EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 2.10.2026

COM(2025) 2 final/2

ADDENDUM

This document replaces COM(2025)2 of 4.2.2025

Concerns all language versions

Insertion of the references to the linked Commission Staff Working Documents

SWD(2026)501 final, SWD(2026)601 final, SWD(2026)602 final, SWD(2026)603 final,

SWD(2026)604 final, SWD(2026)701 final, SWD(2026)702 final and SWD(2026)703 final

The text shall read as follows:

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

{SWD(2025) 13 final} - {SWD(2025) 14 final} - {SWD(2025) 15 final} -

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

{SWD(2025) 19 final} - {SWD(2025) 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} - {SWD(2026) 501 final} -

{SWD(2026) 601 final} - {SWD(2026) 602 final} - {SWD(2026) 603 final} -

{SWD(2026) 604 final} - {SWD(2026) 701 final} - {SWD(2026) 702 final} -

{SWD(2026) 703 final}

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Water is essential for life and thus for our society and economy. However, the EU’s water

resources continue to be under severe pressure due to structural mismanagement,

unsustainable land use, hydro-morphological changes, pollution, climate change, increased

demand for water and urbanisation. As outlined in the European Climate Risk Assessment1,

climate change is exacerbating these pressures and increasing water-related risks in the form

of more frequent, prolonged droughts and extreme precipitation that threaten Europe’s food

security, public health, ecosystems, infrastructure and economy. Just in recent months, Europe

has once again witnessed the significant impacts of extreme water-related events that have

caused tragic losses of human life and many billions of euro of damage. In 2024, prolonged

droughts were experienced in several Mediterranean countries, particularly affecting central

and southern Italy, north-western Spain, Greece, and were followed by severe floods which

affected most of central and eastern Europe, and later on also in Italy and Spain.

Sustainable water management, enshrined in the key EU Water Framework Directive2 (WFD)

and the Floods Directive3 (FD), is at the heart of the response to the triple planetary crisis of

climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. It plays a pivotal role in strengthening the

EU’s resilience.

The adoption of this implementation report, a legal obligation of the Commission4, comes at a

crucial moment, when the realisation of the importance of water, both at EU and global level,

is increasing in all parts of society. A large majority of the EU population participating in the

most recent Eurobarometer survey on the environment5 considers pollution, overconsumption

and climate change as the main threats to water and support additional EU measures to

address water problems in Europe. They also think that almost none of the main economic

sectors are doing enough to use water efficiently. These concerns have also been reflected by

EU institutions and stakeholders. The European Parliament called for the development of an

EU Water Strategy6. The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of

the Regions have been calling for an “EU Blue Deal”7. In thestrategic agenda 2024–20298,

the European Council committed to strengthening “water resilience across the Union” in the

next mandate. The private sector and civil society organizations have also been increasingly

calling for further action at EU level on water as demonstrated by the letter addressed to the

highest level of the Commission9. At global level, the UN Water Conference of March 2023

1 EEA (2024), European climate risk assessment. No 1/2024, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-

climate-risk-assessment. 2 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a

framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1). 3 Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment

and management of flood risks (OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27). 4 As required by Article 18 of the WFD and Article 16 of the FD. 5 https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3173 6 EP Resolution of 15 September 2022 on the consequences of drought, fire, and other extreme weather

phenomena: increasing the EU’s efforts to fight climate change (2022/2829(RSP)) and subsequent EP Plenary

debates. 7 The EESC Umbrella Opinion “A call for an EU Blue Deal” CCMI/209 (25 October 2023). 8 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/strategic-agenda-2024-2029/ 9 Joint-Letter-on-the-Water-resilience-Initiative_-Final-Version-1.pdf (euase.net).

2

during which the EU presented its vision for a water-resilient world by 2050, provided strong

momentum at international level.

Responding to these calls, the 2024-2029 Political Guidelines for the next College announced

the adoption of a new European Water Resilience Strategy to strengthen Europe’s water

security by preserving water quality and quantity in the EU and beyond, enhancing the

competitive innovative edge of our water industry, and addressing the root causes of water

challenges, including pollution, biodiversity loss, and the impacts of climate change.

This report aims to convey to the Council, the new Parliament as well as the other EU

institutions and stakeholders the latest evidence on the state of water, the pressures water

resources are under and Member States’ measures to achieve the environmental objectives set

in these two Directives. It provides a comprehensive mapping of water challenges in the EU

that will inform the development of the future Water Resilience Strategy.

In addition, given the 2027 deadline set under the WFD to reach good status for all EU

waters, this report presents a unique opportunity to take stock of the situation on the ground

and put forward recommendations to Member States to step up their efforts. The same applies

for flood risk management objectives under the FD that are more relevant than ever.

As this is the first implementation report since the adoption of the European Green Deal,

Member States’ progress has been assessed under the prism of achieving the EU’s

biodiversity, zero-pollution and climate goals and an increasingly cleaner and circular

economy. Therefore, the report is structured around the contribution of Member States’

actions to tackling these three interrelated emergencies.

The report is based on the Commission’s assessment of the third river basin management

plans (RBMPs) and second flood risk management plans (FRMPs) for 2022-202710 as

prepared and reported by Member States. These plans are based on monitoring data collected

between 2016 and 2021. This means that while published after the Green Deal, the report

largely depicts the situation before the Green Deal. It does not capture the expected benefits

of the groundbreaking initiatives that the Green Deal has set out.

The report is accompanied by a series of Commission staff working documents providing an

EU overview of the implementation of the WFD, related directives and the FD. The report

includes individual Member State assessments and country-specific recommendations.

These recommendations will serve as the foundation for a structured dialogue with Member

States to significantly improve implementation of these laws, building on the myriad of

excellent practices and achievements across the EU.

Freshwater and marine ecosystems are interconnected. Riverine pollution, disruption to

sediment flows and water shortages all have a very strong impact on the health of marine

ecosystems, particularly the coastal ones, and the viability of social and economic activities

that depend on them, such as transport, fisheries, aquaculture or tourism. The Marine Strategy

Framework Directive (MSFD) complements the WFD and relies on the water-related and

other EU policy instruments to achieve its objectives. To accelerate effective implementation,

the Commission aims to encourage a more integrated and coherent approach in implementing

10 The first RBMPs covered the period 2009-2015. The second RBMPs and the first FRMPs covered the period

2016-2021.

3

freshwater and marine water legislation, in line with a ‘source-to-sea’ approach11. For that

reason, this report has been developed in close coordination with and is published at the same

time as the assessments of the second programme of measures (PoMs) taken by the Member

States under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). Particular attention has been

paid to highlighting coordination efforts in the implementation of the Directives and the

linkages between action under the WFD and the achievement of the objectives under the

MSFD.

2. RBMPS AND FRMPS: STATE OF PLAY IN ADOPTION AND REPORTING

Although Member States were required to adopt their plans by March 2022, regrettably, many

adopted them late. This led the Commission to launch legal proceedings against all Member

States in breach of the legal requirements. Even at the time of finalising this assessment, not

all Member States had adopted their RBMPs and FRMPs and submitted them to the

Commission12. For that reason, this report does not cover those countries or regions.

The 7 Member States not included in the current RBMP assessment are Bulgaria, Cyprus,

Greece, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia and Ireland, and the 6 Member States not included in the

current FRMP assessment are Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Portugal and Slovakia. The

data from their RBMPs and FRMPs will be published once submitted electronically on the

European Environment Agency's (EEA) Water Information System for Europe (WISE)

platform13. In addition, the Commission will prepare country-specific staff working

documents with an assessment of the plans and country-specific recommendations. The data

will also become part of the 2026 Zero Pollution Monitoring and Outlook Report, next to

informing work related to the implementation of the EU’s biodiversity and climate adaptation

strategies.

3. METHODOLOGY AND CONSIDERATIONS ON DATA COMPARABILITY

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, is a very challenging and

complex task. 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.

11 Source-to-sea approach refers to the establishment of governance that increases collaboration and coherence

across the source-to-sea system and reduces alteration of key flows (water, pollution, sediment, materials, biota,

ecosystem services) resulting in measurable economic, social and environmental improvement across freshwater,

coastal, nearshore, transitional and marine environments. It considers the entire source-to-sea system – stressing

upstream and downstream environmental, social, and economic linkages and stimulating coordination across

sectors and segments. 12 By the cut-off date to be considered for this report's assessment of 30 September 2023, Bulgaria, Cyprus,

Greece, Malta, and Portugal failed to submit their RBMPs and FRMPs e. Slovenia and Ireland only reported

FRMPs, and Slovakia only reported its RBMPs. Spain did not report RBMPs for the Canary Islands. 13 https://water.europa.eu/freshwater.

4

The lack of electronic reporting14 or the partial submission of electronic reporting by some

Member States15 in the WISE database16 made the Commission's assessment even more

challenging. This situation is partly due to the technical difficulties faced by the Member

States when using the EEA reporting platform and partly to Member States’ insufficient

progress in digitalising water data. As a result, the Commission had to base its assessment on

data and information that was partly available in digital, easily comparable format and partly

extracted manually from the RBMPs, the FRMPs and other relevant sources.

In addition to the above, when reading this report it should be noted that the comparability of

the results deriving from the assessment of the current RBMP 2022-2027 with those of the

previous period 2016-2021 is hampered due to different factors as follows.

1) Some Member States have significantly reclassified and re-delineated part of their

water bodies, leading in some cases to a substantial change in their overall number.

2) Significant improvements in the geographic coverage of monitoring systems across

Member States have reduced the number of bodies with a previously unknown status.

3) The number of substances included in Member States’ monitoring programmes has

also increased17, and some quality standards have become stricter since the previous

report.

Different national approaches to designating and monitoring the pollutants that are not of

concern to all the EU but just to some places (known as ‘river basin specific pollutants’) can

have a strong impact on the assessment status. In addition to a common set of pollutants,

some countries monitor many more than others.

4. WHAT IS THE STATE OF EU WATERS?

This report's assessment of the third RBMPs covers 20 Member States. This represents around

90% of the EU’s surface water bodies (rivers, lakes and transitional and coastal waters) and a

similar percentage of the EU's groundwater bodies (or approximately 97 000 surface water

bodies and 15 000 groundwater bodies).

Further insights into the status of Europe’s water bodies is provided in the EEA State of

European Waters 2024 Report18 published on 15 Oct 2024. It should be noted however that that

the EEA report covers a slightly smaller (19 EU Member States) and different subset of

Member States since it is only based on electronic data submitted to WISE.

14 The format for electronic reporting and reporting guidance was drawn up jointly by Member States,

stakeholders and the Commission as part of a collaborative process called the ‘Common Implementation

Strategy’ (CIS). 15 For Italy, Germany and Belgium, the analysis was based on partly complete electronic reporting,

complemented by data in PDFs submitted for some RBMPs. As Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Luxembourg,

Poland, Slovakia and Sweden either did not submit data electronically or did so at a much later date after the

PDFs were submitted, their analysis has only (or mostly) been based on the PDF documents. 16 https://water.europa.eu/freshwater. 17 Not only the 12 new priority substances added in 2013 have been monitored and used by some Member States

for status assessment (although the compliance date is only 22 December 2027), but also substances from the

original 33 priority substances that had not been previously covered, even though they should have been. 18 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).

5

Member States’ level of knowledge of the state of water bodies has increased. There have

been significant improvements in the geographic coverage of monitoring systems across most

Member States and in the number of biological and chemical water-quality elements covered.

Moreover, the number of priority substances19 monitored by Member States has increased20,

and quality standards have in some cases become stricter since the last report. Nevertheless,

there are still gaps in monitoring certain substances in some Member States21, while

differences in the methodologies Member States apply when monitoring priority substances

can make results not always comparable. This means that Member States know much more

about the features and the state of their water bodies. Issues that were once unknown or

undetected are now being uncovered, and sometimes these discoveries point towards bad

water status22. Nevertheless, over two decades after the entry into force of the WFD, 3 out of

the 20 assessed Member States still have a vast majority of their surface water bodies with an

unknown chemical status. These are Lithuania (94.6% of surface waters in unknown status),

Denmark (92.5%) and Estonia (82.7%).

At the same time, the assessment clearly shows that, although the WFD prescribes some

common elements for monitoring, there are great differences in Member States’ practices,

monitoring frequency and parameters measured. This is a major challenge in terms of

comparability of the status assessment.

In addition to these differences and despite the progress, major gaps in ecological status

monitoring remain, in terms of both spatial coverage and assessment confidence. An equally

revealing observation is that Member States, rather than empirically monitoring the

parameters, very often use expert judgement or extrapolation to group of waterbodies subject

to similar pressures.

Surface Waters: what is their ecological status or ecological potential?

The Commission concludes that based on the data mainly from 2016-2021 reported in the

third RBMPs for 2022-2027, 39.5% of surface water bodies in Europe appear to be in good

ecological status or ecological potential23. This figure is about the same (39.1%) as that

reported by the same countries in the second RBMPs for 2016-2021, which mainly used data

from 2009-201524. This is consistent with findings from the Nitrates Directives, which show

that at EU level, 36% of rivers, 32% of lakes, 31% of coastal waters, 32% of transitional

waters and 81% of marine waters were reported as eutrophic25.

19 Substances presenting a significant risk to or via the aquatic environment, listed in the Environment Quality

Standards Directive, as amended in 2013 and in the Groundwater Directive. 20 Not only the 12 new priority substances added in 2013 have been monitored and used by some Member States

for status assessment (although the compliance date is only 22 December 2027), but also substances from the

original 33 priority substances that had not been previously covered even though they should have been. 21 The substances omitted the most are short-chain chlorinated paraffins. Other substances not included in all

monitoring programmes included diuron, quinoxyfen and tributyltin. Feedback from the RBMPs indicated that

the main reason that these substances were omitted was related to technical challenges in the analysis or lack of

available standards to complete the analysis. 22 Monitoring pollution presence across sediments and living species for long-term trend assessment continues to

be varied within and across Member States and largely incomplete. 23 Good ecological potential is the objective to be reached by a heavily modified or artificial water body. 24 Data extracted from WISE Freshwater (https://water.europa.eu/freshwater). 25 See the Report of the European Commission on the implementation of the Nitrates Directive from 2021, p. 5,

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

6

Figure 1 – Change in the ecological status assessment of EU surface water bodies from the

first, second and third RBMPs (Source: WISE freshwater and PDF data mining)

While some limited improvements have been observed in some Member States, other

Member States reported either no improvement or a significant reduction in the percentage of

surface water bodies with good or high ecological status or ecological potential. The

significant reduction in the number of water bodies in good ecological status or ecological

potential was reported by Poland (-22.9%), Lithuania (-15.5%), Slovakia (-14.9%), Czechia

(-13.3%), Croatia (-9.1%) and Estonia (-7.6%). This reduction may be largely due to a much

better knowledge and an improved understanding of the state of their water bodies compared

to the previous cycle.

Despite the overall limited improvement in the percentage of water bodies in good or high

ecological status, it is encouraging to note that, compared to the two previous RBMP cycles

(2009-2015 and 2016-2021), there has been an improvement in certain biological and

chemical quality parameters. This may reflect the positive effects of implementing previous

measures. In particular, the recent EEA’s State of Waters 2024 report26 shows that the status of

phytoplankton, benthic flora and invertebrates has improved in lakes, and there are visible

improvements in benthic invertebrates in rivers and transitional waters. However, while

noteworthy, these partial improvements are not sufficient to improve the overall state of water

bodies and to reduce the associated risks to health and environment. Furthermore, 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 chemical

quality elements are assessed at least as ‘good’.

These partial and overlooked improvements may explain, at least partially, why the ecological

status assessment in the third RBMPs (covering 2022-2027) shows an overall limited

improvement in comparison to the previous report assessing the second RBMPs (covering

2016-2021). This lack of progress can also be due, besides the above-mentioned increase in

knowledge and accuracy, to a possible increase in the underlying pressures, inadequate

measures and insufficient progress in putting the planned measures in motion.

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

7

Against this background, it is not surprising that most Member States indicated that they do

not expect to achieve good ecological status or ecological potential for all their water bodies

by 2027.

Member States have made significant progress in setting reference conditions27 for different

water types. Such conditions are essential to set benchmarks and measure the impacts of

human activities on biological, physico-chemical and hydro-morphological elements. In

addition, huge progress has been made at EU level thanks to the intercalibration exercise28,

which harmonises the national classifications of good ecological status. However, there is still

a harmonisation gap at EU level, which hampers comparing the overall status assessment.

Surface Waters: what is their chemical status?

Achieving good chemical status is an indicator for moving towards zero pollution. As in the

previous reporting cycle, there is a very big difference between surface and groundwaters,

with the latter being often better protected.

The information provided in the third RBMPs shows that, in 2021, only 26.8% of surface

waterbodies were in good chemical status, as compared to the 33.5% in 2015. This appears to

show a significant deterioration.

While the share of surface waters in good status has remained stable or slightly improved in

some Member States compared to 2015, it has decreased and, in some cases, significantly

decreased in some others. The latter is the case, for example, in Lithuania (-98.7%), Finland (-

49.5%), Poland (-34.2%), Czechia (-29.9%), the Netherlands (-29.8%), Slovakia (-26.3%),

Croatia (-11.4%) and Latvia (-10.6%).

This deterioration may be largely due to improved monitoring and better knowledge of

‘ubiquitous persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic’ substances (uPBTs), major changes in the

delineation of water bodies and more stringent standards for some substances.

Regarding surface waters, the significant lack of compliance is largely due to uPBTs. The

most common of these compounds are mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

(PAHs). These are already present in large quantities due to legacy pollution and new

pollution that continues to enter the aquatic environment via atmospheric emissions from the

combustion of fossil fuels and other fuels. Another major group of uPBTs are

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 on the classification of chemical status, because the environment

has a limited ability to self-purify itself of these very frequent and persistent pollutants.

Without these uPBT compounds, 81% of surface waterbodies would have reached good

chemical status, which is roughly the same percentage as in the previous reporting cycle.

The other substances that cause Environmental Quality Standards’ exceedance and the failure

to achieve good chemical status vary across Member States. However, metals (e.g. lead,

27 The WFD defines the reference conditions for an ecological system as the conditions that prevail in the

absence or near absence of human disturbance. 28 OJ L, 2024/721, 8.3.2024: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2024/721/oj.

8

cadmium, nickel which are typically linked to mining waste, municipal and industrial

wastewater, urban run-off), biocides and pesticides (tributyltin, chlorpyrifos), and some

persistent organic pollutants (e.g. hexachlorobenzene) continue to commonly feature in the

top of the list of substances leading to failure even if the use of some of these substances has

been banned since many years.

It should be noted that uPBTs also continue to be responsible for the failure to meet the good

environmental status objective for contamination under the MSFD for 80% of the sea area29.

Figure 2 – 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)

29 Report from the Commission, First ‘zero pollution’ monitoring and outlook, ‘Pathways towards cleaner air,

water and soil for Europe’ (COM(2022) 674 final, 8.12.2022).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1st

2nd

3rd

SWB chemical status for EU average

Good Failing to achieve good Unknown

9

Figure 3 – Change in the chemical status assessment of EU surface water bodies from the

second and third RBMPs (without uPBTs) (Source: WISE freshwater and PDF data mining)

Groundwater bodies: what is their chemical status?

Regarding groundwater bodies, in 2021, based on the information provided in the 3rd RBMP,

86% of ground water bodies were in good chemical status. This is a slight improvement as

compared to 82.2% for the same subset of countries in 2015.

The most commonly reported pollutants leading to poor chemical status are nitrates30.These

mainly come from intensive agriculture and livestock farming through the improper or

excessive use of fertilisers and slurries/manures, all of which contain nitrogen and

phosphorous. 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 their metabolites are responsible for the failure to achieve good chemical status

in nine Member States (Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Luxembourg,

the Netherlands and Spain). Phosphate and ammonium, which also, mainly come 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 percentage of groundwater bodies with

poor chemical status (i.e. less than 10% according to some Member States) include 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 (common in soaps and detergents) are less commonly cited as the

cause of poor status (but were reported by Finland, France, Italy and Latvia).

30 According to the EEA, the average nitrate concentration in EU groundwater bodies has not changed

significantly since 2021 (EEA, 2023).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2nd

3rd

SWB chemical status without uPBT for EU average

Good Failing to achieve good Unknown

10

Figure 4 – Change in the chemical status assessment of EU groundwater bodies from the first,

second and third RBMPs (Source: WISE freshwater and PDF data mining)

Groundwater bodies quantitative status – have they sufficient water?

Comparing the quantitative status of groundwaters in the same set of Member States, it is

encouraging to observe a small improvement: 95% of groundwater bodies were reported in

good status in 2016-2021 against 92.4% in 2009-2015. The reported data show that the

replenishment of groundwater bodies, a big proportion of the EU’s reserves, appears mostly

secured. Although this may indicate that climate change has not (yet) affected the EU’s

groundwaters, it needs to be stressed 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.

Figure 5 – Change in the quantitative status assessment of EU’s groundwater bodies from the

first, second and third RBMPs (Source: WISE freshwater and PDF data mining)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1st

2nd

3rd

GWB chemical status for EU average

Good Poor Unknown

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1st

2nd

3rd

GWB quantitative status for EU average

Good Poor Unknown

11

Nevertheless, there are significant geographical differences across the 20 Member States

covered in this report (see Figure 6).

Figure 6 – Overview of the quantitative status of groundwater bodies by Member State in

2021

In 84% of the identified cases groundwater bodies failed to achieve good quantitative status

because more water is abstracted from the aquifer than its natural capacity to recharge. Other

reasons for failing good quantitative status are saline intrusion (25%), impacts on aquatic

ecosystems connected to groundwater bodies (20%) and dependent terrestrial ecosystems

(9%).

Almost all reporting Member States31 carried out a water balance assessment32 for the third

RBMPs, with most assessing long-term trends too. However, contrary to the provisions of the

Groundwater Directive, when assessing the quantitative status of groundwater bodies,

Member States do not always consider the needs of the groundwater associated aquatic

ecosystems and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems. This is a major gap since

human activities that alter groundwater levels can significantly affect the status of surface

water bodies or damage precious ecosystems, such as wetlands.

Throughout the past three implementation cycles, Member States have 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 a source of supply for public services and irrigation, which leads to

31 Except Luxembourg where the exercise is ongoing. 32 A water balance is the amount of water available for allocation, counted as inflows minus outflows in a given

river basin or sub-basin.

12

increased abstractions33. This stresses the importance for Member States to better apply

agreed methodologies to assess the quantitative status by duly factoring in seasonal variations

and the accelerating impacts of climate change, while relying less on historical trends and

fully considering the role of groundwaters in supporting rivers and ecosystems. An assessment

that is only based on groundwater levels is insufficient34. The situation also indicates, as

suggested by the EEA, that there could be a need to revise existing methodologies.

Significantly, several Member States expect the situation to worsen as they predict that the

number of groundwater bodies at risk of not achieving good quantitative status by 2027 will

increase in some cases quite substantially (see Figure 7 below).

Figure 7 – Percentage of groundwater bodies that Member States report as at risk of not

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

• Box 1: Why is the EU still so far from reaching the WFD’s objectives?

• Over the years, implementation of the WFD has gradually improved the knowledge

and understanding of the state of the EU’s rivers, lakes, transitional waters, coastal

waters and groundwaters. This improved knowledge partly explains some of the

trends outlined above.

• However, as well documented in the 2019 Fitness Check of the Water Framework

Directive35, many factors have played and continue to play a role in hindering

effective WFD implementation and contributed to the overall slow progress since its

33 According to the EEA, the groundwater share of total water abstraction has increased from 19% in 2000 to

23% in 2019. 34 See Common Implementation Strategy Guidance note No. 18. 35 SWD(2019) 439 final, p. 116.

13

inception. These factors include:

o late identification or underestimation of the pressures as well as of the efforts needed

to create a governance framework fit for specific conditions in Member States;

o an insufficient reduction in the overall pressures on waterbodies, particularly linked to

diffuse pollution (unlike the relative success in dealing with point source pollution)

and habitat degradation (for which restoration measures to address pressures from the

past, including hydro-morphological changes and legacy pollution, would be much

needed);

o the slow introduction of effective policy measures as Member States’ programmes of

measures are often insufficiently based on the analysis of pressures and impacts, and

there is a tendency to rely on easy technological fixes that address point source

pollution but leave other sources of pollution largely untargeted;

o limited consistency across relevant policies as good status of water bodies also

critically depends on integrating water objectives into other policy areas, such as

agriculture, energy and transport;

o measures to achieve good water status are not prioritised unlike other economic

activities;

o a predominant reliance on basic measures36 instead of additional supplementary

measures implemented at a scale sufficient to reach the WFD objectives;

o the time for nature to respond to measures before the expected results are produced;

o the increasingly felt impacts of climate change (i.e. water temperature increase);

o the lack of funding and constraints in administrative capacity.

5. GOVERNANCE AND CROSS-CUTTING ASPECTS

Proper governance is essential for the smooth operation of complex water management

systems in Member States, which rely on the involvement of many different administrative

levels and affected parties. All Member States have designated their competent authorities

for each river basin district (RBD). These districts often involve several authorities with

responsibilities for different aspects of the RBMPs. Similarly, all Member States have

designated competent authorities for the Floods Directive (FD). These may differ from the

ones appointed under the WFD, and, in certain Member States, management units identified

in line with the FD are not the same as the RBDs.

As required by the FD, many Member States indicate that the FRMPs and the RBMPs have

been developed in a coordinated and sometimes simultaneous manner37. The vast majority of

Member States has carried out a joint consultation of their RBMPs and the FRMPs38, and a

few have integrated the two plans into a single plan. The situation among Member States is

clearly more uneven for the MSFD’s programme of measures. Only a few Member States

show evidence of clear coordination in developing the WFD and MSFD’s programmes of

measures in terms of process, content and consistency in response to the same pressures.

Similar evidence of little coordination emerges from the parallel MSFD reporting on the

36 In particular, the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive and the Nitrates Directive, which appear as ‘basic

measures’ in the WFD programmes of measures. 37 Overall, 15 of the 21 Member States provided strong evidence in their FRMPs that coordination was ensured

with the WFD, while the other 6 had at least some evidence. 38 Regarding joint consultations of draft FRMPs and RBMPs, 15 Member States reported having carried them

out, compared to 13 Member States in the previous cycle.

14

second programme of measures39. This is therefore an area where Member States need to

intensify efforts to implement a source-to-sea approach.

Coordination mechanisms, while in place overall, mainly appear insufficient in ensuring

there are complete synergies and the appropriate consistency across different government

levels (e.g. insufficiently harmonised approaches to implementing the WFD at subnational

levels). Coordination with other sectoral policies (e.g. agriculture, energy) is also insufficient,

particularly in relation to measures needed to address the most significant pressures.

Notwithstanding the fact that proper implementation and enforcement of the WFD and other

environmental legislation is the responsibility of environmental competent authorities, it is

essential to ensure a more effective integration of WFD objectives in sectoral policies and

funding instruments (such as the CAP). This entails aligning the interventions supported by

the CAP with the measures in the RBMPs.

Most Member States have made notable efforts to boost public participation and the active

involvement of stakeholders in developing their RBMPs and FRMPs using a variety of

consultation channels and mechanisms. Overall, a broad range of stakeholders was involved

in most Member States. However, many plans do not explain how the input received was

taken on board and whether those consulted were informed of how their views were

considered. Such transparent communication would increase collective ownership of the

plans.

Pressures

The most significant pressures for surface water bodies40 in all reporting Member States are:

pollution from atmospheric deposition (affecting 59% of waterbodies), hydro-

morphological changes (57%) stemming from drainage and irrigation for agriculture,

hydropower, flood protection, navigation or drinking water supply, and pollution from

agriculture (32%). Other main pressures across the EU are 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 are pollution

from urban run-off (8%) storm overflows (5%) and 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 the EU’s water bodies also continue to be affected by unidentified

anthropogenic pressures, so there is still room for increasing knowledge in this area. No

significant pressure is only identified in 10% of the reported water bodies.

The pressure from invasive alien species – those of both EU41 and national concern – on

freshwater and marine ecosystems in Europe is increasing, as demonstrated by a number of

39 Commission Report to the Council and the European Parliament on the Commission’s Assessment of the

Member States’ Programmes of Measures as updated under Article 17 of Directive 2008/56/EC COM(2025) 3

and related Staff Working Document SWD(2025) 1 40 Based on WISE freshwater data covering 18 of the 20 Member States for which the data are available

electronically as of June 2024. 41 As listed in Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014

on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species.

15

reports42. Despite the direct impact these species can have on achieving good ecological

status, this pressure seems to be understated and is only identified in 2.2% of the reported

waterbodies. Information on invasive alien species and the measures taken to tackle the

problem is very often missing or not very detailed in the RBMPs.

While 71% of the EU’s groundwater bodies are reported as not being subject to any

significant pressures, almost 30% of them is affected by a range of pressures. This particularly

includes diffuse agricultural pollution (e.g. pesticides and fertilisers), which affects 59% of

the impacted groundwater bodies, abstraction for public water supply (25%), abstraction

for agriculture (22%), industrial use (12%) and other purposes (12%). Diffuse pollution

from other sources, notably urban run-off (16%) and discharges not connected to sewerage

network (6%), are also major pressures, as are pollution from contaminated or abandoned

industrial sites (17%) and legacy pollution (13%).

Programmes of measures

The picture is nuanced for the analysis of the programmes of measures (PoMs) that Member

States are obliged to draw up to prevent or limit those pressures.

A considerable number of measures announced in the second RBMPs were not implemented.

As in the past, insufficient funding of measures has been identified as the most significant

obstacle (86%), followed by unexpected delays (81%), the lack of appropriate national

mechanisms, such as national regulations and other measures not yet adopted (70%), and

governance issues (57%). Difficulties to acquire the land required to implement certain

measures is also regularly raised as a key challenge.

The third PoMs presented in the 2022-2027 RBMPs show that Member States continue to

have different approaches to their design and reporting. The PoMs often contain a fairly long

set of measures but do not seem to feature several key elements. Most notably, there’s no clear

assessment of the gap to be bridged to reach good status. There is also insufficient information

on the prioritisation of the measures based on the required cost-effectiveness analysis. The

costs and the financing of the planned measures are often missing. Since Member States often

argue that they face funding difficulties, it suggests that the resources needed to implement

the PoMs are not always secured upfront. This weakens the effectiveness of the PoMs.

6. TACKLING THE TRIPLE PLANETARY CRISIS

6.1. TOWARDS ZERO-POLLUTION RIVERS, LAKES, COASTAL WATERS AND

GROUNDWATERS

6.1.1 What is being done to combat pollution from agriculture?

Diffuse pollution from agriculture is one of the main pollution pressures on EU water bodies

identified by all reporting Member States in almost all RBDs and affects both surface and

groundwater bodies. This is essentially due to unsustainable land management practices and

42 For instance, freshwater invasive non-native species have increased seven-fold in number over the last 100

years according to Cid, N. and Cardoso, A. C., 2013, European freshwater alien species, 'Global Freshwater

Biodiversity Atlas' (atlas. freshwaterbiodiversity.eu).

16

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. As set out in Section 2 above, nitrates are the biggest pollutant in groundwater

bodies, and they also cause surface water bodies to become eutrophic. This is consistent with

the findings on the nutrient loads across EU marine regions that show that for all regions,

except the Black Sea, the largest source of nitrogen in the sea comes from agriculture43. A

more nuanced picture is seen for phosphorous, where the largest contributor for almost all the

marine regions is wastewater, and agriculture is the second largest.

Although considerable improvements have been observed compared to the 1990s and most

Member States and farmers have made significant efforts to reduce nutrient losses in waters,

the freshwater quality data show that results have stagnated. This indicates that, to reignite a

downward trend in nutrient concentrations, more radical measures are needed, which could be

politically difficult to adopt. Current measures are still not sufficient to reach the objectives of

the Nitrates Directive and the WFD, almost 35 and 25 years after their adoption, respectively.

This can also be seen in the marine environment, notably in the Baltic Sea, the marine region

with the highest proportion of coastal waters where nutrient conditions is a problem (58%).

Eutrophication also occurs in the southern North Sea, along the north-western coast of France

and near riverine outflows in the Mediterranean Sea. At the same time, widespread oxygen-

depleted areas are observed in the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea, which are caused by

eutrophication, natural conditions and higher water temperatures due to climate change

impacts.

This stagnation can be explained by the fact that there is limited progress in most Member

States in developing quantitative gap assessments as a basis to determine how to reduce the

load of nutrients and pesticides. The Commission made this recommendation during the

previous cycle, but few Member States have presented the nutrient load reductions and even

fewer Member States have reported having carried out assessments of the effectiveness of the

measures taken so far.

At the same time, a clear and encouraging trend is the steady increase in the share of

farmland under organic farming in the EU, which usually results in lower levels of nutrient

and pesticide pollution. However, the pace of adoption varies across Member States, ranging

from close to 30% of total farming production in Austria to less than 1% in Malta (see Figure

8 below).

43 Report on the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (europa.eu).

17

Figure 8 – Share of the total utilised agricultural area under organic farming in 2022 by

Member State (Source: EUROSTAT 2024)44

Basic measures are usually in place, but not all Member States assess whether the planned

measures will be sufficient to gradually achieve good status. Where gap assessments have

been made, Member States report that the measures will ‘not fully’ close the gap needed to

reduce nutrient and pesticide pollution by 2027. This is consistent with the Commission’s

previous findings, including under the Nitrates Directive.

In addition, mandatory measures are limited to those set out under relevant EU legislation45

and applicable requirements (cross-compliance and greening) under the common agriculture

policy (CAP) 2014-2022.

Many Member States seem to impose restrictions on the use of pesticides mainly when it is

necessary to improve the status of water bodies used for drinking water abstraction. Such

mandatory requirements for farmers stemming from the implementation of the Water

Framework Directive can be supported by the CAP under the so-called WFD payments, but

this instrument remains under-utilised46.

Several voluntary measures have been in place often supported through the CAP, notably

through agri-environment climate commitments47 (AECC) and other relevant measures

44 EU organic farming: 16.9 million hectares in 2022 - Eurostat (europa.eu). 45 In particular, the Nitrates Directive, the Regulation on placing of Plant Protection Products on the Market

(Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009), the Sustainable Use Directive (2009/128/EC). 46 Four Member States (Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg and Spain) supported these payments under the Rural

Development Programmes (2014-2022) and five Member States have included such payments in their CAP

Strategic Plans 2023-2027 (Austria, Denmark, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain). These payments have mostly

focussed on restrictions on / ban on fertilisation and pesticide use. in drinking water protected areas, and nitrogen

reducing measures in coastal catchment areas in the case of DK. 47 Payments for multi-annual commitments for environment and climate friendly agricultural practices which go

beyond the baseline of mandatory requirements.

18

included in the Rural Development Programmes (2014-2022) 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.

Based on the submitted information, the agricultural measures announced under the second

RBMP have not all been implemented as planned. The reported challenges include

insufficient funding and delays.

With respect to the CAP 2023-2027, an increased contribution to tackling pollution from

nitrates and pesticides can be expected48. It includes enhanced conditionality49 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 funding50 (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 schemes51. Support from eco-schemes and AECC covers inter alia

improved nutrient management52 and the sustainable use of pesticides53.

No Member State is using thresholds for nutrient concentrations to assess the good

ecological status of surface waters, and only some are determining the required load

reduction upstream in the relevant river basin. As outlined earlier, this also has an impact on

achieving the objectives set in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive since, based on the

data reported by the Member States under Article 8 of the MSFD in 2018, 87% of the sea area

did not achieve the good environmental status objective for eutrophication.

6.1.2 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

authorisation and permitting systems to control wastewater point source discharges, registers

of wastewater discharges, the prohibition or restriction of all direct discharges to groundwater,

48 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). 49 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). 50 European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), c.f. Regulation 1305/2013 51 See article 97(1) and (2) of Regulation 2021/2115. 52 Support for farming practices to improve nutrient management are planned to be carried out on 15,2% of the

EU’s agricultural area. 53 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.

19

and/or dedicated measures to eliminate or reduce pollution from priority substances and other

substances.

In most cases, specific measures have been implemented to deal with pollutants that are

causing failures to reach good chemical or ecological status of waterbodies. Examples of

these measures include efforts to reduce or stop the release of certain pollutants into water and

the remediation of contaminated sites, addressing historical pollution in sediments,

groundwater and soil. However, not all national RBMPs provide the same level of detail in

terms of explicitly linking individual substances to specific measures to combat pollution.

More progress is needed on this front and in developing a gap analysis to inform the design of

the measures.

All Member States reported inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of harmful

substances. However, there are large differences among and within Member States in both the

coverage of the relevant toxic substances and their completeness. The top 10 substances for

which emission inventories have been most commonly set up are mercury, benzo(a)pyrene,

fluoranthene, benzo (g,h,i)perylene (PAHs), nickel, lead, and cadmium (heavy metals), and

nonylphenol (non-ionic surfactants), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS, a type of PFAS)

and tributyltin-cation (a highly toxic biocide).

Most Member States have reported basic measures related to the construction or upgrade of

wastewater treatments plants acknowledging that additional efforts are needed to comply with

the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD). Currently, 82% of EU’s urban

wastewaters are collected and treated in line with EU standards.

The implementation of the revised UWWTD will further reduce pollution from urban

wastewaters. It includes new rules on storm overflows and urban run-off that will help

Member States to more effectively address these pressures that had not been covered by EU

legislation.

While the WFD does not cover pollution from litter, including plastics, this is a key area

where synergies with the MSFD must be created since a very large amount of plastic in the

sea come from 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, starting

with activities related to sewage from urban areas and other land-based sources (e.g. industry,

agriculture). This has led to an estimated 29% reduction in beach litter between 2015 and

2021 across all EU sea basins. These measures are also likely to have had a positive impact on

rivers, lakes and coastal waters.

Given the significant pressure that atmospheric depositions continue to pose on the health of

water bodies, action at source to reduce emissions of pollutants, including uPBTs, resulting

from the use of fossil fuels through the integrated approach to the pollution in different

environmental media advocated for in the Zero Pollution Action Plan remains a priority to

achieve the objectives of the WFD. In this respect, the more stringent standards adopted under

the recently revised Ambient Air Quality Directive, the revised industrial Emissions Directive,

the effective implementation of the Mercury Regulation, and the EU’s overall decarbonisation

efforts are expected to have a positive impact on the reduction of emissions of some

individual substances that enter the water environment via air emissions.

20

6.2 RESTORING RIVERS, LAKES, COASTAL WATERS AND GROUNDWATERS

6.2.1 Changes to physical features and natural flow of water bodies – what is the level of

human intervention in the water system?

For hundreds of years, human activities have physically changed the shape of EU rivers,

lakes, estuaries and coastal waters by eliminating natural features, introducing concrete

infrastructure (i.e. heavily modified water bodies) and creating new canals and reservoirs (i.e.

artificial water bodies). This has all resulted in new, but non-natural, water systems.

The RBMPs show very big differences between Member States on the degree of human

intervention in their natural aquatic environments. The more intense the human intervention,

the more waterbody features are modified, with some becoming completely artificial. The

proportion of these heavily modified water bodies (HMWBs) and artificial water bodies

(AWBs) has slightly increased in this reporting cycle: 12.4% of them were designated as

heavily modified and 4.4% as artificial54 in the 20 Member States considered in the analysis

compared to 11.9% and 4.1% in the previous reporting cycle.

Figure 9 below reveals the very high level of human intervention in some Member States

(Netherlands, Hungary, Germany and Belgium) and the well-preserved natural state in some

others (such as Finland and Sweden).

Figure 9 – Percentage of surface water bodies that have been designated as heavily modified or

artificial in the third RBMPs by Member State

54 However, there are still three Member States for which the designation is either not yet complete (Croatia,

Slovakia) or undergoing revision (Sweden).

21

Three Member States (Austria, Croatia, Slovakia) reported a significant increase in their share

of HMWBs and AWBs, which seems to be the result of a reclassification of certain water

bodies and, to a lesser extent, new alterations. Sweden is also expected to significantly

increase its own share as a result of a new methodology.

The main uses of water that triggered a high degree of human intervention that led to water

bodies being classified as heavily modified are: (i) flood protection (37%); (ii) agriculture

(land drainage 23%, irrigation 15%); (iii) hydropower (21%); (iv) drinking water supply

(11%); and (v) other urban development (10%).

Given their altered features, such waterbodies are not required to achieve good ecological

status but only good ecological potential (GEP), which needs to be defined by the Member

State following the requirements in WFD Annex V".

It is encouraging to see that there have been methodological improvements to determine what

would constitute GEP as required by the WFD. However, Member States continue to define

GEP differently and use different assumptions and criteria in their assessments. Moreover,

some Member States have failed to define the GEP for all HMWBs, which leaves them

without clear objectives to be reached.

Based on information available in WISE for the 16 Member States55 that had managed to

report electronically by the time this report was finalised, only 16.8% of the HMWBs and

AWBs have reached GEP. However, this hides considerable differences among Member

States (with the proportion of relevant waterbodies meeting GEP ranging from none in

Belgium and the Netherlands to about half in Spain and Romania).

6.2.2 Protected areas

There are different reasons why certain water bodies are protected by the law. For surface

water bodies, protected areas have been designated under the Drinking Water, Bathing Water,

Habitats and Birds and Nitrates Directives as well as for the protection of economically

significant aquatic species (i.e. aquaculture). In this reporting cycle, most Member States

reported a higher number of water bodies associated with protected areas designated under

other EU legislation and, as required by the WFD, have an updated register of protected

areas in place.

A very positive development is that, with few exceptions, there seems to be better

monitoring of these areas – probably linked to the general monitoring improvements under

the WFD.

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

water management objectives, compared to the good status objectives set by the WFD. This is

to ensure compliance with the relevant legislation aiming to protect specific ecosystems,

species, and drinking and bathing water. This may entail adopting additional measures.

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 determine the exact needs. In some cases, Member States have also

55 As available by 31 May 2024.

22

set additional objectives and measures for sensitive areas under the UWWTD, bathing

waters and drinking water safeguard zones although the objectives or measures are often

reported in somewhat general terms56. Some Member States with a commercial interest in

shellfish production (or less often in freshwater fish) have designated protected areas for

economically significant aquatic species57. For the shellfish areas, some Member States

(Croatia, the Netherlands and Romania) have set the same objectives that were in the Shellfish

Directives, which have since been repealed58. One Member States (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.

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

drinking water safeguard zones shellfish designated areas and bathing waters, while only a

small share of the objectives set for Natura 2000 sites have been achieved.

Regrettably, in almost all Member States the designation of protected areas does not seem to

bring about the expected improvements in the overall status of the water bodies. On the

contrary, as illustrated in Figure 10 below, data show an increase in the number of water

bodies associated with protected areas in bad status compared to the previous cycle. This

could partly be linked to the significant reduction in the number of areas with an unknown

status. However, it also confirms limited progress in implementing the Nature Directives

compared to the 2013-2018 period assessed in the 2020 ‘State of Nature’ report. This report

revealed that 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 (80% and 60% of the population, respectively)59. This suggests that

the ‘protected area’ designation still falls short of ensuring the better water management

needed to protect the surface and groundwaters in these areas.

Figure 10 – Status of water bodies in protected areas based on second and third RBMP data

(Source: Third RBMP electronic reporting)

56 For habitats and species protected areas, some Member States 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. 57 These are Croatia, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, and Spain for shellfish and Croatia, Italy

and Latvia for freshwater fish. 58 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. 59 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.

23

6.2.3 What is being done to reduce hydro-morphological pressures and restore nature?

Physical and hydrological alterations are reported as being a significant pressure in almost all

river basin districts. The sectors causing this significant pressure include agriculture (both

irrigation and drainage), hydropower, flood protection, navigation, and drinking water supply.

All Member States have reported measures that aim to reduce the negative environmental

impacts of hydro-morphological pressures by improving flow regime, restoring river

continuity and ensuring ecological flows are respected. This includes building fish passes,

demolishing old and obsolete barriers, restoring rivers by improving riparian areas and flood

plains and restoring riverbanks to their natural state. For instance, based on a recent report of

Dam Removal Europe60 – a coalition of non-governmental organisations – 487 barriers were

removed in 15 European countries in 2023, up 50% from 2022’s record number. France

appears to be the trailblazer, followed by Spain, Sweden, Denmark and Estonia. These

measures can contribute to 25 000 km of free-flowing rivers, the 2030 target set under the EU

biodiversity strategy and the recently adopted Nature Restoration Law61. Nevertheless, river

fragmentation and degradation of protected EU aquatic and water-dependent habitats and

species, particularly wetlands and floodplains, remain a major challenge.

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

(HPPs) continue to be a very significant pressure on ecological status in several Member

60 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. 61 OJ L, 2024/1991, 29.7.2024.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2nd Plan Chemical status GWB

3rd Plan Chemical status GWB

2nd Plan Quantitative status GWB

3rd Plan Quantitative status GWB

2nd Plan Chemical status SWB

3rd Plan Chemical status SWB

2nd Plan Ecological status/potential SWB

3rd Plan Ecological status/potential SWB

High Good Moderate Poor Bad Unknown

24

States due to the disruption of river continuity with major impacts on fish migration, fish

mortality and changes in hydrological flows and sediments movement. Refurbishing existing

HPPs, including through win-win solutions that can contribute to achieving the WFD

objectives, should generally be prioritised over new HPPs. Further efforts should be made to

ensure that such plants’ operations are more sustainable and adapted to evolving hydrological

conditions linked to accelerating climate change impacts. This includes the periodic review of

permits, including mitigation measures to reduce impacts of HPPs operation.

Only a few Member States (Austria, Belgium, France, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland,

Romania) report specifically prioritising nature-based solutions over other measures.

Determining and implementing minimum ecological flows (e-flows)62is essential for

safeguarding the ecological status of surface water bodies. However, it is a source of strong

concern that this work is progressing slowly in many Member States. In addition, despite

guidance at EU level, there is a lack of consistency in how e-flows are defined. With a few

exceptions, in most Member States the definition of e-flows is still being developed, and their

actual implementation on the ground is progressing slowly and often only for some water

bodies. The respect of e-flows only seems to be clearly linked to granting and reviewing

abstraction permits in some cases.

6.2.4 What are Member States doing to reduce abstractions and tackle water scarcity?

It is important to differentiate between droughts (a lower level of precipitation) and water

scarcity (a more systemic unbalance between available water and demand). Water scarcity is

perceived as a growing issue in most Member States, with over-abstractions reported as being

responsible for failure to achieve good quantitative or ecological status of a significant portion

of water bodies63.

There are significant differences in water use across different regions in the EU. In 201964,

at EU level, abstraction for cooling in electricity generation was 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,

quarrying and construction accounting for only 1% of total abstraction each. However,

agriculture, including livestock farming activities, is the largest net consumer 65with 59% of

62 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". 63 Among the 13 countries for which the information is available thanks to e-reporting, water abstractions are

reported to be responsible for the failure to achieve good quantitative or ecological status in Spain (25%),

Hungary (20%), Italy (19%), France (11%) and Belgium (11%) as regards groundwater and France (17%),

Austria (12%), Spain (11%), Italy (9%) and Croatia (8%) in relation to surface waters. Although they failed to

submit their reports, this is known to be also a significant issue in Cyprus, Greece and Malta. 64 EEA’s analysis of water abstractions between 2000 and 2019,

https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/water-abstraction-by-source-and. 65 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.

25

EU water consumption in 201966 as most water abstracted is either consumed by crops and

farm animals or evaporates, 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 %). EEA analysis shows that, between 2000 and 2019, there was a 17.6%

reduction in water abstraction, 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, and abstraction for public water supply increased by 4%, with a

particularly sharp increase since 2010 (14%). Water abstraction for agriculture decreased by

15% during the same 2000-2019 period, but has, since 2010 increased by 8%, mainly because

of the increasing demand for irrigation in southern Europe where water scarcity is exacerbated

by climate change. There is therefore an increasingly compelling need to adopt changes in

practices, including a much better uptake of water reuse in line with the 2020 Water Reuse

Regulation, and to switch to crops more adapted to the region-specific hydrological

conditions, as well as improved soil management. Without such changes, water demand for

agricultural irrigation will also significantly increase in regions where, to date, there is limited

irrigation: this will only exacerbate water scarcity.

The CAP 2023-2027 is supporting efforts to increase water resilience in agriculture.

Conditionality has been strengthened to include inter alia a new standard67 covering controls

on abstraction. Inter alia the Member States’ CAP Strategic Plans provide significant support

for practices to improve soil health, with positive effects on water storage capacity with a

target to cover 47% of the EU’s agricultural area with such support. Investments in improving

the efficiency of irrigation installations, the use of recycled water for irrigation and rainwater

harvesting can also be supported. However, in the regions most affected by water scarcity

support for more systemic transformative changes towards less water intensive production

systems will need to be envisaged.

66 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). 67 Statutory management requirement 1 (SMR1) on controls on abstraction and impoundment and controls on

diffuse pollution from phosphates (WFD articles 11(3)(e) and (h)).

26

Figure 11 – Water abstraction by economic sector in the 27 EU Member States, 2000-2019

(EEA, 2022)

Basic and supplementary measures to reduce abstraction have generally been set out, but

their implementation is inconsistent across Europe. These measures focus on control of

abstractions, water efficiency and reuse, natural water retention, e-flows, research and

knowledge building. There have been some notable attempts to reduce water consumption,

such as the new French Water Plan that has a target to reduce abstractions by 10% by 2030.

As reported in 2021 by the European Court of Auditors (ECA)68, Member States have made

progress in setting up prior authorisation systems for water abstraction, systems for

detecting illegal water use and in some cases pricing mechanisms with the potential to

incentivise water efficiency. However, the fact that most of them exempt small abstractions

from inspections or registration is problematic. This can lead to the cumulative impact of

many, continued small abstractions over a whole river basin, negatively affecting the status of

water bodies, particularly in Member States already facing water scarcity problems. While

noting that several Member States have introduced water pricing mechanisms that incentivise

efficient use of irrigation water, the ECA also identified as problematic the practice of

significantly lower water prices in agriculture than elsewhere in the economy, including

derogations for irrigation.

The frequency with which Member States review abstraction permits, as required by the

WFD69, is very different, ranging from 6 years to several decades or even indefinite periods of

time. This situation makes it sometimes impossible to properly factor in the evolving situation

in water bodies, including from a climate change perspective. The Commission is currently

68 Special report 20/2021: Sustainable water use in EU agriculture. 69 Article 11(3)(e) of the WFD requires Member States to carry out regular mandatory reviews.

27

involved in enforcing the obligation to review such permits to ensure all Member States

correctly implement it70.

The issue of unauthorised / illegal water abstraction (i.e. abstraction either without a permit

or exceeding permit conditions) is only explicitly mentioned in some RBMPs from four

Member States. However, the problem has also been recognised in other parts of Europe.

Even where mentioned, these references usually lack a quantification of the current issue and

trends compared to the second RBMPs. In some of these countries, efforts are ongoing to

close illegal wells to prevent such unlawful appropriation of this common resource.

As in the past, several Member States are tackling water scarcity by focusing their measures

on increasing supply. These measures include drilling new wells, constructing new dams and

reservoirs, expanding irrigation infrastructure for agriculture and constructing large-

scale water transfer infrastructure and desalinisation plants. However, very limited

information is provided in the RBMPs on such measures, including as regards their

environmental and economic viability and the consideration of long-term climate scenarios.

6.3 TACKLING THE CLIMATE CRISIS

As outlined in the European Climate Risk Assessment71 and as recognized by the Commission

in its Communication on managing climate risks72, the EU and its Member States must

become significantly better at preparing for and effectively addressing climate risks73. The

evidence that climate change is already having a substantial impact on the occurrence and

severity of water-related risks, such as droughts and floods, in much of Europe is mounting74.

Boosting water resilience75 through effective implementation of the WFD and the FD is

therefore a pre-requisite to achieve the climate resilience objectives of the EU climate law76

70 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. 71 EEA (2024), European climate risk assessment. No 1/2024, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-

climate-risk-assessment. Europe is the fastest-warming continent in the world. Extreme heat is becoming more

frequent while precipitation patterns are changing. Downpours and other precipitation extremes are increasing in

severity, and recent years have seen catastrophic floods in various regions. At the same time, southern Europe

can expect considerable declines in overall rainfall and more severe droughts. 72 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 73 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. 74 Temperatures in Europe have increased more than twice the 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. 75 The need to strengthening resilience to climate change climate was stressed in the 2021 EU Strategy on

Adaptation to Climate Change and in the 2021 European Climate Law. 76 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’).

28

and the EU adaptation strategy77. At the same time, the objectives of the WFD and the FD can

only be achieved by taking into full consideration the impacts of climate change.

6.3.1 Have climate resilience and drought risk management been duly considered?

Although the obligation to adapt the RBMPs to climate change is not explicitly stated in the

WFD, the stepwise and cyclical approach of the WFD planning process is well suited to

managing climate change impacts in an adaptive way.

An increasing number of Member States reported a systemic consideration of climate change

impacts and an effort to align their programme of measures with their national climate

adaptation plan. 70% of the assessed Member States (14 of 20) reported having completed

an analysis of how climate change is affecting their water bodies. However, it is often unclear

whether and to what extent the result of such analysis helped identify the key pressures and

determine the most effective measures.

In the third RBMPs, climate change effects were mostly linked to droughts and lower water

availability, even if floods continued to remain a major concern. Most Member States framed

these climate impacts around their effects on agriculture (irrigation risks), inland navigation

and energy generation (hydropower, some thermal power). This is a considerable difference

from the second RBMP, where excess water (i.e. floods) was perceived as the main climate

impact. This is also coherent with the increased concern over water scarcity across most

Member States outlined in section 6.2.4 above. Importantly, although not legally required

under the WFD, 16 of the 20 assessed Member States reported droughts as a significant

occurrence; an increasing number of Member States reported that they had developed or were

developing drought management plans at national, regional or RBD levels.

Climate change is also having a growing impact on water quality in several Member States.

An increasing number of Member States have invoked the Article 4(6) exemption for

temporarily failing to reach good ecological status due to prolonged droughts.

Some Member States have recently developed national water strategies (e.g. France and

Germany) in response to the increased number of droughts. These are complementary to the

RBMPs but have not been considered in the Member States’ reports. However, these national

strategies can include major additional measures that should be implemented with the RBMPs

in a cohesive manner.

As regards the impacts of climate change on flood risk management, the findings from the

assessment of the second FRMPs and the two steps78 before the FRMPs are encouraging. All

Member States (compared to just half in the first preliminary flood risk assessments)

considered climate change in their second preliminary flood risk assessments (PFRAs) and

nearly all considered it in their second flood hazard and risk maps (FHRMs) (also compared

to just half previously), even though this is not explicitly required for maps in the FD. In the

second FRMPs, all 21 assessed Member States provided evidence that climate change impacts

were considered (compared to over a third previously). Nearly all Member States, compared

to only half in the first cycle, discussed future climate scenarios in their FRMPs with varying

77 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”. 78 The preliminary flood risk assessments and the flood hazard and risk maps.

29

timeframes (between 2030 and 2115). Almost all Member States made the connection to their

national adaptation strategies (compared to less than half for the first FRMPs).

6.3.2 Progress towards climate resilience under the Floods Directive

Floods are the most common risk in Member States’ National Risk Assessments79. As

indicated in the EUCRA, Europe is facing more and stronger climate hazards, including heavy

precipitation leading pluvial and fluvial floods, and sea level rise leading to coastal floods.

Notable progress in flood risk management has been achieved throughout the EU since the

introduction of the 2007 Floods Directive. FRMPs are the main tool to mitigate potential

adverse consequences of flooding and are the third of the cyclical, three-step approach

introduced by the FD. The current FRMPs, which are the second set, cover 2022-2027 just

like the third RBMPs. The two steps before the FRMPs, namely the second PFRAs80 and the

second FHRMs were carried out by the Member States earlier. Both were assessed by the

Commission81.

In terms of completeness, all 21 Member States that reported on time to be considered in this

assessment provided contextual information in their FRMPs about their PFRAs and FHRMs

Compared to the previous cycle, flood risk management has improved in the assessed

Member States. All Member States have set flood risk management objectives. Some set a

few broad objectives supported by more specific sub-objectives, and others presented a

number of more detailed objectives, compared to the past. All of them included measures to

achieve their objectives.

A few Member States have set targets that allow for quantitatively assessing progress

compared to the previous cycle. However, several Member States make a clear link between

the measures in the plans and the objectives these measures are intended to achieve. When

comparing the same Member States, 14 have this clear link in their plans compared to only 7

in the previous plans.

The plans include progress on implementing the measures rather than the progress towards

targets set by the objectives to reducing flood risks. It is thus difficult to conclude how

effective flood risk management has been across the EU.

The number of measures in the FRMPs varies significantly across Member States, ranging

from below 100 to over 10 000 measures. This variation depends on the size of the country,

the amount of areas of potential significant flood risk and the choice of individual or grouped

measures.

79 COM(2024) 130 final - Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on progress

on implementation of article 6 of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (Decision No 1313/2013/EU)

Preventing and managing disaster risk in Europe. 80 There are about 14 000 areas of potential significant flood risk (APSFRs) in the EU, for an overview see the

flood risk areas viewer available at https://discomap.eea.europa.eu/floodsviewer/. 81 For the Commission’s assessments of Member States’ second PFRAs, see the documents published under the

Sixth Implementation Report. For the Commission’s assessments of Member States’ second FHRMs and second

FRMPs, see the documents under the current Seventh Implementation Report,

https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/water/water-framework-directive/implementation-reports_en.

