1 of 129
Contract No. 070311/2011/603663/ETU/D1 'Comparative Study of Pressures and Measures in the Major River Basin Management Plans'
Task 2d: Reality check
Version: Final version Author(s): Steve Nixon, Vicki Bewes, Daniel Mills (WRc)
Background: This document reports the detailed findings of the reality check of the ecological status classifications reported by Member States in their first River Basin Management Plans. It has focused on transboundary lake, river, transitional and coastal water bodies between Member States. Circulation and received comments: First draft delivered to the Commission. Second draft delivered to the Commission. Comments received from the Commission. Final version delivered to the Commission. Contact
Steve Nixon (WRc) [email protected]
2 of 129
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Annex V WFD requires that transboundary water bodies are considered in the design of, and
selection of monitoring sites for, surveillance monitoring of surface waters. As the recent Commission
report on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive1 indicated transboundary monitoring
networks have not been established in around 20% of the international RBDs where there are
transboundary rivers and lakes. There was also no information in around a third of the international
RBDs as to whether or not transboundary monitoring was undertaken. The objective of monitoring is
to establish a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each River Basin District
and must permit the classification of all surface water bodies into one of five classes. Coordinated
transboundary water body monitoring would therefore be expected to facilitate a comparable
assessment of water status in international RBDs.
Each Member State is obliged to develop methods to assess ecological status for all biological quality
elements. Assessment methods for the supporting quality elements must be linked to the biological
quality elements according to the normative definitions given in Annex V. To ensure comparable
definitions of good ecological status across Europe, Member States are also obliged to intercalibrate
the good ecological status class boundaries of their methods for each biological quality element in
each water category with other Member States having common types of water bodies. Intercalibration
is a distinct obligation at EU level in addition to the obligation to develop national ecological status
methods, i.e. the lack of success of intercalibration does not exempt Member States from the
obligation of developing assessment methods for all biological quality elements.
In most Member States, WFD-compliant assessment methods for the classification of ecological
status were not fully developed for all biological quality elements (BQEs), in time for the first RBMPs.
The most common biological methods developed are phytoplankton (chlorophyll a) in lakes and
benthic fauna in rivers. The BQEs that were least developed in rivers are phytoplankton and
macrophytes, and in lakes phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates and fish. Assessment methods show
the most gaps for transitional waters (all BQEs) and for coastal waters, where particularly macroalgae
and angiosperms were fully developed only in a few Member States.
Thus, in many Member States, the assessment of ecological status in this first cycle of RBMPs was
based on pressure and impact data rather than on biological monitoring data for a large proportion of
water bodies. The confidence in the assessment of ecological status for those countries that have not
developed methods is therefore low or unknown, and comparability with the assessments from other
Member States questionable2.
1 REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the Implementation of the
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) River Basin Management Plans, COM(2012) 670 final. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/pdf/CWD-2012-379_EN-Vol1.pdf 2 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/pdf/CWD-2012-379_EN-Vol2.pdf
3 of 129
1.2 Objectives
Task 2 is to examine and analyse the methods used by Member States to assess and classify the
Ecological Status of surface water bodies, and in particular if they are appropriate to achieve the
objective of a comparable assessment of Ecological Status across Europe. The four sub tasks of
Task 2 are inter-related: Task 2a entails a comparison of typologies used by Member States; Task 2b
is to undertake a peer review of the intercalibration process; Task 2c will compare Member State’s
specific pollutants and environmental quality standards; and Task 2d is for a reality check of the
results obtained in assessing Ecological Status across Europe.
As described above, Members States are required to undertake an intercalibration exercise of their
assessment methods and determination of ecological status particularly the high/good and
good/moderate class boundaries. In some areas of the EU this has been considered to have been a
success but in others the results are less certain. The aim of this study is to attempt to verify the
results of the intercalibration by undertaking a “reality check”. The check will involve the identification
of where there are potential incongruities in ecological status classifications particularly across
international borders in transboundary water bodies. The aim is to make more transparent and explain
the reasons for any differences in the assessment and classification of ecological status where there
are believed/perceived to be unexpected differences.
The report describes how transboundary locations and water bodies were identified and subsequently
whether or not there were any potential incongruities in the classification of ecological status/potential
across the international border. An overview and summary of potential transboundary water bodies in
rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters are presented separately with further more detailed
examination of a limited number of case examples from each water category. Conclusions and
recommendations are then presented. Annexes A and B list all the potential transboundary water
bodies and some of these are illustrated on maps.
It should be noted that there is some uncertainty on the identification of transboundary water bodies in
this report, and it is, therefore, recommended that the information is validated by Member States if
any further work is undertaken on the potential incongruities in the classification of ecological status
across international borders.
4 of 129
2. Identification of transboundary locations
As the focus of the study was on transboundary water bodies the first step was to identify where these
occur. A number of sources were used for this step:
1. Personal communications with experts in the Commission, JRC and the EEA who had been
closely involved in the intercalibration process and assessing ecological status information
from Member States (MSs), and were subsequently aware of where possible incongruities
may occur.
2. Web published information from the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary
Watercourses and International Lakes3 e.g. inventory of transboundary rivers and lakes and
overview maps of transboundary surface waters.
3. The International Commission on the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) who provided
GIS files of their river water bodies with information on which were transboundary. Danube
MS had been asked by the ICPDR to indicate which of their water bodies are transboundary.
However, AT, DE and SI had not reported that information.
4. The WISE database4 containing data on surface water bodies including their names,
locations, status and the pressures to which they were subject. The database was used to
follow up information provided by the experts mentioned in 1 above, and to help confirm those
water bodies identified in 5 were transboundary or not.
5. The ECRINS5 dataset with the GIS water body lengths and centroids reported by MSs which
were used to identify potential and confirm which water bodies are transboundary when
associated with water bodies from adjacent MS. Possible transboundary water bodies were
mapped to confirm whether or not they are actually transboundary. MSs were not asked to
identify which of their water bodies were transboundary as part of WISE reporting.
For lakes and transitional waters potential transboundary water bodies were identified by searching
the ECRINS dataset of water body areas and lengths to identify those that were within 500 m of each
other but with a different MS code. For rivers the searching was on the basis of neighbouring water
bodies with a different MS code within 200 m of either end of the water body. Finally for coastal
waters searching was on the basis of a neighbouring water body being within a distance of 1 nautical
mile. There was often a disparity in the lengths of the water bodies reported across national borders
which meant that many water bodies from one MS could match a single but longer water body from
another MS. This increased the uncertainty as to which were the actual transboundary water bodies.
Confirmation of which water bodies were likely to be transboundary was undertaken by eye after the
candidates were mapped against RBD/national borders.
This process caused a duplication of all records: these were removed as far as possible. Incomplete
or incorrect EU water body codes were not processed. EL only provided water bodies as line features
3 http://www.unece.org/env/water/
4 http://wfd2.atkins.dk/summary/Pages/Folder.aspx
5 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/european-catchments-and-rivers-network
5 of 129
and hence these were not processed. Also several Member States provided incorrect direction of flow
for rivers, with the digitised rivers flowing away from the sea.
Complete lists of potential transboundary lake, transitional and coastal water bodies identified in this
study are presented in Annex A with maps of some but not all locations. To help the reader, the long
list of potential transboundary river locations (596 pairs) is presented in Annex B as a separate word
document.
6 of 129
3. Identification of transboundary locations with potential
incongruities in ecological status/potential
Once transboundary locations/water bodies were identified the following information for each of the
paired/grouped water bodies was extracted from the WISE database:
designation (natural, artificial or heavily modified);
overall ecological status/potential class;
confidence in the classification;
classification according to the component biological and other quality elements;
monitoring sites in the water bodies and the quality elements monitored; and,
significant pressures and impacts affecting the water bodies.
Each of the pairs/groups of water bodies were then examined to see if there were any differences in
overall ecological status/potential classification and if there were, examine the differences in the
extracted information and try to explain the differences. There may also be cases where even though
status/potential is assessed as the same, the quality elements used in the classification were
completely different.
The developmental status and availability of national assessment and classification methods for the
biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements used in the classification of
ecological status/potential has also been assessed as part of the assessment of River Basin
Management Plans6: the results of this assessment was also be used to give contextual and
interpretative information for the transboundary water bodies where there are apparent differences.
Differences in ecological status/potential in adjacent transboundary water bodies may be due to
differences in significant pressures and impacts across the border. MS have reported information on
the pressures and impact affecting each water body, and these were compared between adjacent
water bodies to see if there were any obvious differences that might explain differences in status.
Differences in size of adjacent water bodies may also indicate differences in approaches in identifying
water bodies in relation to significant pressures and impacts and the classification of status.
During the planning stage of the study, and as an initial guide, it was thought that depending on the
availability of information, up to 20 transboundary locations would be selected for further in-depth
assessment. It was the aim to have examples from all surface water categories: lakes, rivers,
transitional and coastal waters. In practice, more river transboundary locations were identified than for
the other water categories. Hence more examples were examined in detail in rivers than have been
for the other 3 water categories.
6 It should be noted that only 1 RBD in ES had published a RBMP at the time of this study (this was assessed) and none had
been published in PT. However, both ES and PT had reported some electronic data to WISE: this has been used in this study.
7 of 129
4. Identified transboundary rivers
4.1 Overview
This section provides an overview of the river water bodies identified in this study that are potentially
transboundary with their reported designation, ecological status/potential and confidence in the
classification. The adjacent transboundary water bodies are identified by a numerical code for the first
in the pair/group followed by a decimal numeric code for the second water body in the pair/group e.g.
“1”, “1.1” etc. Maps of the transboundary water bodies are also presented in the Annex A to this
report. The maps were produced from the ECRINS dataset using the water body areas/lengths
reported by Member States.
Table 1 below provides some summary information and statistics on the potential transboundary river
water bodies identified. A list of all the water bodies is provided in Annex B.
Table 1 Overview and basic statistics of the identified river water bodies that are
potentially transboundary
Total %
Pairs
Number 596
- with different designations 79 13%
- with different ecological status/potential 132 22%
- where both water bodies are classified 427 72%
- where both water bodies are classified by all BQEs 89 15%
- where class is not determined by at least one BQE in at least one of the pair 201 34%
- with different confidence in classification 53 9%
- where biological quality elements monitored in both of pair 129 22%
- where biological quality elements monitored in only one of the pair 322 54%
- where biological quality elements monitored in neither of the pair 145 24%
Water bodies in the transboundary "pairs"
Number 1192
- unclassified 169 14%
- with no information on confidence of classification 241 20%
- classified by phytoplankton 163 14%
- classified by other aquatic flora 511 43%
- classified by macrophytes 45 4%
- classified by phytobenthos 178 15%
- classified by macroinvertebrates 717 60%
- classified by fish 588 49%
- classified by hydromorphological quality elements 659 55%
- classified by general physicochemical quality elements 964 81%
- classified by RBD non-priority specific pollutants 653 55%
- classified by other national pollutants 110 9%
- monitored for biological quality elements 580 49%
- monitored for hydromorphological quality elements 453 38%
- monitored for general physicochemical quality elements 575 48%
The GIS analysis of reported river lengths in ECRINS identified 596 pairs of potential transboundary
river water bodies. A fifth of these pairs were reported to have a different ecological status or
ecological potential. In around 70% of the pairs both water bodies were classified (i.e. with a known
status/potential) but only in 15% of the pairs were both water bodies classified by all relevant
8 of 129
biological quality elements. This is contrary to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. In
addition, in a third of the pairs status was determined by a non-biological quality element in at least
one of the water bodies in the pair. The most common quality element used for classification in the
transboundary water bodies were general physicochemical quality elements (81% of water bodies).
The most commonly used biological quality element was benthic invertebrates which were used in the
classification of 60% of water bodies. These two quality elements were the most common elements
used in monitoring and assessment river water quality before the introduction of the WFD.
Note: There is some uncertainty associated with results of the GIS analysis used to identify
transboundary water bodies. It is, therefore, strongly recommended that the list of potential
transboundary water bodies in this report should be validated by Member States before any
further analysis is undertaken. In the interim the statistics calculated above should be treated
with caution.
4.2 Case examples of possible incongruities
The following section contains a table of possible incongruities found for the identified transboundary
river water bodies. The table is followed by selected case examples of possible incongruities in
ecological status/potential across transboundary river water bodies. Where possible the case
examples have been selected to cover different geographic regions and Member State combinations
across the EU, and to illustrate some more generic issues. There are separate case examples for
lakes, transitional and coastal water bodies in the subsequent sections of the report.
Each has a general description of the water bodies including their designation, status/potential and
the confidence in the classification. Information is also given on the monitoring undertaken in the
water bodies and the pressures to which they are subject.
The status of development of the assessment methods for determining the ecological status of the
biological quality elements is then described. This information was from the Commission Staff working
document on the assessment of Member States’ first river basin management plans7. It should be
borne in mind that this was the situation at the time of publication of the plans, which for many MS
was December 2009. Methods have changed since then in some MSs.
The first plans were also based on the first results of intercalibration published in 20088. The
intercalibration process is aimed at consistency and comparability of the classification results of the
monitoring systems operated by each Member State for the biological quality elements. The
intercalibration exercise must establish values for the boundary between the classes of high and good
status, and for the boundary between good and moderate status, which are consistent with the
normative definitions of those class boundaries given in Annex V of the WFD. The essence of
7 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT, European Overview (2/2), Accompanying the document “REPORT FROM
THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) River Basin Management Plans” (COM(2012) 670 final). 8 COMMISSION DECISION of 30 October 2008 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise, (2008/915/EC).
9 of 129
intercalibration is, therefore, to ensure that the high-good and the good moderate boundaries in all
Member State’s assessment methods for biological quality elements correspond to comparable levels
of ecosystem alteration.
There were no intercalibrated results for some Member States, biological quality elements, water
categories and GIGs. As of December 2012 the Commission was drafting it's proposal for the second
phase of intercalibration. The extent and availability of results in the second decision will be much
greater than the first decision. MSs will be expected to use these results in future plans. The results
for the relevant MSs and BQEs are given in each case study.
Finally concluding comments are made about any possible incongruities in the ecological status
/potential of the transboundary water bodies, and any recommendations for further action to clarify
any identified issues or incongruities. In this context it should be borne in mind that Member States
are only required to intercalibrate their methods in terms of the high/good and good moderate
boundaries. Some of differences in status found are for class boundaries that have not been
intercalibrated i.e. moderate/poor and poor/bad. Member states are required to define class limiting
boundaries for poor and bad status in terms of the Annex V normative definitions. At poor status there
would be expected to be substantial alterations in the type specific reference conditions and at bad
severe alterations. There was no information on how Member States have defined boundaries for the
lowest status classes. Some of the water body pairs are heavily modified and in others there is one
natural and one heavily modified water body. Ecological potential has not been intercalibrated
between Member States and so in cases where water bodies have good or moderate potential it is
not certain that there is an equivalent level of hydromorphological alterations that lead to the
equivalent changes in biological conditions and ecosystem alteration.
Differences in status in adjacent transboundary water bodies may also be influenced by how water
bodies have been delineated by the respective Member States. As the CIS guidance document on the
identification of water bodies states “A discrete element of surface water should not contain significant
elements of different status. A water body must be capable of being assigned to a single ecological
status class with sufficient confidence and precision through the Directive’s monitoring programmes.
Although effects of human activities will always vary no matter what the size of a water body, major
changes in the status of surface water should be used to delineate surface water body boundaries as
necessary to ensure that the identification of water bodies provides for an accurate description of
surface water status”.
The delineation of too large a water body in terms of the location, extent and magnitude of pressures
may mask the impact of individual pressures and lead to the resultant classification being of a better
status than it could be. There may also be more than one monitoring site in a water body with the
results being used to assess the status of the water body according to the monitored quality elements.
In the cases where the parameters indicative of a particular quality element are measured at more
than one site in a water body the results may be combined (e.g. averaged) to estimate the condition
of the quality element in the water body as a whole. This process will again potentially mask the areas
of lower status within the water body. So the relative lengths/sizes of the respective transboundary
water bodies and how they have been delineated and monitored may also fundamentally influence
the outcome of the status assessment and the comparability of the classification.
10 of 129
Table 2 Transboundary rivers with potential incongruities in the classification of ecological status/potential
Index MS RBD WB Code Name DE S
ES
CON
PP
OF
MP
PB
BI
FI
HM
GP
NP
ON
MBQ
MHQ
MPQ
PSP
DSP
WAP
HMP
RMP
OMP
OP
BE-NL
6 BE BEMaas_VL BEVL05_144 MAAS III HM M NI M G M M M M M Y Y Y Y Y Y
6.1 NL NLMS NL91ZM Zandmaas HM P NI G M P M M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
7 BE BEMaas_VL BEVL08_145 MARK (Maas) NA P NI P M P M G M M Y Y Y Y Y
7.1 NL NLMS NL25_13 Boven Mark HM P NI M P M M M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
BE-FR 10 BE BESchelde_VL BEVL08_48 LEIE I HM B NI P P G B M M M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
10.1 FR FRA FRAR32 DEULE CANALISEE DE LA CONFLUENCE AVEC LE CANAL D'AIRE A LA CONFLUEN
HM B ME M M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
11 BE BESchelde_VL BEVL08_7 IJZER I HM B NI B B G M M M M Y Y Y Y Y Y
11.1 FR FRA FRAR63 YSER NA P HI G P P M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
BG-RO 16 BG BG1000 BG1RL120R013 Русенски Лом RWB13 HM B LO B G M G Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
16.1 RO RO1000 RORW14.1_B3 PF II - Chiciu HM M LO M G G G Y Y Y Y
17 BG BG1000 BG1VT100R009 Вит RWB09 HM G LO G G G G Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
17.1 RO RO1000 RORW14.1_B3 PF II - Chiciu HM M LO M G G G Y Y Y Y
18 BG BG1000 BG1WO100R001 Тимок WORWB01 NA B LO B G M M Y Y Y Y
18.1 RO RO1000 RORW14.1_B3 PF II - Chiciu HM M LO M G G G Y Y Y Y
CZ-PL 31 CZ CZ_5000 CZ_10177000 Brlenka po ústí do toku
Metuje NA P LO P G H G Y
31.1 PL PL5000 PLRW500049449 Czermnica NA U NI Y Y Y
32 CZ CZ_5000 CZ_10178000 Metuje po soutok s tokem Strela
HM P LO P P G G Y Y
32.1 PL PL5000 PLRW500049449 Czermnica NA U NI Y Y Y
33 CZ CZ_5000 CZ_10178000 Metuje po soutok s tokem Strela
HM P LO P P G G Y Y
33.1 PL PL5000 PLRW500049469 Klikawa NA M HI M M Y Y Y Y
34 CZ CZ_5000 CZ_10202000 Metuje po ústí do toku NA P LO P M G G G M Y Y Y Y Y
11 of 129
Index MS RBD WB Code Name DE S
ES
CON
PP
OF
MP
PB
BI
FI
HM
GP
NP
ON
MBQ
MHQ
MPQ
PSP
DSP
WAP
HMP
RMP
OMP
OP
Labe
34.1 PL PL5000 PLRW500049469 Klikawa NA M HI M M Y Y Y Y
CZ-DE 49 CZ CZ_5000 CZ_13969000 Libský potok po ústí do
toku Ohre NA M LO G M G G G Y Y Y Y
49.1 DE DE5000 DEBY_SE010 Eger - Nebengewässer mit Selb
NA P HI M M B G M G Y Y Y
51 CZ CZ_5000 CZ_13971000 Ohre/Eger po soutok s tokem Reslava/Röslau
NA P LO P G H G G G Y Y Y Y
51.1 DE DE5000 DEBY_SE010 Eger - Nebengewässer mit Selb
NA P HI M M B G M G Y Y Y
57 CZ CZ_5000 CZ_14023000 Mohelenský
potok/Mügelbach po státní hranici
NA P LO P G H M G G Y
57.1 DE DE5000 DEBY_SE044 Muglbach NA G HI G G G G G G Y
66 CZ CZ_5000 CZ_14696000 Spréva/Spree po soutok s tokem Roţanský potok/Rosenbach
NA G LO G G H G
66.1 DE DE5000 DESN_582-1 Spree-1 (Spréva) HM P ME M P M G M G Y Y Y Y Y Y
CZ-PL 102 CZ CZ_6000 CZ_20244000 Opava po soutok s
tokem Moravice HM P LO P P G M Y Y Y Y Y Y
102.1 PL PL6000 PLRW60001911279 Opawa od Opawicy do Morawicy
HM G HI H G Y Y Y
103 CZ CZ_6000 CZ_20343000 Moravice po ústí do toku Opava
NA P LO P G G G G G Y Y Y Y Y
103.1 PL PL6000 PLRW60001911279 Opawa od Opawicy do Morawicy
HM G HI H G Y Y Y
106 CZ CZ_6000 CZ_20471000 Odra po státní hranici HM P LO G P P G M M M Y Y Y Y Y
106.1 PL PL6000 PLRW6000011513 Odra od Olzy do wyplywu z polderu Buków
HM B HI H M M Y Y Y Y
CZ-SK 187 CZ CZ_1000 CZ_41049000 Morava po státní hranici HM P LO P G P G M G G Y Y Y Y Y
187.1 SK SK40000 SKM0001 MORAVA HM M ME G M G G G G
189 CZ CZ_1000 CZ_41049000 Morava po státní hranici HM P LO P G P G M G G Y Y Y Y Y
189.1 SK SK40000 SKM0006 MYJAVA NA M ME M G M G M G
190 CZ CZ_1000 CZ_42020000 Dyje po soutok s tokem Morava
NA M LO M M M H M Y
190.1 SK SK40000 SKM0001 MORAVA HM M ME G M G G G G
12 of 129
Index MS RBD WB Code Name DE S
ES
CON
PP
OF
MP
PB
BI
FI
HM
GP
NP
ON
MBQ
MHQ
MPQ
PSP
DSP
WAP
HMP
RMP
OMP
OP
DE-PL 195 DE DE6000 DEBB6_2 Oder NA B NI B M M G M G Y Y Y Y
195.1 PL PL6000 PLRW6000211971 Odra od Odry Zachodniej do Parnicy
HM H HI G G Y Y Y Y Y
196 DE DE6000 DEBB6_3 Oder NA P NI P M M G M M Y Y Y
196.1 PL PL6000 PLRW600019174999 Nysa Luzycka od Lubszy do Odry
NA M HI G M Y Y Y Y
197 DE DE6000 DEBB6_3 Oder NA P NI P M M G M M Y Y Y
197.1 PL PL6000 PLRW6000211739 Odra od Czarnej Strugi do Nysy Luzyckiej
HM M HI G H M Y Y Y
DE-NL 252 DE DE2000 DENI_32031 32031 Radewijke HM P ME M P P G M Y Y Y Y
252.1 NL NLRN NL36_OWM_012 Radewijkerbeek HM M NI M M M M M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
255 DE DE2000 DENI_32035 32035 Wettringe HM P ME M P P G Y Y
255.1 NL NLRN NL36_OWM_021 Wettringe HM M NI M M G M M Y Y Y Y Y
258 DE DE2000 DENI_32044 32044 Itter HM B ME H B G G Y Y
258.1 NL NLRN NL05_Itterbeek Itterbeek HM M NI G G G G M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
ES-PT 386 ES ES040 ES040MSPF000120380 RIO ARDILA III NA M HI G M H G G Y Y Y Y
386.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1490I3 Rio Ardila NA P LO Y
391 ES ES040 ES040MSPF000133590 RIO ARDILA II NA M HI G M M G M G Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
391.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1490I3 Rio Ardila NA P LO Y
394 ES ES040 ES040MSPF000133760 RIO CAYA NA P HI G P G G G Y Y Y Y Y Y
394.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1428I1 Rio Caia (HMWB - Jusante B. Caia)
HM M ME M M Y Y Y Y
FI-SE 434 FI FIVHA6 FI67.100_001 Tornionjoki NA G HI G H H G Y Y Y
434.1 SE SE1TO SE739989-185170 Torneälven NA G HI H G G G Y
437 FI FIVHA6 FI67.111_001 Liakanjoki NA M HI G M G G Y Y Y Y Y Y
437.1 SE SE1TO SE739989-185170 Torneälven NA G HI H G G G Y
440 FI FIVHA6 FI67.300_001 Muonionjoki NA H HI H H H G Y
440.1 SE SE1TO SE755505-182645 Muonioälven NA G HI H G G H Y
HU-SK 477 HU HU1000 HUAEP334 Bodrog HM M ME G M M M G G H G Y Y Y
477.1 SK SK40000 SKB0001 BODROG NA P ME H M G P G M G
480 HU HU1000 HUAEP443 Duna Szigetköznél HM M ME H G G G M G G G Y Y
480.1 SK SK40000 SKD0017 DUNAJ HM M ME H G M G G G
486 HU HU1000 HUAEP462 Ér-focsatorna HM M LO G H H G G G M Y Y
486.1 RO RO1000 RORW3.1.44.33.28.11_ Ierul Ingust --> izvor - HM G LO H G G H Y
13 of 129
Index MS RBD WB Code Name DE S
ES
CON
PP
OF
MP
PB
BI
FI
HM
GP
NP
ON
MBQ
MHQ
MPQ
PSP
DSP
WAP
HMP
RMP
OMP
OP
B1 vars. in Ier
488 HU HU1000 HUAEP471 Fehér-Körös HM M ME G M G M G G G H G Y Y Y
488.1 RO RO1000 RORW3.1_B7 Crisul Alb --> cnf. Cigher - granita
NA G ME H G H G G G Y Y Y
LT-LV 508 LT LT2300 LT300100018 NA G ME G G
508.1 LV LVVUBA LVV056 Venta NA M ME H M G Y
511 LT LT2300 LT300111702 NA G LO G
511.1 LV LVVUBA LVV056 Venta NA M ME H M G Y
514 LT LT2300 LT300113104 NA M ME H M H M Y
514.1 LV LVVUBA LVV056 Venta NA M ME H M G Y
522 LT LT3400 LT410100016 NA P ME P P M G Y
522.1 LV LVLUBA LVL176 Musa NA B LO H M G Y Y
14 of 129
Key to abbreviations
Abbreviation
Description Abbreviation
Description
DES Designation of water body Monitoring of quality elements – blank cells do not necessarily indicate no monitoring as information may not have been reported by Member States to WISE
M_BQEs Biological quality elements monitored (Y = yes)
HM Heavily modified water modified M_HQEs Hydromorphological quality elements monitored (Y = yes)
NA Natural water body M_PQEs Physicochemical quality elements monitored (Y = yes)
AB Artificial water body
Significant pressures on water bodies - blank cells do not necessarily indicate that this pressure is not significant as information may not have been reported by Member States to WISE
ES Ecological status/potential PSP Point source pressures
DSP Diffuse source pressures
1 High ecological status WAP Water abstraction pressures
2 Good ecological status/potential HMP Hydromorphological alteration pressures
3 Moderate ecological status/potential RMP River management pressures
4 Poor ecological status/potential TRP Transitional and coastal water management pressures
5 Bad ecological status/potential OMP Other morphological pressures
U Unknown/unclassified status/potential OPP Other pressures
CON Confidence in the classification of status/potential
HI High confidence
ME Medium confidence
LO Low confidence
NI No information
Classification by individual quality elements – same numbers and colour coding as used for ecological status classifications above
PP Phytoplankton
OF Other aquatic flora
MA Macroalgae
AG Angiosperms
MP Macrophytes
PB Phytobenthos
BI Benthic invertebrates
FI Fish
HM Hydromorphological quality elements
GP General physicochemical quality elements
NP Non-priority specific pollutants
ON Other national pollutants
15 of 129
Case example 1 (Map 1)
Index MS RBD Water Body Code Name
1 BE BEMaas_VL BEVL05_136 DOMMEL
1.1 NL NLMS NL27_BO_1 Boven Dommel/ Keersop/ Beekloop
Description: Both water bodies are designated as heavily modified with the BE water body being
classified as having poor ecological potential and the one from NL as having moderate ecological
potential. There was no reported information on the level of confidence associated with the
classification of potential. Both water bodies are assessed and classified by the same groups of
biological quality element (BQE) with those in the NL water body all being assessed as moderate
whereas in the BE water body one BQE had a better quality (good) and one a worse quality than the
same BQE in the NL water body. This might imply a different level of sensitivity to pressures of the
methods used by the respective MS for these two BQEs (macroinvertebrates and other aquatic flora,
respectively). Biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical QEs were monitored in both water
bodies, and both were subject to significant point, diffuse and hydromorphological pressures.
