Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
Final EU Overview Report
Service Contract 070201/2017/760013/SFRA/ENV.C.2.
March 2019
This report has been prepared by Milieu Consulting SPRL under Contract No 070201/2017/760013/SFRA/ENV.C.2.
The views expressed herein are those of the consultants alone and do not necessarily represent the official views of the European Commission.
Milieu Consulting SPRL (Belgium), Chaussee de Charleroi 112, B-1060 Brussels, tel.: +32 2 506 1000; e-mail: [email protected]; web address: www.milieu.be.
Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ...... 4
LIST OF FIGURES ...... 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 6
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 10 1.1 The Bathing Water Directive ...... 10 1.1.1 The quality of bathing water ...... 10 1.1.2 Microbiological pollution: a threat to human health ...... 10 1.1.3 The ‘new’ Bathing Water Directive ...... 12 1.1.4 Implementation of the Bathing Water Directive – a success story? ...... 12 1.2 Objective of this report And Methods Used ...... 13
2 ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE BATHING WATER DIRECTIVE ...... 15 2.1 Identification of bathing waters ...... 15 2.1.1 Number of bathing waters reported (2011-2016) ...... 15 2.1.2 Scope of application of the BWD and the definition of ‘large number’: law, guidance and practice ...... 19 2.1.3 Other lists of sites for bathing and relevant sites not identified as bathing waters ...... 21 2.1.4 Public consultation ...... 22 2.1.5 Conclusions ...... 23 2.2 Location of monitoring points ...... 24 2.2.1 Criteria for the location of monitoring points – law and guidance ...... 25 2.2.2 Monitoring practice – fixed points, revision of location and meaning of coordinates reported ...... 26 2.2.3 Information included in the bathing water profiles ...... 27 2.2.4 Conclusions ...... 28 2.3 Grouping of bathing waters ...... 29 2.3.1 Member States using groups in 2016 ...... 30 2.3.2 Concept of ‘groups’ – law, guidance and practice ...... 30 2.3.3 Conclusions ...... 35 2.4 Geographical constraints ...... 36 2.4.1 Practical application of the concept of ‘geographical constraints’ ...... 36 2.4.2 Conclusions ...... 39 2.5 Cyanobacteria ...... 40 2.5.1 Approaches to managing cyanobacteria proliferations ...... 40 2.5.2 Responses to cyanobacteria proliferations ...... 41
2.5.3 Information about cyanobacteria proliferations in bathing water profiles ...... 42 2.5.4 Conclusions ...... 44 2.6 Monitoring calendar ...... 45 2.6.1 Deviations from the monitoring calendar ...... 46 2.6.2 Number of samples reported per season ...... 48 2.6.3 Information included in the monitoring calendar ...... 49 2.6.4 Conclusions ...... 49 2.7 Analytical methods ...... 50 2.7.1 Method used to analyse samples ...... 50 2.7.2 Limits of Detection ...... 52 2.7.3 Conclusions ...... 54 2.8 Closed waters ...... 54 2.8.1 Conclusions ...... 55 2.9 Short-term pollution ...... 56 2.9.1 Definition of short-term pollution in national legislation ...... 56 2.9.2 Number of short-term pollution events reported in 2013-2016 ...... 57 2.9.3 Total duration of the short-term pollution events ...... 59 2.9.4 Use of the exception ...... 60 2.9.5 Means used to forecast short-term pollution and disseminate information ...... 61 2.9.6 Conclusions ...... 61 2.10 Abnormal situation ...... 62 2.10.1 Frequency of abnormal situation events ...... 62 2.10.2 Concept of ‘abnormal situations’ – law, guidance and practice 64 2.10.3 Means of informing the public ...... 65 2.10.4 Conclusions ...... 65 2.11 Management of poor quality waters ...... 66 2.11.1 Number of poor bathing waters ...... 66 2.11.2 Reasons for a poor classification ...... 68 2.11.3 Reopening a bathing water the year following a poor classification ...... 69 2.11.4 Measures to mitigate poor quality waters ...... 70 2.11.5 Impacts of Urban Waste Water Treatment ...... 71 2.11.6 Conclusions ...... 74 2.12 Public information ...... 75 2.12.1 National bathing water quality website ...... 76 2.12.2 Bathing water profiles ...... 77 2.12.3 Information in the vicinity of bathing waters ...... 78 2.12.4 Conclusions ...... 79