30

Figure 12 – Share of measure by type (prevention, protection, preparedness, recovery)

There are two broad clusters of Member States: one consists of Member States that prioritise

prevention and/or preparedness measures, and the other cluster of Member States prioritises

protection . Although protection measures are still the most frequently reported in the second

FRMPs, prevention and preparedness measures now account for a slightly larger share of the

EU total. In terms of non-structural measures82, all assessed FRMPs refer to spatial planning.

However, references to legal or policy frameworks that link spatial planning and flood risk

management were only in 8 of the 21 assessed Member States. It is encouraging that all

Member States include nature-based solutions in some or all their FRMPs; however, there is

no evidence yet of a notable change on the ground in terms of large-scale uptake of nature-

based solutions instead of or combined with traditional infrastructure. Although the FD does

not mention insurance, 12 of the 21 Member States make at least a reference to it. This

confirms the valuable role that insurance as a risk transfer mechanism could play in

promoting climate adaptation.

A positive trend is how Member States prioritise flood risk management measures. All

Member States prioritised measures or provided a timeframe for their implementation (not all

did so in their first FRMPs). For example, the analysis indicates that most measures were

classified in the three highest priority categories (high, very high and critical), i.e. 50% or

more of the measures in 13 Member States (out of the 21 analysed) falls in one of these

categories. In contrast, far fewer Member States reported significant shares of measures in the

two lowest priority categories (medium and low). In the transition from the first to the second

FRMPs, there has been a slight downward shift in the urgency of measures across Member

States, from critical to very high priority and from very high to high priority. There have also

been some upward shifts in urgency, mainly from low and moderate priority to high priority.

15 of the 21 Member States have made some cost-benefit analysis of their measures although

few have used it to prioritise them. Because the ratio of Member States using cost-benefit

analysis is more or less the same as in the previous cycle, progress mainly relates to the

improved methodologies applied in some Member States.

82 Measures not involving civil engineering structures, such as raising awareness, ensuring early warning

systems, disaster prevention and response plans and spatial planning.

31

Indespensible elements of flood risk management are reliable forecasting and early warning

systems to promptly activate civil protection measures, along with a strong response capacity

during and after such events. The Commission is supporting Member States through action in

this field at EU level, including through the Copernicus’ European Flood Awareness System

which support preparatory measures before and during major flood events strike83.

Copernicus’ rapid mapping service provides on-demand and fast provision (within hours or

days) of geospatial information, supporting emergency management activities before, during

and immediately after a disaster. Once disaster strikes, Member States can call on the Union

Civil Protection Mechanism, which has substantially strengthened cooperation between

countries on civil protection and improved prevention, preparedness and response to

disasters84, for instance, by developing disaster resilience goals85. The Commission is

encouraging the uptake of Copernicus’ emergency management services, and promoting the

sharing of lessons learnt and best practices among Member States, especially after major

flood events.

7. ENSURING SOCIO-ECONOMIC SOUNDNESS

Given the limited progress in reaching good status, a large majority of water bodies are

covered by various exemptions set out in Article 4 of the WFD86. It must be mentioned that

the number of exemptions related to Articles 4(4) and 4(5) of the WFD has increased. The

justifications for such exemptions have generally improved in terms of meeting the WFD

requirements to be based on appropriate, evident and transparent criteria. However, not all

Member States provide sufficiently detailed information at the level of the affected water

body and only about half of the assessed Member States provide sufficient details in all

RBMPs.

In line with Articles 9 and 11 of the WFD and its Annex III87, updating and reporting the

water economic analysis and the related use of cost recovery instruments, including water

pricing, are becoming a more established practice in RBMPs. Nevertheless, the reporting

often does not make clear links to key challenges and developments in the river basin district.

Therefore, it is unclear how the economic analysis has informed the choices on cost recovery,

pricing and more generally the design of the PoMs. For instance, the reporting on water

83 EFAS is the first operational European system monitoring and forecasting floods across Europe. It supports

preparatory measures before and during major flood events strike. It provides complementary, added-value

information to the relevant national and regional authorities. EFAS also keeps the Emergency Response

Coordination Centre informed about ongoing and possibly upcoming flood events across Europe. Recently

EFAS v5.0 introduced several major changes to the system, including a higher spatial resolution. 84 Report to the European Parliament and the Council on progress on implementing Article 6 (UCPM)

Preventing and managing disaster risk in Europe 12.3.2024 COM(2024)130 & SWD(2024)130. 85https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/document/download/7b124199-d4d7-43fe-b852-

8cee69674d19_en 86 Article 4(4) allows for an extension of the deadline for achieving good status or potential beyond 2015 (as set

by Article 4(1)). Article 4(5) allows for the achievement of less stringent objectives. Article 4(6) allows for a

temporary deterioration in the status of water bodies. Article 4(7) sets out conditions in which deterioration of

status or failure to achieve the WFD objectives may be permitted for new modifications to the physical

characteristics of surface water bodies, alterations to the level of groundwater and deterioration from high to

good status as a result of new sustainable human development activities. 87 Annex III to the WFD stipulates that the economic analysis should contain enough information in sufficient

detail to describe and justify the cost recovery arrangements for water services and related obligations

(Article 9). The analysis should also be able to help judge the most cost-effective combination of measures in

respect of water uses to be included in the programme of measures, PoMs (Article 11).

32

services does not provide much detail. Many of the RBMPs typically report on the two

broadly defined water services, namely drinking water supply and sanitation services;

therefore, they tend not to recognise and discuss the individual water services that fall under

or are directly linked to these categories, such as water storage and reuse. This makes it

difficult to have a sufficiently complete understanding of water uses in the country, including

their economic significance and potential for cost recovery, and the pressures they put on

water bodies.

In addition, compared to the elements required under Article 9 of the WFD, some major

implementation gaps remain, in particular those listed below.

• The assessment of whether existing pricing policies provide ‘adequate incentives’ for

more efficient water use.

• The assessment of environmental and resource costs and their inclusion in the cost

recovery arrangements.

• The assessment of whether water uses and the key water-user sectors (including

agriculture, industry and households) provide an ‘adequate contribution’ to the costs of

providing water services in line with the polluter-pays principle. The reported data

often lack details on the environmental and resource costs as well as on the water uses

that exert the most significant cost pressures on the main water services (i.e. water

supply and sanitation).

More investments are essential to meet the WFD objectives and make EU societies more

water resilient. For Member States that submitted reports electronically, some information on

the funding needs for the WFD is available and shows that an increase in funding to

implement their measures is often required. This would include an additional EU financial

contribution. However, the information is either incomplete, contradictory or even missing for

some of the electronic reports (i.e. Estonia, Latvia and the Netherlands). For the 10 Member

States for which information is available, the cumulative funding needs between 2022 and

2027 is calculated to be EUR 89.4 billion (approximately EUR 15 billion a year) but, given

data limitations, this is likely to be an underestimation.

As regards the funding needs for implementing the FRMPs, 16 Member States (compared to

10 in the first FRMPs) provided some information on the estimated cost of measures. This

comes to roughly EUR 35 billion between 2022 and 2027 (approximately EUR 6 billion a

year) although this is likely to be an underestimation. The information provided varied

significantly in scope and detail and often did not cover all measures even within a given

Member State.

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.

33

Nevertheless, analysis shows – for the EU as a whole – there is a failure to meet the annual

investment needs, which are estimated to be EUR 77 billion a year, with a financing gap

currently estimated at around EUR 25 billion a year88. This amount is largely based on water

supply and sanitation needs, 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 schedule that considers long-term water supply and

demand forecasts based on the latest climate scenarios and 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 ideally

include many more investment measures). Further progress in the economic underpinning of

the PoMs would greatly facilitate water-related decisions and investments.

8. TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION UNDER THE WFD AND THE FD

For river basins crossing national borders, the WFD requires Member States to coordinate

among each other and also make reasonable efforts with non-EU countries where relevant.

The analysis shows that, while the degree of cooperation differs, there is a stable institutional

framework in place for transboundary coordination mechanisms across different international

river basin districts (iRBDs)89. There are a few examples of existing arrangements that were

further ‘upgraded’, compared to the previous cycle.

International RBMPs (iRBMPs) have been developed for the largest iRBDs and provide the

framework for cooperation among Member States. Such frameworks focus on data sharing,

joint monitoring and research projects, joint coordination on assessing the status, relevant

priority indicators and agreed threshold values. This cooperation on indicators and threshold

values, however, does not imply full convergence on the assessment results among the

different countries that share the river basins.

Except for the Danube iRBMP that sets out measures of international relevance, the other

iRBMPs essentially compile the national measures drawn up by each Member State;

therefore, it is unclear to what extent consistency is ensured between measures taken by

upstream and downstream countries. For instance, fish passes have been installed in the

upstream parts of the Rhine, but similar measures have not yet been fully implemented

downstream, which hampers the effectiveness of the upstream measures. Similarly, in the case

of nutrient load reduction, there is a general lack of consideration of the upstream contribution

needed to achieve the good status objectives for downstream waterbodies, particularly for the

coastal and transitional waters that are most sensitive to nutrients.

It is noted with concern that transboundary cooperation on groundwaters is very limited.

Many iRBDs have not identified cross-border groundwaters; therefore, the delineation and

characterisation of groundwater bodies are performed by each country individually. Where

transboundary aquifers are identified (e.g. the Scheldt, Vistula, Elbe and Danube), the

characterisation is left to bilateral discussions. There is also limited cooperation on monitoring

the qualitative and quantitative indicators for assessing the status of groundwaters.

88 DG Environment, 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 will include further

public information and updates on the topic. 89 International agreements are in place for most iRDBs and often establish an international coordinating body

and, less frequently, a joint RBMP. Only a few basins in the EU have neither of these.

34

With drought and water scarcity challenges becoming increasingly more pressing across the

EU, quantitative aspects of water management are likely to become more important in the

context of iRBDs. With some exceptions, such as the Albufeira Convention between Portugal

and Spain, cooperation in the iRBDs on tackling water scarcity and drought is so far limited

and should be further encouraged.

The WFD Article 12 procedure for issues that cannot be dealt with at Member State level

has been invoked once since the previous report. In 2019, Czechia raised concerns about

depleting groundwater levels as a result of the cross-border impacts of the Turow mine in

Poland. The procedure was stopped in February 2022 following an agreement between Poland

and Czechia in the context of a case brought before the Court of Justice (which had suspended

the procedure under Article 12 itself).

Although not directly linked to the activation of Article 12, the Oder River disaster, one of the

largest ecological disasters in Europe in recent memory, which led to a massive fish die-off in

July and August 2022, demonstrated the consequences of inadequate communication between

neighbouring countries and between these and the European Commission. The incident

underlined the importance of effective transboundary cooperation to ensure a timely and

adequate response to such disasters. The Commission provided support and expertise from the

outset and produced, in cooperation with the EEA, a report that analysed the disaster’s causes

and set out key recommendations to prevent future ecological disasters in EU rivers90.

The Floods Directive, like the WFD, requires Member States to coordinate their efforts within

transboundary river basins, including with non-EU countries. Where basin-wide coordination

organisations are in place, the development of an international FRMP invariably led to setting

out common, high level objectives and, in almost all cases, drawing up a number of

coordinated and common measures91. Within those river basin organisations, dedicated

working groups follow implementation of international FRMPs at national level. Extensive

public consultations on some of the basins, such as the Danube and the Rhine, took place. In

addition, the existence of climate change adaptation strategies at basin level with direct links

to the FD is significant in these efforts92.

9. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK

Overall, the assessment shows that knowledge and monitoring of EU water bodies have

significantly improved compared to the previous cycle. Unfortunately, the state of EU water

bodies has failed to significantly improve when looking at the aggregated figures. There are

clearly positive reductions in certain pressures where Member States have increased their

water expenditure or made significant progress in implementing other relevant legislation93.

For groundwaters bodies, a large majority has good quantitative and chemical status with a

positive trend since the last reporting cycle.

In contrast, surface waters are in a highly critical situation. Less than a half (39.5%) of the

assessed EU surface water bodies is in good ecological status, and less than a third (26.8%) in

90 https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC132271 91 Such as sharing hydrological data, exchanging national practices on pluvial floods and conducting studies on

improving flood forecasting across the basin, as opposed to, for example, flood-protection building

embankments. 92 The strategy for the Rhine dates back to 2015 and the strategy for the Danube back to 2018. 93 This concerns in particular the Urban Wastewater Treatment, Nitrates, and Industrial Emissions Directives and

EU law on chemicals.

35

good chemical status. The reasons for this are manifold. For chemicals, some positive trends

are masked by historic, widespread contamination of mercury and other ubiquitous,

bioaccumulative and toxic pollutants or were overshadowed by new emerging pollution

challenges. For the ecological status, there has been some improvement in certain biological

quality elements. However, EU rivers, lakes and coastal waters are still subject to significant

pressures and, even when effective measures are taken, progress may not be swiftly visible

when monitoring as nature needs sufficient time to recover. It is encouraging to see a

reduction in water bodies with an ‘unknown status’, but there are new challenges related to

data comparability, which hinders objective assessments. All this requires reflections on how

to improve data quality and comparability.

Despite these data issues, much remains to be done to fully achieve the objectives of the WFD

and related directives. The onus is primarily on Member States, who need to raise the level of

ambition and accelerate action.

It is already clear from Member States’ forecasts that full compliance with the WFD’s

objectives by 2027 will not be achieved with the programme of measures set out in the third

RBMPs.

As possibilities for exemptions are limited, tackling the significant funding gaps and better

integrating water in other relevant policies will be particularly crucial. Several measures

agreed under the European Green Deal (e.g. the revised Industrial Emissions and Urban

Wastewater Treatment Directives) can help make swift progress if implemented early. It is

worrying to note that several Member States have already indicated that they intend to make

extensive use of exemptions in 2027, either by applying less stringent environmental

objectives or extending the deadline. The Commission will also continue to engage

proactively with the co-legislators to strengthen measures to tackle water pollution, including

by paying increased attention to new emerging pollutants, e.g. PFAS, microplastics and

pharmaceuticals.

For the Floods Directive, Member States have built on their experience from the first cycle

and made incremental changes to their approaches to flood risk management. Three

developments stand out: (a) a significant increase at EU level in the number of areas identified

as having a potentially significant flood risk; (b) the adoption, by nearly all Member States, of

GIS-based internet viewers to publish their flood hazard and risk maps, making them much

more accessible; and (c) an improvement in the way climate change is considered, e.g.

through modelling and scenarios. To continue progress in reducing the potential adverse

effects of major flooding, Member States will need to make sustained efforts to improve

planning capacity, particularly in terms of better monitoring progress to reach their objectives

to reduce flood risks. They also need to plan and implement measures which will help to deal

with future climatic conditions, among others by increasing (or restoring) the natural water

retention, among others by restoring and reconnecting flood plains, as well as ensuring that

flood prevention measures are dimensioned on future flood conditions. They also need to

ensure adequate resources to effectively implement the FRMPs.

In this report and its accompanying staff working documents, the Commission issues some

general and country-specific recommendations on how Member States can make further

progress in better implementing both the WFD and the FD, thereby helping boost the EU’s

water resilience.

36

These recommendations will be the basis for a structured dialogue with Member States that

the Commission will swiftly launch. These dialogues will enable securing better

implementation and, where appropriate, better enforcement of the requirements under the

WFD and the FD in close coordination with the enforcement efforts covering key pressures

on the aquatic environment.

Along with continuing to work with Member States, the Commission will work with the

public and all stakeholders to promote compliance. This will also be reflected in the next

Environmental Implementation Review in 2025.

The Commission, in consultation with Member States and the EEA, will collect lessons learnt

from this reporting exercise and identify opportunities to simplify and reduce the

administrative burden and improve data management, in particular data comparability, while

improving the electronic reporting platform’s efficiency.

Finally, the Commission will continue to support Member States in their implementation

efforts by facilitating the use of available and future funding, strengthening the availability of

relevant data, information and knowledge as well as the exchange of good practices as part of

the Common Implementation Strategy.

The findings of this assessment will also feed in the preparation of the announced Water

Resilience Strategy.

10. RECOMMENDATIONS

Although country-specific recommendations are provided in the individual country

assessments, the recommendations set out below are relevant for all EU Member States.

WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE

1. All Member States should increase their level of ambition and accelerate action to

reduce the compliance gap as much as possible by 2027. This implies:

a. developing more robust programmes of measures based on a clearer

assessment of the gap to be bridged to reach good status and a clearer

prioritisation of measures;

b. decisively tackling structural obstacles identified when implementing

measures, such as insufficient administrative capacity and resources;

c. strengthening governance by improving public consultations and

coordination between the different administrative levels and authorities

dealing with implementation of other relevant EU legislation, particularly the

Floods, the Marine Strategy Framework and the Nitrates Directives;

d. ensuring full compliance with WFD provisions on the periodic review of

permits/controls for all activities impacting water bodies (including

abstraction, impoundment, discharges) and effective, dissuasive, and

proportionate sanction regimes; consider, where applicable, revisions to

existing exemptions of small abstractions from registration and permitting

requirements, so cumulative impacts are managed better.

2. All Member States should increase investment and ensure adequate financing to

effectively implement the PoMs to reach the objectives. This involves in particular:

a. developing long-term investment plans and clearly identifying the source of

financing for each measure, including the effective use of EU funding provided

37

through the Common Agricultural Policy, the Cohesion Policy 2021-2027 and

the Recovery and Resilience Facility;

b. strengthening efforts to fully apply the cost recovery principle for water

services so that all key water-users and water use sectors provide an adequate

contribution to the water services costs;

c. making better and wider use of the ‘polluter-pays principle’, eliminating

harmful environmental subsidies and ensuring affordable, just and fair

pricing mechanisms for all water users in line with Article 9 of the WFD.

3. All Member States should put in place additional measures to reduce existing

persistent environmental challenges (pressures) based on robust gap analyses.

This includes:

a. stepping up action to reduce nutrient pollution, including by setting and

achieving maximum nutrient loads in all river basin districts, in line not only

with the WFD but also the MSFD and Nitrates Directive;

b. Strengthening measures against pesticide pollution by reducing the use of

chemical pesticides, promoting integrated pest management and more

sustainable practices (e.g. precision farming), setting and achieving maximum

chemical pesticide loads in all river basin districts and introducing more

stringent restrictions in protected areas for drinking water abstraction;

c. further reducing point source pollution to tackle nutrients, priority substances

and river specific pollutants, e.g. by reviewing existing permits for point

source emissions to lower pollutant loads or introducing obligations to

temporarily suspend or limit discharges in emergencies, considering the new

obligations under the revised IED and UWWTD;

d. boosting efforts on nature-based solutions, including re-naturalisation and

ecosystem restoration to reduce hydro-morphological pressures;

e. stepping up efforts to improve river continuity, the general hydrological

situation and aquatic species protection, including for migratory species;

f. setting out ecological flows (i.e. the level of water that must be left in the

water body for the ecosystem to properly function) for all RBDs and

effectively applying them in water-allocation decisions and issuing or

periodically reviewing permits for abstractions and impoundments in line with

Article 11 of the WFD.

g. more systematically including the water needs of groundwater-dependent

ecosystems (both terrestrial and aquatic) when assessing the quantitative status

of groundwater bodies.

4. In light of water scarcities experienced across the EU, Member States should:

a. improve climate-proofing measures in the PoMs and, where relevant, develop

suitable measures or plans for strengthened resilience;

b. proactively draw up or improve, regularly update and monitor accurate

water balances for all river basins, taking into account all water inputs and

abstractions, natural losses and the needs of water-dependent ecosystems; this

includes increasing direct monitoring and metering across water uses,

continuously updating water abstraction registers and inspecting unauthorised

and illegal water abstractions;

c. take effective measures to promote water reuse, efficiency and circularity,

while maximising the use of nature-based solutions for more sustainable

water storage across soils and ecosystems;

38

d. when planning new dams and reservoirs, carefully assess their environmental

impacts, including against the WFD objectives and ensure that such actions are

part of integrated water management and of coherent water resilience

strategies, which include duly considering long-term climate scenarios.

5. To achieve the WFD objectives and strengthen water resilience, Member States

should further improve transboundary cooperation, in particular on:

a. the delineation and characterisation of water bodies, joint or coordinated

monitoring programmes and status assessment methodologies (e.g.

commonly agreed reference conditions for biological quality elements and

EQSs for pollutants);

b. quantitative aspects of water management through relevant international

cooperation mechanisms and bodies.

6. If the WFD objectives cannot be met for a specific water body and exemptions are

invoked, Member States should do so in line with the restrictive interpretation

stemming from case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and provide

sufficiently detailed justifications, ensuring that their application is regularly

reviewed. This implies:

a. ensuring that lowering objectives (- Article 4(5)- of the WFD)) - is well

documented and justified, in particular as regards disproportionate costs and

unfeasibility and considering the implementation shortcomings to date, rather

than applying for the exemption as a default option for the failure to achieve

the objectives by 2027;

b. recognising that the possibilities for time extensions (Article 4(4) of the

WFD- are extremely limited;

c. providing much better information on the exemptions for new projects under

Article 4(7); this includes better justifications for the use of these exemptions

by detailing cumulative effects, assessing alternative, more environmentally

friendly options, and giving information on the measures taken to mitigate

possible adverse effects.

7. On monitoring, assessment, data management and reporting, Member States

should:

a. ensure, in cooperation with the Commission and the EEA, timely and more

complete electronic reporting for future cycles, making better use of the

opportunities stemming from digitalisation and earth observation to reduce the

administrative burden and improve accuracy;

b. further improve data quality and comparability by harmonising data

collection methods across all RBDs on monitoring, assessments, projections,

etc. and make all data publicly available via their timely publication in line

with the requirements of the INSPIRE, Open Data and Public Sector

Information (PSI) Directives and the public sector High Value Datasets94 thus

reducing the reporting burden;

c. further strengthen monitoring systems to close gaps in both geographic

coverage and the parameters analysed in order to increase confidence in the

status assessments, reduce reliance on expert judgement or the grouping of

94 (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/138) laying down a list of specific high-value datasets and

the arrangements for their publication and re-use.

39

different water bodies, and complete the work on setting up reference

conditions for all water types;

d. develop methodologies for a more harmonised definition of good ecological

potential to rapidly improve the status of HMWBs and AWBs.

8. Proactively use the new policies and legal instruments agreed in the context of the

European Green Deal to step up implementation efforts that benefit the WFD,

focusing on the co-benefits arising from, amongst others, the revised Urban

Wastewater Treatment Directive, the Industrial Emissions Directive and the new

Nature Restoration Law.

FLOODS DIRECTIVE

1. Member States should continue improving their flood hazard and risk maps

(FHRMs), in particular by:

a. consistently and clearly considering water abstraction areas, recreational

waters and Natura 2000 areas;

b. Taking pluvial flooding into account more, given the increased frequency and

intensity of heavy precipitation;

c. improving the GIS-based FHRM viewers that integrate all relevant information

and are easy for the general public to use.

2. Member States should continue making further efforts to improve their flood risk

management planning, in particular:

a. future FRMPs should provide details on how the FHRMs informed the choice

of objectives and measures;

b. the FRMP’s objectives should be specific, have a deadline where possible

and be linked to quantitative progress indicators;

c. the FRMPs should contain an assessment of the progress made towards

achieving the objectives set in the previous FRMP.

3. To improve the effectiveness of the measures taken, Member States should ensure

that there is a clear link between the FRMP’s objectives and its measures and

provide information on the methods used to prioritise measures. Where possible, a

cost-benefit analysis of measures should be carried out and factored into their

prioritisation. In addition, the FRMP should provide information on the total cost of

the planned measures.

4. The FRMP should set out the methods to monitor progress in concretely

implementing the measures.

5. All Member States should consider future climate scenarios in their FRMPs.

6. All Member States should increase efforts to implement Nature-based Solutions more

widely, either in isolation or in combination with traditional infrastructure.

7. Next to investments for flood prevention and protection, all Member States should

consider the cost of flood events on public budgets; insurance should be considered as

an option for adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

40

8. Provisions for the protection of cultural heritage from flooding risks should

systematically be integrated into the FRMP.

9. On governance, all Member States should clearly set out in their FRMPs how

coordination with the WFD will happen and provide details on the public consultation

and stakeholder involvement, including on how possible comments were taken into

account. Consultations should be aimed to last 6 months.

ET ET

EUROOPA KOMISJON

Brüssel, 2.10.2026

COM(2025) 2 final/2

ADDENDUM

This document replaces COM(2025)2 of 4.2.2025

Concerns all language versions

Insertion of the references to the linked Commission Staff Working Documents

SWD(2026)501 final, SWD(2026)601 final, SWD(2026)602 final, SWD(2026)603 final,

SWD(2026)604 final, SWD(2026)701 final, SWD(2026)702 final and SWD(2026)703 final

The text shall read as follows:

KOMISJONI ARUANNE NÕUKOGULE JA EUROOPA PARLAMENDILE

veepoliitika raamdirektiivi (2000/60/EÜ) ja üleujutuste direktiivi (2007/60/EÜ)

rakendamise kohta

Kolmanda tsükli vesikondade majandamiskavad

Teise tsükli üleujutusriski maandamise kavad

{SWD(2025) 13 final} - {SWD(2025) 14 final} - {SWD(2025) 15 final} -

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

{SWD(2025) 19 final} - {SWD(2025) 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} - {SWD(2026) 501 final} -

{SWD(2026) 601 final} - {SWD(2026) 602 final} - {SWD(2026) 603 final} -

{SWD(2026) 604 final} - {SWD(2026) 701 final} - {SWD(2026) 702 final} -

{SWD(2026) 703 final}

1

1. SISSEJUHATUS

Vesi on eluks ning seega ka meie ühiskonna ja majanduse jaoks hädavajalik. ELi veevarud on

aga endiselt suure surve all, mis on tingitud struktuursetest majandamisvigadest,

jätkusuutmatust maakasutusest, hüdromorfoloogilistest muutustest, reostusest,

kliimamuutustest, kasvanud veenõudlusest ja linnastumisest. Euroopa kliimariskide hindamise

aruandes1 on märgitud, et kliimamuutused suurendavad seda survet ning veega seotud riske

sagedasemate pikaajaliste põudade ja äärmuslike sademete näol, mis ohustavad Euroopa

toiduga kindlustatust, rahvatervist, ökosüsteeme, taristut ja majandust. Alles hiljuti oli

Euroopa taas tunnistajaks sellele, kui tohutut mõju avaldavad veega seotud äärmuslikud

sündmused, põhjustades traagilist inimelude kaotust ja miljardite eurode ulatuses kahju.

2024. aastal esinesid mitmes Vahemere piirkonna riigis pikaajalised põuad, mis mõjutasid

eelkõige Kesk- ja Lõuna-Itaaliat, Loode-Hispaaniat ja Kreekat ning millele järgnesid rängad

üleujutused, mis mõjutasid suuremat osa Kesk- ja Ida-Euroopast ning hiljem ka Itaaliat ja

Hispaaniat.

Kestlik veemajandus, mis on ette nähtud ELi veepoliitika raamdirektiiviga2 ja üleujutuste

direktiiviga,3 on kliimamuutustest, bioloogilise mitmekesisuse vähenemisest ja reostusest

tingitud kolmikkriisi lahendamisel kesksel kohal. See täidab olulist rolli ELi vastupanuvõime

tugevdamisel.

Käesoleva rakendamisaruande vastuvõtmine, mis on komisjoni juriidiline kohustus,4 toimub

otsustaval hetkel, mil arusaam vee tähtsusest kasvab ühiskonna kõigis osades nii ELis kui ka

mujal maailmas. Valdav enamus Eurobaromeetri viimases keskkonnaalases küsitluses5

osalenud ELi elanikest peab saastamist, ületarbimist ja kliimamuutusi põhilisteks vett

ohustavateks teguriteks ning toetab täiendavaid ELi meetmeid veeprobleemide lahendamiseks

Euroopas. Samuti leiavad nad, et peaaegu ükski oluline majandussektor ei tee vee tõhusaks

kasutamiseks piisavaid jõupingutusi. Neid muresid on väljendanud ka ELi institutsioonid ja

sidusrühmad. Euroopa Parlament kutsus üles töötama välja ELi veestrateegia6. Euroopa

Majandus- ja Sotsiaalkomitee ning Regioonide Komitee on kutsunud üles sõlmima „ELi sinist

kokkulepet“7. Strateegilises tegevuskavas aastateks 2024–20298 võttis Euroopa Ülemkogu

kohustuse tugevdada järgmisel ametiajal veemajanduse kriisivalmidust kogu liidus. Ka

erasektor ja kodanikuühiskonna organisatsioonid on üha enam kutsunud üles võtma vee

valdkonnas ELi tasandil täiendavaid meetmeid, nagu nähtub komisjoni kõrgeimale tasandile

1 Euroopa Keskkonnaamet (2024), „European climate risk assessment“. Nr 1/2024,

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-climate-risk-assessment. 2 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 23. oktoobri 2000. aasta direktiiv 2000/60/EÜ, millega kehtestatakse ühenduse

veepoliitika alane tegevusraamistik (EÜT L 327, 22.12.2000, lk 1). 3 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 23. oktoobri 2007. aasta direktiiv 2007/60/EÜ üleujutusriski hindamise ja

maandamise kohta (ELT L 288, 6.11.2007, lk 27). 4 See on nõutav veepoliitika raamdirektiivi artikli 18 ja üleujutuste direktiivi artikli 16 kohaselt. 5 https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3173 6 Euroopa Parlamendi 15. septembri 2022. aasta resolutsioon põua, tulekahjude ja muude äärmuslike

ilmastikunähtuste tagajärgede kohta: suurem ELi panus kliimamuutuste vastasesse võitlusse (2022/2829(RSP)),

ning sellele järgnenud Euroopa Parlamendi täiskogu arutelud. 7 Euroopa Majandus- ja Sotsiaalkomitee koondarvamus „Üleskutse sõlmida ELi sinine kokkulepe“ CCMI/209

(25. oktoober 2023). 8 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/et/european-council/strategic-agenda-2024-2029/

2

saadetud kirjast9. Ülemaailmsel ja rahvusvahelisel tasandil andis tugeva tõuke ÜRO

2023. aasta veekonverents, millel EL esitas oma visiooni selle kohta, kuidas saavutada

2050. aastaks kogu maailmas veealane vastupanuvõime.

Vastuseks neile üleskutsetele teatati 2024.–2029. aasta poliitilistes suunistes järgmisele

Euroopa Komisjoni koosseisule kavatsusest võtta vastu uus Euroopa veemajanduse

kriisivalmiduse strateegia, et tugevdada Euroopa veega kindlustatust, säilitades vee

kvaliteedi ja kvantiteedi ELis ja mujal, suurendades veetööstuse uuenduslikku

konkurentsieelist ning tegeledes veeprobleemide algpõhjustega, nagu saastamine, bioloogilise

mitmekesisuse vähenemine ja kliimamuutuste mõju.

Käesoleva aruande eesmärk on edastada nõukogule, Euroopa Parlamendi uuele koosseisule

ning teistele ELi institutsioonidele ja sidusrühmadele värskeimat teavet vee seisundi,

veevarusid mõjutavate survetegurite ja kõnealuses kahes direktiivis sätestatud

keskkonnaeesmärkide saavutamiseks liikmesriikide poolt võetavate meetmete kohta. Aruanne

annab ELis veega seoses esinevatest probleemidest põhjaliku ülevaate, millest lähtutakse

veemajanduse kriisivalmiduse strateegia väljatöötamisel.

Lisaks, kuna veepoliitika raamdirektiivi kohaselt tuleb 2027. aastaks saavutada kõigi ELi vete

hea seisund, annab käesolev aruanne ainulaadse võimaluse hinnata olukorda kohapeal ja

esitada liikmesriikidele soovitusi jõupingutuste tõhustamiseks. Sama kehtib üleujutuste

direktiivi kohaste üleujutusriski maandamise eesmärkide kohta, mis on aktuaalsemad kui

kunagi varem.

Kuna tegemist on esimese rakendamisaruandega pärast Euroopa rohelise kokkuleppe

vastuvõtmist, on liikmesriikide edusamme hinnatud ELi bioloogilise mitmekesisuse,

nullsaaste ja kliimaga seotud eesmärkide ning üha puhtama ringmajanduse saavutamise

seisukohast. Seetõttu on aruande ülesehituse aluseks liikmesriikide meetmete panus nende

kolme omavahel seotud hädaolukorra lahendamisse.

Aruanne põhineb komisjoni hinnangul liikmesriikide koostatud ja esitatud kolmanda tsükli

vesikondade majandamiskavadele (VMK) ja teise tsükli üleujutusriski maandamise kavadele

(ÜMK) aastateks 2022–202710. Nende kavade aluseks on aastatel 2016–2021 kogutud

seireandmed. See tähendab, et kuigi aruanne avaldatakse pärast rohelise kokkuleppe

vastuvõtmist, kirjeldatakse selles suuresti rohelisele kokkuleppele eelnenud olukorda. See ei

kajasta eeldatavat kasu, mis tuleneb rohelises kokkuleppes sätestatud teedrajavatest

algatustest.

Aruandele on lisatud mitu komisjoni talituste töödokumenti, milles antakse kogu ELi hõlmav

ülevaade veepoliitika raamdirektiivi, sellega seotud direktiivide ja üleujutuste direktiivi

rakendamisest. Aruanne sisaldab hinnanguid konkreetsetele liikmesriikidele ja riigipõhiseid

soovitusi.

Need soovitused on aluseks liikmesriikidega peetavale struktureeritud dialoogile, mille

eesmärk on oluliselt parandada kõnealuste õigusaktide rakendamist, tuginedes arvukatele

suurepärastele tavadele ja saavutustele kogu ELis.

9 Joint-Letter-on-the-Water-resilience-Initiative_-Final-Version-1.pdf (euase.net). 10 Esimese tsükli VMKd hõlmasid aastaid 2009–2015. Teise tsükli VMKd ja esimese tsükli ÜMKd hõlmasid

aastaid 2016–2021.

3

Magevee- ja mereökosüsteemid on omavahel seotud. Jõgede saastatus, settevoogude häired ja

veenappus mõjutavad väga tugevalt mereökosüsteemide, eelkõige rannikualade

ökosüsteemide tervist ning neist ökosüsteemidest sõltuva ühiskondliku ja majandustegevuse,

näiteks transpordi, kalanduse, vesiviljeluse ja turismi elujõulisust. Veepoliitika raamdirektiivi

täiendab merestrateegia raamdirektiiv, milles seatud eesmärkide saavutamiseks tuginetakse

veealastele ja muudele ELi poliitikavahenditele. Tõhusa rakendamise kiirendamiseks soovib

komisjon edendada integreeritumat ja sidusamat lähenemist magevee- ja mereveealaste

õigusaktide rakendamisele kooskõlas nn allikast-merre-lähenemisviisiga11. Seetõttu on

käesolev aruanne tihedalt seotud hinnangutega liikmesriikide poolt merestrateegia

raamdirektiivi alusel vastu võetud teise tsükli meetmeprogrammidele ja avaldatakse nendega

samal ajal. Erilist tähelepanu on pööratud tegevuse koordineerimisele kõnealuste direktiivide

rakendamisel ning seostele veepoliitika raamdirektiivi kohaste meetmete ja merestrateegia

raamdirektiivi eesmärkide saavutamise vahel.

2. VMKDE JA ÜMKDE VASTUVÕTMISE JA ESITAMISE HETKESEIS

Kuigi liikmesriigid pidid oma kavad vastu võtma 2022. aasta märtsiks, tegid paljud neist seda

kahjuks hilinemisega. Seetõttu algatas komisjon kohtumenetluse kõigi liikmesriikide vastu,

kes õigusaktidest tulenevaid nõudeid rikkusid. Isegi käesoleva hindamise lõpuleviimise ajaks

ei olnud kõik liikmesriigid oma VMKsid ja ÜMKsid vastu võtnud ja komisjonile esitanud12.

Neid riike või piirkondi seetõttu käesolevas aruandes ei käsitleta.

Seitse liikmesriiki, keda käesolev VMKde hindamine ei hõlma, on Bulgaaria, Küpros,

Kreeka, Malta, Portugal, Sloveenia ja Iirimaa ning kuus liikmesriiki, keda käesolev ÜMKde

hindamine ei hõlma, on Bulgaaria, Küpros, Kreeka, Malta, Portugal ja Slovakkia. Nende

riikide VMKde ja ÜMKde andmed avaldatakse Euroopa Keskkonnaameti Euroopa

veeteabesüsteemi (WISE) platvormil13 pärast seda, kui nad on oma kavad elektrooniliselt

esitanud. Lisaks koostavad komisjoni talitused riigipõhised töödokumendid, mis sisaldavad

hinnangut kavadele ja riigipõhiseid soovitusi. Andmed lisatakse ka 2026. aasta nullsaaste

seire- ja väljavaatearuandesse ning neid võetakse arvesse ELi elurikkuse strateegia ja

kliimamuutustega kohanemise strateegia rakendamisega seotud töös.

3. METOODIKA NING ANDMETE VÕRRELDAVUSEGA SEOTUD KAALUTLUSED

VMKd ja ÜMKd on põhjalikud dokumendid, mis sisaldavad sadu kuni tuhandeid lehekülgi

ning mis avaldatakse riigikeeles. Nende hindamine, mis hõlmab enam kui 20 keeles esitatud

ulatusliku teabe töötlemist, on väga keeruline ja töömahukas ülesanne. Komisjoni hinnangute

11 Allikast-merre-lähenemisviis tähendab sellise juhtimiskorra sisseseadmist, mis suurendab koostööd ja sidusust

kogu allikast-merre-süsteemi ulatuses ning vähendab põhiliste voogude (vesi, reostus, setted, materjalid, elustik,

ökosüsteemi teenused) muutumist ning mille tulemuseks on magevee-, ranniku-, kaldavee-, ülemineku- ja

merekeskkonna mõõdetav paranemine majanduslikus, sotsiaalses ja keskkonnamõõtmes. Selle lähenemisviisiga

käsitletakse kogu allikast-merre-süsteemi, rõhutades keskkonnaalaseid, sotsiaalseid ja majanduslikke seoseid

üles- ja allavoolu ning stimuleerides tegevuse koordineerimist sektorite ja segmentide vahel. 12 Bulgaaria, Küpros, Kreeka, Malta ja Portugal ei esitanud käesolevas aruandes sisalduvas hinnangus

arvessevõtmiseks määratud tähtajaks (30. september 2023) oma VMKsid ega ÜMKsid. Sloveenia ja Iirimaa

esitasid ainult ÜMKd ning Slovakkia esitas ainult VMKd. Hispaania ei esitanud Kanaari saarte VMKsid. 13 https://water.europa.eu/freshwater.

4

kvaliteet sõltub liikmesriikide aruannete kvaliteedist. Mittetäielik või puudulik aruandlus võib

põhjustada ebaõigeid ja/või mittetäielikke hinnanguid.

Elektroonilise aruandluse14 puudumine või WISE andmebaasis15 elektroonilise aruandluse

osaline esitamine mõne liikmesriigi poolt16 muutis hindamise komisjoni jaoks veelgi

keerulisemaks. See olukord on osaliselt tingitud liikmesriikide tehnilistest raskustest Euroopa

Keskkonnaameti aruandlusplatvormi kasutamisel ja osaliselt liikmesriikide ebapiisavatest

edusammudest veeandmete digiteerimisel. Seetõttu pidi komisjon hindamisel tuginema

teabele ja andmetele, mis osaliselt olid kättesaadavad digitaalses, kergesti võrreldavas

vormingus ning osaliselt VMKdest, ÜMKdest ja muudest asjakohastest allikatest käsitsi välja

võetud.

Lisaks eeltoodule tuleks käesoleva aruande lugemisel silmas pidada, et praeguste, 2022.–

2027. aasta VMKde hindamise tulemuste võrreldavust eelmise perioodi (2016–2021)

tulemustega piiravad mitmesugused tegurid, mis on järgmised.

1) Mõni liikmesriik on osa oma veekogudest olulisel määral ümber liigitanud ja ümber

piiritlenud ning mõnel juhul on selle tulemuseks veekogude koguarvu märkimisväärne

muutumine.

2) Kuna seiresüsteemide geograafiline katvus on liikmesriikides märkimisväärselt

paranenud, on vähenenud varem teadmata seisundiga veekogude arv.

3) Lisaks on kasvanud liikmesriikide seireprogrammides käsitletavate ainete arv17 ning

mõned kvaliteedistandardid on alates eelmisest aruandest muutunud rangemaks.

Riikide erinevad lähenemisviisid selliste saasteainete kindlaksmääramisele ja seirele, mis ei

ole probleemiks kogu ELis, vaid ainult mõnes paigas (nn vesikonnaspetsiifilised saasteained),

võivad hinnangut suurel määral mõjutada. Ühise saasteainete kogumi kõrval seiratakse mõnes

riigis palju rohkem täiendavaid saasteaineid kui teistes.

4. MILLINE ON ELI VEEKOGUDE SEISUND?

Käesolevas aruandes esitatud hinnang kolmanda tsükli VMKdele hõlmab 20 liikmesriiki ning

ligikaudu 90 % ELi pinnaveekogudest (jõed, järved ning ülemineku- ja rannikuveed) ja

sarnase protsendi ELi põhjaveekogumitest (ehk ligikaudu 97 000 pinnaveekogu ja 15 000

põhjaveekogumit).

Lisateavet Euroopa veekogude seisundi kohta leiab Euroopa Keskkonnaameti selleteemalisest

2024. aasta aruandest,18 mis avaldati 15. oktoobril 2024. Tuleb siiski tähele panna, et Euroopa

14 Elektroonilise aruandluse vormi ja aruandlussuunised töötasid liikmesriigid, sidusrühmad ja komisjon välja

ühiselt koostööprotsessi raames, mida nimetatakse ühiseks rakendusstrateegiaks. 15 https://water.europa.eu/freshwater. 16 Itaalia, Saksamaa ja Belgia puhul põhines analüüs mittetäielikul elektroonilisel aruandlusel, mida täiendasid

mõne VMK kohta PDF-vormingus esitatud andmed. Kuna Taani, Soome, Ungari, Luksemburg, Poola, Slovakkia

ja Rootsi kas ei esitanud andmeid elektrooniliselt või tegid seda palju hiljem pärast PDF-dokumentide esitamist,

põhineb nende riikide puhul analüüs ainult (või peamiselt) PDF-dokumentidel. 17 Mõni liikmesriik on seisundi hindamiseks seiranud ja käsitlenud mitte ainult 2013. aastal lisatud 12 uut

prioriteetset ainet (kuigi selle nõude täitmise tähtaeg on alles 22. detsembril 2027), vaid lisaks ka aineid, mis

kuulusid algselt kindlaks määratud 33 prioriteetse aine hulka ja mida nad varem ei käsitlenud, kuigi oleks

pidanud käsitlema.

5

Keskkonnaameti aruanne hõlmab teistsugust ja veidi väiksemat liikmesriikide rühma

(19 liikmesriiki), kuna selle aluseks on üksnes platvormil WISE esitatud elektroonilised

andmed.

Liikmesriikide teadmised veekogude seisundi kohta on kasvanud. Seiresüsteemide

geograafiline katvus on enamikus liikmesriikides oluliselt paranenud ning hõlmatud

bioloogiliste ja keemiliste veekvaliteedielementide arv on suurenenud. Samuti on suurenenud

liikmesriikides seiratavate prioriteetsete ainete19 arv20 ja mõnel juhul on kvaliteedistandardid

pärast viimast aruannet muutunud rangemaks. Sellele vaatamata esineb mõnes liikmesriigis

teatavate ainete seires endiselt lünki21 ning liikmesriikide poolt prioriteetsete ainete seireks

kasutatavate meetodite erinevuste tõttu ei pruugi tulemused alati olla võrreldavad.

Liikmesriigid teavad oma veekogude omaduste ja seisundi kohta varasemast märksa rohkem.

Varem tundmatuid või avastamata jäänud probleeme on nüüd hakatud avastama ja mõnikord

selgub selliste avastuste tõttu, et vee seisund on halb22. Ometi on 20 hinnatud liikmesriigist

kolmes liikmesriigis valdav enamus pinnaveekogusid endiselt teadmata keemilise seisundiga,

ehkki veepoliitika raamdirektiivi jõustumisest on möödunud üle kahe aastakümne. Need on

Leedu (94,6 % pinnaveekogudest teadmata seisundiga), Taani (92,5 %) ja Eesti (82,7 %).

Samal ajal näitab hindamine selgelt, et kuigi veepoliitika raamdirektiiviga on ette nähtud

teatavad ühised seireelemendid, on liikmesriikide seiretavad ja -sagedus ning mõõdetavad

parameetrid väga erinevad. See on suur probleem seisundile antud hinnangute võrreldavuse

seisukohast.

Lisaks nendele erinevustele ja vaatamata edusammudele esineb ökoloogilise seisundi seires

endiselt suuri puudujääke nii ruumilise katvuse kui ka hinnangute usaldusväärsuse osas.

Samavõrd tähelepanuväärne on asjaolu, et parameetrite empiirilise seire asemel kasutavad

liikmesriigid väga sageli eksperdihinnangut või ekstrapoleerimist sarnase surve all olevate

veekogude rühmale.

Milline on pinnaveekogude ökoloogiline seisund või ökoloogiline potentsiaal?

Komisjon järeldab, et kolmanda tsükli VMKdes (2022–2027) esitatud ja peamiselt aastatest

2016–2021 pärinevate andmete põhjal näivad 39,5 % Euroopa pinnaveekogudest olevat heas

ökoloogilises seisundis või hea ökoloogilise potentsiaaliga23. See näitaja on ligikaudu sama

(39,1 %) kui see, millest samad riigid teatasid teise tsükli VMKdes (2016–2021), milles

18 Euroopa Keskkonnaameti aruanne 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). 19 Ained, mis põhjustavad veekeskkonnale või veekeskkonna kaudu märkimisväärset ohtu ning mis on loetletud

keskkonnakvaliteedi standardite direktiivis (muudetud 2013. aastal) ja põhjaveedirektiivis. 20 Mõni liikmesriik on seisundi hindamiseks seiranud ja käsitlenud mitte ainult 2013. aastal lisatud 12 uut

prioriteetset ainet (kuigi selle nõude täitmise tähtaeg on alles 22. detsembril 2027), vaid lisaks ka aineid, mis

kuulusid algselt kindlaks määratud 33 prioriteetse aine hulka ja mida nad varem ei käsitlenud, kuigi oleks

pidanud käsitlema. 21 Kõige sagedamini jäävad seirest välja lühiahelalised klooritud parafiinid. Teised ained, mida kõik

seireprogrammid ei hõlma, olid diuroon, kinoksüfeen ja tributüültina. VMKdest saadud tagasiside kohaselt oli

nende ainete väljajätmine peamiselt tingitud analüüsimise tehnilistest probleemidest või analüüsimiseks vajalike

standardite puudumisest. 22 Setetes ja elusliikides esineva saaste seire pikaajalise suundumuse hindamiseks on liikmesriikides ja

liikmesriigiti endiselt erinev ning suures osas puudulik. 23 Hea ökoloogiline potentsiaal on eesmärk, mis tuleb saavutada oluliselt muudetud veekogude ja tehisveekogude

puhul.

6

kasutati peamiselt 2009.–2015. aasta andmeid24. See on kooskõlas nitraadidirektiivi alusel

tehtud järeldustega, mille kohaselt on kogu ELis eutrofeerunud 36 % jõgedest, 32 %

järvedest, 31 % rannikuvetest, 32 % üleminekuvetest ja 81 % merevetest25.

Joonis 1. Muutus hinnangus ELi pinnaveekogude ökoloogilisele seisundile esimese, teise ja

kolmanda tsükli VMKde põhjal (allikas: platvorm WISE Freshwater ja andmekaeve PDF-

dokumentidest)

Kui mõnes liikmesriigis on täheldatud olukorra mõningast paranemist, siis teiste

liikmesriikide esitatud andmete kohaselt ei ole hea või väga hea ökoloogilise seisundi või

ökoloogilise potentsiaaliga pinnaveekogude osakaal kasvanud või on koguni oluliselt

vähenenud. Heas ökoloogilises seisundis või hea ökoloogilise potentsiaaliga veekogude arvu

märkimisväärsest vähenemisest teatasid Poola (–22,9 %), Leedu (–15,5 %), Slovakkia (–

14,9 %), Tšehhi (–13,3 %), Horvaatia (–9,1 %) ja Eesti (–7,6 %). Vähenemine võib suuresti

olla tingitud sellest, et eelmise tsükliga võrreldes on nende riikide teadmised ja arusaam oma

veekogude seisundist muutunud märksa paremaks.

Kuigi heas või väga heas ökoloogilises seisundis veekogude osakaal kasvas üldiselt vähe, on

julgustav, et võrreldes VMKde kahe eelmise tsükliga (2009–2015 ja 2016–2021) on teatavad

bioloogilised ja keemilised kvaliteedinäitajad paranenud. See võib kajastada varasemate

meetmete rakendamise positiivset mõju. Nimelt nähtub Euroopa Keskkonnaameti hiljutisest

2024. aasta aruandest26 veekogude seisundi kohta, et järvedes on paranenud fütoplanktoni,

põhjataimestiku ja selgrootute seisund ning jõgedes ja üleminekuvetes on märgatavalt

paremaks muutunud selgrootute põhjaloomade seisund. Kuigi see osaline paranemine on

tähelepanuväärne, ei piisa sellest veekogude üldise seisundi paranemiseks ning sellega seotud

tervise- ja keskkonnariskide vähenemiseks. Lisaks jäetakse selline osaline paranemine

enamasti tähelepanuta, kuna veepoliitika raamdirektiivi kohaselt kohaldatakse põhimõtet

„kõik või mitte midagi“, mis tähendab, et veekogu on heas seisundis ainult siis, kui kõiki

bioloogilisi ja keemilisi kvaliteedielemente hinnatakse vähemalt „heaks“.

24 Andmed platvormilt WISE Freshwater (https://water.europa.eu/freshwater). 25 Vt Euroopa Komisjoni 2021. aasta aruanne nitraadidirektiivi rakendamise kohta, lk 5, https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ET/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC1000. 26 https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/europes-state-of-water-2024

7

See osaline ja tähelepanuta jäetud paranemine võib vähemalt osaliselt selgitada seda, miks

kolmanda tsükli VMKdes (mis hõlmavad aastaid 2022–2027) esitatud hinnang ökoloogilisele

seisundile on võrreldes eelmise aruandega, milles hinnati teise tsükli VMKsid (mis hõlmasid

aastaid 2016–2021), üldiselt vähe paranenud. Lisaks teadmiste ja täpsuse suurenemisele,

millele viidati eespool, võib edusammude vähesus olla tingitud ka aluseks olevate

survetegurite võimalikust suurenemisest, meetmete ebapiisavusest ja kavandatud meetmete

rakendamise aeglusest.

Seda arvesse võttes ei ole üllatav, et enamik liikmesriike märkis, et nad ei looda saavutada

2027. aastaks kõigi oma veekogude head ökoloogilist seisundit või head ökoloogilist

potentsiaali.

Liikmesriigid on teinud märkimisväärseid edusamme veekogude eri liikide jaoks

võrdlustingimuste27 kehtestamisel. Need tingimused on vajalikud selleks, et panna paika

võrdlusalused ning mõõta inimtegevuse mõju bioloogilistele, füüsikalis-keemilistele ja

hüdromorfoloogilistele elementidele. Lisaks on ELi tasandil tehtud suuri edusamme tänu

interkalibreerimisele,28 millega ühtlustatakse hea ökoloogilise seisundi riiklikud

klassifikatsioonid. ELi tasandil esineb ühtlustamisel siiski veel puudujääke, mis

raskendavad üldisele seisundile antud hinnangute võrdlemist.

Milline on pinnaveekogude keemiline seisund?

Hea keemilise seisundi saavutamine näitab liikumist nullsaaste saavutamise poole.Sarnaselt

eelmisele aruandlustsüklile on pinna- ja põhjavee vahel väga suur erinevus, kusjuures viimane

on sageli paremini kaitstud.

Kolmanda tsükli VMKdes esitatud teabest nähtub, et 2021. aastal oli heas keemilises

seisundis vaid 26,8 % pinnaveekogudest, samas kui 2015. aastal oli selliseid veekogusid

33,5 %. See näib osutavat veekogude seisundi märkimisväärsele halvenemisele.

Kui mõningates liikmesriikides on heas seisundis pinnaveekogude osakaal võrreldes

2015. aastaga jäänud samaks või veidi kasvanud, siis mõnes teises liikmesriigis on see

vähenenud, mõnel juhul oluliselt. Viimane kehtib näiteks Leedu (–98,7 %), Soome (–49,5 %),

Poola (–34,2 %), Tšehhi (–29,9 %), Madalmaade (–29,8 %), Slovakkia (–26,3 %), Horvaatia

(–11,4 %) ja Läti (–10,6 %) kohta.

Olukorra halvenemine võib suuresti olla tingitud paremast seirest ja parematest teadmistest

üldlevinud püsivate, bioakumuleeruvate ja toksiliste ainete kohta, suurtest muutustest

veekogude piiritlemisel ja rangematest standarditest mõne aine puhul.

Pinnaveekogude puhul tuleneb märkimisväärne nõuetele mittevastavus peamiselt üldlevinud

püsivatest, bioakumuleeruvatest ja toksilistest ainetest. Kõige levinumad neist ühenditest on

elavhõbe ja polütsüklilised aromaatsed süsivesinikud. Neid esineb juba suurtes kogustes,

mis tulenevad nii jääk- kui ka uuest reostusest, mis satub jätkuvalt veekeskkonda

fossiilkütuste ja muude kütuste põletamisel õhku eralduvate saasteainete tõttu. Veel ühe

27 Veepoliitika raamdirektiivis on ökosüsteemi võrdlustingimused määratletud kui tingimused, mis valitsevad

siis, kui inimtegevusest tingitud häiringud (praktiliselt) puuduvad. 28 ELT L, 2024/721, 8.3.2024: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2024/721/oj.

8

üldlevinud püsivate, bioakumuleeruvate ja toksiliste ainete suure rühma moodustavad

polübroomitud difenüüleetrid, mida kasutatakse laialdaselt värvides, plastides, mööbli

vahtpolstris, tekstiilides, ehitusmaterjalides ja tööstusprotsessides. Nendel „tavapärastel

kahtlusalustel“ on keemilise seisundi klassifitseerimisele väga suur mõju, sest keskkonna

võime ise end nendest väga sagedastest ja püsivatest saasteainetest puhastada on piiratud.

Ilma nende üldlevinud püsivate, bioakumuleeruvate ja toksiliste ühenditeta oleks hea

keemilise seisundi saavutanud 81 % pinnaveekogudest, mis on ligikaudu sama protsent kui

eelmises aruandlustsüklis.

Muud ained, mis põhjustavad keskkonnakvaliteedi standardite ületamist ega võimalda

saavutada head keemilist seisundit, on liikmesriigiti erinevad. Üldlevinud ainete hulka, mille

tõttu ei saavutata head seisundit, kuuluvad aga endiselt sageli metallid (näiteks plii,

kaadmium ja nikkel, mis on tavaliselt seotud kaevandamisjäätmetega, olme- ja

tööstusreoveega ning asulate äravooluveega), biotsiidid ja pestitsiidid (tributüültina,

kloropürifoss) ja mõned püsivad orgaanilised saasteained (näiteks heksaklorobenseen),

ehkki mõne sellise aine kasutamine on juba aastaid keelatud.

Tuleb märkida, et üldlevinud püsivad, bioakumuleeruvad ja toksilised ained on jätkuvalt ka

põhjus, miks 80 % merealadel ei suudeta saavutada merestrateegia raamdirektiivi kohast hea

keskkonnaseisundi eesmärki saastatuse seisukohast29.

Joonis 2. Muutus hinnangus ELi pinnaveekogude keemilisele seisundile esimese, teise ja

kolmanda tsükli VMKde põhjal (kõik ained, sealhulgas üldlevinud püsivad, bioakumuleeruvad

ja toksilised ained) (allikas: platvorm WISE Freshwater ja andmekaeve PDF-dokumentidest)

29 Komisjoni aruanne „Esimene nullsaaste seire- ja väljavaatearuanne. Puhtama õhu, vee ja mulla saavutamise

viisid Euroopas“ (COM(2022) 674 final, 8.12.2022).

9

Joonis 3. Muutus hinnangus ELi pinnaveekogude keemilisele seisundile teise ja kolmanda

tsükli VMKde põhjal (üldlevinud püsivaid, bioakumuleeruvaid ja toksilisi aineid arvesse

võtmata) (allikas: platvorm WISE Freshwater ja andmekaeve PDF-dokumentidest)

Milline on põhjaveekogumite keemiline seisund?

Kolmanda tsükli VMKdes esitatud teabe põhjal oli 2021. aastal 86 % põhjaveekogumitest

heas keemilises seisundis. Seega on olukord mõnevõrra paranenud, võttes arvesse, et

2015. aastal oli see näitaja sama riikide rühma puhul 82,2 %.

Kõige sagedamini teatatud saasteained, mis põhjustavad halba keemilist seisundit, on

nitraadid30.Need pärinevad peamiselt intensiivsest põllumajandusest ja loomakasvatusest,

kus kasutatakse ebaõigesti või ülemääraselt väetisi ja läga/sõnnikut, mis sisaldavad

lämmastikku ja fosforit. Nii on see 17 liikmesriigi puhul 20st. Ainult Eesti, Läti ja Leedu ei

ole teatanud, et nitraadid on põhjus, mille tõttu ei saavutata põhjavee head keemilist seisundit.

Pestitsiidide ja nende metaboliitide tõttu ei saavutata head keemilist seisundit üheksas

liikmesriigis (Austria, Belgia, Tšehhi, Taani, Eesti, Prantsusmaa, Luksemburg, Madalmaad ja

Hispaania). Fosfaat ja ammoonium, mis samuti pärinevad peamiselt intensiivsest

põllumajandusest ja loomakasvatusest, põhjustavad samuti halba keemilist seisundit ja neil on

eriti suur mõju näiteks Slovakkias ja Tšehhis.