Biological assessment methods: An assessment of the ecological status assessment methods for
different biological quality elements based on information reported in the first RBMP indicated that
there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in BE for all BQEs relevant to rivers, and for all
BQEs in NL except for phytoplankton where there were differences in the state of development in
some RBDs.
Intercalibration: Intercalibration has not been undertaken for the assessment and classification of
ecological potential.
Conclusion: There is a difference in the classification of the 2 water bodies which is not fully
explainable from the available information as both water bodies were assessed according to the same
quality element groups, were monitored for all QE types and largely subject to the same pressures.
However, ecological potential has not been intercalibrated and the difference in classified potential
may reflect differences in the effects of the hydromorphological alterations of the 2 water bodies on
their biological communities. It is recommended that the respective MSs are contacted for additional
information to clarify the differences if this study is continued at a later date.
Case example 2 (Map 2)
Index MS RBD Water Body Code Name
11 BE BESchelde_VL BEVL08_7 IJZER I
11.1 FR FRA FRAR63 YSER
Description: The water body in BE is designated as heavily modified and is at bad ecological
potential. The water body in FR is natural and classified as having poor ecological status.
Phytobenthos were assessed as good in both water bodies, and macroinvertebrates and fish as poor
in the FR water body and moderate in the BE water body. Macrophytes were assessed as bad in the
BE water body but were not assessed in the FR water body. Biological, hydromorphological and
physicochemical QEs were monitored in both water bodies, and both were subject to significant
16 of 129
diffuse and hydromorphological pressures. The FR water body also had significant point source and
river management pressures, and the BE water body significant “other” pressures.
Biological assessment methods: An assessment of the ecological status assessment methods for
different biological quality elements (BQE) based on information reported in the first RBMP indicated
that there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in BE for all BQEs relevant to rivers. In FR
methods were fully developed for benthic invertebrates but for the other BQEs there were differences
in the state of development from fully developed to undeveloped in some RBDs.
Intercalibration: Intercalibration has not been undertaken for the assessment and classification of
ecological potential. Benthic invertebrates and phytobenthos were intercalibrated for common
intercalibration types between BE and FR during Phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise, and results
for macrophytes and fish are proposed for the draft results of the Phase 2 intercalibration.
Conclusion: There is a difference in the classification of the 2 water bodies which is not fully
explainable from the available information. The overall classification of the BE water body was on the
basis of a quality element not assessed in the FR water body. Where the same BQEs were assessed
the status of the FR water body was worse than in the BE water body. This might imply some
differences in the sensitivity to pressures of the biological assessment methods in the two Member
States particularly as the FR water body was subject to more significant pressures than the BE water
body. Ecological potential has not been intercalibrated and so it is difficult to compare the status and
potential between a natural and heavily modified water body as the differences in classification may
reflect the effects of the hydromorphological alterations of the BE water bodies on its biological
communities. It is recommended that the respective MSs are contacted for additional information to
clarify the differences if this study is continued at a later date.
Case example 3 (Map 4)
Index MS RBD Water Body Code Name
26 CZ CZ_5000 CZ_10122000 Petríkovický potok po ústí do toku Licná
26.1 PL PL5000 PLRW5000492229 Ostroznica
Description: Both water bodies are natural with the one in CZ being classified as poor ecological
status with low confidence and the other in PL being of moderate ecological status with a high level of
confidence. The only QE assessed in the PL water body was general physicochemical QEs which
were classified as high status. The basis of the moderate classification is therefore not known. Fish
and macroinvertebrates were assessed in the CZ water body with the poor status for
macroinvertebrates defaulting the overall status of the water body to poor. There was no reported
information on which quality elements were monitored in either of the water bodies and the only
reported significant pressure (hydromorphological) was for the CZ water body.
Biological assessment methods: An assessment of the ecological status assessment methods for
different biological quality elements (BQE) based on information reported in the first RBMP indicated
that there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in PL for phytoplankton, macrophytes and
phytobenthos whereas methods for benthic invertebrate were under development and there were no
17 of 129
methods for fish. In CZ there was only a fully developed method for fish: there were no methods for
the other BQEs.
Intercalibration: There were no intercalibrated results for the common intercalibration types between
CZ and PL during Phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise but results for benthic macroinvertebrates
are proposed for the draft results of the Phase 2 intercalibration.
Conclusion: There is clear uncertainty in the status of the PL water body as it appears to have only
been classified by non-biological quality elements which is contrary to the requirements of the WFD.
Also the overall status of the CZ water body was determined by a quality element for which there was
no WFD compliant method developed. It is likely therefore that the classification of the 2 water bodies
is not comparable. Information on how the PL water body was classified should be sought from the
Member State if this study is continued at a later date.
Case example 4 (Map 8)
Index MS RBD Water Body Code Name
180 CZ CZ_1000 CZ_40044000 Nemanický potok po státní hranici
180.1 DE DE1000 DEBY_NR133 Schwarzach, bis Schaufelbach/Rhaner Bach/Rötzbach/Buchbach
Description: Both water bodies are natural with the water body in CZ having good ecological status
with a low confidence and the other water body in DE poor status with medium confidence. Both
assessed biological quality elements in the CZ water body were classified as good whereas the same
two BQEs (macroinvertebrates and fish) assessed in the DE water body were assessed as poor and
moderate status respectively. The DE water body was also assessed in terms of other aquatic flora
which was also at moderate status. Biological and general physicochemical QEs were monitored in
the DE water body but there was no monitoring information reported for the CZ water body. There
were 3 significant pressure types reported for the DE water body and none for the CZ water body.
Biological assessment methods: An assessment of the ecological status assessment methods for
different biological quality elements (BQE) based on information reported in the first RBMP indicated
that there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in DE for all BQEs relevant to rivers. In CZ
there was only a fully developed method for fish: there were no methods for the other BQEs.
Intercalibration: There were no intercalibrated results for the common intercalibration types between
CZ and DE during Phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise but results for benthic macroinvertebrates
and phytobenthos (in very large rivers) are proposed for the draft revised intercalibration Decision
(phase 2).
Conclusion: The biological assessment methods for CZ were assessed as not being developed
enough to be WFD compliant and hence there is some uncertainty in the classification of status of the
CZ water body. In addition intercalibration of common types between CZ and DE had not been
achieved when the RBMP were drawn up. There is, therefore, a possibly incongruity of classification
18 of 129
of status between these two water bodies and it is recommended that further information to clarify the
situation is obtained from the MSs if this study is continued at a later date.
Case example 5 (Map 13)
Index MS RBD Water Body Code Name
279 DE DE7000 DENW284_12_20 Schwalm
279.1 NL NLMS NL57_ZOM_02 Swalm
Description: Both water bodies are natural with the one in NL being classified as moderate
ecological status with high confidence and the other water body in DE at poor ecological status with
no information on confidence. The same BQEs are assessed in both water bodies with the status for
other aquatic flora and fish being worse (poor) in the DE water body than in the NL water body. The
worst status (moderate) for a BQE in the NL water body was for macroinvertebrates which was the
same status for this BQE in the DE water body. Biological QEs were monitored in both water bodies
and hydromorphological and general physicochemical QEs were also monitored in the DE water
body. Point source pressures were reported to be significant in both water bodies and the NL water
body was also subject to significant diffuse source and other pressures, and the DE water body to
hydromorphological pressures.
Biological assessment methods: An assessment of the ecological status assessment methods for
different BQEs based on information reported in the first RBMP indicated that there were fully WFD-
compliant assessment methods in DE for all BQEs relevant to rivers. In NL there were fully developed
methods for all BQEs except for phytoplankton where there were differences in the state of
development in some RBDs.
Intercalibration: Benthic invertebrates and phytobenthos were intercalibrated for common
intercalibration types between DE and NL during Phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise, and results
for fish are proposed for the draft revised intercalibration Decision (phase 2).
Conclusion: Both MSs have used WFD compliant methods in the assessment of ecological status
and one of the BQEs was intercalibrated for use in the first plans. It is likely therefore that the
differences in status reflect differences in the pressures on, and characteristics of, the respective
water bodies.
Case example 6 (Map 11)
Index MS RBD Water Body Code Name
306 DE DE2000 DERP_2642680000_1 Oberer Hornbach
306.1 FR FRC FRCR445 HORN
Description: Both water bodies are natural with the one in FR being classified as moderate
ecological status with medium confidence and the other water body in DE at poor ecological status
with high confidence. One assessed BQE was common to both water bodies, other aquatic flora, with
the status being poor in the DE water body and moderate in the other. Macroinvertebrates (poor) and
19 of 129
fish (moderate) were also assessed in the DE but not in the FR water body. Biological QEs were
monitored in both water bodies and hydromorphological and general physicochemical QEs were also
monitored in the FR water body. Point source pressures were reported to be significant in both water
bodies and the FR water body was also subject to significant diffuse source pressures, and the DE
water body to hydromorphological pressures.
Biological assessment methods: An assessment of the ecological status assessment methods for
different biological quality elements (BQE) based on information reported in the first RBMP indicated
that there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in DE for all BQEs relevant to rivers. In FR
methods were fully developed for benthic invertebrates but for the other BQEs there were differences
in the state of development from fully developed to undeveloped in some RBDs.
Intercalibration: Benthic invertebrates and phytobenthos were intercalibrated for common
intercalibration types between DE and FR during Phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise, and results
for macrophytes and fish are proposed for the draft revised intercalibration Decision (phase 2).
Conclusion: Both MSs have used WFD compliant methods in the assessment of ecological status. At
least one of the BQEs intercalibrated for use in the first plans was assessed in DE – both may have
been but this is unclear because only other aquatic flora were reported and not the component sub-
elements including phytobenthos. In the FR water body only one of the intercalibrated BQEs
(phytobenthos) was assessed. There are differences in the significant pressures to which each water
body is subject which may reflect the differences in status. Therefore, in spite of the differences in the
BQEs assessed in the 2 water bodies, it is possible that the differences in status reflect differences in
the pressures on, and characteristics of, the respective water bodies, and there is no incongruity in
status across the border.
Case example 7 (Map 15)
Index MS RBD Water Body Code Name
431 ES ES091 ES091MSPF579 Río Arabo desde su entrada en España hasta
su desembocadura en el río Segre.
431.1 FR FRD FRDR240 rivière du carol
Description: Both water bodies are natural with the one in ES being classified as good ecological
status with no information on confidence and the other water body in FR at moderate ecological
status with low confidence. There was no reported information on which quality elements were
assessed in arriving at the overall ecological status for either water body: the basis of the
classification is therefore not known. Biological and general physicochemical QE were monitored in
both water bodies and hydromorphological QEs were also monitored in the ES water body. Two
significant pressures (point source and water abstraction) were reported for the FR water body and
one (diffuse source) for the one in ES.
Biological assessment methods: An assessment of the ecological status assessment methods for
different biological quality elements (BQE) based on information reported in the first RBMP indicated
20 of 129
that there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in ES for all BQEs except for fish where
there were no methods. In FR methods were fully developed for benthic invertebrates but for the other
BQEs there were differences in the state of development from fully developed to undeveloped in
some RBDs.
Intercalibration: Benthic invertebrates and phytobenthos were intercalibrated for common
intercalibration types (Mediterranean GIG) between ES and FR during Phase 1 of the intercalibration
exercise, and results for macrophytes for types in the Mediterranean GIG are proposed for the draft
revised intercalibration Decision (phase 2).
Conclusion: There are differences in the reported pressures on the 2 water bodies but there is no
information as to whether these lead to the differences in the reported ecological status. There is also
no information on the biological or other assessment methods used to determine status. It is therefore
recommended that if this study is taken further in the future that more information is requested from
the respective MS to explain this potential incongruity in status.
Case example 8 (Map 19)
Index MS RBD Water Body Code Name
497 HU HU1000 HUAEP784 Maros kelet
497.1 RO RO1000 RORW4.1_B11 MURES, sector Arad - Romanian/Hungarian border
Description: Both water bodies are designated as heavily modified with the one in RO being classified as being at good ecological potential with low confidence and the other at moderate ecological potential with medium confidence. The HU water body was assessed by all BQE and other QEs with the overall status being determined by phytoplankton and non-priority specific pollutants (NPSP). The RO water body was not assessed for phytoplankton and other aquatic flora. Macroinvertebrates were assessed as good in both water bodies, and fish as high in the HU water body and good in the RO water body. There was no information on the monitoring undertaken in the HU water body whereas all quality elements were monitored for in the RO water body. No pressures were reported for the HU water body and only one for the RO water body (hydromorphological pressures). Biological assessment methods: An assessment of the ecological status assessment methods for different biological quality elements (BQE) based on information reported in the first RBMP indicated that there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in RO for phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates and fish. The method for macrophytes was under development and there was no method for phytobenthos. In HU there were no methods for all BQEs except for benthic invertebrates where the method was under development. Intercalibration: Intercalibration has not been undertaken for the assessment and classification of ecological potential. In terms of natural water bodies there were no intercalibrated results for the common intercalibration types between HU and RO during Phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise but results for benthic macroinvertebrates are proposed for the draft revised intercalibration Decision (phase 2). Conclusion: Fish were assessed as being at high (maximum) potential in the HU water body which seems to be counter-intuitive to the water body being designated as heavily modified. Depending on the actual type of hydromorphological alterations resulting in the designation of heavily modified it would be expected that alterations in habitats would significantly impact fish populations and it would be difficult to achieve maximum potential. At the time of the first RBMP there were no fully compliant WFD methods for BQEs in HU. RO has used 2 of the 3 biological methods that are considered to be
21 of 129
WFD compliant, and the status for one of these is same as assessed in the HU water body but worse (good) for the other. There was no information on monitoring or on the pressures for the HU water body and also because there is uncertainty in the validity of methods used by HU in particular it is recommended that further information is collected from the respective MS to determine whether the difference in potential classification reflects differences in pressures and actual hydromorphological alterations in the respective water bodies.
Case example 9 (Map 21)
Index MS RBD Water Body Code Name
499 HU HU1000 HUAEP931 Sajó felso
499.1 SK SK40000 SKS0003 SLANA
Description: Both water bodies are natural with the HU one being classified as moderate ecological status with medium confidence and the SK one as having poor ecological status also with medium confidence. The HU water body was assessed by all relevant BQEs (except phytoplankton) and other QEs with the overall status being determined by macrophytes and macroinvertebrates. The SK water body was not assessed for phytoplankton, other aquatic flora and fish. Macroinvertebrates were assessed as poor in the SK and moderate in the HU water body, and phytobenthos as good in both water bodies. There was no information reported on monitoring for both water bodies and the only pressure information reported was for the HU water body where other pressures were reported as significant. Biological assessment methods: An assessment of the ecological status assessment methods for different biological quality elements (BQE) based on information reported in the first RBMP indicated that there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in SK for all BQEs except for fish for which there was no method. The method for macrophytes was under development and there was no method for phytobenthos. In HU there were no methods for all BQEs except for benthic invertebrates where the method was under development. Intercalibration: there were no intercalibrated results for the common intercalibration types between HU and SK during Phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise but results for benthic macroinvertebrates, macrophytes and phytobenthos are proposed for the draft revised intercalibration Decision (phase 2). Conclusion: SK has used 2 WFD compliant BQE assessment methods for the classification of ecological status of its water body. There is no information on the pressures on this water body causing the impact on status. There were no fully developed methods for BQEs in HU at the time of the first RBMP and there were no intercalibration results available between the 2 MSs. It is therefore recommended that further information is obtained to ascertain what is leading to the difference in ecological status across this transboundary water body.
Case example 10 (Map 24)
Index MS RBD Water Body Code Name
507 LT LT1100 LT150100011 No name reported
507.1 PL PL8000 PLRW8000206851 Szeszupa od Potopki do granicy panstwa
Description: The water body in LT was designated as heavily modified with good ecological potential and high confidence. The PL water body was natural with good ecological status at high confidence. The LT water body was assessed by only one BQE, fish, which had high potential. This may be counter – intuitive as fish are often affected by hydromorphological alterations and it is expected that this water body will have some hydromorphological alterations as it has been designated as heavily modified. The PL water body was not assessed by any BQEs. General physicochemical QEs were the only QE assessed, their status of good deriving the overall status
22 of 129
classification of the water body. There was no reported information for both water bodies on monitoring and on the pressures on the water bodies. Biological assessment methods: An assessment of the ecological status assessment methods for different biological quality elements (BQE) based on information reported in the first RBMP indicated that there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in PL for phytoplankton, macrophytes and phytobenthos whereas methods for benthic invertebrate were under development and there were no methods for fish. In LT there were only fully developed methods for benthic invertebrates and fish: there were no methods for the other BQEs. Intercalibration: Intercalibration has not been undertaken for the assessment and classification of ecological potential. In terms of natural water bodies there were no intercalibrated results for the common intercalibration types between LT and PL during Phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise and there are no results proposed for the draft revised intercalibration Decision (phase 2). Conclusion: The classification of the PL water body is not compliant with the requirements of the WFD as it seems to be solely based on the assessment of physicochemical conditions, this in spite of the apparent availability of WFD compliant methods for 3 BQEs for use in developing the first plan. LT seems to have used one of the 2 WFD compliant BQE methods in the assessment of the potential of its water body. No information was reported for either water body on pressures or the monitoring undertaken. For these reasons it is recommended that further information is collected from both MSs to clarify the situation with regards to the classification of the 2 water bodies.
Case example 11 (Map 26)
Index MS RBD Water Body Code Name
522 LT LT3400 LT410100016 No name reported
522.1 LV LVLUBA LVL176 Musa
Description: Both water bodies are natural with the LV water body being classified as having bad ecological status with medium confidence and the LT water body, poor status with low confidence. The LT water body was assessed in terms of 2 BQEs, macroinvertebrates and fish; both were at poor status. The LV water body was assessed to be at high status in terms of macroinvertebrates and moderate and good status in terms of general physicochemical QEs and NPSP, respectively. As these were the only 3 QEs assessed it is not known how the overall bad status of the LV water body was determined. There was no information reported on the QEs monitored in either water body. Diffuse source pressure were reported to be significant in both water bodies and “other” pressures were also reported to be significant in the LV water body. Biological assessment methods: : An assessment of the assessment methods for different biological quality elements (BQE) based on information reported in the first RBMP indicated that there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in LT for benthic invertebrates and fish and none for the other BQEs. Methods had not been developed for any of the BQEs in LV. Intercalibration: In terms of natural water bodies there were no intercalibrated results for the common intercalibration types between LT and LV during Phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise and there are no results proposed for the draft revised intercalibration Decision (phase 2). Conclusion: There is significant uncertainty in the status of, and the methods used in the classification of these 2 transboundary water bodies. It is recommended that further information is requested from the respective Member States to clarify this potential incongruity in the classification of ecological status. In particular the basis of the classification of the LV water body should be clarified.
23 of 129
5. Identified transboundary lakes
5.1 Overview
This section provides an overview of the lake water bodies identified in this study that are potentially
transboundary with their reported designation, ecological status/potential and confidence in the
classification. The adjacent transboundary water bodies are identified by a numerical code for the first
in the pair/group followed by a decimal numeric code for the second water body in the pair/group e.g.
“1”, “1.1” etc. Maps of the transboundary water bodies are also presented in the Annex A to this
report. The maps were produced from the ECRINS dataset using the water body areas/lengths
reported by Member States.
Table 3 below provides some summary information and statistics on the potential transboundary lake
water bodies identified. A list of all the water bodies is provided in Annex A.
Table 3 Overview and basic statistics of the identified lake water bodies that are
potentially transboundary
Number %
Pairs/groups
Number 16
- with different designations 2 12.5%
- with different ecological status/potential 10 62.5%
- where both water bodies are classified 11 68.8%
- where both water bodies are classified by all BQEs 1 6.3%
- where class is not determined by at least one BQE in at least one of the pair 4 25.0%
- with different confidence in classification 13 81.3%
- where biological quality elements monitored in both of pair 3 18.8%
- where biological quality elements monitored in only one of the pair 5 31.3%
- where biological quality elements monitored in neither of the pair 8 50.0%
Water bodies in the transboundary "pairs"
Number 33
- unclassified 5 15.2%
- with no information on confidence of classification 10 30.3%
- classified by phytoplankton 17 51.5%
- classified by other aquatic flora 4 12.1%
- classified by macrophytes 8 24.2%
- classified by phytobenthos 2 6.1%
- classified by macroinvertebrates 6 18.2%
- classified by fish 9 27.3%
- classified by hydromorphological quality elements 11 33.3%
- classified by general physicochemical quality elements 18 54.5%
- classified by RBD non-priority specific pollutants 15 45.5%
- classified by other national pollutants 0 0.0%
- monitored for biological qualty elements 11 33.3%
- monitored for hydromorphological quality elements 10 30.3%
- monitored for general physicochemical quality elements 12 36.4%
The GIS analysis of reported lake area in ECRINS, and the information obtained from the WISE
database and other sources identified 16 pairs of potential transboundary lake water bodies. Over a
half of these pairs were reported to have a different ecological status or ecological potential. In around
70% of the pairs both water bodies were classified (i.e. with a known status/potential) but only in 1
24 of 129
pair were both water bodies classified by all relevant biological quality elements. This is contrary to
the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. In addition, in a quarter of the pairs status was
determined by a non-biological quality element in at least one of the water bodies in the pair. The
most common quality element used for classification in the transboundary water bodies were general
physicochemical quality elements (55 % of water bodies). The most commonly used biological quality
element was phytoplankton which was used in the classification of 50% of water bodies. These two
quality elements were the most common elements used in monitoring and assessment lake water
quality before the introduction of the WFD.
Note: There is some uncertainty associated with results of the GIS analysis used to identify
transboundary water bodies. It is, therefore, strongly recommended that the list of potential
transboundary water bodies in this report should be validated by Member States before any
further analysis is undertaken. In the interim the statistics calculated above should be treated
with caution.
5.2 Case examples of possible incongruities
This section contains a table of possible incongruities found for the identified transboundary lake water bodies. The table is followed by selected case examples of possible incongruities in ecological status/potential across transboundary lake water bodies. Where possible the case examples have been selected to cover different geographic regions and Member State combinations across the EU, and to illustrate some more generic issues.
