integrated

in a single plan

–

as it was the case for the second cycle

–

and did not undergo a joint process of

elaboration because flood risk maps were not ready soon enough to allow a joint process with the

elaboration of the RBMPs.

Other ways to coordinate the implementation of the two Directives (see Figure 2-2 below) are:

1) inclusion of

the FD objectives among the RBMP’s objectives (Estonia,

Hungary, Luxembourg,

Netherlands, and Romania); and on the other hand, assessing and mitigating the potential

impact of the FRMP measures on the RBMP’s objectives.

As an example, in Belgium, the

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Wallonia RBMP indicate that 40% of the measures included in the FRMPs support the

objectives of the WFD (e.g. hydromorphology and flow). Yet, 10% of the measures in the

FRMPs have been identified with potential negative impact on the objectives of the WFD and

for these, special attention is required to mitigate/compensate such impacts.

inclusion of measures related to the FD in the RBMPs’ PoMs.

These measures often combine

the aim of both ecological and flood management such as the case of Czechia.

Figure 2-2: Integration of objectives in RBMPs and FRMPs

Source: Member State reporting to EIONET

All Member States reported to EIONET that their coordination with the WFD, included natural water

retention and green infrastructure measures, (though for six Member States, this was in some but

not always in all their UoMs (see the Figure 2-3 below). Drought management was identified by 11

Member States (Czechia, Finland, Croatia, Hungary, the Netherlands, one UoM in Spain and Sweden,

three UoMs in France and Poland, five UoMs in Belgium and 29 UoMs in Italy). Overall, the assessment

shows a significant increase in the number of measures reported as delivering on both WFD and FD

objectives.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 2-3: Number of Member States reporting synergies between FRMP and RBMP measures

Coordination with the MSFD

The framework established by the WFD covers coastal waters and contributes inter alia to the

protection of territorial and marine waters. It hence contributes directly to achieving the objectives of

the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and requires a more integrated approach between

freshwater and the marine environment. This is particularly true for issues such as reduction of

nutrient load and eutrophication, reduction of pollution source from the land, spread of invasive

species, fish migration, and aquaculture.

The assessment highlights that the level of coordination on the implementation of the WFD and MSFD

varies across Member States.

The strongest evidence of coordination on the implementation of the directives and of coordinated

public consultations are shows in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia Sweden and France. In Lithuania, the

National Water Plan for 2022-2027 integrates the objectives of the WFD, FD and MSFD. In Estonia,

a joint consultation was held for the third RBMPs together with the FRMPs and the PoMs for the

MSFD. Furthermore, the implementation of the MSFD and its PoMs is included in the Estonian RBMPs

PoMs basic measures The French law provides that the RBMPs and the FRMPs must be compatible

with the environmental objectives of the Action Plan for the Marine Environment (the operational plan

Full terms for the categories shown in the tables:

•

Use of sustainable drainage systems, such as the construction of wetland and porous pavements, considered to

reduce urban flooding and contribute to the achievement of the environmental objectives in the WFD

•

Design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers,

adapted to take environmental objectives of the WFD into account

•

Consistent and compliant application of Article 4(7) of the WFD and designation of heavily modified water

bodies with measures taken under the FD, e.g. flood defence infrastructure

•

Permitting or consenting of flood risk activities (e.g. dredging, flood defence maintenance or construction)

requires prior consideration of WFD objectives and RBMPs

•

Planning of ‘win-win’ and ‘no regret’ measures in the FRMP and RBMP included NWRMs and green infrastructure

measures

•

Planning of ‘win-win’ and ‘no regret’ measures in FRMP and RBMP

included drought management measures

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

for the implementation of the MSFD) and take into account the objectives and measures of the

Strategic Coastal Plan (the strategic document for the implementation of the MSFD). In Sweden, the

PoMs for the MSFD, the FRMP and the RBMP are coordinated. In Latvia mandatory measures from

the MSFD are included in the joint RBMPs/FRMPs developed for each RBD.

Other Member States, such as Finland and Romania, have a clear integration of the objectives of the

MSFD in their RBMPs. In these countries, as well as in those mentioned above, the objectives of the

MSFD were clearly

taken into account in the RBMP’s PoMs.

In Germany, Italy, Spain and Belgium, there are differences across the RBDs in terms of modalities

and extent of the coordination between WFD and MSFD implementation.

In Italy, the RBMP for the Po River makes the link between its measures and the environmental targets

sets in the MSFD; the North Apennines RBMP includes a gap analysis based on existing measures

which preliminarily identified 25 possible new measures aimed at reaching MSFD environmental

objectives and to be included in the update of the MSFD PoM. However, the Sicily RBMP does not

mention the MSFD.

In Belgium, the North Sea RBMP is coordinated with the plans established under the MSFD. The RBMP

mentions the need to achieve targets defined for the WFD, MSFD and Natura2000, and acknowledges

overlaps between the application area of the MSFD and the WFD. For the evaluation of chemical and

ecological status, the intention is to streamline objectives and monitoring as much as possible.

However, the Flanders RBMP does not contain information regarding coordination with the MSFD.

Wallonia’s RBMPs refer to the specific RBMP that covers the coastal region of Belgium to which all

three regions participate (i.e. Groupe directeur Mer du Nord).

In Spain, there are difference across the RBMPs. For instance, the Ebro RBMP includes the objectives

of the MSFD among its objectives. In the Segura RBMP instead, the MSFD it is not mentioned

specifically, but the Marine Strategy of Levantino-Balear aiming to restore the Mar Menor is

mentioned as a key challenge. The Guadiana RBMP does not refer to the MSFD specifically, however

some of measures included would be also beneficial for the marine environment (e.g. restore marine

ecosystems. reduce marine litter by 50 % and release of microplastics by 30 %). Positively, coastal

and marine waters are considered in the methodology for ecological flows.

In Germany, for instance, the Weser RBMP does mention the MSFD and includes some of its objectives,

as well as detailed interlinkage as regards substances to be measured that are included in both the

WFD and the OSPAR agreement

. However, the Rhine RBMP does not name the MSFD directly when

reporting on additional measurements from other regulations. The Elbe RBMP explains the

interlinkages between the MSFD and WFD, but this is not translated into concrete action for the Elbe

basin.

Some Member States or RBDs do not show signs of coordination between the RBMPs and the MSFD.

For instance, the Danish RBMPs do not mention the MSFD. In Poland, the Oder and Vistula RBMPs

mention the National Marine Water Management Plan, which is the plan at the national scale for the

implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). However, no explicit link is made

between this plan and the objectives or measures of the RBMPs. The situation is the same in Croatia,

where the MSFD is mentioned only once in the RBMP as being under the responsibility of a different

administration. Yet the RBMP contains several references to the Barcelona Convention and issues

related to marine environment pertaining to coastal areas and rivers that discharge into the Adriatic.

OSPAR is the mechanism by which 15 Governments and the EU cooperate to protect the marine environment of the

North-East Atlantic.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Regarding the national RBMPs in the landlocked countries (Austria, Czechia, Hungary, Luxembourg,

Slovakia),

most of them do not refer explicitly to the MSFD. However, the Czech RBMPs’ PoMs

include

specific measures to prevent the pollution of marine waters. The Hungarian RBMP does not mention

the MSFD, except in connection with the implementation of the Urban Wastewater Treatment

Directive, to mitigate eutrophication.

In the Baltic Sea basin

The Latvian RBMPs state that attention has been paid to the assessment of the state of the marine

environment in the marine eutrophication status assessment, as it is in the area of eutrophication

that measures to reduce pressures on (river catchments) are essential for improving the status of

marine waters. The measures in the Programmes of the RBMPs are mandatory measures in the

context of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and are therefore fully applicable to the Baltic

Sea management.

In Lithuania, the second objective of the National Water Development Plan 2022-2027 is to achieve

and/or maintain good environmental status in the Baltic Sea. The priority is to reduce pollution

reaching the Baltic Sea and the Curonian Lagoon through river runoff. Further objectives in the

National Water Development Plan relevant for the MSFD include ensuring a more sustainable use of

marine resources, continuing research and developing national action plans to improve the status of

specific populations. This document states that improvement of the legal framework to reduce the

release of hazardous chemicals into the marine environment is foreseen, as well as an increased

focus on limiting the spread of invasive species, the problem of marine litter, and the negative impacts

of noise and other forms of energy.

The PoMs of the Estonian RBMPs include measures to reduce pollution and facilitate fish migration

that are designed to achieve a good state of the marine environment.

In Finland, the reduction of the nutrient load necessary to improve the state of the sea has been taken

into account when designing the water management measures and their magnitude. On the other

hand, marine management measures are designed to help achieve the environmental goals of water

management set for coastal waters.

In the North Sea

In Germany, as mentioned earlier, the Weser RBMP elaborates on the interlinkages with the MSFD. It

includes the nitrogen load reduction needed to achieve good ecological status in coastal waters. It

also refers to substances to be measured, which are included in the WFD and the OSPAR-agreement.

On the other hand, the Dutch RBMP only contains general references to coordination for some

objectives of the MSFD (e.g. the objective to limit litter and microplastics).

The French Rhine-Meuse RBMP explicitly links its objectives and measures with the marine strategy

of the Netherlands regarding migratory fishes, nutrients and pollutants loads, and macro-plastics.

In Belgium, the North Sea RBMP shows a clear alignment between the two policy areas and makes

explicit references to the MSFD assessment for Phytobenthos, the impact of human activities on

hydrology and hydromorphology. The PoMs are coordinated. The RBMP lists the measures from the

MSFD PoMs which may contribute to achieving a good ecological status and contribute to the

objectives of the WFD.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

In the Black Sea

In Romania, the common objectives focus mainly on addressing impacts of wastewater (wastewater

treatment measures), aquaculture industry and conservation of sturgeon species and of protected

areas.

The coordination with the MSFD also takes place at the Danube International River Basin District level,

with projects carried out by the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River.

In the Mediterranean

In Italy, the Po RBMP states that wastewater treatment and chemical quality of water resources are,

per se, directly linked to the environmental targets set in the MSFD. The North Apennines includes a

table on the correspondence between WFD Key Type Measures and their relevance for the MSFD.

In Spain, for example, 492 measures outlined in the Ebro RBMP have been recognised for their role

in advancing the achievement of environmental objectives in the second cycle of the Levantine-

Balearic Marine Strategy and aim to effectively contribute to attaining good environmental status

(GES).

In France, on the Rhone-Mediterranean RBD (FRD), objectives are coordinated with the MSFD,

particularly for preserving the Mediterranean marine environment from the introduction of invasive

exotic species and reducing land-based inputs of hazardous substances into the Mediterranean Sea.

2.1.2 Characterisation of the River Basin District

Introduction

Article 5 of the WFD requires Member States to undertake an analysis of the characteristics of each

RBD or portion of an international RBD falling within their territory. They should identify all relevant

categories and types of water bodies within the RBD. For surface waters, specific typologies and

reference conditions have to be established. Characterisation also involves correctly identifying water

bodies at risk of failing objectives.

Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in third RBMPs

Delineation of surface and Groundwater bodies

Table 2-1 provides an overview of the number of surface water bodies in each Member State for

which third RBMP reporting was available. These numbers will change once all Member States have

reported their third RBMPs. From the information available so far, covering 20 Member States, 78.4%

of surface water bodies are delineated as river water bodies, 18.9% are delineated as lake water

bodies, 0.5% are delineated as transitional water bodies, 2.1% are delineated as coastal water bodies

and 0.1 % are delineated as territorial water bodies

. This is very similar to what was reported for

the previous cycle.

Percentages are expected to change once all Member States have reported their 3

RBMPs and the number of surface

water bodies per surface water category in all Member States is known.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Table 2-1 - Number of water bodies per water category in Member States

Member State

Rivers

Lakes

Transitional

Coastal

Territorial

Groundwater

bodies

142

174

1291

2050

804

3913

689

185

1007

Austria (AT)

Belgium (BE)

Czechia (CZ)

Germany (DE)

Denmark (DK)

Estonia (EE)

Spain (ES)

Finland (FI)

France (FR)

Croatia (HR)

Hungary (HU)

Italy (IT)

Lithuania (LT)

Luxembourg (LU)

Latvia (LV)

The

(NL)

Netherlands

8116

521

1045

8923

6703

635

4136

1960

10714

1752

886

6876

826

104

492

234

738

986

888

4639

397

109

186

347

361

276

492

186

116

147

109

255

276

179

393

Poland (PL)

Romania (RO)

Sweden (SE)

Slovakia (SK)

3161

2741

15688

1328

1068

278

7453

654

174

143

3702

106

As regards surface water bodies, Figure 2-4 below shows that there are changes in the number of

surface water bodies between the second and third RBMPs in all the Member States that were

Data for Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, the Netherlands,

Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain is from WISE electronic reporting and data for Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg and

Sweden is from data mining from the PDFs of the RBMPs.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

included in the assessment. Only in some cases, these changes are particularly significant. Reasons

for changes are described in the RBMPs of some of the concerned Member States, but not all.

Figure 2-4: Number of surface water bodies in Member States in the third and second RBMPs

5 000

10 000

2nd RBMPs

15 000

3rd RBMPs

20 000

25 000

As shown in Figure 2-5 below, between the second and third RBMPs there are also changes in the

delineation of groundwater bodies in most Member State. This are particularly significant for countries

such as Denmark and Sweden. Reasons for changes are described in the RBMPs of some of the

concerned Member States.

Data for the 3

RBMPs for Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia,

the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain is from WISE electronic reporting and from data for Denmark,

Finland, Luxembourg and Sweden is from data mining from the RBMP PDFs.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 2-5: Number of groundwater bodies in Member States in the third and second RBMPs

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3rd RBMPs

3000

3500

4000

2nd RBMPs

Reference conditions

Member States are required to establish the ecological status of water bodies by comparing current

status with near natural or undisturbed (reference) conditions which show no or only very minor

evidence of distortion. Reference conditions have to be established for each of the surface water

body types for biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements.

Notwithstanding significant progress made in most Member States with setting reference conditions

for all quality elements, as well as improving coherence and comparability of biological quality

elements in the so called intercalibration exercise at EU level

, there is still some

lack of

Data for the 3rd RBMPs for Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania,

Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain is from WISE electronic reporting and from data for

Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg and Sweden is from data mining from the RBMP PDFs.

OJ L, 2024/721, 8.3.2024: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2024/721/oj

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

harmonization at EU level

and room for improving the comparability of overall status assessment

based on biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements.

Pressures and impacts

The assessment of this

‘characterisation’ carried out by Member States

confirms that European

waters remain under significant pressure from pollution generated by both diffuse (e.g. agriculture,

transport) and point (e.g. industry or energy production) source, as well as over-abstraction and

hydromorphological changes

, stemming from a range of human activities.

As shown in Figures 2-6, 2-6a and 2-6b below , the most significant pressures for surface water

bodies in the reporting Member States for which the data is available electronically are

pollution

from atmospheric deposition

(affecting 59% of waterbodies),

hydromorphological changes

(57%

- stemming from drainage and irrigation for agriculture, hydropower, flood protection, navigation or

drinking water supply, and

diffuse pollution from

agriculture

(32% of affected water bodies). Other

main pressures across the Union include

urban wastewater discharges

(14%),

discharges not

connected to the sewage system

(9%), and

abstraction

(9%) for multiple purposes. Other pressures

most commonly identified in the RBMPs include pollution from

urban run-off

(8%)

storm overflows

(5%), as well as

discharges from industrial installations

(6%). It should be noted that the same

water body can be subject to multiple pressures, so the total does not add up to 100%.

Regrettably, 13%

of EU’s water bodies continue to be affected by yet unidentified anthropogenic

pressures, which would indicate that the pressures and impacts have not been fully apportioned to

activities or sectors, so there is still room for increasing our knowledge to better tackle such pressures.

No significant pressure is identified in only 10% of the reported water bodies.

Aquatic ecosystems in Europe are also under increased pressure from

invasive alien species

affecting both freshwater and marine ecosystems and several of these species have been included

in the list of invasive species of Union concern. Despite the direct impact that these species can have

on the achievement of the WFD objective of ecological status, the issue is only identified as a

significant pressure in 2.2% of surface water bodies and information on invasive alien species and

the measures taken to tackle the problem is often totally missing or not very detailed in the RBMPs.

Hydromorphological changes are, for instance, changes to physical characteristics surface waters and natural flow of

rivers and transitional waters, or water levels of lakes or freshwater flow and natural current of coastal waters.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 2-6: Top pressures which have been reported in surface water bodies (from WISE Freshwater

–

only

countries with electronic reporting)

Atmospheric deposition

Hydromorphology

Diffuse sources

Point sources

Unknown anthropogenic pressure

Abstraction

Introduced species and litter

Historical pollution

Other anthropogenic pressure

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Percentage of total surface water bodies

13%

20%

38%

59%

57%

60%

70%

Figure 2-6a: Diffuse pollution pressures for surface water bodies in 3RBMPs (from WISE Freshwater

–

only countries with electronic reporting)

Agricultural

Discharges not connected to sewerage network

Urban run-off

Transport

Other

Forestry

Mining

Contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

32%

35%

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 2-6b: Point pollution pressures for surface water bodies in 3RBMPs (from WISE Freshwater

–

only

countries with electronic reporting)

Urban waste water

Storm overflows

IED plants

Contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites

Non IED plants

Other

Waste disposal sites

Mine waters

Aquaculture

10%

12%

14%

16%

While a majority of groundwater bodies in the EU (71%) is reported as not being subject to any

significant pressures, almost one third of groundwater bodies is affected by a range of pressures. As

shown in the Figures 2-7, 2-7a and 2-7b below, the main pressures affecting

groundwater bodies

across the EU are

diffuse agricultural pollution

(e.g. pesticides and fertilisers) which affect 59% of

the impacted groundwater bodies and

abstraction for public water supply

(25% of the impacted

groundwater bodies), followed by

abstraction for agriculture

(22%)

industrial

(12%) and

other

purposes

(12%). Diffuse pollution from other sources, in particular

urban run-off

(16%) and

discharges not connected to sewerage network

(6%) are also important pressures, as are pollution

from

contaminated or abandoned industrial sites

(17%) and

historical pollution

(13%).

Based on WISE Freshwater data covering 16 out of the 20 Member States for which the data is available electronically.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 2-7

–

Top pressures reported for impacted groundwater bodies (from WISE Freshwater)

Diffuse sources

Abstraction

Point sources

Historical pollution

Unknown anthropogenic pressure

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percentage of total surface water bodies

13%

25%

35%

68%

Groundwater recharge or water level

Atmospheric deposition

Other anthropogenic pressure

Introduced species and litter

Hydromorphology

70%

80%

Figure 2-7a: Diffuse pollution pressures for groundwaters in the third RBMPs (from WISE Freshwater

–

only countries with electronic reporting)

Agricultural

Urban run-off

Discharges not connected to sewerage network

Other

Transport

Mining

Forestry

Contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

16%

59%

60%

70%

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 2-7b: Point pollution pressures for groundwaters in third RBMPs (from WISE Freshwater

–

only

countries with electronic reporting)

Contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites

Waste disposal sites

Other

Urban waste water

IED plants

Mine waters

Non IED plants

18%

10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Programme of Measures (PoMs)

The WFD requires Member States to identify a

Programme of Measures (PoMs)

to prevent or limit

the identified pressures and timely achieve good status.

The reports by Member States confirm that a considerable number of measures announced in the

second RBMPs could not be turned into action.

As it was the case for the 1

PoMs, insufficient funding of measures has been identified as the most

significant obstacle for the implementation of measures in the second RBMPs (86%), followed by

unexpected delays (81%), lack of mechanisms (70%, i.e. national regulations or other measures not

yet adopted) and governance issues (57%). Difficulties in acquiring land required to implement certain

measures is also regularly raised as key challenge.

As regards the third PoMs presented in the 2022-2027 RBMPs, it can be observed that Member States

continue to have different approaches to the development and reporting of PoMs. The PoMs often

contain a fairly long set of measures. While the use of Key Type Measures was intended to harmonize

reporting, differences remain. There is no uniform definition of what count for one measure. Hence

while some Member States may report granularly on individual measures (i.e. investment in an

individual wastewater treatment plant), other Member States may include a single entry for multiple

interventions in the same area. The number of measures is therefore not a very informative indicator

for the effort. More importantly, not in all Member States the PoMs are based on clear assessment

of the gap to be bridged to reach good status. In addition, there is generally limited information on

prioritisation of measures based on the cost-effectiveness analyses.

Costs of the planned measures is also not clearly identified and considering the persistent funding

challenges reported by Member States it can be understood that the required resources for the

The next interim reports on the implementation of the planned PoMs should be reported to the Commission by 22

December 2024.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

implementation of the PoMs are not always secured upfront. This severely hampers their

effectiveness.

While limited information is provided in many of the RBMPs, it is worth noting that EU funding

instruments including the Common Agricultural Policy, the Cohesion Policy and the Recovery and

Resilience Facility played a significant role in supporting the implementation of RBMP and FRMP

measures across Member States. Furthermore, the Commission through the Horizon Europe

programme is providing extensive support for research to close the knowledge gaps and promote the

deployment of innovative solutions, including through the Mission on Oceans and Freshwaters. Finally,

through the Technical Support Instrument, the Commission is also supporting Member States in

designing, developing and implementing reforms in water policy.

3. How the implementation of the third RBMPs have

contributed to addressing the triple planetary crisis

3.1 POLICY ELEMENTS CONTRIBUTING TO BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE

CHANGE ADAPTATION

3.1.1

Surface Water: what is their ecological status or potential

Introduction

The main objectives of the WFD include the achievement of Good Ecological Status (GES) or Potential

(GEP) by 2015, or by 2027 at the latest. Member States must establish surface water monitoring

networks to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of ecological (and chemical) status

within each river basin district that allows for the classification of water bodies. The quality elements

used for the classification of ecological status comprise biological quality elements (BQEs),

hydromorphological quality elements supporting the BQEs; general physico-chemical quality elements

and RBSPs supporting the BQEs.