Muude ainetena, mille tõttu on väiksem hulk põhjaveekogumeid halvas keemilises seisundis

(mõne liikmesriigi andmete kohaselt alla 10 %), nimetati looduslikult esinevaid saasteaineid,

nagu kloriid, sulfaat, kaalium, raud ja orgaanilise süsiniku kogusisaldus. Tööstuslikke

lahusteid, polütsüklilisi aromaatseid süsivesinikke, metüül-tert-butüüleetrit (mida kasutatakse

peamiselt kütuselisandina) ja anioonseid pindaktiivseid aineid (mida kasutatakse sageli

30 Euroopa Keskkonnaameti andmetel ei ole ELi põhjaveekogumite keskmine nitraadisisaldus alates

2021. aastast märkimisväärselt muutunud (EEA, 2023).

10

seepides ja detergentides) nimetatakse halva seisundi põhjustena harvem (kuid neist teatasid

Soome, Prantsusmaa, Itaalia ja Läti).

Joonis 4. Muutus hinnangus ELi põhjaveekogumite keemilisele seisundile esimese, teise ja

kolmanda tsükli VMKde põhjal (allikas: platvorm WISE Freshwater ja andmekaeve PDF-

dokumentidest)

Põhjaveekogumite kvantitatiivne seisund – kas neis on piisavalt vett?

Samade liikmesriikide rühma põhjaveekogumite kvantitatiivse seisundi võrdlus osutab

olukorra mõningasele paranemisele: kui aastatel 2009–2015 oli heas seisundis 92,4 %

põhjaveekogumitest, siis aastatel 2016–2021 oli selliseid põhjaveekogumeid 95 %. Esitatud

andmed näitavad, et põhjaveekogumite (mis moodustavad suure osa ELi varudest) täitumine

näib enamasti olevat tagatud. Kuigi see võib viidata sellele, et kliimamuutused ei ole ELi

põhjavett (veel) mõjutanud, tuleb rõhutada, et kõik liikmesriigid ei võta piisavalt arvesse

põhjaveest sõltuvate ökosüsteemide vajadusi ning et see 2021. aastal täheldatud olukord ei

kajasta järgnenud – selle sajandi kõige kuivematel – aastatel avaldunud mõju.

Joonis 5. Muutus hinnangus ELi põhjaveekogumite kvantitatiivsele seisundile esimese, teise ja

kolmanda tsükli VMKde põhjal (allikas: platvorm WISE Freshwater ja andmekaeve PDF-

dokumentidest)

11

Käesolevas aruandes käsitletud 20 liikmesriigi vahel on aga märkimisväärsed geograafilised

erinevused (vt joonis 6).

Joonis 6. Ülevaade põhjaveekogumite kvantitatiivsest seisundist 2021. aastal liikmesriikide

kaupa

84 %-l tuvastatud juhtudest ei saavutanud põhjaveekogumid head kvantitatiivset seisundit,

sest põhjaveekihist võetakse rohkem vett, kui selle looduslik täitumisvõime lubaks. Hea

kvantitatiivse seisundi puudumise muude põhjuste hulka kuuluvad soolase vee sissetung

(25 %) ning mõju põhjaveekogumitega seotud veeökosüsteemidele (20 %) ja sõltuvatele

maismaaökosüsteemidele (9 %).

12

Peaaegu kõik kolmanda tsükli VMKd esitanud liikmesriigid31 viisid oma VMKde koostamisel

läbi veebilansi hindamise,32 kusjuures enamik neist hindas ka pikaajalisi suundumusi.

Vastupidiselt põhjaveedirektiivi sätetele ei võta aga liikmesriigid põhjaveekogumite

kvantitatiivse seisundi hindamisel alati arvesse põhjaveega seotud veeökosüsteemide ja

põhjaveest sõltuvate maismaaökosüsteemide vajadusi. See on oluline puudujääk, sest

inimtegevus, mis muudab põhjavee taset, võib oluliselt mõjutada pinnaveekogude seisundit

või kahjustada väärtuslikke ökosüsteeme, näiteks märgalasid.

Liikmesriikide poolt viimases kolmes rakendustsüklis esitatud teabe kohaselt on suur osa

nende põhjaveekogumitest heas kvantitatiivses seisundis. See on aga vastuolus veenappuse

suurenemisega kogu ELis ja täheldatud suurenenud sõltuvusega põhjaveekogumitest, mida

kasutatakse avalike teenuste osutamiseks ja kastmiseks, mis toob kaasa suurema veevõtu33.

See toob esile, kui oluline on, et liikmesriigid kohaldaksid paremini kokkulepitud meetodeid

kvantitatiivse seisundi hindamiseks, arvestades nõuetekohaselt hooajalisi erinevusi ja

kliimamuutuste kiirenevat mõju, tuginedes seejuures vähem ajaloolistele suundumustele ning

võttes täiel määral arvesse põhjavee rolli jõgede ja ökosüsteemide toetamisel. Üksnes

põhjavee tasemel põhinev hindamine ei ole piisav34. Nagu Euroopa Keskkonnaamet on

märkinud, osutab olukord ka sellele, et võib olla vaja seniseid meetodeid muuta.

Mitu liikmesriiki eeldavad olukorra halvenemist, prognoosides, et nende põhjaveekogumite

arv, mille puhul on oht, et 2027. aastaks ei saavutata head kvantitatiivset seisundit, suureneb

mõnel juhul üsna märkimisväärselt (vt joonis 7).

Joonis 7. Nende põhjaveekogumite osakaal, mille puhul liikmesriigid on teatanud ohust, et

2027. aastaks ei saavutata head kvantitatiivset seisundit (ainult elektroonilise aruandluse

esitanud riigid)

31 Välja arvatud Luksemburg, kus see hindamine on käimas. 32 Veebilanss on jaotamiseks kättesaadav veekogus, mille arvutamiseks sissevoolust konkreetsesse vesikonda või

alamvesikonda lahutatakse väljavool. 33 Euroopa Keskkonnaameti andmetel suurenes põhjavee osakaal kogu veevõtus 2000. aasta 19 %-lt

2019. aastaks 23 %-le. 34 Vt ühise rakendusstrateegia juhenddokument nr 18.

13

• Tekstikast 1. Miks on EL ikka veel nii kaugel veepoliitika raamdirektiivi

eesmärkide saavutamisest?

• Veepoliitika raamdirektiivi rakendamine on aastate jooksul järk-järgult parandanud

teadmisi ja arusaamist ELi jõgede, järvede, üleminekuvete, rannikuvete ja

põhjaveekogumite seisundist. Mõningad eespool kirjeldatud suundumused on

osaliselt selgitatavad nende paremate teadmistega.

• Ent nagu põhjalikult dokumenteeriti veepoliitika raamdirektiivi 2019. aasta

toimivuskontrolli35 käigus, on paljud tegurid takistanud (ja takistavad siiani) selle

direktiivi tõhusat rakendamist ning kuulunud põhjuste hulka, miks on edasiliikumine

alates direktiivi vastuvõtmisest olnud üldiselt aeglane. Need tegurid on järgmised:

o survetegurite ja liikmesriikide konkreetsetele oludele vastava juhtimisraamistiku

loomiseks vajalike jõupingutuste hilinenud kindlakstegemine või alahindamine;

o veekogudele avalduva üldise surve ebapiisav vähendamine, eriti sellise surve puhul,

mis on seotud hajureostusega (erinevalt punktreosuse vähendamisel saavutatud

suhtelisest edust) ja elupaikade seisundi halvenemisega (millega seoses oleks väga vaja

võtta taastamismeetmeid, et tegeleda minevikust tuleneva survega, sealhulgas

hüdromorfoloogiliste muutuste ja jääkreostusega);

o aeglus tulemuslike poliitikameetmete rakendamisel, mille põhjus on asjaolu, et sageli

ei põhine liikmesriikide meetmeprogrammid piisaval määral survetegurite ja mõjude

analüüsil, vaid neis kaldutakse tuginema lihtsatele tehnoloogilistele lahendustele, mis

on suunatud punktreostusele, kuid jätavad teised reostusallikad suuresti tähelepanuta;

o asjaomaste poliitikameetmete vähene sidusus – veekogude hea seisund sõltub olulisel

määral ka veealaste eesmärkide integreerimisest teistesse poliitikavaldkondadesse,

nagu põllumajandus, energeetika ja transport;

35 SWD(2019) 439 final, lk 116.

14

o vee hea seisundi saavutamise meetmed ei ole erinevalt muust majandustegevusest

prioriteetsed;

o valdav tuginemine põhimeetmetele,36 mitte veepoliitika raamdirektiivi eesmärkide

saavutamiseks piisavas ulatuses rakendatavatele täiendavatele meetmetele;

o aeg, mis loodusel kulub meetmetele reageerimiseks, enne kui saavutatakse eeldatud

tulemused;

o üha tuntavam kliimamuutuste mõju (st veetemperatuuri tõus);

o puudulik rahastamine ja piiratud haldussuutlikkus.

5. JUHTIMINE JA VALDKONDADEVAHELISED ASPEKTID

Asjakohane juhtimine on liikmesriikide keerukate veemajandussüsteemide tõrgeteta

toimimiseks hädavajalik, sest need süsteemid sõltuvad mitme erineva haldustasandi ja

mõjutatud osapoolte kaasamisest. Kõik liikmesriigid on määranud iga valglapiirkonna jaoks

pädevad asutused. Nende piirkondadega tegelevad sageli mitu ametiasutust, kes vastutavad

VMKde eri aspektide eest. Samuti on kõik liikmesriigid määranud pädevad asutused

üleujutuste direktiivi rakendamiseks. Need võivad erineda veepoliitika raamdirektiivi alusel

määratud asutustest ning mõningates liikmesriikides ei lange üleujutuste direktiivi kohaselt

määratud majandamisüksused kokku valglapiirkondade jaoks määratud üksustega.

Kooskõlas üleujutuste direktiiviga on paljud liikmesriigid märkinud, et ÜMKd ja VMKd

töötati välja koordineeritult ja mõnel juhul samaaegselt37. Enamik liikmesriike korraldas oma

VMKde ja ÜMKde koostamisel ühise konsulteerimise38 ning mõni liikmesriik koondas need

kaks kava üheks kavaks. Merestrateegia raamdirektiivi kohaste meetmeprogrammide osas on

olukord liikmesriigiti selgelt ebaühtlasem. Vaid üksikute liikmesriikide puhul oli veepoliitika

raamdirektiivi ja merestrateegia raamdirektiivi kohaste meetmeprogrammide väljatöötamine

selgelt koordineeritud nii protsessi, sisu kui ka samadele surveteguritele reageerimiseks

võetavate meetmete sidususe osas. Paralleelne merestrateegia raamdirektiivi kohane aruandlus

teise tsükli meetmeprogrammide kohta39 osutab samuti vähesele koordineerimisele. Seega on

tegemist valdkonnaga, kus liikmesriigid peavad suurendama jõupingutusi, et rakendada

allikast-merre-lähenemisviisi.

Kuigi koordineerimismehhanismid on üldiselt olemas, ei ole need enamasti piisavad selleks,

et tagada eri valitsemistasandite tegevuse täielik koostoime ja asjakohane kooskõla (näiteks ei

ole piisavalt ühtlustatud lähenemisviise veepoliitika raamdirektiivi rakendamisele riigi

tasandist madalamal tasandil). Koordineerimine muu valdkondliku poliitikaga (nt

põllumajandus, energeetika) on samuti ebapiisav, eriti meetmete osas, mis on vajalikud kõige

olulisemate survetegurite kõrvaldamiseks. Kuigi veepoliitika raamdirektiivi ja muude

keskkonnaalaste õigusaktide nõuetekohase rakendamise ja täitmise tagamise eest vastutavad

pädevad keskkonnaasutused, on oluline tagada veepoliitika raamdirektiivi eesmärkide

tõhusam integreerimine muudesse poliitikavaldkondadesse ja rahastamisvahenditesse (nagu

36 Eelkõige asulareovee puhastamise direktiiv ja nitraadidirektiiv, mis on veepoliitika raamdirektiivi kohastes

meetmeprogrammides esitatud „põhimeetmetena“. 37 21 liikmesriigist 15 esitasid oma ÜMKdes kindlad tõendid selle kohta, et koordineerimine veepoliitika

raamdirektiiviga oli tagatud, ning ülejäänud 6 liikmesriiki esitasid vähemalt mõningaid tõendeid. 38 15 liikmesriiki teatasid ühiskonsultatsioonidest ÜMKde ja VMKde kavandite üle; eelmises tsüklis oli selliseid

liikmesriike 13. 39 Komisjoni aruanne nõukogule ja Euroopa Parlamendile komisjoni hinnangu kohta liikmesriikide

meetmeprogrammidele, mida on ajakohastatud direktiivi 2008/56/EÜ artikli 17 alusel (COM(2025) 3), ja sellega

seotud komisjoni talituste töödokument (SWD(2025) 1).

15

ühine põllumajanduspoliitika). See tähendab, et ühise põllumajanduspoliitika raames

toetatavad sekkumised tuleb viia kooskõlla VMKde meetmetega.

Enamik liikmesriike on teinud märkimisväärseid jõupingutusi, et suurendada üldsuse

osalemist ja sidusrühmade aktiivset kaasamist oma VMKde ja ÜMKde väljatöötamisse,

kasutades mitmesuguseid konsultatsioonikanaleid ja -mehhanisme. Üldiselt oli enamikus

liikmesriikides kaasatud suur hulk sidusrühmi. Paljudes kavades ei selgitata siiski, kuidas

neilt saadud teavet arvesse võeti ja kas isikuid, kellega konsulteeriti, teavitati sellest, kuidas

nende seisukohti arvestati. Selline läbipaistev teabevahetus suurendaks kollektiivset omalust

kavade suhtes.

Survetegurid

Kõigis aruandluse esitanud liikmesriikides on kõige olulisemad survetegurid pinnaveekogude

puhul40 järgmised: atmosfäärist sadestumisest tulenev reostus (mis mõjutab 59 %

veekogudest), hüdromorfoloogilised muutused (57 %), mis tulenevad kuivendamisest ja

kastmisest põllumajanduses, hüdroenergiast, üleujutuste eest kaitsmisest, laevandusest või

joogiveega varustamisest, ning põllumajandusest lähtuv reostus (32 %). Muud peamised

survetegurid kogu ELis on asulareovee ärajuhtimine (14 %), kanalisatsioonisüsteemiga

ühendamata reovee ärajuhtimine (9 %) ja veevõtt (9 %) mitmel eesmärgil. Muud VMKdes

kõige sagedamini nimetatud survetegurid on asulate äravooluveest (8 %), reovee ülevoolust

(5 %) ja tööstusrajatiste heitest (6 %) tulenev reostus. Tuleks tähele panna, et sama veekogu

võivad mõjutada mitu survetegurit, mistõttu kogusumma ei ole 100 %.

Kahjuks avaldab 13 %-le ELi veekogudest endiselt mõju tuvastamata inimtekkeline surve,

mistõttu selles valdkonnas tuleks teadmisi suurendada. Märkimisväärse surve puudumine on

kindlaks tehtud vaid 10 % aruandluses kajastatud veekogude puhul.

Nii ELi41 kui ka üksikute riikide jaoks probleemsete invasiivsete võõrliikide surve Euroopa

magevee- ja mereökosüsteemidele kasvab, nagu kinnitavad mitmed autorid42. Vaatamata

otsesele mõjule, mida need liigid võivad avaldada hea ökoloogilise seisundi saavutamisele,

näib see surve olevat alahinnatud ja see on kindlaks määratud ainult 2,2 % aruandluses

kajastatud veekogude puhul. Teave invasiivsete võõrliikide ja probleemi lahendamiseks

võetavate meetmete kohta on VMKdest väga sageli puudu või pole see kuigi üksikasjalik.

Esitatud teabe kohaselt ei ole 71 % ELi põhjaveekogumitest märkimisväärse surve all, kuid

mitmesugused survetegurid mõjutavad peaaegu 30 % neist. Need survetegurid on eelkõige

põllumajandusest lähtuv hajureostus (näiteks pestitsiidid ja väetised), mis mõjutab 59 %

mõjutatud põhjaveekogumitest, ning veevõtt ühisveevärgi tarbeks (25 %), põllumajanduse

tarbeks (22 %), tööstusliku kasutuse tarbeks (12 %) ja muudel eesmärkidel (12 %). Suurt

survet avaldavad ka hajureostus muudest allikatest, eriti asulate äravooluveest (16 %) ja

kanalisatsioonivõrguga ühendamata reovee ärajuhtimisest (6 %), aga ka saastatud või

mahajäetud tööstusaladelt pärinev reostus (17 %) ja jääkreostus (13 %).

40 Vastavalt platvormi WISE Freshwater andmetele, mis hõlmavad 20st liikmesriigist 18 liikmesriiki, mille kohta

olid andmed 2024. aasta juuni seisuga elektrooniliselt kättesaadavad. 41 Loetletud Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 22. oktoobri 2014. aasta määruses (EL) nr 1143/2014 looduslikku

tasakaalu ohustavate võõrliikide sissetoomise ja levimise ennetamise ja ohjamise kohta. 42 Näiteks Cid, N. ja Cardoso, A. C., 2013, „European freshwater alien species“ (Global Freshwater Biodiversity

Atlas, atlas.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu) kohaselt on invasiivsete võõrliikide arv mageveekogudes viimase

100 aasta jooksul seitsmekordistunud.

16

Meetmeprogrammid

Kui analüüsida meetmeprogramme, mida liikmesriigid on kohustatud koostama nende

survetegurite vältimiseks või piiramiseks, avaneb eripalgeline pilt.

Märkimisväärne hulk teise tsükli VMKdes välja kuulutatud meetmeid jäi rakendamata. Nagu

varemgi, on kõige olulisema takistusena nimetatud meetmete ebapiisavat rahastamist (86 %),

millele järgnesid ootamatud viivitused (81 %), asjakohaste riigisiseste mehhanismide

puudumine, näiteks veel vastu võtmata riigisisesed õigusaktid ja muud meetmed (70 %) ning

juhtimisprobleemid (57 %). Olulise probleemina mainitakse regulaarselt ka raskusi teatavate

meetmete rakendamiseks vajaliku maa omandamisel.

2022.–2027. aasta VMKdes esitatud kolmanda tsükli meetmeprogrammidest nähtub, et

liikmesriikide lähenemisviisid meetmeprogrammide kavandamisele ja esitamisele on endiselt

erinevad. Meetmeprogrammid sisaldavad sageli üsna pikka meetmete loetelu, kuid ei näi

hõlmavat mitut põhielementi. Eelkõige puudub selge hinnang selle kohta, millised

puudujäägid tuleb hea seisundi saavutamiseks kõrvaldada. Samuti puudub piisav teave selle

kohta, kuidas meetmed on nõutava tasuvusanalüüsi alusel tähtsuse järjekorda seatud. Sageli

puudub kavandatud meetmete maksumust ja rahastamist käsitlev teave. Kuna liikmesriigid

väidavad sageli, et neil esineb raskusi rahastamisel, viitab see sellele, et meetmeprogrammide

rakendamiseks vajalikud vahendid ei ole alati eelnevalt tagatud. See vähendab

meetmeprogrammide tulemuslikkust.

6. PLANEEDI KOLMIKKRIISI LAHENDAMINE

6.1. JÕGEDE, JÄRVEDE, RANNIKUVETE JA PÕHJAVEE NULLSAASTE

SAAVUTAMINE

6.1.1 Mida tehakse põllumajandusest lähtuva reostuse tõkestamiseks?

Põllumajandusest lähtuv hajureostus on üks peamisi ELi veekogusid mõjutavaid

survetegureid, mille kõik teabe esitanud liikmesriigid on kindlaks teinud peaaegu kõigis

valglapiirkondades ning mis mõjutab nii pinna- kui ka põhjaveekogumeid. Selle põhjuseks on

peamiselt mittesäästvad maakasutusviisid ning ühelt poolt lämmastikku sisaldavate väetiste ja

läga/sõnniku liigne ja ebaõige kasutamine, mis põhjustab nitraatide sattumist vette, ning

teiselt poolt pestitsiidide ja muude ohtlike ainete kasutamine. Nagu on märgitud eespool

2. jaos, on nitraadid kõige sagedamini põhjaveekogumites esinevad saasteained ning nad

põhjustavad ka pinnaveekogude eutrofeerumist. See on kooskõlas ELi merepiirkondade

toitainekoormuse kohta tehtud järeldustega, mille kohaselt on põllumajandus suurim

lämmastikuallikas kõigis piirkondades peale Musta mere43. Fosfori puhul on pilt

nüansirikkam: peaaegu kõigis merepiirkondades on suurimaks fosforiallikaks reovesi ja teisel

kohal on põllumajandus.

Kuigi võrreldes 1990. aastatega on täheldatud olukorra märkimisväärset paranemist ning

enamik liikmesriike ja põllumajandustootjaid on teinud suuri jõupingutusi, et vähendada

toitainete kadu vette, osutavad magevee kvaliteedi andmed, et tulemused püsivad samal

43 Aruanne merestrateegia raamdirektiivi rakendamise kohta (europa.eu).

17

tasemel. See näitab, et toitainesisalduse vähenemise suundumuse taastamiseks on vaja

radikaalsemaid meetmeid, mida võib olla poliitiliselt raske vastu võtta. Senised meetmed ei

ole nitraadidirektiivi ja veepoliitika raamdirektiivi eesmärkide saavutamiseks ikka veel

piisavad, kuigi nende direktiivide vastuvõtmisest on möödunud vastavalt peaaegu 35 ja

25 aastat. Seda võib täheldada ka merekeskkonnas, eelkõige Läänemeres, kus probleemse

toitainesisaldusega rannikuvete osakaal on merepiirkondade seas suurim (58 %).

Eutrofeerumist esineb ka Põhjamere lõunaosas, piki Prantsusmaa looderannikut ja Vahemeres

jõgede suudmete lähedal. Samal ajal on Läänemeres ja Mustas meres täheldatud ulatuslikke

hapnikuvaegusega alasid, mille põhjuseks on eutrofeerumine, looduslikud tingimused ja

kliimamuutuste mõjust tingitud kõrgem veetemperatuur.

Seda stagnatsiooni võib seletada asjaoluga, et enamikus liikmesriikides on tehtud vähe

edusamme puudujääkide kvantitatiivsel hindamisel, mille alusel saab määrata kindlaks

toitainetest ja pestitsiididest tuleneva surve vähendamise viisid. Komisjon esitas sellise

soovituse eelmises tsüklis, kuid vähesed liikmesriigid on esitanud toitainekoormuse

vähenemise näitajad ja veelgi vähem liikmesriike on teatanud seni võetud meetmete

tulemuslikkuse hindamisest.

Samal ajal võib selge ja julgustava suundumusena täheldada, et ELis kasvab järjepidevalt

mahepõllumajanduslikult kasutatava põllumajandusmaa osakaal, mille tulemuseks on

tavaliselt väiksem toitainete ja pestitsiididega saastumine. Selle suundumuse tempo on

liikmesriigiti siiski erinev, ulatudes ligi 30 %st põllumajandustoodangust Austrias alla 1 %ni

Maltal (vt joonis 8).

Joonis 8. Mahepõllumajanduslikult kasutatava põllumajandusmaa osakaal 2022. aastal

liikmesriikide kaupa (allikas: Eurostat, 2024)44

44 Mahepõllumajandus ELis: 2022. aastal 16,9 miljonit hektarit – Eurostat (europa.eu).

18

Põhimeetmed on enamasti kehtestatud, kuid mitte kõik liikmesriigid ei hinda, kas kavandatud

meetmed on hea seisundi järkjärguliseks saavutamiseks piisavad. Liikmesriigid, kus

puudujääki on hinnatud, on teatanud, et meetmed ei võimalda kõrvaldada puudujääki sel

määral, mis on vajalik toitainete ja pestitsiididega saastumise vähendamiseks 2027. aastaks.

See on kooskõlas komisjoni varasemate järeldustega, sealhulgas nitraadidirektiivi alusel

tehtud järeldustega.

Peale selle piirduvad kohustuslikud meetmed nendega, mis tulenevad asjakohastest ELi

õigusaktidest45 ja 2014.–2022. aasta ühise põllumajanduspoliitika (ÜPP) raames

kohaldatavatest nõuetest (keskkonnanõuetele vastavus ning kliimat ja keskkonda säästvate

põllumajandustavade kasutamine).

Paljud liikmesriigid näivad kehtestavat pestitsiidide kasutamisele piiranguid peamiselt siis,

kui on vaja parandada joogivee võtmiseks kasutatavate veekogude seisundit. Nende

veepoliitika raamdirektiivi rakendamisest tulenevate kohustuslike nõuete täitmist

põllumajandustootjate poolt võib ÜPP raames toetada nn veepoliitika raamdirektiivi

rakendamise toetustega, kuid seda võimalust kasutatakse endiselt liiga vähe46.

Rakendatud on mitut vabatahtlikku meedet, mida sageli toetatakse ÜPP, eelkõige

põllumajanduse keskkonna- ja kliimakohustuste47 kaudu, ning muid liikmesriikide maaelu

arengu programmides (2014–2022) sisalduvaid asjakohaseid meetmeid. Need meetmed koos

rakendatud põhimeetmetega ei ole siiski olnud piisavad, et vähendada nitraatidest ja

pestitsiididest tulenevat survet. Selle põhjuseks võisid olla mitmesugused tegurid, sealhulgas

nende vabatahtlike meetmete ülesehitusest tulenevad olemuslikud piirangud, nende meetmete

ebapiisav planeerimine, vähene rakendamine põllumajandustootjate poolt või vähene

rakendamine kõige enam mõjutatud piirkondades.

Esitatud teabe põhjal ei ole kõiki teise tsükli VMKdes välja kuulutatud

põllumajandusmeetmeid kavakohaselt rakendatud. Probleemidena on välja toodud ebapiisav

rahastamine ja viivitused.

ÜPP 2023–2027 rakendamisel eeldatakse aktiivsemat tegutsemist nitraatidest ja pestitsiididest

tuleneva saaste vähendamise nimel48. See hõlmab tõhustatud tingimuslikkuse49 standardeid,

näiteks mulla majandamisele esitatavaid rangemaid nõudeid (nt

külvikorrad/mitmekesistamine, puhverribad) ja uut nõuet, mis on seotud fosfaatide

45 Eelkõige nitraadidirektiiv, määrus taimekaitsevahendite turulelaskmise kohta (määrus (EÜ) nr 1107/2009),

pestitsiidide säästva kasutamise direktiiv (2009/128/EÜ). 46 Neli liikmesriiki (Austria, Taani, Luksemburg ja Hispaania) pakkusid selliseid toetusi oma maaelu arengu

programmide (2014–2022) raames ning viis liikmesriiki (Austria, Taani, Itaalia, Luksemburg ja Hispaania) on

kajastanud need toetused oma ÜPP strateegiakavades aastateks 2023–2027. Need toetused on peamiselt seotud

väetiste ja pestitsiidide kasutamise piiramise/keeluga joogivee kaitsealadel ning Taani puhul rannikuäärsetes

valgalades lämmastiku vähendamise meetmetega. 47 Maksed keskkonna- ja kliimasõbralike põllumajandustavade rakendamise mitmeaastaste kohustuste eest, mis

ületavad kohustuslikke nõudeid. 48 Vt ÜPP strateegiakavade (2023–2027) kaardistamine ja analüüs

(file:///C:/Users/faltech/Downloads/mapping%20and%20analysis%20of%20cap%20strategic%20plans-

KF0323354ENN%20(3).pdf). 49 Tingimuslikkus tähendab, et ÜPP raames täiemahulise toetuse saamine sõltub keskkonna, kliimamuutuste,

rahvatervise, taimetervise ja loomade heaoluga seotud põhistandardite järgimisest põllumajandustootjate ja teiste

toetusesaajate poolt. Põhistandardid hõlmavad kohustuslikke majandamisnõudeid ning maa heas põllumajandus-

ja keskkonnaseisundis hoidmise nõudeid (HPK nõuded).

19

hajureostusallikate kontrollimisega. Maaelu arengu rahastamise vahendid50 (põllumajanduse

keskkonna- ja kliimakohustused, sealhulgas mahepõllumajandus, investeeringute toetamine,

veepoliitika raamdirektiivi rakendamise toetused, koolitus/nõustamine, innovatsioon ja

koostöö) on jätkuvalt kättesaadavad ning neid on täiendatud keskkonna- ja kliimasõbralikke

tavasid toetavate ökokavadega; liikmesriigid peavad eraldama nende kavade jaoks vähemalt

25 % Euroopa Põllumajanduse Tagatisfondi vahenditest51. Ökokavadega ning põllumajanduse

keskkonna- ja kliimakohustustega seotud toetus hõlmab muu hulgas toitainete paremat

majandamist52 ja pestitsiidide säästvat kasutamist53.

Ükski liikmesriik ei kasuta pinnavee hea ökoloogilise seisundi hindamiseks toitainesisalduse

läviväärtuseid ning ainult mõni liikmesriik määrab kindlaks toitainekoormuse vajaliku

vähendamise asjaomases vesikonnas ülesvoolu. Nagu eespool märgitud, mõjutab see ka

merestrateegia raamdirektiivis sätestatud eesmärkide saavutamist, kuna liikmesriikide poolt

merestrateegia raamdirektiivi artikli 8 kohaselt 2018. aastal esitatud andmete põhjal ei

saavutanud 87 % merealadest eutrofeerumise osas hea keskkonnaseisundi eesmärki.

6.1.2 Mida tehakse teistest sektoritest lähtuva reostuse vastu võitlemiseks?

Reostus, mis pärineb sellistest sektoritest nagu asulad, tööstus või energeetika, kujutab

endast samuti ohtu veekeskkonnale ja keskkonna kaudu inimeste tervisele.

Põhimeetmed nendest sektoritest lähtuva reostuse vastu võitlemiseks on üldjuhul kehtestatud.

Need hõlmavad loasüsteeme punktallikatest lähtuva reoveeheite kontrollimiseks, reoveeheite

registreerimist, otse põhjavette juhtimise keelamist või piiramist ja/või erimeetmeid

prioriteetsetest ainetest ja muudest ainetest tuleneva saaste kõrvaldamiseks või

vähendamiseks.

Enamikul juhtudel on rakendatud erimeetmeid, et tegeleda saasteainetega, mille tõttu on

veekogude hea keemiline või ökoloogiline seisund jäänud saavutamata. Nende meetmete

hulka kuuluvad näiteks jõupingutused teatavate saasteainete vette laskmise vähendamiseks

või peatamiseks ning saastatud alade tervendamine setete, põhjavee ja pinnase varasema

reostuse kõrvaldamise teel. Kõigi riikide VMKd ei ole aga ühtviisi üksikasjalikud, st kõigis

kavades ei ole üksikuid aineid sõnaselgelt seostatud konkreetsete meetmetega reostuse

vähendamiseks. Selles valdkonnas on vaja rohkem edasi liikuda ja teha puudujääkide analüüs,

et saada teavet meetmete kavandamiseks.

Kõik liikmesriigid esitasid andmikud kahjulike ainete heite, keskkonda laskmise ja

kadude kohta. Asjaomaste mürgiste ainete hõlmatus ja andmike täielikkus oli liikmesriikide

siseselt ja liikmesriigiti aga väga erinev. Kümme heiteinventuuridega kõige sagedamini

hõlmatud peamist ainet on elavhõbe, benso(a)püreen, fluoranteen, benso(g,h,i)perüleen

(polütsüklilised aromaatsed süsivesinikud), nikkel, plii ja kaadmium (raskmetallid) ja

50 Euroopa Maaelu Arengu Põllumajandusfond (EAFRD), vrd määrus (EL) nr 1305/2013. 51 Vt määruse (EL) 2021/2115 artikli 97 lõiked 1 ja 2. 52 Toitainete majandamise parandamisele suunatud põllumajandustavade toetamine on kavandatud 15,2 %

ulatuses ELi põllumajandusmaast. 53 27 % ELi põllumajandusmaast on kavas hõlmata kohustustega, millega tagatakse pestitsiidide säästev

kasutamine, et vähendada pestitsiididega kaasnevaid riske ja mõju, näiteks pestitsiidide leket.

20

nonüülfenool (mitteioonne pindaktiivne aine), perfluorooktaansulfoonhape (per- ja

polüfluoroalküülainete liik) ja tributüültina-katioon (väga mürgine biotsiid).

Enamik liikmesriike on teatanud reoveepuhastusjaamade ehitamise või ajakohastamisega

seotud põhimeetmetest, tunnistades, et asulareovee puhastamise direktiivi järgimiseks on vaja

teha täiendavaid jõupingutusi. Praegu kogutakse ja puhastatakse 82 % ELi asulareoveest

kooskõlas ELi standarditega.

Muudetud asulareovee puhastamise direktiivi rakendamine vähendab asulareoveest tulenevat

saastet veelgi. See direktiiv sisaldab uusi eeskirju reovee ülevoolu ja asulate äravooluvee

kohta, mis aitavad liikmesriikidel tulemuslikumalt vähendada neid survetegureid, mida ELi

õigusaktides varem ei käsitletud.

Kuigi veepoliitika raamdirektiiv ei hõlma prügist, sealhulgas plastist tulenevat reostust, on

tegemist olulise valdkonnaga, kus tuleb tagada koostoime merestrateegia raamdirektiiviga,

sest väga suur hulk plasti satub merre jõgede kaudu. Merestrateegia raamdirektiivi alusel

koostatud meetmeprogrammide hindamisel ilmnes, et liikmesriigid on võtnud mitmeid

meetmeid peamiste prügiallikatega tegelemiseks, alustades tegevusest, mis on seotud

linnapiirkondade reovee ja muude maismaapõhiste allikatega (nt tööstus ja põllumajandus).

Nende meetmete tulemusena vähenes rannaprügi kõigis ELi merepiirkondades aastatel

2015–2021 hinnanguliselt 29 %. Neil meetmetel on tõenäoliselt olnud positiivne mõju ka

jõgedele, järvedele ja rannikuvetele.

Arvestades märkimisväärset survet, mida veekogude seisundile avaldab jätkuvalt sadestumine

atmosfäärist, on veepoliitika raamdirektiivi eesmärkide saavutamiseks endistviisi esmatähtsad

tekkekohas võetavad meetmed, millega vähendada fossiilkütuste kasutusest tulenevat

saasteainete, sh üldlevinud püsivate, bioakumuleeruvate ja toksiliste ainete heidet, järgides

lõimitud lähenemisviisi saastele eri keskkonnaelementides, nagu on soovitatud nullsaaste

tegevuskavas. Sellega seoses oodatakse, et hiljuti läbivaadatud välisõhu kvaliteedi direktiivi

alusel vastu võetud rangemad standardid, läbivaadatud tööstusheidete direktiiv,

elavhõbedamääruse tõhus rakendamine ja ELi üldised dekarboniseerimisjõupingutused

avaldavad positiivset mõju mõningate selliste üksikute ainete heite vähendamisele, mis

jõuavad veekeskkonda õhkuheite kaudu.

6.2 JÕGEDE, JÄRVEDE, RANNIKUVETE JA PÕHJAVEEKOGUMITE

TAASTAMINE

6.2.1 Muutused veekogude füüsilistes omadustes ja loomulikus voolus – mil määral on

inimene veesüsteemi sekkunud?

Inimesed on oma tegevusega juba sadu aastaid füüsiliselt muutnud ELi jõgede, järvede,

suudmealade ja rannikuveealade kuju, kõrvaldades nende looduslikke omadusi, ehitades

betoontaristuid (oluliselt muudetud veekogud) ning luues uusi kanaleid ja veehoidlaid

(tehisveekogud). Selle tulemusena on tekkinud uued, mittelooduslikud veesüsteemid.

VMKdest ilmneb, et liikmesriikide vahel on väga suured erinevused selles osas, mil määral

inimene sekkub riigi looduslikku veekeskkonda. Mida intensiivsem on inimsekkumine, seda

enam muudetakse veekogude omadusi ja mõned neist muutuvad täiesti kunstlikuks. Oluliselt

muudetud veekogude ja tehisveekogude osakaal on käesolevas aruandlustsüklis veidi

kasvanud: analüüsis käsitletud 20 liikmesriigis loeti 12,4 % veekogudest oluliselt muudetud

21

veekogudeks ja 4,4 % loeti tehisveekogudeks54; eelmises aruandlustsüklis olid need näitajad

vastavalt 11,9 % ja 4,1 %.

Jooniselt 9 nähtub, et mõningates liikmesriikides (Madalmaad, Ungari, Saksamaa ja Belgia)

on inimsekkumine väga ulatuslik, samas kui mõnes teises liikmesriigis (näiteks Soomes ja

Rootsis) on looduslik seisund hästi säilinud.

Joonis 9. Kolmanda tsükli VMKdes oluliselt muudetud veekogudena või tehisveekogudena

määratletud pinnaveekogude osakaal liikmesriikide kaupa

Kolm liikmesriiki (Austria, Horvaatia, Slovakkia) teatasid oluliselt muudetud veekogude ja

tehisveekogude osakaalu märkimisväärsest suurenemisest, mis näib olevat tingitud teatavate

veekogude ümberliigitamisest ja vähemal määral uutest muudatustest. Lisaks eeldatakse, et

uue metoodika tulemusel suureneb nende veekogude osakaal märkimisväärselt ka Rootsis.

Peamised veekasutusviisid, mille tulemuseks on ulatuslik inimsekkumine, mistõttu veekogud

on liigitatud oluliselt muudetud veekogudeks, on järgmised: i) kaitse üleujutuste eest (37 %);

ii) põllumajandus (maa kuivendamine 23 %, kastmine 15 %); iii) hüdroenergia (21 %);

iv) joogiveega varustamine (11 %) ja v) muu linnaarendus (10 %).

Muudetud omaduste tõttu ei pea sellised veekogud saavutama head ökoloogilist seisundit,

vaid üksnes hea ökoloogilise potentsiaali, mille liikmesriik peab määratlema veepoliitika

raamdirektiivi V lisa nõuete kohaselt.

On julgustav näha, et liikmesriikides on täiustatud metoodikat, mille alusel määratletakse

veepoliitika raamdirektiivis nõutud hea ökoloogiline potentsiaal. Liikmesriigid määratlevad

54 Siiski on veel kolm liikmesriiki, kus määratlemine ei ole lõpule viidud (Horvaatia, Slovakkia) või kus

määratlus on muutmisel (Rootsi).

22

head ökoloogilist potentsiaali siiski erinevalt ning nad kasutavad hindamisel erinevaid eeldusi

ja kriteeriume. Lisaks ei ole mõned liikmesriigid määratlenud kõigi oluliselt muudetud

veekogude head ökoloogilist potentsiaali, mistõttu neil ei ole selgeid eesmärke, mida

saavutada.

Platvormil WISE kättesaadava teabe põhjal nende 16 liikmesriigi kohta, kes jõudsid esitada

elektroonilise aruandluse käesoleva aruande valmimise ajaks,55 on hea ökoloogiline

potentsiaal saavutatud ainult 16,8 % oluliselt muudetud veekogude ja tehisveekogude puhul.

Selle näitaja varju jäävad aga märkimisväärsed erinevused liikmesriikide vahel (kui Belgias ja

Madalmaades pole ühtegi asjaomast veekogu, mis oleks saavutanud hea ökoloogilise

potentsiaali, siis Hispaanias ja Rumeenias on umbes pooled asjaomased veekogud hea

ökoloogilise potentsiaaliga).

6.2.2 Kaitsealad

Teatavad veekogud on erinevatel põhjustel seadusega kaitstud. Pinnaveekogude puhul on

kaitsealad määratud joogiveedirektiivi, suplusveedirektiivi, elupaikade direktiivi,

linnudirektiivi ja nitraadidirektiivi alusel, samuti majanduslikult oluliste veeliikide kaitseks (st

seoses vesiviljelusega). Käesolevas aruandlustsüklis teatas enamik liikmesriike, et muude ELi

õigusaktide alusel määratud kaitsealadega seotud veekogude arv on kasvanud ning et neil on

vastavalt veepoliitika raamdirektiivile loodud kaitsealade ajakohastatud register.

Väga positiivne on see, et nende alade seire näib olevat paranenud (kui mõned erandid

välja arvata), mis on tõenäoliselt seotud veepoliitika raamdirektiivi kohase üldise seire

paranemisega.

Kaitsealadega seotud veekogude puhul võib olla vaja saavutada veepoliitika raamdirektiivis

sätestatud hea seisundi eesmärkidega võrreldes rangemaid või spetsiifilisemaid veemajanduse

eesmärke. See on vajalik selleks, et tagada vastavus asjakohastele õigusaktidele, mille

eesmärk on kaitsta konkreetseid ökosüsteeme, liike ning joogi- ja suplusvett. Selleks võib olla

vaja võtta täiendavaid meetmeid.

Nagu loodusdirektiivides nõutud, on liikmesriigid elupaikade ja liikide kaitsealade (Natura

2000 alade) puhul valdavalt seadnud erieesmärgid, ehkki mõnes liikmesriigis on töö täpsete

vajaduste kindlaksmääramiseks veel käimas. Mõnel juhul on liikmesriigid kehtestanud ka

täiendavaid eesmärke ja meetmeid asulareovee puhastamise direktiivi kohaste tundlike alade,

suplusvee ja joogivee kaitsevööndite jaoks, kuid teave nende eesmärkide ja meetmete kohta

on sageli mõnevõrra üldsõnaline56. Mõnes liikmesriigis, kus on kaubanduslik huvi karpide

tootmise vastu (või harvemini mageveekalade vastu), on määratud majanduslikult oluliste

veeliikide kaitsealad57.Mõni liikmesriik (Horvaatia, Madalmaad ja Rumeenia) on

kehtestanud karbialade jaoks samad eesmärgid, mis olid sätestatud karpe käsitlevates

direktiivides, mis on vahepeal kehtetuks tunnistatud58. Üks liikmesriik (Prantsusmaa)

55 Kättesaadav 31. maiks 2024. 56 Elupaikade ja liikide kaitsealade puhul teatasid mõned liikmesriigid meetmetest, teised aga viitasid selgelt

asjaomaste direktiivide (linnudirektiiv ja elupaikade direktiiv) kohastele kaitsekorralduskavadele. Mõnel juhul

eeldatakse nende kaitsealade puhul, et veepoliitika raamdirektiivi kohase hea seisundi saavutamine on

täiendavate eesmärkide saavutamiseks piisav. 57 Need riigid on karpide puhul Horvaatia, Prantsusmaa, Itaalia, Madalmaad, Poola, Rumeenia ja Hispaania ning

mageveekalade puhul Horvaatia, Itaalia ja Läti. 58 Endine Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiv 2006/44/EÜ kalade elu tagamiseks kaitset või parandamist

vajava magevee kvaliteedi kohta ning Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 12. detsembri 2006. aasta direktiiv

23

kohaldab kõigi nende alade puhul kehtetuks tunnistatud direktiividega võrreldes teistsuguseid

mikrobioloogilisi standardeid. Itaalia ja Hispaania kohaldavad mõnel alal samu standardeid,

teistel aladel aga teistsuguseid standardeid. Poola puhul on standardeid puudutav teave

ebaselge.

Kus täiendavad eesmärgid on seatud, on need enamasti saavutatud joogivee kaitsevööndite,

karpide kaitsealade ja suplusvee puhul, samas kui Natura 2000 alade jaoks seatud

eesmärkidest on saavutatud vaid väike osa.

Kahjuks näib, et peaaegu üheski liikmesriigis ei too kaitsealade määramine endaga kaasa

veekogude üldise seisundi oodatud paranemist. Vastupidi – andmed näitavad, et

kaitsealadega seotud ja halvas seisundis veekogude arv on võrreldes eelmise tsükliga

kasvanud, nagu on kirjeldatud joonisel 10. Osaliselt võib see olla tingitud teadmata

seisundiga alade arvu märkimisväärsest vähenemisest. Samas kinnitab see ka väheseid

edusamme loodusdirektiivide rakendamisel võrreldes perioodiga 2013–2018, mida hinnati

2020. aasta looduse olukorda käsitlevas aruandes. Aruandest selgus, et hea kaitsestaatus oli

ainult 17 % kaitsealustest jõe-, järve-, lammi- ja kaldaelupaikadest ning et valdava osa

kaitsealuste kalade ja kahepaiksete liikide kaitsestaatus oli mitterahuldav või halb (vastavalt

80 % ja 60 % populatsioonist)59. See osutab, et kaitsealade määramine ei taga ikka veel

paremat veemajandust, mis on vajalik nende alade pinna- ja põhjavee kaitsmiseks.

Joonis 10. Kaitsealadel asuvate veekogude seisund teise ja kolmanda tsükli VMKde andmete

põhjal (allikas: elektrooniline aruandlus kolmanda tsükli VMKde kohta)

2006/113/EÜ karpide elukeskkonna vee nõutava kvaliteedi kohta, mille kehtivus lõppes 2013. aastal.

Veepoliitika raamdirektiivi kohaselt tuleks kõnealuste kehtetuks tunnistatud direktiividega ette nähtud kaitsetase

säilitada, lisades kalu ja karpe käsitlevate direktiivide alusel määratud alad veepoliitika raamdirektiivi kohaste

kaitsealade hulka. 59 „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.

24

6.2.3 Mida tehakse hüdromorfoloogiliste survetegurite vähendamiseks ja looduse

taastamiseks?

Esitatud teabe kohaselt kujutavad füüsilised ja hüdroloogilised muutused endast

märkimisväärset survetegurit peaaegu kõigis valglapiirkondades. Seda suurt survet

põhjustavad sektorid on põllumajandus (nii kastmine kui ka kuivendamine), hüdroenergia,

kaitse üleujutuste eest, laevandus ja joogiveega varustamine.

Kõik liikmesriigid on teatanud meetmetest, mille eesmärk on vähendada

hüdromorfoloogiliste survetegurite negatiivset keskkonnamõju, parandades voolurežiimi

ning tagades jõevoolu tõkestamatuse ja ökoloogilise vooluhulga jõgedes. See hõlmab

kalapääsude rajamist, vanade ja amortiseerunud tõkete lammutamist, jõgede taastamist

kaldaalade ja lammide parandamise teel ning jõekallaste loodusliku seisundi taastamist.

Näiteks vabaühenduste koalitsiooni „Dam Removal Europe“ hiljutise aruande60 kohaselt

kõrvaldati 2023. aastal 15 Euroopa riigis 487 tõket ehk 2022. aasta rekordsuure arvuga

võrreldes 50 % rohkem. Teerajajaks näib olevat Prantsusmaa, kellele järgnevad Hispaania,

Rootsi, Taani ja Eesti. Tänu nendele meetmetele võib olla võimalik luua 25 000 km ulatuses

vaba vooluga jõelõike, mis on ELi elurikkuse strateegia ja hiljuti vastu võetud looduse

taastamise määruse61 raames seatud eesmärk aastaks 2030. Sellele vaatamata on jõgede

killustumine ning kaitsealuste vee-elupaikade ja -liikide ning veest sõltuvate elupaikade ja

liikide, eelkõige märgalade ja lammide seisundi halvenemine ELis endiselt suur probleem.

Kõik jõgedel asuvad tõkked ei ole küll seotud hüdroenergia tootmisega, kuid

hüdroelektrijaamad avaldavad ökoloogilisele seisundile mitmes liikmesriigis jätkuvalt väga

suurt survet, kuna nad takistavad jõevoolu tõkestamatust ning see mõjutab oluliselt kalade

rännet ja suremust ja põhjustab muutusi hüdroloogiliste voolude ja setete liikumises. Üldiselt

tuleks uute hüdroelektrijaamade ehitamisele eelistada olemasolevate hüdroelektrijaamade

renoveerimist, sealhulgas kõigile kasulike lahenduste abil, mis võivad aidata kaasa

veepoliitika raamdirektiivi eesmärkide saavutamisele. Tuleks teha täiendavaid jõupingutusi

tagamaks, et selliste elektrijaamade tegevus oleks säästvam ja kohandatud vastavalt

muutuvatele hüdroloogilistele tingimustele, mis on seotud kiirenevate kliimamuutuste

mõjuga. See hõlmab lubade korrapärast läbivaatamist, sh leevendusmeetmeid

hüdroelektrijaamade käitamise mõju vähendamiseks.

Vaid mõni liikmesriik (Austria, Belgia, Prantsusmaa, Läti, Luksemburg, Poola ja Rumeenia)

on teatanud, et eelistab looduspõhiseid lahendusi muudele meetmetele.

Pinnaveekogude ökoloogilise seisundi kaitsmiseks on oluline määrata kindlaks ja tagada

minimaalsed ökoloogilised vooluhulgad62. Väga murettekitav on aga, et see töö edeneb

paljudes liikmesriikides aeglaselt. Lisaks ei määratleta ökoloogilist vooluhulka ühetaoliselt,

kuigi ELi tasandil on välja antud vastavad suunised. Kui mõningad erandid välja arvata, on

60 New Report: Dam Removal Movement Breaks Barriers and Records – Dam Removal Europe. Andmeid

esitasid ministeeriumid, omavalitsused, veeametid, jõgede kaitsega tegelevad sihtasutused, valitsusvälised

organisatsioonid, teadlased ja jõgede taastamise spetsialistid. 61 ELT L, 2024/1991, 29.7.2024. 62 Veepoliitika raamdirektiivi kontekstis tähendab ökoloogiline vooluhulk hüdroloogilist režiimi, mis võimaldab

saavutada artikli 4 lõikes 1 nimetatud keskkonnaeesmärgid looduslikes pinnaveekogudes. Teisisõnu on tegemist

veehulgaga, mis on vajalik selleks, et veeökosüsteem saaks jätkuvalt hästi toimida ja osutada meile vajalikke

ökosüsteemiteenuseid.

25

ökoloogilise vooluhulga määratlus enamikus liikmesriikides alles väljatöötamisel ning

ökoloogiliste vooluhulkade tegelik tagamine kohapeal edeneb aeglaselt ja sageli ainult mõne

üksiku veekogu puhul. Ökoloogiliste vooluhulkade tagamine näib vaid mõnel juhul olevat

selgelt seotud veevõtulubade andmise ja läbivaatamisega.

6.2.4 Mida teevad liikmesriigid veevõtu vähendamiseks ja veenappuse probleemi

lahendamiseks?

Oluline on eristada põuda (väike sademete hulk) veenappusest (kättesaadava vee hulga ja

veenõudluse süsteemsem tasakaalustamatus). Veenappust peetakse enamikus liikmesriikides

üha kasvavaks probleemiks, kusjuures märkimisväärne osa veekogudest ei ole esitatud

andmete kohaselt saavutanud head kvantitatiivset või ökoloogilist seisundit ülemäärase

veevõtu tõttu63.

Veekasutus on ELi eri piirkondades väga erinev. 2019. aastal64 langes kogu ELi arvestuses

suurim osa kogu aastasest veevõtust elektritootmise jahutusvee arvele (32 %), millele

järgnesid veevõtt põllumajanduse (28 %), ühisveevärgi (20 %) ja töötleva tööstuse tarbeks

(13 %) ning tootmise jahutusvesi (5 %), kusjuures kaevandamine ja ehitus moodustasid

kumbki vaid 1 % veevõtust. Põllumajandus, sealhulgas loomakasvatus, on aga suurim

netotarbija,65 mille veetarbimine moodustas 2019. aastal 59 % ELi veetarbimisest,66 sest

suurema osa võetud veest tarbivad põllukultuurid ja põllumajandusloomad või see aurustub

ega liigu tagasi samasse allikasse, kust see võeti. Muud peamised vett tarbivad sektorid on

töötlev tööstus ja elektritootmine (jahutusvesi, 17 %), kodumajapidamised ja teenused (13 %)

ning kaevandamine, ehitus ja töötlev tööstus (11 %). Euroopa Keskkonnaameti analüüs

näitab, et aastatel 2000–2019 vähenes veevõtt 17,6 %, mis kajastab veepoliitika raamdirektiivi

alusel rakendatud poliitikameetmeid.

Ent kui mõnes sektoris on veevõtt vähenenud, nagu elektritootmise jahutusvee puhul (–27 %),

siis teistes sektorites on see kasvanud. Näiteks jahutusvee võtmine töötleva tööstuse tarbeks

on kasvanud peaaegu kolm korda ja veevõtt ühisveevärgi jaoks on kasvanud 4 %, kusjuures

alates 2010. aastast on toimunud eriti järsk tõus (14 %). Põllumajanduses vähenes veevõtt

2000.–2019. aastal 15 %, kuid alates 2010. aastast on see suurenenud 8 %, peamiselt kasvava

kastmisvajaduse tõttu Lõuna-Euroopas, kus kliimamuutused süvendavad veenappust. Seetõttu

on üha pakilisemaks muutumas vajadus muuta veekasutust, sealhulgas hakata vastavalt

2020. aasta vee taaskasutuse määrusele vett oluliselt paremini taaskasutama, minna üle

põllukultuuridele, mis on piirkonnale omaste hüdroloogiliste tingimustega paremini

kohandunud, ja parandada mulla majandamist. Ilma selliste muudatusteta suureneb

63 Nende 13 riigi seas, mille kohta on teave tänu elektroonilisele aruandlusele kättesaadav, on veevõtt hea

kvantitatiivse või ökoloogilise seisundi saavutamata jäämise põhjuseks põhjavee puhul Hispaanias (25 %),

Ungaris (20 %), Itaalias (19 %), Prantsusmaal (11 %) ja Belgias (11 %) ning pinnavee puhul Prantsusmaal

(17 %), Austrias (12 %), Hispaanias (11 %), Itaalias (9 %) ja Horvaatias (8 %). Teadaolevalt on see oluline

probleem ka Küprosel, Kreekas ja Maltal, kuigi need riigid ei esitanud oma aruandeid. 64 Euroopa Keskkonnaameti analüüs veevõtu kohta aastatel 2000–2019,

https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/water-abstraction-by-source-and. 65 Vastavalt Euroopa Keskkonnaameti aruandele 12/2021 „Water resources across Europe – confronting water stress: an

updated assessment“ tähendab veetarbimine seda osa kasutatavast veest, mida ei tagastata põhja- või pinnavette,

sest see lisatakse toodetesse (nt toit ja joogid) või selle tarbivad ära kodumajapidamised (nt joogivesi) või

kariloomad. 66 Euroopa Keskkonnaameti aruanne 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).

26

märkimisväärselt põllumajandusmaa kastmisega seotud veevajadus ka piirkondades, kus

kastmine on seni olnud piiratud, ja see süvendab veenappust veelgi.

ÜPP 2023–2027 raames toetatakse jõupingutusi veemajanduse kriisivalmiduse

suurendamiseks põllumajanduses. Tingimuslikkust on tugevdatud, lisades muu hulgas uue

nõude,67 mis hõlmab veevõtu kontrolli. Muu hulgas toetatakse liikmesriikide ÜPP

strateegiakavade alusel märkimisväärselt mulla seisundi parandamisele suunatud tavasid,

millel on positiivne mõju veemahutavusele, kusjuures eesmärk on hõlmata sellise toetusega

47 % ELi põllumajandusmaast. Toetada võidakse ka investeeringuid kastmisrajatiste

tõhustamisse, kastmiseks ringlusse võetud vee kasutamisse ja vihmavee kogumisse.

Veenappusest kõige enam mõjutatud piirkondades tuleb siiski ette näha toetus

süsteemsematele ümberkujundavatele muudatustele, mis hõlmavad vähem veemahukate

tootmissüsteemide kasutuselevõtmist.

Joonis 11. Veevõtt majandussektorite kaupa ELi 27 liikmesriigis, 2000–2019 (Euroopa

Keskkonnaamet, 2022)

67 1. kohustuslik majandamisnõue veevõtu ja vee tõkestamise kontrolli ning fosfaatide hajureostuse kontrolli

kohta (veepoliitika raamdirektiivi artikli 11 lõike 3 punktid e ja h).

27

Põhi- ja täiendavad meetmed veevõtu vähendamiseks on üldiselt kavandatud, kuid nende

rakendamine on Euroopas ebaühtlane. Need meetmed keskenduvad veevõtu kontrollile,

veekasutuse tõhususele ja vee taaskasutusele, looduslikule veesidumisvõimele, ökoloogilistele

vooluhulkadele, teadusuuringutele ja teadmiste arendamisele. On tehtud mõningaid

tähelepanuväärseid katseid veetarbimise vähendamiseks, nagu näiteks Prantsusmaa uus

veekava, mille eesmärk on vähendada veevõttu 2030. aastaks 10 % võrra.

Nagu Euroopa Kontrollikoda 2021. aastal teatas,68 on liikmesriigid teinud edusamme veevõtu

eellubade süsteemide, ebaseadusliku veekasutuse avastamise süsteemide ja mõnel juhul

hinnakujundusmehhanismide loomisel, mis võivad veekasutuse tõhusust parandada.

Problemaatiline on aga asjaolu, et enamik liikmesriike teeb väikeses koguses veevõtu korral

kontrollist või registreerimisest erandi. See võib põhjustada paljude jätkuvate

väikesemahuliste veevõttude kumulatiivset mõju kogu vesikonnas, mõjutades negatiivselt

veekogude seisundit, eriti liikmesriikides, kus veenappus on juba praegu probleemiks. Tuues

välja, et mitu liikmesriiki on kehtestanud veehinna kujundamise mehhanismid, mis

stimuleerivad kastmisvee tõhusat kasutamist, pidas kontrollikoda siiski problemaatiliseks

asjaolu, et veehinnad on põllumajanduses märkimisväärselt madalamad kui mujal majanduses

ja lisaks tehakse kastmisvee puhul erandeid.