25 of 129
Table 4 Transboundary lake water bodies with potential incongruities in the classification of ecological status/potential
Index
MS
RB
D
WB
Code
Nam
e
DE
S
ES
CO
N
PP
OF
MP
PB
BI
FI
HM
GP
NP
M_
BQ
Es
M_
HQ
Es
M_
PQ
Es
PS
P
DS
P
WA
P
HM
P
OM
P
OP
P
1 BE BESchelde_VL BEVL05_187 ANTWERPSE HAVENDOKKEN + SCHELDE-RIJNVERBINDING
AB 5 NI 3 2 2 5 3 3 4 1 6 3 1 1 1
1.1 NL NLSC nl89_antwknpd Antwerps kanaal pand AB 4 NI 2 4 3 2 3 2 1 1 1 1
3 ES ES040 ES040MSPF000206500 EMBALSE DEL CHANZA HM 2 HI 2 5 2 1
3.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1591 Albufeira Chanca HM 2 ME
1 2 4
5 ES ES040 ES040MSPF000206650 EMBALSE DE ABRILONGO HM U HI 2
5.1 PT 'PTRH7 PT07GUA1407 Albufeira Abrilongo HM 3 LO 3 2 1 2 6 1 1
6 FI FIVHA6 FI67.640.1.001_001 Kilpisjärvi - Alajärvi NA 1 ME
1 1 1 2 4 1
6.1 SE SE1TO SE765824-170238 KILPISJÄRVI NA 1 LO 1 1 1
8 LT LT4500 LT550030305 Laukesas NA 1 LO 2
8.1 LV LVDUBA LVE165 Lauces ez NA 3 HI
ESPT_1 ES ES010 ES010MSPFES480MAR002120
Embalse de Frieira HM 3 NI 3 2 5 1
ESPT_1.1 PT PTRH1 PT01MIN0006I Rio Minho (HMWB - Jusante B. Frieira)
HM 5 LO 4 5 5 1 1
IEUK_1 IE GBNIIENW IE_NW_35_160 Melvin ( Lough ) NA 3 ME
1 3 2 3 1 1
IEUK_1.1 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI3NW0015 Lough Melvin East NA 2 HI 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
IEUK_1.2 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI3NW0010 Lough Melvin Central NA 2 HI 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
IEUK_2 IE GBNIIENW IE_NW_36_673 Macnean Upper ( Lough ) NA 3 HI 2 3 3 3
IEUK_2.1 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI3NW0011 Upper Lough Macnean NA 2 HI 2 2 2 2 2 1
26 of 129
Key to abbreviations
Abbreviation
Description Abbreviation
Description
DES Designation of water body Monitoring of quality elements – blank cells do not necessarily indicate no monitoring as information may not have been reported by Member States to WISE
M_BQEs Biological quality elements monitored (Y = yes)
HM Heavily modified water modified M_HQEs Hydromorphological quality elements monitored (Y = yes)
NA Natural water body M_PQEs Physicochemical quality elements monitored (Y = yes)
AB Artificial water body
Significant pressures on water bodies - blank cells do not necessarily indicate that this pressure is not significant as information may not have been reported by Member States to WISE
ES Ecological status/potential PSP Point source pressures
DSP Diffuse source pressures
1 High ecological status WAP Water abstraction pressures
2 Good ecological status/potential HMP Hydromorphological alteration pressures
3 Moderate ecological status/potential RMP River management pressures
4 Poor ecological status/potential TRP Transitional and coastal water management pressures
5 Bad ecological status/potential OMP Other morphological pressures
U Unknown/unclassified status/potential OPP Other pressures
CON Confidence in the classification of status/potential
HI High confidence
ME Medium confidence
LO Low confidence
NI No information
Classification by individual quality elements – same numbers and colour coding as used for ecological status classifications above
PP Phytoplankton
OF Other aquatic flora
MA Macroalgae
AG Angiosperms
MP Macrophytes
PB Phytobenthos
BI Benthic invertebrates
FI Fish
HM Hydromorphological quality elements
GP General physicochemical quality elements
NP Non-priority specific pollutants
ON Other national pollutants
27 of 129
Case example 1 (Map 29)
Index MS RBD WB Code Name
1 BE BESchelde_VL BEVL05_187 ANTWERPSE HAVENDOKKEN + SCHELDE-RIJNVERBINDING
1.1 NL NLSC nl89_antwknpd Antwerps kanaal pand
Description: Both water bodies are artificial. The BE water body has been classified as having bad ecological potential with no information on confidence and the one in NL, poor with no information on confidence. The status of BE water body has been assessed y phytoplankton, phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates and fish. The water body defaults to bad status through the assessment of benthic invertebrates. The NL water body has been assessed by phytoplankton, other aquatic flora, benthic invertebrates and fish with the worst status being indicated by other aquatic flora. Monitoring of biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical QEs is reported for the BE water body but there was no information reported for the NL water body. In terms of significant pressures, both water bodies are subject to four categories with diffuse source and hydromorphological being common to both. Biological assessment methods: Both BE and NL were assessed to have available methods for all the BQEs relevant to lakes, an assessment perhaps supported by the indication that all BQEs had been assessed in both water bodies. Intercalibration: Intercalibration has not been undertaken for the assessment and classification of ecological potential. Conclusion: The ecological potential of the 2 artificial water bodies is different and the biological QEs with the worst status is also different in the 2 water bodies. Both water bodies are also impacted by a number of pressures which are presumably causing the water bodies to be less than good ecological potential. As the biological assessment methods have not intercalibrated for ecological potential it is not known whether or not the differences in potential reflect different levels of degradation in hydromorphological characteristics of the 2 water bodies. Case example 2 (Map 32)
Index MS RBD WB Code Name
6 FI FIVHA6 FI67.640.1.001_001 Kilpisjärvi - Alajärvi
6.1 SE SE1TO SE765824-170238 KILPISJÄRVI
Description: Both lakes have been designated as natural and have been classified as having high ecological status, the one in FI with medium confidence and the one in SE with low confidence. The water body in SE has been classified without the assessment of any biological quality elements: hydromorphological and general physicochemical QEs have been used, both assessed as being at high status. In comparison the FI water body has been assessed in terms of phytoplankton and other aquatic flora and also by general physicochemical QEs and non priority specific pollutants. The assessment of the latter QE indicated good rather than high status: this result did not influence the overall classification result of high, i.e. the one-out-all-out principle may not have been applied. Monitoring for the biological quality elements and general physicochemical QEs was undertaken in the FI water body but there was not information reported on monitoring for the SE water body. The only pressure reported in either water body was diffuse source for the SE water body. Biological assessment methods: SE has been assessed to have methods available for assessing phytoplankton, benthic invertebrate and fish, with a method for macrophytes under development but no method available for phytobenthos. FI has methods available for all relevant lake BQEs except phytobenthos. Intercalibration: Phytoplankton and macrophytes were intercalibrated during the first phase of intercalibration within the Northern Lake GIG with results for SE and FI, hence available for the first
28 of 129
RBMP. In the revised decision there are also intercalibrated results for benthic invertebrates (Northern GIG), and for phytobenthos (cross GIG). Conclusion: The ecological status of the 2 lake water bodies has been classified as high. The low level of confidence in the classification of status in the SE lake might reflect the lack of assessment of the biological quality elements and reliance on non-biological elements. It also might be the case that the lake is part of a group and has had its status inferred through the monitoring and assessment of biological quality elements in other lakes in the group. For FI there seems to be a contravention of the one out all out rule in the classification as the good status for NPSP has not been taken into account in the determination of the final high status classification. These two aspects may affect the comparability of ecological status between the 2 bodies and this situation should be clarified with the respective member states.
Case example 3 (Map 33)
Index MS RBD WB Code Name
8 LT LT4500 LT550030305 Laukesas
8.1 LV LVDUBA LVE165 Lauces ez
Description: Both water bodies are natural. The lake water body in LT was classified as high status (low confidence) and the one in LV has moderate status with high confidence. The only information reported on which elements were assessed in terms of ecological status was for NPSP for the LT water body. There was also no information reported for either water body on the quality elements monitored or the significant pressures on them. Biological assessment methods: The only biological quality element with fully developed and available assessment methods in both LT and LV was phytoplankton but this was not reported to have been assessed in either water body. Intercalibration: During the first phase of intercalibration the only biological quality element intercalibrated was phytoplankton. The only biological quality element intercalibrated for lakes in the second phase of intercalibration in the Central Baltic GIG for LT and LV was for macrophytes. Intercalibration had not been completed for the other BQEs including for phytoplankton included in the first phase. Conclusion: The ecological status of the 2 lake water bodies is different but information to establish the basis of this difference was not available. It is recommended that additional information is requested from the relevant Member States to determine whether the differences in status is justifiable. Case example 4 (Map 35)
Index MS RBD WB Code Name
IEUK_1 IE GBNIIENW IE_NW_35_160 Melvin ( Lough )
IEUK_1.1 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI3NW0015 Lough Melvin East
IEUK_1.2 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI3NW0010 Lough Melvin Central
Description: There are 3 water bodies in this transboundary “pair” with 2 smaller water bodies in the UK being adjacent to the water body in IE. All 3 water bodies were designated as natural with the water body in IE being classified as moderate status and the 2 UK water bodies as good status. The level of confidence in the classification was reported as high in the UK and medium in IE. All 3 water bodies were assessed in terms of the same biological quality elements with all relevant elements except phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates being assessed. Hydromorphological status was not reported for the IE water body but was reported to be good in the UK water bodies. (Member States were only required to report water bodies that were at high, good or unknown status). The water bodies in both IE and UK were assessed for general physicochemical QEs and also for NPSP in the
29 of 129
UK ones. The worst class BQE was macrophytes (moderate) for the IE water body and all assessed elements (good) for the UK water bodies. There was no reported information on the monitoring undertaken in the water bodies in both IE and UK. The water bodies in UK were subject to significant diffuse and other pressures, and the one in IE from water abstraction and other pressures. Biological assessment methods: The assessment methods for phytoplankton and macrophytes were considered to be fully developed in IE whereas methods were not developed for the other 3 BQEs. Methods for phytoplankton, macrophytes and phytobenthos were considered to be fully developed in the UK with the methods for the other 2 quality elements being less well developed in some RBDs in the UK. Intercalibration: In the first phase of intercalibration there were intercalibrated results for phytoplankton and macrophytes for lakes in the Northern GIG for IE and UK. Methods for phytoplankton, phytobenthos, macrophytes and fish fauna have also been intercalibrated in the second phase of intercalibration between IE and UK for common intercalibration types in the Northern GIG, and also for phytoplankton in the Eastern Baltic GIG. The same methods for macrophytes and fish fauna are used by IE and UK (Northern Ireland where Lough Melvin is located). Three of these BQEs were used in the classification of the status of UK and IE water bodies. It is not known whether the intercalibrated results have been translated to the respective national types. Conclusion: The ecological status of these transboundary water bodies is different. The biological methods used in assessing ecological status have been intercalibrated and it is likely that the classifications between IE and UK are comparable. The difference in status may be due to the water abstraction pressures reported for the IE water body that might impact habitats. Altered habitats can be assessed by macrophyte status which was classified as moderate in the IE water body. The reasons for the difference could be further investigated with the help of the respective Member State. Case example 5 (Map 37)
Index MS RBD WB Code Name
ESPT_1 ES ES010 ES010MSPFES480MAR002120 Embalse de Frieira
ESPT_1.1 PT PTRH1 PT01MIN0006I Rio Minho (HMWB - Jusante B. Frieira)
Description: Both water bodies were designated as heavily modified. The ES water body was classified as moderate potential with no information on confidence and the one from PT bad potential with a low level of confidence. No information was reported on which quality elements were assessed in the derivation of overall ecological potential of the PT water body. The ES water body was assessed in terms of benthic invertebrates (moderate) and hydromorphological quality elements (good potential). The ES water body was only monitored for physicochemical QEs whereas the one from PT was monitored for biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical QEs. There was one significant pressure (point source) reported for the ES water body and two for the PT water body (hydromorphological and “other” pressure). Biological assessment methods: The assessment methods for all relevant biological quality elements for lakes are fully developed for ES. The assessment methods for PT were not assessed as part of the Commission’s assessment of RBMPs as PT had not published its plans at that time. Intercalibration: Intercalibration has not been undertaken for the assessment and classification of ecological potential. However, during the first phase of intercalibration, reservoirs were intercalibrated between ES and PT for phytoplankton. Conclusion: The ecological potential of these transboundary water bodies is different. The biological methods used in assessing ecological potential have not been intercalibrated. Only one BQE was assessed in the ES water body and none in the PT water body. Therefore the basis of classifying the PT water body is not known, and it is not possible to judge whether or not the classification of ecological potential (though different) is comparable. The basis of this potential incongruity should be further investigated through the collection of pertinent information from the respective Member States.
30 of 129
6. Identified transboundary transitional waters
6.1 Overview
This section provides an overview of the transitional water bodies identified in this study that are
potentially transboundary with their reported designation, ecological status/potential and confidence in
the classification. The adjacent transboundary water bodies are identified by a numerical code for the
first in the pair/group followed by a decimal numeric code for the second water body in the pair/group
e.g. “1”, “1.1” etc. Maps of the transboundary water bodies are also presented in the Annex A to this
report. The maps were produced from the ECRINS dataset using the water body areas/lengths
reported by Member States.
Table 5 below provides some summary information and statistics on the potential transboundary
transitional water bodies identified. A list of all the water bodies is provided in Annex A.
Table 5 Overview and basic statistics of the identified transitional water bodies that are potentially transboundary
Number %
Pairs/groups
Number 16
- with different designations 3 18.8%
- with different ecological status 6 37.5%
- where both water bodies are classified 12 75.0%
- where both water bodies are classified by all BQEs 0 0.0%
- where class is not determined by at least one BQE in at least one of the pair 4 25.0%
- with different confidence in classification 5 31.3%
- where biological quality elements monitored in both of pair 12 75.0%
- where biological quality elements monitored in only one of the pair 2 12.5%
- where biological quality elements monitored in neither of the pair 2 12.5%
Water bodies in the transboundary "pairs"
Number 20 (1)
- unclassified 4 20.0%
- with no information on confidence of classification 11 55.0%
- classified by phytoplankton 11 55.0%
- classified by other aquatic flora 6 30.0%
- classified by macroalgae 3 15.0%
- classified by angiosperms 2 10.0%
- classified by macroinvertebrates 7 35.0%
- classified by fish 9 45.0%
- classified by hydromorphological quality elements 6 30.0%
- classified by general physicochemical quality elements 14 70.0%
- classified by RBD non-priority specific pollutants 13 65.0%
- classified by other national pollutants 0 0.0%
- monitored for biological quality elements 14 70.0%
- monitored for hydromorphological quality elements 6 30.0%
- monitored for general physicochemical quality elements 14 70.0% 1 Note that a water body may appear in more than one pair and that IE and UK reported the same water body code for a
transboundary water body
The GIS analysis of reported transitional water body areas in ECRINS, and the information obtained
from the WISE database and other sources identified 16 pairs of potential transboundary transitional
water bodies. Six of these pairs were reported to have a different ecological status or ecological
potential. In around 75% of the pairs both water bodies were classified (i.e. with a known
31 of 129
status/potential) but in no pair were both water bodies classified by all relevant biological quality
elements. This is contrary to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. In addition, in a
quarter of the pairs status was determined by a non-biological quality element in at least one of the
water bodies in the pair. The most common quality element used for classification in the
transboundary water bodies were general physicochemical quality elements (70 % of water bodies).
The most commonly used biological quality element was phytoplankton which was used in the
classification of 55 % of water bodies. These two quality elements were the most common elements
used in monitoring and assessment lake water quality before the introduction of the WFD.
Note: There is some uncertainty associated with results of the GIS analysis used to identify
transboundary water bodies. It is, therefore, strongly recommended that the list of potential
transboundary water bodies in this report should be validated by Member States before any
further analysis is undertaken. In the interim the statistics calculated above should be treated
with caution.
6.2 Case examples of possible incongruities
This section contains a table of possible incongruities found for the identified transboundary
transitional water bodies. The table is followed by selected case examples of possible incongruities in
ecological status/potential across transboundary transitional water bodies. Where possible the case
examples have been selected to cover different geographic regions and Member State combinations
across the EU, and to illustrate some more generic issues.
32 of 129
Table 6 Transboundary transitional water bodies with potential incongruities in the classification of ecological status/potential
Index MS
RBD TWB Code Name DES ES
CON
PP
OF
MA
AG
BI
FI
HM
GP
NP
M_BQE
M_HQE
M_PQE
PSP
DSP
WAP
HMP
TRP
OMP
OPP
1 BE BESchelde_VL BEVL08_43 ZEESCHELDE IV HM 4 NI 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 6 2 1 1 1
1.1 NL NLSC nl89_westsde Westerschelde HM 3 NI 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1
ES ES017 ES017MSPFES111T012010 'BIDASOA NA 3 HI 2 2 2 1 1
3 ES ES015MSPFES111T012010
This code was reported with the water body GIS ares
3.1 FR FRF FRFT08 Estuaire Bidassoa NA 1
4 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000190
MARISMAS DE ISLA CRISTINA HM 2 HI 2 2 2 2 6
4.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1632I Guadiana-WB1 NA 2 HI 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 5 1 6 1 1
10 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000200
SANLUCAR DE GUADIANA NA 2 HI 2 1 2 4 7
10.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1632I Guadiana-WB1 NA 2 HI 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 5 1 6 1 1
CW body
DEPL_1 DE DE6000 DE_CW_OD_01 Kleines Haff NA 4 HI 4 4 4 2 3 2 3 1 1
DEPL_1.1 PL PL6000 PLTWIWB8 Zalew Szczeciński HM 5 HI 5 4 4 1
Key to abbreviations
Abbreviation
Description Abbreviation
Description
DES Designation of water body Monitoring of quality elements – blank cells do not necessarily indicate no monitoring as information may not have been reported by Member States to WISE
M_BQEs Biological quality elements monitored – number in brackets indicates the number monitored
HM Heavily modified water modified M_HQEs Hydromorphological quality elements monitored – number in brackets indicates the number monitored
NA Natural water body M_PQEs Physicochemical quality elements monitored – number in brackets indicates the number monitored
AB Artificial water body
Significant pressures on water bodies - blank cells do not necessarily
33 of 129
indicate that this pressure is not significant as information may not have been reported by Member States to WISE. Number in brackets indicates the number of sub pressure types reported.
ES Ecological status/potential PSP Point source pressures
DSP Diffuse source pressures
1 High ecological status WAP Water abstraction pressures
2 Good ecological status/potential HMP Hydromorphological alteration pressures
3 Moderate ecological status/potential RMP River management pressures
4 Poor ecological status/potential TRP Transitional and coastal water management pressures
5 Bad ecological status/potential OMP Other morphological pressures
U Unknown/unclassified status/potential OPP Other pressures
CON Confidence in the classification of status/potential
HI High confidence
ME Medium confidence
LO Low confidence
NI No information
Classification by individual quality elements – same numbers and colour coding as used for ecological status classifications above
PP Phytoplankton
OF Other aquatic flora
MA Macroalgae
AG Angiosperms
MP Macrophytes
PB Phytobenthos
BI Benthic invertebrates
FI Fish
HM Hydromorphological quality elements
GP General physicochemical quality elements
NP Non-priority specific pollutants
ON Other national pollutants
34 of 129
Case example 1 (Map 39)
Index MS RBD TWB Code Name
1 BE BESchelde_VL BEVL08_43 ZEESCHELDE IV
1.1 NL NLSC nl89_westsde Westerschelde
Description: Both water bodies were designated as heavily modified with the water body in BE landward of the NL water body. The BE water body has been classified as poor potential and the NL water body as moderate. No information was reported for either water body on the level of confidence in the classification. The BE water body was classified in terms of 3 biological quality elements (not phytoplankton) and in terms of general physicochemical QEs and NPSP. The NL water body was classified according to all of the BQES expected for transitional waters and also for general physicochemical QEs and NPSP. The worst class BQE was angiosperms (poor) for the BE water body and aquatic flora and fish (moderate) for the NL water body. Monitoring was undertaken for both water bodies for BQEs and general physicochemical QEs but not for hydromorphological conditions. Both water bodies were subject to significant point, diffuse and hydromorphological pressures, the NL water body was also subject to transitional waters management and other pressures, and the BE water body from water abstraction pressures. Biological assessment methods: BE was assessed as having no fully developed methods available for any of the relevant biological quality elements in transitional waters. Methods were reported to be fully developed for phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates and fish in NL, with the methods for macroalgae and angiosperms showing variability in their level of development between RBDs. Intercalibration: These water bodies lie in the North East Atlantic GIG. Intercalibration has not been undertaken for ecological potential. Conclusion: The ecological potential of these transboundary water bodies is different. The biological methods used in assessing ecological potential have not been intercalibrated, and even though a wide range of BQEs and other QEs have been assessed in both water bodies, it is not possible to judge whether or not the classification of ecological potential (though different) is comparable. Case example 2 (Map 41)
Index MS RBD TWB Code Name
10 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000200 SANLUCAR DE GUADIANA
10.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1632I Guadiana-WB1
Description: Both water bodies have been designated as natural and classified as good ecological status with high confidence. The water body in PT has been assessed and classified according to all relevant BQEs except benthic invertebrates whereas the ES water body has only been classified in terms of phytoplankton. Both water bodies are assessed in terms of general physicochemical QEs and NPSP though for the former QEs the ES water body has been classified as high and the PT water body as good. Hydromorphological status was only assessed in the PT water body. Both water bodies were monitored for biological and physicochemical QEs and the PT water body was also monitored for hydromorphology. No pressures were reported for the ES water body whereas point source and diffuse source pressures were recorded for the PT water body. Biological assessment methods: The assessment methods for PT were not assessed as part of the Commission’s assessment of RBMPs as PT had not published its plans at that time. ES was assessed as having fully developed methods available or all relevant biological quality elements. Intercalibration: These water bodies lie in the North East Atlantic GIG. Intercalibration has been achieved between ES and PT for intertidal macroalgae and fish, and partially achieved for benthic invertebrates and phytoplankton in the NEA GIG. It is not known whether the intercalibrated results
35 of 129
have been translated to the respective national types. Neither ES or PT used benthic invertebrates in the assessment of status in the 2 water bodies. Conclusion: The ecological status of these transboundary water bodies has been classified as good. The assessment in ES is based on fewer (one) BQEs than used in PT (4) even though ES appears to have fully developed and intercalibrated methods for the full range of BQEs expected. Even though no pressures were reported for the ES water body, the reliance on the assessment of ecological status on just one BQEs might limit the detection of all potential significant pressures. Case example 3 (Map 42)
Index MS RBD TWB Code Name
3 ES ES017 ES017MSPFES111T012010 BIDASOA
3.1 FR FRF FRFT08 Estuaire Bidassoa
Note that the map is not clear as ES and FR provided overlapping GIS area files for their respective
water bodies. The areas coloured yellow for ES are the parts of the water body which do not overlap.
Description: Both water bodies were designated as natural. The ES water body has been classified as moderate status with high confidence and the FR water body high with no information on the level of confidence. The ES water body was classified in terms of 3 biological quality elements (all good status) and in terms of general physicochemical QEs (high). There is no information reported at all on the basis of the classification of the water body in FR. There is also no information reported as to whether or not monitoring is undertaken in either of the water bodies, and only one significant pressures was reported for the ES water body (transitional and coastal water management pressures) and none at all for the FR water body. As all assessed quality elements in the ES water body were at a higher status than moderate it is not known what factor determined the overall status of the water body. Biological assessment methods: ES was assessed as having fully developed methods available for all relevant biological quality elements in transitional waters, only 3 of the 5 were applied. The availability of assessment methods for FR has been found to vary between river basin districts from being fully developed to undeveloped. Intercalibration: These water bodies lie in the North East Atlantic GIG. Intercalibration has been achieved between ES and FR for intertidal macroalgae and fish, and partially achieved for benthic invertebrates and phytoplankton in the NEA GIG. It is not known whether the intercalibrated results have been translated to the respective national types. Conclusion: The ecological status of these transboundary water bodies is different. The basis of the classification for the FR water body is not known as no information was reported to WISE. It is therefore recommended that this possible incongruity is investigated further through obtaining additional information from the respective Member States. Case example 4 (Map 43)
Index MS RBD TWB Code Name
DEPL_1 DE DE6000 DE_CW_OD_01 Kleines Haff
DEPL_1.1 PL PL6000 PLTWIWB8 Zalew Szczeciński
Description: The water body in DE has been designated as a natural coastal water body and is of poor ecological status. The one in PL is a heavily modified transitional water body at bad ecological potential. The water body in DE has been assessed according to all BQEs (all poor status) relevant for a coastal water body and has been assessed as having good hydromorphological status which is
36 of 129
consistent with the water body being designated as natural and not heavily modified. It has also been assessed in terms of general physicochemical QEs (moderate) and NPSP (good). In contrast the water body in PL has only been assessed in terms of phytoplankton (bad) and benthic invertebrates (poor) though hydromorphological status would be expected to be less than good as it has been designated as heavily modified (Note Member States were only required to report high or good hydromorphological status). Biological and general physicochemical QEs were monitored in the DE water body but no information was reported to WISE on the monitoring undertaken (if any) in the PL water body. Diffuse source was the only pressure reported for the DE water body whereas in the PL water body point source and other pressures were only reported. As the PL water body has been designated as heavily modified it might be expected that there might also have been significant hydromorphological (HMP, TRP and OMP categories in the table above) pressures as well. Biological assessment methods: DE has fully developed methods for all BQEs in coastal waters but not in transitional waters where methods are fully developed for angiosperms and fish, not fully developed in all RBDs for macroalgae and benthic invertebrates and not developed at all for phytoplankton. For PL the method for phytoplankton in transitional waters is fully developed and for benthic invertebrates it is under development – these are the two BQEs which were used to classify this water body. There are no developed methods for the other BQEs. Intercalibration: It appears that type BC2 “lagoons” has not been intercalibrated between DE and PL (this type might apply to these water bodies) though type BC7 (western Polish coast and eastern German coast) has been intercalibrated for phytoplankton. The latter type would not appear to be applicable to these two water bodies. DE and PL have not intercalibrated methods for their other assessment methods for coastal or transitional waters. As the PL water body has been designated as heavily modified it would be classified in terms of ecological potential. Ecological potential has not been intercalibrated at the EU level. Conclusion: There are significant differences between these 2 transboundary water bodies in terms of their category and designation and in the classification of ecological status/potential which cannot be readily explained from the available information. Assessment and classification methods have not been intercalibrated and there is probably an incongruity in status. It is recommended that further information is sought from the respective Member States to explain the situation.
37 of 129
7. Identified transboundary coastal waters
7.1 Overview
This section provides an overview of the coastal water bodies identified in this study that are
potentially transboundary with their reported designation, ecological status/potential and confidence in
the classification. The adjacent transboundary water bodies are identified by a numerical code for the
first in the pair/group followed by a decimal numeric code for the second water body in the pair/group
e.g. “1”, “1.1” etc. Maps of the transboundary water bodies are also presented in the Annex A to this
report. The maps were produced from the ECRINS dataset using the water body areas/lengths
reported by Member States.
Table 7 below provides some summary information and statistics on the potential transboundary river
water bodies identified. A list of all the water bodies is provided in Annex A.
Table 7 Overview and basic statistics of the identified coastal water bodies that are
potentially transboundary
Number %
Pairs
Number 28
- with different designations 1 4%
- with different ecological status/potential 13 46%
- where both water bodies are classified 18 64%
- where both water bodies are classified by all BQEs 1 4%
- where class is not determined by at least one BQE in at least one of the pair 0 0%
- with different confidence in classification 16 57%
- where biological quality elements monitored in both of pair 7 25%
- where biological quality elements monitored in only one of the pair 16 57%
- where biological quality elements monitored in neither of the pair 5 18%
Water bodies in the transboundary "pairs"
Number 36
- unclassified 6 17%
- with no information on confidence of classification 15 42%
- classified by phytoplankton 25 69%
- classified by other aquatic flora 7 19%
- classified by macroalgae 6 17%
- classified by angiosperms 2 6%
- classified by macroinvertebrates 18 50%
- classified by hydromorphological quality elements 9 25%
- classified by general physicochemical quality elements 26 72%
- classified by RBD non-priority specific pollutants 23 64%
- classified by other national pollutants 0 0%
- monitored for biological quality elements 18 50%
- monitored for hydromorphological quality elements 7 19%
- monitored for general physicochemical quality elements 15 42%
The GIS analysis of reported coastal water body areas in ECRINS, and the information obtained from
the WISE database and other sources identified 28 pairs of potential transboundary coastal water
bodies. Thirteen (46 %) of these pairs were reported to have a different ecological status or ecological
potential. In around 60 % of the pairs both water bodies were classified (i.e. with a known
status/potential) but only in one pair were both water bodies classified by all relevant biological quality
38 of 129
elements. This is contrary to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. In all pairs status
was determined by at least one biological quality element in each of the water bodies in the pair. The
most common quality element used for classification in the transboundary water bodies were general
physicochemical quality elements (72 % of water bodies). The most commonly used biological quality
element was phytoplankton which was used in the classification of 69 % of water bodies. These two
quality elements were the most common elements used in monitoring and assessment lake water
quality before the introduction of the WFD.
Note: There is some uncertainty associated with results of the GIS analysis used to identify
transboundary water bodies. It is, therefore, strongly recommended that the list of potential
transboundary water bodies in this report should be validated by Member States before any
further analysis is undertaken. In the interim the statistics calculated above should be treated
with caution.
7.2 Case examples of possible incongruities
This section contains a table of possible incongruities found for the identified transboundary coastal
water bodies. The table is followed by selected case examples of possible incongruities in ecological
status/potential across transboundary coastal water bodies. Where possible the case examples have
been selected to cover different geographic regions and Member State combinations across the EU,
and to illustrate some more generic issues.