3 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS ...... 81
ANNEX I – LIST OF BATHING WATERS ASSESSED (ALL MEMBER STATES) ...... 83
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: THE MEANING OF ‘LARGE NUMBER’ IN DIFFERENT MEMBER STATES ...... 19 TABLE 2: OTHER CRITERIA AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR IDENTIFYING BATHING WATERS20 TABLE 3: OTHER LISTS OF SITES FOR BATHING ...... 21 TABLE 4: POSSIBLE ADDITIONS TO THE LIST OF BATHING WATERS IN MEMBER STATES .... 22 TABLE 5: GROUPED BATHING WATERS PER YEAR IN MEMBER STATES (2013-2016)...... 30 TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF ISSUES WITH GROUPS: NUMBER OF BATHING WATERS WITHIN A GROUP WITH DIFFERENT BATHING SEASON START/END DATES OR CLASSIFICATIONS .. 31 TABLE 7: NATIONAL APPROACHES TO MANAGE CYANOBACTERIA PROLIFERATIONS. 40 TABLE 8: INFORMATION ABOUT CYANOBACTERIA PROLIFERATION IN BATHING WATER PROFILES ...... 42 TABLE 9: REASONS FOR CLOSED BATHING WATERS ...... 55 TABLE 10: NUMBER OF STP EVENTS 2013-2016 ...... 57 TABLE 11: LONGEST STP EVENT IN 2016, BY MEMBER STATE ...... 59 TABLE 12: SOURCES OF POLLUTION TYPICALLY CAUSING STP EVENTS ...... 60 TABLE 13: INSTANCES OF ‘ABNORMAL SITUATIONS’ 2013-2016 ...... 62 TABLE 14: MEMBER STATES THAT REPORTED ABNORMAL SITUATIONS IN 2016...... 63 TABLE 15: CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE ‘ABNORMAL SITUATIONS’ WERE REPORTED IN THE PAST...... 64 TABLE 16: REOPENING A BATHING WATER THE YEAR FOLLOWING A POOR CLASSIFICATION ...... 70 TABLE 17: PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE BWD ...... 75
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: CHANGE IN TOTAL NUMBER OF BATHING WATERS BETWEEN 2011 AND 2016 ...... 16 FIGURE 2: PERCENTAGE OF MEMBER STATES USING A FORMAL CONSULTATION PROCEDURE ...... 23 FIGURE 3: OPTION USED BY MEMBER STATES TO IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE MONITORING POINTS ...... 25 FIGURE 4: MEANING OF COORDINATES REPORTED TO THE EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY ...... 26 FIGURE 5: INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THE BATHING PROFILES ON MONITORING POINTS ...... 27 FIGURE 6: MAP INCLUDED IN THE BATHING PROFILE FOR IRAKLI – BOATA (BG) ...... 28 FIGURE 7: LOCATION OF THE GERMAN BATHING WATERS EINFELDER SEE, MINIGOLFPLATZ AND EINFELDER SEE, SCHANZE GROUPED UNDER DESH_PR_NMS_G001 ...... 32 FIGURE 8: HUNGARY’S PLATÁN STRAND - HUBW_01506 AND KODÁLY UTCAI STRAND - HUBW_01507, PART OF GROUP HUBW_G1507 (EEA MAP VIEWER) ...... 33 FIGURE 9: HUNGARY’S HUSZKA UTCAI STRAND – HUBW_01553 AND BÁTHORI UTCAI STRAND – HUBW_01552, PART OF THE GROUP HUBW G1552 (EEA MAP VIEWER) ...... 33 FIGURE 10: BATHING WATER ‘CENTRO SPIAGGIA SERAPO’ (IT012059009006) IN GAETA, ITALY ...... 34 FIGURE 11: MAP INDICATING GROUPED BATHING WATERS ON LUXEMBOURG’S LAC DE LA HAUTE-SURE ...... 34 FIGURE 12: BATHING WATERS INGRINA AND ZAVIAL, PORTUGAL ...... 35
FIGURE 13: NATURBAD WINTERLINGEN, GERMANY...... 37 FIGURE 14: FAIAL ISLAND, PORTUGAL ...... 38 FIGURE 15: ISLAS CIES AND ISLA DE ONS, SPAIN ...... 39 FIGURE 16: RESPONSES TO CYANOBACTERIA PROLIFERATIONS ...... 41 FIGURE 17: LEAFLET ON CYANOBACTERIA AVAILABLE ONLINE AT THE WEBSITE OF BELGIUM’S WALLOON REGION ...... 43 FIGURE 18: PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL BATHING WATERS AFFECTED BY MONITORING PROBLEMS (AVERAGE 2013-2016) ...... 47 FIGURE 19: PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL BATHING WATERS AFFECTED BY MONITORING PROBLEMS IN 2016 ...... 48 FIGURE 20: AVERAGE NUMBER OF SAMPLES PER BATHING WATER REPORTED IN 2016 49 FIGURE 21 AND FIGURE 22: METHODS USED FOR THE ANALYSIS OF INTESTINAL ENTEROCOCCI AND E. COLI, AS REPORTED BY MEMBER STATE AUTHORITIES ...... 