Veepoliitika raamdirektiivi kohase veevõtulubade läbivaatamise69 sagedus on liikmesriigiti

väga erinev, ulatudes kuuest aastast mitme aastakümneni või isegi määramata ajani. Selles

olukorras on mõnikord võimatu võtta nõuetekohaselt arvesse veekogude muutuvat olukorda,

sealhulgas kliimamuutuste seisukohast. Komisjon tegeleb praegu selliste lubade läbivaatamise

kohustuse täitmise tagamisega, et seda kohusust rakendataks nõuetekohaselt kõigis

liikmesriikides70.

Loata/ebaseadusliku veevõtu probleemi (st veevõtmine kas ilma loata või loa tingimusi

ületades) mainitakse sõnaselgelt ainult nelja liikmesriigi mõnes VMKs. Probleemi olemasolu

on siiski tunnistatud ka mujal Euroopas. Isegi kui sellele probleemile on viidatud, on enamasti

jäetud kvantifitseerimata probleemi praegune ulatus ja suundumused võrreldes teise tsükli

VMKdega. Mõnes neist riikidest tehakse jõupingutusi ebaseaduslike kaevude sulgemiseks, et

vältida selle ühise ressursi ebaseaduslikku omastamist.

Nagu varemgi, keskenduvad paljud liikmesriigid veenappuse probleemi lahendamisel oma

meetmetes veevarustuse suurendamisele. Need meetmed hõlmavad uute kaevude puurimist,

uute tammide ja veehoidlate rajamist, põllumajanduse kastmistaristu laiendamist ning

suuremahuliste veeülekandetaristute ja magestamistehaste ehitamist. VMKd sisaldavad

siiski väga vähe teavet selliste meetmete kohta, sealhulgas nende keskkonnaalase ja

majandusliku elujõulisuse ning pikaajaliste kliimastsenaariumide arvessevõtmise kohta.

68 Eriaruanne 20/2021 „Säästev veekasutus põllumajanduses“. 69 Veepoliitika raamdirektiivi artikli 11 lõike 3 punkti e kohaselt peavad liikmesriigid tegema korrapäraseid

kohustuslikke läbivaatamisi. 70 Sellekohased ametlikud kirjad on saadetud Austriale, Soomele, Madalmaadele ja Sloveeniale; Iirimaa puhul

käsitletakse seda küsimust pikaajalise rikkumismenetluse raames, mis on algatatud veepoliitika raamdirektiivi

mitme sätte, sealhulgas artikli 11 puuduliku ülevõtmise tõttu.

28

6.3 KLIIMAKRIISI LAHENDAMINE

Nagu on märgitud Euroopa kliimariskide hindamise aruandes71 ja nagu komisjon on

tunnistanud oma teatises kliimariskide juhtimise kohta,72 peavad EL ja selle liikmesriigid

märkimisväärselt paremini kliimariskideks valmistuma ja neid tulemuslikumalt vähendama73.

Aina enam on tõendeid selle kohta, et suures osas Euroopast avaldavad kliimamuutused juba

praegu märkimisväärset mõju selliste veega seotud riskide esinemisele ja tõsidusele, nagu

põuad ja üleujutused74. Veemajanduse kriisivalmiduse suurendamine75 veepoliitika

raamdirektiivi ja üleujutuste direktiivi tõhusa rakendamise kaudu on seega Euroopa

kliimamääruse76 ja ELi kohanemisstrateegia77 kliimakerksuseesmärkide saavutamise üks

eeltingimusi. Samas on veepoliitika raamdirektiivi ja üleujutuste direktiivi eesmärke võimalik

saavutada ainult siis, kui kliimamuutuste mõju võetakse täiel määral arvesse.

6.3.1 Kas kliimamuutustele vastupanu võimet ja põuariski juhtimist on nõuetekohaselt

arvesse võetud?

Kuigi veepoliitika raamdirektiivis ei ole sõnaselgelt sätestatud kohustust kohandada VMKd

kliimamuutustega, sobib selle direktiivi kohane etapiviisiline ja tsükliline kavandamisprotsess

hästi kliimamuutuste mõju juhtimiseks kohanduval viisil.

Varasemast suurem arv liikmesriike teatas, et on võtnud kliimamuutuste mõju

süstemaatiliselt arvesse ja püüdnud viia oma meetmeprogrammi kooskõlla oma riikliku

kliimamuutustega kohanemise kavaga. 70 % hinnatud liikmesriikidest (14 liikmesriiki

20st) teatasid, et on saanud valmis analüüsi selle kohta, kuidas kliimamuutused mõjutavad

nende veekogusid. Siiski ei ole sageli selge, kas ja mil määral lähtuti selle analüüsi

tulemustest peamiste survetegurite ja kõige tõhusamate meetmete kindlaksmääramisel.

71 Euroopa Keskkonnaamet (2024), „European climate risk assessment“. Nr 1/2024,

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-climate-risk-assessment. Euroopa on maailmas kõige kiiremini

soojenev maailmajagu. Äärmuslik kuumus muutub üha sagedasemaks, samal ajal kui sademete hulk muutub.

Paduvihmad ja muud äärmuslikud sademed on muutunud üha rängemaks ning viimastel aastatel on mitmes

piirkonnas esinenud katastroofilisi üleujutusi. Lõuna-Euroopas võib aga eeldada sademete hulga

märkimisväärset vähenemist ja tõsisemaid põudasid. 72 Komisjoni teatis Euroopa Parlamendile, nõukogule, Euroopa Majandus- ja Sotsiaalkomiteele ning Regioonide

Komiteele „Kliimariskide juhtimine – inimeste ja heaolu kaitsmine“ (COM(2024) 91 final), https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ET/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52024DC0091. 73 Komisjoni teatis Euroopa Parlamendile, nõukogule, Euroopa Majandus- ja Sotsiaalkomiteele ning Regioonide

Komiteele „Kliimariskide juhtimine – inimeste ja heaolu kaitsmine“ (COM(2024) 91 final), https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ET/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52024DC0091. 74 Temperatuur on Euroopas viimase 30 aasta jooksul tõusnud maailma keskmisega võrreldes üle kahe korra

rohkem – kõigi maailmajagude seas enim: Maailma Meteoroloogiaorganisatsiooni 2022. aasta novembri

aruanne, https://wmo.int/publication-series/state-of-climate-europe-2022, ning „Climate Change 2022: Impacts,

Adaptation and Vulnerability“,

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf. 75 Kliimamuutustele vastupanuvõime tugevdamise vajadust on rõhutatud ELi 2021. aasta kliimamuutustega

kohanemise strateegias ja 2021. aasta Euroopa kliimamääruses. 76 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 30. juuni 2021. aasta määrus (EL) 2021/1119, millega kehtestatakse

kliimaneutraalsuse saavutamise raamistik ning muudetakse määruseid (EÜ) nr 401/2009 ja (EL) 2018/1999

(Euroopa kliimamäärus). 77 COM(2021) 82 final – komisjoni teatis Euroopa Parlamendile, nõukogule, Euroopa Majandus- ja

Sotsiaalkomiteele ning Regioonide Komiteele „Kliimamuutuste suhtes vastupanuvõimelise Euroopa

kujundamine – ELi uus kliimamuutustega kohanemise strateegia“.

29

Kolmanda tsükli VMKdes seostati kliimamuutuste mõju peamiselt põudade ja vee väiksema

kättesaadavusega, ehkki jätkuvalt olid suureks probleemiks ka üleujutused. Enamik

liikmesriike sõnastas need kliimamõjud põllumajandusele (kastmisega seotud riskid),

siseveelaevandusele ja energiatootmisele (hüdroenergia, osaliselt soojusenergia) avalduva

mõju kaudu. See on märkimisväärne erinevus võrreldes teise tsükli VMKdega, kus peamiseks

kliimamõjuks peeti liigset vett (st üleujutusi). See on kooskõlas ka enamikus liikmesriikides

suurenenud murega veenappuse pärast, mida on kirjeldatud eespool jaos 6.2.4. Oluline on, et

kuigi veepoliitika raamdirektiivis selline nõue puudub, teatasid 20st hinnatud liikmesriigist

16, et põuad on märkimisväärne nähtus, ning varasemaga võrreldes suuremal hulgal

liikmesriikides on koostatud või koostamisel riikliku, piirkondliku või valglapiirkonna tasandi

põuaohjekavad.

Kliimamuutused avaldavad mitmes liikmesriigis üha suuremat mõju ka vee kvaliteedile.

Varasemast rohkem liikmesriike on tuginenud artikli 4 lõike 6 kohasele erandile, mida

kohaldatakse juhul, kui hea ökoloogiline seisund jääb ajutiselt saavutamata pikaajalise

põua tõttu.

Mõni liikmesriik (nt Prantsusmaa ja Saksamaa) on hiljuti välja töötanud riiklikud

veestrateegiad, et reageerida põudade sagenemisele. Need täiendavad VMKsid, kuid neid ei

ole liikmesriikide aruannetes arvesse võetud. Need riiklikud strateegiad võivad siiski

sisaldada olulisi lisameetmeid, mida tuleks koos VMKdega ühtselt rakendada.

Mis puudutab kliimamuutuste mõju üleujutusriski maandamisele, siis teise tsükli ÜMKde

ning neile eelnenud kahe etapi78 hindamise tulemused on julgustavad. Kõik liikmesriigid

(esimeses tsüklis vaid pooled liikmesriigid) võtsid teises tsüklis üleujutusriski esialgsel

hindamisel arvesse kliimamuutusi ning peaaegu kõik liikmesriigid (varem samuti vaid pooled

liikmesriigid) käsitlesid kliimamuutusi oma teise tsükli üleujutusohu ja -riski kaartidel, kuigi

üleujutuste direktiivis seda kaartide puhul sõnaselgelt ei nõuta. Kõik 21 hinnatud liikmesriiki

(eelmises tsüklis üle kolmandiku liikmesriikidest) esitasid teise tsükli ÜMKdes tõendeid

kliimamuutuste mõju arvessevõtmise kohta. Peaaegu kõik liikmesriigid (esimeses tsüklis vaid

pooled liikmesriigid) käsitlesid oma ÜMKdes erineva lõpuaastaga (2030–2115)

kliimastsenaariume. Peaaegu kõik liikmesriigid (esimese tsükli ÜMKde puhul vähem kui

pooled liikmesriigid) lõid seose oma riikliku kohanemisstrateegiaga.

6.3.2 Üleujutuste direktiivi alusel tehtud edusammud kliimamuutustele vastupanuvõime

saavutamisel

Üleujutused on liikmesriikide riiklikes riskihinnangutes kõige sagedamini nimetatud risk79.

Nagu on märgitud Euroopa kliimariskide hindamise aruandes, seisab Euroopa silmitsi üha

rohkemate ja suuremate kliimaohtudega, mille hulka kuuluvad tugevad sademed, mis

põhjustavad üleujutusi ja jõgede väljumist kallastest, ning merevee taseme tõus, mis põhjustab

rannikualade üleujutusi.

Alates üleujutuste direktiivi jõustumisest 2007. aastal on kogu ELis tehtud märkimisväärseid

edusamme üleujutusriski maandamisel. ÜMKd on peamine vahend üleujutuste võimalike

kahjulike tagajärgede leevendamiseks ning kujutavad endast üleujutuste direktiiviga

78 Esialgsed hinnangud üleujutusriski kohta ning üleujutusohu ja -riski kaardid. 79 COM(2024) 130 final – komisjoni aruanne Euroopa Parlamendile ja nõukogule liidu elanikkonnakaitse

mehhanismi (otsus nr 1313/2013/EL) artikli 6 rakendamisel tehtud edusammude kohta „Suurõnnetuse riskide

ennetamine ja juhtimine Euroopas“.

30

kasutusele võetud tsüklilise kolmeetapilise protsessi kolmandat etappi. Praegused, teise tsükli

ÜMKd hõlmavad aastaid 2022–2027, nagu ka kolmanda tsükli VMKd. Varem viisid

liikmesriigid läbi kaks ÜMKdele eelnevat etappi, st koostasid teise tsükli esialgsed hinnangud

üleujutusriski kohta80 ning teise tsükli üleujutusohu ja -riski kaardid. Komisjon hindas

mõlemaid81.

Mis puudutab täielikkust, siis kõik 21 liikmesriiki, kes esitasid oma aruandluse käesolevas

hinnangus arvessevõtmiseks õigel ajal, on oma ÜMKdes esitanud taustteabe üleujutusriski

esialgse hinnangu ning üleujutusohu ja -riski kaartide kohta.

Eelmise tsükliga võrreldes on üleujutusriski maandamine hinnatud liikmesriikides paranenud.

Kõik liikmesriigid on seadnud üleujutusriski maandamise eesmärgid. Mõned liikmesriigid on

püstitanud laiemaid eesmärke, mida toetavad konkreetsemad alaeesmärgid, ning teised on

toonud välja mitu varasemast üksikasjalikumat eesmärki. Kõik liikmesriigid on oma kavades

kajastanud eesmärkide saavutamiseks võetavad meetmed.

Mõni liikmesriik on esitanud sihtnäitajad, mis võimaldavad kvantitatiivselt hinnata edusamme

võrreldes eelmise tsükliga. Mitu liikmesriiki on aga toonud välja selge seose kavades

sisalduvate meetmete ja nende meetmetega taotletavate eesmärkide vahel. Kui võrrelda samu

liikmesriike, siis 14 liikmesriigi kavades on selline selge seos olemas, samas kui eelmises

tsüklis oli see nii vaid 7 liikmesriigi puhul.

Kavad kajastavad pigem meetmete rakendamisel edasiliikumist kui üleujutusriski

vähendamise eesmärkidega seotud sihtnäitajate saavutamisel tehtud edusamme. Seega on

raske kindlaks teha, kui tulemuslikult on üleujutusriski kogu ELis maandatud.

ÜMKdes sisalduvate meetmete arv on liikmesriigiti väga erinev – meetmeid võib olla alla 100

ja üle 10 000. Meetmete arv sõltub riigi suurusest, võimaliku olulise üleujutusriskiga alade

hulgast ning sellest, kas meetmed on esitatud ühekaupa või rühmitatult.

Joonis 12. Meetme osakaal liikide kaupa (ennetamine, kaitse, valmisolek, taastamine)

80 ELis on ligikaudu 14 000 võimaliku olulise üleujutusriskiga piirkonda. Ülevaate saamiseks vaadake

üleujutusriskiga piirkondade interaktiivset kaarti aadressil https://discomap.eea.europa.eu/floodsviewer/. 81 Komisjoni hinnangud liikmesriikide teise tsükli esialgsetele hinnangutele üleujutusriski kohta on esitatud

kuuenda rakendamisaruandega seoses avaldatud dokumentides. Komisjoni hinnangud liikmesriikide teise tsükli

üleujutusohu ja -riski kaartidele ning teise tsükli ÜMKdele on esitatud käesoleva seitsmenda

rakendamisaruandega seotud dokumentides,

https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/water/water-framework-directive/implementation-reports_et.

31

Liikmesriikide hulgas on kaks suurt rühma: üks koosneb liikmesriikidest, kes seavad

esikohale ennetus- ja/või valmisolekumeetmed, ning teine liikmesriikide rühm seab esikohale

kaitse. Kuigi teise tsükli ÜMKdes teatatakse endiselt kõige sagedamini kaitsemeetmetest,

moodustavad ennetus- ja valmisolekumeetmed nüüd kõigist ELis rakendatavatest meetmetest

varasemast veidi suurema osa. Mittestruktuuriliste meetmete82 puhul osutatakse kõigis

hinnatud ÜMKdes ruumilisele planeerimisele. Viiteid õigus- või poliitikaraamistikele, mis

seovad ruumilise planeerimise ja üleujutusriski maandamise, leidus siiski vaid 8 liikmesriigi

kavades 21st. Julgustav on näha, et kõik liikmesriigid on oma kõikides või mõningates

ÜMKdes kajastanud looduspõhiseid lahendusi; siiski ei ole veel tõendeid, et liikmesriikides

oleks toimunud märkimisväärset muutust looduspõhiste lahenduste laiaulatuslikus

kasutuselevõtus traditsioonilise taristu asemel või sellega koos. Üleujutuste direktiivis

kindlustust ei mainita, kuid 21st liikmesriigist 12 on sellele vähemalt viidanud. See kinnitab,

et kindlustusel kui riski ülekandmise mehhanismil võiks olla väärtuslik roll kliimamuutustega

kohanemise edendamisel.

See, kuidas liikmesriigid üleujutusriski maandamise meetmeid tähtsuse järjekorda seavad,

kujutab endast positiivset suundumust. Kõik liikmesriigid seadsid meetmed tähtsuse

järjekorda või esitasid nende rakendamise ajakava (esimese tsükli ÜMKdes kõik liikmesriigid

seda ei teinud). Näiteks näitab analüüs, et enamik meetmeid liigitati kolme kõige

prioriteetsemate meetmete kategooriasse (tähtsad, väga tähtsad ja kriitilise tähtsusega

meetmed), st vähemalt 50 % meetmetest 13 liikmesriigis (21 analüüsitud liikmesriigist)

kuuluvad ühte neist kategooriatest. Seevastu märksa vähem liikmesriike teatas meetmete

märkimisväärsest osakaalust kahes kõige väiksema prioriteetsusega kategoorias (keskmiselt

tähtsad ja vähem tähtsad meetmed). Võrreldes esimese tsükliga on teise tsükli ÜMKdes

meetmete kiireloomulisus liikmesriikides veidi vähenenud: kriitilise tähtsusega meetmete

asemel on rohkem väga tähtsaid meetmeid ja väga tähtsate meetmete asemel on rohkem

tähtsaid meetmeid. Samas on kiireloomulisuse osas mõnel juhul toimunud ka nihkeid

ülespoole; peamiselt on vähem tähtsad ja keskmiselt tähtsad meetmed asendunud tähtsate

meetmetega. 21 liikmesriigist 15 on teinud oma meetmete tasuvusanalüüsi, kuid vähesed

liikmesriigid on kasutanud seda analüüsi meetmete tähtsuse järjekorda seadmiseks. Kuna

82 Meetmed, mis ei hõlma tsiviilehitusstruktuure, näiteks teadlikkuse suurendamine, varajase hoiatamise

süsteemide tagamine, katastroofide ennetamise ja neile reageerimise kavad ning ruumiline planeerimine.

32

tasuvusanalüüsi kasutanud liikmesriikide osakaal on enam-vähem sama mis eelmises tsüklis,

on edusammud peamiselt seotud mõnes liikmesriigis rakendatud täiustatud metoodikaga.

Üleujutusriski maandamise vältimatud elemendid on usaldusväärne prognoosimise ja varajase

hoiatamise süsteem elanikkonnakaitse meetmete kiireks aktiveerimiseks ning tugev

reageerimissuutlikkus asjaomaste sündmuste ajal ja järel. Komisjon toetab liikmesriike selles

valdkonnas ELi tasandil võetavate meetmetega, sealhulgas Copernicuse Euroopa

üleujutusteadlikkuse süsteemi kaudu, mis toetab ettevalmistavaid meetmeid enne suuri

üleujutusi ja nende ajal83. Copernicuse kiire kaardistamise teenuse kaudu pakutakse tellitavat

ja kiiret (tundide või päevade jooksul esitatavat) georuumilist teavet ning toetatakse seega

hädaolukorra ohjamise meetmeid õnnetuse toimumise eel ja ajal ning vahetult pärast seda.

Õnnetuse korral võivad liikmesriigid kasutada liidu elanikkonnakaitse mehhanismi, mis on

oluliselt tugevdanud riikide koostööd elanikkonnakaitse valdkonnas ning parandanud

õnnetuste ennetamist, nendeks valmisolekut ja neile reageerimist,84 näiteks õnnetustele

vastupidavusega seotud eesmärkide väljatöötamise kaudu85. Komisjon julgustab Copernicuse

hädaolukordade ohjamise teenuste kasutamist ning edendab saadud kogemuste ja parimate

tavade jagamist liikmesriikide vahel, eriti pärast suuri üleujutusi.

7. SOTSIAAL-MAJANDUSLIKU PÕHJENDATUSE TAGAMINE

Kuivõrd edusammud hea seisundi saavutamisel on piiratud, on suurem osa veekogusid

hõlmatud mitmesuguste veepoliitika raamdirektiivi artiklis 4 sätestatud eranditega86. Tuleb

märkida, et veepoliitika raamdirektiivi artikli 4 lõigetega 4 ja 5 seotud erandite arv on

kasvanud. Selliste erandite põhjendused on üldiselt muutunud paremaks, vastates veepoliitika

raamdirektiivis sätestatud nõudele, mille kohaselt peavad erandid põhinema kohastel, selgetel

ja läbipaistvatel kriteeriumidel. Siiski ei ole kõik liikmesriigid esitanud piisavalt

üksikasjalikku teavet mõjutatud veekogu tasandil ja ainult umbes pooled hinnatud

liikmesriikidest on esitanud piisavad üksikasjad kõigis VMKdes.

Kooskõlas veepoliitika raamdirektiivi artiklitega 9 ja 11 ning III lisaga87 on

veevarustusteenuste majandusanalüüsi ajakohastamine ja esitamine ning

83 Euroopa üleujutusteabesüsteem (EFAS) on esimene Euroopas toimiv süsteem üleujutuste jälgimiseks ja

prognoosimiseks kogu Euroopas. See toetab ettevalmistavaid meetmeid enne suurte üleujutuste toimumist ja

nende ajal. Süsteemi kaudu saavad asjaomased riiklikud ja piirkondlikud ametiasutused täiendavat,

lisaväärtusega teavet. EFAS teavitab ka hädaolukordadele reageerimise koordineerimiskeskust käimasolevatest

ja võimalikest tulevastest üleujutustest kogu Euroopas. Versiooniga EFAS v5.0 tehti süsteemis hiljuti mitu

olulist muudatust, mille hulka kuulub suurem ruumiline eraldusvõime. 84 Aruanne Euroopa Parlamendile ja nõukogule artikli 6 (liidu elanikkonnakaitse mehhanismi) rakendamisel

tehtud edusammude kohta „Suurõnnetuse riskide ennetamine ja juhtimine Euroopas“ 12.3.2024 COM(2024)130

ja SWD(2024)130. 85https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/document/download/7b124199-d4d7-43fe-b852-

8cee69674d19_en 86 Artikli 4 lõike 4 kohaselt on lubatud pikendada hea seisundi või potentsiaali saavutamiseks seatud 2015. aasta

tähtaega (mis on sätestatud artikli 4 lõikes 1). Artikli 4 lõike 5 kohaselt on lubatud saavutada leebemaid

eesmärke. Artikli 4 lõike 6 kohaselt on lubatud veekogude seisundi ajutine halvenemine. Artikli 4 lõikes 7 on

sätestatud tingimused, mille korral võib olla lubatud seisundi halvenemine või veepoliitika raamdirektiivi

eesmärkide täitmata jätmine, et hoida ära pinnaveekogu füüsiliste omaduste uusi muutusi või põhjaveekogumi

taseme muutumist või väga hea seisundi muutumist heaks seisundiks inimeste uue püsiva arendustegevuse

tagajärjel. 87 Veepoliitika raamdirektiivi III lisas on sätestatud, et majandusanalüüs peaks sisaldama piisavalt üksikasjalikku

teavet, milles kirjeldatakse ja põhjendatakse veevarustusteenuste kulude katmise korda ja sellega seotud

33

veevarustusteenuste kulude katmise vahendite, sealhulgas vee hinnakujunduse kasutamine

muutumas VMKde puhul tavapärasemaks. Sellele vaatamata puuduvad aruandluses sageli

selged seosed valglapiirkonna peamiste probleemide ja arengusuundumustega. Seetõttu ei ole

selge, kuidas on majandusanalüüsist lähtutud kulude katmise, hinnakujunduse ja üldisemalt

meetmeprogrammide ülesehitusega seotud valikute tegemisel. Näiteks veevarustusteenuseid

käsitlev aruandlus ei ole kuigi üksikasjalik. Paljudes VMKdes käsitletakse tavaliselt kahte

laialt määratletud veevarustusteenust, nimelt joogiveega varustamist ja kanalisatsiooniteenust;

seetõttu ei tunnustata ega käsitleta nende kategooriate alla kuuluvaid või nendega otseselt

seotud individuaalseid veevarustusteenuseid, nagu näiteks vee säilitamine ja taaskasutamine.

Seepärast on raske saada piisavalt terviklikku ülevaadet riigi veekasutusest, sealhulgas selle

majanduslikust tähtsusest ja kulude katmise võimalusest ning veekogudele avaldatavast

survest.

Võrreldes veepoliitika raamdirektiivi artiklis 9 nõutavate elementidega esineb rakendamisel

veel mõningaid olulisi vajakajäämisi, eelkõige alljärgnevate elementide osas:

• hinnang sellele, kas kehtiv hinnapoliitika „innustab küllaldaselt“ vett tõhusamalt

kasutama;

• hinnang keskkonna- ja ressursikuludele ning nende hõlmamine kulude katmise

korraga;

• hinnang sellele, kas veekasutus ja peamised veekasutussektorid (sealhulgas

põllumajandus, tööstus ja kodumajapidamised) annavad „piisava panuse“

veevarustusteenuste kulude katmisse kooskõlas põhimõttega „saastaja maksab“.

Esitatud andmetes puuduvad sageli üksikasjad keskkonna- ja ressursikulude kohta

ning peamistele veevarustusteenustele (veevarustus ja kanalisatsioon) kõige suuremat

kulusurvet avaldava veekasutuse kohta.

Veepoliitika raamdirektiivi eesmärkide saavutamiseks ja ELi veemajanduse kriisivalmiduse

parandamiseks on vaja teha rohkem investeeringuid. Elektroonilise aruandluse esitanud

liikmesriikide puhul on kättesaadav mõningane teave veepoliitika raamdirektiiviga seotud

rahastamisvajaduste kohta, millest nähtub, et nende liikmesriikide meetmete rakendamiseks

on sageli vaja rahastamist suurendada. See hõlmab täiendavat ELi rahalist toetust. Mõne

elektroonilise aruande puhul (Eesti, Läti ja Madalmaad) on teave siiski kas mittetäielik või

vastuoluline või täiesti puudu. Nende kümne liikmesriigi puhul, mille kohta on teave

kättesaadav, on kumulatiivne rahastamisvajadus aastatel 2022–2027 hinnanguliselt

89,4 miljardit eurot (ligikaudu 15 miljardit eurot aastas), kuid andmete piiratust arvestades on

tegelik summa tõenäoliselt suurem.

Mis puudutab ÜMKde rakendamisega seotud rahastamisvajadusi, siis 16 liikmesriiki

(esimeses tsüklis 10 liikmesriiki) esitasid mõningast teavet meetmete hinnangulise

maksumuse kohta. Aastatel 2022–2027 on see ligikaudu 35 miljardit eurot (ligikaudu

6 miljardit eurot aastas), kuid tegelik summa on tõenäoliselt suurem. Esitatud teabe ulatus ja

üksikasjalikkus on väga erinev ning sageli ei kajasta see teave kõiki meetmeid isegi ühe

liikmesriigi piires.

Kuigi paljud VMKd sisaldavad vähe teavet, väärib märkimist, et ELi rahastamisvahenditel,

sealhulgas ühisel põllumajanduspoliitikal, ühtekuuluvuspoliitikal ning taaste- ja

kohustusi (artikkel 9). Samuti peaks see analüüs aitama otsustada, milline meetmeprogrammiga hõlmatavate

veekasutusega seotud meetmete kombinatsioon on kõige kulutõhusam (artikkel 11).

34

vastupidavusrahastul on olnud oluline roll VMKde ja ÜMKde rakendamise toetamisel kõigis

liikmesriikides. Lisaks pakub komisjon programmi „Euroopa horisont“ kaudu ulatuslikku

toetust teadusuuringute tegemiseks, et täita lüngad teadmistes ja edendada uuenduslike

lahenduste kasutuselevõttu, sealhulgas ookeanide ja mageveekogude missiooni kaudu.

Tehnilise toe instrumendi kaudu toetab komisjon liikmesriike ka veepoliitika reformide

kavandamisel, väljatöötamisel ja rakendamisel.

Analüüs näitab siiski, et ELis tervikuna ei suudeta rahuldada iga-aastast

investeerimisvajadust, mis moodustab hinnanguliselt 77 miljardit eurot aastas, kusjuures

rahastamispuudujääk on praegu hinnanguliselt ligikaudu 25 miljardit eurot aastas88. See

summa põhineb suuresti veevarustuse ja kanalisatsiooniga seotud vajadustel ega pruugi täiel

määral kajastada veepoliitika raamdirektiivi ja üleujutuste direktiivi rakendamisega seotud

muude meetmete kulusid. Kahjuks ei sisalda enamiku liikmesriikide VMKd selget

investeerimisplaani, milles võetakse arvesse viimaste kliimastsenaariumide ja

kohanemisstrateegiate põhjal koostatud pikaajalisi veevarustuse ja -nõudluse prognoose.

Üldisemalt ei nähtu esitatud majandusanalüüsidest selgelt, kuidas lähtuti kulutasuvuse

hindamisest meetmete valimisel meetmeprogrammidesse (mis ideaaljuhul peaksid hõlmama

oluliselt rohkem investeerimismeetmeid). Meetmeprogrammide majandusliku põhjendamise

edendamine aitaks oluliselt lihtsustada veega seotud otsuste tegemist ja suurendada

investeeringuid.

8. VEEPOLIITIKA RAAMDIREKTIIVI JA ÜLEUJUTUSTE DIREKTIIVI KOHANE

PIIRIÜLENE KOOSTÖÖ

Veepoliitika raamdirektiivi kohaselt peavad liikmesriigid koordineerima omavahel tegevust

riigipiire ületavate valglapiirkondade suhtes ja tegema vajaduse korral mõistlikke jõupingutusi

ka koos kolmandate riikidega. Analüüs näitab, et on loodud stabiilne institutsiooniline

raamistik piiriüleste koordineerimismehhanismide rakendamiseks rahvusvahelistes

valglapiirkondades,89 ehkki koostöö tase on erinev. On ka mõningaid näiteid kokkulepetest,

mida on eelmise tsükliga võrreldes veelgi täiustatud.

Suurimate rahvusvaheliste valglapiirkondade puhul on välja töötatud rahvusvahelised VMKd,

mis moodustavad liikmesriikide vahelise koostöö raamistiku. Neis raamistikes keskendutakse

andmete jagamisele, ühistele seire- ja teadusprojektidele, seisundi hindamise ühisele

koordineerimisele, asjakohastele prioriteetsetele näitajatele ja kokkulepitud läviväärtustele.

Selline koostöö näitajate ja läviväärtuste osas ei tähenda siiski sama valglat jagavate eri

riikide hindamistulemuste täielikku ühtlustumist.

Rahvusvahelistes VMKdes on sisuliselt esitatud iga liikmesriigi individuaalsed meetmed,

välja arvatud Doonau rahvusvaheline VMK, mis sisaldab rahvusvahelisi meetmeid; seetõttu ei

ole selge, mil määral on tagatud kooskõla üles- ja allavoolu asuvates riikides võetavate

88 Keskkonna peadirektoraadi 2024. aastal ajakohastatud analüüs keskkonnainvesteeringute vajaduste,

rahastamise ja puudujääkide kohta EL 27s (siseanalüüs). Pange tähele, et järgmine keskkonnapoliitika

rakendamise aruanne, mis on kavandatud 2025. aasta kevadeks, sisaldab täiendavat avalikku ajakohastatud

teavet selle teema kohta. 89 Enamiku rahvusvaheliste valglapiirkondade puhul on sõlmitud rahvusvahelised kokkulepped, mille alusel on

sageli loodud rahvusvaheline koordineeriv organ ja mõnel juhul koostatakse ka ühine VMK. Vaid mõnel ELi

valglapiirkonnal pole kumbagi.

35

meetmete vahel. Näiteks Reini jõe ülemjooksul on rajatud kalapääsud, kuid samasuguseid

meetmeid ei ole veel täielikult rakendatud alamjooksul, mis vähendab ülemjooksul

rakendatud meetmete tõhusust. Samuti ei võeta toitainekoormuse vähendamisel üldiselt

arvesse ülesvoolu asuvates piirkondades rakendatavate meetmete panust, mis on vajalik

selleks, et saavutada hea seisundi eesmärgid allavoolu asuvates piirkondades, eriti ranniku- ja

üleminekuvetes, mis on toitainete suhtes kõige tundlikumad.

Murettekitav on, et põhjavee osas on piiriülene koostöö väga piiratud. Paljudes

rahvusvahelistes valglapiirkondades ei ole piiriüleseid põhjaveekogumeid kindlaks tehtud;

seepärast piiritleb ja kirjeldab iga riik põhjaveekogumeid eraldi. Juhul kui piiriülesed

põhjaveekihid on kindlaks tehtud (nt Schelde, Visla, Elbe ja Doonau), valmib nende kirjeldus

kahepoolsete arutelude tulemusena. Põhjavee seisundi hindamiseks vajalike kvalitatiivsete ja

kvantitatiivsete näitajate seire osas on koostöö samuti vähene.

Kuna põua ja veenappusega seotud probleemid muutuvad kogu ELis üha pakilisemaks,

omandavad veemajanduse kvantitatiivsed aspektid rahvusvaheliste valglapiirkondade

kontekstis tõenäoliselt suurema tähtsuse. Välja arvatud mõned erandid, näiteks Portugali ja

Hispaania vaheline Albufeira konventsioon, on rahvusvahelistes valglapiirkondades

veenappuse ja põua vastu võitlemisel tehtav koostöö seni vähene ja seda tuleks ergutada.

Veepoliitika raamdirektiivi artikli 12 kohast menetlust probleemide puhuks, mida ei saa

lahendada liikmesriigi tasandil, on pärast eelmist aruannet kasutatud ühel korral.

2019. aastal väljendas Tšehhi muret põhjavee taseme alanemise pärast, mille põhjuseks oli

Poolas asuva Turowi kaevanduse piiriülene mõju. Menetlus lõpetati 2022. aasta veebruaris

pärast seda, kui Poola ja Tšehhi jõudsid Euroopa Kohtusse esitatud kohtuasja (mis peatas

artikli 12 kohase menetluse) raames kokkuleppele.

Oderi jõe katastroof, mis on üks viimaste aegade suurimaid ökoloogilisi katastroofe Euroopas

ja põhjustas 2022. aasta juulis ja augustis massilise kalade hukkumise, ei olnud küll otseselt

seotud artikli 12 aktiveerimisega, kuid näitas, millised on naaberriikide vahelise ning nende ja

Euroopa Komisjoni vahelise ebapiisava teabevahetuse tagajärjed. See intsident tõi esile, kui

tähtis on piiriülene koostöö sellistele katastroofidele õigeaegse ja asjakohase reageerimise

tagamisel. Komisjon pakkus algusest peale tuge ja oskusteavet ning koostas koostöös Euroopa

Keskkonnaametiga aruande, milles analüüsiti katastroofi põhjuseid ja esitati peamised

soovitused tulevaste ökoloogiliste katastroofide ärahoidmiseks ELi jõgedes90.

Üleujutuste direktiivis, nagu ka veepoliitika raamdirektiivis, nõutakse, et liikmesriigid

koordineeriksid oma tegevust piiriülestes vesikondades, sealhulgas kolmandate riikidega.

Juhtudel, kui on olemas vesikonnaülesed koordineerivad organisatsioonid, on rahvusvahelise

ÜMK väljatöötamise tulemusena alati seatud ühised kõrgetasemelised eesmärgid ning

peaaegu kõigil juhtudel pandud paika hulk kooskõlastatud ja ühiseid meetmeid91. Nende

vesikonnaüleste organisatsioonide raames jälgivad spetsiaalsed töörühmad rahvusvaheliste

ÜMKde rakendamist riikide tasandil. Mõne vesikonna puhul, nagu Doonau ja Reini jõgi,

toimusid ulatuslikud avalikud konsultatsioonid. Lisaks sellele on nende jõupingutuste puhul

90 https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC132271 91 Näiteks hüdroloogiliste andmete jagamine, paduvihmast põhjustatud üleujutuste korral järgitavate riiklike

tavade kohta teabe vahetamine ja uuringute läbiviimine eesmärgiga parandada üleujutuste prognoosimist kogu

vesikonnas, erinevalt näiteks üleujutuste eest kaitsmisest kallaste kindlustamise teel.

36

oluline, et vesikonna tasandil on olemas kliimamuutustega kohanemise strateegiad, millel on

otsene seos üleujutuste direktiiviga92.

9. JÄRELDUSED JA VÄLJAVAATED

Üldiselt näitab hindamine, et ELi veekogude seire ja teadmised nende kohta on eelmise

tsükliga võrreldes märkimisväärselt paremaks muutunud. Koondnäitajad osutavad paraku, et

ELi veekogude seisund ei ole oluliselt paranenud. Teatavad survetegurid on selgelt vähenenud

juhtudel, kui liikmesriigid on suurendanud veega seotud kulutusi või teinud märkimisväärseid

edusamme muude asjakohaste õigusaktide rakendamisel93. Suurema osa põhjaveekogumite

kvantitatiivne ja keemiline seisund on hea ning viimasest aruandlustsüklist alates on

suundumus positiivne.

Seevastu pinnaveekogud on väga kriitilises olukorras. Vähem kui pooled (39,5 %) hinnatud

ELi pinnaveekogudest on heas ökoloogilises seisundis ja alla kolmandiku (26,8 %) on heas

keemilises seisundis. Sellel on mitu põhjust. Kemikaalide puhul jääb mõningate positiivsete

suundumuste varju varasem laiaulatuslik saastumine elavhõbedaga ning muude üldlevinud

bioakumuleeruvate ja toksiliste saasteainetega ning lisaks varjutavad neid suundumusi uued

esilekerkivad saasteprobleemid. Mis puudutab ökoloogilist seisundit, siis teatavad

bioloogilised kvaliteedielemendid on mõnevõrra paranenud. ELi jõgedele, järvedele ja

rannikuvetele avaldub siiski märkimisväärne surve ning isegi tõhusate meetmete võtmise

korral ei pruugi edusammud olla seires kiiresti nähtavad, sest loodus vajab taastumiseks

piisavalt aega. Julgustav on näha „teadmata seisundiga“ veekogude arvu vähenemist, kuid

uued probleemid on seotud andmete vähese võrreldavusega, mis takistab objektiivset

hindamist. Kõik see nõuab arutelu selle üle, kuidas andmete kvaliteeti ja võrreldavust

parandada.

Andmeprobleemidele vaatamata tuleb veepoliitika raamdirektiivi ja sellega seotud

direktiivide eesmärkide täielikuks saavutamiseks veel palju tööd teha. Eelkõige lasub see

ülesanne liikmesriikidel, kes peavad tõstma ambitsioonitaset ja kiirendama meetmete

rakendamist.

Liikmesriikide prognoosidest nähtub juba praegu selgelt, et kolmanda tsükli VMKdes esitatud

meetmeprogrammidega ei õnnestu veepoliitika raamdirektiivi eesmärke täiel määral

2027. aastaks saavutada.

Kuna erandite tegemise võimalused on piiratud, on eriti oluline kõrvaldada märkimisväärsed

rahastamispuudujäägid ja integreerida veeküsimused paremini muudesse asjakohastesse

poliitikavaldkondadesse. Mitu Euroopa rohelise kokkuleppe raames kokku lepitud meedet (nt

muudetud tööstusheidete direktiiv ja asulareovee puhastamise direktiiv) võivad aidata kiiresti

edasi liikuda, kui neid varakult rakendada. On murettekitav, et mitu liikmesriiki on juba

teatanud kavatsusest kasutada 2027. aastal ulatuslikult erandeid, kas kohaldades leebemaid

keskkonnaeesmärke või pikendades tähtaega. Komisjon jätkab ka aktiivset koostööd

kaasseadusandjatega, et tugevdada meetmeid veereostuse vastu võitlemiseks, sealhulgas

pöörates suuremat tähelepanu uutele saasteainetele, nagu per- ja polüfluoroalküülained,

mikroplast ja ravimid.

92 Reini jõe puhul pärineb strateegia 2015. aastast ja Doonau puhul 2018. aastast. 93 See kehtib eelkõige asulareovee puhastamise direktiivi, nitraadidirektiivi ja tööstusheidete direktiivi ning

kemikaale käsitlevate ELi õigusaktide kohta.

37

Üleujutuste direktiivi puhul on liikmesriigid tuginenud esimeses tsüklis saadud kogemustele

ja järk-järgult muutnud oma lähenemisviise üleujutusriski maandamisele. Esile kerkivad kolm

muutust: a) ELis on märkimisväärselt kasvanud võimaliku olulise üleujutusriskiga alade arv;

b) peaaegu kõik liikmesriigid on võtnud kasutusele geoinfosüsteemil põhinevad interaktiivsed

veebilehed, millel avaldatakse üleujutusohu ja -riski kaardid, ning muutnud need seega

märksa kättesaadavamaks; ning c) kliimamuutusi on hakatud paremini arvesse võtma, näiteks

modelleerimise ja stsenaariumide abil. Selleks, et jätkata edusamme suurte üleujutuste

võimaliku kahjuliku mõju vähendamisel, peavad liikmesriigid tegema pidevaid jõupingutusi

planeerimissuutlikkuse parandamiseks, eelkõige jälgides aktiivsemalt edusamme

üleujutusriski vähendamise eesmärkide poole liikumisel. Samuti peavad nad kavandama ja

rakendama meetmeid, mis aitavad toime tulla tulevaste kliimatingimustega, muu hulgas

suurendades (või taastades) vee looduslikku kinnipidamist mh lammide taastamise ja

taasühendamise teel ning tagades, et üleujutuste ennetamise meetmete ulatuse kavandamisel

lähtutakse tulevastest üleujutuste tingimustest. Peale selle tuleb neil tagada piisavad ressursid

ÜMKde tõhusaks rakendamiseks.

Käesolevas aruandes ja sellele lisatud komisjoni talituste töödokumentides esitab komisjon

mõned üldised ja riigipõhised soovitused selle kohta, kuidas liikmesriigid saaksid teha

täiendavaid edusamme nii veepoliitika raamdirektiivi kui ka üleujutuste direktiivi paremal

rakendamisel, aidates seeläbi parandada ELi veemajanduse kriisivalmidust.

Need soovitused on aluseks liikmesriikidega peetavale struktureeritud dialoogile, mille

komisjon peagi algatab. Dialoog võimaldab tagada veepoliitika raamdirektiivi ja üleujutuste

direktiivi nõuete parema rakendamise ja vajaduse korral tulemuslikuma täitmise tagamise,

koordineerides selle tihedalt täitmistegevusega, mis on seotud peamiste veekeskkonda

mõjutavate surveteguritega.

Liikmesriikidega jätkuva koostöö kõrval teeb komisjon koostööd üldsuse ja kõigi

sidusrühmadega, et edendada nõuete täitmist. Seda kajastatakse ka järgmisel

keskkonnapoliitika rakendamise läbivaatamisel 2025. aastal.

Konsulteerides liikmesriikidega ja Euroopa Keskkonnaametiga, koondab komisjon käesoleva

aruandlustsükli vältel saadud kogemused ning teeb kindlaks lihtsustamise, halduskoormuse

vähendamise ja andmehalduse, eelkõige andmete võrreldavuse parandamise võimalused,

tõhustades ühtlasi elektroonilist aruandlusplatvormi.

Lisaks jätkab komisjon liikmesriikide toetamist nende rakendamispüüdlustes, hõlbustades

olemasolevate ja tulevaste rahaliste vahendite kasutamist, muutes asjakohased andmed, teabe

ja teadmised kättesaadavamaks ning edendades ühise rakendusstrateegia raames heade tavade

vahetamist.

Käesoleva hindamise tulemusi kasutatakse ka väljakuulutatud veemajanduse kriisivalmiduse

strateegia koostamisel.

10. SOOVITUSED

Kuigi riigipõhised soovitused esitatakse konkreetsete riikide kohta koostatud hinnangutes, on

allpool esitatud soovitused asjakohased kõigi ELi liikmesriikide jaoks.

VEEPOLIITIKA RAAMDIREKTIIV

38

1. Kõik liikmesriigid peaksid tõstma oma ambitsioonitaset ja kiirendama meetmete

rakendamist, et 2027. aastaks võimalikult palju vähendada nõuete täitmise

puudujääki. Seejuures tuleks:

a. töötada välja tugevamad meetmeprogrammid, mille aluseks on selgem

hinnang lüngale, mis tuleb täita hea seisundi saavutamiseks, ja meetmete

selgem prioriseerimine;

b. otsustavalt kõrvaldada meetmete rakendamisel kindlaks tehtud

struktuursed takistused, nagu ebapiisav haldussuutlikkus ja ebapiisavad

ressursid;

c. tugevdada juhtimist, parandades avalikke konsultatsioone ja tegevuse

koordineerimist muude asjakohaste ELi õigusaktide, eelkõige üleujutuste

direktiivi, merestrateegia raamdirektiivi ja nitraadidirektiivi rakendamisega

tegelevate eri haldustasandite ning ametiasutuste vahel;

d. tagada täielik vastavus veepoliitika raamdirektiivi sätetele, mis käsitlevad kõigi

veekogusid mõjutavate tegevuste (sealhulgas vee võtmine, tõkestamine,

ärajuhtimine) lubade/kontrollide perioodilist läbivaatamist ning tõhusaid,

hoiatavaid ja proportsionaalseid karistusi; vajaduse korral kaaluda

väikesemahuliste veevõttude registreerimis- ja loanõuetest tehtud erandite

läbivaatamist, et kumulatiivset mõju paremini hallata.

2. Eesmärkide saavutamiseks peaksid kõik liikmesriigid suurendama investeeringuid

ja tagama piisava rahastamise, et meetmeprogramme tulemuslikult rakendada.

Selleks tuleks eelkõige:

a. töötada välja pikaajalised investeerimiskavad ja määrata kindlaks iga

meetme rahastamisallikas, sealhulgas kasutada tõhusalt ühise

põllumajanduspoliitika, 2021.–2027. aasta ühtekuuluvuspoliitika ning taaste-

ja vastupidavusrahastu kaudu eraldatavaid ELi rahalisi vahendeid;

b. suurendada jõupingutusi veevarustusteenuste kulude katmise põhimõtte

täielikuks kohaldamiseks, et kõik peamised veekasutajad ja veekasutussektorid

annaksid piisava panuse veevarustusteenuste kulude katmisse;

c. rakendada paremini ja laialdasemalt põhimõtet „saastaja maksab“, kaotada

kahjulikud keskkonnatoetused ning tagada taskukohased, ausad ja õiglased

hinnastamismehhanismid kõigile veekasutajatele kooskõlas veepoliitika

raamdirektiivi artikliga 9.

3. Kõik liikmesriigid peaksid kehtestama lisameetmed olemasolevate püsivate

keskkonnaprobleemide (survetegurite) vähendamiseks, tuginedes põhjalikele

puudujääkide analüüsidele.

Selleks tuleks:

a. tõhustada meetmeid toitainetega saastumise vähendamiseks, sealhulgas

kehtestades kõigi valglapiirkondade puhul maksimaalse toitainekoormuse

kooskõlas veepoliitika raamdirektiiviga ning ka merestrateegia raamdirektiivi

ja nitraadidirektiiviga ning tagades, et seda ei ületata;

b. tugevdada pestitsiididega saastumise vastaseid meetmeid, vähendades

keemiliste pestitsiidide kasutamist, edendades integreeritud taimekaitset ja

säästvamaid tavasid (nt täppispõllumajandust), kehtestades kõigi

valglapiirkondade puhul keemiliste pestitsiidide maksimaalse koormuse ja

tagades, et seda ei ületata, ning kehtestades rangemad piirangud joogivee

võtmiseks kaitsealadel;

39

c. vähendada veelgi punktreostust toitainete, prioriteetsete ainete ja

jõespetsiifiliste saasteainete näol, näiteks vaadates läbi olemasolevad

punktallikate heite load, et vähendada reostuskoormust, või kehtestades

kohustused heite ajutiseks peatamiseks või piiramiseks hädaolukordades,

võttes arvesse muudetud tööstusheidete direktiivist ja asulareovee puhastamise

direktiivist tulenevaid uusi kohustusi;

d. suurendada jõupingutusi looduspõhiste lahenduste rakendamiseks, sealhulgas

loodusliku olukorra ja ökosüsteemide taastamiseks, et vähendada

hüdromorfoloogilisi survetegureid;

e. suurendada jõupingutusi jõevoolu tõkestamatuse, üldise hüdroloogilise

olukorra ja veeliikide, sealhulgas rändliikide kaitse parandamiseks;

f. kehtestada ökoloogilised vooluhulgad (vee hulk, mis peab jääma

veekogusse, et ökosüsteem saaks nõuetekohaselt toimida) kõigi

valglapiirkondade puhul ja kohaldada neid tõhusalt vee jaotamise otsustes

ning väljastada või korrapäraselt läbi vaadata veevõtu- ja vee tõkestamise lube

kooskõlas veepoliitika raamdirektiivi artikliga 11;

g. võtta põhjaveekogumite kvantitatiivse seisundi hindamisel süstemaatilisemalt

arvesse põhjaveest sõltuvate ökosüsteemide (nii maismaa- kui ka

veeökosüsteemide) veevajadusi.

4. Võttes arvesse veenappust kogu ELis, tuleks liikmesriikidel:

a. parandada meetmeprogrammides kliimakindluse tagamise meetmeid ja

töötada vajaduse korral välja sobivad meetmed või kavad vastupanuvõime

tugevdamiseks;

b. kõigi vesikondade puhul ennetavalt koostada täpne veebilanss, seda

parandada, korrapäraselt ajakohastada ja jälgida, võttes arvesse kõiki

veesisendeid ja veevõtte, looduslikke kadusid ja veest sõltuvate ökosüsteemide

vajadusi; see hõlmab veekasutuse otsese järelevalve ja mõõtmise suurendamist,

veevõturegistrite pidevat ajakohastamist ning loata ja ebaseadusliku veevõtu

kontrollimist;

c. võtta tulemuslikke meetmeid, et edendada vee taaskasutamist, veekasutuse

tõhusust ja veeringlust, maksimeerides samal ajal looduspõhiste lahenduste

kasutamist, et tagada kestlikum vee talletamine pinnases ja ökosüsteemides;

d. uute tammide ja veehoidlate kavandamisel hoolikalt hinnata nende

keskkonnamõju, sealhulgas veepoliitika raamdirektiivi eesmärke silmas

pidades, ning tagada, et sellised meetmed on osa integreeritud veemajandusest

ja sidusatest veemajanduse kriisivalmiduse strateegiatest, milles võetakse

asjakohaselt arvesse pikaajalisi kliimastsenaariume.

5. Veepoliitika raamdirektiivi eesmärkide saavutamiseks ja veemajanduse

kriisivalmiduse tugevdamiseks peaksid liikmesriigid veelgi parandama piiriülest

koostööd, eelkõige järgmistes valdkondades:

a. veekogude piiritlemine ja kirjeldamine, ühised või kooskõlastatud

seireprogrammid ja seisundi hindamise metoodikad (nt ühiselt kokku

lepitud bioloogiliste kvaliteedielementide võrdlustingimused ja

keskkonnakvaliteedi standardid saasteainete osas);

b. veemajanduse kvantitatiivsed aspektid asjakohaste rahvusvaheliste

koostöömehhanismide ja -organite kaudu.

40

6. Kui veepoliitika raamdirektiivi eesmärke ei ole konkreetse veekogu puhul võimalik

saavutada ja tuginetakse eranditele, peaksid liikmesriigid seda tegema kooskõlas

Euroopa Liidu Kohtu praktikast tuleneva kitsendava tõlgendusega ja esitama

piisavalt üksikasjalikud põhjendused, tagades, et erandite kohaldamine vaadatakse

korrapäraselt läbi. Seejuures tuleks:

a. tagada, et eesmärkide vähendamine (veepoliitika raamdirektiivi artikli 4

lõige 5) on hästi dokumenteeritud ja põhjendatud, eelkõige

ebaproportsionaalsete kulude ja teostamatuse osas, ning võtta arvesse seniseid

rakendamise puudujääke, selle asemel et vaikimisi taotleda erandit, kui

2027. aastaks ei suudeta eesmärke saavutada;

b. tunnistada, et ajapikenduse võimalused (veepoliitika raamdirektiivi artikli 4

lõige 4) on äärmiselt piiratud;

c. esitada oluliselt paremat teavet artikli 4 lõike 7 kohaste erandite kohta uute

projektide puhul; see hõlmab nende erandite kasutamise paremat põhjendamist,

kirjeldades üksikasjalikult kumulatiivset mõju, hinnates alternatiivseid

keskkonnasõbralikumaid võimalusi ning andes teavet võimaliku kahjuliku

mõju leevendamiseks võetavate meetmete kohta.

7. Seire, hindamise, andmehalduse ja aruandluse valdkonnas tuleks liikmesriikidel:

a. koostöös komisjoni ja Euroopa Keskkonnaametiga tagada edaspidistes

tsüklites õigeaegne ja täielikum elektrooniline aruandlus, kasutades

paremini ära digiteerimisest ja Maa seirest tulenevaid võimalusi

halduskoormuse vähendamiseks ja täpsuse parandamiseks;

b. veelgi parandada andmete kvaliteeti ja võrreldavust, ühtlustades kõigis

valglapiirkondades seire, hindamiste, prognooside jms jaoks andmete

kogumise meetodeid, ning teha kõik andmed üldsusele kättesaadavaks,

avaldades need õigel ajal kooskõlas INSPIRE direktiivi, avaandmete ja avaliku

sektori teabe direktiivi ning avaliku sektori väärtuslike andmestike94 nõuetega,

vähendades seeläbi aruandluskoormust;

c. veelgi tugevdada seiresüsteeme, et kõrvaldada lüngad nii geograafilises

katvuses kui ka analüüsitavates parameetrites, et suurendada seisundile antud

hinnangute usaldusväärsust, vähendada tuginemist eksperdihinnangutele või

eri veekogude rühmitamist ning viia lõpule kõigi veeliikide jaoks

võrdlustingimuste kehtestamine;

d. töötada välja metoodika hea ökoloogilise potentsiaali ühetaolisemaks

määratlemiseks, et kiiresti parandada oluliselt muudetud veekogude ja

tehisveekogude seisundit.

8. Liikmesriikidel tuleks ennetavalt kasutada Euroopa rohelise kokkuleppe raames

kokku lepitud uusi poliitikameetmeid ja õiguslikke vahendeid, et tõhustada

veepoliitika raamdirektiivi seisukohast kasulikke rakendamisalaseid jõupingutusi,

keskendudes muu hulgas kaasnevatele kasuteguritele, mis tulenevad muudetud

asulareovee puhastamise direktiivist, tööstusheidete direktiivist ja uuest looduse

taastamise määrusest.

ÜLEUJUTUSTE DIREKTIIV

94 Komisjoni rakendusmäärus (EL) 2023/138, milles sätestatakse teatavate väärtuslike andmestike nimekiri ning

nende avaldamise ja taaskasutamise kord.

41

1. Liikmesriikidel tuleks jätkata oma üleujutusohu ja -riski kaartide täiustamist,

eelkõige:

a. võttes järjekindlalt ja selgelt arvesse veevõtualasid, puhkealadeks mõeldud

veekogusid ja Natura 2000 alasid;

b. võttes rohkem arvesse paduvihmast põhjustatud üleujutusi, arvestades tugevate

sademete sageduse ja intensiivsuse suurenemist;

c. täiustades geoinfosüsteemil põhinevaid üleujutusohu ja -riski kaarte, millele on

koondatud kogu asjakohane teave ja mida üldsusel on lihtne kasutada.

2. Liikmesriikidel tuleks teha rohkem jõupingutusi üleujutusriski maandamise

kavandamise parandamiseks:

a. tulevastes ÜMKdes tuleks esitada teave selle kohta, kuidas on üleujutusohu ja -

riski kaartidest lähtutud eesmärkide ja meetmete valimisel;

b. ÜMK eesmärgid peaksid olema konkreetsed, võimaluse korral tähtajalised

ja seotud kvantitatiivsete edunäitajatega;

c. ÜMKd peaksid sisaldama hinnangut eelmises ÜMKs seatud eesmärkide

saavutamisel tehtud edusammudele.

3. Võetud meetmete tulemuslikkuse parandamiseks tuleks liikmesriikidel tagada, et

ÜMK eesmärkide ja meetmete vahel on selge seos, ning esitada teavet meetmete

tähtsuse järjekorda seadmiseks kasutatud meetodite kohta. Võimaluse korral

tuleks teha meetmete tasuvusanalüüs ja võtta seda arvesse meetmete tähtsuse

järjekorda seadmisel. Lisaks tuleks ÜMKs esitada teave kavandatud meetmete

kogumaksumuse kohta.

4. ÜMKs tuleks esitada meetmete konkreetse rakendamise edusammude jälgimiseks

kasutatavad meetodid.

5. Kõik liikmesriigid peaksid oma ÜMKdes võtma arvesse tulevasi kliimastsenaariume.

6. Kõikidel liikmesriikidel tuleks suurendada jõupingutusi looduspõhiste lahenduste

laialdasemaks rakendamiseks kas eraldi või koos traditsioonilise taristuga.

7. Üleujutuste ennetamisse ja nende eest kaitsmisse tehtavate investeeringute kõrval

peaksid kõik liikmesriigid võtma arvesse üleujutustega seotud kulusid, mis kantakse

riigieelarvest; ühe võimalusena kliimamuutuste mõjuga kohanemiseks tuleks kaaluda

kindlustust.

8. ÜMKdes tuleks süstemaatiliselt ette näha kultuuripärandi kaitse üleujutusriski eest.