39 of 129
Table 8 Transboundary coastal water bodies with potential incongruities in the classification of ecological status/potential
Index MS
RBD CWB Code Name DES ES
CON
PP
OF
MA
AG
BI
FI
OB
HM
GP
NP
ON
M_BQE
M_HQE
M_PQE
PSP
DSP
HMP
TRP
OPP
12 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N3_3990_01
Polyhalines offenes Küstengewässer des Ems-Ästuars
NA 3 ME 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
12.1 NL NLRN NL81_1 Waddenzee NA 4 NI 3 4 2 3 2 3 1 1 1
18 ES ES100 ES100MSPFC1 Portbou - Llançà NA 2 HI 1 2 2 1 2 4 3
18.1 FR FRD FRDC01 Frontière espagnole - Racou Plage NA 3 ME 2 3 3 2 3 2 4 2 5 2
21 FI FIVHA6 FI6_Ps_002 Röyttä sisä NA 3 ME 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 1
21.1 SE SE1TO SE654560-246250
Haparandafjärden sek namn NA 3 LO 3 2 3 1
29 LT LT1100 LT100101200 NA 3 ME 2 3 2 3 2 1
29.1 LV LVVUBA LVA Dienvidaustrumu atklatais akmenainais krasts
NA 4 ME 4 3 2 1
30 BG BG2000 BG2BS000C001 Дуранкулак-н.Шабла NA 3 LO 3 4 5 7 1
30.1 RO
RO1000 ROCT02_B2 Eforie Nord - Vama Veche NA 3 ME 2 2 1 3 3 6 4 6 1
Key to abbreviations
Abbreviation
Description Abbreviation
Description
DES Designation of water body Monitoring of quality elements – blank cells do not necessarily indicate no monitoring as information may not have been reported by Member States to WISE
M_BQEs Biological quality elements monitored – number in brackets indicates the number monitored
HM Heavily modified water modified M_HQEs Hydromorphological quality elements monitored – number in brackets indicates the number monitored
NA Natural water body M_PQEs Physicochemical quality elements monitored – number in brackets indicates the number monitored
AB Artificial water body
Significant pressures on water bodies - blank cells do not necessarily indicate that this pressure is not significant as information may not have been reported by Member States to WISE. Number in brackets indicates the number of sub pressure types reported.
40 of 129
ES Ecological status/potential PSP Point source pressures
DSP Diffuse source pressures
1 High ecological status WAP Water abstraction pressures
2 Good ecological status/potential HMP Hydromorphological alteration pressures
3 Moderate ecological status/potential RMP River management pressures
4 Poor ecological status/potential TRP Transitional and coastal water management pressures
5 Bad ecological status/potential OMP Other morphological pressures
U Unknown/unclassified status/potential OPP Other pressures
CON Confidence in the classification of status/potential
HI High confidence
ME Medium confidence
LO Low confidence
NI No information
Classification by individual quality elements – same numbers and colour coding as used for ecological status classifications above
PP Phytoplankton
OF Other aquatic flora
MA Macroalgae
AG Angiosperms
MP Macrophytes
PB Phytobenthos
BI Benthic invertebrates
FI Fish
HM Hydromorphological quality elements
GP General physicochemical quality elements
NP Non-priority specific pollutants
ON Other national pollutants
41 of 129
Case example 1 (Map 51)
Index MS RBD CWB Code Name
18 ES ES100 ES100MSPFC1 Portbou - Llançà
18.1 FR FRD FRDC01 Frontière espagnole - Racou Plage
Description: Both water bodies are natural. The water body in FR has moderate ecological status with high confidence and the one in ES, moderate status with medium confidence. Both water bodies are assessed and classified according to all the expected biological quality elements. Angiosperms are classified as good in both whereas for phytoplankton, macroalgae and benthic invertebrates assessed status is lower in FR than in ES. Hydromorphological QEs are not assessed in either water body. Both water bodies were classified (good) according to general physicochemical QEs. Biological quality elements and physicochemical QEs are monitored in both water bodies but hydromorphological QEs are only monitored in the FR water body. Point source is the only significant pressure reported for the FR water body but there are no pressures reported for the ES water body (pressures were reported for other Spanish coastal water bodies). Biological assessment methods: FR has fully developed methods in some but not all its RBDs for all the biological quality elements whereas for Spain there are fully developed methods for all biological quality elements except phytoplankton for which there is no developed assessment method. Intercalibration: In the first phase, intercalibration was achieved for ES and FR for phytoplankton and macroalgae. In the second phase, intercalibration of phytoplankton, macroalgae and angiosperms and benthic invertebrates was achieved for the Mediterranean Sea GIG and the relevant types for FR and ES have been intercalibrated. Conclusion: Though a different ecological status has been classified for these transboundary water bodies, it appears that there is not an incongruity in ecological status as methods have been developed and intercalibrated for all relevant biological quality elements. Significant pressures are reported for the water body in FR but none for the one in ES: this may account for the differences in ecological status.
Case example 2 (Map 53)
Index MS RBD CWB Code Name
21 FI FIVHA6 FI6_Ps_002 Röyttä sisä
21.1 SE SE1TO SE654560-246250 Haparandafjärden sek namn
Description: Both water bodies are natural with moderate ecological status, classified with medium confidence in FI and low confidence in SE. The biological quality element with the lowest status (moderate) is phytoplankton in both water bodies. This is the only BQE assessed in SE water body though in the FI water body benthic invertebrates are assessed to have good ecological status. Hydromorphological QEs are not assessed in either water body. Both water bodies were classified according to general physicochemical QEs and NPSP though the assessment results in a different classification in each water body. Biological quality elements and physicochemical QEs are monitored in the FI water body but there is no information as to whether or not the SE water body is monitored. Diffuse source pressures are identified as significant in both water bodies, and also point sources in the FI water body. As map <> shows the SE water body overlaps two FI water bodies each of different status. This may indicate some differences in way water bodies have been delineated between the 2 Member States. Biological assessment methods: FI has fully developed methods for the 2 BQEs classified whereas in SE methods for phytoplankton were assessed to be partially developed or under development. SE has a fully developed method for benthic invertebrates but appears not to have been applied it to this
42 of 129
water body. Therefore both water bodies appear to be classified using methods that are developed or under development. Intercalibration: In the first phase of intercalibration, intercalibrated results were achieved for phytoplankton and benthic invertebrate for FI and SE. Phytoplankton, macroalgae and angiosperms and benthic invertebrates have been intercalibrated in the Baltic Sea GIG. SE and FI have intercalibrated their classification methods for benthic invertebrates (Annex 1 - completed) and phytoplankton (Annex 2 – partially achieved) as presented in the draft revised Commission Decision on Intercalibration. Conclusion: The same ecological status has been classified for these transboundary water bodies, determined on the basis of the same biological quality element that has not yet been fully intercalibrated. A method that has been fully intercalibrated appears not to have been used by one of the Member States. Based on the reported information it appears that the assessment of status has not been based on the fully range of expected quality elements.
Case example 3 (Map 58)
Index MS RBD CWB Code Name
29 LT LT1100 LT100101200 No name reported
29.1 LV LVVUBA LVA Dienvidaustrumu atklatais akmenainais krasts
Description: Both water bodies are natural but with different ecological status: moderate in LT and poor in LV, both with medium confidence. Both water bodies are classified by phytoplankton (good in LT and poor in LV), and in LT macroalgae and benthic invertebrates have also been assessed and classified. General physicochemical and NPSP have also been classified in both water bodies. Hydromorphological QEs are not assessed in either water body. Overall status is determined by macroalgae and physicochemical QEs in LT and by phytoplankton in LV. There was no information reported on what (if any) monitoring was undertaken and the only significant pressures reported for both was bodies was “other pressures”. Biological assessment methods: LT appears to be using the BQEs for which it has fully developed assessment methods, whereas for LV there are no fully developed methods (or no information) for any of the relevant BQEs. Therefore LT appears to be classifying status using methods that are fully developed whereas LT is classifying using a BQE with apparently no developed method. Intercalibration: Phytoplankton, macroalgae and angiosperms and benthic invertebrates have been intercalibrated in the Baltic Sea GIG but not for the types relevant to LT and LV. Conclusion: Different ecological status has been classified for these transboundary water bodies, determined on the basis of different quality elements, and in the case of LV using a method that may not have been fully developed. Methods and results do not seem to have been intercalibrated between LT and LV. There is, therefore, be some uncertainty in the comparability of ecological status across this border, and the situation should be clarified with the respective Member States. Case study 4 (Map 59)
Index MS RBD CWB Code Name
30 BG BG2000 BG2BS000C001 Дуранкулак-н.Шабла
30.1 RO RO1000 ROCT02_B2 Eforie Nord - Vama Veche
Description: Both water bodies are natural and have moderate ecological status with low and medium confidence in BG and RO, respectively. Both water bodies are classified by benthic
43 of 129
invertebrates though the assessment in BG is moderate status and in RO good status. Phytoplankton is also assessed in RO (good status). Hydromorphology (high status), physicochemical QEs and Non Priority Specific Pollutants are also assessed and it is the latter two elements that determine overall status. The BG water body is only assessed by one quality element – benthic invertebrates. Both water bodies are monitored for all required BQEs and also a number of hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Only one significant pressure was reported for each water body, point source in RO and diffuse source in BG. Biological assessment methods: BG appears only to have a fully developed assessment method for phytoplankton in coastal waters, whereas RO has methods under development for phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates but no methods for macroalgae or angiosperms. Therefore RO appears to be classifying status using methods that are partially developed whereas BG a BQE with apparently no developed method. Intercalibration: During the first phase of intercalibration phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates had been intercalibrated for BG and RO. However, phytoplankton is the only BQE intercalibrated for the Black Sea in the second phase, and results for BG and RO are included in Annex 1 of the draft revised Commission Decision on Intercalibration. Conclusion: The same ecological status has been classified for these transboundary water bodies though on the basis of different quality elements, in the case of RO, a non-biological QE. BG appears to not have assessed ecological status using the BQE that has been intercalibrated with RO even though a fully developed assessment method is in place. There may therefore be some doubt in the comparability of ES across this border, and the situation should be clarified with the respective Member States.
44 of 129
8. Conclusions
1. The GIS analysis of reported water bodies in ECRINS with information contained in the WISE
database and obtained from other sources, such as the ICPDR, identified 596 pairs of river,
16 pairs each of lake and transitional, and 28 coastal water bodes that are potentially
transboundary. There were differences in the classified ecological status/potential in 22%,
62%, 37%, and 46% of the water bodies, respectively, in the pairs of river, lake, transitional
and coastal water bodies. Contrary to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive
only in 15%, 6%, none, and 4% of the river, lake, transitional and coastal water pairs,
respectively, were both water bodies in the pair assessed and classified by all relevant
biological quality elements.
2. The differences found between transboundary pairs include differences in the categorisation
of water bodies, in the designation of water bodies as heavily modified or natural (or one of
each designation), in the number and type of biological quality elements used in the
assessment of status/potential as well as in the classification of overall status/potential. In
some pairs overall status is the same but how status was determined is unclear as there are
differences in the numbers of biological quality elements used and as to which one (worst
status) determined the overall status. In other cases status has been determined only by non-
biological quality elements.
3. In all water categories the quality elements most commonly used in the classification of status
were the general physicochemical quality elements. In terms of the biological quality element
benthic invertebrates were the most commonly used in the classification of river water bodies
whereas in lakes, transitional and coastal waters it was phytoplankton. These quality
elements were those traditionally used in the monitoring and assessment of water quality
before the introduction of the WFD.
4. The findings from this study have identified many potential incongruities in the classification of
ecological status in transboundary water bodies. As these incongruities are likely to reflect the
general degree of comparability of ecological status between Member States in non-
transboundary locations, it is concluded that the comparability of ecological status in some
Members States is questionable.
5. There are also a number of transboundary locations where there are differences in the
classification of ecological potential. As ecological potential has not been intercalibrated or
quantitatively compared at the EU level, it is not possible to make a conclusive assessment of
the comparability of the classification of these respective transboundary water bodies. The
intercalibration of ecological potential is being considered for the next Common
Implementation Strategy work programme.
45 of 129
9. Recommendations
1. The information on the ecological status/potential, the monitoring undertaken and the
significant pressures on the identified transboundary water bodies was obtained from Member
States’ electronic reports to WISE. There are some potential limitations in this information as
some Member States did not report all requested information and in other cases the reported
information was of poor or uncertain quality. Therefore, in cases where there is no monitoring
or pressure information for water bodies it might be the case of none or bad reporting rather
than there being a lack of information at the Member State level. It is recommended if this
study is taken further that any gaps are filled with requests to the relevant Member States for
the missing information.
2. Other than for some countries reporting to the International Commission for the Protection of
the Danube River, information on which water bodies are transboundary is not systematically
collected at the European level. It is recommended that information which would identify
which water bodies are transboundary be collected from Member States. The first step in this
could be the validation of the transboundary water bodies identified in this study (see the next
recommendation).
3. There is some uncertainty associated with results of the GIS analysis and the other sources
of information used to identify transboundary water bodies. It is, therefore, strongly
recommended that the list of potential transboundary water bodies in this report should be
validated by Member States before any further analysis is undertaken. In the interim the
statistics calculated above should be treated with caution.
4. The WISE database has information on the national type code of each water body in a
transboundary pair. However, the reported information does not include data on the actual
numeric values used to define each type. Instead textural type factors are reported. National
typologies were investigated in Task 2a but it was found that there was little available
information on the numeric typological values. It is recommended, therefore, that if this study
is continued at a later date that this more detailed information is requested from Member
States. This would indicate whether the transboundary types were comparable or not and
whether the type was included in the intercalibration process, and whether the assessment
systems had actually been intercalibrated with the neighbouring Member State.
5. This study has identified locations of potential incongruities in the classification of ecological
status. More investigations and information are needed to confirm whether or not these
incongruities are genuine. A number of areas have been identified where further information
and data is required from Member States. This should be the starting point if the Commission
were to decide to pursue this issue further. Until then the findings of this study should be
considered as preliminary and subject to confirmation.
46 of 129
Annex A
Tables and maps of potential transboundary
water bodies with water body designation and
ecological status/potential
47 of 129
1. Rivers
A large number (1192) of potential transboundary river water bodies have been identified by GIS
analysis as described in section 2. The list of potential transboundary river water bodies is contained
in a separate file (Annex B) to make the reading of this document easier. Some but not all of these
transboundary pairs have been illustrated on the following maps. Each pair has been assigned an
index with the “.1” designation indicating the second water body in the pair.
The analysis and mapping has in many cases not definitively identified whether a pair is actually
transboundary or not. In some cases this is because it is not clear how the two water bodies relate to
each other. In other cases the GIS areas plotted on the map do not necessarily completely match
national borders and/or the boundaries of the adjacent water body area.
It is recommended therefore that if this study is further developed that Member States are asked to
validate the list of potential pairs and identify which one are actually transboundary.
48 of 129
Map 1 Potential transboundary river water bodies between BE and NL (Index RW_1-9)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
1 BEVL05_136 DOMMEL
1.1 NL27_BO_1 Boven Dommel/ Keersop/ Beekloop
2 BEVL05_140 JEKER II
2.1 NL58WRO39 Jeker
3 BEVL05_142 MAAS I
3.1 NL91GM Grensmaas
4 BEVL05_143 MAAS II
4.1 NL91GM Grensmaas
5 BEVL05_144 MAAS III
5.1 NL91GM Grensmaas
6 BEVL05_144 MAAS III
6.1 NL91ZM Zandmaas
7 BEVL08_145 MARK (Maas)
7.1 NL25_13 Boven Mark
8 BEVL08_145 MARK (Maas)
8.1 NL25_52 Strijbeekse beek
9 BEVL08_145 MARK (Maas)
9.1 NL25_62 Merkske
NLMS
BEMaas_VL
BEMaas_VL
BEMaas_VL 0 5 10 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
poor, Natural
poor, Heavily Modified
bad, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundaryNL25_13Heavily modified, Poor
NL25_52
BEVL08_145Natural, Poor
NL25_62
NL27_BO
BEVL05_136
NL91_ZM
NL58WRO42
NL58WRO30
NL91GMHeavily modified, PoorBEVL05_144
Heavily modified, Moderate
NL58WR039
BEVL05_143Heavily modified, Moderate
BEVL05_142Heavily modified, Moderate
BEVL05_140
49 of 129
Map 2 Potential transboundary river water bodies between BE and FR (Index RW_10-
11)
Water Body Code MS Name
BEVL08_48 LEIE I
FRAR32 DEULE CANALISEE DE LA CONFLUENCE AVEC LE CANAL D'AIRE A LA CONFLUEN
BEVL08_7 IJZER I
FRAR63 YSER
FRA
BESchelde_VL
0 7.5 15 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
poor, Natural
bad, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
FRAR63
BEVL08_7
BEVL08_48
FRAR32
50 of 129
Map 3 Potential transboundary river water bodies between BG and RO (Index RW12-
21)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
12 BG1DU000R001 Дунав RWB01
12.1 RORW14.1_B3 PF II - Chiciu
13 BG1DU000R001 Дунав RWB01
13.1 RORW14.1_B4 Chiciu - Isaccea
14 BG1OG100R014 Огоста RWB14
14.1 RORW14.1_B3 PF II - Chiciu
15 BG1OS130R015 Осъм RWB15
15.1 RORW14.1_B3 PF II - Chiciu
16 BG1RL120R013 Русенски Лом RWB13
16.1 RORW14.1_B3 PF II - Chiciu
17 BG1VT100R009 Вит RWB09
17.1 RORW14.1_B3 PF II - Chiciu
18 BG1WO100R001 Тимок WORWB01
18.1 RORW14.1_B3 PF II - Chiciu