Each Member State is required to develop methods to assess ecological status for all biological quality

elements and apply them for the purpose of surveillance and operational monitoring

. Assessment

methods for the supporting quality elements must be linked to the biological quality elements,

according to the normative definitions given in Annex V of the WFD. Methods should be developed for

the full range of quality elements to allow detection of all pressures on surface water bodies and

together provide a holistic picture of the ecological status of the aquatic environment.

Monitoring

The knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem health in EU rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal

waters has generally improved significantly. This is the result of better

monitoring and assessment

of ecological status of surface water bodies

which has been enabled by a general increased

coverage of water bodies and water quality elements monitored

. This has allowed to better assess

For operational monitoring (results of which are used for status classification, only the parameters indicative of the

biological quality element (s) most sensitive to the pressures to which the water bodies are subject, must be monitored.

It should be noted however that because lack of electronic reporting, the overview of the monitoring and its coverage

can be derived for only 13 Member States.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

the status for an increased number of water bodies, reducing further the uncertainty present in

previous cycle.

However,

major gaps in ecological status monitoring remain,

both in terms of spatial coverage and

assessment confidence.

One of the most evident conclusions is that the monitoring approaches are very different between

the Member States. This diversity can be seen

in the practices, frequencies of monitoring and

parameters

measured by the Member States. It can also be seen in the very different approaches

pertaining to grouping of water bodies

and the use of expert judgement replacing empirical and

quantitative measurements.

Overall, monitoring of quality elements in each water category is patchy at best, overly relying on

grouping of several different water bodies and expert judgment, rather than on a more thorough and

empirical assessment of each relevant water body under the specific WFD parameters. Modelling is

increasingly being used by Member States, potentially contributing, if well done, to provide a robust

picture for larger areas and longer time periods with connection to various hydrological conditions, as

well as the impact of changing climate. However, models need regular maintanence to be kept

updated as well as wide and frequent monitoring data of water quality and quantity to be calibrated

and validated accordingly.

Selection of quality elements monitored

Despite improvements, there are still significant gaps in the quality elements monitored in each water

category. This is particularly so for the hydromorphological quality elements, but there are still

significant gaps also in the monitoring of biological and physico-chemical quality elements.

Overall, regarding biological quality elements, the largest gap in monitoring is seen for angiosperms

and macroalgae in coastal and transitional water bodies, since only few Member States monitor these

quality elements. As for hydromorphological quality elements, the largest gaps are noted in coastal

and transitional water bodies. For example, more than half of the Member States with coastal waters

do not monitor morphological conditions, and half do not monitor tidal regime. Lastly, for physico-

chemical quality elements, the largest gaps are noted for thermal and salinity conditions

. A

summary of the information reported is presented in Table 3-1 below.

Whereby monitoring results are extrapolated to a series of water bodies subject to similar pressures/impacts.

Note that salinity conditions of coastal waters are used for the characterisation of water bodies and not assessment of

status.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Table 3-1. Member States that monitor each quality element within each surface water category (green indicates the quality element that is required by the WFD

to be monitored for classification of each surface water category, grey indicates the quality element that is not required by the WFD to be monitored for

classification of each surface water category)

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Quality Element

Phytoplankton

Rivers

Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Germany,

Estonia, Croatia, Lithuania, Latvia,

Romania

Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Germany,

Estonia, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy,

Lithuania, Latvia, Romania

Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Germany,

Estonia, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy,

Lithuania, Latvia, Romania

Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Germany,

Estonia, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy,

Lithuania, Latvia, Netherlands,

Romania

Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Germany,

Estonia, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy,

Lithuania, Latvia, Netherlands,

Romania

N/A

Germany, Netherlands

Austria, Czechia, Germany, Estonia,

Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania,

Latvia, Romania

Austria, Czechia, Germany, Estonia,

Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania,

Latvia, Romania

Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Germany,

Estonia, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy,

Lithuania, Latvia, Romania

Macrophytes

Phytobenthos

Lakes

Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Germany,

Estonia, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy,

Lithuania, Latvia, Netherlands,

Romania

Austria, Belgium, Germany, Estonia,

Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania,

Latvia, Romania

Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Croatia,

Italy, Lithuania, Romania

Austria, Belgium, Germany, Estonia,

Spain, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia,

Netherlands, Romania

Austria, Germany, Estonia, France,

Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia,

Netherlands, Romania

N/A

Germany, Spain, Netherlands

Austria, Czechia, Germany, Estonia,

Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania,

Latvia, Romania

Estonia, France, Romania

Austria, Czechia, Germany, Estonia,

Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania,

Latvia, Romania

Coastal

Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Spain,

France, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania,

Latvia, Netherlands, Romania

Lithuania

Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Spain,

France, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania,

Latvia, Netherlands, Romania

N/A

Germany, Estonia, Spain, France,

Croatia, Italy

Germany, Estonia, Spain, France,

Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia

Germany, Spain, Lithuania,

Netherlands, Romania

Germany, France, Romania,

France

Transitional

Belgium, Spain, France, Croatia,

Italy, Lithuania, Latvia,

Netherlands, Romania

Belgium, France, Italy, Lithuania

Lithuania

Belgium, Germany, Spain, France,

Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia,

Netherlands, Romania

Belgium, Germany, Spain, France,

Croatia, Italy, Lithuania,

Netherlands

Spain, France, Croatia, Lithuania

France, Lithuania

Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands

Germany, France, Italy, Romania

France

Biological

Benthic

invertebrates

Fish

Angiosperms

Macroalgae

Other aquatic flora

Hydrological

tidal regime

Hydromorphological

River

Continuity

conditions

Morphological

conditions

Germany, Estonia, Spain, France,

Croatia, Italy, Romania

Belgium, Germany, Spain, France,

Croatia, Italy, Romania

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Transparency

conditions

Thermal conditions

Belgium, Germany

Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Spain,

France, Croatia, Italy, Netherlands,

Romania

Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Estonia,

Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania,

Latvia, Netherlands, Romania

Belgium, Germany, Spain, Croatia,

Italy, Netherlands, Romania

Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Estonia,

Spain, France, Croatia, Italy,

Netherlands, Romania

Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Estonia,

Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania,

Latvia, Netherlands, Romania

Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Estonia,

Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania,

Latvia, Netherlands, Romania

Czechia, Germany, Estonia, Spain,

France, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania,

Latvia, Netherlands

Czechia, Germany, Spain, Croatia,

Italy, Netherlands

Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Spain,

France, Croatia, Italy, Netherlands

Belgium, Germany, Spain, Croatia,

Italy, Netherlands

Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Estonia,

Spain, Croatia, Italy, Netherlands,

Romania

Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Spain,

France, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania,

Latvia, Netherlands, Romania

Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Estonia,

Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania,

Latvia, Netherlands, Romania

Germany, Estonia, Spain, France,

Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, Romania

France, Croatia, Italy, Netherlands,

Romania

Germany, Spain, France, Croatia,

Italy, Netherlands, Romania

Croatia, Italy, Romania

Italy, Romania

Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Spain,

France, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania,

Latvia, Netherlands, Romania

Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Spain,

France, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania,

Latvia, Romania

Spain, Croatia, Italy, Romania

Netherlands, Romania

Belgium, Spain, France, Croatia,

Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Romania

Croatia, Romania

Belgium, Spain, Romania

Belgium, Germany, Spain, France,

Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia,

Netherlands, Romania

Belgium, Germany, Spain, France,

Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia,

Romania

Physico-Chemical

Oxygenation

conditions

Salinity conditions

Acidification

status

Nitrogen conditions

Phosphorus

conditions

Source: third RBMPs electronic reporting by

(

Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Estonia, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Netherlands, Romania)

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Considering only the 13 Member States that reported information electronically for which the data is easily

retrievable and comparable, Figure 3-1 reflects the number of Member States that monitor

biological quality

elements

for different types of water bodies. It is clear that some aquatic plants (macrophytes,

phytoplankton, invertebrates and fish) are the most monitored while large differences between Member

States appear for other biological quality elements. It should be noted that, for the purpose of operational

monitoring (used for status classification), Member States have to monitor the quality elements that are

most sensitive to the pressures to which the water bodies are subject; whereas, for the purpose of

surveillance monitoring (carried out during one year of the six year cycle, to determine changes in pressures

and impacts and inform the operational monitoring programmes), all quality elements should in principle be

monitored.

Figure 3-1. Number of Member States that monitor each biological quality element for rivers, lakes, coastal, and

transitional water bodies

Number of Member States

Phytoplankton

Macrophytes

Phytobenthos

Rivers

Benthic

invertebrates

Lakes

Coastal

Fish

Angiosperms

Macroalgae

Other aquatic

flora

Transitional

Source: third RBMPs electronic reporting

Additionally, the coverage of the monitoring of biological quality elements, regarding the number of water

bodies, is depicted in Figure 3-2 below. It is worth noting that there are some elements which are being

monitored, i.e. fish in coastal waters and macroalgae in rivers and lakes, although it is not required by the

WFD.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 3.2. The average proportion (% of number water bodies) of the monitoring of biological quality elements

for rivers, lakes, coastal waters, and transitional waters

Source: third RBMPs electronic reporting

Figure 3-3 depicts the monitoring of hydromorphological quality elements for the 13 Member States that

reported electronically.

Figure 3-3. Number of Member States that monitor various hydromorphological quality elements for rivers,

lakes, coastal, and transitional water bodies (Note: Continuity conditions are mandatory for Rivers only)

Source: third RBMPs electronic reporting

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Finally, in relation to the monitoring physico-chemical quality elements, Figure 3-4 below depicts the number

of Member States which are monitoring each physico-chemical quality element, depicted to water categories.

Figure 3-4. Number of Member States that monitor each physico-chemical quality element for rivers, lakes,

coastal, and transitional water bodies.

Number of Member States

Transparency

conditions

Thermal

conditions

Oxygenation

conditions

Lakes

Salinity

conditions

Coastal

Acidification

status

Transitional

Nitrogen

conditions

Phosphorpus

conditions

Rivers

Source: third RBMPs electronic reporting

Status assessment

Overall, the

ecological status or potential of EU water bodies has not significantly improved as compared

to the previous cycles (Figure 3-5).

Comparing the same set of (both electronically and PDF reported)

Member States between the two cycles, the Commission concludes that in the third RBMPs, 39,5% of surface

water bodies in Europe were in good ecological status or potential

which is about the same as in the previous

report in 2015 (39.1%).

In general, lakes and coastal waters are in better status than rivers and transitional waters. The nutrient

loads are causing a significant pressure on surface waters leading to eutrophication of wate bodies. According

to the 2021 reporting on Nitrates Directive, at EU level, 36% of river stations and 32% of lake stations, 31%

of coastal and 32% of transitional water stations are reported as eutrophic.

Unsurprisingly, the ecological status of natural water bodies is generally better than the status of heavily

modified and artificial water bodies.

Good Ecological Potential is the objective to be reached by a heavily modified or artificial water body.

See the Report of the European Commission on the implementation of the Nitrates Directive from 2021, page 5, available at

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC1000.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 3-5. Change in ecological status assessment of

EU’s surface

water bodies from first, second and third

RBMPs (source: WISE freshwater and PDF data mining)

It must be noted that the comparability between cycles is hampered by the changes in the number and

redelineation (e.g. new water body type) of water bodies, as well as in monitoring methodologies and

parameters in many Member States.

When comparing the third RBMP with the second (see Table 3-2 below), the biggest improvement in ecological

status has been observed in Latvia (+11.4%), Sweden (+4.2%), Hungary (+3%), Austria (+2.8%), Spain

(+2,2%) and Finland (+2.1%). However, a significant reduction in the number of water bodies in good

ecological status or potential was reported by Poland (-22.9%), Lithuania (-5.5%), Slovakia (-14.9%), Czechia

(-13.3%), Croatia (-9.1%) and Estonia (-7.6%). These changes can partially be explained by changes in the

number and in the characteristics of the water bodies as well as by a much better knowledge of the status

of various quality elements of their water bodies compared to the second RBMPs rather than to an actual

deterioration.

Table 3-2. Ecological status/potential of water bodies (% of all water bodies) in each Member State for both the

second and third RBMPs. (Source: electronic reporting and PDF mining)

second RBMPs

Member State

Moderate/

Unknown

Less

56.4%

52.1%

71.1%

57.9%

79.1%

47.9%

39.7%

25.3%

4.5%

1.3%

2.7%

0.0%

1.7%

23.8%

0.1%

1.4%

third RBMPs

Moderate/

Less

57.1%

49.4%

70.5%

66.8%

94.1%

57.8%

47.4%

24.6%

Change in good

status in %

points

0.4%

2.8%

1.1%

-9.1%

-13.3%

1.7%

-7.6%

2.1%

High/Good

Unknown

EU proportion

Austria

Belgium

Croatia

Czechia

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

39.1%

46.6%

26.2%

42.1%

19.2%

28.2%

60.1%

73.2%

39.5%

49.3%

27.4%

33.0%

5.9%

29.9%

52.6%

75.3%

3.4%

1.2%

2.1%

0.2%

0.0%

12.3%

0.0%

0.1%

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

France

Germany

Hungary

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

The Netherlands

Poland

Romania

Slovakia

Spain

Sweden

44.2%

8.1%

8.3%

41.8%

21.1%

51.9%

2.7%

0.3%

31.2%

66.1%

56.2%

55.6%

36.8%

55.5%

89.1%

78.3%

39.8%

78.9%

48.1%

97.3%

99.3%

68.7%

33.7%

43.8%

42.3%

63.2%

0.4%

2.8%

13.5%

18.4%

0.0%

0.4%

0.0%

0.2%

0.0%

2.1%

0.0%

43.6%

9.3%

11.3%

43.6%

32.5%

36.4%

0.0%

8.4%

66.6%

41.3%

57.8%

41.0%

56.1%

88.8%

88.7%

46.8%

67.5%

63.6%

100.0%

99.7%

63.7%

33.4%

58.7%

41.4%

59.0%

0.3%

1.9%

0.0%

9.7%

0.0%

0.3%

27.9%

0.0%

0.9%

0.0%

-0.6%

1.1%

3.0%

1.8%

11.4%

-15.5%

-2.7%

-0.3%

-22.9%

0.4%

-14.9%

2.2%

4.2%

Notwithstanding the overall lack of progress, there is clear evidence of some improvement in some individual

biological and chemical quality elements underpinning the good ecological status which may reflect the

positive effects of measures taken during the previous planning cycles. According to the EEA State of

European Waters 2024, the status of phytoplankton, benthic flora, and invertebrates has improved in lakes

while rivers and transitional waters have seen improvements in benthic invertebrates

. This confirms that

some of the key measures taken in the previous RBMPs, especially improving wastewater treatment which

has contributed significantly to reduced organic pollution and nutrients, have had an immediate positive

effect. At the same time, pressure caused by diffuse pollution remains significant, especially from agriculture,

and there is growing concern on the impacts of emerging chemical pollutants on aquatic ecosystems and on

the ecological status of surface waters. These partial improvements, while notable, are not sufficient to

improve the overall ecological status of water bodies and to reduce the associated risk to health and

environment. This also implies that these improvements tend to be overlooked

since the WFD applies a “one

out all out” approach which implies that a water body can only achieve good status if all biological and

supporting quality elements are assessed at least as good.

This may explain, at least partially, why the assessment of the ecological status in the third RBMPs for the

period 2022-2027

shows an overall limited improvement in comparison to the second RBMPs (covering the

2009-2015 period). In addition, as already outlined, this lack of progress can be due to:

•

an increase in knowledge and accuracy,

a possible exacerbation of pressures on water,

inefficient or inadequate measures or

lack of progress in putting the planned measures in motion.

It is difficult, on the basis of the information provided, to ascertain among these reasons which is the main

one and this largely varies from country to country.

Based on lakes in western, eastern, central and southern Europe, due to data missing from SE and FI.

EEA Report 7/2024, Europe's state of water 2024. The need for improved water resilience published on 15 Oct 2024

(https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/europes-state-of-water-2024).

It should be noted that MS preparations for the 3

RBMPs started in 2018 hence this document are based on data collected up

to 2018. This means that the data submitted to the Commission may not reflect possible positive impact of actions taken in

subsequent years, as well as the effect of action taken by the EU in the context of the European Green Deal.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Comparability of results may also be affected by the fact that Member States use different approaches to

river basin specific pollutants

(RBSPs) which should be identified by individual Member States and should

be used to support the assessment of ecological status. For instance, while the Netherlands is monitoring

dozens of substances of national relevance, other Member States have only identified and monitor a much

more limited subset of RBSPs and/or monitoring them in a small proportion of all water bodies. There is

generally limited information in the reports on the subject and it is generally unclear to what extent these

substances are considered in the status assessment.

As regards expectations in relation to the achievement of good ecological status by 2027, most Member

States do not expect to meet the good ecological status or potential for all their water bodies. The more

optimistic are Austria, Romania, and Spain, while Croatia, Czechia, Germany and the Netherlands have the

lowest expectations. All these estimates are based on different assumptions of the achievement of WFD

objectives and they already anticipate, to a certain extent, the intention of the Member State on making use

of Article 4 WFD exemptions in the 4

RBMPs.

3.1.2 Hydromorphological changes and artificialization (HMWBs and AWBs)

For hundreds of years, human activities in Europe have physically changed the shape of our rivers, lakes,

estuaries and coastal waters by eliminating natural features, introducing concrete infrastructures (i.e. heavily

modified water bodies), or creating new canals or reservoirs (i.e. artificial water bodies) which all resulted in

new, but non-natural water systems.

Heavily Modified Water Bodies

(HMWBs) are bodies of water which, because of physical alterations by

human activity, are substantially changed in character and cannot, therefore, meet "good ecological status"

(GES).

Artificial Water Bodies

(AWB) are water bodies created by human activity. Instead of "good ecological

status", the environmental objective for HMWB and for AWB is

Good Ecological Potential

(GEP)

. In

addition, according to WFD Article 4(3), the designations of HMWBs and AWBs and the reasons for them shall

be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs and reviewed every six years.

All Member States describe a methodology for designating HMWB/AWB, albeit with different levels of detail.

Many Member States (in particular Austria, Czechia, Finland, France, Hungary, Romania, Spain, and Sweden)

made updates to the methodologies used for the designation.

The RBMPs show a very big difference among Member States on the degree of human intervention on surface

waters. The proportion of

heavily modified water bodies

and

artificial water bodies

has slightly increased

in third RBMPs, with 12.4% of water bodies designated as heavily modified and 4.4% as artificial in the 20

Member States considered in the analysis compared to 11.9% and 4.1% in the second RBMPs. Figure 3-6

below reveals the very high level of human intervention in some Member States (e.g. Netherlands, Hungary,

Germany, and Belgium) and the pronounced naturalness remaining in some others (e.g. Finland and Sweden).

Three Member States (Austria, Croatia, Slovakia) reported significant increases in the number of

HMWBs/AWBs. This could be partly due to changes in the classification of certain water bodies, rather than

introduction of new alterations to the physical or hydrological characteristics. Designation of HMWBs/AWBs

is still in progress in both Croatia and Slovakia, while Sweden has recently revised its methodology and an

increase in the number of HMWBs is expected in Sweden’s 4

RBMPs.

Good Ecological Potential is the objective to be reached by a heavily modified or artificial water body.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 3-6. Percentage of surface water bodies that have been designated as heavily modified or artificial in

the third (2021) RBMPs by Member State

The main uses for which water bodies have been designated as heavily modified (see figure 3-7 below) are

flood protection (37%), agriculture (land drainage 23%, irrigation 15%), hydropower (21%), drinking water

supply (11%) and other urban development (10%). Other uses are represented in less than 10% of HMWBs.

Uses behind designation of artificial water bodies are not reported in WISE. According to the electronic

reporting which covering 13 Member States, the main physical alterations behind designation are

channelisation, straightening, bed stabilisation, and bank reinforcement affecting 58% of water bodies

designated as HMWBs, as well as weirs, dams, and reservoirs affecting 51%. These two main groups are

followed by land reclamation (19%), dredging / channel maintenance (11%), land reclamation / coastal

modifications / ports (7%) and locks (2%). Other physical alteration is reported for 9% of HMWBs.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 3-7. Activities for which surface water bodies have been designated as heavily modified or artificial in

the third RBMPs

Good Ecological Potential (GEP) - the objective to be reached in heavily modified or artificial water body - is

a less stringent objective than GES

. Indeed, it caters for ecological impacts resulting from those physical

alterations that (i) are necessary to support a specified use or (ii) must be maintained to avoid adverse effects

on the wider environment. The assessment revealed some methodological improvements on the way Member

States assess when a heavily modified water body or an artificial water body can be considered to have

achieved

Good Ecological Potential.

Poland has developed a new methodology while improvements were

made in other Member States (e.g. in Czechia and various French RBDs) by adding new quality elements or

updating the class boundaries. It is noted positively that most Member States now report comparison of GEP

and GES, while in the second RBMPs only half of them did so.

As regards the achievement of good ecological potential for heavily modified water bodies, based on the

information reported to WISE by the time of preparing this report, it is noted that only 16.8% of these water

bodies are in GEP. There are nevertheless big differences among Member States (ranging between none of

the HMWBs reaching GEP in Belgium and the Netherlands to about half of the relevant water bodies in Spain

and Romania).

Taking into account the estimations provided by Member States, GEP is expected in 53% of HMWBs in 2027,

with very big differences among countries (from only 2% in the Netherlands to 100% in Estonia). That leaves

Article 4(3) WFD allows to set lower objectives to the quality elements which are sensitive to impacts caused by uses behind the

designation of a water body as heavily modified or artificial.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

around 40% for which GEP will be achieved beyond 2027. Some HMWBs are

also reported in the “less

stringent objective already

achieved” and “unknown” categories.

As regards artificial water bodies, GEP is already achieved in 16% of these water bodies. Again, difference

among countries are significant with 0% in the Netherlands to 88% in Estonia. In 2027, GEP is expected in

29% of AWBs (ranging from only 4% in Belgium and to 100% in Estonia and Spain), while in 61% GEP is

expected to be achieved after this date. Some AWBs were also reported in the “less stringent objective already

achieved” and “unknown” categories.