9. Juhtimise osas tuleks kõigil liikmesriikidel oma ÜMKdes selgelt kirjeldada, kuidas

toimub koordineerimine veepoliitika raamdirektiiviga, ning esitada üksikasjad avaliku

konsultatsiooni ja sidusrühmade kaasamise kohta, sealhulgas selle kohta, kuidas

võimalikke märkusi arvesse võeti. Konsultatsioonid peaksid kestma kuus kuud.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 2.10.2026

SWD(2026) 501 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Third River Basin Management Plans

Member State: Bulgaria

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}

ENVIRONMENT

Bulgaria Country specific staff working document

© P

ex el

s. co

m | S

te pa

n V ra

ny

2

Content

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

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

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

2. Horizontal aspects ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Governance ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8

2.2 Characterization of River Basin District ................................................................................................................. 8

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

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

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

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

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

3.5 What is being done to prevent/reduce hydromorphological pressures ............................................ 17

3.6 What Bulgaria is doing for abstractions and water scarcity .................................................................. 18

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

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

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

4.2 Groundwater Bodies: what is their chemical status .................................................................................... 21

4.3 What Bulgaria is doing to combat pollution from agriculture ............................................................... 22

4.4 What Bulgaria is doing to combat pollution from other sectors .......................................................... 23

4.5 What Bulgaria is doing to combat significant pressures – overall assessment of the

Programmes of Measures .................................................................................................................................................. 24

5. Exemptions and economics ............................................................................................................................................... 25

5.1 To what extent are exemptions applied in Bulgaria .................................................................................... 25

5.2 Use of economic analysis and water pricing – cost recovery ................................................................ 26

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

SECTION B: FLOODS DIRECTIVE .................................................................................................................................................. 31

7.1 Flood hazard and risk maps .................................................................................................................................. 32

7.2 Flood risk management plans .................................................................................................................................. 33

8. FD recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................... 36

3

SECTION A:

WATER FRAMEWORK

DIRECTIVE

4

1. General info, Member State characterisation

Bulgaria, a predominantly mountainous country, covers a terrestrial area of over 110 000 km² and has a marine

area exceeding 35 000 km². It is characterised by plains, the Balkan and Rhodope mountain ranges, and the Black

Sea coastline. The country shares borders with five neighbouring states. Bulgaria’s territory stretches from the

Danube River and Danubian plain in the north to the Balkan mountain range in the centre, and the Rhodope

Mountains and Upper Thracian Plain in the south. The northern part of the country is mainly lowlands, while the

central and southernmost part are mountainous. The highest part is the Rila Mountains.

Bulgaria has identified four river basin districts (RBDs), all of which are international. The country is home to one of

the greatest biological diversities in Europe; 26% of the species identified in Europe and over 2% of those worldwide

are found in Bulgaria. This rich biodiversity is conserved in three national parks. Bulgaria has some of the

largest Natura 2000 areas in Europe, covering 33.8% of its territory.

Conversely, Bulgaria is a country based on heavy industry. Major industrial activities include extraction of metals

and minerals, production of chemicals, machine building and steel and petroleum refining. Air quality in Bulgaria

continues to face challenges, particularly in the area surrounding the lignite-fired power station Maritsa Iztok-2.

Around 41% of Bulgaria’s land is used for agriculture, and the agricultural sector plays an important role for the

economy. The agricultural section generates around 4% of the country’s Gross Value Added and more than 6% of

total employment. The vast majority of farm holdings are very small (below five hectares) and a very small area of

agricultural land is under organic farming (2.2%).

Reporting

5

The deadline for reporting the third river basin management plans (RBMPs) was in March 2022. The

Commission and the European Environment Agency (EEA), together with Member States developed a

voluntary electronic reporting system called WISE (Water Information System for Europe). Some

Member States used it to fulfil their obligations; others submitted their plans in pdf format. The cut-

off date for WISE e-reporting was September 2023, and the Member States were assessed based on

the datasets available by this date.

No submission was made through WISE e-reporting in time to be taken into account in the assessment. All four national RBDs were used to analyse the RBMPs in pdf format in depth. Some gap filling of quantitative data was undertaken using data from the RBMPs and supporting documents to enable this assessment report to include quantitative information, charts and figures and to provide a more comprehensive view of compliance in the Member State. This information is labelled as ‘data mining’.

6

Changes in status, pressures, exemptions and measures

Surface water bodies

Trend (% good status/potential)

Main pressures & changes & exemptions

The total number of surface water bodies (SWBs) has remained the same since the second RBMPs (955).

ECOLOGICAL STATUS

Only 37% of total SWBs had good or high ecological status/potential in 2021, a significant decrease from 47% in 2015. This is partly due to better understanding of status/potential, including better monitoring and updated methodologies to assess status/potential. The share of SWBs with unknown ecological status/potential decreased from 9% to 1%. No improvement in ecological status/potential is expected by 2027. Monitoring networks have been expanded, with new monitoring sites added between the second and third RBMPs. In total, thethird RBMPs report that there are 657 monitoring sites for surveillance monitoring and 771 sites for operational monitoring. The most significant pressures on SWBs are point sources (affecting 31% of SWBs), diffuse sources (affecting 30% of SWBs) and hydromorphological alterations (affecting 15% of SWBs). Organic pollution and nitrogen pollution are the most significant impacts, affecting 32% and 31% of of SWBs respectively. Article 4(4) has been applied to exempt 271 SWBs (28.4%) with less than good ecological status on the grounds of technical feasibility, and to exempt 301 SWBs (31.5%) on the grounds of natural conditions. Article 4(5) has been applied to exempt 18 SWBs (1.9%) on the grounds of infeasibility. Article 4(7) has been applied to two SWBs (0.2%).

CHEMICAL STATUS

The national surface water monitoring network that supports chemical status assessments has been reviewed and expanded as part of the preparation of the third RBMPs. The existing monitoring programmes from the second RBMPs have been updated and now cover 49% of all rivers, 94% of all lakes and 100% of all coastal and transitional waters. All 45 priority substances and two matrices (biota, sediment) are included in the monitoring. 66.5% of total SWBs had good chemical status in 2021, a significant increase from 33.7% in 2015. No further improvement in chemical status is expected by 2027. Article 4(4) has been applied to exempt 107 SWBs (11.2%) with less than good chemical status on the grounds of technical feasibility, and to exempt 67 SWBs (7.0%) on the grounds of natural conditions. Article 4(5) has been applied to exempt 14 SWBs (1.5%) on the grounds of infeasibility.

Groundwater bodies

Trend (% good status/potential)

Main pressures & changes & exemptions

The number of GWBs has remained the same since the second RBMPs (169).

7

QUANTITATIVE STATUS

79.3% of total GWBs are monitored with quantitative monitoring. 98.2% of total GWBs had good quantitative status in 2021, a slight increase from 95.3% in 2015. No further improvement in quantitative status is expected by 2027. Article 4(4) has been applied to exempt three GWBs (1.8%) with poor quantitative status on the grounds of technical feasibility.

CHEMICAL STATUS

99.4% of total GWBs are monitored with chemical (surveillance and/or operational) monitoring. The most significant pressures on GWBs are diffuse sources (affecting 41% of GWBs), point sources (affecting 28% of GWBs) and historical pollution (affecting 4% of GWBs). Nitrogen pollution and chemical pollution are the most significant impacts, affecting 16% and 9% of of SWBs respectively. 80.5% of total GWBs had good chemical status in 2021, a significant increase from 65.7% in 2015. No further improvement in chemical status is expected by 2027. Article 4(4) has been applied to exempt 18 GWBs (10.7%) with less than good chemical status on the ground sof technical feasibility, and to exempt 11 GWBs (6.5%) on the grounds of natural conditions. Article 4(5) has been applied to exempt four GWBs (2.4%) on the grounds of infeasibility.

8

2. Horizontal aspects

2.1 Governance

Bulgaria has a complex multi-layer water governance. At the top is the Water Coordination Council

led by the Ministry of Environment and Waters, with the participation of other relevant ministries.

Several national agencies and the National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology support water

monitoring. The state company ‘Irrigation systems’ (under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food) is

responsible for irrigation water supply, while the Energy and Water Regulatory Commission is a

national regulatory body exercising regulatory functions over water supply and sanitation services.

The River Basin Directorates are in charge of preparing and implementing the RBMPs of their river

basin district, and municipalities help implement measures at local level. The Energy and Water

Regulatory Commission (EWRC) monitors the activities of water supply and sewerage operators and

approves their business plan service prices.

All four national RBDs are part of international RBDs. This includes the Danube, Struma, Mesta,

Maritsa, Veleka and Rezovska rivers, as well as the Black Sea. For the Danube RBD, Bulgaria is

member of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). For the

Black Sea RBD, Bulgaria is a member of the International Commission for the Protection of the Black

Sea from Pollution. For the other international RBDs, bilateral agreements with the neighbouring

countries are in place. International cooperation with Serbia and North Macedonia needs to be further

improved.

All third RBMPs take into account the objectives and measures of the Floods Directive (FD). The third

RBMP of the Black Sea RBD also provides for synergies with the objectives of the Marine Strategy

Framework Directive (MSFD).

The public consultation for Bulgaria’s third RBMPs was conducted over six months, including four

national thematic meetings (for example, on urban wastewater, agriculture, and energy) and 17

regional consultations.

Bulgaria has not adopted third RBMPs according to the WFD timetable.

2.2 Characterisation of river basin districts

Table 1. Overview of Bulgaria's RBDs

RBD Name Size (km2) Coastal water area (km2)

Countries sharing RBD

BG1000 Danube 47 235 0 RS, RO

BG2000 Black Sea 18 043 6 358 RO, TR

BG3000 East Aegean 35 236 0 EL, TR

BG4000 West Aegean 11 947 0 EL, RS, MK

Source: third RBMPs pdf documents

9

Table 2. Number of water bodies

RBD Rivers Lakes Coastal waters

Transitional waters

Groundwaters

BG1000 249 7 0 0 50

BG2000 143 17 17 28 40

BG3000 261 50 0 0 41

BG4000 168 15 0 0 38

Total 821 89 17 28 169

Source: third RBMPs pdf documents

In Bulgaria, agricultural pressures – particularly diffuse pollution from nutrients (nitrates, phosphates)

and pesticides – remain significant, especially in the Danube and East Aegean RBDs, with no clear

downward trend despite measures under the Nitrates Directive. Climate change (droughts, floods) is

worsening diffuse pollution risks, particularly in agriculture. Hydropower expansion is not planned, but

existing infrastructure (for example, along the Danube and Maritsa rivers) continues to exert

hydromorphological pressures, with no major new projects highlighted in the third RBMPs. The key

hydromorphological pressures identified in the third RBMPs are disrupted river continuity, engineering

works or interventions that change the shape of water bodies, altered flow regimes, degraded

riverbeds/floodplains, connectivity or sediment dynamics. The alterations are mainly related to

hydropower, irrigation and flood protection.

Urban wastewater and industrial discharges remain the dominant point-source pressures. Municipal

wastewater remains the dominant pressure across most RBDs, particularly in relation to point-source

organic and nutrient pollution.

Bulgaria provides a detailed assessment of significant pressures per water body in the third RBMPs,

which is widely based on national methodologies, covering both quantitative and qualitative

pressures. There are national methodologies in place to assess pollution, abstraction and

hydromorphological pressures from agriculture, but some gaps remain. Three out of four third RBMPs

(Danube, Black Sea and West Aegean RBMPs) provide an overview of the remaining gaps and

challenges in relation to pressure/impact analysis.

The key gaps are associated with insufficient monitoring data or data of insufficient quality (credibility,

coverage, format). In such cases, it is difficult or impossible to carry out certain pressure assessments

in full (such as diffuse pollution from agriculture, including relevant spatial data, pollution from

industrial sites no longer active and invasive alien species). Furthermore, there is a lack of models to

assess the combined impacts of different pressures, including their cumulative impacts. The

conclusion notes that there is a need to review the statistical and methodological instruments that

support analysis of the significance of pressures and impacts.

Surface waters

In the third RBMPs, the most significant pressures were reported to be point sources (31%), followed

by diffuse sources (30%) and hydromorphology (29%) (Figure 1). There seems to be a shift in

pressures between the second and third cycles. Indeed, the impact of point sources, abstraction and

unknown anthropogenic pressure on SWBs have decreased, whereas atmospheric deposition and

hydromorphology pressures have increased.

10

The most significant impacts were reported to be organic pollution (32%), followed by nitrogen

pollution (31%), altered habitats due to morphological changes (19%) and chemical pollution (17%)

(Figure 2). Since the second RBMPs, nitrogen pollution has decreased significantly, whereas organic

pollution, chemical pollution and altered habitats due to morphological changes have increased in

significance.

Groundwaters

Bulgaria delineated 169 GWBs, three of them transboundary, with no changes in boundaries or total

area between cycles.

In the third RBMPs, the most significant pressures on GWBs were reported to be diffuse sources

(41%), followed by point sources (28%) and historical pollution (4%) (Figure 1). It is noted that since

the second RBMPs, all types of pressures on GWBs are reported to have decreased in significance.

This is most likely an impact of better monitoring and methodological refinements – such as a better

distinction between natural and anthropogenic pollution – leading to more accurate classifications,

reducing the perceived significance of some pressures.

The most significant impacts are nitrogen pollution (16%), followed by chemical pollution (9%), organic pollution (5%) (Figure 2). Since the second RBMPs, nitrogen pollution in GWBs, as well as chemical pollution (except for the Danube RBD), are reported to have decreased in significance, whereas organic pollution is reported to have increased. The decline in nitrogen and chemical pollution reflects improved wastewater treatment and reduced industrial discharges, while the rise in organic pollution stems from increased urban and agricultural runoff (such as manure and sewage leaks) and insufficient treatment of small-scale or rural wastewater sources.

Figure 1. The most significant pressures on surface water and GWBs in Bulgaria in the third RBMP

(expressed as percentages of numbers of water bodies)

11

Source: third RBMPs pdf documents

Figure 2. The most significant impacts on surface water and GWBs in Bulgaria in the third RBMPs (expressed as percentages of numbers of water bodies)

Source: third RBMPs pdf documents

41%

28%

4%

3%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

P2-Diffuse sources

P1 Point sources

P9 - Historical pollution

P3- Abstraction

P8 - Antropogenic pressure unknown

% of groundwater bodies

12

Water scarcity

Due to climate change, water scarcity conditions are expected to become more frequent in the

country. All the third RBMPs present forecasts for areas with a significant risk of water scarcity and

droughts in the 2071-2100 period, using the most pessimistic climate change scenario (RCP8.5).

Furthermore, the international RBMP of the Danube lists three Bulgarian districts where shortages of

drinking and domestic water supply have been identified.

Water abstraction

As water abstraction is not identified as a significant pressure at RBD level or in significant portions

of an RBD, the country is not required under the WFD to report data on the Water Exploitation Index+

(WEI+) at national or RBD level. However, Bulgaria has included WEI+ data in the third RBMPs, taking

stock of data published by the EEA. The current estimation of the annual WEI+ at country level is

0.93% - 1.13% for the period 2016-20211, with seasonal WEI+ reaching 2.0% in the third quarter of

2019. In general, the third RBMPs do not address water abstraction/scarcity as a significant issue at

national level, similarly to the second RBMPs.

Main water uses

Bulgaria has reported to WISE SoE reporting on Water Quantity relevant data on water abstraction

for the period concerning the third RBMPs (2016-2021). The data cover all water sources (e.g.

groundwater, surface water), all water sectors (including different subsectors of the manufacturing

sector), public water supply and self-abstraction. Self-abstraction accounts for roughly 70% and

public water supply 30% of the water abstracted in total. The third RBMP includes certain references

to the methods of estimating consumptive uses, such as direct measurement, metering and permit

data.

Based on available statistics2, the major users in Bulgaria are: electricity generation, including cooling

water (79.0%); agriculture (7.2%)3; processing industry and other industrial activities (5.9%);

households and services (1.6 %); mining and quarrying (0.6 %); and construction (< 0.1%). Since

2016, total water abstraction has decreased, due to decreases in all water uses, except for mining,

other industrial activities and services, where water abstraction is increasing.

3. Policy elements contributing to biodiversity and

climate change adaptation

3.1 Surface waters: what is their ecological status or potential

Monitoring

There are two main types of monitoring: i) operational monitoring to determine the status of all water

bodies at risk of not reaching the environmental objectives; and ii) surveillance monitoring aimed

rather at providing an assessment of the overall surface water status within the river basin district,

as well as identifying impacts and long-term changes.

1 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/sdg_06_60/default/table?lang=en. 2 https://infostat.nsi.bg/infostat/pages/reports/result.jsf?x_2=1766. 3 According to the methodology of the National Statistical Institute, this includes irrigation systems that sell water for agricultural use, as well as self-abstracting users abstracting more than 20 000 m3 /year.

13

In Bulgaria, there are 592 surveillance monitoring sites and 729 operational monitoring sites in rivers,

lakes and transitional waters, and 65 surveillance monitoring sites and 42 operational monitoring

sites in coastal waters.

It is noted positively that monitoring of water bodies has improved considerably, and the monitoring

schemes are very comprehensive.

Monitoring networks have been expanded to include new monitoring sites between the cycles. It is of

particular note that the number of monitoring sites in lakes increased significantly from 40 to 138

as a result of certain monitored water bodies previously delineated as rivers in the second RBMPs

being delineated as lakes in the third RBMPs.

It is noted positively that monitoring covers all the different quality elements required by law as

regards the monitoring of the biological quality element, but regrettably macroalgae and

angiosperms in transitional waters are not covered. However, this is because transitional waters in

the Black Sea RBD are located in estuaries and in coastal lakes where it is more relevant to monitor

phytobenthos than macroalgae and angiosperms. As for hydromorphological quality elements, all

required elements are monitored, except possibly in transitional waters, for which this is unclear. For

general physico-chemical quality elements, all required quality elements are monitored. For each

quality element, the monitoring frequency is indicated in the RBMP. It is noted positively that river

basin-specific pollutants (RBSPs) are monitored in all water categories relevant to each RBD. The

monitoring frequency depends on the pollutant and ranges from once per month to four times per

year.

Status assessment

The third RBMPs indicate that the reference conditions were established for all surface water types

in the first RBMPs and updated again where necessary in the third RBMPs. The biological reference

conditions are given as reference values for each biological quality element (BQE), which are used to

prepare the ecological status classification system.

The assessment is supported by biological quality elements (as main criteria), physico-chemical,

hydromorphological quality elements, and river basin-specific pollutants. The share of water bodies

with poor or bad status has also increased from 12% to 19%. On the other hand, there is a decrease

in the share of water bodies with unknown status, from 9% to 1%. No further improvement is

expected by 2027.

It is noted that the level of confidence on some assessments has improved compared to the second

cycle, while for others it has decreased. So it is difficult to establish a trend. This uneven situation

shows striking differences between different RBDs. While the majority of the assessments conducted

in the Danube RBD indicate high confidence (88%), in the West Aegean RBD only 10% of the

assessments indicate high confidence. In the Black Sea and the East Aegean RBDs, most of the

assessments were conducted with moderate confidence.

Figure 3 appears to show that the status has deteriorated compared to the previous cycle, which

seems at odds with findings that pressures and impacts have been reduced.

14

Figure 3 Ecological status or potential of SWBs in Bulgaria in the first, second and third RBMPs

Source: third RBMPs pdf documents

3.2 Hydromorphological changes and artificialisation – heavily-modified

water bodies and artificial water bodies (HMWBs and AWBs)

Hydromorphological characteristics of SWBs concern the hydrological conditions (such as quantity

and dynamics of water flow, connection of rivers and lakes to GWBs, wave exposure of transitional

and coastal water bodies), the morphological conditions (e.g. depth and width variation, structure and

substrate of the bed, structure of the riparian zone), and for river water bodies, river connectivity.

Some SWBs are such that the changes in the water bodies’ hydromorphological characteristics that

would be necessary to achieve good ecological status (GES) would have significant adverse effects

on the wider environment or on any of various uses, including navigation, flood protection,

hydropower and irrigation. Member States can, in such cases, designate these water bodies as

heavily-modified water bodies (HMWB) or Artificial Water Bodies (AWB), which have an environmental

objective of Good Ecological Potential (GEP) instead of GES.

Figure 4 shows the level of human intervention for each category of SWB. Compared to other Member

States, the level of human intervention is not high, except for lakes, where the vast majority are

artificial or heavily modified.

15

Figure 4. The proportion of natural, heavily-modified, and artificial water bodies by water category and total

Source: third RBMPs pdf documents

It is noted that the RBMPs still mention some gaps and limitations to be addressed in future actions,

and it is still being considered whether the methodology for designating these water bodies is valid

for coastal waters.

The approach to define GEP makes a direct reference to GES. While this methodology is fully

operational, all third RBMPs (except in the East Aegean RBD) mention that further improvements

could be possible in terms of the classification of ecological potential. All HMWBs have a GEP assigned

as their environmental objective.

3.3 Groundwater bodies - have they sufficient water – quantitative status

Monitoring

Quantitative monitoring increased from 120 GWBs (71%) to 134 GWBs (79.3%) in the third RBMPs.

Equally, monitoring sites increased from 323 to 513. 157 GWBs have been identified as drinking

water protected areas (156 GWBs in the second RBMPs).

Status assessment

Figure 5 provides an overview of the status assessment in comparison with the second RBMPs.

According to the data reported, there seems to be an improvement in the chemical status of GWBs

compared to the previous cycle. This may seem at odds with the increase in some pressures. The

improvement is largely procedural – driven by better monitoring, revised thresholds, and reclassified

pressures – rather than actual reductions in pollution loads.

All three GWBs already having poor quantitative status by 2021, located in the West Aegean RBD,

are also expected to be in poor quantitative status by 2027, since they are subject to very significant

overexploitation, with water abstraction exceeding 40% of the available water resources.

16

Moreover, it is noted with significant concern that 18 GWBs (11% of total GWBs) have been assessed

to be at risk of not achieving good quantitative status by 2027.

Figure 5 Quantitative status of GWBs in Bulgaria in the first, second and third RBMPs

Source: third RBMPs pdf documents

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

In the third RBMPs, Bulgaria reported protected areas of all types related to SWBs (Drinking Water

Protection Zones; Bathing Waters; Nitrate Vulnerable Zones under the Nitrates Directive; sensitive

areas under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive; Natura 2000 sites; national protected areas

and areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species); and protected

areas of some types related to GWBs (Drinking Water Protection Zones, Nitrate Vulnerable Zones

under the Nitrates Directive). In total, 2 165 protected areas were reported.

As regards surface water, however, regrettably there are no data are available in the third RBMPs

about the status of rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters associated with protected areas.

As regards GWBs compared to the second RBMPs the share of GWBs associated with protected areas having good chemical status increased (from 64% to 82%). Likewise, the share of GWBs associated

17

with protected areas having good quantitative status also increased (from 95% to 98%) compared to the second cycle of reporting.

Figure 6. Status of GWBs associated with protected areas in the third RBMPs

Note: Due to lack of electronic reporting, the status of SWBs associated with protected areas are not shown for the third

RBMPs (2022)

Source: third RBMPs pdf documents

Additional objectives related to protected areas have been clearly established for Drinking Water

Protection Zones, recreational waters and Natura 2000 zones. Some additional measures are directly

targeted at protected areas; for example: ensuring ecological flows in Natura 2000 zones; controls,

restrictions and prohibitions on certain practices to ensure that drinking water is protected; a ban on

angling and commercial fishing in fish protection zones below minimum ecological flow; and a ban

on water abstraction permits for hydropower plants in recreational zones.

3.5 What is being done to prevent/reduce hydromorphological pressures

Measures have been mapped against several key types of measures (KTM) to tackle these pressures,

namely: KTM5 – ‘Improving longitudinal continuity’; KTM6 - ‘Improving hydromorphological conditions

of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity’; KTM7 - ‘Improvements in flow regime and/or

establishment of ecological flows’ KTM14 - ‘Research activities’; KTM17 - ‘Measures to reduce

sediment from soil erosion and surface runoff’; KTM24 - ‘Adaptation to climate change’; and KTM99

- ‘Other key type measures reported under programme of measures’.

Consequently, when designing and implementing research-related measures, Bulgaria should make

better and more systematic use of results from EU-funded research and innovation projects under

this KTM. This research can support better action on water management including future water

demand as well as climate change impacts, and pollution from substances such as pesticides,

pharmaceuticals, PFAS and microplastics.

A draft methodology for determining ecological flows (e-flows) has been prepared and used to

establish e-flows for all relevant water bodies, as part of the development of the third RBMPs.

However, Bulgaria has not yet enforced these e-flows and has not established an explicit link between

the implementation of e-flows and the review of permits to control water abstractions and

impoundments. Relevant work is still ongoing, and it is planned to enforce these e-flows by the next

RBMPs.

18

The third RBMPs present win-win measures that contribute to the objectives of the WFD, the FD and

drought management. These measures comprise both basic and supplementary actions aimed at

improving the ecological status of water bodies, reducing flood risk, and maintaining ecological flows

- an essential component of drought resilience.

Moreover, nature-based solutions are included as part of the hydromorphological measures, mainly

through actions such as re-meandering of rivers, riverbank restoration with bioengineering methods,

floodplain reconnection, and wetland restoration. These measures are included under KTM5, KTM6,

and KTM23 in the programme of measures and are applied to both new projects and improvements

of existing modified river sections.

The gap assessment shows that while progress has been made, there are still a considerable number

of SWBs, especially rivers, that have moderate status or below due to hydromorphological pressures.

Restoring continuity, implementing e-flow requirements, and morphological improvements are

considered necessary to reduce these gaps. However, the third RBMPs acknowledge that not all water

bodies will achieve good status or potential by 2027, particularly in cases where pressures from

hydropower, irrigation, or navigation infrastructure remain high.

3.6 What Bulgaria is doing for abstractions and water scarcity

Water abstraction affects both the quantitative status of GWBs and the hydromorphological elements

of SWBs, impacting their ecological status.

Just as for the second cycle, water abstraction (understood as consumptive use or net consumption)

is not identified as a significant pressure at RBD level or in significant portions of an RBD in Bulgaria.

It has been assessed as a significant pressure only for individual water bodies; GWBs in the West

Aegean RBD and SWBs predominantly in the East Aegean RBD.

Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity

Bulgaria has planned measures to address water abstraction/scarcity in general, as well as in those

areas where water abstraction is identified as a significant pressure.

There is a concession, authorisation, and/or permit regime to control surface and groundwater

abstractions and impoundments. Furthermore, there is a register of abstractions from surface water

and groundwater and a register of impoundments. Small abstractions of up to 10 m³/day from

surface or groundwater (excluding mineral waters) are exempt from permit controls, provided they

are used only for covering own needs. Permits are issued by state authorities for a limited period,

and they can be extended and are regularly reviewed upon each update of the characterisation of

the RBMPs (six-year cycle). Furthermore, permits can be refused or revised under specific conditions,

to maintain or achieve the environmental objectives in the RBMP.

Measures related to the control of abstractions (KTM7 – ‘Improvements in flow regime and/or

establishment of ecological flows’) and water efficiency (KTM8 – ‘Water efficiency, technical measures

for irrigation, industry, energy and households’) implemented in the previous cycle have been carried

over. Other measures planned for the 2021-2027 period include KTM9 – ‘Water pricing policy

measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from households’; KTM10

– ‘Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services

from industry’; KTM11 – ‘Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of

cost of water services from agriculture’; KTM13 – ‘Drinking water protection measures’; and KTM24

– ‘Adaptation to climate change’. These measures (KTM9, KTM10, KTM11) aim to enforce the ‘polluter

19

pays’ principle by ensuring households, industry, and agriculture cover the full financial,

environmental, and resource costs of their water use, making them interesting as tools to incentivise

sustainable water management while addressing cost recovery gaps.

The third RBMPs also include natural water retention measures, intended to increase water supply,

among other things. The natural water retention measures (KTM23) in Bulgaria’s third RBMPs focus

on restoring green infrastructure – such as wetland revival, floodplain reconnection, river meandering,

and bioengineered riverbank stabilisation – to improve water storage, reduce flood risks, and improve

ecological flows, targeting both new projects and degraded river sections, though coordination gaps

between sectors remain (e.g. agriculture, hydropower).

Water reuse is mentioned only in the third RBMP of the Danube RBD as a potential approach

specifically for the agricultural sector, focusing on the reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation.

3.7 Adaptation to climate change

Considering the close relationship between overall water management and floods management and

the importance of climate change for both, considerations on droughts and floods are jointly

addressed in this section.

According to existing climate change scenarios, Bulgaria is experiencing a trend of increasingly

frequent extreme events and natural disasters, evidenced by frequent intense rainfall, heat and cold

waves, floods and droughts, hurricanes, forest fires and landslides. The third RBMPs have analysed

the impact of climate change on two significant sources of diffuse pollution: the agriculture and

forestry sectors. In addition, the impact of climate change on biodiversity and ecosystem services is

analysed.

Under the coordination of the ICPDR, the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for the whole Danube

Basin was developed in 2012, and was further updated in 2018. The third RBMPs refer to three

national strategic documents related to climate change: the National Strategy and action plan for

Climate Change Adaptation until 2030; the Long-term Strategy for Climate Change Mitigation until

2050; and the Integrated Energy and Climate Plan of the Republic of Bulgaria 2021-2030.

As regards floods, the FD requires that the impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods be

considered, and therefore in the preparation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) and Flood Risk

Management Plans (FRMPs). While climate change was not included in the first FHRMs of Bulgaria, it

is consistently covered in the second FHRMs based on a common national approach. Climate change

scenarios are mapped for the medium probability scenario (100-year recurrence) for all sources

covered by the maps: fluvial, pluvial, coastal and artificial water bearing infrastructure floods. The

maps show the inundation depths under several scenarios based on representative concentration

pathways (RCPs), global climate models and data from different sources. The scenarios considered

are a ‘pessimistic’ climate change scenario (RCP8.5), an ‘optimistic’ scenario (RCP4.5), and a baseline

scenario (i.e. no further climate change).

Compared to the first FRMPs, the consideration of climate change in the second FRMPs is more

systematically explained. Climate change was integrated into the methodologies to identify, select

and prioritise measures. Links with Bulgaria’s National Adaptation Strategy (NAS) are explained and

its priorities were taken into account in developing the FRMPs. These briefly present the scenarios

considered and summarise their results, such as the percentage change in maximum river flood

20

discharges or maximum precipitation in the context of the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 climate change

scenarios in each Unit of Measurement, as well as the frequency of average flood peaks with a

probability of more than 1%.. Furthermore, climate change adaptation is one of the environmental

benefits taken into account for the selection of measures. Consequently, all measures in the

programmes of measures (PoM) and the APSFR have an adaptive capacity and contribute to achieving

the objectives of the NAS.

Drought management

Bulgaria has not yet adopted a specific drought management strategy or plan. The only relevant

document at national level is the National Programme for Measures in the Conditions of Drought

Trend of 2001, which is very outdated, and is currently under review. Three out of four third RBMPs

(the Danube, Black Sea and the West Aegean RBDs) have envisaged the development of a Drought

Management Plan as a basic measure in the PoM accompanying the third RBMPs, with secured

funding from the state budget. This is not the case for the East Aegean RBD, which is expected to be

the second most affected RBD in terms of water scarcity and drought risks due to climate change4.

4. Policy elements contributing to zero pollution

4.1 Surface Water: what is their chemical status

Monitoring

The national surface water monitoring network that supports chemical status assessments has been

reviewed and expanded. It now covers 49% of all rivers, 94% of all lakes and 100% of all coastal

and transitional waters. The monitoring programmes consider all 45 priority substances.

For all four RBDs, specific programmes are in place for monitoring the 20 priority substances in biota

and sediments, the results have been used to carry out analysis of long-term trends. However, for a

significant number of water bodies, monitoring data in biota and sediments were missing or only

limited data were available.

Status assessment

Figure 7 shows the chemical status of SWBs also in comparison with previous cycles. The number of

unknown assessments has decreased significantly, which means that knowledge of chemical status

is better. However, there are still a considerable number of unknowns left that will need to be

determined as soon as possible. There is a significantly higher number of water bodies for which the

chemical status has either improved or worsened. It is not possible for the Commission to conclude

what the main drivers are for these figures. It is unclear whether the figures represent a real

improvement or worsening of the situation or whether it is simply the result of better knowledge of

the status of water bodies. It would seem that out of the unknowns, around 30% have turned out to

have good status and 20% bad status. The trends are unclear. Moreover, confidence in classification

worsened, as 74% of the SWBs were classified for chemical status with low confidence, mainly due

to the method used to group water bodies and the lack of sufficient monitoring data.

4 The Bulgarian authorities have subsequently informed that they plan to develop a nationwide Drought Management Plan, which will cover all four RBDs. This measure was reflected in three out of four of the third RBMPs but was overlooked in the third RBMP of the East Aegean RBD.

21

Figure 7. Chemical status of SWBs in Bulgaria in the first, second, and third RBMPs.

Source: third RBMPs pdf documents

As was the case for the second RBMP, mercury and brominated flame retardants are particularly problematic for achieving good chemical status, see Figure 8.

Figure 8. Priority substances causing failure to achieve good chemical status in SWBs in Bulgaria.

Source: third RBMPs pdf documents

4.2 Groundwater Bodies: what is their chemical status

Monitoring

Bulgaria delineated 169 GWBs both in the second and third RBMPs, with no changes in boundaries

or total area. In Bulgaria, there are three transboundary GWBs.

22

Chemical monitoring of GWBs has expanded slightly, now covering 99.4% of all GWBs (up from 97%

in the second RBMPs). However, the share of GWBs subject to surveillance monitoring dropped from

97.0% to 93.5%, and operational monitoring decreased from 54.4% to 48.5%. Despite this, the total

number of monitoring sites increased significantly (for example, surveillance sites rose from 238 to

493), suggesting a shift toward more targeted, optimised monitoring rather than reduced coverage.

Status assessment

Background levels for naturally occurring substances are taken into account when developing the

respective threshold values in all RBDs. Figure 9 depicts the chemical status of groundwater bodies

also in comparison with previous cycles.

According to these figures, the status of GWBs has improved significantly, which may seem at odds with the stated increased in pressures and impacts. This is largely due to methodological refinements, such as updated threshold values for natural pollutants, better differentiation between natural and anthropogenic sources, which reclassified some bodies as ‘good’ and reduced ‘unknown status’ classifications.

Figure 9. Chemical status of GWBs in Bulgaria in the first, second, and third RBMPs.

Source: third RBMPs pdf documents

Diffuse pollution from agriculture, settlements without sewerage and, in a few cases, industrial

activities and landfills are the causes for the failures. The top five groundwater pollutants causing

failure to achieve good chemical status are nitrates, manganese, sulphate, phosphate and ammonia.

10 GWBs (5.9%) have been assessed as failing to achieve good chemical status. This is related to

the deterioration of drinking water quality in these GWB.s Multiple causes can affect a single GWB.

4.3 What Bulgaria is doing to combat pollution from agriculture

Bulgaria has adopted basic measures, such those under the Nitrates Directive action programme.

Those are complemented by a number of supplementary measures, such as measures under KTM2

23

– ‘Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture’; KTM3 – ‘Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture’;

KTM11 – ‘Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water

services from agriculture’; KTM12 – ‘Advisory services for agriculture’; KTM14 – ‘Research,

improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty’; and KTM17 – ‘Measures to reduce sediment

from soil erosion and surface runoff’ are reported, most of them in all four RBDs.

The third RBMP pdf documents provide only a general description of implementation of the measures

from the second RBMPs. This includes listing whether measures have been implemented and whether

the proposed measures are carried over from the previous cycle. It is noticeable that there are no

measures addressing agricultural pollution reported as not having been implemented.

Information about the costs and the funding sources of all measures in the programme of measures

is presented. For a limited number of measures addressing agricultural pollution, there is also

additional information, such as their cost per year, and what part of the cost is covered by a specific

source of funding (e.g. state budget, private funding, EU programmes). It is concerning to note that

there is no gap assessment in terms of a quantitative estimation of the need to reduce nutrient loads

(in nitrogen or phosphorus loads related to agriculture) or to reduce the use of pesticides. However,

the RBMP of the Danube notes that the MONERIS model was used in the international RBMP of the

Danube as a tool to estimate nutrient loads from point and diffuse sources and the required nutrient

reduction. Nevertheless, there is no specific reference to nutrient management in the context of cross-

border cooperation.

There is also no assessment of the effectiveness of the planned agricultural measures for the WFD

objectives, though a general description of the aim of the measure is provided.

The Bulgarian CAP Strategic Plan supports commitments to protect water quality on almost 19% of

utilised agricultural area (UAA), to enhance nutrient management on 17% UAA and improve

sustainable use of pesticides on 39% UAA by 2027.

4.4 What Bulgaria is doing to combat pollution from other sectors

The third RBMPs plan basic measures to address non-agricultural pollutions, such as KTM1 –

‘Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants’; KTM4 – ‘Remediation of contaminated

sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil)’; KTM9 – ‘Water pricing policy

measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from households’; KTM10

– ‘Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services

from industry’; KTM14 – ‘Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty’; KTM15 –

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

or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of priority substances’; KTM16 – ‘Upgrades

or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants’; KTM21 – ‘Measures to prevent or control

the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure’; KTM99 – ‘Other key type

measure’, including elements such as construction of facilities preventing the spread of pollutants in

water and the prohibition of activities leading to the discharge of hazardous substances (prohibition

of untreated industrial wastewater releases into surface waters, enforced through permit regimes,

restrictions on mining activities to prevent heavy metal like lead, cadmium and cyanide leaks into

rivers/groundwater or bans on specific agricultural practices in vulnerable zones).

Most measures address pollution arising from urban wastewater discharges, industrial activities and

transport. Planned supplementary measures include:

• use of natural wastewater treatment methods;

24

• construction or upgrading of wastewater treatment plants;

• limiting pollution from past activities; research to detect contamination of surface water and

groundwater and identify their sources;

• preventing discharge of priority substances into groundwater;

• improving water management in water protection zones;

• improving assessments of surface water chemical status;

• ensuring adequate treatment of production wastewater;

• implementation of the procedure to review wastewater discharge permits issued;

• implementation of projects to reduce pollution from industrial wastewater discharged into

the sewers of settlements;

• reducing pollution from mining activities;

• improving monitoring and governance;

• closure and reclamation of landfills.

Measures have been planned to address each specific problem/driver. However, the expected effects

of the measures are described only in very general terms (for example, achieving good chemical

status by 2027). Regrettably, no details are included on how much the measures are expected to

reduce each pressure.

4.5 What Bulgaria is doing to combat significant pressures – overall

assessment of the Programmes of Measures

Bulgaria has identified a total of 2 732 measures, comprising 1 888 basic measures and 844

supplementary measures associated with all predefined KTMs except KTM25 – ‘Measures to

counteract acidification’. The measures cover both SWBs (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal

waters) and GWBs, as well as protected zones (drinking water sources, bathing waters, nutrient-

sensitive zones). The basic measures are largely harmonised across all four third RBMPs, while the

supplementary measures are highly dependent on the specific regional pressures and challenges in

each RBD. This reflects a good level of adaptation of the PoMs to local environmental conditions, but

there is also some variability in the level of detail and ambition between the RBDs. All RBDs have

planned at least one KTM linked to identified significant pressures (such as diffuse pollution,

hydromorphology, abstraction and chemical pressures).

In all four third RBMPs, measures are systematically linked to specific pressures and sectors, with

clear allocation to KTMs. This structured approach ensures alignment with the WFD reporting system

and improves the targeting of interventions.

A qualitative assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the PoMs was conducted according to a national

methodology. Bulgaria applies the same approach for cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in three out

of four third RBMPs (Danube, Black Sea and East Aegean). This assessment should evaluate the costs

of the measures for achieving the stated goal, selecting actions that deliver the highest improvement

of water status per euro invested. However, the third RBMPs of these RBDs do not provide further

information and conclude that a more detailed CEA is not necessary or possible, because only basic

measures are anticipated for each water body. The PoMs furthermore state that these basic

measures are all mandatory without alternatives, so it is not possible to undertake a CEA. It can be

noted that the PoMs also report a number of supplementary measures, which seems to contradict

the conclusion in the PoMs that it is not relevant or possible to undertake a CEA. The estimated overall

financing requirement to implement the measures under the PoMs for the period 2022–2027 is

25

approximately EUR 2.1 billion, with about EUR 710 million to come from EU Funds – mainly the

‘Environment’ programme, the Recovery and Resilience Facility and the strategic plan for agriculture

and rural development.

The PoMs intend to maximise synergies between different policy frameworks, optimise the use of

resources, and prevent duplication of actions across sectors. Several of the planned measures serve

multiple objectives under different directives (namely the FD, Habitats Directive, Nitrates Directive

and MSFD).

All four RBDs of Bulgaria are international, so transboundary cooperation is essential to successfully

achieve the WFD objectives. The PoMs acknowledge this, by highlighting Bulgaria’s participation in

international coordination frameworks and mechanisms, particularly for the Danube and the Black

Sea.

5. Exemptions and economics

5.1 To what extent are exemptions applied in Bulgaria

The WFD allows for some exemptions, but these should be used only where necessary and be properly

justified.

As good status has not been achieved in all water bodies, Bulgaria has applied a significant number

of exemptions under WFD Article 4(4), Article 4(5) and Article 4(7) in the third RBMPs (Table 3).

Table 3. The use of exemptions for the WFD in SWBs and groundwater bodies (GWBs) in Bulgaria.

Article GWBs SWBs

4(4)

Technical

feasibility

3 GWBs for quantitative status (1.8%)

18 GWBs for chemical status (10.7%)

271 SWBs for ecological status/potential (28.4%)

107 SWBs for chemical status (11.2%)

4(4)

Natural

conditions

0 GWBs for quantitative status (0%)

11 GWBs for chemical status (6.5%)

301 SWBs for ecological status/potential (31.5%)

67 SWBs for chemical status (7.0%)

4(5)

Infeasibility

0 GWBs for quantitative status (0%)

4 GWBs for chemical status (2.4%)

18 SWBs for ecological status/potential (1.9%)

14 SWBs for chemical status (1.5%)

4(6) Not applied Not applied

4(7) Not applied 2 SWBs for ecological status/potential (0.2%)

0 SWBs for chemical status (0%)

GWD 6(3) Not applied -

Note: Articles 4(4) and 4(5) have not been invoked on the ground of disproportionate costs.

Source: third RBMPs pdf documents

Article 4(4) has been invoked to exempt 378 SWBs (39.6%) on the grounds of technical feasibility

and 368 SWBs (38.5%) on the grounds of natural conditions. Furthermore, Article 4(4) has been

26

invoked to exempt 21 groundwater bodies (12.5%) on the grounds of technical infeasibility and 11

groundwater bodies (6.5%) on the grounds of natural conditions.

Article 4(5) has been invoked to exempt 32 SWBs (3.4%) on the grounds of infeasibility. Furthermore,

four groundwater bodies (2.4%) have been exempted on grounds of infeasibility.

In the third RBMP pdf documents, drivers and impacts which lead to the application of Article 4(4)

and 4(5) exemptions have been assessed and clearly outlined in all RBDs. Justifications are set out

at individual water body level, while the context and the logic of each exemption is clearly described.

Just as in the previous cycle, Article 4(6) has not been invoked to exempt any water body. The same

can be said about the Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive.

Article 4(7) has been invoked to exempt modifications (changes to the physical characteristics) of

two SWBs. The third RBMPs report clearly, for each Article 4(7) exemption, the type of the new

modifications planned. They also provide water body-specific information, including the expected

impact on the status of affected water bodies, mitigation measures and the assessment of overriding

public interests and better environmental options.

5.2 Use of economic analysis and water pricing – cost recovery

The economic analysis identifies four major ‘water user sectors’, namely agriculture, industry, services

and households (and for the Danube and Black Sea RBMPs also navigation), as well as an unusually

wide range of water services exceeding the definition in WFD Article 2(38) and approaching the usual

list of all water uses. These services are: public supply of drinking water; sewerage; public (urban)

wastewater treatment; public water supply for irrigation by the state monopoly utility ‘Irrigation

Systems EAD’; self-abstraction per water user sector; water storage; hydropower generation;

navigation and flood prevention (occasionally as ‘protection from the harmful effects of water’).

Notably, for all these services, a financial and a total cost recovery rate is calculated per RBD and for

the three ‘classical’ water services (drinking water and the two sanitary services, namely sewerage

and wastewater treatment) also per water user sector.

All four third RBMPs provide information on the economic analysis items listed in Annex III of the

WFD, notably long-term forecasts of water supply, differentiated over source type, and of water

demand, differentiated over user types/sectors (households, industry, agriculture, services), as well

as volume, costs and price estimates associated with the various water services for 2018 and one

future year beyond the current programming period. The updated economic analysis includes the use

of more detailed data on financial costs and revenues, including improved interpolations to fill data

gaps; and the use of an alternative approach to appraise environmental and resource costs.

The third RBMP and background documents provide ample information on the current water pricing

arrangements, covering the various water services and uses. They are relatively detailed in describing

abstraction and pollution charges. The unit rates defining the various abstraction fees differ for

surface water and groundwater and also over the various types of water use. For instance, there is

a higher unit rate for self-abstraction of drinking water from groundwater in order to limit this

consumption and to encourage use of public water supplies instead. The differentiation of pollution

charges as regards destination, the number of discharges and the degree of treatment is achieved

by applying correction coefficients on a basic rate, a separate (additional) charge for less treated

industrial wastewater, and a charge for discharges into groundwater. In addition, an adjustment

factor is set for the increase in the charge for abstraction – for self-abstraction and for pollution in

water protection zones and vulnerable aquatic ecosystems, among others. There are also exemptions,

27

such as for low volumes of water abstraction by households and for diffuse pollution from small-

scale husbandry and aquaculture. However, regrettably, they do not draw conclusions on whether or

not the pricing policies provide appropriate incentives for more efficient water use.

The reports focus more information on the regulation regime for the tariffs on final users than tariff

structure. The EWRC regulates the consumer/final markets for water supply and sewerage services

provided through 42 operators5 over the whole of Bulgaria, which vary considerably in size and

ownership structure. The regulation concerns price setting and quality of service. Based on common

criteria and guidelines, the EWRC reviews each individual operator’s five-year business plans and sets

a ceiling on its tariffs, based on a set of factors, including inflation, the capacity to achieve efficiency

savings and affordability considerations. Despite the absence of an explicit explanation of the

‘appropriate incentives’; requirement, the available information suggests that the water pricing policy

provides limited incentives to encourage more efficient use of water, but provides improvements over

time through gradual pricing reforms.

Bulgaria presents a wide range of both financial and total cost recovery rates for multiple years, with

geographical and sectoral differentiation mainly for the four large water user sectors and four RBDs,

based on a national methodology. Unfortunately, the RBMPs lack some important explanations as

regards the calculation method and outcomes, interpretation of the results and their policy

implications. which makes it difficult to know how to interpret the outcomes and to infer the reasons

for variation across time, across RBDs and across user groups/sectors. For instance, the cost recovery

assessment for the three classical water services (water supply, wastewater collection and

wastewater treatment) seem to rely on an assumption on how costs are distributed over these

services in order to overcome data constraints. However, the resulting rates are presented without

any interpretation. The only clear outcome appears to be agriculture’s much lower cost recovery. In

addition, as regards the recovery rates for self-abstraction, the reports do not explain whether the

stark difference between the nearly full recovery by households and very modest recovery by

agriculture and other users reflects policy-induced implicit subsidies or merely a difference in the cost

scope under consideration. This illustrates that the RBMPs do not explain whether the contributions

from the various water user sectors can be considered adequate. Neither do they explain which cost

recovery mitigation factors and ‘established practices’ exemption (from WFD Articles 9(1) and 9(4)

respectively) have been called upon for the incomplete cost recovery.

Bulgaria has carried out commendable work on estimating environmental and resource costs for all

the different water services. These estimates have informed the calculation of the total costs recovery

rates. Unfortunately, the RBMPs do not explain why resource costs appear to differ across water uses

and water user sectors (as seems the case for self-abstraction), while from a scarcity perspective,

the unit resource costs should be equal. This seems to blur the cost and recovery side of cost recovery

efforts and impedes understanding of the relative weight given to water efficiency and to socio-

economic fairness considerations.

The third RBMPs provide only a general assurance for the application of the polluter pays principle.

However, the elaborate description of the abstraction fees and pollution charges identifies the water

users abstracting or polluting water and points out how the various fees and charges aim to target

them depending on the size of their polluting pressures. The only missing part concerns the lack of

an explicit link between the resource and environmental cost estimates and the corresponding unit

rates for the abstraction fees and pollution charges.

5 Based on the approved business plans covering the 2022-2026 period.

28

29

6. WFD recommendations

Bulgaria should:

Increase the level of ambition and accelerate actions to reduce the compliance gap as much as possible by

2027. This implies tackling obstacles identified in implementing measures such as administrative capacities and

resources.

1. Increase investments and ensure adequate funding, including implementation of EU Cohesion

Policy funding, to effectively implement the programmes of measures to reach the objective of

the WFD by, for example, developing long-term investment plans and clearly identifying the source

of financing for implementing all measures.

a) Present a gap analysis to achieve compliance with the UWWTD and analyse how the investments

planned for the next cycle will contribute to closing the gap.

2. Identify and put in place additional measures to reduce existing persistent environmental

challenges (pressures) which prevent the achievement of good status. This implies, for example:

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

b) reduction of nutrients and other chemical pollution to achieve the objectives of the WFD and

Nitrates Directive

c) have a clear and transparent method for selecting RBSPs and update the list of RBSPs included in

Annex 7 of Regulation H-4 and determine/specify the EQS for them;

d) stepping up efforts to implement all necessary restoration and mitigation measures, in particular

by prioritising nature-based solutions;

e) ensure that mitigation measures show exactly how their implementation improve the status of

the various BQEs.

3. In light of the challenges of water scarcity experienced across the EU, Bulgaria should:

a) finalise the implementation of e-flows in all the water bodies. An explicit link should be established

between the implementation of e-flows and the authorisation process and/or review of permits to

control water abstractions and impoundments. E-flows should be developed in cooperation with

neighbouring countries, in the case of transboundary water bodies;

b) take effective measures to promote water reuse.

4. To more effectively achieve the objectives of the WFD, Bulgaria should further improve

transboundary cooperation such as:

a) international cooperation with Greece, Serbia and North Macedonia;

b) reference conditions should be coordinated between Bulgaria and Türkiye.

c) improve international cooperation on water abstraction/scarcity issues, considering climate and

socio-economic projections that indicate significant reductions in water availability in the future.

5. On the use of economic tools, Bulgaria should:

30

a) present more transparently an updated economic analysis for a time period closer to the

programming period, due to the considerable changes over time in policies, investments and

pricing;

b) finalise the transposition into their national legal order the CER Directive (Directive (EU)

2022/2557 - CER Directive) to ensure the continued provision of services that are of vital

importance for EU society and economy in key sectors such as water;

c) present its detailed qualitative description of the wide range of pricing instruments with an explicit

explanation of the adequacy of the price incentives to increase the efficiency of water use, and

how regulatory oversight and gradual price reforms would further improve the effectiveness of

pricing. The reporting should provide an analysis of the calculated recovery rates, including a

justification of the identified cases of less than full cost recovery at the hands of the cost recovery

mitigation factors from WFD Article 9(1) and the grounds to invoke an ‘established practices’

exemption according to WFD Article 9(4), as well as an explanation of the application of the

Polluter Pays Principle and the adequacy of the contributions by the various water users sectors.

6. As regards monitoring, assessment, data management and reporting Bulgaria should:

a) continue working towards closing the remaining gaps in assessing pressures/impacts (monitoring

data, models, statistical and methodological instruments);

b) establish clear and consistent methodologies, including stable baselines across cycles, to help

ensure data comparability and avoid distortions in results due to methodological changes;

c) further develop the classification system for the physico-chemical quality elements used to assess

the ecological status of coastal waters, which is currently not type-specific. The developed and

implemented hydromorphological monitoring methodologies should be tested to ensure they are

providing reliable data and further fine-tuned as needed, and related monitoring should be carried

out to its full capacity.

31

SECTION B:FLOODS DIRECTIVE

32

7. Flood risk management under floods directive (FD)

The Directive requires each Member State to: scan its territory for flood risks; assess the potential

adverse consequences of future floods for human health the environment, cultural heritage and

economic activity identify significant risks; map the flood extent and potential adverse consequences;

and take measures to reduce flood risk. These activities are reflected in: (a) the preliminary flood risk

assessments, or PFRAs (including identifying areas of potential significant flood risk, or APSFRs) (b)

preparing flood hazard and risk maps, or FHRMs; and (c) establishing flood risk management plans,

or FRMPs. The preliminary assessments, mapping and planning for flood risk are repeated in six-

yearly cycles.

There are four Units of Management (UoMs) in Bulgaria, which are the same as the Water Framework

Directive’s River Basin Districts (RBDs). Fluvial, pluvial, sea water and artificial water bearing

infrastructure floods are considered as potentially significant sources of flooding in Bulgaria. Bulgaria

has designated 127 APSFRs. The impacts of climate change on flood risk were considered in Bulgaria

at the time of the second PFRAs. No climate change scenarios were developed specifically for Bulgaria

(see Section 3.7 for further details). The analysis of climate change impact on key precipitation

indicators is based on:

o regional climate projections of RCP scenarios (RCP4.5, RCP8.5) of the IPCC for the periods 2031-2060,

2051-2080 and 2071-2100;

o influences of macroclimatic regimes on extreme phenomena, by studying the correlation between

indices of atmospheric or oceanic long-period fluctuations and climate series with data from ground

stations from the national meteorological network, or data from climate reanalysis;

o data from the project CORDEX (Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment) and specifically

the sub-project MED-CORDEX – developed for the Mediterranean.

7.1 Flood hazard and risk maps (FHRMs)

Bulgaria published FHRMs in pdf format on the websites of each RBD Directorate6, distinguishing

between hazard and risk maps grouped per APSFR. In addition, the maps are available on the national

GIS system – the Information System for Flood Risk Management7.

FHRMs were prepared for all APSFRs based on a common national methodology. Maps for floods with

low probability (1/1 000 years as well as an ‘extreme event scenario of infrastructure damage’ in

selected APSFRs), with medium probability (1/100 years) and with high probability (1/20 years) are

provided. For each APSFR and probability, separate maps are available according to flood type (this

includes fluvial, pluvial, and sea water in the coastal APSFRs, and in selected cases – infrastructure

changes such as destruction of dam walls).

All maps show:

- flood extent;

- water depth and flow;

6 Danube RBD: FHRMs 2022-2027; Black Sea RBD: FHRMs 2022-2027; East Aegean RBD: APSFRs and FHRMs 2022-2027;

West Aegean RBD: FHRMs 2022-2027.

7https://isurn.moew.government.bg/ISURN.Web/?configUrl=https://isurn.moew.government.bg/ISURN.Web/BaseProject/Config

/PURN/config.json#/.

33

- flow velocity;

- number of inhabitants;

- type of economic activity;

- installations as referred to in Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC (Directive on Integrated

Pollution Prevention and Control) and other significant sources of pollution;

- critical infrastructure; and

- cultural heritage sites.

Areas protected under the Water Framework Directive, other than Natura 2000 areas, are not shown

on the maps. Background documents suggest that the maps show the number of water bodies that

could be affected by pollution during a flood.

For the second FHRMs, Bulgaria reported also a national GIS system. Its publicly available part shows

different stages of FD implementation, including the APSFRs and the FHRMs. This includes flood

hazard map and flood risk map layers similar to the maps provided in pdf format. In addition, it allows

visualisation of different flooding sources or flood hazards and flood risks shown on the same map.

However, some of the map layers in the GIS system are less detailed than the pdf versions (for

example, GIS hazard map layers show the extent of the flooding for different flood sources and

probabilities but not water depth or flow velocity) and the GIS system provides fewer contextual

details than the pdf maps. The best practices identified in the previous reporting cycle are still valid

for the FHRMs in pdf format; they address all relevant elements, and each file contains multiple pages

zooming in on different quadrants of the APSFR with clear legends and notes about contextual

information. However, contextual information about the general purpose, intended use or limitations

is still missing in all versions of the maps.

In terms of changes in methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps since the first FHRMs, the

main changes are the inclusion of two additional sources of flooding (pluvial and artificial water

bearing infrastructure), the inclusion of climate change in the flood hazard maps and an update of

coastal flood mapping approach. Regarding changes in methodologies used to prepare flood risk maps

since the first FHRMs, the national methodology highlights the improvement in the risk assessment

approach by developing an empirical method for assessing damage and vulnerability of risk

receptors.

Climate change in the second FHRMs

As regards the consideration of climate change effects in the preparation of FHRMs, reference is

made to Section 3.7 on ‘adaptation to climate change’.

7.2 Flood risk management plans

Objectives and measures

The four FRMPs can be downloaded online from the web pages of the RBD Directorates8. Bulgaria’s

FRMPs identify five priorities for flood risk management and 24 national objectives under these

priorities. These build upon the five priorities and 17 objectives defined in the first FRMPs. They cover

8 Danube FRMP 2022-2027; Black Sea FRMP 2022-2027; East Aegean FRMP 2022-2027; West Aegean FRMP 2022- 2027.

34

minimising adverse consequences of flooding, reducing the likelihood of flooding, and non-structural

approaches. For example, two of the five priorities concern non-structural approaches: one on

improving the population’s awareness, preparedness and response; and the other on improving

administrative capacity, solidarity, data and information, future risks, financing and resources. The

objectives include: protecting human health; protecting economic, technical and critical infrastructure

sites against floods; enhancing environmental protection; and protecting cultural heritage. The

objectives are linked to the measures and to quantitative indicators, making them specific and

measurable.