19 BG1WO200R004 Тополовец WORWB04
19.1 RORW14.1_B3 PF II - Chiciu
20 BG1WO600R015 Лом WORWB15
20.1 RORW14.1_B3 PF II - Chiciu
21 BG1YN130R029 Янтра RWB29
21.1 RORW14.1_B3 PF II - Chiciu
RO1000
BG1000
0 25 50 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
good, Natural
good, Heavily Modified
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
moderate, Artificial
bad, Natural
bad, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
BG1DU000R001Heavily modified, Moderate
BG1OG100R014
BG1OG100R015
BG1RL120R013
BG1VT100R009
BG1WO100R001
BG1WO200R004
BG1WO600R015
BG1YN130R029
ROLW14.1.31_B2_D
RORW10.1_B7
RORW14.1.26_B167
RORW14.1.28_B185
RORW14.1.35_B2
RORW14.1.36_B2
RORW14.1_B3Heavily modified, Moderate
RORW14.1_B4
RORW8.1_B12RORW9.1_B8
RORW14.1.25_B165
51 of 129
Map 4 Potential transboundary river water bodies between CZ and PL (Index RW 25-44)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
25 CZ_10108000 Úpa po soutok s tokem Licná
25.1 PLRW5000492229 Ostroznica
26 CZ_10122000 Petríkovický potok po ústí do toku Licná
26.1 PLRW5000492229 Ostroznica
27 CZ_10123000 Licná po soutok s tokem Úpa
27.1 PLRW5000492229 Ostroznica
28 CZ_10144000 Úpa po ústí do toku Labe
28.1 PLRW5000492229 Ostroznica
29 CZ_10160000 Metuje po soutok s tokem Ţidovka
29.1 PLRW5000494129 Doplyw z Lacznej
30 CZ_10165000 Ţidovka po ústí do toku Metuje
30.1 PLRW500049423 Zydawka
31 CZ_10177000 Brlenka po ústí do toku Metuje
31.1 PLRW500049449 Czermnica
32 CZ_10178000 Metuje po soutok s tokem Strela
32.1 PLRW500049449 Czermnica
33 CZ_10178000 Metuje po soutok s tokem Strela
33.1 PLRW500049469 Klikawa
34 CZ_10202000 Metuje po ústí do toku Labe
34.1 PLRW500049469 Klikawa
35 CZ_10236000 Divoká Orlice po soutok s tokem Bartošovický potok
35.1 PLRW500049617 Dzika Orlica od zródla do Czerwonego Strumienia
0 5 10 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
good, Natural
moderate, Natural
poor, Natural
poor, Heavily Modified
Unclassified, Natural
International RBD boundary
CZ_5000
PL6000
CZ_10108000CZ_10122000Natural, Poor
CZ_10123000
CZ_10144000
CZ_10160000
CZ_10165000
CZ_10178000
CZ_10178000
CZ_10202000
CZ_10236000Natural, Good
CZ_10237000
CZ_10238000
CZ_11074000Natural, Good
CZ_11078000Natural, Poor CZ_11081000
CZ_11082000Natural, Good
CZ_11083000
CZ_11107000
PLRW50003967Natural, Unclassified
PLRW5000492229Natural, Moderate PLRW5000494129
PLRW500049423
PLRW500049449
PLRW500049469
PLRW500049617Natural, Good
PLRW500049889Natural, Unclassified
52 of 129
36 CZ_10237000 Bartošovický potok po ústí do toku Divoká Orlice
36.1 PLRW500049617 Dzika Orlica od zródla do Czerwonego Strumienia
37 CZ_10238000 Divoká Orlice po vzdutí nádrţe Pastviny
37.1 PLRW500049617 Dzika Orlica od zródla do Czerwonego Strumienia
38 CZ_11074000 Jizera po soutok s tokem Prítok z Polska
38.1 PLRW50003967 Izera od zródla do Mumlavy
39 CZ_11078000 Jizera po soutok s tokem Mumlava
39.1 PLRW50003967 Izera od zródla do Mumlavy
40 CZ_11081000 Mumlava po soutok s tokem Milnice
40.1 PLRW500049889 Mielnice
41 CZ_11082000 Milnice po ústí do toku Mumlava
41.1 PLRW500049889 Mielnice
42 CZ_11083000 Mumlava po soutok s tokem Jizera
42.1 PLRW50003967 Izera od zródla do Mumlavy
43 CZ_11083000 Mumlava po soutok s tokem Jizera
43.1 PLRW500049889 Mielnice
44 CZ_11107000 Jizera po soutok s tokem Oleška
44.1 PLRW50003967 Izera od zródla do Mumlavy
53 of 129
Map 5 Potential transboundary river water bodies between CZ and DE (Index RW 45-86)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body 45 CZ_11367000 Rasnice po ústí do toku Teplá Vltava
45.1 DEBY_WM002 Wagenwasser
46 CZ_11379000 Studená Vltava po soutok s tokem Svetlá
46.1 DEBY_WM001 Kalte Moldau
47 CZ_12962000 Hamerský potok po ústí do toku Mţe
47.1 DEBY_WB003 Lohbach (Mähring) --> Mies, Beraun
48 CZ_13969000 Libský potok po ústí do toku Ohre
48.1 DEBY_SE001 Eger von Steinbachmdg. bis Grenz
49 CZ_13969000 Libský potok po ústí do toku Ohre
49.1 DEBY_SE010 Eger - Nebengewässer mit Selb
50 CZ_13971000 Ohre/Eger po soutok s tokem Reslava/Röslau
50.1 DEBY_SE001 Eger von Steinbachmdg. bis Grenz
51 CZ_13971000 Ohre/Eger po soutok s tokem Reslava/Röslau
51.1 DEBY_SE010 Eger - Nebengewässer mit Selb
52 CZ_13971000 Ohre/Eger po soutok s tokem Reslava/Röslau
52.1 DEBY_SE021 Röslau von Kösseinmdg. bis Grenze
53 CZ_13972000 Reslava/Röslau po ústí do toku Ohre
53.1 DEBY_SE001 Eger von Steinbachmdg. bis Grenz
54 CZ_13972000 Reslava/Röslau po ústí do toku Ohre
54.1 DEBY_SE021 Röslau von Kösseinmdg. bis Grenze
55 CZ_14010000 Plesná/Fleissenbach po soutok s tokem Lubinka
55.1 DESN_53218-1 Fleißenbach (Plesná )
56 CZ_14022000 Odrava/Wondreb po vzdutí nádrţe Jesenice
0 8 16 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
good, Natural
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
poor, Natural
poor, Heavily Modified
bad, Natural
bad, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
CZ_5000
DE5000
CZ_11367000
CZ_11369000
CZ_12962000
CZ_13234000, Natural, Poor
CZ_13969000CZ_13971000CZ_13972000
CZ_14010000
CZ_14022000CZ_14023000
CZ_14024000
CZ_14070000
CZ_14656000
CZ_14657000
CZ_14666000
CZ_14683000
CZ_14679000CZ_14696000Natural, Good
CZ_14729000
CZ_14732000
CZ_14737000, Natural, ModerateCZ_14739000
CZ_14742000
CZ_14747000, Natural, Poor
CZ_14757000
CZ_14779000, Natural, Poor
CZ_14790000, Natural, Poor
CZ_14786000, Natural, ModerateCZ_14782000
CZ_1484000
CZ_14822000
CZ_14819000
CZ_14828000
DEBY_SE001
DEBY_SE010
DEBY_SE021
DEBY_SE035DEBY_SE044
DEBY_SE071
DEBY_WB001, Natural, Good
DEBY_WB003
DEBY_WM001
DEBY_WM002
DESN_53218-1
DESN_532342
DESN_53234-1
DESN_537118-2
DESN_537122-2
DESN_56144
DESN_566-1DESN_566132
DESN_58212DESN_582-1 Heavily modified, Poor
DESN_5412-2
DESN_541284-1
DESN_542634
DESN_542686-1
DESN_54268-4
DESN_54264-2
DESN_542684-2, Natural, Moderate
DESN_537146
DESN_53714-1
DESN_53718-1DESN_5372-1DESN_542-1
DESN_54268-3DESN_542682, Natural, Moderate
DESN_5426822
54 of 129
56.1 DEBY_SE035 Wondreb, von Seibertsbach bis CZ-Grenze
57 CZ_14023000 Mohelenský potok/Mügelbach po státní hranici
57.1 DEBY_SE044 Muglbach
58 CZ_14024000 Mohelenský potok po vzdutí nádrţe Jesenice
58.1 DEBY_SE044 Muglbach
59 CZ_14070000 Svatava po soutok s tokem Rotava
59.1 DESN_53234-1 Zwota
60 CZ_14656000 Krinice po soutok s tokem Brtnický potok
60.1 DESN_537118-2 Krinice (Kirnitzsch-1)
61 CZ_14657000 Brtnický potok po ústí do toku Krinice
61.1 DESN_537118-2 Krinice (Kirnitzsch-1)
62 CZ_14666000 Krinice/Kirnitzsch po soutok s tokem Saupsdorfer Bach
62.1 DESN_537118-2 Krinice (Kirnitzsch-1)
63 CZ_14679000 Poustevenský potok po ústí toku Lucní potok
63.1 DESN_537122-2 Sebnitz
64 CZ_14679001 Poustevenský potok/Sebnitz po soutok s tokem Polenz
64.1 DESN_537122-2 Sebnitz
65 CZ_14683000 Lucní potok po ústí do toku Poustevenský potok/Sebnitz
65.1 DESN_537122-2 Sebnitz
66 CZ_14696000 Spréva/Spree po soutok s tokem Roţanský potok/Rosenbach
66.1 DESN_582-1 Spree-1 (Spréva)
67 CZ_14696000 Spréva/Spree po soutok s tokem Roţanský potok/Rosenbach
67.1 DESN_58212 Alter Graben
68 CZ_14729000 Rybný potok/Gottleuba po vzdutí nádrţe Gottleuba
68.1 DESN_53714-1 Rybný potok (Gottleuba-1)
69 CZ_14732000 Petrovický potok/Bahra po soutok s tokem Gottleuba
69.1 DESN_537146 Petrovický potok (Bahra)
70 CZ_14737000 Mohelnice/Müglitz po soutok s tokem Biela
70.1 DESN_53718-1 Mohelnice (Müglitz-1)
71 CZ_14739000 Divoká Bystrice/Weisseritz po vzdutí nádrţe Lehnmühle
71.1 DESN_5372-1 Divoká Bystrice (Weißeritz-1)
72 CZ_14742000 Moldavský potok/Freiberger Mulde po soutok s tokem Kemnitzbach
72.1 DESN_542-1 Moldavský potok (Freiberger Mulde-1)
73 CZ_14747000 Polava/Pöhlbach po soutok s tokem Zschopau
73.1 DESN_542634 Polava (Pöhla)
74 CZ_14757000 Prísecnice/Pressnitz po soutok s tokem Jöhstädter Schwarzwasser
74.1 DESN_54264-2 Prísecnice (Preßnitz-1)
75 CZ_14779000 Svídnice/Schweinitz po soutok s tokem Flájský potok/Flöha
75.1 DESN_542682 Svídnice (Schweinitz)
76 CZ_14779000 Svídnice/Schweinitz po soutok s tokem Flájský potok/Flöha
76.1 DESN_54268-3 Flöha-1
77 CZ_14782000 Nacetínský potok po soutok s tokem Bílý potok
77.1 DESN_542684-2 Nacetínský potok (Natzschung)
78 CZ_14786000 Nacetínský potok/Natzschung po soutok s tokem Flájský potok/Flöha
78.1 DESN_54268-4 Flöha-2
79 CZ_14786000 Nacetínský potok/Natzschung po soutok s tokem Flájský potok/Flöha
79.1 DESN_542684-2 Nacetínský potok (Natzschung)
80 CZ_14790000 Cerná/Schwarze Pockau po soutok s tokem Rote Pockau
80.1 DESN_542686-1 Cerná (Schwarze Pockau-1)
81 CZ_14804000 Blatenský potok/Breitenbach po soutok s tokem Schwarzwasser
81.1 DESN_54122 Blatenský potok (Breitenbach)
82 CZ_14804000 Blatenský potok/Breitenbach po soutok s tokem Schwarzwasser
82.1 DESN_5412-2 Schwarzwasser-1
83 CZ_14808000 Polavský potok/Pohlwasser po soutok s tokem Kunnersbach
83.1 DESN_541284-1 Pöhlwasser-1 (Polavský potok)
84 CZ_14819000 Rokytnice/Regnitz po státní hranici
84.1 DEBY_SE071 Südliche Regnitz
85 CZ_14819000 Rokytnice/Regnitz po státní hranici
85.1 DESN_56144 Wolfsbach (Bystrina)
86 CZ_14828000 Hranický potok/Tetterweinbach po soutok s tokem Bílý Halštrov/Weisse
86.1 DESN_566132 Hranický potok (Lazarbach)
55 of 129
Map 6 Potential transboundary river water bodies between CZ and Pl (Index RW 87-
162)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body 87 CZ_20190000 Opava po soutok s tokem Opavice
87.1 PLRW60001911279 Opawa od Opawicy do Morawicy
88 CZ_20190000 Opava po soutok s tokem Opavice
88.1 PLRW6000811229 Opawica od Doplywu z Burkviz do ujscia
89 CZ_20199000 Opavice po soutok s tokem Burkvizský potok
89.1 PLRW6000511223 Opawica do Doplywu z Burkviz
90 CZ_20199000 Opavice po soutok s tokem Burkvizský potok
90.1 PLRW6000811229 Opawica od Doplywu z Burkviz do ujscia
91 CZ_20212000 Opavice po ústí do toku Opava
91.1 PLRW60001911279 Opawa od Opawicy do Morawicy
92 CZ_20212000 Opavice po ústí do toku Opava
92.1 PLRW6000511223 Opawica do Doplywu z Burkviz
93 CZ_20212000 Opavice po ústí do toku Opava
93.1 PLRW60005112289 Radynka
94 CZ_20212000 Opavice po ústí do toku Opava
94.1 PLRW6000811229 Opawica od Doplywu z Burkviz do ujscia
95 CZ_20228000 Ciţina po ústí do toku Opava
95.1 PLRW60001911279 Opawa od Opawicy do Morawicy
96 CZ_20234000 Heraltický potok po ústí do toku Opava
96.1 PLRW60001911279 Opawa od Opawicy do Morawicy
97 CZ_20238000 Velká po ústí do toku Opava
97.1 PLRW60001911279 Opawa od Opawicy do Morawicy
98 CZ_20242000 Opava po soutok s tokem Pilštský potok (vcetne)
98.1 PLRW600016112729 Ostra
99 CZ_20242000 Opava po soutok s tokem Pilštský potok (vcetne)
0 10 20 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
good, Natural
good, Heavily Modified
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
poor, Natural
poor, Heavily Modified
bad, Natural
bad, Heavily Modified
Unclassified, Natural
Unclassified, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
PL6000
CZ_6000
CZ_6000
CZ_20190000
CZ_20199000, Natural, Good
CZ_20755000PLRW60008174131
PLRW60008174139
CZ_20720000Natural, Poor
PLRW60004166549Natural, Unclassified
CZ_20774000Natural, PoorPLRW60004174161Natural, Unclassified
CZ_20798000
CZ_20806000
CZ_20807000
CZ_20809000Natural, Poor
PLRW60004174249Natural, Unclassified
PLRW6000817239Natural, Poor
CZ_20590000CZ_20608000Natural, Poor
CZ_20609000Natural, Poor
PLRW60004122199PLRW6000412233Natural, Unclassified
PLRW60004122369Natural, Unclassified
PLRW60004122349
PLRW6000812299
PLRW600012114139
CZ_20507030
CZ_20510000
PLRW600012114369
PLRW60001211449
CZ_20532000
PLRW600061146999Heavily modified, Poor
PLRW6000611489
CZ_20519010Natural, ModeratePLRW60001411453Heavily modified, Unclassified
CZ_20539000, Natural, PoorPLRW6000911499Heavily modified, Moderate
PLRW6000011513
CZ_20212000, Natural, GoodPLRW6000811229, Heavily modified, Unclassified
CZ_20228000
CZ_20234000
CZ_20238000
CZ_20242000, Heavily modified, PoorPLRW60001911279, Heavily modified, Good
CZ_20244000Heavily modified, Poor
CZ_20343000
CZ_20369000CZ_20535010
CZ_20537000Natural, Moderate
CZ_20550000, Natural, PoorPLRW600016115289, Natural, Poor
PLRW600019117699
PLRW60005112289
CZ_20705000CZ_20704000, Natural, Good
CZ_20576000, Natural, ModeratePLRW60004117639, Natural, Unclassified
CZ_20583000, Natural, Poor, PLRW60008117649, Natural, Unclassified
CZ_20579000, Natural, PoorPLRW600041176449, Natural, Moderate
CZ_20616000, Natural, Poor
CZ_20657000, Natural, GoodPLRW60004125669, Heavily modified, Unclassifed
CZ_20667000, Natural, ModerateCZ_20471000, Heavily modified, PoorPLRW60001611389, Natural, Unclassified
CZ_20535020
CZ_20556000Natural, Poor
CZ_20573000, Natural, Moderate
PLRW600016112729
PLRW600041176489
PLRW6000412369Heavily modified, Moderate
PLRW6000812589
PLRW6000511223, Heavily modified, unclassified
PLRW60004125829Natural, Unclassified
PLRW6000412389
PLRW6000412549Heavily modified, ModerateCZ_20624000, Natural, PoorCZ_20628000, CZ_20637000, Heavily modified, PoorCZ_20631000, CZ_20639000, CZ_20642000, Natural, Moderate
56 of 129
99.1 PLRW60001911279 Opawa od Opawicy do Morawicy
100 CZ_20242000 Opava po soutok s tokem Pilštský potok (vcetne)
100.1 PLRW6000811229 Opawica od Doplywu z Burkviz do ujscia
101 CZ_20244000 Opava po soutok s tokem Moravice
101.1 PLRW600016112729 Ostra
102 CZ_20244000 Opava po soutok s tokem Moravice
102.1 PLRW60001911279 Opawa od Opawicy do Morawicy
103 CZ_20343000 Moravice po ústí do toku Opava
103.1 PLRW60001911279 Opawa od Opawicy do Morawicy
104 CZ_20369000 Opava po ústí do toku Odra
104.1 PLRW60001911279 Opawa od Opawicy do Morawicy
105 CZ_20470000 Becva po ústí do toku Odra
105.1 PLRW60001611389 Belk
106 CZ_20471000 Odra po státní hranici
106.1 PLRW6000011513 Odra od Olzy do wyplywu z polderu Buków
107 CZ_20471000 Odra po státní hranici
107.1 PLRW60001611389 Belk
108 CZ_20471000 Odra po státní hranici
108.1 PLRW6000191139 Odra od granicy panstwa w Chalupkach do Olzy
109 CZ_20471000 Odra po státní hranici
109.1 PLRW6000911499 Olza - odcinek graniczny od Piotrówki do ujscia
110 CZ_20474000 Olše po soutok s tokem Bystrý potok (vcetne)
110.1 PLRW600012114139 Olza górna od zródel do granicy
111 CZ_20507030 Olše po soutok s tokem Ropicanka
111.1 PLRW600012114139 Olza górna od zródel do granicy
112 CZ_20507030 Olše po soutok s tokem Ropicanka
112.1 PLRW60001411453 Olza od Ropiczanki do granicy
113 CZ_20510000 Ropicanka po ústí do toku Olše
113.1 PLRW60001411453 Olza od Ropiczanki do granicy
114 CZ_20519010 Olše po soutok s tokem Stonávka
114.1 PLRW6000011459 Olza od granicy do Piotrówki
115 CZ_20519010 Olše po soutok s tokem Stonávka
115.1 PLRW600012114369 Puncówka
116 CZ_20519010 Olše po soutok s tokem Stonávka
116.1 PLRW60001211449 Bobrówka
117 CZ_20519010 Olše po soutok s tokem Stonávka
117.1 PLRW60001411453 Olza od Ropiczanki do granicy
118 CZ_20532000 Stonávka po ústí do toku Olše
118.1 PLRW6000011459 Olza od granicy do Piotrówki
119 CZ_20535010 Karvinský potok po ústí do toku Olše
119.1 PLRW6000011459 Olza od granicy do Piotrówki
120 CZ_20535020 Olše po soutok s tokem Petruvka
120.1 PLRW6000011459 Olza od granicy do Piotrówki
121 CZ_20535020 Olše po soutok s tokem Petruvka
121.1 PLRW600061146999 Pietrówka z doplywami
122 CZ_20535020 Olše po soutok s tokem Petruvka
122.1 PLRW6000911499 Olza - odcinek graniczny od Piotrówki do ujscia
123 CZ_20537000 Petruvka po ústí do toku Olše
123.1 PLRW6000011459 Olza od granicy do Piotrówki
124 CZ_20537000 Petruvka po ústí do toku Olše
124.1 PLRW600061146999 Pietrówka z doplywami
125 CZ_20537000 Petruvka po ústí do toku Olše
125.1 PLRW6000911499 Olza - odcinek graniczny od Piotrówki do ujscia
126 CZ_20539000 Olše po státní hranici
126.1 PLRW6000011459 Olza od granicy do Piotrówki
127 CZ_20539000 Olše po státní hranici
127.1 PLRW6000011513 Odra od Olzy do wyplywu z polderu Buków
128 CZ_20539000 Olše po státní hranici
128.1 PLRW6000191139 Odra od granicy panstwa w Chalupkach do Olzy
129 CZ_20539000 Olše po státní hranici
129.1 PLRW600061146999 Pietrówka z doplywami
130 CZ_20539000 Olše po státní hranici
130.1 PLRW6000611489 Szotkówka bez Lesznicy
131 CZ_20539000 Olše po státní hranici
131.1 PLRW6000911499 Olza - odcinek graniczny od Piotrówki do ujscia
132 CZ_20550000 Bílá Voda po soutok s tokem Strahovický potok (vcetne)
132.1 PLRW600016115289 Krzanówka
133 CZ_20556000 Pištský potok po státní hranici
133.1 PLRW6000161152949 Przykopa
134 CZ_20573000 Hrozová po ústí do toku Osoblaha
134.1 PLRW60004117639 Osobloga Prudnika
57 of 129
135 CZ_20576000 Osoblaha po soutok s tokem Prudnik
135.1 PLRW600019117699 Osobloga od Prudnika do Odry
136 CZ_20576000 Osoblaha po soutok s tokem Prudnik
136.1 PLRW60004117639 Osobloga Prudnika
137 CZ_20576000 Osoblaha po soutok s tokem Prudnik
137.1 PLRW60008117649 Prudnik od Zlotego Potoku do Osoblogi
138 CZ_20579000 Zlatý potok po státní hranici
138.1 PLRW600041176449 Prudnik od zródla do Zlotego Potoku
139 CZ_20583000 Prudnik po ústí do toku Osoblaha
139.1 PLRW600019117699 Osobloga od Prudnika do Odry
140 CZ_20583000 Prudnik po ústí do toku Osoblaha
140.1 PLRW60004117639 Osobloga Prudnika
141 CZ_20583000 Prudnik po ústí do toku Osoblaha
141.1 PLRW60008117649 Prudnik od Zlotego Potoku do Osoblogi
142 CZ_20590000 Vernérovický potok po soutok s tokem Stenava
142.1 PLRW6000412233 Scinawka od Potoku z Nowego Siodla do Bozanowskiego Potoku
143 CZ_20608000 Stenava po státní hranici
143.1 PLRW60004122199 Scinawka od zródla do Potoku z Nowego Siodla
144 CZ_20608000 Stenava po státní hranici
144.1 PLRW6000412233 Scinawka od Potoku z Nowego Siodla do Bozanowskiego Potoku
145 CZ_20608000 Stenava po státní hranici
145.1 PLRW60004122349 Bozanowski Potok
146 CZ_20608000 Stenava po státní hranici
146.1 PLRW6000812299 Scinawka od Bozanowskiego Potoku do Nysy Klodzkiej
147 CZ_20609000 Šonovský potok po státní hranici
147.1 PLRW60004122369 Studzieniec
148 CZ_20616000 Bílá voda/Kamienica
148.1 PLRW6000412369 Kamienica
149 CZ_20624000 Hoštický potok/Tarnawka
149.1 PLRW6000412389 Tarnawka
150 CZ_20628000 Javornický potok po státní hranici
150.1 PLRW6000412549 Raczyna
151 CZ_20631000 Rací potok po státní hranici
151.1 PLRW6000412549 Raczyna
152 CZ_20637000 Rací potok/Raczyna
152.1 PLRW6000412549 Raczyna
153 CZ_20639000 Vojtovický potok po státní hranici
153.1 PLRW6000412549 Raczyna
154 CZ_20642000 Lánský potok po státní hranici
154.1 PLRW6000412549 Raczyna
155 CZ_20657000 Vidnavka po soutok s tokem Cerný potok
155.1 PLRW60004125669 Widna od Cerveneho Potoku do Luzy
156 CZ_20667000 Vidnavka po státní hranici
156.1 PLRW60004125669 Widna od Cerveneho Potoku do Luzy
157 CZ_20704000 Olešnice po ústí do toku Belá
157.1 PLRW60004125829 Olesnice
158 CZ_20704000 Olešnice po ústí do toku Belá
158.1 PLRW6000812589 Biala Glucholaska od Olesnice do zb. Nysa
159 CZ_20705000 Belá po státní hranici
159.1 PLRW60004125829 Olesnice
160 CZ_20705000 Belá po státní hranici
160.1 PLRW6000812589 Biala Glucholaska od Olesnice do zb. Nysa
161 CZ_20720000 Jindrichovický potok po státní hranici
161.1 PLRW60004166549 Miloszowicki Potok
162 CZ_20755000 Jerice po ústí do toku Luţická Nisa
162.1 PLRW60008174131 Nysa Luzycka od Jerice do Pfaffenbach Hartau
58 of 129
Map 7 Potential transboundary river water bodies between CZ and DE (Index RW_163-
172)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
163 CZ_20758000 Luţická Nisa po soutok s tokem Bílý potok
163.1 DESN_674132 Pfaffenbach Hartau
164 CZ_20758000 Luţická Nisa po soutok s tokem Bílý potok
164.1 DESN_674-3 Luzická Nisa (Lausitzer Neiße-3)
165 CZ_20758000 Luţická Nisa po soutok s tokem Bílý potok
165.1 PLRW60008174131 Nysa Luzycka od Jerice do Pfaffenbach Hartau
166 CZ_20758000 Luţická Nisa po soutok s tokem Bílý potok
166.1 PLRW60008174139 Nysa Luzycka od Pfaffenbach Hartau do Mandau
167 CZ_20758001 Luţická Nisa/Lausitzer Niesse po soutok s tokem Mandau
167.1 DESN_674132 Pfaffenbach Hartau
168 CZ_20758001 Luţická Nisa/Lausitzer Niesse po soutok s tokem Mandau
168.1 DESN_674-3 Luzická Nisa (Lausitzer Neiße-3)
169 CZ_20758001 Luţická Nisa/Lausitzer Niesse po soutok s tokem Mandau
169.1 PLRW60008174131 Nysa Luzycka od Jerice do Pfaffenbach Hartau
170 CZ_20758001 Luţická Nisa/Lausitzer Niesse po soutok s tokem Mandau
170.1 PLRW60008174139 Nysa Luzycka od Pfaffenbach Hartau do Mandau
171 CZ_20764000 Mandava/Mandau po soutok s tokem Luţnicka
171.1 DESN_67414-1 Mandava (Mandau-1)
172 CZ_20769000 Luţnicka po soutok s tokem Mandava/Mandau
172.1 DESN_674144 Luznicka (Lausur)
0 2.5 5 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
moderate, Natural
poor, Natural
bad, Natural
bad, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
CZ6000
CZ6000
DE6000
DESN_674-3Natural, Bad
DESN_674144
DESN_674132
DESN_67414-1
DESN_67414-1
CZ_20758001Natural, Poor
CZ_20758000
CZ_20769000
CZ_20764000
59 of 129
Map 8 Potential transboundary river water bodies between CZ and DE (Index RW 178-
184)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body 178 CZ_40018000 Katerinský potok po soutok s tokem Nivní potok
178.1 DEBY_NR118 Pfreimd-Oberlauf/ Zottbach/ Raunetbach
179 CZ_40027000 Nivní potok po ústí do toku Katerinský potok
179.1 DEBY_NR117 Pfreimd-Nebenbäche, Fahrbach-Stelzlmühlb.
180 CZ_40044000 Nemanický potok po státní hranici
180.1 DEBY_NR133 Schwarzach, bis Schaufelbach/Rhaner Bach/Rötzbach/Buchbach