Measures for achieving GEP are reported in all Member States where GEP has been defined. They relate to

“restoration of bank structure”, “fish ladders”, “setting of ecological flows” and “removal of structures”

that

are applied to more than 40% of RBDs . More than 30% of RBMPs

also reported “habitat restoration, building

spawning and breeding areas”,

“restoration of modified bed structure” and “sediment/debris management”.

Some Member States provided information in their RBMPs or background documents regarding the expected

ecological improvements, though these are mainly qualitative given the persistent challenge faced by

Member States as regards the quantification of the expected impacts of measures.

3.1.3 Groundwater bodies - have they sufficient water

–

quantitative status

The Water Framework Directive establishes several criteria to define when a groundwater body is in good

quantitative status. These are:

•

the available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long-term annual average rate of

abstraction; and

the groundwater levels and flows are sufficient to meet environmental objectives for associated

surface waters and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (GWAAES); and

anthropogenic alterations to flow direction resulting from level change does not cause saline or other

intrusion.

Monitoring

Also as regards the monitoring of the quantitative status of groundwater bodies, the assessment confirms a

general improvement with an increased coverage of the number of water bodies and in some cases also an

increase in the number of monitoring sites. Monitoring is very often done in situ, rather than through

modelling or expert judgement as it is the case for other types of monitoring. This shows the importance is

given by the Member States to have an accurate picture of the reserves they have of groundwater to feed

the different societal needs.

Status Assessment

As regards the quantitative status of groundwaters, comparing the same set of Member States, it is

encouraging to observe a small improvement with 95% of groundwater bodies being reported in good status

as compared to 92.4% in 2015. The data reported shows that largely the replenishment of groundwater

bodies, a big share of the EU’s reserves, appears mostly secured.

It needs to be stressed however that not

all Member States adequately consider the needs of groundwater-dependent ecosystems, and that this

picture taken in 2021 does not capture the impacts of subsequent years which have been the driest this

century.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 3-8. Change in the quantitative status assessment

of EU’s groundwater

bodies from first, second and

third RBMPs (source: WISE freshwater and PDF data mining)

GWB quantitative status for EU average

3rd

2nd

1st

10%

20%

30%

40%

Good

50%

Poor

60%

Unknown

70%

80%

90%

100%

This may be an indication that climate change has not (yet) affected the groundwater across the EU. There

are nevertheless significant geographical variations across the EU which can be seen in Figure 3-9 below.

Furthermore, it is important to flag that this analysis does not cover countries such as Cyprus, Greece and

Malta where achieving good quantitative status was a challenge in the second RBMPs.

Figure 3-9. Overview quantitative status for groundwater bodies by Member States in 2021

When comparing the data from the third RBMP with the ones from the second (see Table 3-3 below), it can

be observed that 5 Member States (Austria, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Latvia and Romania) confirmed that

100% of their groundwater bodies were in good quantitative status. As regards other countries, the biggest

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

improvement in the quantitative status has been observed in Czechia (+24,7%), Slovakia (+20%), and Italy

(+18,4%), while a noticeable worsening is reported by the Netherlands (-4.3%), Estonia (-3.9%), Belgium (-

2.3%). The situation remained largely stable for most of the other Member States with either a slight

improvement or reduction of the share of the bodies in good quantitative status. However, even countries

which report that all their GWBs have sufficient water for the moment, they also report pressures are

increasing for some water bodies and that they are at risk of failing to achieve good status in the future.

Table 3-3. Quantitative status of groundwater bodies in each Member State for both the second and third

RBMPs. (Source: third RBMPs electronic reporting and PDF mining)

second RBMPs

Member

State

Good

Poor

Unknown

third RBMPs

Good

Poor

Unknown

Difference in

good status in %

points

2.9%

0.0%

-2.3%

24.7%

-0.5%

0.3%

-3.9%

-1.1%

1.6%

-1.7%

1.1%

0.0%

18.4%

0.0%

-4.3%

-1.3%

0.0%

-0.5%

20.0%

EU proportion

92.4%

100.0%

90.0%

69.0%

95.7%

99.3%

97.4%

75.7%

98.3%

89.8%

97.0%

80.0%

61.0%

100.0%

92.7%

100.0%

99.7%

70.6%

4.5%

0.0%

10.0%

9.8%

4.3%

0.7%

2.6%

24.3%

0.1%

10.2%

3.0%

20.0%

14.4%

0.0%

7.3%

0.0%

0.3%

2.9%

3.1%

0.0%

21.3%

0.0%

1.6%

0.0%

24.6%

0.0%

26.5%

95.3%

100.0%

87.7%

93.7%

95.2%

99.6%

93.5%

74.6%

99.9%

88.1%

98.0%

80.0%

79.4%

100.0%

95.7%

91.4%

100.0%

99.2%

90.6%

4.5%

0.0%

12.3%

6.3%

4.8%

0.4%

6.5%

25.4%

0.0%

11.8%

2.0%

20.0%

19.1%

0.0%

4.3%

8.6%

0.0%

0.8%

9.4%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

1.5%

0.0%

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

There are different reasons which lead to failing to achieve good status and these are depicted in Figure 3-

10 below.

Figure 3-10. Mains reasons for failing good quantitative status for groundwaters

Water balance / Lowering water table

84%

Saline or other intrusion

25%

Associated surface waters

20%

Dependent terrestrial ecosystems

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

It must be noted, that at this point an assessment of the impacts of current and future climate change is not

part of the tests for good quantitative status.

Almost all MS undertook a

water balance assessment

for the third RBMPs, apart from Luxembourg which

reports that this test will be completed by the end of the period.

The

assessment of long-term trends

in groundwater levels was undertaken by the Netherlands, Austria,

Luxembourg, Germany, Spain, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Belgium, Croatia and Romania.

Czechia, Lithuania and Latvia did not carry out this part of the groundwater quantitative status assessment

tests, and it was not mentioned by Denmark, Estonia and Sweden.

However, contrary what the WFD requires, when assessing the quantitative status of groundwater bodies

Member States do not always consider the needs of the

groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems

(GWAAEs)

and

groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTEs).

This is very important for

ecosystem and species conservation and for stopping biodiversity loss. However, while some Member States

did consider GWAAEs, GWDTEs and saline or other intrusions, others did so only partially or only in some

RBDs, and many Member States have not taken all these factors into account when determining quantitative

status. This represents a major gap that neglects the water needs of nature, since manmade alterations of

groundwater levels may have major impacts on the status of surface water bodies or damage precious

ecosystems such as wetlands.

It needs to be pointed out that throughout the past three implementation cycles Member States reported a

high proportion of groundwaters , as being in good quantitative status. However, this sits in contrast with the

increase in water scarcity across the EU and the observed increased reliance on groundwater bodies as source

of supply for public services and irrigation which is leading to increased abstractions

. This stresses the

A water balance is the amount of water available for allocation, counted as inflows minus outflows in a given river (sub-)basin.

According to the EEA, groundwater share of the total water abstraction has increased from 19% in 2000 to 23% in 2019. See

section 3.6 for additional information.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

importance for Member States to better apply agreed methodologies for the assessment of quantitative

status to adequately consider seasonal variations and the impacts of climate change, while relying less on

historical trends and fully considering the role of groundwater contribution to support rivers and ecosystems.

An assessment solely relying on groundwater levels is not sufficient

. It also indicates, as also suggested by

the EEA, the potential need to revise existing methodologies.

Significantly, the number of groundwater bodies reported by Member States as at risk of not achieving good

quantitative status by 2027 reflects an expected worsening of the situation by several Member States (see

figure 3-11 below).

Figure 3-11. Percentage of groundwater bodies that Member States report as at risk of not achieving good

quantitative status by 2027 (only countries with e-reporting)

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

The WFD requires Member States to establish a register or registers of all areas lying within each RBD which

have been designated as requiring special protection under relevant EU legislation and where additional or

more stringent objectives may be needed to achieve its objectives, as well as the objectives enshrined in

other relevant EU legislation.

All 20 Member States have reported the number of water bodies associated with protected areas according

to a range of relevant Directives, as presented in the table 3-4 below.

Overall, in this reporting cycle most Member States have reported a higher number of water bodies associated

with protected areas designated under other EU legislation and have in place a

of protected areas

which has been updated in the third RBMPs. Yet, most Member States provided only general information.

However, the comparison between the number of protected areas with the previous cycle, is somewhat

difficult. In the second RBMPs Member States reported the number of protected areas, whereas in the third

RBMPs the focus has been on the number of water bodies associated with protected areas.

See Common Implementation Strategy Guidance note n.18.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Table 3-4 Overview of the number of water bodies associated with protected areas per Member State

Drinking

water

protection

area

Freshwater

fish

designated

water

Nationally

designated

Area (CDDA)

Nitrate

vulnerable

zones

whole

country

approach

Whole region

approach for

Flanders and

8 zones of

Wallonia

287

825

whole

country

approach

whole

country

approach

1955

whole

country

approach

65048

1465

whole

country

approach

4240

whole

country

approach

857

1097

4375

Nutrient

sensitive

areas

Bathing

waters

Natura

2000

Shellfish

areas

Austria

1395

Belgium

Croatia

Czechia

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Hungary

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Poland

Romania

Slovakia

Spain

Sweden

100

206

733

429

260

517

439

220

538

1705

1107

1277

494

1412

173

353

351

2537

1778

154

434

162

609

655

402

1336

842

269

1032

3177

4509

7947

2190

142

534

257

3789

1877

749

4239

9191

1957

7587

749

1327

536

23794

107

172

180

258

232

Monitoring

All 20 Member States convey that protected areas are monitored. With some exceptions, there seems to be

better monitoring of these areas,

which in most cases is probably linked to the general improvement in

monitoring under the WFD.

In particular, Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Latvia, Spain, and Sweden have implemented a wide coverage of

monitoring sites that appear to provide ample coverage to the number of protected areas within their country.

No information has been identified for Denmark, Finland, or Slovakia regarding the number of monitoring

sites.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Yet for most, it is unclear whether the monitoring network used for protected areas is the same than for WFD

monitoring or it is additional. Sweden, Slovakia, Netherlands, and Luxembourg have indicated that the

monitoring of protected areas is additional to the monitoring networks used for the implementation of the

WFD.

Status assessment of protected areas

The status of protected areas could be assessed only for 13 Member States (out of 20 covered by this

assessment) due to the absence of electronic reporting for the other reporting Member States. As it can be

seen in the Figure 3-12 below, data shows an

increase in the number of water bodies associated with

protected areas in bad status

as compared to the previous cycle.

This could partly be linked to the significant reduction of areas with unknown status since the share of water

bodies with an unknown status has reduced considerably, especially for groundwater bodies.

There has been a 10% increase in the bad ecological potential of surface water bodies, as well as a reduction

of just under 5% in the number of water bodies rated as being in high status since 2015. There has also

been a slight increase in the number of water bodies designated as poor or moderate status since 2015.

Again, an increase of roughly 5% for both.

For chemical status of surface water bodies designated as protected areas, 15% are in unknown status,

approximately 48% in good chemical status and around 36% in bad chemical status. For chemical status of

groundwater bodies unknown status has decreased by roughly 5% most likely due to increased monitoring

within EU Member States since 2015. Good status has also decreased by nearly 20% which again could be

due in part to an increase in monitoring. For quantitative status of groundwater bodies, the unknown status

of water bodies has been significantly reduced and poor status of groundwater bodies has increased by

about 5% in protected areas.

In the vast majority of Member States hence the designation of protected areas does not seem to bring about

the expected improvements on the state. This suggests that, regrettably, the designation as

“protected

area”

does not lead Member States to enhance efforts to protect the surface and ground waters which these areas

need to flourish. This confirms limited progress in implementation of the Nature Directives compared to the

2013-2018

period assessed in the 2020 ‘State of Nature’ report, according to which

only 17% of protected

river, lake, alluvial and riparian habitats were in good conservation status and a large majority of protected

fish and amphibian species were in poor or bad conservation status (respectively 80% and 60% of the

population)

State of nature in the EU - Results from reporting under the nature directives 2013-2018;

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-eu-2020

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 3-12. Status of water bodies in protected areas in second and third RBMPs (Source: third RBMP electronic

reporting)

3rd Plan Ecological status/potential SWB

2nd Plan Ecological status/potential SWB

3rd Plan Chemical status SWB

2nd Plan Chemical status SWB

3rd Plan Quantitative status GWB

2nd Plan Quantitative status GWB

3rd Plan Chemical status GWB

2nd Plan Chemical status GWB

High

Good

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Unknown

70%

80%

90% 100%

Moderate

Poor

Bad

Additional objectives

Water bodies associated with protected areas may need to achieve more stringent or specific objectives

compared to the good status objectives set by WFD in order to achieve the level of protection required under

the relevant legislation for protecting of specific ecosystem, species, drinking or bathing water.

As required by the Nature Directives, Member States have predominantly set up specific objectives for

habitats and species protected areas (Natura 2000 sites),

although in some cases work is ongoing to

establish the exact needs. In some cases, Member States have also set additional objectives and measures

for

sensitive areas

under the urban wastewater treatment directive,

bathing waters

and

drinking water

safeguard zones,

although the objectives or measures are often reported in somewhat general terms

Some Member States with a commercial interest in shellfish production (or less often in freshwater fish)

have designated

protected areas for economically significant aquatic species.

These are Croatia, France,

Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain and Sweden for shellfish and Croatia, Finland, Italy, Latvia and

Sweden for freshwater fish.

For the shellfish areas, some Member States (Croatia, the Netherlands Romania and Sweden)

have set the same objectives that were in the Shellfish Directives, which has since been repealed

. One Member States

For habitats and species protected areas some MS reported measures, while others clearly referred to management plans under

the relevant directives (Birds and Habitats). In some cases, for these protected areas it is assumed that reaching WFD good status

is sufficient to meet the additional objectives.

Former Directive 2006/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or

improvement in order to support fish life, and Directive 2006/113/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December

2006 on the quality required of shellfish waters, whose validity ended in 2013. According to the WFD, the level of protection from these

repealed Directives should be maintained through the inclusion of the areas, designated under the previous Fish and Shellfish directives,

as protected areas under WFD.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

(France) applies different microbiological standards as compared to the repealed directives for all these areas. While Italy

and Spain apply the same standards in some areas and different standards in other areas. For Poland, the information on

standards is unclear.

Figure 3-13. Objective setting in protected areas per category of protected area

Source: third RBMP electronic reporting

Where additional objectives have been set, they have been achieved predominantly for drinking water

safeguard zones, shellfish designated areas and bathing waters, while only a minimal part of the objectives

set for Natura 2000 sites have been achieved. See figure 3-14 below outlines the number of met objectives

per type of protected area.

For the Nitrates Vulnerable Zones, the additional measures are rather included in the Action Plans (which

must be reviewed every 4 years) pursuant to the Nitrates Directive rather than in the RBMPs. About half of

the Member States designate the whole country as a Nitrates Vulnerable Zones to make the provisions of

the Nitrates Action Plans mandatory across the whole national territory.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 3-14. Objectives met within different types of protected areas for surface waters

Source: third RBMP electronic reporting

3.1.5 What is being done to reduce hydromorphological pressures and restore nature?

The WFD explicitly requires Member States to manage the effects on the ecological status of water which

result from changes to physical and hydrological characteristics of water bodies. Significant

hydromorphological pressures have been identified in all Member States. Physical and hydrological

alterations (e.g. abstractions and impoundments) of water bodies as well as barriers are seen as a significant

pressure in almost all RBDs. Half of surface water bodies (59% of river length and 56% of lake area) are

affected by significant hydromorphological pressures. Similarly, hydromorpholocial pressure affect 50% of

transitional water area and 14% of coastal water area.

The most frequently reported alterations are “physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore” in 96%

of RBDs that reported significant pressures, “dams, barriers and locks” (95%), “hydrological alteration” (84%)

and “other hydromorphological alteration” (44%).

Hydromorphological pressures should be clearly linked to the main sectors causing them. Figure 3-15 depicts

that for the electronically reporting Member States these include in particular land drainage in agriculture

sector, very closely followed by hydropower, flood protection, navigation, irrigation and drinking water, while

other sectors are represented in less than a quarter of RBDs reporting. However, the pressures are not always

apportioned to specific sectors. For a third of the electronically reporting Member States (Czech Republic,

Estonia, France, Italy, Latvia), the cause of the majority of the significant hydromorphological pressures

remains

“unknown” or

unqualified (“other”). This shows that understanding such pressures remain a challenge

in a considerable number of Member States.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 3-15. Water sectors/uses causing hydromorphological pressures, percentage of RBDs

Source: Electronic reporting

Measures

All Member States

have reported a variety of measures aimed at reducing the negative environmental

impacts of significant

hydromorphological pressures

in all their RBDs by improving flow regime, restoring

river continuity and/or ensure ecological flows.

In six Member States, no key type measures (KTM) to tackle hydromorphological pressures were reported in WISE to date. It is

noted though that in these Member States, information in the published RBMPs gives evidence that hydromorphological measures

are planned for the next cycle.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 3-16. Key Type Measures (KTMs) targeting hydromorphological pressures, percentage of RBDs

Source: Electronic reporting

Almost all assessed Member States also have

registers of physical modifications

in place in all their RBDs

or at least in a few of their RBDs. In two Member States (Czech Republic, the Netherlands), such register is

not reported. A register of physical barriers is under compilation in the Netherlands, while such a register

exists in the Czech Republic, but is not referenced in the RBMPs nor reported.

As foreseen by the WFD, there must be a periodic revision of permits for abstractions, impoundments and

other activities causing hydromorphological alterations. All Member States assessed have a permitting

regime, but not always there is a mandatory regular review of permits.

Measures to

improve longitudinal continuity

(e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams and

removing other type of barriers) and

other hydromorphological conditions

(e.g. river restoration,

improvement of riparian areas, removal of hard embankments, reconnecting rivers to floodplains) are

reported in virtually all the Member States. Improving longitudinal continuity is planned in 91% of RBDs and

improving other hydromorphological conditions in 79% of the RBDs. According to Dam Removal Europe

–

a coalition of non-governmental organizations

–

487 barriers were removed in 15 European countries in

2023, a 50% increase on last year’s record number. France appears to be the trailblazer, followed by Spain,

Sweden, Denmark, and Estonia. While river fragmentation remains a big problem, these measures can also

contribute to the 2030 target of 25 000 km free-flowing rivers set under the EU Biodiversity Strategy and

the new Nature Restoration Law.

While not all the barriers in rivers are related to hydropower production,

hydropower plants

(HPPs) continue

to be a significant pressure on ecological status in several Member States, due to disruption of river continuity

with major impacts on fish migration, fish mortality and changes in the hydrological flows and sediments

New Report: Dam Removal Movement Breaks Barriers and Records - Dam Removal Europe.

Data were provided by ministries,

municipalities, water agencies, river trusts, NGOs, scientists, researchers, and river restoration practitioners.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

movement. If the removal of existing HPP is not possible, because of no other technically feasible and

proportionate alternative to achieve the benefits of the existing HPP to the society, refurbishing existing HPPs,

including win-win solutions for hydropower production and the aquatic environment, should be generally

prioritised over new HPPs. In the light of the climate change, the operations of such plants should also be

made more sustainable and adapted to evolving hydrological conditions. This includes the periodic review of

permits including all mitigation measures to tackle the adverse impacts of HPPs.

Defining and implementing minimum

ecological flows (e-flows)

is essential for safeguarding the

ecological status of surface water bodies. Measures to improve the flow regime, and/or establishment of

ecological flows are reported by all Member States and cover 79% of the RBDs. However, it seems that the

work on defining and implementing minimum

ecological flows

is progressing slowly and that

notwithstanding guidance available at EU level, there is still a heterogenous picture in how e-flows are

defined (see Table 3-5 below). With some exceptions, in the majority of Member States, the definition of e-

flows is still being developed/studied . Regrettably, only in some cases, ensuring e-flows seems to be clearly

linked to the granting and review of abstraction permits.

Table 3-5. Overview of MS implementation of ecological flows

Member State

E-flows

implemented

unclear

E-flows

defined

Clarifying comment:

Austria

Belgium

Croatia

yes

yes (partly)

E-flow is defined in Austrian legislation (Qualitätszielverordnung

Ökologie

–

quality standards) and applies to all uses.

E-flows have been defined partly and not implemented by 2021

E-flows defined on a few rivers, relevant measures to define and

implement e-flows, as well as to review permits to ensure e-flows,

are planned in the third RBMP.

Defined in Art.36 of the Water Act (254/2001) as the minimal flow

to maintain the ecological functions of flowing watercourses.

No explicit information found in the RBMPs. E-flows had been

derived in the second RBMP, but no indication on continuation

within the third period has been provided.

Defined and partly implemented, but the work is ongoing and is

planned to cover all relevant water bodies until 2027.

Partly defined but not implemented by 2021, relevant work to

complete definition and implementation is planned for the next

cycle.

Defined and implemented only partly by 2021, relevant work is still

on-going

E-flows were defined and implemented partly by 2021, and

relevant work is still on-going.

Established on water body level in the second RBMP. The e-flow

values not changed for the third RBMP.

Czechia

Denmark

under review

unclear

yes (but under

review)

unclear

Estonia

Finland

yes (partly)

yes

yes (partly)

France

Germany

yes (partly)

Hungary

yes

For the purpose of the WFD, an ecological flow is ‘a hydrological regime consistent with the achievement of the environmental

objectives in natural surface

water bodies as mentioned in Article 4(1)’. In other words, it is the "amount of water required for the

aquatic ecosystem to continue to thrive and provide the services we rely upon".

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Italy

yes (partly)

yes (in progress)

Currently only minimum flow. third RBMPs contain binding

documents (“Direttive”) within RBMPs, regarding definition and

implementation of e-flows by 2027.

E-flows are defined for all WBs with hydrological pressure due to

operating HPP, implementation to take place by 2027.

There are plans to fully define and implement e-flows by 2027.