The FRMPs include measures to be implemented at the APSFR, UoM and national levels. These

measures are based on a national catalogue of measure types. Bulgaria reported 638 measures

together with the priorities of all its measures. The FRMPs describe the methods to identify, select

(including a cost-benefit analysis - CBA), and prioritise measures (including a multi-criteria analysis

- MCA). The FRMPs describe the approach for monitoring and identifying indicators for these purposes.

Measures are linked to objectives and indicators under three levels of monitoring, covering

implementation of the measures (implementation monitoring),progress of the measures (results

monitoring), and achievement of flood risk management objectives after completion of the measures

(objectives monitoring). The FRMPs also describe the progress of measures under the first plans. The

annexes of the FRMPs provide detailed analyses per APSFR that incorporate specific findings, data

and maps from the PFRAs and FHRMs, and this information is linked to the selection of measures for

each APSFR.

Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) are found in all plans based on a floodplain analysis to

identify potential floodplains and catchment areas suitable for the implementation of NWRMs. The

national catalogue of measures covers, in the definition of measure types, several issues related to

nature protection and ecosystem services; the MCA used for the prioritisation of measures does so

as well. These issues include: the potential co-benefits of all measures in relation to fisheries; habitat

creation; improving the coherence and connectivity of the Natura 2000 network; river renaturation;

sediment management; reconnecting floodplains and wetlands; water resources; human health and

well-being through recreation and flood resilience; carbon sequestration; and mitigating the impact

of climate change on vulnerable ecosystems.

Bulgaria has reported that coordination with the WFD was an aspect considered in all its FRMPs. A

dedicated chapter in each plan explains the coordination of the FRMPs with the WFD and other EU

directives: the Birds Directive; the Habitats Directive; the Seveso Directive; and the Industrial

Emissions Directive. Ensuring benefits of the measures in other areas, and their consistency with

other EU directives, has been taken into account at different stages of the development of the PoM:

1) by analysing types of measure for the national catalogue of measures; 2) through identifying

suitable measures; 3) in assessing the measures (extended CBA); and 4) in prioritising the measures

(MCA).

Consideration of climate change in the second FRMPs

As regards the consideration of climate change effects in drawing up FRMPs, reference is made to

Section 3.7 on ‘adaptation to climate change’.

Governance

35

All four FRMPs were coordinated with neighbouring EU and non-EU countries as part of EU or bilateral

agreements for cooperation and information exchanges. The process for coordination at each stage

of the FD implementation cycle (PFRAs, FHRMs, FRMPs) is described in the plans.

In all four UoMs, the competent authorities tried to ensure public consultation and active involvement

of stakeholders, using a broad range of methods from an early stage in planning. As a result, a wide

range of stakeholders contributed actively during the various stages of the plan development.

Detailed information about the comments received from stakeholders, together with information on

how each comment is addressed, are available on the websites of the RBD Directorates.

Progress identified in the second FRMPs

The second FRMPs include several significant improvements:

o their annexes include detailed analyses per APSFR, incorporating the results of the PFRAs

and FHRMs, CBA, climate change and other considerations into the selection of measures;

o the results of the CBA are provided measure by measure, for all APSFRs and in all FRMPs

and their annexes;

o the consideration of climate change is more systematically explained. Climate change

was integrated in the methodologies to identify, select and prioritise measures;

o more measures undertaken under the WFD are identified, and more information on

coordination of measures with the WFD and other Community Acts is provided.

36

8. FD recommendations

Based on the reported information and the FHRMs and FRMPs assessed, Bulgaria should:

in the FHRMs:

• the GIS based map should become the main map, supported, if necessary, by pdf maps;

• the FHRM should consider, besides Natura 2000 areas, any other potentially affected protected areas

identified in Annex IV(1)(i), (iii) and (v) to Directive 2000/60/EC.

in the FRMPs:

• provide links to the national geoportal where all FHRMs can be viewed;

• present timelines for achieving the objectives;

• provide information on the expected timetables for the implementing measures;

• provide more information on measures addressing the protection of cultural heritage and insurance;

• provide more details about the specific stakeholders actively involved in the consultations.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 2.10.2026

SWD(2026) 601 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Third River Basin Management Plans

Second Flood Hazard and Risk Maps and Second Flood Risk Management Plans

Member State: Slovakia

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}

1

Slovakia Country-specific staff working document

© P

ex el

s. co

m | S

te pa

n V ra

ny

2

Content

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

SECTION B: FLOODS DIRECTIVE ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

1. 1. Flood risk management under floods directive (FD) ................................................................................... 6

1.1 Flood hazard and risk maps ..................................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Flood risk management plans ................................................................................................................................. 8

2. Flood Directive recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 11

3

SECTION A:

WATER FRAMEWORK

DIRECTIVE

4

The assessment of Slovakia’s third River Basin Management Plans was published in February 2025.

See EUR-Lex - 52025SC0021 - EN - EUR-Lex.

5

SECTION B:FLOODS DIRECTIVE

6

1. 1. Flood risk management under floods directive (FD)

The Floods Directive requires each Member State to examine its territory for flood risks, assess the

potential adverse consequences of future floods for human health, the environment, cultural heritage

and economic activity, identify significant risks, map flood extent and the potential adverse

consequences, and take measures to reduce flood risk. These activities are reflected in:

(a) the preliminary flood risk assessments (PFRAs), including the identification of areas of potential

significant flood risk (APSFRs);

(b) the preparation of flood hazard and risk maps (FHRMs);

(c) the establishment of flood risk management plans (FRMPs).

The preliminary assessments, mapping and planning for flood risk are repeated in six-yearly cycles.

There are two units of management (UoMs) in Slovakia, and these are the same as under the Water

Framework Directive’s river basin districts (RBDs). The UoMs cover 10 sub-basins, for which PFRAs

were prepared. Fluvial, pluvial and groundwater floods are considered to be potentially significant

sources of flooding in both of Slovakia’s UoMs, and Slovakia has designated 195 APSFRs. The impacts

of climate change on flood risk were considered at the time of the second PFRAs, based on the

outputs of nine models of general atmospheric circulation (GCMs) developed by four global climate

centres. The GCM outputs were regionalised into individual selected points across the country using

7

statistical methods and measured data. Scenarios for the possible course of climate change provide

time series up to 2100. Scenarios are available for several climatic factors, such as air temperature,

atmospheric precipitation, global radiation and humidity. The expected impact of climate change on

the occurrence of floods in the future was assessed based on the national reports of the Slovak

Republic on climate change, prepared by a team of experts commissioned by the Ministry of the

Environment approximately every four years.

1.1 Flood hazard and risk maps

Slovakia has published FHRMs at an online portal on the website of the Slovak Water Management

Enterprise (SVP)1, together with a user manual and an interactive map2. One map has been produced

covering both UoMs but the connection to the APSFRs is unclear: the FHRMs are at a different portal

than the APSFR map.

Fluvial floods are considered the only important flood source in Slovakia and are the only type

included in the FHRMs. Three probabilities are considered: low (return period 1 000 years), medium

(return period 100 years) and high (return period 10 years). The FHRMs cover flood extent, water

depth, flow velocities, numbers of inhabitants, economic activity marked via land use, cultural

heritage, drinking water protection areas, recreational and bathing waters, Natura 2000 areas,

locations of environmental load, and significant pollution sources, including sites designated under

the Industrial Emissions Directive. In the interactive map, there are separate layers for flood hazard

and flood risk for the individual flooding probability scenarios.

In terms of changes in contextual information (i.e. the way in which information about the maps is

conveyed to the public) since the first FHRMs, access to the FHRMs is provided via a digital portal

instead of single map sheets in PDF format. The second FHRMs include cultural heritage together

with information about the limitations of the maps and an assessment of uncertainties. The

methodology for hydraulic calculations and comments on the determination and visualisation of flood

consequences is reported in detail.

In terms of changes in methodologies used to prepare maps since the first FHRMs, the approach to

the spatial determination of geographical areas has been reconsidered. For the second FHRMs the

geographical areas contained municipalities in sequence on a water course or close to a water course.

In addition, details about the methodology for hydraulic calculations are now included: FHRMs are

developed using hydraulic modelling of steady non-uniform flow and unsteady flow, including collapse

of infrastructure and levees. The flood extents were developed using current hydrological data and

are based on up-to-date modelling techniques. In addition, in the risk assessment of sensitive objects,

a binary method was used (‘at risk’ / ‘not at risk’). For the other elements, vulnerability is expressed

indirectly: it is conveyed by the symbols of the various elements in combination with the extent of

the flood zone.

Climate change in the second FHRMs

1 https://mpt.svp.sk/svp_vmapportal/?basemap=orto2022&zoom=1&lat=48.635428&lng=19.190401.

2 https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3f4c256c5d0d48f38570038a34b40229

8

As regards the consideration of climate change effects in the preparation of flood hazard and risk

maps, please see Section 3.1 on adaptation to climate change.3

1.2 Flood risk management plans

Objectives and measures

Slovakia has prepared FRMPs for 10 sub-basins across its two UoMs, using the same outline, methods

and approaches across the plans. The FRMPs are available on the website of the Ministry of the

Environment4. The FRMPs for three sub-basins were assessed - the Hron; the Dunajec and Poprad;

and the Danube.

Slovakia has identified four strategic objectives at national level, linked to six core indicators. All four

strategic objectives call for the reduction of potential adverse consequences of floods and address

human health, economic activity, the environment and cultural heritage. The FRMPs identify indicators

to measure progress towards the common objectives; changes in flood risk, as determined by the

FHRMs, will be used to monitor the effectiveness of the plans.

Slovakia has reported 678 measures to EIONET and has reported on progress made on all its

measures. The second FRMPs provide an overview of the progress of measures under the first FRMPs

and the reasons for any delays. The great majority of measures (98%) reported to EIONET are for

protection, and these types of measure are discussed in all the FRMPs assessed. Although only 1%

of the measures reported to EIONET are for prevention, the FRMPs discuss measures to incorporate

flood risk in spatial planning and review progress and challenges in this area. Similarly, only 1% of

the measures reported to EIONET are for preparedness. The FRMPs refer to measures for flood

forecasting and warning and to coordination with civil protection authorities. Slovakia reported the

geographical coverage of all its measures to EIONET in terms of three categories: RBD coverage (358

measures, 53% of all measures), APSFR coverage (302 measures, 45%), and national coverage (19

measures, 3%).

The FRMPs explain that the prioritisation of measures has been established primarily through multi-

criteria assessment. The prioritisation of measures is carried out at the scale of APSFRs and is based

on the assessment of three primary criteria (feasibility of measures, potential damages avoided and

number of inhabitants likely to be affected by flooding), and three supplementary criteria (extent of

protected areas and their categories, number of significant sources of pollution and number and

categories of cultural heritage sites affected). Additional criteria considered include compliance with

environmental goals, particularly those under the Water Framework Directive (WFD), and the type of

area targeted (e.g. high-risk urban zones, forested areas and agricultural lands). Cost-benefit analysis

(CBA) was used to evaluate the effectiveness of measures proposed for individual APSFRs. The CBA

methodology uses the calculation of the average flood risk (potential flood damage) per year (or

‘loss’) and calculates by how much the current risk will be reduced per euro of investment in flood

risk management. The method also considers the difference in the number of affected inhabitants

before and after the implementation of the proposed measures. In addition, the FRMPs describe the

use of the FHRMs in the prioritisation of measures, in land-use planning decisions and in monitoring

the effectiveness of the plans.

3 See EUR-Lex - 52025SC0021 - EN - EUR-Lex. . 4 www.minzp.sk/voda/ochrana-pred-povodnami/manazment-povodnovych-rizik/navrh-planu-manazmentu-povodnoveho- rizika-ciastkovych-povodiach-slovenskej-republiky-aktualizacia-2021.html.

9

The FRMPs focus on ‘grey’ structural measures such as dykes and reservoirs. They refer to nature-

based solutions, but it is not clear how prioritisation between ‘grey’ and ‘green’ measures is done.

The FRMPs also make some references to ecosystem services. For instance, one FRMP highlights

natural water retention measures that can help to reduce the impacts of increased flooding and/or

restore the retention capacity of aquifers, soil and aquatic ecosystems, thereby providing ecosystem

services. Ecosystem services are also applied in the proposed examples of adaptation measures for

the water management sector.

Slovakia has reported that coordination with other relevant EU legislation was respected in the FRMPs.

The FRMPs identify measures that support WFD objectives (nature-based solutions in particular) and

state that WFD objectives are considered in the prioritisation of the FRMPs’ measures. The plans

explain that flood risk measures, especially those for natural flood management and nature-based

solutions, are designed to deliver co-benefits for both flood risk reduction and water status

improvement under the WFD. The FRMPs state that special attention has been paid to the protection

of nature and landscape, including Natura 2000 sites and broader biodiversity objectives. This

consideration has been embedded in the planning process to ensure that flood protection actions

align with environmental goals and legal conservation frameworks. The FRMPs refer to the Birds and

Habitats Directives and to Natura 2000 sites, stating that structural measures should respect

biodiversity protection requirements; they also summarise the mitigation measures to be

implemented. The FRMPs also provide an overview of establishments designated under the Seveso

Directive that are located within flood risk areas.

Consideration of climate change in the second FRMPs

As regards the consideration of climate change effects in the preparation of flood risk management

plans, see Section 3.1 above on ‘adaptation to climate change’.5

Governance

The FRMPs provide details of cross-border coordination at the PFRA stage, both bilaterally and within

the international Danube RBD, but contain less information on coordination at the FHRM and FRMP

stages.

The FRMPs describe meetings and other mechanisms for the active involvement of stakeholders,

though they do not list the organisations involved. The FRMPs indicate that comments received in the

consultation on the draft plans were addressed without providing any further detail on this.

Progress identified in the second FRMPs

The second FRMPs include several notable improvements.

o They highlight the role of FHRMs in determining the effectiveness of measures; the maps

thus provide a form of baseline.

o General indicators have been identified for the common strategic objectives, making these

objectives measurable.

o The second FRMPs provide greater information on different types of measure, such as those

for preparedness, which include early warning systems.

5 See EUR-Lex - 52025SC0021 - EN - EUR-Lex. .

10

o Compared to the first FRMPs, there is more information on nature protection as well as

reference to types of ecosystem services.

o The second FRMPs provide more information on the approach and results of public

consultation activities.

11

2. Flood Directive recommendations

Based on the information reported and the FHRMs and FRMPs assessed, the following

recommendations are made to enhance flood risk management. In other words, Slovakia should

do the following:

As regards the FHRMs:

• clarify the number of APSFRs and the correspondence between APSFRs and the FHRMs;

• provide information about the connection and coordination between the FHRM portal and

the APSFR maps;

• make the FHRM portal more user-friendly for non-expert users.

As regards the FRMPs:

• link directly to the objectives and the measures;

• include an assessment of the progress made towards achieving the objectives;

• provide information on the costs of measures;

• provide information on the expected timetables for the implementation of measures;

• provide more detail about the prioritisation and planning of nature-based solutions;

• set out a more detailed overview of the use of CBA and the methodology supporting it;

• provide further information about the likely impact of climate change on flood risk;

• explain the consideration of climate change in the development of measures;

• provide information on whether and how the outcomes of the SEA process are

incorporated into the plans;

• include further information on international coordination during the development of the

PFRAs, the FHRMs and the FRMPs.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 2.10.2026

SWD(2026) 602 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Third River Basin Management Plans

Second Flood Hazard and Risk Maps and Second Flood Risk Management Plans

Member State: Slovenia

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}

ENVIRONMENT

Slovenia Country specific staff working document

© P

ex el

s. co

m | S

te pa

n V ra

ny

2

Content

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

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

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

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

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

2.2 Characterisation of River Basin District .............................................................................................................. 10

3. Policy elements contributing to biodiversity and climate change adaptation ...................................... 13

3.1 Surface Water: what is their ecological status or potential .................................................................... 13

3.2 Hydromorphological changes and artificialisation (HMWBs and AWBs) .......................................... 15

3.3 Groundwater bodies - have they sufficient water – quantitative status ......................................... 17

3.4 Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) ........................................... 18

3.5 What is being done to prevent/reduce hydromorphological pressures ............................................ 19

3.6 What Slovenia is doing for abstractions and water scarcity .................................................................. 20

3.7 Adaptation to climate change .................................................................................................................................. 21

4. Policy elements contributing to zero pollution ........................................................................................................ 23

4.1 Surface Water: what is their chemical status ................................................................................................. 23

4.2 Groundwater Bodies: what is their chemical status .................................................................................... 24

4.3 What Slovenia is doing to combat pollution from agriculture ............................................................... 26

4.4 What Slovenia is doing to combat pollution from other sectors.......................................................... 27

4.5 What Slovenia is doing to combat significant pressures – overall assessment of the

Programmes of Measures .................................................................................................................................................. 28

5. Exemptions and economics ............................................................................................................................................... 29

5.1 To what extent are exemptions applied in Slovenia .................................................................................... 29

5.2 Use of economic analysis and water pricing – cost recovery ................................................................ 31

6. WFD recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................ 33

SECTION B: FLOODS DIRECTIVE .................................................................................................................................................. 36

3

SECTION A:

WATER FRAMEWORK

DIRECTIVE

4

1. General info, Member State characterisation

Slovenia (Map A) has a total population of 2.1 million and a total surface area of 20 273 km2. There

are four major European geographic regions that meet in Slovenia: the Alps, the Dinaric area, the

Pannonian plain and the Mediterranean. In the West, it is bounded by the Adriatic Sea. Slovenia has

designated 155 surface water bodies and 21 groundwater bodies.

Slovenia is divided into two River Basin Districts (RBDs): Danube (SIRBD1) and Adriatic (SIRBD2). Both

RBDs are international, as Slovenia shares catchments with other EU Member States.

Table A. Overview of Slovenia’s River Basin Districts

RBD RBD Name Size (km2) % of SI

territory

Countries sharing RBD

SIRBD1 Danube 16 440 81% AT, HR, HU, IT

SIRBD2 Adriatic 3 941 19% HR, IT

Source: 2nd RBMP e-reporting. Notes: The RBD sizes may have changed since the 2nd RBMPs, but the 3rd RBMP e-data was not available at the time of this assessment to confirm this.

5

Table B. Transboundary River basins by category and percentage share in Slovenia

Source: 2nd RBMP e-reporting (Slovenia had not reported 3rd RBMP e-data at the time of this assessment).

*Coordination category

Category 1: International agreement, permanent cooperation body and international RBMP in place.

Category 2: International agreement and permanent cooperation body in place.

Category 3: International agreement in place.

Category 4: No cooperation formalised.

Reporting

The deadline for reporting the 3rd River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) was in March 2022. The

Commission and the European Environment Agency (EEA), together with Member States, developed

an electronic reporting system in WISE (Water Information System for Europe). Its use was voluntary.

Some Member States used it to fulfil their obligations; others reported their plans in pdf format.

Slovenia reported its RBMPs for the Danube (SIRBD1) and for the Adriatic (SIRBD2) in pdf format in

November 2023, failing to meet the Water Framework Directive (WFD) deadline. Because of this,

Slovenia was not part of the original Commission assessment that was published in February 20251.

The assessment of the Slovenian RBMPs took place between March and September 2025 based on

the datasets available, i.e. the information provided in the RBMPs reported in pdf format. Slovenia

submitted full electronic reporting in August 2025, which means that the 3rd RBMP e-data was not

available at the time of this assessment. In some instances, however, data included in this report has

been taken from the WISE country profile on the WFD for Slovenia2 and the WFD Expert Dashboards3,

which display data that Slovenia submitted as part of the electronic reporting. This has been done

where the information is in addition to or divergent from the RBMPs in pdf format, and it has been

indicated in the text of the report. For the next reporting cycle, Slovenia should ensure that the data

related to the same element provided in pdf format and through electronic reporting match or are at

least comparable, to avoid ambiguity.

Documents are available from the EEA EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/.

1 The cut-off date for the Commission assessment was September 2023. The Member States were assessed on the basis of the datasets available by this date. 2 https://water.europa.eu/freshwater/countries/wfd/slovenia. 3 https://water.europa.eu/freshwater/resources/metadata/wfd-dashboards.

Name

international

river basin

National

RBD

Countries

sharing

RBD

Coordination category*

1 2

km² % km² %

Danube SIRBD1 AT, HR, HU, IT 16 440 2.0

Adriatic SIRBD2 HR, IT

3 941 66.7

6

Changes in Status, Pressures, Exemptions & Measures

Surface Water Bodies (155)

Trend (% good status/potential)

Main Pressures & Changes & Exemptions

ECOLOGICAL STATUS

Good ecological status/potential in Slovenia decreased slightly in the 3rd RBMPs compared with the 2nd RBMPs (from 54.2% to 48.4%). This decrease could be at least partly explained by an overall improvement in monitoring, since all quality elements are now covered, resulting in better classification and increased confidence levels of the status assessment. There is no data available on the number of water bodies expected to be in good ecological status/potential by 2027. The most significant pressures on surface water bodies are point-source pollution from urban wastewater (81%), longitudinal physical alterations (70%) and diffuse pollution from agriculture (40%). Other significant pressures include hydrological alteration (36%), pollution from industrial installations, i.e. non-Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) plants (27%) and IED plants (7%), and transversal barriers (14%). Virtually all surface waters (99%) are reported to be affected by unknown anthropogenic pressures, showing that there is scope to improve knowledge to better tailor action. The level of artificialisation remains relatively low (15%), with no increase in the number of heavily modified and artificial water bodies compared with the previous cycle. Hydropower (42%) and flood protection (42%) are the main reasons for the designation of surface water bodies as heavily modified or artificial. Exemptions under Article 4(4) are applied to 83 surface water bodies (53.5%) on the grounds of natural conditions or technical feasibility. Exemptions under Article 4(7) are applied to one surface water body, for the Mokrice Hydropower Plant.

7

CHEMICAL STATUS

The chemical status of surface water bodies in Slovenia deteriorated slightly in the 3rd RBMPs, with all water bodies failing to achieve good status (in the 2nd RBMPs, 0.6% of surface water bodies were in good chemical status). Two priority substances are causing failures in chemical status in all water bodies: mercury and PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers, a class of flame-retardant chemicals used in consumer products). Mercury and PBDEs are ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances (uPBTs), which are difficult to address. Furthermore, in the Danube RBD, one water body is failing due to cadmium and lead, one due to nickel and two due to dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. If uPBTs were excluded, in the Danube RBD, 119 (98.3%) surface water bodies would be in good chemical status, and 2 (1.7%) would be in poor status. In the Adriatic RBD, all water bodies (100%) would achieve good chemical status. No water body is expected to be in good chemical status by 2027. Exemptions under Article 4(4) are applied to 155 surface water bodies (100%) on the grounds of natural conditions or technical feasibility.

Ground Water Bodies (21)

Trend (% good status/potential)

Main Pressures & Changes & Exemptions

QUANTITATIVE STATUS

The percentage of groundwater bodies in good quantitative status has decreased slightly since the 2nd RBMPs, with

95.2% of groundwater bodies in good status in the 3rd RBMPs (by comparison, all groundwater bodies were in good

status in the 2nd RBMPs). It is unclear whether the deterioration of the one groundwater body in poor status is the

result of increased abstraction pressures or the result of better knowledge thanks to improved monitoring. This

groundwater body is expected to achieve good quantitative status by 2027 or earlier.

All groundwater bodies are now subject to quantitative monitoring, representing a very positive increase from the 14 out of 21 groundwater bodies (66.7%) monitored in the 2nd RBMPs. In addition, there are currently 276 monitoring sites established for quantitative assessment, which is a significant improvement from the 136 sites documented in the 2nd RBMPs. The reason for failing to achieve good quantitative status for the one groundwater body in poor status is over-abstraction, leading to a negative water balance/lowering water table. No exemptions have been reported for groundwater bodies’ quantitative status in the 3rd RBMPs.

0.6% 0.0%

0%

50%

100%

2015 2021

8

CHEMICAL STATUS

Chemical status in groundwater bodies has remained the same as in the 2nd RBMPs, with 85.7% of groundwater bodies in good status. No data is available on the predicted chemical status in groundwater bodies for 2027. All groundwater bodies are subject to chemical monitoring, as in the 2nd RBMPs. All groundwater bodies are subject to surveillance monitoring and 14 (66.7%) are subject to operational monitoring, the same as in the 2nd RBMPs. Since the 2nd RBMPs, there has been a positive increase in the number of monitoring sites, with surveillance monitoring sites rising from 176 to 221 in the 3rd RBMPs, and operational monitoring sites up from 146 to 191. Only two pollutants are reported as causing the failure to achieve good chemical status in the three groundwater bodies in poor chemical status: nitrates (all three groundwater bodies) and atrazine (one groundwater body). Moreover, one groundwater body failed to achieve good chemical status due to regional saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced sustained changes in flow direction. Exemptions under Article 4(4) are applied to three groundwater bodies (14.3%) on the grounds of natural conditions.

9

2. Horizontal aspects

2.1 Governance

Slovenia’s water management is overseen centrally by the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial

Planning, with support from the Water Agency and Slovenian Environment Agency. Municipalities and

public utilities handle specific measures, including water supply and wastewater management4.

The RBMPs list the authorities and institutions involved in the preparation of the RBMPs. Slovenia’s

RBMPs do not have sub-plans. The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) was carried out for

both RBMPs in a joint process, and a joint Environmental Report is published on the government

website5.

A single, national Programme of Measures was also reported, covering both RBMPs.

As regards public participation, two consultation rounds were held: the first on ‘Important Water

Management Issues’, and the second on the draft RBMPs. According to the Ministry, comments were

reviewed and incorporated into the updated RBMPs and PoM where possible, but specific changes

resulting from public feedback were not detailed, making their impact and the transparency of the

process unclear. The public was also consulted on the joint Environmental Report.

Floods Directive

The RBMPs provide basic information on the alignment and coordination with the Floods Directive

(FD). Each RBMP contains a section on the FD measures, and WFD and FD objectives have been

included in the national PoM. Measures include flood risk reduction, infrastructure maintenance,

research and awareness-raising. There is no information on joint public consultations for RBMPs and

Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs).

Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Member States should coordinate with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). Slovenia's

RBMPs do not reference the MSFD regarding public consultation, water delineation, monitoring or

measures. However, the Adriatic RBMP does mention the Marine Environment Management Plan when

assessing water service costs and includes a measure for developing a marine environment

management plan (which was adopted on 23 December 2022). Slovenia also participates in the

Barcelona Convention activities for Mediterranean marine protection.

International coordination

Both of Slovenia’s RBDs are part of international river basin districts (IRBDs) and are covered by

international and bilateral agreements. For the Danube IRBD, Slovenia is part of the International

Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)6. For the management of the Sava river7,

Slovenia participates in the International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC)8. In the Adriatic RBD,

a Permanent Bilateral Commission for Water Management, established by the 1975 Osimo

4 The Ministry of Natural Resources and Spatial Planning is the successor of a part of the former Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning and is responsible for policies in the field of water management, nature conservation and spatial planning. 5 https://www.gov.si/teme/nacrt-upravljanja-voda-na-vodnih-obmocjih/. 6 https://www.icpdr.org. 7 The Sava is a tributary to the Danube. It flows from Slovenia, through Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia into the Danube. 8 https://www.savacommission.org.

10

Agreement with Italy, oversees the Isonzo-Soča River Basin. Slovenia is also part of the

Slovenian-Croatian-Italian-Montenegrin Commission for the Protection of the Adriatic Sea and

Coastal Areas from Pollution. In addition, Slovenia has bilateral agreements with Austria, Hungary

and Croatia.

2.2 Characterisation of River Basin District

Water bodies

Slovenia reported a total of 155 surface water bodies, comprising rivers, lakes, coastal and territorial

waters. Slovenia reported a total of 21 groundwater bodies.

Table 1. Water bodies delineated in Slovenia

RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Territorial Groundwater

Danube (SIRBD1) 112 9 0 0 0 18

Adriatic (SIRBD2) 25 3 0 5 1 3

Total 137 12 0 5 1 21

Source: 3rd RBMP pdf reporting.

To benchmark and determine the status of water bodies, boundary values are set for the high/good

(establishment of reference conditions) and good/moderate status classes. Good ecological status of

water bodies is established by comparing the monitoring data assessed with these two boundary

values.

It is welcomed that Slovenia set type-specific reference conditions for each biological quality element

in rivers and lakes, with the exception of fish in rivers. For coastal waters, the reference conditions

for each biological quality element are the same for the two characterised coastal types. Type-specific

conditions have been set for physico-chemical quality elements in rivers, lakes and coastal waters.

The RBMPs do not specify whether type-specific conditions have been set for hydromorphological

quality elements.

As required by the WFD, the environmental objectives were reported in both RBDs. Where necessary,

additional objectives have also been set for water bodies associated with Protected Areas, where so

needed to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Directives applicable to those Protected

Areas.

Main pressures and impacts

Slovenia reported electronically the following information on significant pressures and impacts on

surface and groundwater bodies.

The main pressures on surface waters are point source pollution from urban wastewater (81%),

longitudinal physical alteration (70%) and diffuse pollution from agriculture (40%). Other significant

pressures include hydrological alteration (36%), pollution from industrial installations – including

non-IED (27%) and IED plants (7%) – and transversal barriers (14%). This picture is similar to the

one from the previous cycle. Virtually all surface waters (99%) are reported to be affected by

unknown anthropogenic pressures. It is assumed that, similarly to the 2nd RBMPs, these unknown

pressures are at least partly related to the role of atmospheric deposition as a channel for widespread

contamination of substances such as mercury and PBDEs. Given how difficult it is to determine the

11

contribution of atmospheric deposition with precision, Slovenia continues to report these as unknown

pressures. Efforts should be increased to identify and address all relevant sources of pollution in

order to appropriately address them.

The significant impacts on surface water bodies are chemical pollution (affecting 100% of water

bodies), nutrient pollution (79%), altered habitats due to morphological changes (72%), organic

pollution (53%) and altered habitats due to hydrological changes (50%).

The significant pressures on groundwater are diffuse pollution from agriculture, affecting 14% of the

total number of groundwater bodies, and abstraction (other), affecting 5% of groundwater bodies.

The significant impacts are nutrient pollution, affecting 14% of all groundwater bodies, and organic

pollution and other impacts, each affecting 5% of groundwater bodies. This picture is similar to the

one from the previous cycle.

Figure 1. The most significant pressures on surface water bodies in Slovenia in the 3rd RBMPs (expressed as percentages of the total number of surface water bodies)

Source: 3rd RBMP electronic reporting data available on WISE.

Figure 2. The most significant pressures on groundwater bodies in Slovenia in the 3rd RBMPs (expressed as percentages of the total number of groundwater bodies)

Source: 3rd RBMP electronic reporting data available on WISE.

12

Figure 3. The most significant impacts on surface water bodies in Slovenia in the 3rd RBMPs (expressed as percentages of the total number of surface water bodies)

Source: 3rd RBMP electronic reporting data available on WISE.

Figure 4. The most significant impacts on groundwater bodies in Slovenia in the 3rd RBMPs (expressed as percentages of the total number of groundwater bodies)

Source: 3rd RBMP electronic reporting data available on WISE.

The excess of nutrients discharged into surface waters leads to eutrophication, causing a proliferation

of algal blooms and oxygen depletion. Under the Nitrates Directive reporting, Slovenia indicated that

several monitoring points across the country show surface waters as eutrophic (Figure 5).

13

Figure 5. Map of the monitoring points showing eutrophication assessment in Slovenia, according to the reporting of the Nitrates Directive9

3. Policy elements contributing to biodiversity and climate

change adaptation

3.1 Surface Water: what is their ecological status or potential

Monitoring

Monitoring programmes in Slovenia are well established and include the relevant quality elements

for ecological status and ecological potential of surface waters. The network of points for monitoring

the ecological and chemical status of surface waters consists of 204 monitoring points, of which 162

are in the Danube RBD and 42 are in the Adriatic RBD. Surveillance monitoring is carried out at

31 surface water measuring points. The 3rd RBMPs list 168 monitoring points (153 for operational

monitoring and 31 for surveillance monitoring) for monitoring the ecological status/potential of

surface water bodies (148 for rivers, 11 for lakes and 9 for coastal water bodies)10. This represents

a considerable decrease from the 2nd RBMPs, where 284 monitoring sites were reported.

Nevertheless, the decrease does not appear to have affected the representativeness of the

9 NITRATES DIRECTIVE (ND) - Reporting Period 7 (2016-2019) – eutrophic status: https://water.jrc.ec.europa.eu/portal/apps/dashboards/cb6034c2a75e4df282f8a62f90c16caa. See also the most recent 2020-2023 reports on the ND implementation: Implementation of the Nitrates Directive: Country Reports - Environment. 10 Environmental Agency of the Republic of Slovenia (2017) ‘Monitoring programme for the chemical and ecological status of waters. Programme 2016-2021’, Ljubljana, June 2017. https://www.gov.si/assets/organi-v- sestavi/ARSO/Vode/Stanje-voda/Program-monitoringa-kemijskega-in-ekoloskega-stanja-voda-za-obdobje-2016-do- 2021.pdf.

14

monitoring network. Generally, one monitoring site has been defined per water body for the

monitoring of ecological status. Operational monitoring covers all river and coastal water bodies and

83.3% of lake water bodies (however, all lakes are monitored if both surveillance and operational

monitoring are considered). Water bodies with more than one monitoring site are those where there

are differences in status within the water body, those in areas with special requirements, or those

subject to such specifications in bilateral agreements and international conventions.

Overall, the monitoring of biological quality elements includes all the elements to be monitored. This

is an improvement from the 2nd RBMPs, in particular because monitoring now includes the quality

element fish (used to monitor the impacts of general degradation of water bodies) in lakes.

The monitoring includes all general physico-chemical quality elements, as well as 35 River Basin

Specific Pollutants (RBSPs) identified by Slovenia. The main RBSP for which the nationally determined

environmental quality standard (EQS) is not met is Metolachlor (5% of surface water bodies),

followed by Sulphate (2%), Molybdenum and its compounds (2%), and Cobalt and its compounds

(2%). As for hydromorphological quality elements, the only element which is not monitored is river

continuity. The level of human intervention exerted on surface water bodies in Slovenia is relatively

low (this is discussed in more detail in the next sub-chapter). As this human intervention has an

impact on the hydromorphology of these surface water bodies, Slovenia should ensure that river

continuity is monitored.

As regards monitoring frequencies, these are in line with WFD requirements.

Status assessment

In the 3rd RBMPs, 0.7% (1) of surface water bodies are at high ecological status or maximum

ecological potential, 48.4% (75) are in good ecological status/potential, 34.8% (54) are in moderate

ecological status/potential, 13.6% (21) are in poor ecological status/potential and 1.9% (3) are in bad

ecological status/potential. Only one water body (0.7%) is in unknown ecological status, which is an

improvement from the past cycle, where five surface water bodies (3.2%) had unknown ecological

status.

Figure 6. Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Slovenia in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd RBMPs

Source: 3rd RBMP pdf reporting and 1st and 2nd RBMP e-reporting.

15

From the 2nd to the 3rd RBMPs, the share of surface water bodies with high or good ecological status

decreased from 58.1% (90) to 49% (76). However, this reduction could be at least partly explained

by improved monitoring covering a broader set of quality elements and improved assessment

methodologies, which resulted in better classification and increased confidence levels of the status

assessment.

No detailed information has been provided in the 3rd RBMPs on the methods for assessing the

ecological status of surface water bodies. However, further information on assessment methods is

published on the government website on ‘State of surface waters’11 and is included in the ‘Monitoring

programme for the chemical and ecological status of waters. Programme 2016-2021’. On that basis,

the quality of the methodologies used and the quality of data has improved since the 2nd RBMPs,

which has increased the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential of surface water

bodies for the 3rd RBMPs.

According to electronic reporting, all water bodies are significantly impacted by chemical pollution,

79% are impacted by nutrient pollution, 72% by altered habitats due to morphological changes, 53%

by organic pollution and 50% by altered habitats due to hydrological changes. Aquatic flora is the

least impacted biological quality element, with 87% of water bodies with known status reaching good

status for this quality element, compared with just 69% for benthic invertebrates and about 30% for

fish.

There is no data available in the 3rd RBMPs on the number of water bodies expected to be in good

ecological status/potential by 2027.

3.2 Hydromorphological changes and artificialisation (HMWBs and AWBs)

The level of human intervention in the Slovenian water bodies remains relatively low, with 15% of

its water bodies being designated as heavily modified (HMWBs) or artificial (AWBs). The share and

number of HMWBs and AWBs is the same as in the 2nd RBMPs. Slovenia has designated a total of 19

water bodies as HMWBs, comprising nine rivers, eight lakes and two coastal waters, and a total of

four AWBs, comprising three rivers and one lake. The percentage of surface water bodies designated

as heavily modified or artificial for each category is shown in Figure 7.

11 https://www.gov.si/teme/stanje-povrsinskih-voda/.

16

Figure 7. The proportion of natural, heavily modified, and artificial water bodies by category and total

Source: 3rd RBMP pdf reporting.

The most common physical alterations that resulted in the designation of HMWBs are weirs or dams

and the creation of reservoirs. The main water use for which river water bodies are designated as

HMWBs or AWBs is hydropower, while for lakes the main water uses that lead to the designation are

flood protection and irrigation. The only lake designated as artificial has been created due to the

subsidence of a former mine. The two coastal HMWBs have been designated due to transport and

wider environment (nature protection and other ecological uses).

The methodology for the designation process for HMWBs and AWBs has not changed since the 2nd

RBMPs. It is done on the basis of substantially changed hydrological and morphological

characteristics compared with natural conditions, which are permanent and support certain types of

human activity or water use and prevent the achievement of good ecological status. AWBs have been

designated in cases where there were no pre-existing water bodies.

However, Slovenia’s 3rd RBMPs do not provide information on the criteria and thresholds used to

assess whether restoration measures required to achieve good ecological status would have

significant adverse effects on the use and the wider environment (as per Article 4(3)(a) WFD).

Similarly, the 3rd RBMPs do not provide information on how Slovenia has concluded that the beneficial

objectives achieved by modifying the HMWBs could not have been achieved by other means that

constitute a significantly better environmental option (Article 4(3)(b) WFD).

Similarly to the 2nd RBMPs, the 3rd RBMPs only mention that the last designation of all surface water

bodies was done in 2016. They do not provide information on any analysis that formed the basis for

these designations. This significant gap was already flagged in the Commission assessment of the

2nd RBMPs.

It is noted positively that 43.5% of Slovenia’s HMWBs and AWBs are reported as being in good or

higher ecological potential in the 3rd RBMPs, compared with 22.2% in the 2nd RBMPs, even though this

may largely be the result of the progress made in classification, with a significant reduction in the

number of water bodies in unknown status.

The assessment of the ecological potential of HMWBs and AWBs uses a methodology adapted from

the assessment of the ecological status of natural water bodies for biological and physico-chemical

quality elements. However, the 3rd RBMPs do not provide detailed information on this methodology.

17

The only detail provided is the use of the quality element benthic invertebrates, with the same

assessment method as for natural water bodies, but with values increased by one class (e.g. a value

of the indicator corresponding to moderate ecological status of a natural water body also

corresponds to good ecological potential of a HMWB or AWB). It appears, therefore, that the

assessment of ecological potential involves only a limited number of biological quality elements.

Furthermore, this relatively simple methodology does not follow the best-practice recommendations

of CIS guidance document 3712, which involves basing the threshold for biological quality element

assessment methods on an analysis of mitigation measures. While the PoM positively includes, for

each HMWB, specific measures helping to achieve good ecological potential, these do not appear to

be considered when setting these thresholds.

3.3 Groundwater bodies - have they sufficient water – quantitative status

Monitoring

In the 3rd RBMPs, Slovenia delineated 21 groundwater bodies, the same as in the 2nd RBMPs. The

delineation process has not been revised, and the total area of groundwater bodies has remained

unchanged since the previous cycle. Among these, one groundwater body is classified as

transboundary13.

The 3rd RBMP documentation indicates that all 21 groundwater bodies (100%) are now subject to

quantitative monitoring, representing a very positive increase from the 14 out of 21 groundwater

bodies (66.7%) monitored in the 2nd RBMPs.

Currently, there are 276 monitoring sites established for quantitative assessment, which is a

significant improvement from the 136 sites documented in the 2nd RBMPs. All 21 groundwater bodies

continue to be designated as drinking water protected areas.

Status Assessment

The 3rd RBMPs show that by 2021, 95.2% (20) of groundwater bodies were in good quantitative

status, while 4.8% (1) were in poor status. The reason for failing to achieve good quantitative status

for the one groundwater body in poor status (the Dravska kotlina (Drava Basin) aquifer –

SIGWB3012), according to the electronic data reported in WISE, is over-abstraction leading to a

negative water balance / lowering water table. In the 2nd RBMPs, all groundwater bodies were in good

status. It is unclear whether the change in the status of this groundwater body is the result of

increased abstraction pressures or the result of better knowledge thanks to improved monitoring.

This groundwater body is expected to achieve good quantitative status by 2027 or earlier.

12 CIS Guidance No 37 - Steps for defining and assessing ecological potential for improving comparability of Heavily

Modified Water Bodies. 13 Murska kotlina (Mura Basin), shared with Austria.

18

Figure 8. Quantitative status of groundwater bodies in Slovenia in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd RBMPs

Source: 3rd RBMP pdf reporting and 1st and 2nd RBMP e-reporting.

The methodology for assessing groundwater quantitative status is outlined in the 3rd RBMPs. It

considers the assessment of: (i) water balance and long-term groundwater level trends; (ii) impacts

on groundwater-associated aquatic ecosystems (GWAAEs); (iii) impacts on groundwater-dependent

terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTEs); and (iv) saline or other intrusions. This assessment is in line with

the requirements of the WFD. Strangely, the significant improvement in the monitoring network has

not translated into increased confidence in assessing the quantitative status of groundwater bodies.

This has worsened slightly since the 2nd RBMPs, with high-confidence classifications decreasing from

28.6% to 23.8% and medium-confidence classifications increasing from 71.4% to 76.2%.

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

There are different reasons why certain water bodies are protected under the law, leading to various

types of protected areas. Slovenia has designated six types of protected areas associated with

surface and groundwater bodies. A total of 46 bathing water sites have been identified in Slovenia

under the Bathing Waters Directive (e-reporting data). Fifty-four nutrient-sensitive areas have been

designated in accordance with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) (e-reporting

data), and the whole country is designated as a Nitrates Vulnerable Zone under the Nitrates Directive.

As regards areas designated for the protection of aquatic species of economic importance, there are

three shellfish designated waters in Slovenia (e-reporting data). Four surface water bodies and all

groundwater bodies are identified as drinking water protection areas (e-reporting data). There are

355 Natura 2000 areas designated under the Habitats and Birds Directives, showing a positive

increase from the 255 areas identified in the 2nd RBMPs.

Additional objectives have been set for bathing waters (to maintain water quality and achieve at

least sufficient water quality), Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (to achieve at least sufficient water quality),

nutrient-sensitive areas (to ensure that the discharge and treatment of urban wastewater are in

accordance with the relevant regulations), freshwater fish designated waters (to maintain water

quality and achieve at least sufficient water quality) and Natura 2000 areas (to establish and

maintain favourable status, in accordance with the Natura 2000 Management Programme).

19

The PoM specifies that basic measures for protected areas arise from the regulations governing such

areas. For bathing waters, the RBMPs state that realistic and proportionate measures must be taken

to ensure that the number of bathing waters in good or excellent quality increases, and the PoM sets

out several measures related to monitoring, management and public information. The RBMPs indicate

that the objectives for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones are met by reducing water pollution caused by

nitrates from agricultural sources and preventing further pollution. For Natura 2000 areas, the RBMPs

set out the ways in which activities and interventions are planned to protect them. The PoM includes

a measure to ensure the favourable status of species and habitat types dependent on water in Natura

2000 areas.

The monitoring of protected areas associated with surface waters has been established for bathing

waters and drinking water abstraction areas. The monitoring of bathing water is based on the

recommendations of the National Institute of Public Health. The monitoring of drinking water

abstraction areas consists of a network of measuring points across all the drinking water abstraction

sites.

There is no detailed information on the status of water bodies associated with protected areas in the

RBMP pdf submitted to the Commission, even though Slovenia announced that this would be reported

electronically in WISE. Only a general description and maps are included in the RBMP pdf.

3.5 What is being done to prevent/reduce hydromorphological pressures

In the national PoM, there are five measures related to hydromorphological pressures, in addition to

five related administrative or research measures. These measures started during the 2nd RBMPs and

have been updated for the 3rd RBMPs. They include measures related to achieving good ecological

status or potential in water bodies with large hydropower plants, which are applied to 10 surface

water bodies. The PoM also includes measures for the achievement of good ecological status or

potential in water bodies with river training works and flood retention basins, which are applied to

nine surface water bodies. There are also measures related to ensuring good water status in water

bodies with small hydropower plants (which are aimed at achieving ecological flows) and measures

to ensure fish passage through transversal barriers. The latter are applied to all surface water bodies,

except for the Adriatic Sea. Lastly, there are measures related to the permitting system, requiring the

prior authorisation for abstraction, which are applied to all surface water bodies except for the

Adriatic Sea, and to all groundwater bodies.

The 3rd RBMPs have clearly mapped out the hydromorphological pressures and measures to tackle

them. The measures all include indicators to monitor their success and are described as ongoing, but

the RBMPs provide limited information about the gaps to good status.

As regards ecological flows, although information in the 3rd RBMPs is not clearly presented, there

seems to have been little or no progress compared with the previous cycle. Ecological flows appear

to have been partially derived and implemented only for some relevant water bodies, according to

the Decree on the criteria for determining and the method of monitoring and reporting ecologically

acceptable flow (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No 97/09). In the 3rd RBMPs, a measure

related to permitting regimes (which includes consideration of e-flows) has been reviewed and

updated, but it is not clear to what extent it includes the steps required to achieve progress on e-flow

definition and enforcement. It appears that e-flows are defined separately for each water permit and

concession and not at water body level. Positively, compliance with e-flow is one of the conditions for

receiving support for investments in energy projects (e.g. hydropower).

20

Nature-based solutions are referred to in two measures. These refer to several water retention

systems (storage of water on floodplains, wetlands, riparian forests), river restoration in general and

the preparation of guidelines for the retention of rainwater from urban areas.

3.6 What Slovenia is doing for abstractions and water scarcity

Slovenia is generally a water-rich country with freshwater resources per inhabitant well above the

EU average14 and total gross freshwater abstractions that represent a small percentage of total

renewable resources15. However, the resources are not evenly distributed and there are marked

differences in precipitation between the West and the East of the country. The impacts of climate

change (reduced precipitation in spring and summer, reduced amounts of snow, more frequent and

severe droughts), coupled with growing demand, have led to more frequent instances of seasonal

water scarcity in more vulnerable areas.

According to Slovenia’s 3rd RBMPs, abstraction was a significant pressure only for groundwater bodies,

leading in 2021 to failure to achieve good quantitative status in 1 out of 21 groundwater bodies

(4.8%) (while all groundwater bodies were previously assessed as being in good quantitative status).

This groundwater body is located in the Danube RBD.

Slovenia’s Water Exploitation Index Plus (WEI+) data from 2002 to 2017 reported in the 3rd RBMPs

shows an average value of 3.3%, fluctuating yearly without any significant trend. However, the value

varies significantly between the two RBDs, with the Danube RBD having an average WEI+ of 4.3%,

and the Adriatic RBD having an average WEI+ of only 0.4%16.

Based on Eurostat statistics17, major water users in Slovenia, excluding hydropower, are electricity

generation for cooling (77.4%), households and services (18.0%), industry (4.2%) and agriculture

(0.3%). Total water abstraction has risen slightly since 2016 (+5.1%). No information is provided in

Slovenia’s 3rd RBMPs on future demand forecasts.

Basic measures are in place for the control and management of water abstraction and impoundments

(controls, efficient water use, improvement or establishment of ecological flow regime).

There is a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime in place in both RBDs to control surface

and groundwater abstractions and impoundments. Furthermore, there are a register of abstractions

from surface water and groundwater and a register of impoundments for both RBDs. Some

abstractions below certain thresholds are exempted from permitting, but they must be registered (it

should be noted that the WFD allows abstractions that have no significant impact on water status to

be exempted). Permits are issued by the competent water management authority for a maximum

duration of 30 years, whereas concessions may be issued for a maximum of 50 years, in accordance

with national law. The national law does not stipulate a periodic review of the permits and

concessions. However, permits can be refused or revised under specific conditions, in order to

maintain or achieve the environmental objectives in the RBMPs. No information is provided in

Slovenia’s 3rd RBMPs on unauthorised abstractions, but national authorities may conduct relevant

sample checks after authorisation, or targeted checks after complaints, to prevent cases of

unauthorised abstractions or violation of permit conditions. Due to the lack of rules mandating the

14 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Water_statistics. 15 https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/environment-at-a-glance-country-notes_59ce6fe6-en/slovenia_bddabcae- en.html#section-d1e264. 16 WEI+ values above 20% indicate that water resources are under stress and therefore water scarcity conditions prevail; values above 40% indicate that stress is severe. 17 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_wat_abs__custom_8401102/default/table.

21

periodic review of permits and concessions for water abstractions, in 2024 the Commission opened

an infringement procedure against Slovenia for non-conform transposition of Article 11(3) WFD18. At

the time of this assessment, the infringement is still ongoing.

The 3rd RBMPs also include measures to improve flow regime and establish ecological flows, and to

promote water efficiency, protection of drinking water, water pricing and cost recovery. The 3rd RBMPs

include natural water retention measures, which are presented as solutions for addressing floods,

although they also enhance groundwater recharge.

Slovenia also engages in international cooperation on issues relevant to water abstraction and

scarcity. The international RBMP for the Danube includes hydrological, hydrogeological and climate

change adaptation assessments. Under the Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin, an Expert

Group for Hydrological and Meteorological Issues has been established19. Furthermore, issues related

to broader quantitative management (e.g. exchange of information relevant to downstream flows)

are included in the scope of the bilateral agreements with Austria, Croatia, Hungary and Italy.

3.7 Adaptation to climate change

Slovenia’s RBMPs and PoM include a range of climate adaptation measures to address the impacts

of climate change on water resources. These measures encompass sustainable water management

practices aimed at ensuring the protection, improvement and restoration of groundwater bodies, as

well as balancing water use to maintain water quality and availability. The RBMPs prioritise flood

protection measures, which require environmental impact assessments, and underline the

significance of including hydropower and geothermal energy as renewable sources, while ensuring

their sustainable and efficient utilisation and mitigating potential environmental impacts.

Slovenia uses hydrological studies, sea-level rise projections and land-use adjustments based on

climate data to ensure climate-proofing. No maladaptation measures have been identified in

Slovenia’s 3rd RBMPs. However, the RBMPs do highlight the need for studies and projections on climate

impacts, to ensure that climate adaptation measures do not inadvertently increase vulnerability in

the long term.

These measures align with the national guiding frameworks for climate resilience planning. In 2021,

Slovenia adopted its national climate strategy, the Long-Term Climate Strategy of Slovenia 2050,

aiming for net zero emissions by 2050. Specific actions are guided by the Comprehensive National

Energy and Climate Plan, which sets out policies and objectives until 2030. In December 2024, the

timeline for achieving climate-neutrality was advanced to 2045 in the draft proposal for a climate

law. If adopted, the climate law would set the legal framework for implementing the EU climate

acquis, as amended under the 'fit for 55' package. The Spatial Development Strategy 2050, which is

currently in preparation, is expected to further refine adaptation efforts, particularly regarding

land-use policies, flood protection and sustainable water management.

18 INFR(2024)2170. 19 https://www.savacommission.org/en/parties-to-the-fasrb/236.

22

Flood management

The Floods Directive requires the impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods to be taken

into account, including in the preparation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) and Flood Risk

Management Plans (FRMPs).

Climate change has been taken into account in the production of the second FHRMs. In the second

national FRMP, the topic of climate change is well covered, with a description of how climate

projections were considered in the second preliminary flood risk assessments. However, the link

between climate projections and measures in the FRMP is not clear. The second national FRMP refers

to Slovenia’s policy framework for adaptation to climate change.

More information on the consideration of climate change to manage flood risks can be found in the

Commission Staff Working Document ‘Third River Basin Management Plans – Second Flood Hazard

and Risk Maps and Second Flood Risk Management Plans – Member State: Slovenia’

(SWD(2025) 30 final)20.

Drought management

Although Slovenia does not currently face severe water stress, climate projections highlight

increasing drought risks. Since 1980, river flows have been declining, impacting sectors such as

energy, industry and agriculture. A decline in groundwater availability and worsening soil dryness

have been observed in recent years, especially in regions like Primorska, Prekmurje and Štajerska.

Climate projections indicate more frequent drought days, higher evapotranspiration rates and rising

water temperatures, putting ecosystems under further stress.

Slovenia has not reported separate Drought Management Plans or sub-plans for water scarcity and

droughts as part of its 3rd RBMPs. However, the RBMPs do address drought risks within the broader

framework of climate adaptation policies. Measures to address drought risks through groundwater

restoration, water conservation, artificial recharge of water bodies, and sustainable abstraction limits,

are included in the PoM within the RBMPs for the Danube and Adriatic RBDs. These measures are

integrated with national energy and environmental strategies and regional land-use planning and

water conservation policies, aiming to ensure long-term water sustainability amid changing climate

conditions.

Slovenia plays an important regional role by hosting the Drought Management Centre for

Southeastern Europe (DMCSEE)21, a UN and World Meteorological Organization (WMO) initiative to

coordinate drought monitoring and response in the region. Slovenia also provides its own national

drought information through platforms like ‘drought meter’22. The European Drought Observatory

(EDO), part of the Copernicus Emergency Management Service, also provides data relevant to

Slovenia’s drought situation by monitoring conditions across the continent, including precipitation and

soil moisture levels. Slovenia’s approach to drought monitoring is comprehensive, applying several

indicators at the same time, considering moisture in the surface layer of soils, precipitation trends

and groundwater status. An easy-to-use web portal allows the public (and local/regional

administrations) to browse the status of soil moisture, surface waters, groundwater bodies and

precipitation for the last seven and 30 days. Slovenia’s comprehensive web interface provides a

20 SWD(2025) 30 final, available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD%3A2025%3A30%3AFIN&qid=1738746144581. 21 Drought Management Centre for Southeastern Europe (DMCSEE). 22 Drought meter.

23

thorough insight into the impact and risk of droughts, which can be considered a best practice in this

region.

4. Policy elements contributing to zero pollution

4.1 Surface Water: what is their chemical status

Monitoring

As mentioned in sub-chapter 3.1, the network for monitoring the ecological and chemical status of

surface waters in Slovenia consists of 204 monitoring points, and surveillance monitoring is carried

out at 31 monitoring sites. The 3rd RBMPs indicate that surveillance monitoring for chemical status

was completed over the 2014-2019 period, with a selection of monitoring sites based on the

significance of key rivers (e.g. where the rate of water flow was important for the whole RBD),

anthropogenic pressures and potential transboundary issues. In turn, surveillance monitoring was

used to identify the location and need for operational monitoring to determine the risk of exceeding

EQS. According to the 3rd RBMPs, typically one monitoring site is used for each water body, with all

water bodies covered. Regrettably, no further information is included in the RBMPs.

The 3rd RBMPs indicate that all 45 priority substances were included in the monitoring programme,

including within both water and biota where relevant for the specific substance. However, it is unclear

whether all 45 priority substances are monitored at all sites. For operational monitoring, the

frequency is monthly in water and annually in biota, in line with the WFD requirements. Monitoring

of long-term trends in priority substances was carried out in sediments. A total of 20 (out of the 20

priority substances that tend to accumulate in sediment and/or biota that Member States are required

to monitor under the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQSD) for the purpose of long-term

trend assessment) substances are included within this monitoring program. Biota monitoring also

takes place, and it includes PBDEs, mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene. The

frequency of monitoring for long-term trends is once every three years, which means that it is

compliant with the WFD.

Status assessment - Evolution of chemical status of surface water bodies since the first

RBMPs

In the 3rd RBMPs, no surface water body has achieved good chemical status. This represents a slight

decrease from the 2nd RBMPs, where 0.6% of surface water bodies were reported to be in good

chemical status.

Failure to achieve good chemical status is primarily due to mercury and PBDEs (polybrominated

diphenyl ethers, a class of flame-retardant chemicals used in consumer products), which exceed

quality standards in all surface water bodies. In addition, in the Danube RBD one water body is

reported to be failing for cadmium and lead, one for nickel and two for dioxins and dioxin-like

compounds. This is a deterioration from the previous cycle, where no water body failed to reach good

status due to these substances.

Mercury and PBDEs are ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances (uPBTs), which

are difficult to address. If uPBTs were excluded, in the Danube RBD, 119 (98.3%) surface water bodies

would be in good chemical status, and 2 (1.7%) would be in poor status. In the Adriatic RBD, all water

bodies (100%) would achieve good chemical status. This would be an improvement from the 2nd

RBMP, where five surface water bodies were reported to be in poor chemical status due to tributyltin

24

(TBT), whereas the concentrations of TBT are reported in the 3rd RBMP to be below the environmental

quality standard for all five water bodies.

Regrettably, the 3rd RBMPs provide limited information on the method used to classify water bodies,

including no clear presentation of the confidence ratings.

22% of water bodies are expected to be in good chemical status by 2027, while for 78% of water

bodies the date is unknown.

Figure 9. Chemical status of surface water bodies in Slovenia in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd RBMPs

Source: 3rd RBMP pdf reporting.