181 CZ_40061000 Rezná po státní hranici
181.1 DEBY_NR229 Großer Regen
182 CZ_40078000 Kouba po soutok s tokem Rybnicní potok
182.1 DEBY_NR303 Chamb, bis Drachensee und Nebengewässer/Rappendorfer Bach
183 CZ_40081000 Rybnicní potok po soutok s tokem Chambach
183.1 DEBY_NR303 Chamb, bis Drachensee und Nebengewässer/Rappendorfer Bach
184 CZ_40092000 Chladná Bystrice po soutok s tokem Chambach
184.1 DEBY_NR134 Kalte Pastritz/Schaufelbach
0 5 10 Kilometers
International River waterbodies selection
Ecological status, Designation
good, Natural
moderate, Natural
poor, Natural
International RBD boundary
CZ1000
DE1000
CZ1000
CZ1000
CZ_40018000
CZ_40027000
CZ_40044000
CZ_40061000
CZ_40078000
CZ_40081000CZ_40092000
DEBY_NR117
DEBY_NR118
DEBY_NR133
DEBY_NR134
DEBY_NR229
DEBY_NR303
60 of 129
Map 9 Potential transboundary river water bodies between CZ and SK (Index RW185-
191)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
185 CZ_40939110 Morava po soutok s tokem Radejovka
185.1 SKM0001 MORAVA
186 CZ_40947010 Radejovka po ústí do toku Morava
186.1 SKM0001 MORAVA
187 CZ_41049000 Morava po státní hranici
187.1 SKM0001 MORAVA
188 CZ_41049000 Morava po státní hranici
188.1 SKM0002 MORAVA
189 CZ_41049000 Morava po státní hranici
189.1 SKM0006 MYJAVA
190 CZ_42020000 Dyje po soutok s tokem Morava
190.1 SKM0001 MORAVA
191 CZ_42020000 Dyje po soutok s tokem Morava
191.1 SKM0002 MORAVA
0 5 10 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
poor, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
CZ_40939110
CZ_40947010
CZ_41049000Heavily modified, Poor
CZ_42020000
SKM0001Heavily modified, Moderate
SKM0002
SKM0006
SK40000
CZ1000
61 of 129
Map 10 Potential transboundary river water bodies between DE and PL (Index RW 192-
226)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body 192 DEBB6_2 Oder
192.1 PLRW60002117999 Odra od Nysy Luzyckiej do Warty
193 DEBB6_2 Oder
193.1 PLRW6000211899 Warta od Noteci do ujscia
194 DEBB6_2 Oder
194.1 PLRW60002119199 Odra od Warty do Odry Zachodniej
195 DEBB6_2 Oder
195.1 PLRW6000211971 Odra od Odry Zachodniej do Parnicy
196 DEBB6_3 Oder
196.1 PLRW600019174999 Nysa Luzycka od Lubszy do Odry
197 DEBB6_3 Oder
197.1 PLRW6000211739 Odra od Czarnej Strugi do Nysy Luzyckiej
198 DEBB6_3 Oder
198.1 PLRW60002117999 Odra od Nysy Luzyckiej do Warty
199 DEBB6_3 Oder
199.1 PLRW6000211899 Warta od Noteci do ujscia
200 DEBB6_3 Oder
200.1 PLRW60002119199 Odra od Warty do Odry Zachodniej
201 DEBB674_1739 Lausitzer Neiße
201.1 PLRW60001917475 Nysa Luzycka od Skrody do Chwaliszówki
202 DEBB674_1739 Lausitzer Neiße
202.1 PLRW600019174799 Nysa Luzycka od Chwaliszówki do Lubszy
0 10 20 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Status, Designation
high, Heavily Modified
good, Natural
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
moderate, Artificial
poor, Natural
poor, Heavily Modified
bad, Natural
bad, Heavily Modified
bad, Artificial
Unclassified, Natural
Unclassified, Heavily Modified
Unclassified, Artificial
International RBD boundary
PL6000
DE6000
PLRW60000317929Artificial, Unclassified
DEMV_USEO-0200Heavily modified, Poor
PLRW60001731129Heavily modified, Unclassified
DEMV_RAND-4000Natural, Poor
DEMV_RAND-3900Heavily Modified, Poor
PLRW6000211971Heavily modified, High
DEBB696_71Natural, Bad
DEBB6966_236Natural, Bad
DEBB6966_235Artificial, Bad
DEBB6966_233Heavily modified, Poor
PLRW60001819192PLRW60002419189PLRW60000191729PLRW60001819169
PLRW60002319147
PLRW60002119199Heavily modified, Moderate
DEBB6_2Natural, Bad
DEBB6962792_1501
DEBB6962774_1500
DEBB6_3Natural, Poor
PLRW600020191299
DEBB674_1739, Natural, Bad
DEBB674_70Natural, Bad
DEBB67474_542
DEBB6747736_1426DEBB674792_1063
DEBB67492_544DEBB67492_545
DEBB67492_547
DEBB67916_561
DEBB6792_231
DEBB69627952_1658
DESN_674732DESN_67472
DESN_674574
DESN_67432-2
DESN_67418DESN_674158DESN_674154
DESN_67414-3
DESN_674-9Natural, Poor
DESN_674-8, Natural, Poor
DESN_674-4Natural, Bad
DESN_674-7, Natural, ModerateDESN_674-6, Natural, Poor
DESN_674-5, Natural, Bad
DESN_674-10, Natural, Moderate
PLRW60000174156, Artifical, UnclassifiedPLRW60000174159, Heavily modified, Unclassified
PLRW6000017429
PLRW6000017569
PLRW60004174169
PLRW60001017431, Natural, Poor
PLRW600017174569
PLRW600017174589
PLRW60001717469PLRW600017174769
PLRW600017174772PLRW600017174774
PLRW600017174778PLRW600017174789
PLRW60001717494
PLRW60001717529
PLRW60001719114, Natural, Unclassified
PLRW600018174529PLRW600018174549PLRW600018174552
PLRW600019174599, Natural, UnclassifiedPLRW600018174592
PLRW60001917453, Natural, Unclassified
PLRW600019174579, Natural, Unclassified
PLRW600019174799, Natural, ModeratePLRW600019174899
PLRW6000211739
PLRW60002117999, Heavily modified, Moderate
PLRW6000211899
PLRW60002319148
PLRW60002417699PLRW60002417899
PLRW600019174999
PLRW60001917475, Natural, Moderate
62 of 129
203 DEBB674_70 Lausitzer Neiße
203.1 PLRW600019174799 Nysa Luzycka od Chwaliszówki do Lubszy
204 DEBB674_70 Lausitzer Neiße
204.1 PLRW600019174999 Nysa Luzycka od Lubszy do Odry
205 DEBB674_70 Lausitzer Neiße
205.1 PLRW6000211739 Odra od Czarnej Strugi do Nysy Luzyckiej
206 DEBB674_70 Lausitzer Neiße
206.1 PLRW60002117999 Odra od Nysy Luzyckiej do Warty
207 DEBB67474_542 Föhrenfließ
207.1 PLRW60001917475 Nysa Luzycka od Skrody do Chwaliszówki
208 DEBB6747736_1426 Malxe-Neiße-Kanal
208.1 PLRW600019174799 Nysa Luzycka od Chwaliszówki do Lubszy
209 DEBB674792_1063 Moaske
209.1 PLRW600019174799 Nysa Luzycka od Chwaliszówki do Lubszy
210 DEBB67492_544 Schwarzes Fließ
210.1 PLRW600019174999 Nysa Luzycka od Lubszy do Odry
211 DEBB67496_545 Grano-Buderoser Mühlenfließ
211.1 PLRW600019174999 Nysa Luzycka od Lubszy do Odry
212 DEBB67498_547 Breslacker Fließ
212.1 PLRW600019174999 Nysa Luzycka od Lubszy do Odry
213 DEBB6754_222 Oder-Spree-Kanal
213.1 PLRW60002117999 Odra od Nysy Luzyckiej do Warty
214 DEBB6772_228 Brieskower Kanal
214.1 PLRW60002117999 Odra od Nysy Luzyckiej do Warty
215 DEBB67912_560 Obere Bardaune
215.1 PLRW60002117999 Odra od Nysy Luzyckiej do Warty
216 DEBB67916_561 Klinge
216.1 PLRW60002117999 Odra od Nysy Luzyckiej do Warty
217 DEBB67918_562 Lebuser Vorstadtgraben
217.1 PLRW60002117999 Odra od Nysy Luzyckiej do Warty
218 DEBB6792_231 Altzeschdorfer Mühlenfließ
218.1 PLRW60002117999 Odra od Nysy Luzyckiej do Warty
219 DEBB696_71 Westoder
219.1 PLRW60002119199 Odra od Warty do Odry Zachodniej
220 DEBB696_71 Westoder
220.1 PLRW6000211971 Odra od Odry Zachodniej do Parnicy
221 DEBB6962_233 Alte Oder
221.1 PLRW6000211971 Odra od Odry Zachodniej do Parnicy
222 DEBB6962774_1500 Stolper Strom
222.1 PLRW60002119199 Odra od Warty do Odry Zachodniej
223 DEBB6962792_1501 Alte Oder Schwedt
223.1 PLRW60002119199 Odra od Warty do Odry Zachodniej
224 DEBB69627952_1658 Schwedter Querfahrt
224.1 PLRW60002119199 Odra od Warty do Odry Zachodniej
225 DEBB6964_235 Höftgraben
225.1 PLRW6000211971 Odra od Odry Zachodniej do Parnicy
226 DEBB6966_236 Salveybach
226.1 PLRW6000211971 Odra od Odry Zachodniej do Parnicy
63 of 129
Map 11 Potential transboundary river water bodies between DE and FR (Index RW 227-
242)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body 227 DEBW_30-02-or1 Kander-Klemmbach-Sulzbach (Oberrheinebene)
227.1 FRCR1 RHIN 1
228 DEBW_30-04-or1 Neumagen-Möhlin (Oberrheinebene)
228.1 FRCR1 RHIN 1
229 DEBW_31-07-or2 Durchgehender Altrheinzug (DAR) mit Leopoldskanal
229.1 FRCR2 RHIN 2
230 DEBW_32-05-or3 Kinzig-Schutter-Unditz (Oberrheinebene)
230.1 FRCR3 RHIN 3
231 DEBW_33-02-or3 Rench (Oberrheinebene)
231.1 FRCR3 RHIN 3
232 DEBW_3-or1 Alter Rhein, Basel bis Breisach
232.1 FRCR1 RHIN 1
233 DEBW_3-or1 Alter Rhein, Basel bis Breisach
233.1 FRCR2 RHIN 2
234 DEBW_3-or1 Alter Rhein, Basel bis Breisach
234.1 FRCR5 GRAND CANAL D'ALSACE - BIEF DE KEMBS A NEUF-BRISACH
235 DEBW_3-or2 Schlingenlösung Rhein, Breisach bis Staustufe Strasbourg
235.1 FRCR2 RHIN 2
236 DEBW_3-or3 Staugeregelte Rheinstrecke, unterhalb Staustufe Strasbourg bis Staustufe Iffezheim
236.1 FRCR2 RHIN 2
237 DEBW_3-or3 Staugeregelte Rheinstrecke, unterhalb Staustufe Strasbourg
0 10 20 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
good, Natural
good, Artificial
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
poor, Natural
poor, Heavily Modified
poor, Artificial
bad, Natural
bad, Heavily Modified
Unclassified, Natural
Unclassified, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
DEBW_3-or1Heavily modified, Unclassified
FRCR1Heavily modified, Poor
DEBW_3-or2Heavily modified, Unclassified
FRCR2Heavily modified, Poor
DEBW_3-or3Heavily modified, Unclassified
DEBW_3-or4Heavily modified, Unclassified
DEBW_3-or5Heavily modified, Unclassified
DEBW_30-04-or1
DEBW_30-02-or1
DEBW_31-07-or2
DEBW_33-02-or3
DERP_2000000000_5Heavily modified, Moderate
DERP_2372000000_1
DERP_2358000000_0
DERP_2372000000_2Natural, Moderate
DERP_2642680000_1DERP_2642688000_0
DESL101
DESL102DESL108
DESL140Natural, Bad
DESL141, Natural, Bad
DESL167
DESL155, Natural, GoodDESL156, Natural, Unclassified
DESL157, Natural, Unclassified
DESL241
FRCR157
FRCR160FRCR207Natural, Moderate
FRCR213
FRCR22
FRCR3, Heavily modified, Poor
FRCR4, Heavily modified, Bad
FRCR5Artificial, Poor
FRCR8
DE2000
FRC
FRCR445FRCR446
FRCR452
FRCR444
DESL101Heavily modified, Poor
FRCR414Heavily modified, Bad
FRCR419
FRCR453
FRCR454
FRCR457
FRCR458
FRCR464
FRCR468
FRCR469Natural, Good
DESL251
DESL180
DEBW_32-05-or3
64 of 129
bis Staustufe Iffezheim
237.1 FRCR3 RHIN 3
238 DEBW_3-or3 Staugeregelte Rheinstrecke, unterhalb Staustufe Strasbourg bis Staustufe Iffezheim
238.1 FRCR8 CANAL DE LA MARNE AU RHIN 3 - DISTRICT RHIN
239 DEBW_3-or4 Freifließende Rheinstrecke, unterhalb Staustufe Iffezheim bis oberhalb Lautermündung (F)
239.1 FRCR160 SAUER 3
240 DEBW_3-or4 Freifließende Rheinstrecke, unterhalb Staustufe Iffezheim bis oberhalb Lautermündung (F)
240.1 FRCR4 RHIN 4
241 DEBW_3-or5 Freifließende Rheinstrecke, unterhalb Lauter- bis oberhalb Neckarmündung
241.1 FRCR207 LAUTER
242 DEBW_3-or5 Freifließende Rheinstrecke, unterhalb Lauter- bis oberhalb Neckarmündung
242.1 FRCR4 RHIN 4
65 of 129
Map 12 Potential transboundary river water bodies between DE and NL (RW_247-266)
Water Body code MS River name
DENI_32003 32003 Vechte Neuenhaus-Laar DENI_32041 32041 Nordhorn-Almelo-Kanal
NL36_OWM_014 Overijsselse Vecht NL05_Geelebeek Geelebeek
DENI_32004 32004 Dinkel DENI_32044 32044 Itter
NL05_Benedendinkel Beneden Dinkel NL05_Itterbeek Itterbeek
DENI_32025 32025 Ravenhorster Bach DENI_32045 32045 Geteloer Bach
NL05_Bovendinkel Boven Dinkel NL05_Broekbeek Broekbeek
DENI_32026 32026 Puntbecke DENW2_813_864 Rhein
NL05_Puntbeek Puntbeek NL93_8 Boven Rijn, Waal
DENI_32027 32027 Rammelbecke ab Forst Bentheim DENW27992_6_18 Große Wässerung
NL05_Geelebeek Geelebeek NL09_30 Weteringen Ooijpolder
DENI_32031 32031 Radewijke DENW2799222_0_3 Groesbeeker Bach
NL36_OWM_012 Radewijkerbeek NL09_03 Beken Groesbeek
DENI_32034 32034 Grenzaa Ringe-CPK DENW279924_2_11 Hauptwässerung/ Zeelandse Wetering
NL36_OWM_002 Schoonebekerdiep NL09_30 Weteringen Ooijpolder
DENI_32035 32035 Wettringe DENW2799242_0_13 Rindernsche Wässerung
NL36_OWM_002 Schoonebekerdiep NL09_30 Weteringen Ooijpolder
DENI_32035 32035 Wettringe DENW279982_20_28 Netterdenscher Kanal
NL36_OWM_021 Wettringe NL07_0001 Grenskanaal
DENI_32039 32039 Coevorden-Piccardie-Kanal DENW279982_9_20 Die Wild
NL36_OWM_002 Schoonebekerdiep NL07_0001 Grenskanaal
0 5 10 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
good, Natural
good, Heavily Modified
good, Artificial
moderate, Heavily Modified
moderate, Artificial
poor, Heavily Modified
poor, Artificial
bad, Heavily Modified
bad, Artificial
International RBD boundary
NL93_8
NL36_OWM_014
NL36_OWM_012
NL36_OWM_002Heavily modified, Moderate
NL09_30Heavily modified, Moderate
NL09_03
NL07_0020
NL07_0021
NL07_0029
NL07_0030
NL07_0017
NL07_0016
NL07_0009
NL07_0006
NL07_0001Heavily modified, Poor
NL05_Benedendinkel
NL05_Bovendinkel
NL05_Broekbeek
NL05_Geelebeek
NL05_GlanerbeekNL05_Hagmolenbeek
NL05_Itterbeek
NL05_Puntbeek
NL05_Ruenbergerbeek
DENI_32003
DENI_32004
DENI_32025
DENI_32026
DENI_32027
DENI_32031
DENI_32034Heavily modified, Poor
DENI_32035
DENI_32039
DENI_32041
DENI_32044
DENI_32045
DENW2_813_864
DENW27952_0_22
DENW27992_6_18
DENW2799222_0_3
DENW279924_2_11Artificial, Bad
DENW279982_0_13
DENW928646_5_10
DENW9286456_3_10
DENW9285292_6_10
DENW92852_58_68
DENW9285122_20_25
DENW279982_9_20
DENW928_123_137
DENW9282_5_27
DENW92832_41_55
DENW9284_44_67DENW928476_5_11
DENW928482_11_15
DENW9284822_8_11
DENW928484_7_12
DENW279982_20_28Artificial, Bad
NLRN
DE2000
66 of 129
Map 13 Potential transboundary river water bodies between DE and NL (Index RW267-285)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body 267 DENW28142_6_14 Senserbach
267.1 NL58WRO32 Selzerbeek
268 DENW281822_4_23 Rodebach
268.1 NL58WRO40 Rode Beek
269 DENW2818222_0_4 Saeffeler Bach
269.1 NL58WRO40 Rode Beek
270 DENW282_22_47 Rur
270.1 NL58WRO04 Roer
271 DENW2828_26_33 Wurm
271.1 NL58WRO27 Worm
272 DENW2828_33_35 Wurm
272.1 NL58WRO27 Worm
273 DENW28286_6_14 Amstelbach
273.1 NL58WRO43 Anselderbeek
274 DENW28296_0_5 Kitschbach
274.1 NL58WRO04 Roer
275 DENW282964_0_2 Unterlauf Flutgraben
275.1 NL58WRO05 Vlootbeek bovenloop
276 DENW282972_0_5 Schaagbach
276.1 NL58WRO04 Roer
277 DENW28298_0_8 Rothenbach
277.1 NL58WRO03 Rode Beek Vlodrop
278 DENW282992_4_10 Buschbach
0 5 10 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
moderate, Artificial
poor, Natural
poor, Heavily Modified
poor, Artificial
bad, Natural
bad, Heavily Modified
bad, Artificial
International RBD boundary
NLMS
DE7000
DENW28296_0_5
DENW28286_6_14
DENW28142_6_14
DENW281822_4_23
DENW2818222_0_4DENW282_22_47
DENW2828_26_33Heavily modified, Bad
DENW2828_33_35
NL58WRO27Heavily modified, Moderate
DENW282964_0_2
DENW282972_0_5
DENW28298_0_8Natural, Moderate
DENW282992_4_10Natural, Bad
DENW284_12_20
DENW2852_5_14
DENW2854_3_13
DENW28566_3_8
DENW286_8_32
DENW28696_0_14
DENW28698_0_25
NL57_NOM_02
NL57_NOM_03
NL57_NOM_04
NL57_NOM_05
NL57_ZOM_02NL58WRO02Heavily modified, Moderate
NL58WRO03Natural, Moderate
NL58WRO04
NL58WRO05
NL58WRO32
NL58WRO40
NL58WRO43
67 of 129
278.1 NL58WRO02 Bosbeek
279 DENW284_12_20 Schwalm
279.1 NL57_ZOM_02 Swalm
280 DENW2852_5_14 Straelener Leitgraben
280.1 NL57_NOM_05 Lingsforterbeek
281 DENW2854_3_13 Nierskanal
281.1 NL57_NOM_04 Geldernsch Nierskanaal
282 DENW28566_3_8 Hülmer Leitgraben
282.1 NL57_NOM_03 Eckeltse beek
283 DENW286_8_32 Niers
283.1 NL57_NOM_02 Niers
284 DENW28696_0_14 Nuthgraben
284.1 NL57_NOM_02 Niers
285 DENW28698_0_25 Kendel
285.1 NL57_NOM_02 Niers
68 of 129
Map 14 Potential transboundary river water bodies between ES and PT (Index RW 384-
427)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body 384 ES040MSPF000120320 ARROYO DE CUNCOS I
384.1 PT07GUA1470I Ribeira de Cuncos
385 ES040MSPF000120380 RIO ARDILA III
385.1 PT07GUA1490I1 Rio Ardila
386 ES040MSPF000120380 RIO ARDILA III
386.1 PT07GUA1490I3 Rio Ardila
387 ES040MSPF000120380 RIO ARDILA III
387.1 PT07GUA1490N2 Ribeira da Murtega
388 ES040MSPF000132180 RIO GUADIANA VII
388.1 PT07GUA1428I1 Rio Caia (HMWB - Jusante B. Caia)
389 ES040MSPF000132180 RIO GUADIANA VII
389.1 PT07GUA1428I2 Rio Guadiana (HMWB - Jusante B. Caia e Açude Badajoz)
390 ES040MSPF000133500 RIVERA DE CHANZA II
390.1 PT07GUA1562I Rio Chança
391 ES040MSPF000133590 RIO ARDILA II
391.1 PT07GUA1490I3 Rio Ardila
392 ES040MSPF000133600 RIO MURTIGAS I
392.1 PT07GUA1490I2 Ribeira de Murtega
393 ES040MSPF000133670 RIO GODOLID I
393.1 PT07GUA1480I Ribeira dos Saus
394 ES040MSPF000133760 RIO CAYA
394.1 PT07GUA1428I1 Rio Caia (HMWB - Jusante B. Caia)
395 ES040MSPF000133760 RIO CAYA
0 10 20 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
high, Natural
good, Natural
good, Heavily Modified
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
poor, Natural
bad, Natural
Unclassified, Natural
Unclassified, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
ES040PTRH7
ES040MSPF000120320
ES040MSPF000120380, Natural, Moderate
ES040MSPF000132180
ES040MSPF000133500
ES040MSPF000133590
ES040MSPF000133600
ES040MSPF000133670
ES040MSPF000133760
ES040MSPF000133810
ES040MSPF000134030
ES040MSPF000134070, Natural, Moderate
ES040MSPF000140000
ES040MSPF000140200
ES040MSPF000140300
ES040MSPF000140400
ES040MSPF000141300
ES040MSPF000141400, Natural, Moderate
ES040MSPF000206500
ES040MSPF000206640, Heavily modified, Unclassified
ES040MSPF000206650
ES040MSPF004000200, Natural, Good
ES040MSPF004000210, Natural, Good
ES040MSPF000140500, Natural, Moderate
ES040MSPF000140800, Natural, Bad
ES040MSPF000140900, Natural, Good
ES040MSPF000141000
ES040MSPF000141200, Natural, Good
PT07GUA1399
PT07GUA1400
PT07GUA1404I, Natural, Good
PT07GUA1404N
ES040MSPF000133810PT07GUA1408PT07GUA1410
PT07GUA1420
PT07GUA1426PT07GUA1428N
PT07GUA1431PT07GUA1430PT07GUA1429
PT07GUA1427PT07GUA1428I1, Heavily modified, Moderate
PT07GUA1428I2, Havily modified, Moderate
PT07GUA1490N1
PT07GUA1490N2PT07GUA1501N
PT07GUA1501N, Natural, PoorPT07GUA1539
PT07GUA1559
PT07GUA1547
PT07GUA1560PT07GUA1562I, Natural, Moderate
PT07GUA1569
PT07GUA1596
PT07GUA1602
PT07GUA1613
PT07GUA1470I, Natural, Moderate
PT07GUA1480N
PT07GUA1480I, Natural, Moderate
PT07GUA1490I1, Natural, Moderate
PT07GUA1490I3, Natural, Poor
69 of 129
395.1 PT07GUA1428I2 Rio Guadiana (HMWB - Jusante B. Caia e Açude Badajoz)
396 ES040MSPF000133760 RIO CAYA
396.1 PT07GUA1428N Rio Caia (HMWB - Jusante B. Caia)
397 ES040MSPF000133810 RIO GEVORA I
397.1 PT07GUA1399 Rio Xévora
398 ES040MSPF000133810 RIO GEVORA I
398.1 PT07GUA1400 Ribeira de Soverete
399 ES040MSPF000133810 RIO GEVORA I
399.1 PT07GUA1408 Ribeira dos Marmeleiros
400 ES040MSPF000133810 RIO GEVORA I
400.1 PT07GUA1410 Rio Xévora
401 ES040MSPF000134030 RIO GEVORA II
401.1 PT07GUA1420 Rio Xévora (HMWB - Jusante B. Abrilongo)
402 ES040MSPF000134070 RIO ABRILONGO
402.1 PT07GUA1404I Ribeira Abrilongo
403 ES040MSPF000140000 ARROYO TAMUJOSO
403.1 PT07GUA1420 Rio Xévora (HMWB - Jusante B. Abrilongo)
404 ES040MSPF000140200 RIO GUADIANA VIII
404.1 PT07GUA1428I1 Rio Caia (HMWB - Jusante B. Caia)
405 ES040MSPF000140200 RIO GUADIANA VIII
405.1 PT07GUA1428I2 Rio Guadiana (HMWB - Jusante B. Caia e Açude Badajoz)
406 ES040MSPF000140300 ARROYO DE CUNCOS II
406.1 PT07GUA1470I Ribeira de Cuncos
407 ES040MSPF000140400 ARROYO ZAOS
407.1 PT07GUA1480I Ribeira dos Saus
408 ES040MSPF000140500 RIO GODOLID II
408.1 PT07GUA1480I Ribeira dos Saus
409 ES040MSPF000140500 RIO GODOLID II
409.1 PT07GUA1480N Ribeira de Godelim
410 ES040MSPF000140700 ARROYO DE LA OLIVA
410.1 PT07GUA1490I3 Rio Ardila
411 ES040MSPF000140800 RIO ARDILA IV
411.1 PT07GUA1490I1 Rio Ardila
412 ES040MSPF000140800 RIO ARDILA IV
412.1 PT07GUA1490I3 Rio Ardila
413 ES040MSPF000140800 RIO ARDILA IV
413.1 PT07GUA1490N1 Rio Ardila
414 ES040MSPF000140800 RIO ARDILA IV
414.1 PT07GUA1490N2 Ribeira da Murtega
415 ES040MSPF000140900 RIO MURTIGAS II
415.1 PT07GUA1490I2 Ribeira de Murtega
416 ES040MSPF000140900 RIO MURTIGAS II
416.1 PT07GUA1490N2 Ribeira da Murtega
417 ES040MSPF000141000 ARROYO DEL CAVA
417.1 PT07GUA1490N2 Ribeira da Murtega
418 ES040MSPF000141200 RIO DE SARALEJA
418.1 PT07GUA1501I Ribeira de Safareja
419 ES040MSPF000141200 RIO DE SARALEJA
419.1 PT07GUA1501N Ribeira de Safara
420 ES040MSPF000141300 RIVERA DE ALCALABOZA II
420.1 PT07GUA1562I Rio Chança
421 ES040MSPF000141400 RIVERA DE CHANZA III
421.1 PT07GUA1562I Rio Chança
422 ES040MSPF000206500 EMBALSE DEL CHANZA
422.1 PT07GUA1562I Rio Chança
423 ES040MSPF000206640 EMBALSE DE ALQUEVA (PARTE ESPAÑOLA)
423.1 PT07GUA1428I2 Rio Guadiana (HMWB - Jusante B. Caia e Açude Badajoz)
424 ES040MSPF000206640 EMBALSE DE ALQUEVA (PARTE ESPAÑOLA)
424.1 PT07GUA1470I Ribeira de Cuncos
425 ES040MSPF000206640 EMBALSE DE ALQUEVA (PARTE ESPAÑOLA)
425.1 PT07GUA1480N Ribeira de Godelim
426 ES040MSPF000206650 EMBALSE DE ABRILONGO
426.1 PT07GUA1404I Ribeira Abrilongo
427 ES040MSPF000206650 EMBALSE DE ABRILONGO
427.1 PT07GUA1420 Rio Xévora (HMWB - Jusante B. Abrilongo)
70 of 129
Map 15 Potential transboundary river water bodies between ES and FR (Index RW 428-
431)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
428 ES091MSPF578
Río Segre en Llívia y desde la localidad de Puigcerdà hasta el río Arabo (incluye río La Vanera desde su entrada en España).
428.1 FRDR11149 rec de l'estagouge
429 ES091MSPF578
Río Segre en Llívia y desde la localidad de Puigcerdà hasta el río Arabo (incluye río La Vanera desde su entrada en España).
429.1 FRDR242 rivière de la vanéra
430 ES091MSPF578
Río Segre en Llívia y desde la localidad de Puigcerdà hasta el río Arabo (incluye río La Vanera desde su entrada en España).
430.1 FRDR243 Le Sègre de sa source à la frontière espagnole et le Rabur
431 ES091MSPF579 Río Arabo desde su entrada en España hasta su desembocadura en el río Segre.
431.1 FRDR240 rivière du carol
0 1 2 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
good, Natural
moderate, Natural
International RBD boundary
ES091MSPF578Natural, Moderate
ES091MSPF579
FRDR10119
FRDR11149
FRDR240
FRDR242
FRDR243
FRD
ES091
71 of 129
Map 16 Potential transboundary river water bodies between ES and FR (Index RW 432)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