Further information on e-flow was announced in the second RBMP

but not identified in the third RBMP. But there was a simplified e-

flow assessment as part of the water balance assessment,

following the LAWA method and the work is ongoing

not mentioned in the third RBMP, but already implemented in the

second RBMP

E-flows were defined and implemented by 2021, based on a

hydrological method, and relevant work is still on-going to update

this method and include biological aspects

Defined for all relevant water bodies, being implemented in a

series of situations, with the others currently undergoing

implementation within the water management regulation process

E-flows not defined and implemented during the period 2015-

2021.

Defined in all 24 RBDs, fully implemented in nine and partly

implemented in the remaining 15

E-flows have been defined and implemented by the measure

“miljöanpassade flöden”, as a hydrological regime consistent with

the achievement of the environmental objectives of the WFD in

natural surface water bodies as mentioned in Article 4(1).

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

yes (hydropower)

yes (simplified)

The Netherlands

Poland

yes

Romania

yes (partly)

yes

Slovakia

Spain

Sweden

yes (partly)

yes

yes (partly)

Natural water retention measures and nature-based solutions

may deliver multiple benefits,

including increasing infiltration and reducing run-off, but also alleviate pressures from hydrological

alterations, abstractions and flow diversions, and provide natural storage of water for dry periods. Natural

water retention measures and other nature-based solutions specifically addressing hydromorphological

pressures are reported in RBDs of about half of Member States that reported in WISE (Belgium, Spain, France,

Italy, the Netherlands, Romania).

Only few Member States (Austria, Belgium, France, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania) report specifically

a national policy to prioritise

nature-based solutions

over other measures. These measures are also

reported in the programmes of measures in all assessed Member States as win-win measures in terms of

achieving the objectives of both the WFD and Floods Directive, as well as for drought management.

3.1.6 What are Member States doing to reduce abstractions and tackle water scarcity?

Introduction

The Member States are required to report under the WFD, if water abstraction causes significant pressure on

individual water bodies and at RBD level or in significant portions of an RBD. The assessment is based on the

Examples of natural water retention measures, nature-based solutions and green infrastructure include: restoration of

floodplains, restoration of wetlands, re-meandering of straightened channels, water retention measures, revegetation and buffer

strips for soil erosion control, etc.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Water Exploitation Index plus (WEI+), which estimates net consumption

as a percentage of renewable

freshwater resources in an RBD. If water consumption exceeds 20% of renewable freshwater resources in a

RBD over a long period of time, this may signify the occurrence of water scarcity conditions and, if it exceeds

40%, water scarcity may be characterised as severe.

It should be noted that water scarcity is a permanent or seasonally recurrent imbalance of water supply and

demand that may arises irrespectively of droughts due to unsustainable use of water resources (e.g. over-

allocation / over-abstraction). As such, water scarcity shall be distinguished from droughts, which are a

temporary natural phenomenon, occurring when precipitation, flow and/or soil moisture deviate significantly

from their long-term average conditions in a region.

There are significant differences in water use across different regions in the EU.

EEA’s analysis of water

abstractions over the period 2000-2019

shows that water abstraction declined overall

, reflecting policy

measures implemented under the WFD. However, while abstraction declined in some sectors, such as for

cooling in electricity generation (-27%), it increased in others. For instance, water abstraction for cooling in

manufacturing almost tripled, while abstraction for public water supply increased by 4%, with a particularly

sharp increase since 2010 (14%). Water abstraction for agriculture decreased overall between 2000 and

2019. However, since 2010 it has increased by 8%, mainly because of the increasing demand for irrigation

in southern Europe where water scarcity is exacerbated by climate change.

In 2019, at EU level, abstraction for cooling in electricity generation w the largest contributor to total annual

water abstraction (32%), followed by abstraction for agriculture (28%), public water supply (20%),

manufacturing (13%) and cooling in manufacturing (5%), with mining and quarrying, and construction

accounting for only 1% of total abstraction each. Looking at net consumption, however, the economic sector

agriculture is the largest net consumer, as most water abstracted is either consumed by the crop and farm

animals or evaporates (59% of EU water consumption in 2019

), rather than being returned to the same

source it was abstracted from. Other main water consuming sectors are cooling for manufacturing and

electricity generation (17%), households and services (13%) and mining, quarrying, construction and

manufacturing (11 %).

According to the EEA Report 12/2021 “Water resources across Europe — confronting water stress: an updated assessment”,

“water consumption” is the part of water used that is not returned to groundwater or surface water

because it is incorporated into

products (e.g. food and beverages) or consumed by households (e.g. drinking water) or livestock.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/water-abstraction-by-source-and

Total water abstraction per year in the EU-27 decreased by 17.6%, from 247,809 million m3 in 2000 to 204,112 million m3 in

2019

EEA Report 7/2024, Europe's state of water 2024. The need for improved water resilience

(https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/europes-state-of-water-2024).

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 3-17. Water abstraction by economic sector in the 27 EU Member States, 2000-2019 (EEA, 2022)

It should also be noted that the EEA also shows that the relative contributions of surface water and

groundwater to the total volume of water abstracted have changed during this period: in 2000, surface water

accounted for 81% of abstraction and groundwater for 19%, while, in 2019, surface water accounted for

only 77% and groundwater for 23%.

Figure 3-18. Share of total annual water abstraction by source in the 27 EU Member States, 2000-2019 (EEA)

The increase in water abstraction from groundwater can largely be explained by increasing demand in the

public water supply and agriculture sectors, with groundwater meeting almost 65% of total public water

supply and 25% of agricultural water demands in the EU-27 in 2019. Climate change exacerbating seasonal

variability in surface water availability is likely to have contributed to this, as demand for water has increased

during spring and summer months when availability of surface water is limited, particularly in southern

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Europe, causing competition between sectors and driving a shift in water abstraction from surface water to

groundwater.

Unsurprisingly, water scarcity is perceived as a growing issue in most Member States. Water abstraction and

alteration of groundwater level/volume are reported as significant pressures causing failure of good

quantitative status in 450 out of the 3 577 (12.6%) groundwater bodies and ecological status in 5 174 out

of 52 718 (9.8%) of total surface water bodies for the thirteen Member States for which information was

available through the e-reporting. However, as already outlined earlier, the pressure to the environment could

be underestimated, as various Member States do not yet consider the needs of GWAAEs and GWDTEs in the

assessment of good quantitative status.

The proportion of groundwater bodies failing to achieve good quantitative status due to significant pressure

from water abstraction and/or alteration of groundwater level/volume is the highest in Spain (25%), Hungary

(20%), Italy (19%), France (11%) and Belgium (11%). In addition, the proportion of surface water bodies

failing to achieve good ecological status/potential due to significant pressure from water abstraction is higher

in France (17%), Austria (12%), Spain (11%), Italy (9%) and Croatia (8%). While they failed to submit their

third RBMPs, this is known to be a significant issue also in Cyprus, Greece, and Malta based on the previous

RBMPs.

It should be noted that the estimations on the volumes of water abstraction / use vary considerably depending

on the source of the data. and that water abstraction is largely estimated based on indirect evidence, such

as issued permits, conducted surveys, and assumptions / approximations (e.g. based on cropping patterns

and assumed need for irrigation). Direct monitoring and metering are more frequent in specific water uses

(e.g. public water supply). This leads to significant degree of uncertainty on the actual pressures asserted on

water bodies. The degree of such uncertainty is even higher, considering that unauthorised/illegal water

abstraction (i.e. abstraction either without a permit or in excess of the permit conditions) occurs in various

sectors (e.g. more frequently in agriculture, but not limited to this sector) and is reported in the third RBMPs

of certain Member States (see further below).

Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity

The WFD explicitly requires controls over the abstraction of surface water and groundwater and impoundment

of fresh surface waters including a register or registers of water abstractions and a requirement for prior

authorization of abstraction and impoundment. These permits have to be periodically reviewed and, where

necessary, updated. Measures to address

abstraction and water scarcity

have generally been planned in

the PoMs in all RBDs where water abstraction has been identified as a significant pressure. These measures

focus on control of abstractions, water efficiency and reuse, natural water retention, e-flows, research and

knowledge building.

However, implementation of these measures is uneven because Member States dedicate different resources

to such task. As also found by the European Court of Auditors

, Member States have made progress in setting

up prior authorisation systems for water abstraction, systems for detecting illegal water use and pricing

mechanisms with the potential to incentivise water efficiency. However, the fact that most Member States

exempt small abstractions from controls or registration is potentially problematic, as the accumulation of

such small abstractions over the whole river basin can have negative impact on the status of surface and

groundwater bodies. A lack of control and registration can be of concern particularly in Member States that

already have water scarcity problems and in water bodies that face quantitative problems. In addition, it is

noted that the frequency with which Member States review the abstraction permits, as required by the WFD

is ranging from 6 years to several decades or even indefinite periods of time. This situation makes it very

Special report 20/2021: Sustainable water use in EU agriculture.

Article 11(3)(e) of the WFD requires Member States to undertake regular mandatory reviews.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

difficult and sometimes impossible to properly factor in the evolving situation in water bodies, including from

a climate change perspective. The Commission is currently involved in enforcing the obligation to review such

permits to ensure its correct implementation across Member States

The issue of

over-allocation of water rights

compared to available water resources, excluding e-flows, is

not explicitly mentioned in the assessed third RBMPs documents. However, indirectly, this is acknowledged

as an issue in Member States that report restrictions in the issue of new permits and/or include in their PoMs

the purpose to review existing permits to support the achievement of environmental objectives (i.e. Belgium,

France, Hungary, Italy, Spain).

The issue of

unauthorised/illegal water abstraction

(i.e. abstraction either without a permit or in excess of

the permit conditions) is explicitly mentioned only in some of the third RBMPs documents of 4 Member States

(e.g. Flanders RBDs of Belgium, Mayotte and Guadeloupe RBDs of France, Hungary, South Apennines RBD of

Italy). Nevertheless, the issue is also known to exist in other areas of Europe (e.g. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece,

Spain), according to the special European Court of Auditors’ report on ‘Sustainable water use in agriculture’.

However, even where mentioned, these references usually miss a quantification of the current issue and

trends from the second RBMPs. In some of these countries, efforts are on-going to close the illegal wells to

prevent such unlawful appropriation of this common good. In all MS, inspection mechanisms are in place to

prevent cases of unauthorised / illegal abstractions or violation of permit conditions, including sample checks

by national authorities after authorisation or targeted checks after submission of complaints.

Eleven Member States (i.e. Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands,

Romania, Spain) also plan basic measures for water efficiency, including technical measures for irrigation,

industry, energy and households, while 4 Member States (Belgium, Estonia, Netherlands and Italy) also plan

basic measures for groundwater recharge and / or augmentation of groundwaters. Other types of basic

measures planned for the 2021-2027 period include measures relevant with research, improvement of

knowledge base and reduction of uncertainty, measures for drinking water protection, climate change

adaptation measures and measures for cost recovery and incentive water pricing.

As in the past, several Member States focus their measures to address water scarcity on increasing supply,

such as drilling

new wells,

constructing

new dams and reservoirs, expanding irrigation infrastructure for

agriculture,

constructing

large-scale water transfer infrastructure and desalinisation plants.

In the PoMs

of the third RBMPs, such measures are planned in 8 Member States (i.e. Austria, Croatia, Czechia, France,

Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain) without providing a lot of information. In a context of increasingly felt

impacts of climate change, it is important to ensure a robust assessment of the environmental impacts of

such measures.

In the PoMs of the third RBMPs, 11 Member States plan

natural water retention measures

(i.e. Croatia,

Belgium, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain) and 9 MS plan

water

reuse schemes

(i.e. Croatia, Belgium, Czechia, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain). As noted by

the ECA,

natural water retention measures

may deliver multiple benefits, including groundwater recharge,

drought management and flood risk reduction, but their effectiveness is limited if they are used in a small

area

. Overall, in tackling water abstraction and water scarcity issues and risks, all MS, including those that

do not currently consider water abstraction as a significant pressure, need to adopt a more proactive and

forward-looking approach that goes beyond the 6-year WFD cycles. Climate change scenarios and long-term

water supply and demand forecasts should be explicitly integrated in WFD planning and permitting of all

Member States.

Letters of formal notice on this subject have been sent to Austria, Finland, the Netherlands and Slovenia,; for Ireland, the issue is

dealt with in the context of the long-standing infringement procedure for lack of correct transposition of several provisions of the

WFD, including Article 11..

ECA report on water and agriculture

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

3.1.7 Adaptation to climate change

As outlined in the European Climate Risk Assessment (EUCRA)

and as recognized by the Commission in its

Communication on managing climate risks

, the EU and its Member States must become significantly better

at preparing for and effectively addressing climate risks

. The evidence that climate change is having a

substantial impact on the occurrence and severity of water-related risks such as droughts and floods in much

of Europe is mounting

In the EU, according to the EEA

, water stress currently affects 20% of the European territory and 30% of

the European population, with droughts causing damage of up to EUR 9 billion/year and unquantified damage

to ecosystems and their services. Damages from drought alone could ramp up to EUR 40 billion/year, in the

extreme scenario of a global warming of 3°C which, unfortunately, appears increasingly possible. The EUCRA

highlights a growing risk of megadroughts that span large regions and last for several years, and that are

even more severe than recent drought events in Europe. Prolonged droughts cause large economic damage

across many sectors and can severely degrade the water resources that people, agriculture, industry, power

plants, river transport and ecosystems depend on.

On the other hand, the EUCRA shows also that extreme precipitation has increased in large parts of Europe,

leading to growing flood risks and devastating floods in recent years. This trend is expected to rise further in

a warming climate. In addition, rising sea levels increase the risk of coastal floods and storm surges, coastal

erosion and saltwater intrusion into groundwater. This presents an important threat to many coastal cities,

regions and ecosystems in Europe.

Effective implementation of the WFD, as well as of the Floods Directive is essential to enhancing EU water

resilience and ultimately a pre-requisite to achieve climate resilience

objectives of the EU climate law

and

the EU adaptation strategy

. At the same, the objectives of the WFD and the FD can only be achieved by

taking into full consideration the impacts of climate change in their implementation.

Although the obligation to adapt the RBMPs to climate change is not explicitly included in the text of the WFD,

the stepwise and cyclical approach of the river basin management planning process is well suited to

adaptively manage climate change impacts, building on climate adaptation plans in the member States.

The Floods Directive on the other hand explicitly requires considering the impacts of climate change on the

occurrence of floods, and therefore in the preparation of Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments, which are

elaborated into Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs), and Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) which are

assessed in the dedicated Section B of this document. However, considering the close relationship between

EEA (2024), European climate risk assessment. No 1/2024,

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-climate-risk-

assessment

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and

the Committee of the Regions Managing climate risks - protecting people and prosperity, COM(2024) 91 final,

https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52024DC0091

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the Regions Managing climate risks - protecting people and prosperity, COM(2024) 91 final,

https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52024DC0091

Temperatures in Europe increase more than twice global average over the past 30 years

–

the highest of any continent in the

world, November 2022 report, the World Meteorological Organization,

https://wmo.int/publication-series/state-of-climate-europe-

2022

and Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability,

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.PDF

EEA 2021 “Water resources across Europe — confronting water stress: an updated assessment”

(https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/water-resources-across-europe-confronting)

Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for

achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’).

COM(2021) 82 final - Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and

Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Forging a climate-resilient Europe - the new EU Strategy on Adaptation to

Climate Change”.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

overall water management and flood risk management and the importance of climate change effects on

both, climate change effects are jointly addressed in this section.

Climate resilience and Drought risk management in the RBMPs

An increasing number of Member States reported a systematic consideration of

climate change

impact and

an effort to align their programme of measures with

National Climate Adaptation Plans.

For well over half

of the Member States, National Climate Adaptation Plans provided important information for river basin

management plans; however, most RBMPs are not explicit in how climate change impacts were considered

and integrated.

Fourteen of the 20 Member States reported completing analysis of climate change on main pressures to

water bodies. For some, this analysis was limited to only a few sectors. The majority of Member States,

however, do not provide details on the methodology used in this assessment. Climate-proofing of measures

proposed in the PoMs was reported by 11 of the 20 Member States analysed. However, it is often unclear

how the result of this study impact on their analysis of pressures and the definition of measures.

Adaptation measures are integrated into RBMPs in 14 Member States, yet in some cases this is only done in

a very general manner. Such adaptation measures cover areas such as water management, habitat

protection, and pollution control. Some measures pertain to land conversions, modifications of water

allocations, and water management practices to rehabilitate surface and groundwater connectivity,

maintaining ecological flow, and ensuring continuity for migratory species.

Even if floods continued to remain a major concern, in the third RBMPs, effects of climate change were mostly

linked to droughts and lower water availability and focused often on their effects on agriculture, inland

navigation and energy generation. Sixteen of the analysed 20 Member States reported droughts as significant

occurrence in the planning period. This is a marked difference compared to the second RBMP, where excess

water (i.e. floods) was highlighted as key impact of climate change.

The analysis shows that progress was achieved in relation to

drought

management in several Member States.

The development of a genuine “drought management plan” is an important step to evolve

from crisis

management towards risk management.

As recommended by the Commission

, 9 Member States (Belgium,

France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Spain) reported in their third RBMPs the

existence of distinct Drought Management Plans at national, river basin or regional levels. Such plans map

areas at risk and determine alert levels, foresee warning systems, and clarify upfront water allocation

priorities during a prolonged drought. Other Member States reported somewhat less comprehensive plans

which mainly focus on mapping risks, and making broad recommendations, without however determining a

response mechanism (e.g. water allocation priorities). Two Member States have plans that come close to

fully-fledged Drought Management Plans (Czechia, Poland) and two more (Finland, Luxembourg) declared

that they are in the process of finalising such a plan. Overall, Nordic and Baltic Member States seem less

prepared for droughts than Mediterranean Member States with Western and Central European Member

States going through a transition.

Drought management measures were integrated in the Programme of Measures for 10 Member States; when

these Member States also have drought management plans, then these measures are aligned with those (i.e.

they are in both plans).

For a more detailed analysis see Schmidt et al (2023), Stock-taking analysis and outlook of drought policies, planning and

management in EU Member States (https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3bdf2849-9d57-11ee-b164-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en).

COM (2009), Communication

to the EP and the Council “Addressing

the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in the European

Union”

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0414

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

The effects of climate change are also felt on

water quality

in several Member States. Four Member States

(Belgium, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands) invoked

Article 4(6) exemption

due to

prolonged droughts

that prevented the achievement of good ecological status in a total of 118 water bodies. This is

an increase

compared to the second RBMPs, potentially signalling a new trend in negative impacts of climate change on

quality of water resources.

Climate resilience and Floods Risk Management under the FD

The assessment of the second Floods Hazards and Risk Maps (FHRMs) and second Flood Risk Management

Plans (FRMPs) shows a significant improvement in the integration of climate change consideration in the

implementation of the Floods Directive.

Although not explicitly required by the FD, 23 Member States considered climate change for the preparation

of their second Floods Hazards and Risk Maps (FHRMs). This is an increase compared to the the first FHRMs

where only 16 Member States did so. Of these 23 Member States, 15 Member States considered climate

change for coastal flooding. Sixteen out of the 23 Member States considered climate change for the medium

probability scenario

; for the other two scenarios this was done less often; 13 Member States for the low

probability scenario

and 11 for the high probability scenario

. 13 Member States obtained climate change

trend scenarios from the IPCC or other international and EU sources

and 15 from national research

programmes

. Nine Member States used both sources

As regards the FRMPs, all the assessed 21 Member States, compared to one third in the past, provide strong

evidence that climate change was addressed in their Plans. Almost all the FRMPs assessed refer to the

national adaptation strategies prepared by Member States under the EU Adaptation Strategy, though in some

Member States this was not the case for all FRMPs. In all the Member States considered, the FRMPs present

the potential climate change impacts on flooding. These Member States consider a potential shift in the

occurrence (or intensity) of extreme events and/or changes in the main source of flooding. The level of detail

varies significantly though, with some Member States providing a short, general discussion of potential

impacts of climate change on flooding events, with others providing potential flood event detail, including

quantitative information for the areas potentially affected. Most of the Member States assessed make an

explicit reference to the scenarios provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) within

their FRMPs, indicating alignment with internationally recognised climate change projections. More than half

of the Member States assessed present findings from national or regional studies, some of which are based

on the IPPC scenarios, into their FRMPs. In a few Member States, an explicit reference to climate change

scenarios and their impact on floods is also included in the Strategic Environmental Assessments for the

FRMPs.

As regards the

integration of climate adaptation measures included in FRMPs,

over half of the Member

States reporting

prioritise measures that are adaptable to changing conditions, reflecting a consideration

of climate change criteria in their FRMPs. The FRMPs in a few Member States

described methods to assess

the effectiveness of measures in the face of climate change. The vast majority of the Member States

Austria, Belgium (partly), Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, Poland,

Portugal, Romania, and Sweden.

Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Sweden, Slovenia.

Austria, Belgium (partly), Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta.

Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Italy (partly), Lithuania, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia.

Belgium, Czechia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, Poland.

Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia.

Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Sweden (12 out of 21).

Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Finland and Romania.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

assessed included in their FRMPs at least a few specific measures to address climate change or refer to

climate change in the context of some of their measures.

Nearly all Member States include nature-based solutions in their FRMPs, and many plans mention their

positive role for adaptation. While some FRMPs do not specifically refer to adaptation in the context of their

nature-based

solutions, these are likely to strengthen resilience, as highlighted in the EU’s 2021 Adaptation

Strategy.

Similarly, nearly all Member States include land use and spatial planning measures in their FRMPs. Some

refer to their role in adaptation. On the other hand, while a few Member States refer to the role of insurance

in flood risk management, references to its role in supporting climate resilience and adaptation were not

found.

3.2

POLICY ELEMENTS CONTRIBUTING TO ZERO POLLUTION

3.2.1 Surface Water: what is their chemical status

Good chemical status of surface waters is the chemical status achieved by a body of surface water in which

concentrations of priority substances do not exceed the concentrations established in the law.

The EQSD initially identified 33 priority substances, and eight other pollutants and set up related limits value.

In 2013, twelve new priority substances and their limits were added to the list, and good status for these

substances must only be achieved by 2027. In addition to reaching good chemical status for all priority

substances and the eight other pollutants, Member States are also required to assess long-term trends and

to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all substances identified in the Directive, for

each national river basin district.