4.2 Groundwater Bodies: what is their chemical status

Monitoring

All 21 groundwater bodies (100%) are subject to chemical monitoring, as in the 2nd RBMPs. All

21 groundwater bodies (100%) are subject to surveillance monitoring, and 14 (66.7%) are subject to

operational monitoring, the same as in the 2nd RBMPs. Since the 2nd RBMPs, there has been a positive

increase in the number of monitoring sites, with surveillance monitoring sites rising from 176 to 221

in the 3rd RBMPs, and operational monitoring sites up from 146 to 191.

According to the 3rd RBMPs, all substances causing a risk of deterioration in chemical status are

subject to monitoring, similarly to the 2nd RBMPs. All GWD (Groundwater Directive) Annex I and

Annex II (Part B) substances are reported to be monitored. All WFD core parameters (nitrate,

ammonium, pH, electrical conductivity and dissolved oxygen) are reported to be monitored, similarly

to the 2nd RBMPs.

The methodology for assessing groundwater chemical status is described in the 3rd RBMPs. In addition

to considering the assessment of general quality, Slovenia has carried out an assessment of

environmentally significant, sustained upward trends in pollutants or indicators of pollution in (groups

of) groundwater bodies identified as being at risk, as required under the GWD. Furthermore, since

good groundwater chemical status also depends on the potential impact of pollutants in groundwater

on the status of associated surface waters (Groundwater Associated Aquatic Systems or GWAAEs) or

on the status of terrestrial ecosystems that depend directly on groundwater (Groundwater Dependent

Terrestrial Ecosystems or GWDTEs), these have been considered for the assessment of groundwater

25

body chemical status, in accordance with the law. The assessment of saline or other intrusions and

the assessment of impacts on drinking water protected areas are also considered.

Status assessment

The 3rd RBMPs report that 18 groundwater bodies (85.7%) are in good chemical status. There are

only three groundwater bodies (14.3%) in poor chemical status.

Failure to achieve good chemical status in the three groundwater bodies in poor chemical status is

due to general water quality assessment resulting from significant environmental risk from pollutants

across the groundwater bodies. Moreover, one groundwater body has failed to achieve good chemical

status also due to the quantitative pressure resulting in saline or other intrusions resulting from

anthropogenically induced sustained changes in flow direction.

Only two pollutants are reported to cause the failure to achieve good chemical status in the

three groundwater bodies in poor chemical status: nitrates (all three groundwater bodies) and

atrazine (one groundwater body). No sustained upward trends have been detected in any

groundwater body.

The overall confidence in the assessment of the chemical status of groundwater bodies has remained

the same since the 2nd RBMPs. Classification with high confidence is estimated at 42.9% of

assessments, and classification with medium confidence is estimated at 57.1% of assessments. No

classification with low confidence has been reported in the 3rd RBMPs.

There is no information in the 3rd RBMPs about the number of groundwater bodies that are expected

to fail to achieve good chemical status or that are at risk of failing to achieve good chemical status

by 2027.

Figure 10. Chemical status of groundwater bodies in Slovenia in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd RBMPs

Source: 3rd RBMP pdf reporting and 1st and 2nd RBMPs e-reporting.

26

4.3 What Slovenia is doing to combat pollution from agriculture

In Slovenia, around 34.3% of the land is used for agricultural purposes, with 62.7% of land being

forest and semi-natural areas23. Of the land that is farmed, around 12% is organic farming24. The

Slovenian Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Strategic Plan provides for an organic farming target of

17% of utilised agricultural land (UAA) by 202725. According to the data provided through electronic

reporting, pollution from agriculture has a considerable impact on the status of water bodies in

Slovenia, with diffuse agricultural pollution being reported as a significant pressure on 40% of surface

water bodies and on 14% of the total number of groundwater bodies. The Slovenian CAP Strategic

Plan supports commitments for sustainable and reduced use of pesticides on 40% UAA and to protect

water quality on 43% of UAA by 202726.

The RBMPs and the national PoM include basic and supplementary measures to address pollution

from agriculture. Most of the supplementary measures appear to be voluntary in nature, relying on

incentives provided through CAP funding. These include the protection of waters against pollution by

nitrates from agricultural sources, including the implementation of the Nitrate Regulation under the

Nitrates Directive and entailing various limitations on methods and areas of use of fertilisers (e.g. in

water protection zones, under certain soil conditions), their storage, and the application of Good

Agricultural Practice. Measures for the protection of waters against pollution caused by plant

protection products are also laid down. They include activities for implementation of the Directive on

the Sustainable Use of Pesticides and related national legislation, such as approval and registration

of active substances (i.e. pesticides), and rules and limitations on their use. Pollution caused by

nutrients and phytopharmaceuticals from agricultural and other sources along surface waters is also

tackled through the use of buffer zones. The RBMPs and the PoM also include measures within direct

payments of the agricultural policy, including the specific interventions that implement ‘green’

requirements under the CAP strategic plan for Slovenia, and compensation for a reduction in income

from agricultural activity due to adaptation to water supply protection regime measures.

The measures are described in terms of general activities and implementation approach. For each

measure, the set of water bodies to which it applies, relevant indicators, the responsible body and

the implementing body are defined. The PoM includes a list of indicators for each measure. There is,

however, no data on what the values of the indicators are, and some of the indicators are poorly

described in the PoM. All measures are a continuation of those included in the 2nd RBMPs.

The funding of measures has been clearly set out in the 3rd RBMPs, with agricultural measures being

funded through the CAP from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the European

Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. The national PoM further specifies the budget allocated for

interventions under the strategic plan that have been developed to reduce the burden of agriculture.

The 3rd RBMPs do not provide any quantified gap analysis on the need to reduce nutrient loads from

agriculture or pesticides. Information on nitrogen loads from agriculture to surface and groundwater

bodies is provided for both RBDs, but without clarifying the reduction needed to reach the WFD

targets. There is an assessment of the number of water bodies where pesticides have been identified

as a significant pressure, but the 3rd RBMPs report that it is not possible to estimate the specific

emissions of pesticides and provide no assessment of the extent to which the use needs to be

reduced. Given the impact of nutrients and pesticides on water bodies, Slovenia should ensure that a

23 https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/maps-and-charts/land-cover-and-change-statistics-dashboards. 24 Developments in organic farming - Statistics Explained - Eurostat. 25 https://organictargets.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Slovenia-Digital-country-Factsheet.pdf. 26 Mapping and analysis of CAP strategic plans - Publications Office of the EU.

27

gap assessment is performed, in order to understand the load reduction needed to reach the WFD

objectives, to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures in place, and to devise and implement any

additional measures.

On a positive note, despite the lack of a gap assessment, the implementation of the measures to

reduce nutrient and pesticide pollution from agriculture in the 2nd RBMPs has been evaluated and has

had measurable effects. Consumption of mineral fertilisers in Slovenia decreased by 31% by 2017

and by 5% between 2019 and 2020. Moreover, the consumption of plant fertilisers (N, P2O5, K2O) per

hectare of utilised agricultural area also decreased by 3% between 2019 and 2020. Both reductions

are attributed to the requirements of the Nitrates Directive and the principles of good agricultural

practice in fertilisation.

In the Danube and Adriatic RBDs, there is no mention of transboundary cooperation for nutrient

management upstream or downstream, which is not a good sign for the nutrient management

needed for extra nutrient-sensitive transitional and coastal water bodies.

4.4 What Slovenia is doing to combat pollution from other sectors

Pollution in this context involves nutrients, organic matter, sediment, saline discharges and chemicals

(Priority Substances, River Basin Specific Pollutants, groundwater pollutants and other

physico-chemical parameters) arising from all sectors and sources other than agriculture. This

includes urban wastewater treatment plants, industries with own discharges, urban areas, forestry,

transport, aquaculture and energy production. As pathways of pollution are very different, many

different types of measures are needed to address them.

As regards point source pollution, Slovenia suffers from some deficits in the necessary water

treatment infrastructure and lags behind the EU average in implementing the Urban Wastewater

Treatment Directive (UWWTD). Only 65% of urban wastewater is treated in accordance with the EU

requirements27. In the national PoM, measures are in place to reduce pollution from wastewater

treatment plants, addressing the discharge and treatment of municipal wastewater from

agglomerations with a total load equal to or greater than 2 000 p.e. (population equivalent), from

agglomerations with a total load smaller than 2 000 p.e., and outside of agglomerations. The

Commission is addressing the problem of non-compliance with the UWWTD through one infringement

case focusing on the implementation of the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the

judgment delivered in case C-328/22 on 30 November 202328. In that judgment, the Court of Justice

of the European Union found that Slovenia is not in compliance with the UWWTD because of the

insufficient collection, treatment and monitoring of wastewater in the agglomeration of Ljubljana.

The infringement is related to the construction of the C0 sewage system in the Ljubljana

agglomeration, which is supposed to connect the sewage system with the Zalog urban wastewater

treatment plant, so as to ensure tertiary treatment of urban wastewater.

The PoM also includes measures dealing with wastewater from industrial sources, including both IED

sites and other industrial sources.

The measures that tackle diffuse pollution deal with different sectors, such as the transport of

dangerous goods by road, rail, air and sea; the use and/or content of specific substances, such as

chemicals, phosphates and other phosphorus compounds; fishing and aquaculture; and waste

management.

27 https://water.europa.eu/freshwater/countries/uwwt/slovenia. 28 INFR(2016)2188.

28

Supplementary measures include the preparation of:

• additional action for surface water bodies in poor chemical status due to water pollution,

entailing additional analyses of pressures on selected water bodies from chemical

substances, including mercury and BDE;

• measures to solve water quality problems due to elevated sulphate concentrations, entailing

the analysis of pressures and mechanisms on a water body where the identified source is

the production of titan dioxide; and

• an action plan to improve the status of water bodies for which a trend of deterioration of

status has been detected, entailing the analysis of monitoring data and various studies, the

examination and potential revision of issued permits and concessions, and the preparation

of action plans for individual water bodies.

There is limited information in the national PoM about measures to reduce chemical substances

causing failure to achieve objectives, including RBSPs, with the exception of one measure related to

the use of chemicals and biocides. Similarly, there is not enough information to assess whether all

drivers causing chemical pollution are subject to relevant measures.

All measures are a continuation of the measures from the 2nd RBMPs. The measures are described,

and the responsible entities, goals and indicators of the measures are listed. However, no information

is provided about the values for the listed indicators. For example, for the measure on the treatment

of urban wastewater from agglomerations above 2 000 p.e., the indicators are the reduction of

pollution loads and the number of p.e. provided with collection and treatment services. However, the

current and target values for these two indicators are not presented.

Regrettably, there is no detailed assessment of the gap in terms of loads that are not sufficiently

treated at present, or of the current status of implementation and what is expected to be achieved

by the end of the 3rd RBMPs cycle. The funding of measures is described at an aggregated level by

listing the funding sources, which include EU and national funding. However, no information is

provided about whether funding has been achieved.

4.5 What Slovenia is doing to combat significant pressures – overall

assessment of the Programmes of Measures

In the national Programme of Measures, Slovenia has clearly mapped its measures as either basic

or supplementary measures. For each measure, the number of groundwater or surface water bodies

concerned in both the Adriatic and Danube RBDs is specified. Due to the lack of electronic reporting,

measures are not classified on the basis of the Key Type Measures (KTMs) predefined in the reporting

guidance, which makes comparison and analysis more difficult. Basic measures cover the following

areas: economic instruments, hydromorphological pressures, biological pressures, water pollution,

protected areas, water governance, water use and water management. Supplementary measures are

laid down in the areas of water pollution and hydromorphological pressures. Responsible entities

have been assigned to each measure. However, overall, it is unclear whether the measures set out in

the national PoM for Slovenia are sufficient to tackle the significant pressures. The lack of gap

indicators for measures means that it is unclear how the success of the measures will be measured.

As regards coordination with the FD, the national PoM contains several flood control measures,

including determining and considering flood zones, the identification, establishment and preservation

of floods plains, and land-use adaptation in river basins. With respect to the Marine Strategy

Framework Directive (MSFD), measure ‘OS3.1a – Development of a marine environmental

29

management plan’ is reported to be underway for the 2016-2023 period (the plan was adopted on

23 December 2022).

A critical factor in the successful implementation of the PoM is the availability of funding to support

the investments required. The RBMPs provide a clear overview of the costs of measures. These include

EUR 2.3 billion for basic measures implemented on the basis of the applicable legislation

(2021-2027), of which EUR 998 million will come from the Operational Programme for the Discharge

and Treatment of Municipal Wastewater and EUR 620 million from the Operational Programme for

Drinking Water Supply. There is also EUR 6.5 million for basic measures that have not been fully

implemented yet according to the requirements of the applicable legislation (2023-2027). These

include measures to identify legal, regulatory, administrative and development gaps. Lastly, there is

EUR 398 million for supplementary measures. The link between funding and measures is made in the

national PoM. Sources of funding for these measures come from the Cohesion Fund (Cohesion Policy

2021-2027), the Recovery and Resilience Facility (based on Slovenia’s Recovery and Resilience Plan),

the EU Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, as

well as from the state budget, municipal budget and the newly established Water Fund.

The RBMPs provide an overview of the cost-effectiveness analysis that has been carried out only for

supplementary measures, more specifically for measures to reduce diffuse nutrient pollution of water

in agriculture and to reduce the impact of hydromorphological pressures. For the measures related

to diffuse nutrient pollution, those with the lowest cost/benefit ratio were selected as the most

effective, and for the hydromorphological measures, restoration was found to be the most

cost-effective. These are the only two cost-effectiveness analyses for measures reported in the

RBMPs. Regrettably, the details of the assessment – and whether the assessment has been carried

out for other measures – remain unclear.

Apart from this limited overview of the cost-effectiveness analysis, the RBMPs and the national PoM

do not provide information on the prioritisation of measures. It is unclear if there has been a process

to formulate the final list of national measures.

There is limited information about cooperation with other countries, despite several agreements in

place. However, the International Sava River Basin Commission contains joint Significant Water

Management Issues (SWMIs) and a joint vision of management of objectives, but it does not have a

shared PoM. The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River has joint SWMIs

and a joint vision for the management of objectives. It has also produced a joint PoM.

When designing and implementing research-related measures, Slovenia should make better and

more systematic use of results from EU-funded research and innovation projects. This research can

support better action on water management including future water demand as well as climate

change impacts, and pollution from substances such as pesticides, pharmaceuticals, PFAS and

microplastics.

5. Exemptions and economics

5.1 To what extent are exemptions applied in Slovenia

According to the WFD, where the objective of good status is not yet achieved, exemptions can be

applied in accordance with Article 4(, paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7. In the 3rd RBMPs, Slovenia still applies

30

a significant number of exemptions under Article 4(4) and (7). No exemptions under Article 4(5) and

(6) have been applied, similarly to the 2nd RBMPs.

Figure 11 shows the use of exemptions according to Article 4(4) and (7) in Slovenia.

Figure 11. The use of exemptions for the WFD in surface water bodies (SWBs) and groundwater bodies (GWBs) in Slovenia. The figure shows the proportion of water bodies for each type of exemption.

Source: Data mining of the 3rd RBMPs.

Article 4(4) exemptions (time-related exemptions)

Article 4(4) exemptions have been applied on the grounds of natural conditions or technical feasibility

to 83 surface water bodies (53.5%) for ecological status/potential (representing an increase from the

59 surface water bodies exempted in the 2nd RBMPs) and to 155 surface water bodies (100%) for

chemical status (the same as in the 2nd RBMPs). Three groundwater bodies (14.3%) have been

exempted for chemical status (the same as in the 2nd RBMPs) on the grounds of natural conditions.

No Article 4(4) exemptions have been reported for quantitative groundwater status. No exemptions

have been applied under Article 4(4) due to disproportionate costs.

The 3rd RBMPs provide a general overview of the process of using exemptions and criteria in relation

to (lack of) technical feasibility, natural conditions or disproportionate cost. They do not provide any

detailed technical methodologies, however. The process of determining the exemptions is described,

including diagrams, and the list of exemptions is provided. However, there is no explanation for the

reason behind the new exemptions in the pdf RBMPs submitted to the Commission, even though

Slovenia announced that this would be reported electronically in WISE.

The 3rd RBMPs report that exemptions to extend the deadline for achieving environmental objectives

are considered in the context of:

• earlier exemptions applied in previous RBMPs;

• status assessments and failure to achieve the set environmental objectives in 2015;

• an assessment of the likelihood of achieving the environmental objectives.

The 3rd RBMPs do not provide any detailed water body-specific justification for the use of exemptions.

31

Article 4(7) exemptions (exemption to the obligation of non-deterioration in the case of

new modifications or sustainable human development activities)

The 3rd RBMPs describe in detail the process of considering and granting exemptions under

Article 4(7). This process is set out in Article 56 of the Water Act. All new developments are subject

to the assessment process as part of environmental permitting and associated Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA). Exemptions must be determined in the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

process, the EIA process and the process of obtaining water rights, water opinions and water permits.

Methodology documents set out the technical specifications on how this assessment can be

undertaken29. The 3rd RBMPs also describe the set of questions included in the expert assessment

supporting the Article 4(7) decision.

There is only one exemption under Article 4(7) reported in the Danube RBD, for the Mokrice

Hydropower Plant. The RBMP explains that the negative impacts of the project were determined in

the EIA process and that adequate mitigation measures are defined in the State Spatial Plan.

However, no further details of these measures are provided.

No exemptions under Article 4(7) were reported in the 2nd RBMPs.

5.2 Use of economic analysis and water pricing – cost recovery

Extent of reporting of the (summary of the) underlying economic analysis (Annex III WFD)

The 3rd RBMPs provide limited information on the updates to the economic analysis and cost recovery

assessment compared with their 2nd RBMP counterpart, in terms of both methodology and data. The

summary of the economic analysis is incomplete: it includes some volume estimates associated with

abstraction destined for drinking water and irrigation. It also reports on a cost-effectiveness

assessment used to select the measures to reduce nutrient emissions from agriculture and to reduce

hydromorphological pressures. Notably, the long-term perspective appears lacking, as there are no

long-term forecasts of water demand and water supply, which would be the link to climate change

adaptation scenarios, and no long-term forecasts of relevant investments either.

Cost recovery and adequate contribution of water use sectors

Slovenia has identified an extensive list of 31 water uses, but it does not include water reuse, and it

does not clearly articulate the difference between water services and other water uses. However, the

cost recovery assessment mentions water supply and wastewater collection and treatment, which

are therefore effectively considered as water services. Three broad water user sectors are recognised:

the business sector (broken down further into the sub-sectors industry, energy, transport and

tourism), households / communal services, and agriculture. The 3rd RBMPs state that the basis for the

definition of an individual water use is whether or not a water-related charge is levied on it, although

it is not clear if the ‘charge’ refers to water and sanitation tariffs or water-related environmental

charges.

The 3rd RBMPs provide scant information on the recovery of water service costs and the application

of the polluter pays principle. The 3rd RBMPs state that cost recovery has been estimated taking into

account financial, environmental and resource costs, but they do not report any actual cost recovery

rates or quantitative information on the underlying financial, environmental and resource costs.

29 The assessment of new modifications on the status of water body is carried out on the basis of instructions contained

in Annex 3 to the General Guidelines for Water Management, which are published on the website of the Water Directorate

of the Republic of Slovenia, https://www.gov.si/zbirke/storitve/presoja-prostorske-in-okoljske-dokumentacije/.

32

Slovenia states that it cannot provide financial cost estimates due to a lack of data from private

water service providers, but it remains unclear how this claim relates to the presumably cost-based

price regulation, because of a lack of reporting on the latter. In contrast, the 3rd RBMPs provide an

overview of the sum of collected water service fees in the years 2016-2020, split over water user

sectors and sub-sectors.

The 3rd RBMPs do not discuss mitigation factors to cost recovery, despite the discussion of direct and

indirect subsidies suggesting less than full cost recovery. Article 9(4) exemptions are not mentioned

in the 3rd RBMPs either.

The financial costs of water services are covered mostly by their customers, with the remaining part

subsidised by municipalities, state budget and EU funds. The RBMPs mention that there is financial

support for public utilities’ investments in new water infrastructure, coming from municipal and state

funds alongside EU funds. In addition, there appear to be some subsidies to keep some prices below

cost level. The 3rd RBMPs also mention financial support for agriculture and hydropower producers,

apparently to cope better with water-related costs. According to the 3rd RBMPs, subsidies for activities

carried out by water service users have not been included in the assessment of financial and

environmental costs.

Water prices and price incentives to use water efficiently

The 3rd RBMPs do not provide any account of whether pricing policies offer an ‘adequate incentive’

for more efficient water use. Rather, they provide only general assurances – without much

substantiation – that ‘cost recovery is key to promoting the sustainable use of natural resources’ and

that ‘water pricing policy in Slovenia encourages users to use water resources economically and thus

contribute to achieving environmental goals’.

The 3rd RBMPs’ brief overview of pricing policy does not specify the structure and rates for water

service tariffs, apart from a reference to a surcharge on drinking water consumption over an

unspecified threshold. While it explains that tariffs can vary across the country, there is no information

on the regulatory oversight of price setting. The overview gives some information on water use

charges, including a volumetric water abstraction charge over a certain volume threshold and a

volumetric environmental charge on wastewater discharges. This broad sketch suggests that there

are some clear incentives for more efficient water use in Slovenia, but the lack of further information

and widespread use of subsidies make it impossible to conclude whether these incentives can be

considered adequate overall.

The methodology for estimating environmental costs follows a cost-based approach, while the

methodology for appraising resource costs follows the opportunity costs approach. However, the 3rd

RBMPs do not provide any details of the environmental cost estimates and the underlying

calculations. Instead, they state that the resource cost appraisal did not identify any foreseeable

significant water supply constraints at individual water body level. However, it remains unclear

whether this outcome has been ‘climate-proofed’ – specifically, whether it has taken into account the

RBMPs’ descriptions of the expected impact of climate change on water availability in the next

50 years – or how it relates to the reported shares of surface and groundwater bodies currently

failing good status.

Polluter Pays Principle

The 3rd RBMPs give only a general assurance that water pollution costs are paid by polluters in

accordance with the polluter pays principle. This may hold for wastewater services (as the charge is

levied on users who are indeed polluters) and for the reported water pollution charges on water uses

with a pollution pressure. However, it remains much less clear for water pollution raising the cost of

33

treating abstracted water destined for drinking water. The revenues collected from water pollution

charges are not earmarked to cover (a part of) these pollution-related costs, but they can be used

for all municipal public utility services. Revenues from abstraction charges, and from the charges on

other significant water uses, are transferred to the (national) Water Fund, which is used for financing

the RBMP and FRMP measures.

Hence, the available information suggests limited application of the polluter pays principle. In

combination with a lack of sectoral specification of cost recovery efforts more generally, the 3rd

RBMPs do not make the case that the various water user sectors’ contributions to water service costs

can be considered adequate.

6. WFD recommendations

Recommendations - Slovenia should:

1. Further raise the level of ambition and accelerate action to reduce the compliance gap as

much as possible by 2027. This implies:

a. further improving governance by ensuring that the consultation, adoption and reporting

of the 4th RBMPs is carried out in accordance with the WFD timetable;

b. developing a more ambitious Programme of Measures, which should provide a

methodology for how the prioritisation and cost-effectiveness analysis for all measures

has been carried out, include a gap assessment to achieve the objectives of measures

and link the measures to the relevant KTMs;

c. ensuring full compliance with WFD provisions on the mandatory periodic review of

permits/controls for all relevant activities impacting water bodies, in particular

abstractions. Furthermore, Slovenia should closely monitor and clearly report on illegal

water abstractions in agriculture or other sectors, with a view to effectively addressing

them.

2. Identify and put in place, as appropriate, additional measures to reduce existing persistent

environmental challenges (pressures) preventing the achievement of good status based on

robust gap analyses. This implies, among other things:

a. stepping up efforts to identify and address all relevant sources of pollution, in particular

with respect to the sources of anthropogenic pressures that are still unknown and affect

almost all surface water bodies, so as to enable identification of the required additional

measures;

b. stepping up action to drastically reduce nutrient and pesticide pollution from agriculture,

including providing a comprehensive gap assessment for diffuse pollutant loads and

presenting what the planned measures will achieve in terms of closing the gaps;

c. ensuring that all individual chemical substances causing status failures are addressed by

appropriate measures, and providing a gap analysis to ensure that the measures planned

will be sufficient to reach the objectives;

d. keeping up efforts to address persistent challenges linked to nutrient and chemical

pollution from urban and industrial sources, including by closing the gaps in

implementation of the UWWTD. Furthermore, Slovenia should provide more exhaustive

34

information on the measures planned and the gaps to target so as to improve wastewater

management throughout its territory;

e. enhancing efforts involving nature-based solutions, including re-naturalisation and

ecosystem restoration, which will reduce hydromorphological pressures on water bodies;

f. providing more clarity on the establishment and use of ecological flows and establishing

for all relevant water bodies an explicit link between the implementation of e-flows and

the authorisation process and/or review of permits to control water abstractions and

impoundments;

g. reviewing the application of the Polluter Pays Principle and providing sectoral detail of

cost recovery efforts more generally, with a view to ensuring that the contributions of the

various water user sectors to water service costs are adequate;

h. providing a clear account of whether pricing policies offer an ‘adequate incentive’ for

more efficient water use.

3. Where the objectives of the WFD for a specific water body cannot be met and exemptions

are invoked, this should be done in line with ECJ case-law on the restrictive interpretation of

exemptions, providing detailed justification at water body level and ensuring that their

application is regularly reviewed. This implies, for Slovenia:

a. recognising that possibilities for time extensions (Article 4(4)) are extremely limited and

will no longer be allowed after 2027 (except if duly justified for natural conditions) and

taking appropriate action;

b. providing a clear and sound definition of the methodology to apply the various clauses

under Article 4(4) and detailed information on the application of exemptions, including

detailed justification at water body level;

c. providing more detailed justification for applying Article 4(7) exemptions to new projects,

including by determining overriding public interest, assessing better environmental

options and the measures taken to mitigate the adverse impacts of new developments.

4. As regards monitoring, assessment, data management and reporting, Slovenia should:

a. further strengthen monitoring systems to close gaps in terms of both geographic

coverage and parameters covered, including the hydromorphological quality element

‘river continuity’;

b. ensure monitoring for chemical status in all surface water bodies in which priority

substances are discharged;

c. ensure that all biological quality elements (BQEs) are considered for the assessment of

good ecological potential (GEP) and that the threshold for GEP depends on ecologically

relevant measures without any significant adverse effect on use;

d. provide clear information on the geographic coverage of monitoring in surface water

bodies and on the methods used for status assessment, including a clear presentation of

the confidence ratings;

e. continue working towards improving the level of confidence in the classification of

groundwater quantitative and chemical status;

35

f. provide clear information on the number of water bodies that are expected to achieve

the objectives of the WFD or that are at risk of failing to achieve those objectives by the

end of the RBMP cycle.

36

SECTION B:FLOODS DIRECTIVE

37

For the assessment of flood risk management in Slovenia under the Floods Directive (FD) and related

recommendations, please refer to Commission Staff Working Document ‘Third River Basin

Management Plans – Second Flood Hazard and Risk Maps and Second Flood Risk Management Plans

– Member State: Slovenia’ (SWD(2025) 30 final), published on 4 February 202530.

30 SWD(2025) 30 final, available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD%3A2025%3A30%3AFIN&qid=1738746144581.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 2.10.2026

SWD(2026) 603 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Third River Basin Management Plans Second Flood Hazard and Risk Maps and

Second Flood Risk Management Plans

Member State: Cyprus

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}

ENVIRONMENT

Cyprus Country-specific staff working document

© P

ex el

s. co

m | S

te pa

n V ra

ny

2

Content

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

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

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

2. Horizontal aspects ................................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Governance ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Characterisation of River Basin District .............................................................................................................. 10

3. Policy elements contributing to biodiversity and climate change adaptation ...................................... 13

3.1 Surface Water: what is their ecological status or potential .................................................................... 13

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

3.3 Groundwater bodies - have they sufficient water – quantitative status ......................................... 16

3.4 Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) ........................................... 17

3.5 What is being done to prevent/reduce hydromorphological pressures ............................................ 19

3.6 What Cyprus is doing for abstractions and water scarcity ...................................................................... 20

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

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

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

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

4.3 What Cyprus is doing to combat pollution from agriculture .................................................................. 25

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

4.5 What Cyprus is doing to combat significant pressures – overall assessment of the

Programmes of Measures .................................................................................................................................................. 26

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

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

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

6. WFD recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................ 30

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

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

l

3

SECTION A:

WATER FRAMEWORK

DIRECTIVE

4

1. General info, member state characterisation

Cyprus is the largest island in the Eastern Mediterranean and the third-largest island in the

Mediterranean Sea. It has a terrestrial area of approximately 9,251 km² and an Exclusive Economic

Zone (EEZ) of around 98,000 km².

Strategically located at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa, Cyprus shares maritime boundaries

with Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt and Greece. Its population is estimated at around 1.37

million inhabitants in 2025, with a population density of approximately 148 inhabitants per km²,

above the EU average. Cyprus is characterised by a diverse landscape dominated by the Troodos

mountain range in the central and south-western part of the island and the Pentadactylos mountain

range in the north, separated by the fertile Mesaoria Plain. Under the Water Framework Directive,

Cyprus constitutes a single River Basin District. The island has a semi-arid Mediterranean climate and

limited water resources, which are largely dependent on highly precipitation. Increasing temperatures,

prolonged droughts, growing demand from households, agriculture and tourism have intensified

pressure on water resources, leading Cyprus to be one of the Member States with the highest Water

Exploitation Index Plus values. To strengthen water security and improve water efficiency, Cyprus has

invested in an integrated water management system based on dams, seawater desalination,

wastewater treatment and water reuse.

Currently, 37.8% of the country’s land area is designated as protected area, which is significantly

above the EU value of 26.4%. As regards agriculture, most farms are family holdings with very small

surface areas. In fact, more than 75% of farms occupy less than two hectares. The agriculture of the

island is very vulnerable to water scarcity and climate change, and relies heavily on wastewater

reuse. Cyprus claims that it already reuses around 90% of its treated wastewater, significantly above

the EU average, with reclaimed water meeting around 37% of the country’s irrigation needs.

Map A. Map of river basin districts

5

Table A. Overview of Cyprus’s river basin districts

RBD Name Size (km2)

CY001 Cyprus 9 235.914

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Reporting

The deadline for reporting the third river basin management plans (RBMPs) was March 2022. The

European Commission and the European Environment Agency (EEA), together with Member States,

developed a voluntary electronic reporting system in the Water Information System for Europe (WISE).

Some Member States used it to fulfil their obligations; others submitted their plans in pdf format.

The cut-off date for the WISE electronic reporting was September 2023 and the Member States were

assessed based on the datasets available by this date.

A RBMP for Cyprus (CY001) was submitted in pdf format in November 2023, along with eight

background documents. Electronic reporting was completed by Cyprus, but it did not consult, adopt

and report the RBMP according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD) timetable. The late adoption

resulted in infringement proceedings by the European Commission.

The values used in this document are based on the third RBMP e-reporting. However, during the

consultation phase of the consultant’s report, Cyprus noted inconsistent values in the e-reporting and

provided updated values. Therefore, the values used in this document are based on the e-reporting

and the updated values are referenced with an appropriate footnote.

6

Changes in status, pressures, exemptions and measures

Surface water bodies (215)

Trend (% good status/potential)

Main pressures and changes and exemptions

ECOLOGICAL STATUS

The percentage of surface water bodies (SWBs) with good or high ecological status or potential has increased slightly since the second RBMP (58.4% to 60.9%). However, there is low confidence in the ecological status of SWBs due to limited monitoring of quality elements. Many are not monitored at all, and there is limited use of grouping and expert judgement to compensate for gaps in monitoring. The main drivers for pressure are diffuse pollution from agriculture (around 29%) followed by abstraction for agriculture, affecting around 15% of SWBs. It must be highlighted that there is a significantly high number of as yet unknown anthropogenic pressures affecting 63% of SWBs. By 2027, it is expected that 62.8% of SWBs will have good or better ecological status, 32.6% will have less than good ecological status and the remaining 4.6% unknown status. Another issue to be noted is that there is no linkage between gap indicators, key type measures (KTMs) and measures taken for the electronic reporting. Several measures have been linked to KTMs 2, 3 and ‘other’. For nutrients, the information on gap indicators was not provided in the third RBMP electronic reporting, in terms of either the need to reduce nutrient loads or the number of water bodies where measures are needed. It is therefore not possible to assess the gaps and the distance to target. Article 4(4) exemptions are applied to 8 SWBs (3.7%) due to natural conditions, and to 15 SWBs (7%) for technical feasibility reasons. Article 4(5) exemptions are applied to 4 SWBs (1.9%) due to disproportionate costs.

7

CHEMICAL STATUS

The percentage of SWBs with good chemical status in Cyprus has slightly decreased (84.8% to 80.9%). No change is expected in the number of SWBs that have good chemical status by 2027. However, SWBs with unknown chemical status are expected to increase. Regarding the confidence rating, for SWBs with good chemical status, the confidence in classification for the high and medium categories has increased considerably (down from 50% in 2015 to 30% in 2021). As the overall number of monitoring stations has increased, this may be part of the explanation as to why the overall confidence in classification has improved. Of the 45 priority substances, monitoring obligations cover known discharges of 6 substances (primarily metals) (the frequency of monitoring varies per location and substance, from as low as once every six years, to as high as 10 times a year). For lakes and reservoirs, a reduced subset of the total priority substances is included in the monitoring programme. For the period 2013 to 2019, monitoring was conducted for all 45 priority substances in rivers. The top priority substances affecting SWBs include metals such as nickel, mercury and cadmium, all in the top 5 (as well as lead, which is in the top 10). Nickel is responsible for 10% of all water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status. Regarding measures, there is no electronic reporting of KTMs for pressures or the gap indicators. It is therefore hard to identify the gaps to achieving good status for the chemical pollutants identified. Article 4(4) exemptions apply to 2 SWBs (0.9%) for technical feasibility reasons, and to 4 SWBs (1.9%) due to natural conditions. Article 4(5) exemptions applyto 18 SWBs (8.4%) due to disproportionate costs, and to 15 SWBs (7%) due to infeasibility.

8

Groundwater bodies (22)

Trend (% good status/potential)

Main pressures and changes and exemptions

QUANTITATIVE STATUS

The percentage of groundwater bodies (GWBs) with good quantitative status is relatively low, but has increased in the third RBMP (23.8% to 36.4%). 14 GWBs fail to achieve good quantitative status due to the available groundwater resource being exceeded by the long-term annual average rate of abstraction and/or due to a human-induced decline in groundwater levels. Moreover, 6 out of these 14 GWBs (i.e. 27.3% of total GWBs assessed) have failed to achieve a good quantitative status because of regional saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced sustained changes in flow direction. The same 14 GWBs (i.e. 63.6% of total GWBs assessed) that had poor quantitative status in 2021, are also expected to fail to achieve good quantitative status by 2027. Article 4(4) exemptions apply to 14 GWBs (63.6%) due to natural conditions.

9

CHEMICAL STATUS

The percentage of GWBs with good chemical status has increased in the third RBMP. All 22 GWBs, and thus the entire GWB area, are subject to chemical monitoring, compared to high but less than full coverage in the second RBMP, when 19 out of 21 GWBs (i.e. 90.5% of total GWBs) were assessed. The top five pollutants affecting GWBs consist of electrical conductivity (22.7% of all GWBs), chloride (22.7% of all GWBs), nitrate (22.7% of all GWBs), sulphate (18.2% of all GWBs) and ammonium (9.1% of all GWBs). The same 6 GWBs (i.e. 27.3% of total GWBs assessed) that had poor chemical status in 2021 are expected to fail to achieve good chemical status by 2027. In the third RBMP electronic reporting, there is no quantified gap assessment for chemical pollution in GWBs. Therefore, the gap to achieving good chemical status in GWBs is not visible. Article 4(4) exemptions apply to 6 GWBs (27.3%) due to natural conditions.

10

2. Horizontal aspects

2.1 Governance

The Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment (MARD&E) is the ministry

responsible, but the Water Development Department (WDD) is the competent authority that actually

implements the Water Framework Directive and prepares the RBMPs, including monitoring water

status, analysis, public consultation and reporting. It coordinates the programme of measures and

preparation of the RBMP, with final approval from the Council of Ministers. Since the second RBMP,

there have been no changes or subplans. A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) was completed

and included in the third phase of public consultation1. Cyprus is treated as a single RBD covering all

70 main river basins. The government controls 47 of these, which are grouped into 9 subunits2. The

remaining RBDs do not fall under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

A consultation was conducted for the third RBMP. The competent authorities used a consultation

questionnaire and a workshop, and a steering committee comprising representatives of relevant

ministries, government departments and local authorities was appointed to coordinate the RBMP and

the preparation of the programme of measures. However, it is not clear whether the comments have

been published and whether a summary of responses is being made available.

Although Cyprus’s third RBMP builds on the second RBMP and the first flood risk management plan

(FRMP), it lacks clear information on how it is coordinated with the second FRMP as regards the

identification of significant water management issues, risk assessment, monitoring and public

consultation. Moreover, it is unclear if a joint public consultation for the RBMP and FRMP took place.

Some coordination between the management of marine areas and freshwater is evidenced since the

Cyprus Department of Fisheries and Marine Research participated in the third RBMP consultation and

was on the steering committee for drafting the third RBMP and programme of measures. However,

the RBMP does not specify whether a joint public consultation was carried out for the 3rd RBMP and

the 2nd FRMP.

2.2 Characterisation of River Basin District

In Cyprus, there are a total of 215 SWBs and 22 GWBs. As was also the case in the second RBMP,

Cyprus has delineated river, lake and coastal water bodies but has not delineated transitional or

territorial water bodies. During 2019-2020, the delineation of water bodies was reanalysed and

updated, but without changing the basic and additional criteria used in the second and first RBMPs.

Since the second RBMP, most of the intermittent rivers (watercourses that do not flow continuously

throughout the year – they have periods of flow and periods of no flow, driven by seasonal rainfall

and groundwater patterns) in Cyprus are no longer considered WFD water bodies but they are still

subject to monitoring under national legislation.

Cyprus’s third RBMP has delineated a total of 23 GWBs, increasing from 22 in the second RBMP. This

change results from the re-delineation, and subsequent splitting into two, of one GWB, with the

overall total GWB area remaining nearly unchanged since the previous cycle. One GWB (CY-20) is

situated within an area not under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus

1 Terms are detailed in Section 1.6 of the third RBMP. 2 In accordance with Protocol No 10, annexed to the Act of Accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the European Union (EU), the application of the acquis, i.e. the body of EU law, is suspended in the areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control.

11

and, consequently, has been excluded from both the second and third RBMP assessments, leaving 21

and 22 GWBs assessed, respectively.

Table 1. Water bodies delineated in Cyprus

RBD Name Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Territorial Groundwater

Cyprus (CY001) 170 23 0 22 0 22

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Surface waters

63% of SWBs are affected by as yet unknown anthropogenic pressures. This calls for more thorough

operational or surveillance monitoring.

The significant impact affecting the highest percentage of SWBs is nutrient pollution. Indeed, 54 out

of the 215 SWBs assessed (i.e. 25.1% of total SWBs assessed) failed to achieve good ecological

status or potential by 2021 and are significantly affected by diffuse pollution from agriculture. This

differs from the previous cycle, where the highest impact was stated as being altered habitats due

to morphological changes.

In Cyprus, hydromorphological pressures are only reported for a dam/barrier on the Chapotami river.

Significant pressures also come from abstraction due to agriculture and public water supply.

Agriculture covers around 47.5% of Cyprus, and forest and semi-natural areas cover 42.4%3. Around

7% of agricultural land is managed organically4.

Gap analyses for nutrient pollution have not been carried out in the third RBMP.

Groundwater

For GWBs, as was already the case in the past, the most significant pressure and impact comes from

abstraction for agriculture and lowering water tables. However, there seems to be a slight

improvement in pressures and impacts compared to the previous cycle. In addition, it is noted that 5

out of the 22 GWBs assessed (i.e. 22.7% of total GWBs assessed) had poor chemical status in 2021

and are significantly affected by diffuse pollution from agriculture.

3 https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/maps-and-charts/land-cover-and-change-statistics-dashboards. 4Eurostat - Developments in organic farming in 2021: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Developments_in_organic_farming.

12

Figure 1. The most significant pressures on surface water and groundwater bodies in Cyprus in the third

RBMP (expressed as percentages of numbers of water bodies)5

Source: WISE electronic reporting.

5 Cyprus provided alternative values for the percentage of SWBs affected by significant pressures that are different to those reported in the electronic data. According to Cyprus, the significant pressures affecting the highest percentage of SWBs are diffuse pollution from agriculture (37%) followed by abstraction for agriculture (19%). Unknown anthropogenic pressures affect only 5% of the SWBs.

13

Figure 2. The most significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Cyprus in the third

RBMP (expressed as percentages of numbers of water bodies)6

Source: WISE electronic reporting

The WFD requires type-specific reference conditions to be set for biological hydromorphological and

physico-chemical quality elements. These are the values at high ecological status. This has been done

for rivers and coastal water, but not for the majority of lakes (83%).

3. Policy elements contributing to biodiversity and

climate change adaptation

3.1 Surface Water: what is their ecological status or potential

Monitoring

There are two main types of monitoring: i) operational monitoring to determine the status of all water

bodies at risk of not reaching the environmental objectives and ii) surveillance monitoring aimed

rather at providing an assessment of the overall surface water status within the RBD, as well as

identifying impacts and long-term changes. In Cyprus, surveillance monitoring covers 55% of river

length, 90% of lake area and 57% of coastal area. However, Cyprus subsequently provided

alternative values for the surveillance monitoring coverage in rivers and lakes compared to those

reported electronically. More specifically, surveillance monitoring covers 37% of river length and 1%

of lake area.

6 Cyprus also subsequently provided alternative values for the percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant impacts that are different to those reported in the electronic data. According to Cyprus, the significant impacts affecting the highest percentage of surface water bodies are nutrient pollution (31%) followed by chemical pollution (15%). Unknown impacts affect only 5% of the surface water bodies.

14

The deployment of operational monitoring remains scarce. Although Cyprus subsequently provided

alternative values for the operational monitoring coverage in rivers and lakes, operational monitoring

covers 23% of river length and 99% of lake area.

Regarding the inclusion of various biological quality elements in monitoring, these are included for

coastal waters but there are significant gaps for rivers and lakes. Regarding hydromorphological

quality elements and physico-chemical quality elements, some are monitored and some are not. No

physico-chemical quality elements are monitored in coastal waters. In conclusion, it would seem that

the monitoring system features considerable gaps across the board, and does not cover a number of

elements required by law.

Status assessment

Figure 4 compares the assessment of the ecological status of surface waters in the different cycles.

There are more unknowns than in the previous cycle and yet the assessment concludes that there is

an improvement in the ecological status compared to the second RBMP (those with good status have

increased from 58.4% to 60.9%). It is predicted that the situation will continue improving and will

reach 62.9% by 2027.

For a large proportion of SWBs, the confidence in such assessments is low.

Figure 4. Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Cyprus in the first, second and third RBMPs

Source: WISE electronic reporting

3.2 Hydromorphological changes and artificialisation – (HMWBs and

AWBs)

Some SWBs are such that the changes in hydromorphological characteristics necessary to achieve

good ecological status would have significant adverse effects on the wider environment or on any of

various uses including navigation, flood protection, hydropower and irrigation. Member States can, in

such cases, designate these water bodies as HMWBs or AWBs. The environmental objective of such

bodies is good ecological potential instead of good ecological status. In Cyprus, the number of river

HMWBs has changed due to designation of new HMWBs, aggregation of existing ones and the

reclassification of some HMWBs previously designated as natural. This has resulted in a decrease in

the overall number of designated HMWBs compared to the previous cycle.

15

A vast majority of lakes are heavily modified and human intervention is significant also in rivers and

coastal areas.

Figure 5 shows the level of human intervention in the water system. Cyprus has designated a total

of 52 water bodies as heavily modified. This comprises 31 rivers, 17 lakes and 4 coastal waters.

The reasons for water bodies being heavily modified are mostly irrigation for agriculture (81%),

followed by drinking water supply (46%), urban development (other use) (10%), tourism and

recreation (6%) and transport (6%). According to the status assessment, 22 HMWBs have good, 27

moderate, 1 poor, and 2 unknown ecological potential. The single AWB has unknown ecological

potential. Unfortunately, the third RBMP does not provide an evaluation of ecological potential for

lake and coastal HMWBs.

Figure 5. The proportion of natural, heavily modified and artificial water bodies by water category and total

Source: WISE electronic reporting

3.3 Groundwater bodies - have they sufficient water – quantitative status

All GWBs under assessment (21 and 22 in the second and third RBMPs, respectively) are subject to

quantitative monitoring, with 86 monitoring sites. GWBs have not been grouped in the assessment

of their quantitative status.

Furthermore, 13 GWBs have been designated as drinking water protected areas.

It is noted with strong concern that only 8 out of 22 GWBs (36.4%) had good quantitative status,

while 14 GWBs (63.6%) continued to have poor status and are expected to continue to do so in 2027.

The reason is over-abstraction, in some cases also coupled with saline intrusions.

This is an improving trend since 16 GWBs had a bad status in the previous cycle. This improvement

would need to be better explained in the light of increasing impacts of climate change.

Confidence in the assessment of the quantitative status of GWBs does not show clear progress since

the second RBMP.

Figure 6. Quantitative status of groundwater bodies in the first, second and third RBMPs

16

Source: WISE electronic reporting

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

Cyprus has designated five types of protected areas: areas intended for the abstraction of water for

human consumption, water bodies designated as recreational waters under the Bathing Waters

Directive, nutrient sensitive areas under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, nitrate

vulnerable zones under the Nitrates Directive and Natura 2000 sites under the Birds and Habitats

Directives. Monitoring sites are set up for the five types of designated protected areas.

Figure 7 shows the progress in the status of water bodies associated with protected areas in the

second and third RBMPs. There seems to be an improvement in protected areas for ecological status

(from 63% to 66%) and quantitative status (from 25% to 35%). The opposite is true for the chemical

status of surface water, where there is a slight deterioration in protected areas (from 86% to 83%).

The percentage of GWBs associated with protected areas with good chemical status remains the

same.

17

Figure 7. Progress in the status of water bodies associated with protected areas in the second RBMP (2016) and third RBMP (2022)

Source: WISE electronic reporting

The protected areas are generally subject to additional objectives, which may differ from one water

body to another. Basic measures are planned in protected areas, aimed at ensuring compliance with

the relevant Directives (e.g. Nitrates Directive, Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, Bathing Water

Directive and Birds and Habitats Directives) and the respective national laws. Additional measures

are planned in the Xeros Potamos river water body, a water body associated with several Natura

2000 sites. These measures aim to maintain the ecological flow (e-flow) downstream of the

Asprokremmos dam. No further information has been found on additional measures related to

protecting and improving protected areas associated with SWBs and GWBs.

3.5 What is being done to prevent/reduce hydromorphological pressures

To tackle these pressures, Cyprus has reported the following measures:

• KTM 5 – ‘Improving longitudinal continuity’;

18

• KTM 6 – ‘Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal

continuity’;

• KTM 7 – ‘Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows’;

• KTM 14 – ‘Research activities’.

It has also listed general measures, such as restricting extractions from selected water bodies with

the aim of protecting important ecological features and habitats, and upgrading the registry of small

point extractions and publishing it in the RBMP.

Regarding WFD measures also related to the Floods Directive and drought management, Cyprus has

listed the following measures:

• preparing a special action programme to address stormwater runoff from residential areas

and industrial facilities with the aim of protecting water (BM-h-02);

• including the prospect of groundwater enrichment in the design of flood control projects and

other related projects on natural water retention (ΣΜ-xiv-02);

• knowledge transfer and information actions (training producers through relevant actions

under the ΠΑΑ 2023-2027) (ΣΜ-xv-01).

As for ecological flows, they have been established, but not yet used at full scale for permitting

purposes. Measures related to ecological flows include:

• e-flows downstream of dams to improve the hydromorphological characteristics of selected

HMWBs that support important ecological elements (measure ΣΜ-vii-05);

• releasing targeted e-flows downstream of dams in selected locations with particularly

important ecological characteristics (measure ΣΜ-vii-06);

• releasing flood flows at selected dams (Measure ΣΜ-vii-07);

• applying a special programme to assess the effectiveness of e-flows (measure ΣΜ-vii-14).

3.6 What Cyprus is doing for abstractions and water scarcity

As mentioned earlier, water abstraction in Cyprus is one of the most significant pressures affecting

water resources. Cyprus is required to report water exploitation index+ (WEI+) data due to significant

water abstraction pressures. The national drought management plan (DMP) reports an average WEI+

of 49.7% from 2018 to 2022, indicating severe water scarcity. Future projections show worsening

conditions due to climate change7.

WEI+ values above 20% indicate that water resources are under stress and therefore conditions of

water scarcity prevail. Values above 40% indicate that stress is severe. The DMP includes measures

to address water scarcity and droughts, detailing current trends in water supply, impacts of climate

change and management strategies. However, the third RBMP lacks detailed forward-looking analysis

on future water demand.

The main water uses in Cyprus are irrigation: 59.1%, households and urban uses: 29.6%, tourism:

4.9%, animal husbandry: 3.3% and manufacturing: 3.0%8.

By law, a permit is needed for water abstraction from surface and groundwater. Yet there are

evidence of unauthorised abstractions and a failure to implement environmental flow requirements.

With regard to e-flows, they have only been partially established and implemented for relevant water

bodies in Cyprus, so related work continues under the third RBMP. The connection between e-flow

7 https://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/WDD/wfd.nsf/page31_gr/page31_gr?opendocument. 8 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_wat_abs__custom_8401102/default/table.

19

implementation and the permit process for water abstraction and impoundment is only partial. Where

e-flows are not established or implemented, such a connection does not exist.

3.7 Adaptation to climate change

Considering the close relationship between overall water management and flood management, and

the importance of climate change for both, the considerations on droughts and floods are addressed

together in this section.

Cyprus’s programme of measures was partly developed with adaptation to climate change in mind,

listing 14 related actions. While the third RBMP lacks a dedicated section on quantitative aspects of

water management and climate change, the updated 2023 DMP includes considerations on climate

change and provides water scarcity and drought indicators.

Cyprus has taken several steps to address climate change, including preparing a climate change

adaptation plan in 2014 and an updated national strategy on adaptation to climate change for 2025-

20509 in 2025.

The DMP emphasises the importance of avoiding an imbalance between water demand and supply.

It outlines long-term and short-term measures, categorised by their focus on different sectors such

as water demand management, increasing water availability, minimising drought and effects of water

scarcity10. These measures can be technological, economic or social, depending on their nature. As

regards floods, the Floods Directive requires Member States to consider how climate change

contributes to the occurrence of floods, and to therefore take it into account when preparing flood

hazard and risk maps (FHRMs) and FRMPs. Climate change considerations were included in both the

first and second FHRMs of Cyprus. In the second FHRMs, climate change scenarios are applied to all

areas of potential significant flood risk (APSFRs). They relate to both fluvial and pluvial floods and to

all the probability scenarios (low, medium and high). For each APSFR and return period, the approach

used is based on statistical data on rainfall before/after 1970 and is applied to all maps. It takes into

account climate change observed in Cyprus to date and the uncertainties that exist in assessing and

quantifying it. In addition, for the high probability scenario (return period of 20 years), a future

scenario of climate change and land use change in the year 2080 was examined, and flood maps

were prepared for the future scenario in 2080. In addition, maps were also drawn up comparing the

flooding results with the current climatic and development conditions. This approach is applied to all

38 APSFRs, including 19 APSFRs added in the second cycle and 19 APSFRs from the first preliminary

flood risk assessment (PFRA) and FHRM. Due to climate change, flood flows are expected to increase

between 14.5% and 38%, depending on the area.

Consideration of climate change in the first and the second FHRMs is similar but, in the second cycle,

the methodology for assessing and presenting climate change in the maps was updated and made

clearer.

In the second FRMPs, each proposed measure is assessed for its resilience to climate change as part

of the cost-effectiveness assessment. The classification of each measure in terms of resilience to

climate change is based on the following rationale: measures expected to perform effectively even

under projected impacts of climate change (i.e. no-regret measures) – in the context of flood risk, this

refers to more frequent and intense rainfall events – are characterised by high resilience. The

remaining measures are characterised by medium resilience.

9 National Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change 2025-2050: https://www.oeb.org.cy/wp- content/uploads/2025/02/EN_National-Adaptation-Strategy-CY.pdf. 10 https://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/WDD/wfd.nsf/page31_gr/page31_gr?opendocument.

20

Several measures in the programme of measures refer directly or indirectly to drought and water

scarcity, such as:

• a special action programme to address stormwater runoff from residential areas and

industrial facilities with the aim of protecting water resources (BM-h-02);

• including groundwater enrichment prospects in the design of projects on flood control and

natural water retention (ΣΜ-xiv-02);

• knowledge transfer and information actions targeting producers through the 2023-2027

rural development programme (ΣΜ-xv-01).

One flood measure involves reviewing design requirements for flood protection and stormwater

drainage works. It includes research and development on approaches to increase the resilience and

adaptability of these works to climate change. A further measure, which specifically refers to

adaptation, is the update of extreme weather response plans with the results and conclusions of the

second FHRMs, which will use results and conclusions for the future climate change and land use

change scenario. The approach to climate change considerations was similar in the first FRMPs –

measures which were assessed as being effective also during extreme weather events, potentially

linked to climate change, were rated more favourably.

4. Policy elements contributing to zero pollution

4.1 Surface Water: what is their chemical status

Monitoring

It is positive that, compared to the previous cycle, the number of operated monitoring sites has

increased from 57 to 81, out of a total of 110 monitoring sites. For the third RBMP, surveillance

monitoring covers 55% of all river water bodies (by length), nearly 100% of all lakes and nearly 57%

of coastal water bodies (by area).

The number of priority substances monitored varies. Between 2013 and 2019, all 45 priority

substances were monitored in rivers. For lakes and reservoirs, a reduced subset of substances were

included in the monitoring programme. It was also noted that monitoring for short chain chlorinated

paraffins, as well as dioxins and furans was conducted using sediment samples, while for tributyltin,

monitoring was limited to coastal areas on the basis that it was considered as posing a low risk for

rivers and lakes. In terms of the long-term trend, Cyprus has indicated that status assessment is

currently ongoing. For 3 of the 20 substances (lead, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons),

the situation has been described as broadly static, with no indications of upward or downward trends.

Status assessment

There is a noticeable reduction in the number of unknowns, from 11.8% to now 4.2%, which is

welcome. However, between the second and the third cycle, there has been a decrease in water bodies

with good chemical status, from 84.8% to 80.9%. This reverses the trend between the first and

second RBMPs, which saw an increase in water bodies with good chemical status, from 73.9% to

84.8%. It is cannot be concluded whether the deteriorating trend is the result of increased pressures

and unsuitable measures, or increased knowledge of the state of water bodies.

21

Figure 8. Chemical status of surface water bodies in Cyprus in the first, second and third RBMPs

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Figure 9 shows that failure to achieve good chemical status is mainly due to metals, with nickel,

mercury and cadmium all in the top 5 (as well as lead, which is in the top 10). Nickel and its

compounds are responsible for just over 10% of all water bodies failing to achieve good chemical

status on a national scale. This is quite unique and has not been found in other Member States. For

coastal waters, mercury is the primary reason for failing to achieve good chemical status.

Pesticides banned from the EU, which have been identified as persistent organic pollutants under the

UN Stockholm Convention, are also prominent in the top 10. They include hexachlorobenzene,

chlorpyrifos and endosulfan.

The remaining two substances, benzene and fluoranthene, are both linked to organic chemistry, and

to the processing of fossil fuels.

Figure 9. The top-10 priority substances causing failure to achieve good chemical status in SWBs in Cyprus

22

Source: WISE electronic reporting

4.2 Groundwater Bodies: what is their chemical status

Monitoring

All 22 GWBs undergo chemical operational monitoring in the third RBMP, with 92 monitoring sites,

whereas 19 out of 21 (90.5%) were monitored in the second RBMP.

In the third RBMP, just as in the previous cycle, no GWBs are subject to surveillance monitoring1112.

GWBs have not been grouped in the assessment of their chemical status. All substances identified

as presenting a risk to chemical status are monitored in the third RBMP, including all substances

listed under the Groundwater Directive and all core parameters required by the WFD: nitrate,

ammonium, pH, electrical conductivity and dissolved oxygen13.

Status assessment

Figure 10 shows that 16 GWBs (72.7%) have good chemical status, with the remaining 6 GWBs

(27.3%) having poor chemical status. This will remain so in 2027. Compared to the previous cycle,

there seems to be a slight improvement.

Figure 10. Chemical status of GWBs in Cyprus in the first, second and third RBMPs

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Poor status is primarily due to significant environmental risks from pollutants (27.3% of GWBs) and

regional saline or other intrusions from anthropogenic changes in flow direction (22.7% of GWBs).

The primary causes contributing to poor chemical status include electrical conductivity, chloride,

11 According to the third RBMP pdf document (6.2.2 Monitoring programme for qualitative status). In the third RBMP e- reporting, Cyprus has erroneously reported that all 22 GWBs (i.e. 100.0% of total GWBs assessed) are subject to surveillance monitoring. 12 According to the EC compliance assessment for the second RBMP: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=SWD:2019:34:FIN&qid=1551205988853&from=EN. 13 According to the EC compliance assessment for the second RBMP, all WFD core parameters are monitored in Cyprus, despite errors in the second RBMP e-reporting: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=SWD:2019:34:FIN&qid=1551205988853&from=EN. However, Cyprus has not reported the monitoring of pH and dissolved oxygen in the third RBMP pdf and background documents or in the third RBMP e-reporting (GWB_GroundWaterBodyMonitoring_MonitoringSite_ChemicalEcologicalQuantitativeMonitoring).