51 FIGURE 23: LOD REPORTED FOR THE ANALYSIS OF INTESTINAL ENTEROCOCCI ...... 53 FIGURE 24: LOD REPORTED FOR THE ANALYSIS OF E.COLI ...... 53 FIGURE 25: PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL BATHING WATERS AFFECTED BY STP IN 2016...... 59 FIGURE 26: PERCENTAGE OF BATHING WATERS AFFECTED BY ABNORMAL SITUATIONS (2013-2016) ...... 64 FIGURE 27: PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL BATHING WATERS CLASSIFIED AS POOR IN 2016 .. 67 FIGURE 28: NUMBER OF POOR QUALITY BATHING WATERS IN 2013-2016 ...... 68 FIGURE 29: CAUSES OF POOR CLASSIFICATION ...... 69 FIGURE 30: POOR BATHING WATERS NEAR NON-COMPLIANT URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS IN THE UK ...... 72 FIGURE 31: A POOR BATHING WATER DOWNSTREAM FROM TWO NON-COMPLIANT URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS IN FRANCE ...... 72 FIGURE 32: A POOR BATHING WATER DOWNSTREAM FROM A NON-COMPLIANT URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT IN ITALY ...... 73 FIGURE 33: POOR BATHING WATER NEAR NON-COMPLIANT URBAN WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT IN SPAIN ...... 74 FIGURE 34: BILINGUAL SIGNAGE IN SLOVENIA (REGIONS WITH LINGUISTIC MINORITIES) ...... 79
EU Overview Report / 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this report is to present a ‘reality check’ of the implementation of the Bathing Water Directive (BWD) in the EU, focusing on identifying practical challenges linked to the monitoring and assessment of bathing waters. The research focused on the officially reported data, together with other national and local sources of information (e.g. the accompanying document to the datasets reported to the latest European Environment Agency (EEA), bathing water profiles, national water quality websites, the input from competent authorities and stakeholders). These issues were not necessarily assessed for all Member States. Rather, the latest EEA datasets available at the date of beginning of the assessment (2016) were used to identify the most relevant practical issues for each Member State. This report builds on the findings and conclusions of the Member State reports prepared during earlier stages of the project.
The ways in which Member States identify bathing waters can be problematic, with this research suggesting that there might be several waters which meet the requirements of the Directive yet are not identified as bathing waters. While this does not appear to be related to Member State transposition of the BWD, it may reflect the application in practice of the concept of ‘large number’ of bathers, which is a criterion for identifying bathing waters that fall within the scope of the Directive. Only a minority of Member States have defined ‘large number’ by providing a reference number of bathers, varying between 10 and 300. The remainder rely on their local authorities to determine whether a large number of bathers is expected. In addition, several Member States apply other criteria from national legislation, guidance or local practice, which must also be taken into account in identifying a bathing water. These criteria are of a different nature and appear to have different implications for the bathing waters identified. The financial costs related to the proper implementation of the Directive seem to play an important role in identification of bathing waters in several Member States and may sometimes lead to under-identification of bathing waters. Finally, not all Member States require the effective participation of the public, as set out under the Directive. Even where such participation is required by law, problems can arise in practice. In several cases, public participation is limited to the publication (online) of the list of bathing waters, together with an option for comments, which raises questions as to public awareness of this option, and the degree to which such opinions are taken into account, as also required by the BWD.