Monitoring

Overall, there has been further improvement in monitoring across the EU, but there continue to be a huge

variation in the monitoring of Priority Substances

, both in terms of the percentage of water bodies and the

number of substances.

Most Member States have expanded the (geographic coverage) of monitoring networks since the second

RBMPs

. Figure 3-19 below provides a comparison per Member State to illustrate the proportion of water

bodies included within the monitoring network to determine the chemical status. For a small number of

Member States, the information provided within the third RBMPwas insufficient to reach a conclusion.

Substances presenting a significant risk to or via the aquatic environment, listed in the Environment Quality Standards Directive.

11 out of 20 MS have expanded the scope of their monitoring network, a further 3 (out of 20) are unchanged, 2 (out of 20) have

decreased the scale of monitoring and the remaining 4 either didn’t

provide data or the data in the 3rd RBMP was insufficient to

draw conclusions.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 3-19. Evolution of geographic scale of monitoring networks between the second and third RBMPs

In terms of frequency of monitoring, the majority of Member States

comment that operational monitoring

for surface water is undertaken on a monthly basis, and annually for sediment and biota. There are examples

where mixed approaches are used. There is also a diversity of approaches to monitoring frequencies across

locations, often based on the risks and probability of finding the pollutants given the available resources and

perceived high risk/low risk locations across different water bodies. This means that the geographic scale of

the monitoring network alone may not tell the full story for how complete the monitoring programme is in

practice.

Most Member States monitored all Priority Substances identified as discharged into their RBDs. While in some

cases uncertainty remains as regards which substances are included in the monitoring programmes, it would

appear that in half of the Member States covered (Austria, Belgium (Flanders and Brussels), Croatia, Finland,

Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden) all 45 priority substances are

included within the monitoring programme at national level, while the others (France, Latvia, Romania, and

Slovakia) indicated that they monitored between 40 and 44 priority. Several MS (e.g., Belgium, Croatia,

Czechia, Finland, and Hungary) indicate that they have increased the number of priority substances included

in their monitoring programmes to close gaps from the second RBMPs (these increases go beyond the 12

new substances added to the EQSD in 2013). Denmark reported monitoring only 25 priority substances

while no information was provided by Czechia about which priority substances are included within the

monitoring programme.

Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, and

Sweden.

The justification provided by the authority was that it was only required to monitor priority substances where a known discharge

to surface water was likely to occur.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 3-20. Coverage of monitoring for priority substances across the Member States for the third RBMP*

*Note that Wallonia monitors 44 out of 45 priority substances. The other parts of Belgium monitor all 45 priority substances. The

graph above counts Belgium as a whole in the ‘all 45 priority substances’ category.

Member States are required to undertake monitoring in biota and sediment for 20 priority substances to

complete long-term trend assessments. Unfortunately, as shown in Figure 3-21 below monitoring in sediment

and biota for long-term trend assessment looks variable and largely incomplete. This aspect of the WFD

compliance for chemical status was the weakest in the assessment and represents the biggest gap. The

results of the trend analysis look significantly underdeveloped and are actually missing for most Member

States.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 3-21. Surveillance monitoring in sediment and biota

–

number of MS per substance that monitor each

substance at 10 or more sites*

Status Assessment

It should be noted that the proportion of water bodies in unknown chemical status across all Member States

has improved. Yet three countries really stand out with still very significant proportions of their surface water

bodies nationally at unknown status, Lithuania (94.6% of surface waters in unknown status), Denmark

(92.5%), and Estonia (82.7%).

The assessment shows a

significant decrease in the number of surface waters bodies at EU level in good

chemical status.

Only 26,8% of surface waterbodies were in good chemical status in 2021 as compared to the second RBMPs

in 2015 when the share of surface water bodies in good chemical status was 33,5%.

The

lack of progress is largely due to the presence of few individual compounds that are called “ubiquitous

persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic” substances (uPBTs),

for which there is also improved monitoring and

better knowledge of the status of water bodies in several countries leading to significant changes in the

result of the chemical status assessment in a number of countries (see more information below).

The most common of these compounds are

mercury

and

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

(PAHs) such as

benzo(a)pyrene, fluoranthene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene, that mainly enter the aquatic environment following

atmospheric emissions resulting from combustion processes of fossil or other fuels, and

polybrominated

diphenyl ethers

(PBDEs), which are heavily used in paints, plastics, foam furniture padding, textiles, building

materials and industrial processes. These “usual suspects” have a very dominant effect in the chemical status.

Without these very frequent and persistent compounds, we would observe that 81% of the surface water

would have reached good ecological status. This represents largely the same proportion as in the last cycle.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

It should be noted that uPBTs continue to be responsible also for failure to meet the good environmental

status objective for contamination under the MSFD for 80% of the sea area

Figure 3-22. Change in the chemical status assessment of EU surface water bodies from the first, second and

third RBMPs (all substances including uPBTs) (source: WISE freshwater and PDF data mining)

SWB chemical status for EU average

3rd

2nd

1st

Good

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Failing to achieve good

Unknown

Figure 3-23. Change in chemical status assessment of EU surface water bodies from the second and third

RBMPs (without uPBTs) (source: WISE freshwater and PDF data mining)

SWB chemical status without uPBT for

EU average

3rd

2nd

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Good

Failing to achieve good

Unknown

Report from the Commission, First 'zero pollution' monitoring and outlook, 'Pathways towards cleaner air, water and soil for

Europe', COM(2022) 674 final, Brussels, 8.12.2022.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

As shown in the table 3-6 below, while the share of surface waters in good status has remained stable or

slightly improved in some Member States compared to the 2016-2021 period, it has significantly decreased

in others. In all these Member States the primary reason for such widespread chemical status failures relates

to uPBT substances. As mentioned above, this deterioration may be largely due to improved monitoring and

better knowledge of the status of water bodies in these countries, particularly in relation to widespread

uPBTs, major changes in the delineation of water bodies and more stringent standards for some substances.

Furthermore, it should be noted that some Member States have assessed the original list of priority

substances from 2008 whilst others included already in the assessment the new priority substances added

to the Directive in 2013 although legally the compliance deadline to meet the quality standards for these

new substances is only 2027.

Table 3-6. Overview of status assessment from third RBMPs (all substances including uPBT)

second RBMPs

Member State

Good

Failing to

achieve

good status

33.5%

0.0%

2.2%

68.5%

0.0%

0.8%

9.7%

87.5%

49.5%

62.9%

91.8%

45.7%

71.7%

99.0%

0.0%

10.6%

39.2%

59.0%

97.7%

0.0%

97.5%

50.9%

100.0%

97.7%

31.1%

100.0%

0.7%

2.0%

6.4%

50.5%

15.9%

8.2%

7.8%

8.5%

0.9%

100.0%

4.7%

51.8%

26.4%

2.3%

100.0%

2.5%

third RBMPs

Failing

achieve good

status

26.8%

0.0%

38.6%

0.0%

1.8%

9.7%

89.8%

0.0%

67.9%

80.4%

46.0%

75.1%

0.3%

0.0%

9.4%

24.8%

97.7%

0.0%

71.2%

60.8%

98.8%

100.0%

42.9%

100.0%

5.7%

7.6%

7.1%

100.0%

23.0%

19.4%

54.0%

15.8%

5.1%

100.0%

90.3%

53.5%

2.3%

100.0%

28.8%

Difference

in good

status in %

points

-6.7%

0.0%

-2.2%

-29.9%

0.0%

0.9%

-0.1%

2.4%

-49.5%

5.0%

-11.4%

0.3%

3.4%

-98.7%

0.0%

-10.6%

-29.8%

-34.2%

-0.1%

0.0%

-26.3%

Unknown

Good

Unknown

EU proportion

15.6%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.0%

98.5%

88.3%

6.1%

0.0%

21.2%

0.0%

46.5%

19.8%

0.1%

0.0%

84.7%

9.0%

14.7%

0.0%

12.4%

1.2%

0.0%

18.4%

0.0%

92.5%

82.7%

3.1%

0.0%

9.1%

0.2%

0.0%

9.1%

94.6%

0.0%

0.3%

21.7%

0.0%

Overall, as already mentioned above, the substance responsible for the greatest number of failures is

mercury, followed by polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Nationally, the other substances that cause EQS exceedance and failure to achieve good chemical status

vary, but

metals

(e.g. lead, cadmium, nickel which are typically linked to mining waste, municipal and

industrial wastewater, urban runoff),

biocides

and

pesticides

(tributyltin, chlorpyrifos), and

some Persistent

Organic Pollutants

(e.g., hexachlorobenzene, , which still persist although banned for use in the EU since

many years, continue to commonly feature in the top of the list of substances leading to failure (see Figure

3-24 below).

Figure 3-24. Top Priority substances (initial 33 priority substances) causing failure to achieve good chemical

status (count of SWBs)

–

electronic reporting only.

Number of SWBs

Mercury and its compounds

Brominated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47,…

Benzo(a)pyrene

Fluoranthene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Nickel and its compounds

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Tributyltin-cation

4000

8000

12000

16000

20000

Lead and its compounds

When considering also the additional 12 priority substance added in 2013, PFOS (a type of PFAS) and its

derivatives, heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide (an insecticide) have made their entry in the top ten. However,

it must be noted that while monitoring of these new substances has become mandatory, the deadline for

compliance as mentioned above is 2027.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 3-25. Top Priority substances (revised list of 45 priority substances) causing failure to achieve good

chemical status (count of SWBs)

–

electronic reporting only.

Mercury and its compounds

Brominated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47,…

Benzo(a)pyrene

Fluoranthene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and its derivatives

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide

Nickel and its compounds

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

4000

8000

12000

16000

20000

3.2.2 Groundwater Bodies: what is their chemical status

The monitoring and assessment of the chemical status of groundwater bodies has improved, although a

significant number are still not covered or are subject to limited monitoring of some core parameters only.

Status Assessment

It is noted positively that the assessment shows an improvement in the overall chemical status with 86% of

groundwater bodies in good status in 2021 as compared to the previous cycle when the share was 82.2%.

Figure 3-26. Change in the chemical status assessment of EU groundwater bodies from the first, second and

third RBMPs (source: WISE freshwater and PDF data mining)

GWB chemical status for EU average

3rd

2nd

1st

20%

Good

40%

Poor

60%

80%

100%

Unknown

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Lithuania is the only Member State that reported all groundwater bodies at good chemical status, with none

at risk of poor status by 2027. Seven Member States (Austria, Croatia, Finland, Poland, Romania, and Sweden)

report that at least 90% of their groundwater bodies are at good chemical status, whereas this amounts to

70-90% for 6 Member States (Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia and Slovakia), to 60-70% for 3

Member States (France, Germany and Spain) and to below 54% for 4 Member States (Belgium, Czechia,

Luxembourg and the Netherlands). However, only 2 Member States reported 100% high confidence in the

status assessment, while for the rest there were mixed trends towards a decreased and an increase level

ofconfidence.

Table 3-7. Groundwater chemical status in EU Member States, comparison between second and third RBMPs.

second RBMPs

Member State

Good

Poor

Unknown

third RBMPs

Good

Poor

Unknown

Difference in good

status in % points

3.8%

-0.6%

11.8%

-0.6%

3.6%

44.5%

-5.3%

2.4%

0.0%

-1.1%

1.2%

1.1%

12.4%

0.0%

-12.0%

0.0%

2.7%

2.1%

-0.1%

17.4%

EU proportion

82.2%

97.1%

41.3%

27.0%

63.7%

44.3%

79.5%

64.8%

93.5%

69.1%

90.9%

79.5%

57.6%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

87.0%

92.1%

89.5%

97.7%

62.7%

13.9%

2.9%

58.8%

73.0%

36.0%

25.1%

20.5%

35.0%

2.5%

30.9%

9.1%

20.5%

25.0%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

13.0%

7.9%

10.5%

2.3%

10.8%

4.0%

0.0%

0.3%

30.6%

0.0%

0.1%

4.0%

0.0%

17.4%

0.0%

26.5%

86.0%

96.5%

53.1%

26.4%

67.3%

88.8%

74.2%

67.2%

93.4%

68.0%

92.2%

80.5%

70.0%

100.0%

50.0%

88.0%

87.0%

94.8%

91.6%

97.6%

80.2%

12.3%

3.5%

46.9%

72.4%

32.7%

9.4%

25.8%

32.8%

2.3%

32.0%

7.8%

19.5%

26.6%

0.0%

50.0%

12.0%

13.0%

5.2%

8.4%

2.4%

12.3%

1.7%

0.0%

1.1%

0.0%

1.9%

0.0%

4.2%

0.0%

3.4%

0.0%

7.5%

The most commonly reported pollutant leading to poor chemical status of groundwater bodies is

Nitrates

coming mainly from intensive agriculture and livestock farming through the improper or excessive application

of fertilizers and slurries/manures. This is the case for 17 out of the 20 Member States. Only Estonia, Latvia

and Lithuania do not report nitrates as causing chemical status failure in their groundwaters.

Pesticides

and

It should be noted that according to the EEA, average nitrate concentration in EU groundwaters did not change significantly since

2021 (EEA, 2023).

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

their metabolites are responsible for the failure to achieve good chemical status by 9 Member States (Austria,

Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Spain).

Phosphate

and

ammonium,

mainly stemming from intensive agriculture and livestock farming, also lead to poor chemical

status with a particular impact in countries such as Slovakia and Czechia. Other substances mentioned as

leading to a smaller proportion of groundwater bodies at poor chemical status (i.e. less than 10% by MS)

including naturally occurring pollutants such as chloride, sulphate, potassium, iron and total organic carbon.

Industrial solvents, PAHs, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE - primarily used as a fuel additive) and anionic

surfactants (frequently present in soaps and detergents) are less commonly pointed as the cause of poor

status.

Substances featuring a sustained and significant upward trend include nitrate, pesticides, chloride, sulphate,

arsenic, nickel, cadmium, potassium phosphates, nitrite and ammonium.

3.2.3 What is being done to combat pollution from agriculture

Pollution from

agriculture

is the top pressure identified by all Member States in almost all RBDs and is

relevant for both surface and groundwater bodies. This is essentially due to unsustainable land management

practices and excessive and improper use on one hand of fertilisers and slurries/manures which contain

nitrogen leading to nitrates in water, on the other hand of pesticides and other hazardous substances.

It was a key recommendation from the assessment of the second RBMPs to perform a quantitative

assessment of the reduction in the nutrient load that would be necessary to achieve good ecological status.

This would form the basis for defining and selecting the measures that are necessary in order to achieve the

necessary load reduction.

Regrettably, limited progress has been made by most Member States carrying out this estimations. Only 8

Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden) have made

a detailed assessment of the need for reduction of nutrient loads which covers both nitrogen and phosphorus

and at least all surface water bodies. Romania has made estimation only as regards nitrogen. There is a large

number of Member States that do not report on the load reductions. It is noted with concern that the majority

of Member States have only estimated the number of water bodies where the nutrient load should be

reduced.

Table 3-8. Overview of gap assessment for nutrients (from agriculture and other sources)

Member State

Austria

Approach to gap assessment

Number of water bodies

Comments

Number of water bodies where diffuse nutrient pollution from agriculture

requires measures to be applied. (Pesticide number of water bodies 2)

Assessment of the RBD in Flanders

There is additional gap information in the WISE reporting on area

There are measures listed by water bodies, but it is not clear how many

water bodies required measures to reduce diffuse agricultural pollution

Belgium

Croatia

Czechia

Load reductions by water body

Number of water bodies

No gap assessment

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Member State

Denmark

Approach to gap assessment

Load reduction by water body

Comments

Need for nitrogen reduction estimated at water body level with focus on

what is required for coastal water bodies. Need for reduction of

phosphorous load for lakes.

The RBMPs indicate that a more detailed load assessment will be

developed

Need for load reduction based on modelling, but the modelling tools

cannot yet fully assess the impacts of measures

There is different level of information across the RBDs, but none of the

RBMPs include quantification of the needed nutrient load reductions

For the assessed RBD there are estimates of need for nutrient reductions.

There is some information about how many water bodies will be affected

by each measure, but it is not clear if that is addressing the gap

Estonia

Number of water bodies

Finland

Load reduction by water body

France

Number of water bodies

Germany

Hungary

Load reduction by water body

No gap assessment

Italy

Gap assessment

pressures

including

all

A scoring approach is used which combines all pressures

Latvia

Load reduction by water body

There is estimate of how much the nutrient load needs to be reduced.

There is also data on the area (ha) where agricultural measures are

planned.

There is estimate of how much the nutrient load needs to be reduced.

There is also data on the area (ha) where agricultural measures are

planned.

There some information about the area covered by specific measures, but

no gap assessment

Need for nutrient reduction estimated at water body level

Lithuania

Load reduction by water body

Luxembourg

No gap assessment

The Netherlands

Poland

Romania

Load reduction by water body

No gap assessment

Load of nitrogen

Based on the e-reporting. No details in the RBMPs that explains the

estimation

Number of water bodies where diffuse nutrient pollution from agriculture

requires measures to be applied

Different assessments across RBD. Reference to modelling tools but do

details presented.

Slovakia

Number of water bodies

Spain

Number of water bodies

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Member State

Sweden

Approach to gap assessment

Load reductions by water body

Comments

The aggregated need for nutrient load reductions is presented

Source: third RBMPs PDF and electronic reporting

Only 4 Member States (Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden) have conducted an assessment on

the expected effectiveness of the measures to reduce the nutrient loads which shows that the planned

measures have not been sufficient to remove all the nutrients required for achieving good ecological status.

For none of the EU transitional and coastal water bodies, there appear to be clearly set upstream thresholds

for nutrients load reductions or closely related biological quality elements to ensure a good status. No

Member State is using nutrient related thresholds in the classification of ecological good status of transitional

and coastal waters either. This has also an impact on achieving the objectives of the Marine Strategy

Framework Directive.

For

pesticides,

there are very few examples of estimations of pesticides load reduction needed to achieve

the objectives. Member States report on challenges with assessing pesticides due to long retention time of

pollutants in the soil and in the groundwater bodies. This relates to the fact that it takes some time for the

pesticides to reach the groundwater and, even when the releases have stopped, it takes time before the

groundwater status improves. This explains why some of the pesticides that have been banned for several

or many years are still being detected in groundwaters. Restrictions on the current use of pesticides will

therefore only show progress over a long time.

No evaluation is reported of the effectiveness of the agricultural measures taken in the 1

and in the second

RBMPs. This would have been essential to ascertain the progress to target for 2027. In addition, similarly to

planned measures in other areas, also not all the agricultural measures announced in the second RBMPs

have been implemented as planned. As in other areas, the reported challenges include funding, the low uptake

by farmers of many of the voluntary measures incentivised through subsidies and the time it takes to deploy

at large scale changes in farming practices.

The assessment of the RBMPs shows that basic measures are usually in place as foreseen by the WFD.

Mandatory measures are nevertheless limited to those provided under the Nitrates Directive, the Sustainable

Use Directive (2009/128/EC) and the cross-compliance and greening requirements under the CAP. All Member

States have implemented the basic measures though there are some compliance deficiencies.

As regards supplementary measures, all Member States have reported on them, but the level of details

provided in the RBMPs is generally limited. Several voluntary measures have been in place often supported

through the CAP, notably through agri-environment climate commitments

(AECC) and other relevant

measures included in the Rural Development Programmes developed by Member States. However, these

measures, together with the basic measures implemented, have not been sufficient to reduce pressures from

nitrates and pesticides. This might have been due to a variety of factors including intrinsic limitations in the

design of the voluntary measures in questions, the fact that measures were not sufficiently programmed by

Member States, limited uptake by farmers, or limited uptake in the most affected areas.

Payments for multi-annual commitments for environment and climate friendly agricultural practices which go beyond the baseline

of mandatory requirements.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

With respect to the CAP 2023-2027, an increased contribution to tackling pollution from nitrates and

pesticides can be expected

. It includes enhanced conditionality

standards, such as strengthened soil

management requirements (e.g. crop rotation/ diversification, buffer strips) and a new requirement linked to

controls on diffuse sources of pollution from phosphates. The instruments available under rural development

funding

(AECCs including organic farming, support for investments, WFD payments, training / advice,

innovation and cooperation) continue to be available and have been complemented with eco-schemes which

support environment/climate friendly practices; Member States have to dedicate at least 25% of EAGF

funding to these schemes

. Support from eco-schemes and AECC covers inter alia improved nutrient

management

and the sustainable use of pesticides

3.2.4 What is being done to combat pollution from other sectors?

Pollution

from sectors such as

urban settlements, industry or energy

also poses a threat to the aquatic

environment and to human health via the environment.

Basic measures to deal with pollution from these sectors are generally in place. These include measures such

as an authorisation and/or permitting regime to control wastewater point source discharges, the operation

of registers of wastewater discharges, and the prohibition or limitation of all direct discharges to

groundwater, and/or other measures to eliminate / reduce pollution from priority and other substances.

These are, in most cases, specific measures to deal with specific pollutants which are causing failures of

chemical or ecological status such as, for example, measures to reduce or stop the release into water of

certain pollutants or remediation of contaminated sites, addressing historical pollution in sediments,

groundwater and soil. However, not all Member States and RBMPs provide the same level of detail when it

comes to linking individual substances explicitly to specific measures to combat pollution. More progress is

needed on this front, as well as on developing a gap analysis to inform the design of the measures.

All Member States reported

inventories of emissions, discharges, and losses

of harmful substances, but

there are large variations both in terms of coverage of the relevant pollutant and their completeness. The

top ten substances for which emissions inventories have been most commonly established are mercury,

benzo(a)pyrene, fluoranthene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene (PAHs), nickel, lead, and cadmium (heavy metals)

nonylphenol (non-ionic surfactants), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS, a type of PFAS), and tributyltin-

cation (a highly toxic biocide).

Most of the Member States have reported basic measures “construction or upgrades of wastewater

treatments plants” as it is being recognized

that additional efforts are needed to comply with the UWWTD.