23

nitrate, sulphate and ammonium. These are the same top pollutants that showed sustained upward

trends in GWBs.

In Cyprus, a significant share of chemical status classifications has low confidence (18.2%), though

they have improved from 23.8% in the second RBMP14. Threshold values were not consistently utilised

for all substances, and no details were provided on distinguishing upward trends from natural

variation with sufficient confidence.

4.3 What Cyprus is doing to combat pollution from agriculture

Measures under KTM 2 include:

• continuation of compliance checks in nitrate vulnerable zones (BM-a-03);

• addition of special cross-compliance regulations (BM-h-02);

• pasture management (Bm-h-03).

Measures under KTM 3 include:

• elimination of the use of chemical pesticides for specific crops (BM-h-04);

• application of crop rotation for potatoes and cereal (BM-h-05);

• organic farming (BM-h-06);

• maintenance of the system for notifying the competent environmental inspectors that WFD

monitoring results indicate exceedances of pollutants (BM-h-07).

‘Other KTM’ measures include:

• performance of targeted research (BM-i-04);

• performance of targeted investigative monitoring (BM-i-02);

• performance of a special monitoring programme of physico-chemical and chemical

parameters in intermittent flow (ephemeral) water bodies (BM-i-03).

A supplementary measure was also identified (SM-xv-01), which aims bring about knowledge transfer

and awareness for farmers.

Funding should come through several sources, with the costs of measures estimated at

EUR 47 721 000. Admionistrative fees have been already included in the state budget and the

relevant activities do not entail additional funding. For other measures, funding will come from the

CAP strategic plan 2023-2027 and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)

for five measures (BM-h-03, BM-h-04, BM-h-05, BM-h-06 and ΣΜ-xv-01) and from national funds

for three measures (BM-i-01, BM-i-02 and BM-i-03). It is striking that there are no new measures in

the third RBMPs, with all measures being carried over from the second RBMP.

The Cypriot CSP 2023-2027 sets specific objectives for agricultural land: sustainable and reduced

use of pesticides on 33% of Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA), improving and protecting soils on 22%

UAA , protecting water quality on 18% UAA, achieving sustainable nutrient management on 17% of

the UAA15.

14 The country subsequently clarified that the characterisation of the confidence is based on the assumption provided in the third RBMP (p. 220) that ‘for the fullest coverage of all groundwater bodies of Cyprus, it is necessary to install additionally 6 monitoring stations’. 15 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/80d12120-89bc-11ee-99ba-01aa75ed71a1

24

4.4 What Cyprus is doing to combat pollution from other sectors

Measures to tackle pollution from non-agricultural sources such as urban wastewater treatment

plants, other industry, urban areas, forestry, transport, aquaculture and energy production. For urban

wastewater treatment, measures include completing two local wastewater treatment plants (BM-a-

01) and continued monitoring of compliance for wastewater treatment plants in sensitive areas (BM-

a-02). For KTM 15, there is only one measure, namely completing two local wastewater treatment

plants and/or pipework (BM-g-04).

Measures related to point sources other than urban wastewater have been applied under KTM 15

and ‘other KTM’, including the rehabilitation of landfills in Limassol district (BM-g-05), rehabilitation

of the Nicosia district landfill (BM-g-03) and preparation of an action plan for stormwater runoff from

residential and industrial sources (BM-h-01). For ‘other KTM’, there are three measures: ensuring that

water body monitoring actions under the WFD are consistent with the action plan for remediation of

abandoned waste sites (BM-g-01); performing targeted research for the assessment of ecological

status of unclassified water bodies (with a focus on lakes) (BM-i-01); and performance of a special

monitoring programme of physico-chemical and chemical parameters in intermittent flow

(ephemeral) water bodies, including their sediments (BM-i-03).

Supplementary measures have also been reported under KTM 14, including performing research to

understand specific pressures in lake water bodies (o ΣM-xvi-02) and performing research to

understand specific pressures affecting coastal water bodies (ΣM-xvi-03).

4.5 What Cyprus is doing to combat significant pressures – overall

assessment of the programmes of measures

In total, Cyprus has reported 43 measures electronically, comprising 25 basic measures and 18

supplementary measures. All 43 measures reported are carried over from the previous cycle.

Measures targeting agricultural pollution from diffuse sources and agricultural abstraction – the two

dominant categories of pressure – are grouped under KTM 2, KTM 3 and ‘other KTM’.

Under KTM 2, measures include:

• continuation of compliance checks in nitrate vulnerable zones (BM-a-03);

• cross-compliance regulations (BM-h-02);

• pasture management (BM-h-03).

25

Under KTM 3, measures include:

• elimination of chemical pesticides for specific crops (BM-h-04);

• crop rotation for potatoes and cereal (BM-h-05);

• organic farming (BM-h-06);

• maintenance of the notification system for WFD monitoring exceedances (BM-h-07).

Under ‘other KTM’, measures include:

• targeted research (BM-i-04);

• targeted investigative monitoring (BM-i-02);

• a special monitoring programme for physico-chemical and chemical parameters in

intermittent water bodies (BM-i-03).

One supplementary measure (SM-xv-01) targets knowledge transfer for farmers.

For urban wastewater treatment, measures under KTM 1 include the completion of two local

wastewater treatment plants (BM-a-01) and continued monitoring of compliance for wastewater

treatment plants in sensitive areas (BM-a-02).

Under KTM 15, a further measure addresses completion of two local wastewater treatment plants

and pipework (BM-g-04). For other point sources, KTM 15 and ‘other KTM’ cover:

• rehabilitation of landfills in Limassol (BM-g-05) and Nicosia (BM-g-03) districts;

• preparing an action plan for stormwater runoff from residential and industrial sources (BM-

h-01);

• ensuring that WFD monitoring is consistent with remediation of abandoned waste sites (BM-

g-01);

• targeted research on ecological status classification in lakes (BM-i-01) and coastal water

bodies (ΣM-xvi-02, ΣM-xvi-03).

Cyprus has carried out a cost-effectiveness analysis, details of which are provided in Annex A to the

RBMP. The total cost of measures is reported as approximately EUR 230 million. However, all funding

is attributed to national investment sources. No information has been provided on EU funding in the

electronic reporting, despite the RBMP itself listing the following as possible funding sources: EU

cohesion policy funds, the 2023-2027 CAP strategic plan, the EAFRD, the LIFE IP Physis project and

the European Investment Bank.

Cyprus has mapped its measures in coordination with the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive and

the Nitrates Directive. For the Floods Directive, several measures are interlinked – in particular the

preparation of a special action programme to address stormwater runoff from residential areas and

industrial facilities (BM-h-02). However, the programme of measures explicitly states that actions

regarding the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), beyond those already provided for by the

MSFD itself, are not included.

When designing and implementing research-related measures, Cyprus should make better and more

systematic use of results from EU-funded research and innovation projects. This research can support

better action on water management including future water demand as well as climate change

impacts, and pollution from substances such as pesticides, pharmaceuticals, PFAS and microplastics.

26

5. Exemptions and economics

5.1 To what extent are exemptions applied in Cyprus

As good status has not been achieved in all water bodies, Cyprus has reported a number of exemptions under the

WFD, which are shown in Figure 11. The country has invoked Article 4(4) and Article 4(5), but never Article 4(6), 4(7)

or 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive. Nevertheless, the third RBMP specifies that it will be examined whether surface

waters whose characteristics are to undergo new modifications meet the conditions for the potential application of

the exemption under Article 4(7).

27

Figure 11. The use of exemptions under Article 4(4) and 4(5) of the WFD in surface water bodies and

groundwater bodies in Cyprus. The figure shows the proportion of water bodies for each type of exemption.

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Exemptions under Article 4(4) have been applied in both the second and the third RBMPs and have been justified on

the grounds of technical feasibility in 15 SWBs (7%) for ecological status/potential and in 2 SWBs (0.9%) for chemical

status. For the others, it has been invoked on the basis of natural conditions.

Article 4(4) exemptions have also been applied on the grounds of natural conditions in:

• 8 SWBs (3.7%) for ecological status/potential [in the third RBMP pdf document the number of these exemptions is 6 SWBs (2.8%)];

• 4 SWBs (1.9%) for chemical status [according to the third RBMP pdf document];

• 14 GWBs (63.6%) for quantitative status [in the third RBMP pdf document the number of these exemptions is 13 groundwater bodies (51.9%)];

• 6 groundwater bodies (27.3%) for chemical status [in the third RBMP pdf document the number of these exemptions is 5 GWBs (22.7%)].

In the second RBMP, 14 GWBs were exempted on the grounds of natural conditions.

Article 4(4) exemptions on the grounds of disproportionate costs were not applied in the second or third RBMPs.

It is noted that the third RBMP’s description of the methodology for the application of Article 4(4) does not explicitly

state how different Article 4(4) clauses were interpreted, i.e. technical feasibility, natural conditions or

disproportionate costs. It can, however, be inferred from the description that technical feasibility grounds are invoked for water bodies with less than good status, but for which implementation of the planned measures is expected to

28

result in status improvements by 2027. Natural conditions are invoked when such improvements are anticipated, but not until after 2027.

The exemptions under Article 4(5) in the third RBMP were applied to SWBs and justified on the grounds of

disproportionate costs and infeasibility. No Article 4(5) exemptions were applied to GWBs according to the third

RBMP electronic reporting, but according to the third RBMP pdf document, one GWB was exempted for quantitative and chemical status in the first and second RBMPs.

Article 4(5) exemptions have been applied on the basis of:

• infeasibility in 15 SWBs (7%) for chemical status [in the third RBMP pdf document the number of these

exemptions is 31 SWBs (14.4%)]. According to the third RBMP pdf document, a further 12 SWBs (5.6%) are

exempted for ecological status/potential];

• disproportionate costs in 4 SWBs (1.9%) for ecological status/potential and 18 SWBs (8.4%) for chemical status [in the third RBMP pdf document the number of these exemptions is reversed].

Information is provided at individual water body level on the specific reasons for applying Article 4(4) and 4(5)

exemptions, but few details are provided for individual water bodies in terms of explanation.

It is noted that the methodology described in the plan interprets infeasibility and disproportionate costs in the

context of Article 4(5). However, we note with concern that the determination of disproportionate costs, in particular,

is solely limited to available funding (and thus affordability). Furthermore, Article 4(5) is applied on the grounds of

infeasibility due to unknown status and/or pressures.

In the second RBMP, no Article 4(5) exemptions were used for SWBs but one GWB was exempted on the grounds of

infeasibility (chemical status).

5.2 Use of economic analysis and water pricing – cost recovery

Cyprus considers the following as water services: drinking water supply, irrigation, wastewater collection and

treatment (up to secondary treatment), and supply of recycled water (including the prior tertiary treatment). The

main sectors of water use are domestic water use, agriculture, livestock farming, industry and tourism.

The economic analysis of water uses and assessment of cost recovery are not included in the RBMP (as laid down

by Article 5 of the WFD). Only some water price estimates are reported, and estimates of the relevant investments

are reported in the programme of measures instead, with anticipated investments for the current management cycle

being reported per individual measure.

The plan provides cost recovery rates for the various water services, but with no sectoral breakdown or reporting on

costs and revenue figures. There is also no explanation or evidence of why irrigation water supply has a low cost

recovery rate despite it having a significant impact on the quantitative status of GWBs and the ecological status of

SWBs.

Cyprus has also provided new financial cost recovery rates from a non-published study: drinking water (107.7%), irrigation (22.7%), wastewater collection and treatment (163%) and recycled water (29.3%). Despite the difference in cost recovery rates for households (drinking water) and agriculture (irrigation), the RBMP does not report on

whether the various water user sectors contribute sufficiently to the costs of water services. Nor does it report the grounds used to justify less than full cost recovery. No information on government subsidies is provided either,

although supporting documentation suggests that subsidies are received to cover both capital and operational costs of some water services, but that these have not been included in the reported financial costs.

29

The 3rd RBMP lacks an assessment as to whether water prices provide an ‘adequate incentive’ for more efficient

water use but provides sufficient details. Overall, Cyprus’s water pricing policy seems to provide clear incentives,

namely through drinking water tariffs reflecting local cost conditions, the unit rate increasing over volume brackets

and combining the policy with non-price efficiency measures, such as the mandatory use of reclaimed water for

irrigation, and water supply restrictions and quotas during periods of drought. It seems that, if Cyprus were to use

the available material more fully, it would be able to demonstrate that it has made much more progress on the

recommendation than their reporting currently suggests. On a similar note, the third RBMP states that a methodology

for assessing environmental and resource costs is in place, but neither the methodology nor the cost estimates are

provided.

The 3rd RBMP document does not provide an explicit account of how the polluter pays principle has been applied. It reports, that the environmental and resource cost component in the abstraction charge covers these costs fully, but it remains unclear whether these costs are charged to the actual polluters.

30

6. WFD recommendations

Recommendations - Cyprus should:

1. reduce the compliance gap as much as possible to reach compliance by 2027. This implies:

a) further improving governance by ensuring that the consultation, adoption and reporting of the

fourth RBMP is carried out according to the WFD timetable;

b) developing a more ambitious programme of measures, which should provide a methodology for

how the prioritisation and cost-effectiveness analysis for all measures has been carried out,

including a gap assessment on achieving the objectives of measures, and linking the measures to

the relevant KTMs, clear timetables, financing sources and expected outcomes;

c) ensuring full compliance with WFD provisions related to the mandatory periodic review of

permits/checks for abstractions.

d) strengthening coordination between the WFD third RBMP, the second FRMP and the

MSFD.

2. identify and put in place additional measures to tackle persistent environmental pressures preventing the

achievement of good status, on the basis of robust gap analyses. This implies, inter alia:

a) urgently addressing water scarcity and over-abstraction, in particular from agriculture, by:

• strengthening checks on abstractions, preventing and penalising unauthorised abstractions,

improving metering and enforcement, and ensuring that abstraction permits are fully aligned with

environmental objectives;

• fully establishing and implementing environmental flows across all relevant water bodies, and

explicitly linking e-flow requirements to permit review processes, making the connection between

e-flow implementation and abstraction permitting mandatory;

• improving long-term water demand management, especially in irrigation, which accounts for 59.1%

of total water consumption, and providing a clearer forward-looking analysis of future water

demand under climate change scenarios, with sectoral breakdowns and explicit reduction targets;

b) stepping up action to reduce agricultural pollution from diffuse sources, which affects around 29% of

SWBs and contributes to poor chemical status in 22.7% of GWBs, by developing gap assessments for

nutrient and pesticides pollution and putting in place reinforced measures to achieve the required load

reduction based on clear and measurable indicators of progress;

c) continuing and accelerating actions on urban wastewater treatment, stormwater runoff, landfill

rehabilitation and remediation of abandoned waste sites, while ensuring stronger coordination

between monitoring results and pollution control actions;

31

d) identifying pollution sources at the level of individual water bodies and implementing binding reduction

measures, in particular for metals (nickel, mercury, cadmium, lead), which are the dominant cause of

failure to achieve good chemical status in SWBs;

e) ensuring that protected areas linked to water bodies receive specific, effective and, where necessary,

additional measures tailored to their protection objectives. While some progress is reported, further

work is needed to improve chemical status in protected areas and to demonstrate how water-related

measures contribute to achieving the objectives of Natura 2000 sites and other protected areas.

Cyprus should also provide clearer information on additional measures and their expected effects in

protected areas.

3. Where exemptions are invoked because objectives cannot be met, they should have detailed

justifications at the level of each individual water body, and their application should be

regularly reviewed:

a) substantially reducing Article 4(4) exemptions for groundwater quantitative status. Natural conditions

grounds should be applied only where properly justified by the fact that ecological response times

beyond 2027 genuinely prevent achievement of good status;

b) reviewing the application of Article 4(5) exemptions on grounds of infeasibility and ensuring that

‘infeasibility’ is properly defined and applied in line with WFD provisions, noting that failure to properly

classify the status of a water body or to identify the pressures is not a valid justification under

Article 4(5) of the WFD;

c) reviewing the application of Article 4(5) exemptions on grounds of disproportionate costs, ensuring

that a clear and transparent methodology is in place that reflects a genuine cost-benefit analysis that

is not limited to available funding.

4. As regards monitoring, assessment, data management and reporting, Cyprus should:

a) close the knowledge gap as regards the characterisation of water bodies, to ascertain the pressures

that are exerted in all of them, and their level of significance, in order to develop and link them to

specific measures;

b) strengthen monitoring coverage, which has critical gaps across key water body types and quality

elements;

c) extend monitoring of the 20 priority substances to sediment and biota to support long-term trend

analysis;

d) improve methodologies for assessing groundwater chemical status , including threshold values for all

substances presenting a risk for achieving the environmental objectives;

e) improve the methodology and confidence of assessments of groundwater quantitative status,

providing water balance data at water body level, recharge estimates and abstraction-to-recharge

ratios.

5. As regards economic analysis, water pricing and cost recovery, Cyprus should:

a) substantially improve the economic analysis in the fourth RBMP to meet the requirements of Article 5

of, and Annex III to, the WFD. A transparent cost-effectiveness analysis of the programme of measures

should be included. All relevant water services, including reclaimed water supply (water reuse), must

be covered;

32

b) review the application of the polluter pays principle and water pricing policies to ensure that all water

user sectors make an adequate contribution to cost recovery. Government subsidies and any cross-

subsidisation arrangements must be disclosed transparently. The RBMP must provide an explicit

account of how water prices provide an adequate incentive for more efficient water use, particularly in

the agriculture sector.

6. As regards incorporating climate resilience more systematically into water planning, Cyprus

should:

a) include forward-looking analyses of future water demand and availability under climate and socio-

economic scenarios in the fourth RBMP. Sectoral breakdowns of future demand and investment needs

must be developed;

b) increase efforts on climate proofing the programme of measures and explicitly link them to the 2025-

2050 national strategy for climate change adaptation.

33

SECTION B:FLOODS DIRECTIVE

34

7. Flood risk management under floods directive (FD)

The Floods Directive requires each Member State to scan its territory for flood risks; assess the

potential adverse consequences of future floods for human health, the environment, cultural heritage

and economic activity; identify significant risks; map the flood extent and the potential adverse

consequences; and take measures to reduce the flood risk. These activities are reflected in (a) the

preliminary flood risk assessments (PFRAs) (including the identification of areas of potential

significant flood risk (APSFRs)), (b) the preparation of flood hazard and risk maps, (FHRMs), and (c)

the establishment of flood risk management plans (FRMPs). The preliminary assessments, mapping

and planning for flood risk are repeated in six-yearly cycles.

Cyprus has one unit of management, which corresponds to the RBD under the Water Framework

Directive (WFD). There are 38 APSFRs, increasing from 19 in the first FRMP. The second FRMP states

that seawater and groundwater flood sources are not relevant for Cyprus. It explains the choice of

flood sources addressed in the APSFRs of the second FRMP, with fluvial sources being the main source

of flooding for all APSFRs, with the exception of two APSFRs, which have two sources of flooding

(fluvial and pluvial flood in APSFR-26 and fluvial flood and lake level rise in APSFR-07). The impacts

of climate change are considered in the second FRMP. One of the objectives set out in the second

FRMP, relating to the future scenario of climate change and land use change, focuses on reducing

flood exposure in new urban development areas, through adequate urban and spatial planning. The

information sources used to identify the impacts of climate change include the second annual report

(of 2019) on the implementation of adaptation measures under the national climate change

adaptation strategy and action plan, as well as rainfall data from the Cyprus Meteorology

Department. As in the first FRMP, climate change has been taken into account using rainfall curves,

based on statistical rainfall data for the period after 1970, to reflect the increase in rainfall intensities

observed in Cyprus compared to the period before 1970.

It is also relevant to mention investment 5 (C2.3I5), which is a measure under component 2.3 of

Cyprus Recovery and Resilience Plan – Anti-flood and Water Collection Measures. The objective of this

investment is to mitigate the negative impacts of flooding events through the implementation of

anti-flood infrastructure. The measure includes the construction or reconstruction of flood protection

works, streets and pavements, as well as the landscaping of flood channels. As such, it contributes

to strengthening flood resilience and should be considered as relevant in the context of the Flood

Risk Management Plans.

7.1 FHRMs

FHRMs are provided on a common national GIS-based map viewer for different return periods: 20-

year (high) return period, 100-year (medium) return period, 500-year (low) return period, and a flood

hazard map for the 2080 future scenario (under climate and land use change). Each APSFR webpage

for flood hazards16 includes seven maps: one map each for HQ-20-100-500, one map summarising

the three scenarios, one map showing the impact of climate change and land use changes (2080),

one map comparing the maximum area that could be flooded under HQ-20 with and without the

impact of climate change and land use changes (2080), and one ‘location’ map showing the whole

16 For the second cycle APSFRs: https://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/wdd/wfdf.nsf/page09_gr/page09_gr?opendocument; for the first cycle APSFRs: https://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/wdd/wfdf.nsf/page08_gr/page08_gr?opendocument (accessed 11.01.24).

35

island and the selected APSFR sheet (or sheets)17 as a red frame (or frames). Each APSFR webpage

for flood risks18 includes four maps: one each for HQ-20-100-500 (.jpg based on aerial photos) and

one ‘location’ map (see above). These maps depict (i) the number of inhabitants, (ii) the type of

economic, cultural and archaeological activities that may be impacted, (iii) installations which may

accidentally cause pollution and (iv) other potentially significant pollution sources, according to the

respective flood probability scenarios.

The methodology19 for preparing the FHRMs is available on the website of the Water Development

Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment.

In terms of changes to contextual information (i.e. the way in which information about the maps is

conveyed to the public) since the first FHRMs, a noteworthy change is that interactive GIS-based map

viewers were developed in the second cycle, whereas the first FHRMs were based on aerial photos.

In addition to the interactive GIS-based map viewers provided in the second cycle, maps based on

aerial photos of each APSFR are also provided.

In terms of changes to the methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps since the first FHRMs,

the main changes are that the maps based on aerial photos now provide more detailed legends and

explanatory boxes. These have been improved compared to the first FHRMs, to explain the content of

the maps to the public. Furthermore, the FHRMs of the new APSFRs (identified in the second PFRAs)

have been improved by adding a text box to each APSFR-specific map that explains what the ‘flood

hazard’ and ‘flood risk’ on the map shows. In addition, each APSFR-specific map includes a small map

of Cyprus indicating the location of the APSFR.

Climate change in the second FHRMs

As regards how the effects of climate change are taken into account in the preparation of FHRMs,

reference is made to Section 3.7 on ‘adaptation to climate change’.

7.2 Flood risk management plans

Objectives and measures

Cyprus has developed one FRMP for its single unit of management. It can easily be found on the

website of the Water Development Department20. The second FRMP cites the strategic objective for

flood risk management put forward in the first FRMP, namely reducing flood-related risks to achieve

the best possible benefits for the man-made environment and for the natural environment in a cost-

effective manner. Similar to the first FRMP, the plan sets out three general objectives, each of which

is further specified with priority action fields. These three general objectives are: A – reduce hazards

17 Some APSFRs extend over more than one sheet. 18 For the second cycle APSFRs: https://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/wdd/wfdf.nsf/page07_gr/page07_gr?opendocument; for the first cycle APSFRs: https://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/wdd/wfdf.nsf/page06_gr/page06_gr?opendocument (accessed 11.01.24). 19 Methodology for flood risk maps,

https://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/wdd/wfdf.nsf/All/77CE1A5392B1BF09C225890F0040D028?OpenDocu

ment and methodology for flood hazard maps,

https://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/wdd/wfdf.nsf/All/A1B12F8A92891674C2258911003A40AD?OpenDocu

ment.

20 The FRMP can be downloaded through the following link: https://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/WDD/0wfdf.nsf/page11_gr/page11_gr?opendocument.

36

to ensure protection against floods; B – reduce flood exposure; and C – reduce flood vulnerability of

all activities within the APFSRs. The second FRMP of Cyprus maintains the three general objectives

of flood risk management in the first FRMP. It has adapted them to include a specific reference to

climate change and to land use change (in Objective B). Sub-objectives are set for each APSFR.

Timelines have been set for the measures which are directly connected to the objectives. Quantitative

indicators have not been set for the objectives or the priority action fields.

Cyprus has planned 41 distinct individual measures for its single unit of management. Over 50% of

the measures are protection measures, followed by prevention measures and preparedness

measures. Two measures concern recovery and review. 25 measures are cross-cutting – they are

applied either within each APSFR or for the country as a whole. For most measures, a detailed sheet

indicates the steps and provides information on the expected effects. The prioritisation of measures

takes into account the results of a ranking of measures on the basis of a cost-effectiveness

assessment and a cost-benefit analysis. The FRMP includes measures related to spatial planning /

land use, such as incorporating flood risk assessment results into spatial and urban planning via the

development plans. This includes adopting ‘white’ urban planning zones in the floodplain – these are

defined as zones where construction is not permitted or is only permitted under certain conditions.

The FRMP includes references to natural water retention for a few of its measures, for example for

the protection measure PRO-CY-02 on enrichment and flow retention projects in riverbeds upstream

of APFSRs, and protection measure PRO-CY-19 on the restoration of riverbeds and floodplains

upstream of APFSRs. The main FRMP document provides a detailed analysis on the correlation and

synergies of the measures of the second FRMP with the third RBMP. Details (including the WFD

measure code and description) are provided for five measures from the third RBMP which have direct

synergies with the second FRMP. In addition, the FRMP describes how four of its measures contribute

to meeting the objectives of the third RBMP.

Consideration of climate change in the second FRMPs

As regards how the effects of climate change are taken into account in the preparation of FRMPs,

reference is made to Section 3.7 on ‘adaptation to climate change’.

Governance

Coordination with neighbouring EU and non-EU countries as part of EU or bilateral agreements for

cooperation and information exchanges is not applicable for Cyprus.

The competent authorities carried out a public consultation and ensured active involvement of

stakeholders, using a broad range of methods including a consultation questionnaire and workshop.

As a result, a wide range of stakeholders contributed actively during the various stages of developing

the plan. A steering committee was appointed to coordinate the preparation of the FRMP and its SEA.

Progress identified in the second FRMPs

The second FRMPs include several notable improvements:

While the first FRMP did not provide indicators to monitor the progress of measures, the second FRMP

lists several key indicators, which could be used for this purpose at APSFR and unit of management

level.

37

Specific objectives have been set for the 19 new APSFRs included in the second FRMP, and the

objectives set for the 19 APSFRs determined in the first FRMP have been reviewed.

The second FRMP includes references to measures for natural water retention, including measures

on enrichment and flow retention projects in riverbeds, and the restoration of riverbeds and

floodplains upstream of APFSRs.

8. Floods Directive recommendations

Based on the information reported and the FHRMs and FRMPs assessed, the following

recommendations are made to improve flood risk management in Cyprus:

1. in the FHRMs:

a) the GIS map viewer and the aerial maps should be merged, with the GIS map becoming

the main reference;

b) information relating to various flood sources (where relevant) should be made easier to

distinguish on the maps.

2. In the FRMPs:

a) timelines and quantitative indicators should be presented for the achievement of the

objectives or the priority action fields;

b) clear baselines should be set against which progress of measures can be assessed;

c) more information should be included on the role of insurance policies for flood risk

management;

d) information should be provided on how the FRMP and its programme of measures is

coordinated with the national strategy for climate change adaptation.

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 2.10.2026

SWD(2026) 604 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Third River Basin Management Plans Second Flood Hazard and Risk Maps and

Second Flood Risk Management Plans

Member State: Greece

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}

ENVIRONMENT

Greece Country specific staff working document

© P

ex el

s. co

m | S

te pa

n V ra

ny

2

Content

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

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

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

2. Horizontal aspects ................................................................................................................................................................... 11

2.1 Governance ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11

2.2 Characterisation of River Basin District .............................................................................................................. 12

3. Policy elements contributing to biodiversity and climate change adaptation ...................................... 16

3.1 Surface Water: what is their ecological status or potential .................................................................... 16

3.2 Hydromorphological changes and artificialization (HMWBs and AWBs) .......................................... 17

3.3 Groundwater bodies - have they sufficient water – quantitative status ......................................... 18

3.4 Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) ........................................... 20

3.5 What is being done to prevent/reduce hydromorphological pressures ............................................ 21

3.6 What Greece is doing for abstractions and water scarcity ...................................................................... 22

3.7 Adaptation to climate change .................................................................................................................................. 24

4. Policy elements contributing to zero pollution ........................................................................................................ 26

4.1 Surface Water: what is their chemical status ................................................................................................. 26

4.2 Groundwater Bodies: what is their chemical status .................................................................................... 28

4.3 What Greece is doing to combat pollution from agriculture .................................................................. 29

4.4 What Greece is doing to combat pollution from other sectors ............................................................. 30

4.5 What Greece is doing to combat significant pressures – overall assessment of the

Programmes of Measures .................................................................................................................................................. 31

5. Exemptions and economics ............................................................................................................................................... 33

5.1 To what extent are exemptions applied in Greece ....................................................................................... 33

5.2 Use of economic analysis and water pricing – cost recovery ................................................................ 35

6. WFD recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................ 36

SECTION B: FLOODS DIRECTIVE .................................................................................................................................................. 40

7. Flood risk management under floods directive (FD) ............................................................................................ 41

3

SECTION A:

WATER FRAMEWORK

DIRECTIVE

4

1. General info, member state characterisation

Situated at the southern end of the Balkan peninsula, Greece is bordered by Bulgaria, North Macedonia and Albania to the north, and by Türkiye to the east. The Aegean Sea lies to the east of mainland Greece, while the Ionian Sea lies to the west. Greece consists of a mountainous peninsular mainland with a large number of islands. As for the islands, estimates range from somewhere between 1 200 and 6 000 depending on the minimum size considered. The number of inhabited islands is variously cited as between 166 and 227. It has a terrestrial area of close to 132 000km² and a marine area of nearly 48 800km² and bordered by four other countries. Greece has a population of 10.4 million people and a population density of 79.1 people per km² which is much lower than the EU average.

Greece has three types of climate that influence well-defined regions of its territory: the Mediterranean, Alpine and Temperate climate types. The first features mild, wet winters and hot, dry summers. The Aegean Islands and the south-eastern part of mainland Greece are mostly affected by this particular type. The Alpine type is dominant mainly in western Greece. Finally the Temperate type characterises the central and north-eastern parts of the country.

The average annual precipitation in Greece is 289mm (11.4in), and rainfall is concentrated in winter rather than summer, which is an obvious feature of the Mediterranean climate. In the western region, the mean annual precipitation is around 900-1 200mm, far more than that of the eastern region, which is 400-700mm. Two thirds of the territory of Greece is mountainous, making the country one of the most mountainous in Europe. Greece has the longest coastline in Europe, which exceeds 15 000km. Water needs are mainly covered by groundwater abstracted from aquifers. The use of groundwater resources has become particularly intensive in coastal areas in recent decades with intense urbanisation, the development of tourism and the expansion of irrigated land. The sources of groundwater pollution are:

seawater intrusion due to overexploitation of coastal aquifers,

fertilizers from agricultural activities, and

the disposal of wastewater.

Greece ranks 31st in the top 50 countries with severe water stress. The major water use is for agricultural irrigation, accounting for 85% of total consumption, and the area of irrigated land has increased greatly in recent decades. As a result, there is a negative water balance in the coastal aquifer systems, which has triggered sea water intrusion with negative consequences for the socioeconomic development of these areas.

The Greek agricultural sector employs approximately 400 000 people, representing 10% of employment in all sectors. The farm labour force consists mainly of family holdings. More than 70% of the Greek agricultural sector faces natural or other specific constraints (for example: extreme

5

slopes, low temperatures, dryness of soil, unfavourable soil texture, borderline areas, island regions) which significantly affect the intensity of farming.

Currently, 34.63% of the terrestrial area of Greece are designated as nature-conservation protected areas, which is significantly above the EU value of 26.4%.

Map A - River Basin Districts

6

Reporting

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

Greece did not consult, adopt and report its RBMP in accordance with the timetable set out by the Water Framework Directive (WFD). By December 2024, Greece had submitted a full electronic report and, therefore, the Commission’s assessment of this report is based on this dataset.

Relevant documents are available at the EEA’s EIONET Central Data Repository: https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/.

7

Changes in Status, Pressures, Exemptions & Measures

Surface Water Bodies (1,681)

Trend (% good status/potential)

Main Pressures & Changes & Exemptions

ECOLOGICAL STATUS

Overall, the ecological status of surface water bodies (SWBs) in Greece has slightly improved since the 2nd RBMP in 2015. According to the electronic reporting, the share of water bodies with a good or better status increased from 63.9% in 2015 to 65.5% in 2021. By 2027, it is predicted that 84% of all surface water bodies will have a good or better ecological status/potential, which will mark an increase since the 3rd RBMP. The most significant pressure on surface water bodies is point source pollution from non-IED (Industrial Emissions Directive) plants (24% of surface water bodies are affected), followed by diffuse pollution from agriculture (14%). There are still unknown anthropogenic pressures affecting 13% of surface water bodies. Measures have been reported to tackle point source pollution in Greece (see the section below), as well as diffuse pollution from agriculture. Indicators of gaps in information on pressures were provided with the electronic reporting. Ecological flows (E-flows) have been defined for all relevant water bodies in 5 RBDs and for some of the relevant water bodies in 9 RBDs. Moreover, the defined E-flows have been fully implemented in 10 RBDs, and partially in 4 RBDs. Article 4(4) exemptions apply to 92 surface water bodies (5.5%) due to natural conditions, and to 205 surface water bodies (12.2%) for technical feasibility reasons. Article 4(5) exemptions apply to 271 surface water bodies (16.1%) due to infeasibility.

8

CHEMICAL STATUS

Overall, the chemical status of surface water bodies in Greece has slightly improved since the 2nd RBMP in 2015. A range of frequencies for priority substances are in use for operational and surveillance monitoring ranging from once every six years, to twice a year for 42 out of 45 priority substances. Greece stated that a risk based approach was used to determine the relevance of priority substances. The assessment determined that hexabromocyclododecane, naphthalene, dioxins and furans were not relevant at the RBD level for all RBDs and were therfore excluded from monitoring programmes. The list of top ten chemicals that cause failures is dominated by metals, with nickel, lead, mercury and cadmium all featuring in the top five. The remaining substances include pesticides, with cypermethrin the second most common substance creating Environmentl Quality Standards (EQS) exceedances, and dichlorvos and dicofol also featuring in the top ten. The remaining substances are Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Among the top ten, mercury, benzo(a)pyrene, and benzo(k)fluoranthene are ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (uPBT) substances. By 2027, it is expected that 96.5 % of surface water bodies will have a good status. Greece has also mapped key type measures (KTMs) and gap indicators for several of these KTMs, for example, nickel has KTM 2, 3, 14, 15, 16, 21 and ‘other’ reported for it, with a gap indicator of ‘other’ being provided. It is unclear what this gap is. Article 4(4) exemptions apply to 72 surface water bodies (4.3 %) for technical feasibility reasons. Article 4(5) exemptions apply to 48 surface water bodies (2.9 %) due to infeasibility.

9

Groundwater Bodies (588)

Trend (% good status/potential)

Main Pressures and Changes and Exemptions

QUANTITATIVE STATUS

There has been a slight increase in attributions of ‘good’ quantitative status in Greece. There is a significant increase in the number of groundwater bodies (GWBs) monitored. From the electronic reporting, 475 out of 588 GWBs (80.8% of total GWBs) are subject to quantitative status monitoring, while In the 2nd RBMPs, 324 out of 591 groundwater bodies (54.8%) were subject to quantitative monitoring. Groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems (GWAAEs) are reported, and they are considered in the groundwater quantitative status assessment in all 14 RBDs. Groundwater dependant terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTEs) are reported in 8 out of 14 RBDs, although they are considered in the groundwater quantitative status assessment in all RBDs1. As regards the groundwater bodies that achieved ‘failing’ quantitative status:

• 79 groundwater bodies (13.4% of total GWBs) have failed because the available groundwater resource is exceeded by the long-term annual average rate of abstraction and/or there is a human- induced decline in groundwater levels.

• 17 groundwater bodies (2.9%) have failed to achieve ‘good’ quantitative status because of regional saline or other intrusions resulting from sustained anthropogenically induced changes in aquifer flow direction.

506 out of 588 groundwater bodies (86.1%) are expected to achieve good quantitative status by 2027. Greece has stated that there is a concession, authorisation, and/or permitting regime to control surface and groundwater abstractions and impoundments in all 14 RBDs. Article 4(4) exemptions apply to 79 groundwater bodies (13.4%) due to natural conditions, and to 4 groundwater bodies (0.768%) for technical feasibility reasons.

1 According to the 3rd RBMPs e-reporting, GWDTEs have been reported in: Attica RBD (EL06), Eastern Sterea Ellada RBD (EL07), Western Macedonia RBD (EL09), Central Macedonia RBD (EL10), Eastern Macedonia RBD (EL11), Thrace RBD (EL12), Crete RBD (EL13) and the Aegean Islands RBD (EL14). Greece has subsequently stated that the GWDTEs are considered in the status assessment in all RBDs.

10

CHEMICAL STATUS

There has been a slight increase in the number of attributions of a ‘good’ or better’ chemical status in Greece. According to the 3rd RBMPs electronic reporting, 91.8% of the total groundwater body area is monitored with chemical monitoring. There has been a significant increase in the number of monitored groundwater bodies (GWBs). 485 out of 588 groundwater bodies (82.5% of total GWBs) are subject to chemical (surveillance and/or operational) monitoring, while in the 2nd RBMPs, 321 out of 591 GWBs (54.3%) were subject to chemical monitoring. GWAAEs have been reported in all 14 RBDs, and are considered in the groundwater chemical status assessment2. GWDTEs are considered in the groundwater chemical status assessment in all RBDs, but are reported in 8 out of 14 RBDs3. As regards the groundwater bodies that failed to achieve good chemical status:

• 60 GWBs (10.2% of total GWBs) failed due to a general water quality assessment resulting from significant environmental risk from pollutants across the groundwater bodies;

• 56 GWBs (9.5%) have failed to achieve good chemical status due to regional saline or other intrusions.

Pollutants causing failures include Chloride (9.4% of all GWBs), Nitrate (8.5%), electrical conductivity (6.5%), Sulphate (3.9%) and Ammonium (0.9%). Gap analyses have been made for all pollutants causing failure in GWBs, in the form of the number of measures required and, in some cases, a gap indicator of 'other' for certain KTMs. Article 4(4) exemptions apply to 86 GWBs (14.6 %) due to natural conditions, and to 1 GWB (0.217 %) for technical feasibility reasons.

2 According to the 3rd RBMPs e-reporting, 3 out of 14 RBDs do not consider GWAAEs in the groundwater chemical status assessment: Western Sterea Ellada RBD (EL04), Epirus RBD (EL05) and Thessalia RBD (EL08). Greece has subsequently stated that the GWAAEs are considered in the groundwater chemical status assessment in all RBDs. 3 According to the 3rd RBMPs e-reporting, 8 out of 14 RBDs, where GWDTEs are reported, also consider GWDTEs in chemical status assessment. Greece has subsequently stated that the GWDTEs are considered in the groundwater chemical status assessment in all RBDs.

11

2. Horizontal aspects

2.1 Governance

Water governance in Greece is quite complex. The RBMPs describe a complex water-governance

framework involving authorities and bodies operating at national, regional and local levels. The Greek

authorities have identified institutional fragmentation and coordination between different actors as

issues requiring further attention.

Water management is assigned to the Greek Ministry of Environment and Energy, which sets water

policy, coordinates efforts, and proposes legislation. The Ministerial Council approves the River Basin

Management Plans (RBMPs), while the General Directorate of Water oversees national coordination

and regional cooperation. Multiple ministries, such as Rural Development, Economy and Finance,

Development, Health, Infrastructure and Transport, and Interior, also contribute at the national level.

Regionally, Water Directorates and the Decentralised Administration Water Council (D.A.W.C.) manage

water resources. The D.A.W.C. gives advice on RBMSs. Its structure and function can be adjusted by

joint ministerial decision.

Decentralised administrations prepare the RBMPs or can delegate this to the General Directorate of

Water. Depending on who drafts the plan, it is endorsed by either the Secretary of the Decentralised

Administration or the General Water Director, before final approval by the Ministerial Council.

Regions and municipalities handle compliance, groundwater, irrigation management, project

supervision, and pollution control. The General Directorate of Water also manages public

consultations for River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs).

Greece reported, in December 2024, that it has 14 river basin districts (RBDs), each with its own River

Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and 46 main river basins grouped into these.

Greece did not consult, adopt and report its RBMPs in accordance with the Water Framework Directive

(WFD) timetable.

On the basis of available information, it is noted that Greece underwent a six-month public

consultation process.

This process included three phases, involving: (i) publication of the scope and timetable for preparing

the 3rd RBMPs online, (though it was unclear if delays were anticipated4; (ii) publication of the key

water management issues, monitoring results, main pressures, and stakeholder roles on the

Ministry's website as well as publication online of the draft RBMPs for comments and feedback.

Stakeholders, ranging from decision-makers, administrators, water users and consumers, to experts,

NGOs, and educational institutions, were directly invited to participate. Associations, chambers of

commerce, and farmers’ or business associations represented users and consumers. A public

webpage allowed members of the public to make comments, which remain accessible5.

It is noted positively that an ‘Evaluation Report of the Consultation Results’ summarised the changes

made to the final RBMPs, including updated data, refined measures, corrections to responsible bodies,

detailed descriptions of actions, and new targeted supplementary measures to improve water

management outcomes.

4 http://wfdver.ypeka.gr/el/consultation-gr 5 Consulted on 13 May 2025: https://wfdver.ypeka.gr/el/consultation-gr/2revision-consultation-gr/

12

On coordination with other directives, including the Floods and Marine Strategy Framework Directives,

the 3rd RBMPs state that Floods Directive implementation stages should be repeated every six years,

in sync with the Water Framework Directive. However, when the 3rd RBMPs were published, the 2nd

flood risk management plans (FRMPs) were still being developed and expected by 2024, so planning

and consultation phases were not coordinated in this cycle. While the Programmes of Measures

(PoMs) in the 3rd RBMPs cover basic EU Directive measures, they lack explicit references to the Floods

Directive and do not clarify how its objectives are addressed. Nonetheless, some actions, such as

studies for the Anthemounta and Axios Rivers, aim at ecological restoration and improved flood

management.

Much stronger coordination can be seen on the basis of a source-to-sea approach between

freshwater and marine environment management. Indeed, the 3rd RBMP outlines the objectives of

the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and related measures. These include establishing

ongoing monitoring of marine waters, identifying the responsible authorities, creating a National

Committee for Marine Environmental Strategy, and holding public consultations for planning actions

to achieve good environmental status. The updated MSFD monitoring programme (2022) aligns with

the WFD monitoring programme to enhance coverage, and data from WFD monitoring supported

Greece’s MSFD assessment, completed in June 2025.

Greece shares transboundary water resources with Albania, North Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria and

Türkiye. All relevant RBDs except Epirus include international cooperation in their management plans.

Cooperation levels vary, and formal agreements or cooperation bodies, outlined below, exist for each

shared RBD, though none have an International River Basin Management Plan (IRBMP).

The RBMP for the Western Macedonia RBD details international cooperation between Greece, Albania

and North Macedonia on the Prespa lakes. It notes bilateral efforts between Greece and Albania,

formalised by a 2003 agreement establishing a Permanent Greek-Albanian Committee on

Transboundary Freshwater Issues.

Cooperation between Greece and North Macedonia stems from a 1959 agreement with Yugoslavia

on hydro-economic matters, leading to a permanent committee overseeing Axios, Doirani, and Prespa.

A general statement indicates that, within the framework of the project “Assessment of the degree

of expression of the functions and values of the transboundary Doirani Lake”, a number of agro-

environmental measures have been proposed. These measures aim to: (i) reduce the total irrigated

area; (ii) raise public awareness of the implementation of irrigation practices that lead to water

saving; (iii) establish experimental crops; and (iv) examine the possibility of increasing water inflows

to the lake, while complying with the requirements set by the current legislation for the assessment

of environmental impacts.

The RBMP for the Eastern Macedonia RBD describes cooperation with Bulgaria on the Strymon/Struma

and Nestos/Mesta rivers.

In May 2025, Greece and Bulgaria also signed a Joint Ministerial Declaration on the use of the Ardas

River. The agreement is not included in the 3rd RBMPs because it was signed after their publication.

None of the international RBDs have developed an IRBMP.

The 3rd RBMP PDF documents do not mention any specific international cooperation related to water

abstraction or scarcity concerns in the transboundary RBDs involving Greece and neighbouring

countries. These include Epirus (such as the Aoos river, shared with Albania), Western Macedonia (the

Prespes lakes, shared with Albania and North Macedonia), Central Macedonia (the Axios river and

Doirani lake, shared with North Macedonia), Eastern Macedonia (the Strymon river and Nestos river,

13

shared with Bulgaria), and Thrace (the Nestos river, shared with Bulgaria, and Evros river, shared with

Bulgaria and Türkiye).

2.2 Characterisation of River Basin District

Surface water bodies: In Greece, there are a total of 1 681 surface water bodies. River, lakes,

transitional, and coastal waters have been delineated but no territorial waters. The characterisation

of surface water bodies identifies important water bodies and defines their outer boundaries. The

significance of a surface water body is mainly related to its size, but the characterisation does enable

the distinction of small water bodies. The boundaries between different categories of aquatic systems

are recognised.

Groundwater bodies: In the 3rd RBMPs, Greece identified 588 groundwater bodies (a slight decrease

from the previous cycle), including 24 transboundary bodies and only minor adjustments to total

area6. Groundwater characterisation takes into account hydrogeological factors, aquifer capacity,

groundwater use, interdependence with surface waters and terrestrial ecosystems, and areas at risk

due to pressures.

Table 1. Overview of the Greece’s River Basin Districts and the number of water bodies per RBD

RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Groundwater

Western Peloponnese (EL01) 111 2 3 11 27

Northern Peloponnese (EL02) 64 5 5 19 34

Eastern Peloponnese (EL03) 80 1 5 13 34

Western Sterea Ellada (EL04) 96 11 5 9 26

Epirus (EL05) 83 4 7 13 40

Attica (EL06) 15 1 0 14 24

Eastern Sterea Ellada (EL07) 81 3 1 19 45

Thessalia (EL08) 72 3 0 7 34

Western Macedonia (EL09) 155 15 2 2 48

Central Macedonia (EL10) 104 6 3 11 38

Eastern Macedonia (EL11) 83 2 1 4 15

Thrace (EL12) 176 7 5 12 18

Crete (EL13) 118 6 4 25 91

6 The 24 GWBs characterised as transboundary in the 3rd RBMPs e-reporting are: EL050A070, EL050A190, EL050A060, EL090F321, EL090F040, EL090F291, EL090F301, EL090F090, EL09AF010, EL090A351, EL090F271, EL090F013, EL1000031, EL100F040, EL1000032, EL110B020, EL11FB080, EL110B110, EL110B030, EL120B100, EL12BT010, EL12BT150, EL120T020 and EL120B090. It is noted that Greece reported 23 GWBs as transboundary in the 2nd RBMPs e-reporting.

14

Aegean Islands (EL14) 81 9 0 87 114

Total in Greece 1319 75 41 246 588

Source: WISE electronic reporting

The WFD requires the setting of type-specific reference conditions for biological quality elements and

type-specific conditions for hydromorphological and physico-chemical quality elements. These

represent the values of such quality elements at high ecological status.

It is to be welcomed that in Greece all surface water types across all categories have either some or

all of the type-specific reference conditions/type-specific conditions established for biological quality

elements, hydromorphological quality elements, and physico-chemical quality elements. There are

no surface water types that have not established type-specific reference conditions/type-specific

conditions.

Since the 2nd RBMPs, there have been increases in the percentage of transitional and coastal water

types with type-specific conditions established for hydromorphological quality elements and physico-

chemical quality elements.

Pressures and impacts on SWBs

The pressures affecting the highest percentage of surface water bodies (Figure 1) are:

1. 24%: point source pollution from plants not falling under the scope of the Industrial

Emissions Directive (IED) - this is an increase since the 2nd RBMPs where 12% of surface

water bodies were affected by non-IED plants;

2. 14%: diffuse pollution from agriculture;

3. 13%: unknown anthropogenic pressures affecting surface water bodies.

In Greece, the most frequent hydromorphological pressures can be classified in the following

categories: ‘Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore’, followed by ‘Dams, barriers and

locks’, ‘Hydrological alteration’, ‘Physical loss of whole or part of the water body’ and ‘Other’.

The impacts affecting the highest percentage of surface water bodies (Figure 2) are:

1. chemical pollution, with 27% of surface water bodies affected;

2. diffuse pollution from agricultural sources, which affects 12%.

In the 2nd RBMPs, nutrient pollution from various sources caused the most widespread impact,

affecting 17% of surface water bodies.

Pressures and impacts in GWBs

The pressures affecting the highest percentage of groundwater bodies (Figure 1) are:

1. abstraction for agriculture (18%); and

2. diffuse pollution from agricultural sources, which affects 12% of groundwater bodies.

These percentages show a marked reduction compared to the previous cycle since the 2nd RBMPs

where 25% of groundwater bodies were affected by abstraction for agriculture and 26% were

affected by diffuse agricultural pollution.

The impacts affecting the highest percentage of groundwater bodies (figure 2) are:

1. saline or other intrusion (affecting 12%);

2. water balance/lowering of the water table, with 9 % of groundwater bodies affected.

15

These most significant impacts are similar to those of the 2nd RBMPs, and are also similar to the

percentage of groundwater bodies affected in the 2nd RBMPs.

Figure 1. The most significant pressures on surface water and groundwater bodies in Greece in the 3rd RBMPs (expressed as percentages of numbers of water bodies)

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Figure 2. The most significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Greece in the 3rd

RBMPs (expressed as percentages of numbers of water bodies)

16

Source: WISE electronic reporting

Agriculture land covers approximately 38.8% of Greece, while forest and semi-natural areas account

for 56.3%7. Around 17% of agricultural land is managed under organic farming8.

The excess of nutrients discharged into the surface waters leads to eutrophication causing

proliferation of algal blooms and oxygen depletion. In its reporting as required by the Nitrates

Directive reporting9, Greece has indicated that many monitoring points across the country show

surface waters as eutrophic or at risk of becoming eutrophic (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Eutrophic/could become eutrophic monitoring points in Greece, according to the reporting of the Nitrates10

7 https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/maps-and-charts/land-cover-and-change-statistics-dashboards 8 Eurostat - Developments in organic farming in 2021: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Developments_in_organic_farming 9 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/implementation-nitrates-directive-country-reports_en 10 NITRATES DIRECTIVE - Reporting Period 8 (2020-2023) – trophic status: https://water.jrc.ec.europa.eu/portal/apps/dashboards/cb6034c2a75e4df282f8a62f90c16caa

17

3. Policy elements contributing to biodiversity and

climate change adaptation

3.1 Surface Water: what is their ecological status or potential

Monitoring

There has been a slight reduction in the number of sampling sites compared to the 2nd RBMPs. There

are two main types of monitoring: i) operational monitoring to determine the status of all water

bodies at risk of not reaching the environmental objectives and ii) surveillance monitoring aimed

rather at providing an assessment of the overall status of surface water within the river basin district,

as well as identifying impacts and long-term changes.

Operational monitoring, it covers 20% of the river length, 62% of the lake area, 96% of the

transitional area, and 20% of the coastal area. Surveillance monitoring, it covers 22% of the river

length, 34% of the lake area, 12% of the transitional area and 30% of the coastal area.

All required biological quality elements are included in monitoring, to various degrees. The most

monitored biological quality elements are benthic invertebrates in rivers, transitional and coastal

waters, and phytoplankton in lakes. Phytoplankton in rivers and phytobenthos in lakes are not

monitored, although in both cases, other types of flora are monitored in types of site.

The extent of monitoring across the different water bodies diverges quite considerably and is broadly

incomplete.

Not all of the required physico-chemical or hydromorphological quality elements are being monitored.

This is the case for thermal and salinity conditions in coastal waters; transparency conditions, thermal

conditions, acidification status, and salinity in lakes. For lakes, it is worth mentioning that monitoring

of the quality of nutrient conditions only includes phosphorus conditions, and does not include

nitrogen conditions, however it is not mandatory to include both. In rivers, while all the required

quality elements are being monitored, some elements have a very low coverage. These include

thermal conditions, salinity conditions and acidification status, which are monitored at less than 1%

of monitoring sites.

Regarding hydromorphological quality elements, the hydrological or tidal regime is not monitored in

rivers and transitional waters. River basin specific pollutants are monitored in rivers and lakes but

there is limited monitoring in transitional waters and no monitoring in coastal waters.

Status assessment

There are some surface water bodies where the assessment does not include any biological quality

elements. This concerns 3% of river water bodies, 27% of lake water bodies, 5% of transitional water

bodies, and 2% of coastal water bodies.

The percentage of surface water bodies with good or above ecological status or potential has slightly

increased from 63.9% in the 2nd RBMPs to 65.5% in the 3rd RBMPs (Figure 4). There is also a fall in

the proportion of surface water bodies with unknown status or potential, decreasing from 8% in the

2nd RBMPs to 1% in the 3rd RBMPs. However, the share of surface water bodies with moderate, poor,

or bad status or potential has increased since the 2nd RBMPs from 28% to 34%. By 2027, it is

forecasted that 84% of surface water bodies will have a good or above status or potential which

would be a significant improvement from the 3rd RBMPs.

18

As was the case in the 2nd RBMPs, the confidence in status classification remains low for nearly all classifications, especially for water bodies classified with a good or high status. This can mainly be attributed to insufficient monitoring. The absence of monitoring is not always compensated by grouping or expert judgement.

A high number of classifications do not use hydromorphological quality elements, physico-chemical quality elements, or RBSPs.

Figure 4. Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Greece in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd RBMPs

Source: WISE electronic reporting

3.2 Hydromorphological changes and artificialisation (HMWBs and AWBs)

The hydromorphological characteristics of surface water bodies concern the hydrological conditions

(e.g., the quantity and dynamics of water flow, the connection of rivers and lakes to groundwater

bodies, wave exposure of transitional and coastal water bodies), the morphological conditions (e.g.,

variation in depth, and width in the structure and substrate of the bed, the structure of the riparian

zone), and in the case of river water bodies, river connectivity.

Some surface water bodies are such that the changes in hydromorphological characteristics of the

water body which would be necessary to achieve good ecological status (GES) would have significant

adverse effects on the wider environment or on other uses including navigation, flood protection,

hydropower, and irrigation. Member States can, in such cases, designate these waterbodies as Heavily

Modified Water Bodies (HMWB) or Artificial Water Bodies (AWB), whose environmental objective is

Good Ecological Potential (GEP) instead of GES.

Greece has designated a total of 218 water bodies as heavily modified comprising 155 rivers, 52

lakes, 2 transitional waters and 9 coastal waters. It has designated a total of 41 artificial water

bodies comprising 38 rivers, 2 lakes and 1 coastal water (Table 2). Compared to the 2nd RBMPs, the

number of HMWBs has increased by 7 and the number of AWBs has remained the same. The

percentage of SWBs designated as heavily modified or artificial is shown in Figure 5.

19

Table 2. Number of heavily modified, and artificial water bodies by water category and total

Modifications Rivers Lakes Transitional waters

Coastal waters

HEAVILY MODIFIED 155 52 2 9

ARTIFICIAL 38 2 0 1

Figure 5. Level of human intervention in Greek water bodies

Source: WISE electronic reporting

According to the status assessment, as regards heavily modified waterbodies: 49 have good

ecological potential, 126 moderate, 19 poor, and 7 have bad ecological potential, while 17 have

unknown ecological potential.

Considerable progress is still needed to comply with environmental objectives, Indeed, as regards

artificial waterbodies, 6 have good ecological potential, 23 moderate, 9 poor, and 3 have bad

ecological potential. The method for assessing good ecological potential is based on the CIS Guidance

Document No. 37 (Steps for defining and assessing ecological potential for improving comparability

of HMWBs) and relies primarily on the mitigation measures approach. According to the RBMPs,

biological quality elements are used in the assessment of good ecological potential, although details

are not provided. An annex accompanying the RBMPs lists the measures required to achieve good

ecological potential in HMWBs

20

3.3 Groundwater bodies - have they sufficient water – quantitative status

Compared to the previous cycle, the total groundwater body area remained nearly the same, with

most boundaries unchanged but a few re-delineated through merging or splitting. There are 24

transboundary groundwater bodies11.

A considerable effort has been made to increase the share of groundwater bodies which are subject

to quantitative monitoring (now 80.8%, up from 54.8% in the 2nd RBMPs). However, a significant

proportion of groundwater bodies (19.2%) are still not being monitored for their quantitative status.

Hence, it is unclear how the status assessment has been established for the groundwater bodies that

are unmonitored.

According to the Greek authorities, the criterion of ‘available groundwater resource’ was fully applied

in all RBDs in accordance with Article 2(27) of the WFD. However, it is noted with concern that while

it is required by law, Greece acknowledges that the needs of terrestrial ecosystems have not been

considered in the definition of ‘available groundwater resource’ in: Western Macedonia RBD (EL09),

Eastern Macedonia RBD (EL11), Thrace RBD (EL12), Crete RBD (EL13) and the Aegean Islands RBD

(EL14).

In Greece’s 3rd RBMPs electronic reporting, 85.9% of groundwater bodies had a good quantitative

status by 2021, (Figure 6). This reflects a consistent improvement in the quantitative status of