432 ES091MSPF788 Río Garona desde el río Jueu hasta su entrada en el Embalse de Torán (incluye ríos Margalida y Toran).
432.1 FRFR178 La Garonne du confluent du rieu argellé (inclus) au confluent de la Neste
0 2.5 5 Kilometers
Ecological status, Designation
good, Natural
International RBD boundary
ES091MSPF788
ES091
FRFR178
FRF
72 of 129
Map 17 Potential transboundary river water bodies between FI and SE (Index RW433)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
433 FI65.186_001 Pahaoja
433.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven
0 10 20 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
good, Natural
Unclassified, Natural
International RBD boundary
FI65.186_001
FI65.186_001
SE755505-182645
FIVHA6
SE1TO
73 of 129
Map 18 Potential transboundary river water bodies between FR and IT (Index RW 471)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
471 FRDR74 La Roya de la frontière italienne et la vallon de Caïros à la mer
471.1 IT076301IN F. ROJA
0 1 2 Kilometers
Ecological status, Designation
good, Natural
International RBD boundary
FRD
ITC
FRDR74
IT076301IN
74 of 129
Map 19 Potential transboundary river water bodies between HU and RO (RW_476-491)
Water Body Code MS River name
HUAEP462 Ér-focsatorna
RORW3.1.44.33.28.11_B1 Ierul Ingust --> izvor - vars. in Ier
HUAEP462 Ér-focsatorna
RORW3.1.44.33.28_B2 Ier --> cnf. Rit - granita
HUAEP471 Fehér-Körös
RORW3.1_B7 Crisul Alb --> cnf. Cigher - granita
HUAEP475 Fekete-Körös
RORW3.1.42_B5 Crisul Negru --> cnf. Valea Noua - granita
HUAEP475 Fekete-Körös
RORWx3.8DER_B1 CPE2-Oradea --> prel. CPE1-Oradea - vars. in Crisul Negru + Afluenti
0 7.5 15 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
good, Natural
good, Heavily Modified
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
poor, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
RO1000
HU1000
HUAEP322
HUAEP462
HUAEP471
HUAEP475
HUAEP729
HUAEP783
HUAEP784Heavily modiffied, Moderate
HUAEP933
HUAEP953
HUAEP971
RORW2.1_B7
RORW2.2.26_B1
RORW2.2_B2
RORW3.1.42_B5
RORW3.1.44.33.28_B2RORW3.1.44.33.28.11_B1
RORW3.1.44.33_B6
RORW3.1.44_B7
RORW3.1_B7
RORW4.1_B11 Heavily modified, Good
RORWx3.8DER_B1
75 of 129
Map 20 Potential transboundary river water bodies between FI and SE (RW 434 – 466)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
434 FI67.100_001 Tornionjoki
434.1 SE739989-185170 Torneälven
435 FI67.100_001 Tornionjoki
435.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven
436 FI67.100_002 Martimojoki
436.1 SE739989-185170 Torneälven
437 FI67.111_001 Liakanjoki
437.1 SE739989-185170 Torneälven
438 FI67.200_001 Alainen Ratasjoki
438.1 SE739989-185170 Torneälven
439 FI67.200_002 Lompolojoki Tornionjoki
439.1 SE739989-185170 Torneälven
440 FI67.300_001 Muonionjoki
440.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven
441 FI67.300_001 Muonionjoki
441.1 SE761107-175959 Muonioälven
442 FI67.300_002 Äkäsjoki
442.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven
443 FI67.312_001 Ääverjoki
443.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven
444 FI67.360_001 Niesajoki
444.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven
445 FI67.380_001 Lompolojoki Muonionjoki
445.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven
446 FI67.400_002 Jerisjoki
0 10 20 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
high, Natural
good, Natural
moderate, Natural
Unclassified, Natural
Unclassified, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
FI67.100_001Natural, Good
FI67.100_002
FI67.111_001
FI67.200_001
FI67.200_002
FI67.300_001Natural, High
FI67.300_002
FI67.312_001
FI67.360_001
FI67.380_001
FI67.400_002
FI67.400_004
FI67.400_007
FI67.441_001
FI67.500_001
FI67.500_002
FI67.500_003
FI67.500_004
FI67.600_001Natural, High
FI67.600_002Natural, High
FI67.600_003Natural, High
FI67.623_001
FI67.624_001
FI67.625_001
FI67.650_001
FI67.660_001
FI67.680_001
FI67.700_001
FI67.800_001
FI67.900_009
SE737685-184945
SE739989-185170Natural, Good
SE748069-180884
SE749406-183566
SE753400-181060
SE755622-181815
SE761107-175959Natural, Good
SE762231-174295Natural, High
SE764611-171769Natural, High
FIVHA6
SE1TO
76 of 129
446.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven
447 FI67.400_004 Kangosjoki
447.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven
448 FI67.400_007 Pakajoki
448.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven
449 FI67.441_001 Utkujoki
449.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven
450 FI67.500_001 Palojoki Enontekiö
450.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven
451 FI67.500_002 Tarvantojoki
451.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven
452 FI67.500_003 Jietajoki
452.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven
453 FI67.500_004 Maljasjoki
453.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven
454 FI67.600_001 Könkämäeno alaosa
454.1 SE761107-175959 Muonioälven
455 FI67.600_002 Könkämäeno keskiosa
455.1 SE762231-174295 Muonioälven
456 FI67.600_003 Könkämäeno yläosa
456.1 SE764611-171769 Muonioälven
457 FI67.623_001 Iittojoki
457.1 SE764611-171769 Muonioälven
458 FI67.624_001 Vuoskujoki
458.1 SE762231-174295 Muonioälven
459 FI67.625_001 Sottujoki
459.1 SE762231-174295 Muonioälven
460 FI67.650_001 Saddamasjohka
460.1 SE764611-171769 Muonioälven
461 FI67.660_001 Suppijoki
461.1 SE764611-171769 Muonioälven
462 FI67.680_001 Tammukkajoki
462.1 SE762231-174295 Muonioälven
463 FI67.700_001 Lätäseno
463.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven
464 FI67.700_001 Lätäseno
464.1 SE761107-175959 Muonioälven
465 FI67.800_001 Naamijoki ala
465.1 SE739989-185170 Torneälven
466 FI67.900_009 Tengeliönjoki alaosa
466.1 SE739989-185170 Torneälven
77 of 129
Map 21 Potential transboundary river water bodies between HU and SK (RW 475 – 485)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
475 HUAEP273 Által-ér alsó
475.1 SKD0018 DUNAJ
476 HUAEP322 Berettyó
476.1 RORW3.1.44.33_B6 Barcau --> cnf. Bistra - granita
477 HUAEP334 Bodrog
477.1 SKB0001 BODROG
478 HUAEP335 Bódva felso
478.1 SKA0002 BODVA
479 HUAEP371 Concó alsó
479.1 SKD0018 DUNAJ
480 HUAEP443 Duna Szigetköznél
480.1 SKD0017 DUNAJ
481 HUAEP443 Duna Szigetköznél
481.1 SKD0018 DUNAJ
482 HUAEP444 Duna Szob–Baja között
482.1 SKD0018 DUNAJ
483 HUAEP444 Duna Szob–Baja között
483.1 SKI0004 IPEL
484 HUAEP446 Duna Gönyü–Szob között
484.1 SKD0018 DUNAJ
485 HUAEP446 Duna Gönyü–Szob között
485.1 SKI0004 IPEL
0 10 20 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
good, Natural
good, Artificial
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
poor, Natural
International RBD boundary
HUAEP273
HUAEP334
HUAEP335
HUAEP371
HUAEP443Heavily modified,
Moderate
HUAEP444
HUAEP446Natural, Moderate
HUAEP580
HUAEP614Natural, Moderate
HUAEP810
HUAEP931
HUAEQ057
SKA0002
SKB0001
SKD0015Artificial, Good
SKD0017Heavily modified,
Moderate SKD0018Natural, Moderate
SKH0004
SKI0004Natural, Moderate
SKR0005
SKS0003
SKT0001
SKV0027
78 of 129
Map 22 Potential transboundary river water bodies between HU and RO (RW 486-491)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
486 HUAEP462 Ér-focsatorna
486.1 RORW3.1.44.33.28.11_B1 Ierul Ingust --> izvor - vars. in Ier
487 HUAEP462 Ér-focsatorna
487.1 RORW3.1.44.33.28_B2 Ier --> cnf. Rit - granita
488 HUAEP471 Fehér-Körös
488.1 RORW3.1_B7 Crisul Alb --> cnf. Cigher - granita
489 HUAEP475 Fekete-Körös
489.1 RORW3.1.42_B5 Crisul Negru --> cnf. Valea Noua - granita
490 HUAEP475 Fekete-Körös
490.1 RORWx3.8DER_B1 CPE2-Oradea --> prel. CPE1-Oradea - vars. in Crisul Negru + Afluenti
491 HUAEP580 Hernád felso
0 7.5 15 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
good, Natural
good, Heavily Modified
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
poor, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
RO1000
HU1000
HUAEP322
HUAEP462
HUAEP471
HUAEP475
HUAEP729
HUAEP783
HUAEP784Heavily modiffied, Moderate
HUAEP933
HUAEP953
HUAEP971
RORW2.1_B7
RORW2.2.26_B1
RORW2.2_B2
RORW3.1.42_B5
RORW3.1.44.33.28_B2RORW3.1.44.33.28.11_B1
RORW3.1.44.33_B6
RORW3.1.44_B7
RORW3.1_B7
RORW4.1_B11 Heavily modified, Good
RORWx3.8DER_B1
79 of 129
Map 23 Potential transboundary river water bodies between IE and UK (RW_503-505)
Water Body code MS river name
IE_NW_36_2286 NW_Erne123Swanlinbar_Erne1_Lower
UKGBNI1NW363602063 Upper Lough Erne
IE_NW_36_2286 NW_Erne123Swanlinbar_Erne1_Lower
UKGBNI1NW363602096 Erne River - ROI
IE_NW_36_2417 NW_Erne123Annalee_Annalee1_Lower
UKGBNI1NW363602096 Erne River - ROI
0 1 2 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
moderate, Natural
poor, Natural
Unclassified, Natural
International RBD boundary
IE_NW_36_2286Natural, Unclassified
IE_NW_36_2417
UKGBNIIENW
GBNIIENW
UKGBNI1NW363602063
UKGBNI1NW363602096Natural, Poor
80 of 129
Map 24 Potential transboundary river water bodies between LT and PL (RW 506-507)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
506 LT100102101
506.1 PLRW80002064875 Marycha od dopl. z jeziora Zelwy do granicy panstwa
507 LT150100011 507.1 PLRW8000206851 Szeszupa od Potopki do granicy panstwa
0 1 2 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
high, Natural
good, Natural
good, Heavily Modified
Unclassified, Natural
International RBD boundary
LT1100
PL8000
LT100102101
LT150100011
PLRW8000206851
PLRW80002064875
81 of 129
Map 25 Potential transboundary river water bodies between LT and LV (RW_508-514)
Water body code MS river name
LT300100018 LT did not report names
LVV056 Venta
LT300100018 LVV062 Vadakste
LT300111701 LVV066 Vadakste
LT300111702 LVV056 Venta
LT300111702 LVV062 Vadakste
LT300111702 LVV066 Vadakste
LT300113104 LVV056 Venta
0 2.5 5 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
high, Natural
good, Natural
moderate, Natural
International RBD boundary
LT300100018
LT30011701Natural, GoodLT300111702
Natural, Good
LT300111704
LT700101102
LT800120103
LT800120702Natural, High
LVV001Natural, Good
LVV010
LVV011Natural, Good
LVV056
LVV062Natural, Good
LVV063
LVV066Natural, Moderate
LT700108102Natural, Good
LVVUBA
LT2300
82 of 129
Map 26 Potential transboundary river water bodies between LT and LV (RW_515-526)
Water body code MS river name Water body code MS river name
LT400100101 LT did not report names LT410100016
LVL153 Islice LVL176 Musa
LT400101101
LT420100014
LVL149 Svitene LVL159 Memele
LT400101601
LT420100015
LVL148 Sesava LVL159 Memele
LT400101702
LT420103101
LVL147 Vircava LVL159 Memele
LT400102502
LT420105404
LVL146 Platone LVL159 Memele
LT400103202
LVL123 Svete
LT400103521
LVL124 Vilce
0 5 10 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
good, Natural
moderate, Natural
poor, Natural
poor, Heavily Modified
bad, Natural
bad, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
LVLUBA
LT3400
LT400100101
LT400101101
LT400101601
LT400101702
LT400102502
LT400103202
LT400103521
LT410100016
LT420100014Natural, Moderate
LT420100015Natural, Moderate
LT420103101
LT420105404
LVL123
LVL124
LVL246
LVL147
LVL148
LVL149
LVL153
LVL159Natural, Moderate
LVL161
LVL166LVL176
83 of 129
Map 27 Potential transboundary river water bodies between PL and SK (RW 541-549)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body 541 PLRW200012214212 Smereczek
541.1 SKP0006 POPRAD
542 PLRW200012214229 Muszynka
542.1 SKP0006 POPRAD
543 PLRW2000122142329 Szczawnik
543.1 SKP0006 POPRAD
544 PLRW2000122142349 Milik
544.1 SKP0006 POPRAD
545 PLRW2000122142389 Wierchomlanka
545.1 SKP0006 POPRAD
546 PLRW200012214249 Lomniczanka
546.1 SKP0006 POPRAD
547 PLRW200015214195 Dunajec od Zb. Czorsztyn do Grajcarka
547.1 SKC0001 DUNAJEC
548 PLRW200015214239 Poprad od Smereczka do Lomniczanki
548.1 SKP0006 POPRAD
549 PLRW200015214299 Poprad od Lomniczanki do ujscia
549.1 SKP0006 POPRAD
0 2.5 5 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Ecological status, Designation
good, Natural
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
Unclassified, Natural
Unclassified, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
PL2000
SK30000
SKC0001Natural, Good SKC006
Natural, Moderate
PLRW200015214299
PLRW200015214239Natural, Unclassified
PLRW200015214195Heavily modified, Moderate
PLRW200012214249
PLRW2000122142389
PLRW2000122142349
PLRW2000122142329
PLRW200012214229
PLRW200012214212
84 of 129
Rivers in Danube Basin
Information on which water bodies are transboundary was obtained from ICPDR as described in
section 2. Not all Danube basin Member States reported information to the ICPDR on which of their
river water bodies were transboundary. Note that the actual transboundary pairs of water bodies
should be confirmed by Member States and/or the ICPDR. These water bodies are also in the table of
river water body transboundary pairs.
Map 28 Transboundary river water bodies in Danube river basin
0 50 100 Kilometers
International River waterbodies
Status, Type
high, Natural
high, Heavily Modified
good, Natural
good, Heavily Modified
good, Artificial
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
moderate, Artificial
poor, Natural
poor, Heavily Modified
poor, Artificial
bad, Natural
bad, Heavily Modified
bad, Artificial
Unclassified, Natural
Unclassified, Heavily Modified
Unclassified, Artificial
International RBD boundary
BG1DU000R001Heavily Modified, Moderate
CZ_40939110
CZ_40947010CZ_41049000, Heavily modified, Poor
CZ_42020000
HUAEP322HUAEP443Heavily modified, Moderate
HUAEP444
HUAEP446Natural, Moderate
HUAEP462
HUAEP471HUAEP475
HUAEP580
HUAEP614Natural, Moderate
HUAEP729
HUAEP783
HUAEP784
HUAEP953
HUAEP971HUAEQ057
RORW14.1_B3Heavily Modified, Moderate
RORW14.1_B4
RORW2.1_B7
RORW2.2_B2
RORW3.1.42_B5
RORW3.1.44.33.28_B2
RORW3.1.44.33_B6
RORW3.1.44_B7
RORW3.1_B7
RORW4.1_B11
SKD0017Heavily modified, Moderate
SKD0018Natural, Moderate
SKH0004
SKI0004Natural, Moderate
SKM0001, Heavily modified, Moderate
SKM0002
SKM0006
SKT0001
85 of 129
Table 9 Transboundary Danube rivers with potential incongruities in the classification of ecological status/potential
Index
MS
RWB Code Name DES
ES
CON
PP
OF
MP
PB
BI
FI
HM
GP
NP
ON
MPP
MOF
MMP
MPB
MBI
MFI
MHR
MRC
MMC
MGP
MNP
MON
PSP
DSP
WAP
HMP
RMP
OMP
OPP
1 BG
BG1DU000R001 RWB01 HM
3 L
3 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 6 3 4 2
1.1 RO
RORW14.1_B3 PF II - Chiciu HM
3 L
3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1 1
2 BG
BG1DU000R001 RWB01 HM
3 L
3 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 6 3 4 2
2.1 RO
RORW14.1_B4 Chiciu - Isaccea HM
3 L
3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1 1 1 1
3 CZ
CZ_41049000 Morava po státní hranici
HM
4 L
4 2 4 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 1 3 1
3.1 SK
SKM0001 MORAVA HM
3 M
2 3 2 2 2 2
4 CZ
CZ_41049000 Morava po státní hranici
HM
4 L
4 2 4 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 1 3 1
4.1 SK
SKM0002 MORAVA NA
3 M
2 3 3 2 3 3
5 CZ
CZ_41049000 Morava po státní hranici
HM
4 L
4 2 4 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 1 3 1
5.1 SK
SKM0006 MYJAVA NA
3 M
3 2 3 2 3 2
6 CZ
CZ_42020000 Dyje po soutok s tokem Morava
NA
3 L
3 3 3 1 3 1
6.1 SK
SKM0001 MORAVA HM
3 M
2 3 2 2 2 2
7 CZ
CZ_42020000 Dyje po soutok s tokem Morava
NA
3 L
3 3 3 1 3 1
7.1 SK
SKM0002 MORAVA NA
3 M
2 3 3 2 3 3
8 HU
HUAEP443 Duna Szigetköznél HM
3 M
1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 5 2
8.1 SK
SKD0017 DUNAJ HM
3 M
1 2 3 2 2 2
86 of 129
Index
MS
RWB Code Name DES
ES
CON
PP
OF
MP
PB
BI
FI
HM
GP
NP
ON
MPP
MOF
MMP
MPB
MBI
MFI
MHR
MRC
MMC
MGP
MNP
MON
PSP
DSP
WAP
HMP
RMP
OMP
OPP
9 HU
HUAEP443 Duna Szigetköznél HM
3 M
1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 5 2
9.1 SK
SKD0018 DUNAJ NA
3 M
1 3 2 3 2 2 2
10 HU
HUAEP446 Duna Gönyü–Szob között
NA
3 M
2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1
10.1 SK
SKD0018 DUNAJ NA
3 M
1 3 2 3 2 2 2
11 HU
HUAEP446 Duna Gönyü–Szob között
NA
3 M
2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1
11.1 SK
SKI0004 IPEL NA
3 M
2 3 3 3 3 2 2
12 HU
HUAEP614 Ipoly NA
3 M
3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 1
12.1 SK
SKD0018 DUNAJ NA
3 M
1 3 2 3 2 2 2
13 HU
HUAEP614 Ipoly NA
3 M
3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 1
13.1 SK
SKI0004 IPEL NA
3 M
2 3 3 3 3 2 2
14 RO
RORW2.1_B7 Somes-cf.Homorodu Nou-granita cu Ungaria
NA
3 M
3 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1 1 1
14.1 HU
HUAEP971 Szamos NA
3 M
3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 1
15 RO
RORW2.2_B2 Crasna -ac.Virsolt-granita Ungaria
NA
3 M
2 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1 1 1
15.1 HU
HUAEP729 Kraszna HM
4 E
4 4 4 3 2 2 3 3 2 1 2
16 RO
RORW3.1.42_B5 Crisul Negru --> cnf. Valea Noua - granita
NA
2 M
1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1
16.1 HU
HUAEP475 Fekete-Körös HM
2 M
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2
17 RO
RORW3.1.44.33.28_B2
Ier --> cnf. Rit - granita
HM
3 L
2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1 1
87 of 129
Index
MS
RWB Code Name DES
ES
CON
PP
OF
MP
PB
BI
FI
HM
GP
NP
ON
MPP
MOF
MMP
MPB
MBI
MFI
MHR
MRC
MMC
MGP
MNP
MON
PSP
DSP
WAP
HMP
RMP
OMP
OPP
17.1 HU
HUAEP462 Ér-focsatorna HM
3 L
2 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 3
18 RO
RORW3.1.44.33_B6 Barcau --> cnf. Bistra - granita
NA
2 M
2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1
18.1 HU
HUAEP322 Berettyó HM
3 M
2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 1 2
19 RO
RORW3.1.44_B7 Crisul Repede --> cnf. Bonor - granita
HM
2 L
1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1 1 1
19.1 HU
HUAEP953 Sebes-Körös felso HM
3 M
2 3 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 1
20 RO
RORW3.1_B7 Crisul Alb --> cnf. Cigher - granita
NA
2 M
1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1
20.1 HU
HUAEP471 Fehér-Körös HM
3 M
2 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2
21 RO
RORW4.1_B11 MURES, sector Arad - Romanian/Hungarian border
HM
2 L
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1
21.1 HU
HUAEP783 Maros torkolat HM
3 M
3 2 2 2 1 2 2
22 RO
RORW4.1_B11 MURES, sector Arad - Romanian/Hungarian border
HM
2 L
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1
22.1 HU
HUAEP784 Maros kelet HM
3 M
3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3
23 SK
SKD0018 DUNAJ NA
3 M
1 3 2 3 2 2 2
23.1 HU
HUAEP444 Duna Szob–Baja között
NA
3 M
2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1
24 SK
SKH0004 HORNAD NA
3 M
1 2 3 3 2
24.1 HU
HUAEP580 Hernád felso NA
3 L
3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1
25 S SKI0004 IPEL N 3 M 2 3 3 3 3 2 2
88 of 129
Index
MS
RWB Code Name DES
ES
CON
PP
OF
MP
PB
BI
FI
HM
GP
NP
ON
MPP
MOF
MMP
MPB
MBI
MFI
MHR
MRC
MMC
MGP
MNP
MON
PSP
DSP
WAP
HMP
RMP
OMP
OPP
K A
25.1 HU
HUAEP444 Duna Szob–Baja között
NA
3 M
2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1
26 SK
SKM0001 MORAVA HM
3 M
2 3 2 2 2 2
26.1 CZ
CZ_40939110 Morava po soutok s tokem Radejovka
NA
3 L
2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 1 2 1
27 SK
SKM0001 MORAVA HM
3 M
2 3 2 2 2 2
27.1 CZ
CZ_40947010 Radejovka po ústí do toku Morava
HM
4 L
2 4 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1
28 SK
SKT0001 TISA NA
4 M
2 3 2 4 3 3 2
28.1 HU
HUAEQ057 Tisza Szipa-focsatornától Belfo-csatornáig
NA
3 M
2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3
Abbreviation Description
DES Designation of water body
HM Heavily modified water modified
NA Natural water body
AB Artificial water body
ES Ecological status/potential
1 High ecological status
2 Good ecological status/potential
3 Moderate ecological status/potential
4 Poor ecological status/potential
5 Bad ecological status/potential
U Unknown/unclassified status/potential
CON Confidence in the classification of status/potential
HI High confidence
ME Medium confidence
LO Low confidence
NI No information
89 of 129
Classification by individual quality elements – same numbers and colour coding as used for ecological status classifications above
PP Phytoplankton
OF Other aquatic flora
MA Macroalgae
AG Angiosperms
MP Macrophytes
PB Phytobenthos
BI Benthic invertebrates
FI Fish
HM Hydromorphological quality elements
GP General physicochemical quality elements
NP Non-priority specific pollutants
ON Other national pollutants
Monitoring of quality elements – blank cells do not necessarily indicate no monitoring as information may not have been reported by Member States to WISE
MPP Phytoplankton monitored
MOF Other aquatic flora monitored
MMP Macrophytes monitored
MPB Phytobenthos monitored
MBI Benthic invertebrates monitored
MFI Fish monitored
MHR Hydrological quality elements monitored
MRC River continuity monitored
MMC Morphological conditions monitored
MGP General physicochemical quality elements monitored
MNP Non-priority specific pollutants monitored
MON Other national pollutants monitored
Significant pressures on water bodies - blank cells do not necessarily indicate that this pressure is not significant as information may not have been reported by Member States to WISE
PSP Point source pressures
DSP Diffuse source pressures
WAP Water abstraction pressures
HMP Hydromorphological alteration pressures
RMP River management pressures
TRP Transitional and coastal water management pressures
OMP Other morphological pressures
OPP Other pressures
90 of 129
2. Lakes
The following table contains a list of the potential transboundary lake water bodies identified by the
methods described in section 2. Some but not all of these have been illustrated on maps following the
Table. Each pair has been assigned an index with the “.1” designation indicating the second water
body in the pair.
The analysis and mapping has in many cases not definitively identified whether a pair is actually
transboundary or not. In some cases this is because it is not clear how the two water bodies relate to
each other. In other cases the GIS areas plotted on the map do not necessarily completely match
national borders and/or the boundaries of the adjacent water body area.
It is recommended, therefore, that if this study is further developed that Member States are asked to
validate the list of potential pairs and identify which one are actually transboundary.
Table 10 List of identified potential transboundary lakes with ecological status
Index MS RBD Water Body Code Name Designation
Ecological Status
Confidence
1 BE BESchelde_VL BEVL05_187 ANTWERPSE HAVENDOKKEN + SCHELDE-RIJNVERBINDING
Artificial bad NI
1.1 NL NLSC nl89_antwknpd Antwerps kanaal pand Artificial poor NI
2 DE DE6000 DEMV_LW_2800300
Großer Mützelburger See Natural good medium
2.1 PL PL6000 PLLW20785 Mysliborskie Wielkie HMWB U NI
3 ES ES040 ES040MSPF000206500
EMBALSE DEL CHANZA HMWB good high
3.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1591 Albufeira Chanca HMWB good medium
4 ES ES040 ES040MSPF000206640
EMBALSE DE ALQUEVA (PARTE ESPAÑOLA)
HMWB U high
4.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1487 Albufeira Alqueva HMWB moderate low
5 ES ES040 ES040MSPF000206650
EMBALSE DE ABRILONGO HMWB U high
5.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1407 Albufeira Abrilongo HMWB moderate low
6 FI FIVHA6 FI67.640.1.001_001 Kilpisjärvi - Alajärvi Natural high medium
6.1 SE SE1TO SE765824-170238 KILPISJÄRVI Natural high low
8 LT LT4500 LT550030305 Laukesas Natural high low
8.1 LV LVDUBA LVE165 Lauces ez Natural moderate high
ATDE_1 AT AT2000 ATOK1500100 Bodensee-Obersee Natural good high
ATDE_1.1 DE DE2000 DEBW_1 Bodensee (Obersee) - Freiwasser international
Natural good low
ESPT_1 ES ES010 ES010MSPFES480MAR002120
Embalse de Frieira HMWB moderate NI
ESPT_1.1 PT PTRH1 PT01MIN0006I Rio Minho (HMWB - Jusante B. Frieira)
HMWB bad low
ESPT_2 ES ES010 ES010MSPFES511MAR002470
Embalse de Lindoso HMWB good NI
ESPT_2.1 PT PTRH1 PT01LIM0032 Rio Lima (HMWB - Jusante B. Alto Lindoso)
HMWB good low
ESPT_3 ES ES030 ES030MSPF1001020
Cedillo HMWB Unclassified NI
ESPT_3.1 PT PTRH5 PT05TEJ0894 Albufeira Monte Fidalgo (Cedillo) HMWB moderate high
ESPT_4 ES ES010 ES010MSPFES512MAR002430
Embalse de Salas (River) HMWB good high
ESPT_4.1 PT PTRH1 PT01LIM0060 Albufeira de Salas (Lake) HMWB good low
IEUK_1 IE GBNIIENW IE_NW_35_160 Melvin ( Lough ) Natural moderate medium
IEUK_1.1 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI3NW0015 Lough Melvin East Natural good high
IEUK_1.2 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI3NW0010 Lough Melvin Central Natural good high
IEUK_2 IE GBNIIENW IE_NW_36_673 Macnean Upper ( Lough ) Natural moderate high
IEUK_2.1 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI3NW0011 Upper Lough Macnean Natural good high
IEUK_3 IE GBNIIENW IE_NW_36_672L Erne (Lough) (Upper) Natural moderate low
IEUK_3.1 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI3NW0008 Upper Lough Erne HMWB moderate low
91 of 129
Index MS RBD Water Body Code Name Designation
Ecological Status
Confidence
LTPL_1 LT LT1100 LT110030111 Natural high low
LTPL_1.1 PL PL8000 PLLW30611 Gaładuś Natural U NI
Key:
Designation of water body
HMWB Heavily modified water modified
Ecological status/potential
High High ecological status
Good Good ecological status/potential
Moderate Moderate ecological status/potential
Poor Poor ecological status/potential
Bad Bad ecological status/potential
U Unknown/unclassified status/potential
CON Confidence in the classification of status/potential
High High confidence
Medum Medium confidence
Low Low confidence
NI No information
92 of 129
Map 29 Potential transboundary lake water body between BE and NL (Lake 1)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
1 BEVL05_187 ANTWERPSE HAVENDOKKEN + SCHELDE-RIJNVERBINDING
1.1 nl89_antwknpd Antwerps kanaal pand
NLSC
BESchelde_VL
BEMaas_VL
NLMS
0 1 2 Kilometers
high, Natural
good, Natural
good, Heavily Modified
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
poor, Artificial
bad, Artificial
Unclassified, Natural
Unclassified, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
BEVL05_187
nl89_antwknpd
93 of 129
Map 30 Potential transboundary lake water body between DE and PL (Lakes 2)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
2 DEMV_LW_2800300 Großer Mützelburger See
2.1 PLLW20785 Mysliborskie Wielkie
DE6000PL6000
0 0.25 0.5 Kilometers
International RBD boundary
high, Natural
good, Natural
good, Heavily Modified
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
poor, Artificial
bad, Artificial
Unclassified, Natural
Unclassified, Heavily Modified
DEMV_LW_2800300Natural, Good
PLLW20785Heavily modified, Unclassified
94 of 129
Map 31 Potential transboundary lake water body between ES and PT (Lake 3)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
4 ES040MSPF000206640 EMBALSE DE ALQUEVA (PARTE ESPAÑOLA)
4.1 PT07GUA1487 Albufeira Alqueva
0 10 20 Kilometers
high, Natural
good, Natural
good, Heavily Modified
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
poor, Artificial
bad, Artificial
Unclassified, Natural
Unclassified, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
ES040
PTRH7
ES040MSPF000206500Heavily modified, GoodPT07GUA1591
Heavily modified, Good
ES040MSPF000206640Heavily modified, Unclassified
PT07GUA1487Heavily modified, Moderate
ES040MSPF000206650Heavily modified, Unclassified
PT07GUA1407Heavily modified, Moderate
95 of 129
Map 32 Potential transboundary lake water body between FI and SE (Lakes 6)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
6 FI67.640.1.001_001 Kilpisjärvi - Alajärvi
6.1 SE765824-170238 KILPISJÄRVI
SE1TO
FIVHA6
NO1104
SENO1104
NOFIVHA6
0 1 2 Kilometers
International RBD boundary
high, Natural
good, Natural
good, Heavily Modified
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
poor, Artificial
bad, Artificial
Unclassified, Natural
Unclassified, Heavily Modified
FI67.640.1.001_001Natural, High
SE765824-170238Natural, High
96 of 129
Map 33 Potential transboundary lake water body between LV and LT (Lakes 8)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
8 LT550030305 Laukesas
8.1 LVE165 Lauces ez
LT4500
LVDUBA
0 0.25 0.5 Kilometers
high, Natural
good, Natural
good, Heavily Modified
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
poor, Artificial
bad, Artificial
Unclassified, Natural
Unclassified, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
LVE165Natural, Moderate
LT550030305Natural, High
97 of 129
Map 34 Potential transboundary lake water body between AT and DE (Lakes ATDE 1)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
ATDE_1 ATOK1500100 Bodensee-Obersee
ATDE_1.1 DEBW_1 Bodensee (Obersee) - Freiwasser international
0 5 10 Kilometers
high, Natural
good, Natural
good, Heavily Modified
poor, Artificial
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
bad, Artificial
Unclassified, Natural
Unclassified, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
DEBW_1Natural, Good
ATOK1500100Natural, Good
DE2000
CH10
AT2000
98 of 129
Map 35 Potential transboundary lake water body between IE and UK (Lakes IEUK 1)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
IEUK_1 IE_NW_35_160 Melvin ( Lough )
IEUK_1.1 UKGBNI3NW0015 Lough Melvin East
IEUK_1.2 UKGBNI3NW0010 Lough Melvin Central
IEUK_2 IE_NW_36_673 Macnean Upper ( Lough )
IEUK_2.1 UKGBNI3NW0011 Upper Lough Macnean
IEUK_3 IE_NW_36_672L Erne (Lough) (Upper)
IEUK_3.1 UKGBNI3NW0008 Upper Lough Erne
0 5 10 Kilometers
high, Natural
good, Natural
good, Heavily Modified
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
poor, Artificial
bad, Artificial
Unclassified, Natural
Unclassified, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
IE_NW_35_160Natural, Moderate
UKGBNI3NW0015Natural, Good
UKGBNI3NW0010Natural, Good
UKGBNI3NW0011Natural, Good
IE_NW_36_673Natural, Moderate
UKGBNI3NW0008Heavily modified, Moderate
IE_NW_36_672LNatural, Moderate
GBNIIENW
GBNIIENW
UKGBNIIENW
99 of 129
Map 36 Potential transboundary lake water body between LT and PL (Lakes LTPL 1)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
LTPL_1 LT110030111 No name reported
LTPL_1.1 PLLW30611 Gaładuś
PL8000
LT1100
0 0.5 1 Kilometers
high, Natural
good, Natural
good, Heavily Modified
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
poor, Artificial
bad, Artificial
Unclassified, Natural
Unclassified, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary LT110030111Natural, High
PLLW30611Natural, Unclassified
100 of 129
Map 37 Potential transboundary lake water body between ES and PT (Lake ESPT_1)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
ESPT_1 ES010MSPFES480MAR002120 Embalse de Frieira
ESPT_1.1 PT01MIN0006I Rio Minho (HMWB - Jusante B. Frieira)
ESPT_2 ES010MSPFES511MAR002470 Embalse de Lindoso
ESPT_2.1 PT01LIM0032 Rio Lima (HMWB - Jusante B. Alto Lindoso)
ES010
PTRH1
0 2.5 5 Kilometers
high, Natural
good, Natural
good, Heavily Modified
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
poor, Artificial
bad, Artificial
Unclassified, Natural
Unclassified, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
ES010MSPFES480MAR002120Heavily modified, Moderate
ES010MSPFES511MAR002470Heavily modified, Good
PT01MIN0006IHeavily modified, Bad
PT01LIM0032Heavily modified, Good
101 of 129
Map 38 Potential transboundary lake water body between ES and PT (Lake ESPT3)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
ESPT_3 ES030MSPF1001020 Cedillo
ESPT_3.1 PT05TEJ0894 Albufeira Monte Fidalgo (Cedillo)
PTRH5
ES030
0 2.5 5 Kilometers
high, Natural
good, Natural
good, Heavily Modified
moderate, Natural
moderate, Heavily Modified
poor, Artificial
bad, Artificial
Unclassified, Natural
Unclassified, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
ES030MSPF1001020Heavily modified, Unclassified
PT05TEJ0894Heavily modified, Moderate
102 of 129
3. Transitional waters
The following table contains a list of the potential transboundary transitional water bodies identified by
the methods described in section 2. Some but not all of these have been illustrated on maps following
the Table. Each pair has been assigned an index with the “.1” designation indicating the second water
body in the pair.