Currently, 82% of Europe’s urban wastewaters are collected and treated in line with EU standards.

The

implementation of the revised UWWTD, for which the co-legislators recently reached a political agreement ,

will further reduce pollution from urban wastewaters. It includes new rules on storm overflows and urban

See “Mapping and analysis of CAP strategic plans” (2023-2027)

(file:///C:/Users/faltech/Downloads/mapping%20and%20analysis%20of%20cap%20strategic%20plans-KF0323354ENN%20(3).pdf).

Conditionality links the full receipt of CAP support to the compliance of farmers and other beneficiaries with basic standards

concerning the environment, climate change, public health, plant health and animal welfare. The basic standards encompass statutory

management requirements (SMRs) and standards of good agricultural and environmental conditions of land (GAEC standards).

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), c.f. Regulation 1305/2013

See article 97(1) and (2) of Regulation 2021/2115.

Support for farming practices to improve nutrient management are planned to be carried out on 15,2% of the EU’s agricultural area.

27% of EU’s agricultural area is planned to be covered with commitments which lead to a sustainable use of pesticides in order to

reduce risks and impacts of pesticides such as pesticides leakage.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

run-off that will help Member States to more effectively address these pressures that had not been covered

by EU legislation.

It is worth noting that, while the WFD does not cover pollution from litter, this is a key area where synergies

with the MSFD must be built since a very large part of the plastics in the sea come from the rivers. The

assessment of the Programmes of Measures under the MSFD shows that Member States have taken many

measures to address the main sources of litter. This has led to an estimated 33% reduction of

beach litter

between 2016-2021 across all EU sea basins. These measures are likely to have had also a positive impact

on rivers, lakes and coastal waters.

4.1

Exemptions and economics

Exemptions

Where the environmental objectives of the WFD cannot or have not yet been achieved and where there is a

need to derogate to the principle of preventing any further deterioration of status, the WFD foresees that

exemptions can be applied pursuant to Article 4 (4), (5), (6) and (7)

All Member States apply one or more of these types of exemptions for those surface and groundwater bodies

still failing to achieve good status, and in some cases to justify a deterioration. The type of exemption used,

the underlying reasons (e.g. disproportionate cost, technical feasibility, natural conditions) and the level of

detail used to justify the exemptions varies considerably per Member State.

Given the limited progress in reaching good status, a large majority of the water bodies in the EU are covered

by the various

exemptions

foreseen in Article 4 of the WFD.

Overall, compared to the previous cycle, the number of exemptions, particularly those related to Articles 4(4)

on time exemption for achieving the objectives and 4(5) exemptions setting less stringent environmental

objectives of the WFD has increased.

The number of exemptions applied under Article 4(4) has increased in six Member States

. For the remaining

Member States, there is no change in the number of exemptions under Article 4(4) or it is not possible to

compare directly due to changes in number of water bodies.

The number of exemptions applied under Article 4(5) has increased in six Member States

and decreased in

two

. For the remaining Member States, there is no change in the number of exemptions under Article 4(5)

or it is not possible to directly compare.

The number of exemptions allowing for a temporary deterioration in status applied under Article 4(6) has

increased in four Member States

. For the remaining Member States, there is no change in the number of

exemptions under Article 4(6) or it is not possible to compare.

The WFD distinguishes between the following types of exemptions for a water body:

Article 4(4)

–Time

exemptions for achieving the objectives.

Article 4(5)

–

Exemptions by setting less stringent environmental objectives.

Article 4(6)

–

Exemptions from the obligation not to deteriorate status, allowing for a temporary deterioration in status if resulting

from unforeseen circumstances.

Article 4(7)

–

Exemptions from the obligation not to deteriorate status or not to prevent the achievement of good status, due to

new modifications of the physical characteristics of a water body, alterations to levels of groundwater and sustainable human

development activities.

Finland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden.

Finland, France, Germany, Latvia, Romania, Sweden.

Austria and Czechia.

Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

The number of exemptions from the obligation not to deteriorate status or not to prevent the achievement

of good status applied under Article 4(7) has increased in four Member States

and decreased in two

. For

the remaining Member States, there is no change in the number of exemptions under Article 4(7) or it is not

possible to compare. This could point to the fact that Member States are not always applying this exeption

when implementing new projects.

Application of exemptions in Surface Waters

Exemptions according to WFD Article 4(4)

are applied for surface water bodies in all Member States

assessed. For the countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting, the share of surface

water bodies that has been exempted under Article 4(4) is around 44% for ecological status and 39% for

chemical status (see figure 4-1 below). Consequently, this type of exemptions is the one that is most

frequently used. As shown in Figure 4-2, for surface water bodies, technical feasibility , natural conditions

and disproportionate costs are the most used justifications for applying this type of exemption.

The main

pressures causing the application of exemptions under Article 4(4) in surface water bodies are atmospheric

deposition, agriculture, urban wastewater, diffuse urban run-off, and plants included under the scope of the

Industrial Emissions Directive.

Exemptions under Article 4(5)

are applied in the surface water bodies of most Member States assessed

(14

out of 20). For the countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting, the share of

surface water bodies that has been exempted under Article 4(5) is around 9.3% for ecological status and

0.3% for chemical status (Figure 4-1 below). As shown in Figure 4-2, for surface water bodies, infeasibility ,

and disproportionate costs are used as justifications for applying this type of exemption.

The main

pressures reported causing the application of exemptions under Article 4(5) in surface water bodies are urban

wastewater, diffuse urban run-off, agriculture, forestry and transport.

Hungary, Italy, Slovakia and Sweden.

The Netherlands and Spain.

Percentages refer to Member States with complete electronic reporting.

Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden.

Percentages refer to Member States with complete electronic reporting.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 4-1. Share of exemptions applied per Article of the total number of delineated surface water bodies in

the third RBMPs (countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting)

Exemptions under Article 4(6)

have been much less applied and only four

out of the 20 Member States

assessed. as illustrated in Figure 4-1 above. As shown in Figure 4-2, for surface water bodies, accidents ,

natural causes , and force majeure (0.01% of all reporting surface water bodies for ecological status) are

used as justifications for applying this type of exemption.

Exemptions according to WFD Article 4(7)

are applied to projects in the surface water bodies of eight

out of the 20 Member States assessed. For the countries with complete and partially complete electronic

reporting, the share of surface water bodies that has been exempted under Article 4(7) is around 0.1% for

ecological status. As shown in Figure 4-2, for surface water bodies, sustainable human development and

new modifications, are used as justifications for applying this type of exemption to surface water ecological

status.

100

Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain.

Percentages refer to Member States with complete electronic reporting.

Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden.

100

Percentages refer to Member States with complete electronic reporting.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 4-2. Share of exemptions type of the total number of surface water bodies in the third RBMPs (countries

with complete and partially complete electronic reporting, more than one exemption may apply to a water body)

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Application of exemptions in Groundwaters

Exemptions according to WFD Article 4(4)

are applied by all Member States assessed, except for Latvia

and Lithuania. As shown in figure 4-3 above, for the countries with complete and partially complete electronic

reporting, the share of groundwater bodies that has been exempted under Article 4(4) is around 9.9% for

quantitative status and 23% for chemical status. As shown in Figure 4-4, for groundwater bodies, technical

feasibility , natural conditions and disproportionate costs are used as justifications for applying this type of

exemption.

101

The main pressures reported causing the application of exemptions under Article 4(4) in

groundwater bodies are agriculture and contaminated sites or derelict industrial sites.

Exemptions according to WFD Article 4(5)

are applied in the groundwater bodies of eight

102

, out of the 20,

Member States assessed. For the countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting, the

share of groundwater bodies that has been exempted under Article 4(5) is around 1% for quantitative status

and 3.4% for chemical status (Figure 4-3). As shown in Figure 4-4, for groundwater bodies, infeasibility , and

disproportionate costs are used as justifications for applying this type of exemption.

103

The main pressures

Percentages refer to Member States with complete electronic reporting.

Czechia, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Spain.

103

Percentages refer to Member States with complete electronic reporting.

101

102

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

reported causing the application of exemptions under Article 4(5) in groundwater bodies are agriculture and

contaminated sites or derelict industrial sites.

Figure 4-3. Share of exemptions applied per Article of the total number of delineated groundwater bodies in the

third RBMPs (countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting)

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 4-4. Share of exemptions type applied per Article of the total number of groundwater bodies in the third

RBMPs (countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting, more than one exemption may

apply to a groundwater body)

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Exemptions according to WFD Article 4(6)

are applied in the groundwater bodies of six

104

out of the 20

Member States assessed. For the countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting, the

share of groundwater bodies that has been exempted under Article 4(6) is around 0.2% for quantitative

status and none for chemical status (Figure 4-3). As shown in Figure 4-4 for groundwater bodies, natural

causes , and force majeure are used as justifications for applying this type of exemption.

105

Exemptions according to WFD Article 4(7)

are applied in the groundwater bodies of six

106

out of the 20

Member States assessed. For the countries with complete and partially complete electronic reporting, the

share of surface water bodies that has been exempted under Article 4(7) is around 0.4% for quantitative

status and none for chemical status (Figure 4-3). As shown in Figure 4-4, for groundwater bodies, sustainable

human development and new modification are used as justifications for applying this type of exemption.

107

Only Latvia applied

exemptions according to Article 6(3)

of the Groundwater Directive on the grounds of

artificial recharge / augmentation (0.02% of all reporting groundwater bodies for chemical status). The

Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Poland, Slovakia.

Percentages refer to Member States with complete electronic reporting.

106

Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden.

107

Percentages refer to Member States with complete electronic reporting.

104

105

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

pressures reported causing the application of exemptions under Article 6(3) are recharges and public water

supply.

Justification of exemptions

As required by WFD, the reasons for applying exemptions under Article 4, paragraphs (4) to (7) shall be

specifically set out and explained in the RBMPs. This implies that the exemptions should be based on

appropriate, evident and transparent criteria or methodologies and shall be justified in detail in the RBMPs.

This is particularly the case for the application of Article 4(5) which allows to lower the environmental

objectives, for which the WFD implies a thorough and well documented demonstration of disproportionate

cost and unfeasibility criteria, and evidence that all possible measures not disproportionately expensive or

infeasible have been implemented. This also applies to the use of

exemptions

under Article 4(7) WFD for

new projects, which must include detailed justifications, detailing cumulative effects, the assessment of

better environmental options, and the measures taken to mitigate the adverse impacts of new developments

In addition, the WFD requires that any exemption applied is regularly reviewed and does not permanently

exclude or compromise the achievement of the environmental objectives in other water bodies, and

guarantee at least the level of protection provided for in other EU environmental law.

Compared to the second RBMPs, there have been some improvements in the methodologies used for the

application of exemptions for surface and groundwater bodies. Specifically, following previous Commission

recommendations, out of the 20 Member States analysed in this report, 18 provide justifications on

exemption at water body level

108

and 11 of these have provided more detailed justifications

109

. However,

some Member States do not provide sufficient details on the justification in any of the RBMPs assessed and

some provide sufficient information in some instances and insufficient details in others.

4.2

Economics

The WFD addresses the economic aspects mainly through two main articles: Articles 5 and 9, addressing

respectively the economic analysis of water use and the recovery of water services’ costs, although, as further

detailed below, this division is not clear-cut.

Article 5 requires Member States to undertake an economic analysis of water use. The law also establishes

that the reports must contain enough information in sufficient detail to support the assessment of the cost

recovery for water services and related obligations as well as the judgements on the most cost-effective

combination of measures in respect of water uses to be included in the Programme of Measures, PoMs.

WFD article 9(1) establishes that MS “must take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water

services,

including environmental and resource costs, […] and in accordance with the polluter-pays principle”

(PPP). In addition, it establishes that:

•

Water pricing policies must provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently;

and

Different water uses

–

disaggregated into at least industry, households and agriculture, must

adequately contribute to the recovery of the costs of water services.

The progress on the economic issues was limited in the set of 1

RBMPs. In its overall assessment of the

programming period of the set of second RBMPs

110

, the Commission noted across-the-board improvements

Lithuania and Latvia do not provide justifications at water body level.

Austria, Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia.

110

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2019%3A095%3AFIN

108

109

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

in the economic aspects of the WFD, but also significant gaps in translating these improvements in economic

analysis into concrete measures. It concluded that further progress in the economic underpinning of the

RBMPs, specifically the PoMs, would greatly facilitate water-related decisions and investments needed to

achieve the WFD objectives.

Water services and water uses

A sound definition of water services and water uses is the basis for a solid, transparent and correct

implementation of Article 5 and Article 9 requirements, although the implications may go further than that

(e.g. a good identification of water uses should be based on the outcomes of the required assessment of

pressures and impacts of activities on water bodies).

Water supply and sanitation services

were recognized as (broad) water services in all 20 Member States.

As a result, these services were included (either separately or jointly) in the cost recovery analysis in all

Member States, but Latvia (which did not report its cost recovery analysis). In addition, 4 Member States

(Belgium, Czechia, France and Italy) also reported a sectoral disaggregation at least into industry, households

and agriculture. In 3 Member States (Hungary, Lithuania and Spain) there was no real sectoral disaggregation,

but supply for irrigation was recognized as a separate water service.

In contrast,

fewer MS have reported specific “individual” water services,

be it self-supply, or storage and

impoundment, or other services which are also water uses. While for a part this may reflect their (lack of)

relevance for the RBD(s) in question, it may also reflect a lack of transparency on the economic aspects of

these services, including their pricing, and consequently their efficiency of provision, their impact on the

efforts to meet the environmental objectives and some

untapped financing potential:

if these services are

actually in place in the country, but are not reported or identified in water policy as such, there may be some

provision costs (e.g. storage infrastructure) that could be covered by the users of the service through an

appropriate economic instruments, which is not the case today (see also section on financial cost recovery).

The water services identified are depicted in Figure 4-1 below.

Table 4-5. Water services identified in RBMPs, and included in cost recovery analysis

Water services identified by the WFD

Identified in

RBMPs?

No. of MS

The “broad water services:” Overall water supply services and overall

wastewater services (jointly or both separately)

As regards water supply services: Impoundment and storage reported as

distinct water services

“Self-service” (“self-abstraction” and on-site

water treatment for re-use

purposes) recognised as separate water services

A water service is reported other than the above ones, while that use does

not directly correspond to the list of water services mentioned in WFD art

2(38)

20 (all)

Included in cost

recovery assessment?

No. of MS

In relation to the identification of

water uses

(see Figure 4-5), these were not reported, or not specifically

referred to, in Belgium, Denmark and Finland. As it can be seen in the graphs below, there is no common

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

practice across MS as regards the identification and reporting of water uses, as a variety of different water

uses is reported in different Member States. The water uses that were most reported are manufacturing

industry, agriculture (excluding irrigation), hydropower, wastewater treatment (excluding self-services) and

drinking water supply. As a general rule, it is unclear whether RBMPs actually made a distinction between

“water uses” and “water use sectors”; the overall impression

is that these two terms are often used as

synonyms.

It should be noted that an

incomplete identification of water uses

might result in the following

implementation issues for Member States:

•

Incomplete understanding of water uses in the country, including their

economic significance;

Incomplete understanding of the

pressures on water ecosystems;

Incomplete understanding of the

contribution of each water use sector to pollution and water

resource use,

resulting in turn in an incomplete understanding of

environmental and resource costs

and in an incomplete application of the polluter-pays principle;

potentially higher bills for

paying for the pollution costs or that this part of water services’ cost

is not

recovered at all.

•

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 4-6. Water uses reported in RBMPs

Source: third RBMPs electronic reporting and data mining of PDF reporting

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Economic Analysis

The assessment shows some progress with the

reporting on the economic analysis,

particularly

in 9 Member States in all RBDs, and in some RBDs in 3 Member States (see Figure 4-6 below).

Figure 4-7. Reporting of progress in the economic analysis

Source: third RBMPs electronic reporting

In contrast the assessment of the

compliance with the requirements

included in

the WFD (annex

III)

reveals a less positive picture. Overall, no Member State covers all items listed in the law with the

actual coverage varying across Member States (fulfilled different combinations of requirements.

Within a Member State, the coverage tends to be addressed in a (near) homogenous way in all RBDs.

The items that are most commonly assessed are as follows:

•

Volume estimates

associated with the various water services (13 Member States), also

differentiated over user types/ sectors (12 Member States);

Cost estimates

associated with the various water services (12 Member States),

differentiated over user types or sectors in 8 Member States;

Estimates of the potential costs of relevant measures (12 Member States); however, these

estimates are differentiated only in 4 Member States;

Price estimates

associated with the various water services (11 Member States); however,

these estimates were differentiated over user types or sectors in 5 Member States only;

Estimates of relevant investment

including forecasts of such investments (10 Member

States); differentiated over water services in 6 Member States, and differentiated over supply

sources and distribution/user types in 2 Member States and 3 Member States only,

respectively. However, reporting on investments needs and forecasts often appears to be

rudimentary, as only total figures are often provided.

Overall,

long-term forecasts

of water supply were found in 7 Member States, differentiated over

source type in 5 Member States and long-term forecasts of water demand were found in 8 Member

States, differentiated over user types or sectors in 6 Member States.

Judgments about the most

effective combination of measures

are only reported in 6 Member

States.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

No information at all on Annex III requirements was found in 2 Member States.

Overall, the assessment confirms that thanks to the WFD,

the economic analysis

has become a

well-

established practice

in all assessed MS and that continued progress has been made in this respect.

Nevertheless, in many Member States economic analyses are still incomplete and underused. The link

with key challenges and developments in the RBD appear mostly implicit or absent.

Overall, MS seem to be more familiar with volume estimates, cost estimated associated with water

services, estimates of potential costs of measures, price estimates of water services and estimates

of relevant investments. In contrast, long term forecasts, be it of water supply or demand, are

reported by a minority of Member States, suggesting that European RBMPs are still

struggling in

developing a long-term perspective of water management

–

which would be crucial, in particular

in view of climate change.

Water pricing and incentive function

In the assessed Member States,

tariffs for water and sanitation services

111

can take either the form

of one tariff covering both services (Austria

112

, Czechia, Denmark, France, Hungary, Lithuania,

Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia) or two distinct tariffs for water supply on the one

hand, and sanitation on the other (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Germany, Italy, Sweden); this is also

shown in the graph below. In the case of Romania, it is not clear whether one tariff only is in place

for the two services or two separate prices are applied. Four Member States (Estonia, Finland, Latvia

and Spain) do not report about the basis for charging for water and sanitation services.

RBMPs often make references to a national pricing framework in place, which applies to all RBDs (e.g.

Spain); the entity in charge of setting prices may vary depending on the Member States

–

for example,

prices can be set by municipalities or by a specific authority

–

and this might create a tension between

the need to have a uniform pricing framework at the national level and the need to adapt to local

circumstances.

To be noted that the reporting is usually focussed on "broad" services only and not on "individual" services - this holds

even more so for info on pricing.

112

In Austria, prices for Water and Sanitation Services are set at the local level, which results in a high variability of tariff

structures and rates. As a result, both categories are present (one integrated bill for WSS, or distinct prices for water

supply and sanitation)

111

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 4-8. Basis for charging Water and Sanitation Services (WSS) in EU MS

In terms of

tariff structure,

in most assessed Member States (Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Croatia,

Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovakia), tariffs

for WSS take the form of integrated tariffs made of a fixed component (independent of volume) and

a volumetric component (unit price per m

). In most of these Member States, the latter is not

differentiated based on consumption tiers (i.e. the same rate applies to all consumption levels); in

France and Italy, the volumetric component increases with increasing consumption tiers, whereas in

Belgium this is the case for the household sector only. In Austria and Czechia, in some locations,

integrated tariffs are not in place, and volumetric tariffs (unit price per m

) are applied. In Romania,

Sweden and Poland, volumetric tariffs are applied. In 4 Member States (Estonia, Finland, Latvia and

Spain) the tariff structure was not reported. This is also shown in the graph below.

Figure 4-9. Tariff structure in EU Member States

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Different

tariff levels

are applied to the different

use sectors

in Austria, Belgium, Hungary, Italy,

Luxembourg, Poland

113

and Sweden; no information on such differentiation was found in the other

assessed Member States.

In France, RBMPs also provide average rates for irrigation water tariffs (unit prices per m3) in all

assessed RBDs; in Italy, some RBMPs provide a qualitative description of irrigation water tariffs (either

volumetric or flat rates, depending on location and managing entity).

With the exception of Germany, where such information is not reported,

environmental charges

(including water abstraction, pollution and other charges) are in place in all assessed Member States.

Detailed information on structure and rates is provided in 10 Member States (Belgium, Czechia,

Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Slovakia), whereas a qualitative

description is provided in 6 Member States (Austria, Croatia, Estonia, the Netherlands, Romania,

Sweden). No information was provided by the remaining Member States.

Based on the information outlined above, the assessment of whether

pricing arrangements at the

Member States provide an incentive for a more efficient water use

reveals that in general existing

pricing arrangements appear underdeveloped in as regards the policy objectives of the WFD as shown

in Figure 4-9 below.

Figure 4-10. Do pricing arrangements in place in EU Member States provide an incentive for a more

efficient water use?

Overall, the results of the assessment clearly indicate that the role of water pricing as an instrument

to provide an incentive for a more efficient water use is not systematically considered in EU Member

States, and this is likely to imply that these instruments are still underused in the policy mix to improve

the overall efficiency of water use. In most Member States, the RBMPs only provide a general/

qualitative assurance that existing pricing arrangements provide an incentive for a more efficient

water use. In some cases, it is assumed that pricing arrangements able to achieve cost recovery

automatically provide also adequate incentives, as it was already observed in the second cycle

–

and

while pricing levels able to achieve full cost recovery are indeed an incentive, some pricing structures

(e.g. increasing block rates) are more effective than others in providing an incentive for a more

efficient water use (e.g. volumetric rates irrespective of consumption levels), although full cost

recovery can be achieved in both cases.

The fact that most Member States do not have pricing arrangements taking water

scarcity conditions

into account can be seen as a symptom of this.

The application of a “scarcity premium” to water

tariffs (i.e. water tariffs can vary with scarcity conditions) were only reported in Croatia. In addition,

water prices allow for the differentiation of prices over regions in 9 Member States, and this might

113

PL: different tariff levels for industry and households; agriculture is not mentioned.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

include regions with different water scarcity conditions; at the same time, with the available

information it is not possible to infer whether price variations over regions take water scarcity

explicitly into account, or whether price variations are solely based on differences in financial costs.

Similarly, water abstraction charges vary with the level of water scarcity only in one Member State.

Financial cost recovery

Financial cost recovery of water and sanitation services was generally well documented in the

assessed Member States, with 17 out of the 20 Member States assessed providing financial cost

recovery rates for water and sanitation services. Nevertheless, some gaps or inconsistencies remain.

As shown in Table 4-1 below, only in some Member States this information is also split by main water

use sector (households, industry and agriculture), and as separate rates for water supply and

sanitation services (as opposed to overall cost recovery for water and sanitation services as a whole).

Only for a small number of Member States a

“broader

cost recovery rate” is provided which is

calculated including both financial and environmental and resource costs. Not all Member States

reporting financial cost recovery rates also provide corroboration for such rates. Cost recovery rates

are very rarely reported for impoundment (Spain), self-service abstraction (Spain), and other

individual water services (the Netherlands). A minority of Member States (Croatia, Italy, Latvia) did

not report any financial cost recovery rates.

Table 4-1 Financial and broader cost recovery rates provided by EU Member States

Water

service

Financial cost recovery rates provided

Overall rate

WSS as a

whole

With

corroboration

Broader cost recovery rates

provided

Overall rate

Sectoral split

FR, HU, PL

FR, HU

Sectoral split

DK, EE

, FR, HU, LT,

PL, SE, SK

EE, HU

Drinking

water supply

With

corroboration

AT, BE, CZ, DK, DE, ES,

FI, FR, LT, LU, NL, RO,

SE, SK

AT, CZ, DK, DE, ES, FR,

LT, NL, SE, SK

BE, FR, RO

ES, FR, RO

ES, FR

Sanitation

AT, BE, CZ, DK, DE, ES,

FR, LT, LU, NL, RO, SE,

AT, CZ, DK, DE, ES, FR,

LT, NL, SE, SK

BE, FR, RO

ES, FR, RO

With

corroboration

ES, FR

Irrigation

With

corroboration

Other

individual

water

services

With

corroboration

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Impoundment

With

corroboration

Self-service

abstraction

With

corroboration

No rates

provided

HR, IT, LV

Notes:

FR: in most RBMPs;

ES: in at least 1 RBMP;

EE: rates are provided but, as observed in the MS report,

the methodology applied raises doubts on its adherence to WFD prescriptions for the assessment of cost

recovery.

Both operational and capital costs of water and sanitation services were reported in 16 out of the 20

Member States assessed, although the quality and completeness of financial cost figures are rather

variable across countries.

The

reporting on the revenues of water and sanitation services

is much less developed and

complete, with 8 Member States (Denmark, Finland, Germany

114

, Luxembourg, Latvia, Poland,

Romania, Sweden) not reporting any figure. This seems to indicate a more limited understanding on

this key component of the implementation of cost recovery.

Similarly,

reporting of information on subsidies to water services was still not homogenous

across

the assessed EU MS as shown in Figure 4-10.

Figure 4-11. Reporting on subsidies to water services in EU MS

Source: third RBMPs electronic reporting and PDF reporting

According to

Article 9.4

of the WFD, Member States can choose not to apply the "cost recovery

principle" for some water services, in cases where this does not compromise the purposes and the

achievement of the objectives of the WFD. Regrettably,

Article 9(4) exemptions on “established

practices” were not reported in most of the assessed

Member States. In 3 Member States, some these

exemptions are mentioned, although details are not provided.

Based on the above, it has to be noted that in most Member States

the financial cost recovery

assessment was conducted only for water supply and sanitation services

115

, even in those Member

For Germany, some information on revenues is provided in the Weser and Elbe RBMPs.

With the only noteworthy exception of the Netherlands, which conducted the cost recovery assessment for all water

services identified in the RBMPs.

114

115

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

States which identified other water services such as for example self-supply, storage/ impoundment

or other water use activities.

It is clear that some of the requirements pose challenges to Member States. These notably include

the i) provision of adequate incentives to use water efficiently through pricing mechanisms; ii) the

inclusion of water services other than water and sanitation and iii) the explanation of the use of

mitigation factors and “established practices” into cost recovery assessments.

In addition, different

levels of progress are also observed for: i) the assessment of environmental and resource costs and

the application of the polluter-pays principle, ii)

the assessment of “adequate contribution” of water

uses and water user sectors. The collected information does not allow for formulating explanations

on why these requirements are particularly arduous for Member States

–

especially considering that,

on some topics, guidance has been provided over the years through the CIS process.

Investments needs and funding of the Programmes of Measures

For Member States that reported electronically, some information on the funding needs for the

implementation WFD

–

based on the estimation of the funding needs to implement the third PoMs -

is available and shows that an increase in funding to implement their measures compared to the

second RBMPs. This would also include the EU financial contribution. However, it should be noted that

the information is either incomplete, contradictory, or even missing for some Member States. For the

10 Member States for which information is available, the cumulative funding needs over the period

2022-2027 is reported to be EUR 89.4 billion (approximately EUR 15 billion/year) but given the

limitations in data this is likely to be an underestimation.

For all Member States, it is unclear from the reports whether the countries have already secured

these funds but given that funding has been systematically highlighted as major barrier in the

implementation of the previous Programmes of Measures, it can be assumed that this is not the case.

This is also consistent with OECD data and European Commission analysis that shows

–

for the EU

as a whole

–

a failure to meet the annual investment needs that are estimated to EUR 77 billion per

year, with a financing gap currently estimated at around EUR 25 billion per year

116

. It should be noted

that this amount is largely based on needs for water supply and sanitation, while costs for other

measures related to the implementation of the WFD and the FD may not be fully reflected.

Regrettably, for most Member States, the RBMPs do not contain a clear investment planning that

considers long-term water supply and demand forecasts based on the latest climate scenarios and

climate adaptation strategies. More generally, the reported economic analyses do not clearly show

how cost-effectiveness assessments have informed the selection of measures in the PoMs (which

should otherwise entail many more investment measures). Further progress in the economic

underpinning of the PoMs would greatly facilitate water-related decisions and investments.

Transboundary cooperation under the WFD

Effective international cooperation is key to the cost-effective achievement of the objectives of the

WFD. Such cooperation is heterogeneous within Europe ranging from the sole recognition of the

international character of a river basin to more developed formal international commissions with a

dedicated secretariat, human and financial resources, and their own projects and activities.

DG ENV, Environmental investment needs, financing and gaps in the EU-27

–

update 2024 (internal analysis). Note

that the next Environmental Implementation Report planned for Spring 2025 (EIR 2025) will include further information

and updates publicly available on the topic.

116

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

There are 75 iRBDs and 30 sub-basins in the EU. Based on their level of cooperation, four main

categories were identified. An overview of different types of international cooperation is given in

Table 5-1.

Table 5-1. Different types of international coordination in relation to the WFD

Category

Formal international

agreement

Yes

International coordinating

body

Yes

iRBMP produced

Yes

The analysis of the third RBMPs shows a certain stability in the dense institutional network of

transboundary coordination mechanisms for different iRBMPs, with few example of existing

arrangements that

were “upgraded”.

In certain cases, however Member States reported that the

agreements in place were considered to be insufficient, while cooperation with non-EU countries tends

to be in some cases focused on specific issues rather than being framed broadly in line with the

integrated water resoruces management approach of the WFD.

Noticeably,

international coordination has been expanded

in 2 iRBD through the ratification of new

agreements:

•

Romania and Serbia signed an agreement regarding cooperation in the field of sustainable

management of transboundary waters in 2019. Both countries belong to the

Danube iRBD

and Romania had bilateral agreements with all its neighbouring countries with the exception

of Serbia. The agreement established the Romanian-Serbian Commission for sustainable

cross-border water management and hosts two sub-committees (Sub-committee for

Hydrometeorology and Quantitative Water Management; and Sub-committee for Water

Quality Protection).

Hungary and Serbia signed an agreement in 2019 and established a bilateral commission. It

hosts a Water Management Sub-committee, and a Water Quality Protection Sub-committee.

The two countries are part of the

Danube iRBD.

Poland and Belarus signed an agreement which covers many aspects of integrated water

resources management in the

Vistula iRBD.

This agreement is the achievement of 20 years

of negotiations between the 2 countries.

Poland and Ukraine signed 2 agreements to complement the State-level agreement in place

since 1996: on 14

August 2019 between the Regional Water Resources Authority of the Bug

and San rivers in Lviv and the Regional Water Management Board in Lublin and on 19

February 2021 between the Regional Water Management Board in Rzeszów and the Regional

Water Resources Authority of the Bug and San River of the Republic of Ukraine. Both

agreements apply on tributaries within the

Vistula iRBD.

•

Among the 20 iRBD assessed, 3 have an agreement which has been

identified by local authorities

as insufficient:

•

France and Spain signed an administrative agreement on water management, on February

15, 2006, for the

Garonne iRBD

(waterbodies of the Bidasoa, Nive, Nivelle, Garonne, Ariège

and Segro) though it is limited to consultation between authorities, public participation and

sharing of experiences.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

•

France and Switzerland signed an agreement in 1963 to protect Lake Geneva, which is part

of the

Rhone iRBD:

cooperation is undertaken via the CIPEL

. However, the cooperation

between the Rhone-Mediterranean RBD and Switzerland is hampered by the fragmentation

caused by multiple administrative agreements for several small, shared sub-catchments

Discussions are ongoing on the framework to be established to support an effective

governance.

According to the Polish

Vistula RBMP,

cooperation with the Russian side in the field of

transboundary waters requires re-formalisation, the establishment of a new legal framework

and cooperation bodies, but unfortunately the negotiations failed and as a result were

suspended.

International coordination is higher for surface water bodies (rivers, lakes, transitional waters) while

it remains very limited when it comes to transboundary groundwaters. Many iRBD have not identified

cross-border groundwaters. Where transboundary aquifers are identified (e.g., Scheldt, Vistula, Elbe,

Danube), characterisation is left to bilateral discussions. There is also limited cooperation on

monitoring of qualitative and quantitative indicators for groundwaters and status assessment.

The analysis also shows that international RBMPs have been developed for the most important iRBDs

and provide the umbrella for the coordination of cooperation among Member States with notiable

improvements in several key areas.

Data sharing

117

, coordinated monitoring and joint research projects

among neighbouring countries

have continued to expand. The intensity of bilateral or multilateral coordination varies depending on

the existence and leadership of international basin commissions, thereby ranging from the mere

acknowledgement of the national/regional monitoring networks, to coordinated sampling protocols

as on the Danube iRBD. Geographic Information System

(GIS)-based

databases

to collect and

compare information from Member States sharing the same iRBD, as well as web interfaces open to

the public are also being developed and improved. Cooperation continues also as regards the

joint

characterisation and status assessments

for the iRBDs, including through discussions on

priority

indicators

and

threshold values

relevant at the iRBD level. The latter however does not implies full

convergence on the assessment among the different riparian countries. The cooperation mechanisms

help to identify the discrepancies and compare methodologies, but reaching a consensus is not always

possible as the priority indicators and threshold values are first and foremost driven by national

guidance, decrees or regulations, to ensure comparability and homogeneity of reporting within a

Member State rather than interest in international harmonisation. Coordination is also reported by

the Member States as regards the joint management of extreme or rare situations such as

pollution

accidents, floods or low flows.

On the latter, it should be noted that with some exceptions, such as

the Albufeira Convention between Portugal and Spain, cooperation in the relevant iRBDs on tackling

water scarcity and drought is so far limited and should be further encouraged.

There has been less progress in

international coordination on the Programmes of Measures.

With

the exception of the Danube iRBMP which defines measures of international relevance, the other

iRBMPs just compile the measures establisheds autonomously by each Member State and it is hence

unclear the extent to which coherence is guaranteed between measures taken by upstream and

downstream countries. For instance, when it comes to nutrients load reduction

–

which is commonly

recognized as a joint significant water management issue - most transboundary cooperation is still

lacking a minimum of needed homogeneity in monitoring, indicators, agreed objectives and/or agreed

measures to establish clear quantified contributions to needed load reductions across the borders.

Upstream Member states are not reporting on the possibly needed contributions in nutrient load

117

The data exchange relates to climate, hydrology, water quality parameters, groundwater levels and, sometimes, biota.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

reduction for downstream objectives in their national RBMPs but focus completely on their own

waterbodies. There are nevertheless positive examples to set up joint targets and commitments such

as in the Baltic Sea

118

or the joint 2018 strategy of Czechia and Germany for Elbe (iRBD) which

includes agreed quantified annual goals, exemplary measures and a 10-points action plan.

In the Ministerial Declaration of the 2024 Ministerial Meeting on the Baltic Sea Marine Environment, the Parties to the

HELCOM Convention committed to

“fully implementing, by 2027 at

the latest, all nutrient input reduction measures

necessary to achieve the net input ceilings (NICs)”.

118

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

SECTION B:

FLOODS DIRECTIVE

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

6. Flood risk management under floods directive (FD) -

findings from second FRMPs

6.1

Main elements of the Floods Directive

The Floods Directive requires each Member State to take three steps: (a) scan its territory for flood

risks, assess the potential adverse consequences of future floods for human health, the environment,

cultural heritage, and economic activity, thereby identifying the Areas of Potentially Significant Flood

Risk (APSFRs); then (b) map the flood extent and the potential adverse consequences; and finally (c)

take measures to reduce the flood risk.

These steps are reflected, respectively, in (a) the preliminary flood risk assessments (or PFRAs), which

include the identification of areas of potential significant flood risk (or APSFRs

119

), (b) the preparation

of flood hazard and risk maps, or FHRMs, and (c) the establishment of flood risk management plans,

or FRMPs. These three steps are carried out over a six-year cycle. Once a cycle is finished, a new cycle

begins owing to the changing nature of flood risk.

This document provides an overview of the second Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs), as well as

of the second Floods Risk and Hazards Maps (FHRMs), reported to the European Commission.

Twenty-six Member States submitted on time their maps (FHRMs)

120

, while only 21 Member States

submitted their second plans (FRMPs) which cover the period 2022-2027. Similarly to the WFD,

implementation of the FD has been supported by informal co-operation under the Common

Implementation Strategy (CIS)

121

6.2

Assessment of the Flood Hazard and Risk Maps

To recall, twenty-six Member States

122

prepared and reported in time their risk maps (FHRMs) and

were subsequently assessed by the Commission.

Flood hazard maps

According to the law, Floods Hazard maps shall cover the geographical areas which could be flooded

according to the following scenarios: (a) floods with a low probability, or extreme event scenarios; (b)

floods with a medium probability (likely return period ≥ 100 years); (c) floods with a high probability,

where appropriate. For each scenario, the elements to be shown on the hazard maps are (a) the flood

extent; (b) water depths or water level, as appropriate; (c) where appropriate, the flow velocity or the

relevant water flow.

Most Member States are using a combination of historical data, hydraulic modelling, hydrological

modelling, observed data and rainfall data to define the probabilities of flooding. All Member states

have developed maps for floods of low, medium, and high probability. The return periods for the

respective scenarios vary depending on the source of flooding.

On the basis of the identified APSFRs, since October 2023 the “Flood Risk Areas Viewer” provides a single gateway to

the work done by the Member States under the Floods Directive,

https://discomap.eea.europa.eu/floodsviewer/

120

Greece did not report in time to be included in the Commission’s assessment of second FHRMs. In the meantime

though, Greece reported its second FHRMs.

121

https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/9ab5926d-bed4-4322-9aa7-9964bbe8312d/library/dd9b4484-2935-4ee8-b3ce-

72f844f3644c

122

Greece did not report in time to be included in the Commission’s assessment of second FHRMs. In the meantime

though, Greece reported its second FHRMs.

119

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

One important change since the first FHRMs is the switch in all countries assessed but one

123

from

PDF maps to exclusively GIS-based online map viewers, or to a mix of online GIS map viewers and

downloadable PDF maps. The GIS-based approach has increased accessibility, even if the user

friendliness of the map viewers varies. These differences in user friendliness can partly be explained

by the intended use of the maps, i.e. if the map is intended for public use, expert use, or both.

Most Member States used a 100-year return period (or 1% probability) for mapping medium

probability

river floods.

Only in Denmark (50 years), Italy (varies from 30 to 200 years), Finland (50

to 100 years) and Malta (50 years) differ from the 100 years mentioned in the FD. 22 Member States

have taken into account existing flood defences in preparing their flood maps

124

. There was no clear

information for two Member States

125

. A range of probabilities from 0.01% to 0.5% (10 Member

States use 0.1% or 1 000 year return period) were used for extreme sea water flooding events, and

a range between 5 to 50 year return periods for the high probability, i.e. the relatively frequent events.

With regards to the hazard elements shown in the maps: flood extent is shown in all countries and

water depths in all except two

126

, though this information is provided only partly by five Member

States

127

. There has been progress in the mapping of fluvial floods and flood extent since in this cycle

all Member States did it. Flow velocity, or relevant water flow

–

a useful feature for rescue services

–

although not strictly required by law was shown on the hazard maps of 8 Member States.

Dedicated hazard maps for

pluvial floods

were prepared by six Member States at the time of the

first FHRMs, now 12 Member States mapped pluvial floods

128

. This reveals the growing attention

Member States are assigning to flash floods of pluvial origin in urban areas. 19 of the 22 Member

States

129

with coastlines have produced specific

sea water flood maps.

Seven Member States

130

have combined the mapping of sea water floods with other relevant sources including Belgium and

the Netherlands who prepared combined fluvial and sea water flood maps. Based on documents

reported by the Member States to EIONET

131

as well as other sources reviewed, 16 Member States

132

have taken into account existing flood defences in preparing their sea water flood hazard maps.

Regarding other sources of flooding,

groundwater

has been mapped by three Member States

133

and

artificial water-bearing infrastructure

(i.e. dams and reservoirs) failure by seven Member

States

134

. This is only a marginal improvement as compared to the first FHRMs where groundwater

Hungary.

Austria, Bulgaria, Czechia, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, the Netherlands,

Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden. The information was only found partly in Belgium,

Denmark and Italy.

125

Croatia and Hungary.

126

Estonia and Lithuania.

127

Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.

128

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Romania and Spain.

129

These are Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, the

Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. In addition, Cyprus and Malta also have a coastline

Greece’s FHRMs have not been assessed yet due to late reporting.

130

Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, the Netherlands and Slovenia.

131

The European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET) is a partnership network of the European

Environment Agency (EEA) and its 38 member and cooperating countries. Reportnet is EIONET’s infrastructure for

supporting and improving data and information flows. The Central Data Repository (CDR), where Member States report, is

part of the Reportnet.

132

Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark (partly), France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland,

Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

133

Croatia, Hungary and Spain (only in the case of ES010).

134

Belgium (only BEESCAUT_SCHELDE_BR), Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy (only ITI012, ITI024, ITI024, ITR171), NL, PL (only

PL200 and PL6000) and Romania.

123

124

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

floods and floods from artificial water-bearing infrastructure were mapped only by two and six

countries, respectively

135

Flood risk maps

Article 6(5) of the FD says that flood risk maps shall show the potential adverse consequences

associated with flood scenarios expressed in terms of (a) the indicative number of inhabitants

potentially affected; (b) type of economic activity of the area potentially affected; (c) IED installations

and protected areas identified in Annex IV(1)(i), (iii) and (v) to Directive 2000/60/EC; and (d) other

information which the Member State considers useful.

Indicative numbers of inhabitants potentially affected

have been identified by all Member States

except Czechia and Malta (which will do so in the future). Some Member States

136

only provided this

information for medium probability flooding. Just below a third of the Member States excluded high

probability events (i.e. more frequent and therefore less severe flooding) from the calculation of

inhabitants potentially at risk and a comparable number of Member States did the same for low

probability flooding. The number of inhabitants potentially affected by medium probability fluvial

floods across the European Union as a total has increased compared to the first FHRMs by about a

million and a half to roughly

17 million inhabitants

137

The type of economic activity of the area potentially affected

is presented by all Member States;

the situation largely remains similar to the first FHRMs in the sense that information is mainly

provided by showing land use on the maps. An example is the Netherlands, which used six clearly

defined categories: agricultural area, forest and nature area, work area, recreational area,

infrastructure, and living area. Also, Sweden clearly categorized the economic activities: the risk for

damage has been considered for properties (divided into industrial and other), for buildings, for

transport infrastructure (roads, railroads, and water supply), for forest and for agricultural land.

Only

four Member States

138

quantified the economic damages.

For example, Denmark’s national web-

GIS portal is showing the economic damage (based on five ranges of damage) to buildings,

businesses, infrastructure, crops and livestock for each of the three scenarios in each Area of

Potentially Significant Flood Risk (APSFR).

Twenty-five Member States

139

mapped the risk to industrial installations falling under the scope of

the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). Sixteen Member States reported the numbers potentially at

risk, which is less than the number of countries that did so in the previous cycle. The total number of

IED installations potentially affected under a medium probability scenario currently stands at 3 250,

which is nevertheless slightly above the roughly 3 100 installations reported by 23 Member States

for the first maps.

Concerning

risk to protected areas,

all Member States

140

except two

141

show relevant information on

their maps.

However, additional security considerations may be at play with regards to floods from artificial water-bearing

infrastructure.

136

Czechia, France, the Netherlands and Slovakia.

137

Excluding from the calculations the UK, which in the meantime left the EU, and HU, which did not provide population

affected for the medium probability scenario at the time of the first FHRMs.

138

Belgium (Flanders), Denmark, Netherlands and Romania.

139

Except Czechia.

140

It should be noted however that in Hungary, protected areas are not shown consistently in the FHRMs for bathing sites

and abstraction for drinking water, however there are some PDF maps for specific locations.

141

In Czechia, this is due to technical reasons to be lifted. Malta stated in a technical report that WFD protected areas are

not located within the identified APSFRs and are therefore not considered to be at risk from flooding.