The analysis and mapping has in many cases not definitively identified whether a pair is actually
transboundary or not. In some cases this is because it is not clear how the two water bodies relate to
each other. In other cases the GIS areas plotted on the map do not necessarily completely match
national borders and/or the boundaries of the adjacent water body area.
It is recommended, therefore, if this study is further developed that Member States are asked to
validate the list of potential pairs and identify which one are actually transboundary.
Table 11 Potential transboundary transitional water bodies
Index MS
RBD TWB Code Name Designation Ecological status
Confidence
1 BE BESchelde_VL BEVL08_43 ZEESCHELDE IV Heavily Modified
poor NI
1.1 NL NLSC nl89_westsde Westerschelde Heavily Modified
moderate NI
DENL_1 DE DE3000 DE_TW_T1.3000.01 Übergangsgewässer Ems (Leer bis Dollart)
Heavily Modified
bad medium
DENL_1.1 NL NLEM NL81_2 Eems-Dollard Heavily Modified
moderate NI
2 DE DE3000 DE_TW_T1.3990.01 Übergangsgewässer Ems-Ästuar
Heavily Modified
moderate medium
2.1 NL NLEM NL81_2 Eems-Dollard Heavily Modified
moderate NI
ES017MSPFES111T012010
BIDASOA Natural moderate High
3 ES ES015MSPFES111T012010
The code for this water body seems to have been misreported
3.1 FR FRF FRFT08 Estuaire Bidassoa Natural High NI
4 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000190
MARISMAS DE ISLA CRISTINA
Heavily Modified
good high
4.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1632I Guadiana-WB1 Natural good high
5 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000210
PUERTO DE LA LOJA Natural good high
5.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1603N Guadiana-WB3 Natural U NI
6 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000210
PUERTO DE LA LOJA Natural good high
6.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1603I Guadiana-WB3F Natural U NI
7 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000210
PUERTO DE LA LOJA Natural good high
7.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1629I Guadiana-WB2 Natural good high
8 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000200
SANLUCAR DE GUADIANA Natural good high
8.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1603I Guadiana-WB3F Natural U NI
9 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000200
SANLUCAR DE GUADIANA Natural good high
9.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1629I Guadiana-WB2 Natural good high
103 of 129
Index MS
RBD TWB Code Name Designation Ecological status
Confidence
10 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000200
SANLUCAR DE GUADIANA Natural good high
10.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1632I Guadiana-WB1 Natural good high
11 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000180
DESEMBOCADURA GUADIANA (AYAMONTE)
Natural good high
11.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1629I Guadiana-WB2 Natural good high
12 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000180
DESEMBOCADURA GUADIANA (AYAMONTE)
Natural good high
12.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1631 Guadiana-WB4 Natural good high
13 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000180
DESEMBOCADURA GUADIANA (AYAMONTE)
Natural good high
13.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1632I Guadiana-WB1 Natural good high
Coastal Water body
DEPL_1 DE DE6000 DE_CW_OD_01 Kleines Haff Natural poor high
DEPL_1.1 PL PL6000 PLTWIWB8 Zalew Szczecinski Heavily Modified
bad high
ESPT_1 ES ES010 ES010MSPFES505MAT000270
Estuario del Miño_tramo4 Natural U NI
ESPT_1.1 PT PTRH1 PT01MIN0018 Minho-WB2 Natural U NI
IEUK_1 IE GBNIIENW UKGBNI5NW250010
Foyle and Faughan Estuaries
Natural moderate NI
IEUK_1.1 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI5NW250010
Foyle and Faughan Estuaries
Heavily Modified
moderate NI
Key to Table:
ES Ecological status/potential
High High ecological status
Good Good ecological status/potential
Moderate Moderate ecological status/potential
Poor Poor ecological status/potential
Bad Bad ecological status/potential
U Unknown/unclassified status/potential
CON Confidence in the classification of status/potential
High High confidence
Medium Medium confidence
Low Low confidence
NI No information
104 of 129
Map 39 Potential transboundary transitional water body between BE and NL (Index TW1)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
1 BEVL08_43 ZEESCHELDE IV
1.1 nl89_westsde Westerschelde
105 of 129
Map 40 Potential transboundary transitional water body between DE and NL (Index TW2)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
2 DE_TW_T1.3990.01 Übergangsgewässer Ems-Ästuar
2.1 NL81_2 Eems-Dollard
DENL_1 DE_TW_T1.3000.01 Übergangsgewässer Ems (Leer bis Dollart)
DENL_1.1 NL81_2 Eems-Dollard
106 of 129
Map 41 Potential transboundary transitional water body between ES and PT (Index TW3)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body 4 ES040MSPF004000190 MARISMAS DE ISLA CRISTINA
4.1 PT07GUA1632I Guadiana-WB1
5 ES040MSPF004000210 PUERTO DE LA LOJA
5.1 PT07GUA1603N Guadiana-WB3
6 ES040MSPF004000210 PUERTO DE LA LOJA
6.1 PT07GUA1603I Guadiana-WB3F
7 ES040MSPF004000210 PUERTO DE LA LOJA
7.1 PT07GUA1629I Guadiana-WB2
8 ES040MSPF004000200 SANLUCAR DE GUADIANA
8.1 PT07GUA1603I Guadiana-WB3F
9 ES040MSPF004000200 SANLUCAR DE GUADIANA
9.1 PT07GUA1629I Guadiana-WB2
10 ES040MSPF004000200 SANLUCAR DE GUADIANA
10.1 PT07GUA1632I Guadiana-WB1
11 ES040MSPF004000180 DESEMBOCADURA GUADIANA (AYAMONTE)
11.1 PT07GUA1629I Guadiana-WB2
107 of 129
12 ES040MSPF004000180 DESEMBOCADURA GUADIANA (AYAMONTE)
12.1 PT07GUA1631 Guadiana-WB4
13 ES040MSPF004000180 DESEMBOCADURA GUADIANA (AYAMONTE)
13.1 PT07GUA1632I Guadiana-WB1
108 of 129
Map 42 Potential transboundary transitional water body between ES and FR (TW4)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
ES017MSPFES111T012010 BIDASOA
3 ES015MSPFES111T012010 Incorrect WB code reported with area file
3.1 FRFT08 Estuaire Bidassoa
Note that the map is not clear as ES and FR provided overlapping GIS area files for their respective
water bodies. The areas coloured yellow for ES are the parts of the water body which do not overlap.
ES
FR
0 0.5 1 Kilometers
International Transitional Waterbodies
Type, Status
Natural, High
Natural, Good
Natural, Moderate
Heavily Modified, Good
Heavily Modified, Moderate
Heavily Modified, Poor
Natural, Unclassified
International RBD boundary
ES017MSPFES111T012010Natural, Moderate Status
FRFT08Natural, High Status
109 of 129
Map 43 Potential transboundary transitional water body between DE and PL (Index TW5)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
DEPL_1 DE_CW_OD_01 (Coastal water body) Kleines Haff
DEPL_1.1 PLTWIWB8 (transitional water body) Zalew Szczeciński
DE
PL
PL
DE
PL
0 5 10 Kilometers
International Transitional Waterbodies
Status, Type
High, Natural
Good, Natural
Good, Heavily Modified
Moderate, Heavily Modified
Poor, Heavily Modified
Unclassified, Natural
Poor, Natural
Bad, Heavily Modified
International RBD boundary
110 of 129
Map 44 Potential transboundary transitional water body between IE and UK: Foyle and Faughan Estuaries (Index TW6)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
IEUK_1 UKGBNI5NW250010 Foyle and Faughan Estuaries
IEUK_1.1 UKGBNI5NW250010 Foyle and Faughan Estuaries
Note the water body code is shared between IE and UK
111 of 129
Map 45 Potential transboundary transitional water body between ES and PT (TW 7)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
ESPT_1 ES010MSPFES505MAT000270 Estuario del Miño_tramo4
ESPT_1.1 PT01MIN0018 Minho-WB2
PT
ES
0 0.5 1 Kilometers
International RBD boundary
International Transitional Waterbodies
Status, Type
High, Natural
Good, Natural
Good, Heavily Modified
Moderate, Heavily Modified
Poor, Heavily Modified
Unclassified, Natural
ES010MSPFES505MAT000270Natural, Unclassified status
PT01MIN0018Natural, Unclassified status
112 of 129
4. Coastal waters
The following table contains a list of the potential transboundary coastal water bodies identified by the
methods described in section 2. Some but not all of these have been illustrated on maps following the
Table. Each pair has been assigned an index with the “.1” designation indicating the second water
body in the pair.
The analysis and mapping has in many cases not definitively identified whether a pair is actually
transboundary or not. In some cases this is because it is not clear how the two water bodies relate to
each other. In other cases the GIS areas plotted on the map do not necessarily completely match
national borders and/or the boundaries of the adjacent water body area.
It is recommended therefore that if this study is further developed that Member States are asked to
validate the list of potential pairs and identify which one are actually transboundary.
Table 12 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies
Index
MS RBD EU Surface Water Body Code
Name Designation Ecological status
Confidence
1 BE BESchelde_VL
BEVL05_23 ZWIN Natural U NI
1.1 NL NLSC NL89_zwin Zwin Heavily Modified
poor NI
2 BE BESchelde_VL
BEVL05_23 ZWIN Natural U NI
2.1 NL NLSC NL95_1A Zeeuwse kust (kustwaterdeel) Natural moderate NI
4 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N0.3900 Küstenmeer Ems Natural U NI
4.1 NL NLEM NL95_5B Eems kust (territoriaal waterdeel)
Natural U NI
5 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N0.3990 Küstenmeer Ems-Ästuar Natural U NI
5.1 NL NLEM NL81_3 Eems-Dollard Kust Natural moderate NI
7 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N0.3990 Küstenmeer Ems-Ästuar Natural U NI
7.1 NL NLRN NL81_1 Waddenzee Natural poor NI
8 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N0.3990 Küstenmeer Ems-Ästuar Natural U NI
8.1 NL NLRN NL95_4A Waddenkust (kustwater) Natural moderate NI
9 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N1_3100_01
Euhalines offenes Küstengewässer der Ems
Natural moderate medium
9.1 NL NLEM NL95_5B Eems kust (territoriaal waterdeel)
Natural U NI
10 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N3_3990_01
Polyhalines offenes Küstengewässer des Ems-Ästuars
Natural moderate medium
10.1 NL NLEM NL81_3 Eems-Dollard Kust Natural moderate NI
11 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N3_3990_01
Polyhalines offenes Küstengewässer des Ems-Ästuars
Natural moderate medium
11.1 NL NLEM NL95_5B Eems kust (territoriaal waterdeel)
Natural U NI
12 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N3_3990_01
Polyhalines offenes Küstengewässer des Ems-Ästuars
Natural moderate medium
12.1 NL NLRN NL81_1 Waddenzee Natural poor NI
113 of 129
Index
MS RBD EU Surface Water Body Code
Name Designation Ecological status
Confidence
13 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N3_3990_01
Polyhalines offenes Küstengewässer des Ems-Ästuars
Natural moderate medium
13.1 NL NLRN NL95_4A Waddenkust (kustwater) Natural moderate NI
14 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N4_3100_01
Polyhalines Wattenmeer der Ems
Natural moderate medium
14.1 NL NLEM NL81_3 Eems-Dollard Kust Natural moderate NI
16 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000160
PLUMA DEL GUADIANA Natural good high
16.1 PT PTRH7 PTCOST19 Internacional Natural good high
17 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000170
ISLA CRISTINA Natural good high
17.1 PT PTRH7 PTCOST19 Internacional Natural good high
18 ES ES100 ES100MSPFC1 Portbou - Llançà Natural good high
18.1 FR FRD FRDC01 Frontière espagnole - Racou Plage
Natural moderate medium
19 FI FIVHA5 FI5_Pu_001 Kemi-Simo ulko Natural good medium
19.1 SE SE1 SE652400-223501 Norrbottens skärgårds kustvatten
Natural good low
20 FI FIVHA5 FI5_Pu_001 Kemi-Simo ulko Natural good medium
20.1 SE SE1TO SE653840-247900 Knivskärsfjärden Natural good low
21 FI FIVHA6 FI6_Ps_002 Röyttä sisä Natural moderate medium
21.1 SE SE1TO SE654560-246250 Haparandafjärden sek namn Natural moderate low
22 FI FIVHA6 FI6_Pu_001 Tornio ulko Natural good medium
22.1 SE SE1 SE652400-223501 Norrbottens skärgårds kustvatten
Natural good low
23 FI FIVHA6 FI6_Pu_001 Tornio ulko Natural good medium
23.1 SE SE1TO SE653840-247900 Knivskärsfjärden Natural good low
24 FI FIVHA6 FI6_Pu_001 Tornio ulko Natural good medium
24.1 SE SE1TO SE654130-249500 Katajafjärden Natural good low
25 FI FIVHA6 FI6_Pu_001 Tornio ulko Natural good medium
25.1 SE SE1TO SE654560-246250 Haparandafjärden sek namn Natural moderate low
26 FR FRD FRDC10c Monte Carlo- Frontière italienne Natural good low
26.1 IT ITC IT0700800801 Capo Mortola Natural U NI
27 IE GBNIIENB IE_NB_040_0000 Outer Dundalk Bay Natural moderate NI
27.1 UK UKGBNIIENB
UKGBNI6NB020 Mourne Coast Natural moderate NI
28 IE GBNIIENW IE_NW_230_0000 Northern Atlantic Seaboard (HAs 40;02)
Natural U NI
28.1 UK UKGBNIIENB
UKGBNI6NB010 Portstewart Bay Natural good NI
29 LT LT1100 LT100101200 Natural moderate medium
29.1 LV LVVUBA LVA Dienvidaustrumu atklatais akmenainais krasts
Natural poor medium
BGRO_1
BG BG2000 BG2BS000C001 Дуранкулак-н.Шабла Natural moderate low
BGRO_1.1
RO RO1000 ROCT02_B2 Eforie Nord - Vama Veche Natural moderate medium
IEUK_1
IE GBNIIENW UKGBNI6NW250 Lough Foyle Natural moderate NI
IEUK UK UKGBNIIEN UKGBNI6NW250 Lough Foyle Natural moderate NI
114 of 129
Index
MS RBD EU Surface Water Body Code
Name Designation Ecological status
Confidence
_1.1 W
Key to Table:
Ecological status/potential
High High ecological status
Good Good ecological status/potential
Moderate Moderate ecological status/potential
Poor Poor ecological status/potential
Bad Bad ecological status/potential
U Unknown/unclassified status/potential
CON Confidence in the classification of status/potential
High High confidence
Medium Medium confidence
Low Low confidence
NI No information
115 of 129
Map 46 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between BE and NL (Pair CW 1
see table above)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
1 BEVL05_23 ZWIN
1.1 NL89_zwin Zwin
BE
NL
0 0.25 0.5 Kilometers
International RBD boundary
STATUS, TYPE
Good, Natural
High, Natural
Moderate, Natural
Poor, Heavily Modified
Poor, Natural
Unclassified, Natural
BEVL05_23
NL89_zwin
116 of 129
Map 47 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between DE and NL (Pairs CW 4-8
see table above)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water
body
4 DE_CW_N0.3900 Küstenmeer Ems
4.1 NL95_5B Eems kust (territoriaal waterdeel)
5 DE_CW_N0.3900 Küstenmeer Ems
5.1 NL81_3 Eems-Dollard Kust
7 DE_CW_N0.3900 Küstenmeer Ems
7.1 NL81_1 'Waddenzee
8 DE_CW_N0.3900 Küstenmeer Ems
8.1 NL95_4A 'Waddenkust (kustwater)
NB: It is not clear from the alignment of the GIS area files of the coastal water bodies as to
which water bodies are transboundary and adjacent.
NL
DE
DK
0 10 20 Kilometers
International RBD boundary
STATUS, TYPE
Good, Natural
High, Natural
Moderate, Natural
Poor, Heavily Modified
Poor, Natural
Unclassified, Natural
DE_CW_N0.3900
NL95_5BStatus: Unclassified
Type: Natural
NL81_3Status: Moderate
Type: Natural
NL81_1
NL95_4A
117 of 129
Map 48 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between DE and NL (Pairs CW 9
see table above)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
9 DE_CW_N1_3100_01 'Euhalines offenes Küstengewässer der Ems
9.1 NL95_5B Eems kust (territoriaal waterdeel)
NB: It is not clear from the alignment of the GIS area files of the coastal water bodies as to
which water bodies are transboundary and adjacent. Note these water bodies are also mapped
in the previous Figure.
DE
NL
0 5 10 Kilometers
International RBD boundary
STATUS, TYPE
Good, Natural
High, Natural
Moderate, Natural
Poor, Heavily Modified
Poor, Natural
Unlcassified, Natural
DE_CW_N1_3100_01
NL95_5B
118 of 129
Map 49 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between DE and NL (Pairs CW 10-
14 see table above)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
10 DE_CW_N3_3990_01 Polyhalines offenes Küstengewässer des Ems-Ästuars
10.1 NL81_3 Eems-Dollard Kust
11 DE_CW_N3_3990_01 Polyhalines offenes Küstengewässer des Ems-Ästuars
11.1 NL95_5B Eems kust (territoriaal waterdeel)
12 DE_CW_N3_3990_01 Polyhalines offenes Küstengewässer des Ems-Ästuars
12.1 NL81_1 Waddenzee
13 DE_CW_N3_3990_01 Polyhalines offenes Küstengewässer des Ems-Ästuars
13.1 NL95_4A Waddenkust (kustwater)
14 DE_CW_N4_3100_01 Polyhalines Wattenmeer der Ems
14.1 NL81_3 Eems-Dollard Kust
NB: It is not clear from the alignment of the GIS area files of the coastal water bodies as to which water bodies are transboundary and adjacent. Note these water bodies are also mapped in the previous 2 Figures.
DE
NL
DE
0 10 20 Kilometers
International RBD boundary
STATUS, TYPE
Good, Natural
High, Natural
Moderate, Natural
Poor, Heavily Modified
Poor, Natural
Unlcassified, Natural
DE_CW_N3_3990_01Status: Moderate
Type: Natural
NL81_3Status: Moderate
Type: Natural
NL95_5BStatuts: Unclassified
Type: Natural
NL81_1
NL95_4A
119 of 129
Map 50 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between ES and PT (Pairs CW 17
see table above)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
ES040MSPF004000160 PLUMA DEL GUADIANA
17 ES040MSPF004000170 'ISLA CRISTINA
17.1 PTCOST19 'Internacional
Note the two water bodies areas for ES share the same area file – it is not clear which is
transboundary with PTCOST19.
ES
PT
0 1 2 Kilometers
International RBD boundary
STATUS, TYPE
Good, Natural
High, Natural
Moderate, Natural
Poor, Heavily Modified
Poor, Natural
Unlcassified, Natural
ES040MSPF004000170
PTCOST19
120 of 129
Map 51 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between ES and FR ( (Index CW18)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
18 ES100MSPFC1 Portbou - Llançà
18.1 FRDC01 Frontière espagnole - Racou Plage
ES
FR
0 1 2 Kilometers
International RBD boundary
STATUS, TYPE
Good, Natural
High, Natural
Moderate, Natural
Poor, Heavily Modified
Poor, Natural
Unlcassified, Natural
ES100MSPFC1
FRDC01
121 of 129
Map 52 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between FI and SE (Index CW19-20)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
19 FI5_Pu_001 Kemi-Simo ulko
19.1 SE652400-223501 Norrbottens skärgårds kustvatten
20 FI5_Pu_001 Kemi-Simo ulko
20.1 SE653840-247900 Knivskärsfjärden
Note it appears that the coastal water body from FI is adjacent to two from SE. A more detailed map is produced in the next Figure.
SE
FI
0 8 16 Kilometers
International RBD boundary
STATUS, TYPE
Good, Natural
High, Natural
Moderate, Natural
Poor, Heavily Modified
Poor, Natural
Unlcassified, Natural
FI5_Pu_001
SE652400-223501 SE653840-247900
122 of 129
Map 53 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between FI and SE (Index CW21)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
21 FI6_Ps_002 Röyttä sisä
21.1 SE654560-246250 Haparandafjärden sek namn
Note: The next adjacent water body south of FI_Ps_002 is FI_Ps_001 which shows a better
ecological status than the adjacent SE water body.
FISE
0 1 2 Kilometers
International RBD boundary
STATUS, TYPE
Good, Natural
High, Natural
Moderate, Natural
Poor, Heavily Modified
Poor, Natural
Unlcassified, Natural
FI6_Ps_002SE654560-246250
123 of 129
Map 54 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between FI and SE (Index CW 22-25)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
22 FI6_Pu_001 Tornio ulko
22.1 SE652400-223501 Norrbottens skärgårds kustvatten
23 FI6_Pu_001 Tornio ulko
23.1 SE653840-247900 Knivskärsfjärden
24 FI6_Pu_001 Tornio ulko
24.1 SE654130-249500 Katajafjärden
25 FI6_Pu_001 Tornio ulko
25.1 SE654560-246250 Haparandafjärden sek namn
SE
FI
FI
FI
0 10 20 Kilometers
International RBD boundary
STATUS, TYPE
Good, Natural
High, Natural
Moderate, Natural
Poor, Heavily Modified
Poor, Natural
Unlcassified, Natural
FI6_Pu_001
SE652400-223501
SE653840-247900Status: GoodType: Natural
SE654130-249500Status: GoodType: Natural
SE654560-246250
124 of 129
Map 55 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between FR and IT (Index CW 26)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
26 FRDC10c Monte Carlo- Frontière italienne
26.1 IT0700800801 Capo Mortola
FR
IT
MC
0 1 2 Kilometers
International RBD boundary
STATUS, TYPE
Good, Natural
High, Natural
Moderate, Natural
Poor, Heavily Modified
Poor, Natural
Unclassified, Natural
FRDC10c
IT0700800801
125 of 129
Map 56 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between IE and UK (Index CW27
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
27 IE_NB_040_0000 Outer Dundalk Bay
27.1 UKGBNI6NB020 Mourne Coast
UK
IE
0 2 4 Kilometers
International RBD boundary
STATUS, TYPE
Good, Natural
High, Natural
Moderate, Natural
Poor, Heavily Modified
Poor, Natural
Unlcassified, Natural
IE_NB_040_0000
UKGBNI6NB020
126 of 129
Map 57 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between IE and UK (Index CW28)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
28 IE_NW_230_0000 Northern Atlantic Seaboard (HAs 40;02)
28.1 UKGBNI6NB010 Portstewart Bay
IE
UK
UK
0 2 4 Kilometers
International RBD boundary
STATUS, TYPE
Good, Natural
High, Natural
Moderate, Natural
Poor, Heavily Modified
Poor, Natural
Unclassified, Natural
IE_NW_230_0000
UKGBNI6NB010
127 of 129
Map 58 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between LT and LV (Index CW29)
Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body
29 LT100101200 29.1 LVA Dienvidaustrumu atklatais akmenainais krasts
LV
LT
0 5 10 Kilometers
International RBD boundary
STATUS, TYPE
Good, Natural
High, Natural
Moderate, Natural
Poor, Heavily Modified
Poor, Natural
Unlcassified, Natural
LT100101200
LVA
128 of 129
Map 59 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between BG and RO
Water Body code Member State name of water body
'ROCT02_B2 'Eforie Nord - Vama Veche
BG2BS000C001 Дуранкулак-н.Шабла
RO
BG
0 5 10 Kilometers
International RBD boundary
STATUS, TYPE
Good, Natural
High, Natural
Moderate, Natural
Poor, Heavily Modified
Poor, Natural
Unlcassified, Natural
BG2BS000C001
ROCT02_B2
129 of 129
Annex B
Tables of potential transboundary river water
bodies with water body designation and
ecological status/potential
Note: because of its size this Annex is in a document separate from
this main document.
Please see “Task 2d_Annex_B.pdf”.
Top Related