135

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

The largest change perhaps can be found in relation to

cultural heritage.

While in the first FHRMs,

cultural heritage was considered by about half the Member States, under the second 25 of the 26

Member States assessed

142

included cultural heritage in their FHRMs. Several Member States show

UNESCO’s world heritage sites. Some Member States go further

and mapped much broader categories

of patrimony.

Although not explicitly required by the FD, 23 Member States considered climate change for the

second FHRMs (of which 15 considered climate change for coastal flooding). This is an increase

compared to the the first FHRMs where only 16 Member States did so. Sixteen out of the 23 Member

States considered climate change for the medium probability scenario

143

; for the other two scenarios

this was done less often; 13 Member States for the low probability scenario

144

and 11 for the high

probability scenario

145

. 13 Member States obtained climate change trend scenarios from the IPCC or

other international and EU sources

146

and 15 from national research programmes

147

. Nine Member

States used both sources

148

6.3

Assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans

Twenty-one Member States

149

prepared and reported in time their FRMPs to be included in the

European Commission’s assessment of second FRMPs.

The FD requires Member States to “establish appropriate objectives for

the management of flood

risks” and that FRMPs ‘…shall include measures for achieving the objectives established…’. Moreover,

the Annex of the Directive requires Member States to include a summary of the measures.

Seven Member States have kept the same objectives they had in their previous plans. For 14 Member

States, objectives have just been slightly changed. Only in few cases, more substantial changes are

seen.

Compared to the first FRMPs, there has been little change in the administrative level at which

objectives have been set. Most Member States have developed objectives at national level, while a

smaller number have adopted an approach that sees national-level objectives adapted at UoM or

FRMP level (see the figure 6-1 below).

Except France, possibly owing to an error in compiling the databases.

Austria, Belgium (partly), Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania,

Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Sweden.

144

Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Sweden.

145

Austria, Belgium (partly), Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta.

146

Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Italy (partly), Lithuania, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and

Sweden.

147

Belgium, Czechia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, Poland.

148

Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden.

149

The following Member States did not report in time to be included in the Commission’s assessment of second FRMPs:

Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Portugal and Slovakia. In the meantime, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta, and Portugal finalised

their second FRMPs, however not in time to be included in this document. At the time of writing, Greece and Slovakia are

yet to finalise their second FRMPs.

142

143

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 6-1. Level at which FRMP objectives are set

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs

As regards the areas covered by the objectives

150

, there are few changes in comparison to the first

FRMPs. Further, all Member States address the adverse consequences of floods in their objectives:

almost all plans provide strong evidence of this, with the remaining providing some evidence.

Relatively few Member States directly address the reduction in the likelihood of flooding. Nearly all

Member States refer to non-structural initiatives

–

that is, measures not involving civil engineering

structures such as raising awareness, ensuring early warning systems or disaster prevention and

response plans or spatial planning

–

in their objectives (see the figure 6-2 below).

150

Broadly these are health, economy, the environment and cultural heritage.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 6-2. Evidence of the focus of objectives

When setting their objectives to reduce the potential adverse consequences of floods, half of the

Member States explicitly consider potential impacts on human health, cultural heritage, environment,

and economic activity.

Figure 6-3. Evidence that FRMP objectives address potential adverse consequences of floods

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs

As regards

quantitative targets,

just few Member States set them: one example is Latvia, where

there is a target to reduce the number of inhabitants affected and the area of public infrastructure

facilities at risk of low probability floods by at least 40%. The Netherlands has a target to reduce, the

risk of death to no more than 1 fatality per 100 000 citizens per year by 2050, for areas along main

water bodies protected by flood defences. In Lithuania, indicators linked to the objectives specify

reductions in the number of inhabitants at risk, increasing areas protected from flooding, and reducing

the number of hazardous facilities that may cause pollution in case of flooding: these imply reducing

adverse consequences on human health, economic activity and the environment.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

As shown in a figure above, in 15 Member States, there is strong evidence of

objectives that refer

to non-structural initiatives.

Several common trends emerge, the most common of which is the

prioritisation of raising public awareness, which appears in nine Member States. In addition, improving

knowledge is a recurring focus in six Member States, while land-use planning is highlighted in five

Member States. Member States also emphasise the importance of developing flood forecasting and

early warning systems. Furthermore, there is a widespread recognition of the need for improved crisis

management, as seen in three Member States and emergency planning.

Several Member States have

objectives that address climate change,

calling for enhanced resilience

and adaptation.

Are the FRMPs objectives specific and measurable?

When it comes to assessing whether the identified objectives are specific and measurable, the

analysis shows limited progress as compared to the first FRMPs.

Several Member States have objectives that refer to quantitative targets; in other cases, objectives

are at least partially measurable. Some Member States identify indicators for their objectives, as in

Czechia and Lithuania

–

both using the indicator

Number of inhabitants at significant risk of flooding.

In Poland, the FRMPs describe a chain linking objectives, sub-objectives, measure types and actions,

and then indicators. Spain’s FRMPs link the objectives to groups of measures and provide indicators

to track both objectives and measures.

Nonetheless, the objectives for most Member States are only partly specific and measurable, and for

a few, the objectives remain too general to be measurable. Positively, more than half of the Member

States link their objectives to their measures.

Achievement of flood risk management objectives

Most of the assessed Member States provide, in their second FRMPs, at least some evidence of the

progress towards the achievement of the objectives set in their first FRMPs. In many cases, the second

FRMPs refer to the progress of the measures under the FRMPs, rather than discussing the

achievement of objectives themselves.

Figure 6-4. Evidence in the FRMP of the progress towards the achievement of objectives

Source: MS assessments

A few of the second FRMPs assessed provide data on reductions in flood risks from the measures

implemented to achieve the objectives: this includes, for example, Czechia and Hungary.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Since the objectives were largely not quantified in the first FRMPs and as several measures are

ongoing and those finished are replaced with new ones, none of the Member States declared that

their objectives have been reached.

6.3.1 Measures for flood risk management

While many Member States reported broadly the same numbers of measures as in the previous FRMP,

a few reported considerably more measures. Only Austria reported significantly fewer measures,

decreasing by two thirds between the two reporting periods.

As required by the FD, Member States categorised the measures as either prevention, protection,

preparedness, or recovery and review

151

. The distribution of measures reflects the different flood risk

management strategies and priorities of the Member States (see Figure 6-5 below).

Figure 6-5. Share of measures by measure aspect

152

Source: MS reporting to EIONET

A general overview of all Member States indicates that protection measures are the most common,

representing on average 34% of all reported measures, closely followed by prevention measures

(29%) and preparedness measures (27%). Less common are recovery and review measures, which

represent 8% of all measures (2% of measures reported under the category 'other'). Comparing to

the measures reported in the first FRMPs, the distribution of measure between categories appears to

be changing. For example, while protection measures are still the most frequently reported in 2022,

at 34%, they have decreased from (41%) in 2016. Prevention and preparedness measures now

account for a slightly larger share of the EU total at 29% and 27% respectively (increasing from 26%

and 24%). The increased share of prevention and preparedness measures is not driven by a significant

increase in one Member State in particular, but rather small increases in most Member States at the

expense of few protection measures.

An example of a prevention measure is to not allow new housing in flood prone areas via land use planning policies. An

example of a protection measure is to build an embankment. An example of a preparedness measure is to improve the

flood forecasting or warning system. An example of a recovery measure is clean up and restoration activities or health

support actions after a flood.

152

Owing to the distinction between individual and aggregated measures

–

and due to the inherent difficulty in averaging

across measures of a varied nature, charts such as this one are of an illustrative value.

151

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

While many Member States have included clear and explicit descriptions of their measures, others

have provided only general or limited information. Overall, only a few Member States provide clear

information on what their measures are trying to achieve (intended effects) or how (the steps

involved). This includes in particular Belgium, Estonia, Spain, Finland, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, and

Sweden. On the other hand, some Member States, such as Austria and Germany, have not provided

clear and explicit descriptions of their measures in terms of where, how, and by when they will be

achieved. Generally, it was noted that structural measures were more specific than non-structural

measures in Member States’ FRMPs.

As regards the geographical scale or coverage of the measures, the assessment shows that overall,

measures implemented at the level of the APSFR appear to be the most prevalent, with nine Member

States reporting that more than 60% of their measures will have this geographical coverage. This is

shown in Figure 6-6 below.

Figure 6-6. Geographical location of implementation of the measures

Source: Member State reporting to EIONET

Although less common, five Member States report that at least 50 % of their measures are

implemented at national level. The reported data also indicates a trend in the geographical coverage

of structural and non-structural measures. The former are typically more localised, conversely, non-

structural measures appear to have a wider geographical coverage.

As required by the law, 19 Member States reported the

priority of their measures

(the options were

critical, very high priority, high, moderate and low priority). Overall, the results indicate that most

measures were classified in the three highest priority categories (high, very high and critical), with 13

out of 19 Member States reporting 50% or more of their measures in one of these categories. Far

fewer Member States reported that their measures fell into the moderate priority category, with the

share of measures falling below 30% in most cases.

Looking at the priority of measures across all aspects of flood risk management (prevention,

protection, preparedness, or recovery and review), it seems preparedness measures tend to have a

higher priority (67% of all preparedness measures have critical or very high priority), especially when

compared to protection measures (50 % of protection measures have critical or very high priority).

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

In the transition from the first to the second FRMPs, there has been, with few exceptions, a slight

downward shift in the urgency of actions across Member States, from critical to very high priority and

from very high to high priority.

When it comes to methods for this prioritization, in the majority of Member States assessed (18 out

of 21), the FRMPs or other relevant documents provided information on the methods used to prioritise

measures. In most cases (13 of 18 Member States), some variant of multi-criteria assessment (MCA)

was used. These multi-criteria assessments included factors such as cost-effectiveness, risk reduction

potential and compliance with the Water Framework Directive (e.g. Lithuania and Germany). The

comparison between Member States’ first and second FRMPs does not indicate any significant trends

in terms of the methods of prioritisation that were used. Most Member States assessed, i.e. 15 out of

the 21 that reported, have made some analysis of costs and benefits of their measures. Little

progress on the use of Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) and similar methods is noted between the two

first and second FRMPs. The ratio of Member States using these methods is more or less the same,

that is 71% compared to 75% in the previous cycle. In six Member States, CBA or similar methods

are used for prioritisation of measures or for the assessment of scenarios of measures

153

, while in

the remaining nine Member States which use these methods, it is used for the assessment of

individual measures/actions. In all the Member States which use CBA for prioritisation of their

measures, and which provide a detailed description of the methodology

154

, the benefits are defined

in terms of avoided damages, but the scope of the damages included in calculations varies. In all

these Member States, a similar approach was already used in the first FRMPs, but the methodology

has been revised and improved.

Progress in implementation of the measures

All 21 Member States assessed indicated the progress of implementation of their measures. As shown

in Figure 6-7, the reported levels of progress in implementation of the measure show considerable

variation across Member States, with no clear overarching trend. It should be noted however that

Member States appear to have followed different approaches in terms of reporting the measures in

the first and second FRMPs, and this influences their conclusions on the progress of measures.

153

154

These are: Czechia, Poland, Estonia, Romania, Hungary, and Germany.

Hungary, Poland and Romania.

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Figure 6-7. Progress of implementation of measures

Source: MS reporting to EIONET

Monitoring of progress in implementation of the FRMPs

For the first FRMPs, while many Member States provided some information on monitoring processes,

the descriptions were often not detailed, with some using the results of the Preliminary Flood Risk

Assessment (PFRA) and Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) as baselines. This time around, the

majority of Member States provided information on approaches for monitoring the progress in

implementing measures. However, the level of detail varied across Member States.

A common approach taken by nearly half of Member States assessed

–

Czechia, Croatia, Estonia,

France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, and Sweden

–

was the identification

of indicators to track the progress of measure implementation. These indicators were often linked to

objectives or measures outlined in the FRMPs.

Additionally, more Member States have now outlined institutional arrangements and responsibilities

for monitoring progress. Common approaches included designated authorities or inter-agency

coordination groups responsible for collecting data, compiling reports, and overseeing the monitoring

process. A few Member States indicated timeframes for progress monitoring reports, ranging from

annual to biennial reporting. Overall, while there was progress in monitoring the implementation of

measures between the first and second FRMPs, aspects such as establishing baselines or linking

measures and objectives remain a challenge for several Member States.

Funding of measures

While only a small share of the Member States voluntarily reports the costs of their measures, two

thirds have provided at least some information on the total costs of their measures in their FRMP.

The extent of the information provided varies, however.

The information on costs by type of measure, as reported to EIONET, is very limited, and it is therefore

not possible to identify broad trends, except that it is mostly structural measures whose costs are

quantified. From the Member States that provided this information by measures aspect, prevention

and preparedness measures generally account for a smaller proportion of total costs.

100

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

All 21 Member States that reported have provided information in their FRMPs on the source of funding

for their measures (see figure 6-8). However, the level of detail varies considerably, with the FRMPs

of some Member States only making general references to possible sources of funding, while others

are more concrete and specific.

Figure 6-8. Funding sources for measures

Sources: Based on information available from the assessment of FRMPs in 20 Member States.

Notes: In this figure,

‘groups affected by flooding’ refers to: ‘Distribution

of costs among those groups affected by flooding

(including businesses and households)’.

‘International funds’ refers mainly to resources from international financial

institutions, such as the European Investment Bank.

As it can be seen, EU funding instruments, including through Cohesion Policy, played a significant role

in supporting the implementation of FRMP measures across Member States.

In addition to public and EU funding sources, ten Member States refer to the use of resources from

the private sector and households. Also included in this category are Member States that specifically

indicate insurance as a funding source. In addition, some Member States, the FRMPs identify specific

taxes and charges that finance FRM measures. Generally, as was the case for the first FRMPs,

government funding emerged as the primary source of financing for measures across the Member

States. EU funding instruments played a significant role in supporting the implementation of FRMP

measures across Member States. In addition to public and EU funding sources, ten Member States

refer to the use of resources from the private sector and households and eight Member States

–

indicate in their FRMPs that property owners should contribute to finance actions to protect against

flooding; these are often general statements.

There was also a notable shift in the emphasis on EU level funding instruments. While the European

Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) were cited by 14 Member States in the first FRMPs, they are

referenced by far fewer Member States in the second FRMPs. Furthermore, only a few Member States

–

Hungary, Romania, and Slovenia

–

explicitly mentioned the use of EU Cohesion Policy funds in the

second FRMPs. Instead, there was an increased focus on other EU funding instruments like the

sectoral funds (LIFE, Horizon Europe), and Interreg Programmes and also the arrival of the Recovery

and Resilience Fund. Finally, the involvement of private investments and other funding sources, such

as water charges and insurance, was recognised by a small number of Member States in both first

and second Plans, holding relatively stable.

101

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

Linking objectives and measures

The table below assesses Member States in terms of the specificity of their objectives and their

measures: Whether objectives or measures are general, specific or partially specific. It also indicates

if there are clear links reported between the measures and objectives.

Table 6-1. Objectives, measures and their links

Member State

Sweden

Ireland

Finland

Poland

Belgium

Denmark

Estonia

France

Latvia

the Netherlands

Spain

Objectives

Specific

Partly specific

Measures

Partly specific

Specific

Partly specific

Links between

objectives and measures

Link exists

Partial link

Link exists

Partial link (to general

categories of measures)

No clear link

Link exists

Partial link (some FRMPs)

No clear link

Romania

Partly specific

Croatia

Czechia

Lithuania

Germany

Austria

Luxembourg

Slovenia

Italy

Hungary

Sources: FRMPs

Partly specific

General

Partly specific

General

Partly specific

For the great majority of Member States, 18 out of the 21, the measures were considered partly

specific. This was assessed in terms of the extent of information on

what

each measure aimed to

achieved

–

the expected effect

–

as well

where

and by

when

it would be achieved, and

how,

the latter

referring to a brief description of the steps of actions involved.

102

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

FRMPs and specific groups of measures in related policy areas

As regards

spatial planning,

the FD states that FRMPs should take into account spatial planning and

land use and include “the promotion of sustainable land use practices”. Evidence of spatial planning

was found in all Member States’ FRMPs assessed

155

. All Member States except Lithuania, the

Netherlands, and Slovenia reported measures related to protection and water flow regulation

156

. On

the other hand, only 12 Member States reported measures focused on prevention, removal and

relocation of receptors

157

. Many of the spatial planning measures set out in the second FRMPs call for

further integration of flood risk management into local spatial plans. References to legal or policy

frameworks that link spatial planning and flood risk management were seen in eight of the 21

Member States assessed. Several Member States, have legal restrictions on new development in flood

risk areas. Some plans include measures to retrofit existing buildings that are vulnerable to flooding.

As regards

nature-based solutions and natural water retention measures

advocated for under the

FD, just as in the first FRMPs, all Member States included nature-based solutions (including natural

water retention measures), at least to some extent. A few Member States have a high share of these

measures: they account for 41 % in Luxembourg, 31 % of the measures in Austria, and 20 % in

Romania. The FRMPs include a range of measures, such as afforestation and stream renaturalisation

measures, dune restoration to address coastal flooding, renaturalisation of polders in the estuary,

creating wetlands that can absorb and attenuate storm surges Nearly all Member States reported

that they had considered controlled flooding.

In relation to links with

nature conservation,

a clear majority of the Member States had measures

that considered nature conservation in their plans. 17 out of the 21 Member States

158

indicated that

nature conservation was addressed to some degree in the development and implementation of their

FRMP measures. Regarding the specific considerations for nature conservation, the most common

approach cited was the assessment of potential impacts of flood risk management measures on

protected natural areas, particularly Natura 2000 sites designated under the Habitats and Birds

Directives. A few Member States integrated nature conservation more directly into their FRMP

objectives and measures. Overall, it is noted positively that Member States' integration of nature

conservation into their measures showed a marked improvement between the first and second

FRMPs, with more Member States now providing information on specific measures, objectives or

impact assessments in this respect. However, despite the increased attention to nature conservation,

the consideration of ecosystem services remained largely absent from the reported information in

both FRMPs.

When it comes to

cultural heritage,

as noted above, 16 out of the 21 Member States

159

provide either

strong or some evidence that their objectives address adverse consequences on cultural heritage.

Roughly half of the Member States

–

11 out of the 21

160

–

reported that measures specifically

addressing cultural heritage protection were included in their FRMPs. At the same time, some Member

A total of 7 009 measures, 9 % of all measures reported to EIONET.

M32: Protection, Water flow regulation, Measures involving physical interventions to regulate flows, such as the

construction, modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other on-line storage areas or

development of existing flow regulation rules), and which have a significant impact on the hydrological regime.

157

M22: Prevention, Removal or relocation, Measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to relocate receptors

to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard.

158

These Member States include Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, Croatia,

Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Sweden.

159

The 16 Member States include Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Estonia, Spain, Finland, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy,

Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Sweden.

160

The 11 Member States include Czechia, Estonia, Spain, Finland, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Poland,

and Sweden.

155

156

103

MOF, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 291: Orientering om landerapport om implementeringen af vandrammedirektivet, fra ministeren for grøn trepart

States that refer to cultural heritage in their objectives did not report specific measures for the

protection of cultural heritage in their FRMPs.

As regards

navigation and port infrastructure,

out of the 21 Member States assessed, 11 provided

information on this aspect

161

, as required by the law, indicating that their FRMPs included measures

that specifically address or at least consider ports and inland navigation. This is significantly more

than in the first FRMPs. Among these Member States, some countries, such as Denmark and Finland,

included specific measures for port areas in their FRMPs, while several other Member States only

made general references or mentioned the importance of navigation and ports without elaborating

further on specific measures. Specifically, the use of

dredging

as a measure to increase the capacity

of river channels and improve the ability to convey water for flood alleviation and/or inland navigation

purposes was reported with varying levels of detail by 12 of the 21 Member States

162

assessed, all

of which indicated that their FRMPs included measures or considerations related to dredging activities.

Compared to the reporting of the first FRMPs, there was no clear change in Member States' reporting

on dredging activities. It should be recalled that dredging may alter the hydromorphological conditions

of water bodies, potentially reducing their status under the WFD: for this reason, an assessment under

Article 4(7) of the WFD may be necessary for such measures.

Nearly all Member States reported on measures related to

emergency planning and response

flooding situations in their second FRMPs, with the exception of Lithuania and Hungary

163

. Out of the

21 Member States assessed, nearly all provided either specific measures or objectives related to the

development of emergency planning, with the exception of Lithuania. A common approach taken by

nine of these Member States included training exercises, and capacity building for emergency

responders being included as measures. The role of early warning systems and flood forecasting in

emergency planning was noted by six Member States.

The role of

insurance policies and other economic instruments

in flood risk management was

addressed inconsistently and with varying degrees of detail by Member States in their second FRMPs.

More than half of the Member States assessed provided little to no information on the role of

insurance policies in flood recovery, preparedness, or resilience, while several Member States

164

did

not mention the role of insurance at all. Among those Member States that do provide information on

the issue, Belgium, France, Germany, and Sweden included information on the availability and

conditions of flood insurance for properties in flood-prone areas. Few Member States discussed the

role of public authorities and compensation schemes in flood recovery. Moreover, three Member

States note that insurance for flood damages should be covered by private insurance. Notably, no

Member States explicitly addressed whether environmental liability insurance covers the restoration

costs arising from flooding of potentially polluting sites and installations.

As regards the consideration of climate change in the preparation of flood risk management plans,

reference is made to section 3.1.7

on ‘Adaptation to climate change’.

These 11 Member States include: Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,

and Poland.

162

These 12 Member States include Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Estonia, Spain, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Latvia,

Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden.

163

Hungary subsequently explained that Flood Localisation Plans (that are referred to in the second FRMP and are

separate to the FRMP) are flood emergency response plans. Specifically, these plans define measures in case of a flood

protection failure or an emergency event (e.g. a dike failure). The plans are used by the Defence Committees, the national

Directorate General of Disaster Management and the General and Terrestrial Water Directorates.

164

These Member States include Czechia, Croatia, Lithuania, Latvia, the Netherlands, and Poland.

161

104