The manner in which Member States select and report the location of their monitoring points is generally in line with the Directive’s requirements. Member States appear to follow the rules of the BWD and carry out monitoring at least in one of the two alternatives set out in the Directive: the location within the bathing water where most bathers are expected; or the location where the greatest risk of pollution is expected. In more than half of the Member States, both options can be used. In other Member States, the option for the location where most bathers are expected is clearly preferred. In the absence of a definition in the Directive, Member States’ interpretations of the scope of options vary. Thus, the location where ‘most bathers are expected’ is determined, for example, through local knowledge, proximity to relevant infrastructure, reference to the entry to the beach, with some of these criteria clearer than others. The reasons determining the exact location of the monitoring point are rarely explained by Member States, however. Similarly, the level of detail included in the bathing water profiles on the location of the monitoring points varies considerably from one Member State to the next, although geographical coordinates and maps/aerial photos are almost always provided. The location of the monitoring point is usually fixed and reviewed where justified by changes in the local circumstances or reported to the EEA/European Commission.
The option to group bathing waters is rarely used by Member States. In the 2016 season, little more than one-third of Member States grouped bathing waters, with the numbers being very small in five of those that used that option. While Member States report to the EEA/Commission those of their bathing waters that are grouped, this information is not always available at national level, i.e. on the water quality website or in the bathing water profiles. Of the three criteria set in the BWD for grouping bathing
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 7 waters (i.e. contiguity, similar assessments and common risk factors), the first appears to be most problematic. The BWD does not define contiguity, leaving considerable room for different interpretations by Member States. In practice, half of the Member States analysed exhibited possible contiguity issues, particularly with respect to the existence of physical separation elements. In the absence of a common definition, some of these elements may be more visible than others, given the differences in scale and origin. These elements include natural elements (headlands or rivers winding around several curves) and man-made elements (piers, harbours, jetties, pontoons or breakwaters). The fact that Member States rarely explain their reasons for grouping specific bathing waters (either in the bathing water profiles or in the datasets reported to the EEA/Commission) further complicates this understanding.
The ‘special geographical constraints’ exception is little used by Member States. In the 2016 season, only three Member States invoked this exception, with two using it for only a single bathing water. The Directive does not define ‘special geographical constraints’, and this research suggests that Member States interpret this to cover a variety of situations. Only one of the three Member States using this exception specified the ‘special geographical constraints’ in the bathing water profiles. However, the use of this exception in the 2016 season is not concerning as, in all cases, at least four samples were collected throughout the season, i.e. the standard number of samples required in the absence of the exception.
Cyanobacteria proliferation does not affect all Member States. Even in some of the Member States where it does occur, it does not happen on a large scale. Member States are evenly split in terms of whether they take a consistent national approach or a case-by-case approach to monitoring and responding to cyanobacteria proliferations, with the latter favoured by Member States that consider there is less risk of an outbreak. When asked to identify their measures for preventing exposure to cyanobacteria, public information was the most common management measure reported by Member States. However, information on cyanobacteria proliferation is a relatively common gap in bathing water profiles. Where information is provided on the assessment of potential for cyanobacteria proliferations, it can lack detail. On the other hand, bathing water profiles similarly omit the information that there is no risk of cyanobacterial proliferation.
In most cases, no significant problems were identified with the monitoring calendar: almost all bathing waters report a pre-season sample, have a sufficient number of samples per season, and do not have an interval greater than one month and four days between samples. The data also show that the problems each year appear to be declining, which suggests that steps are in place to improve problem areas. It appears that non-compliance can stem from unforeseeable weather or short-term pollution (STP) events that prevent monitoring. It should be noted that the monitoring calendar is not reported to the EEA/European Commission and thus cannot be checked against the samples reported. This means that, even if sampling is undertaken in accordance with the Directive, there may be instances of non- compliance where the monitoring calendar is more stringent than that of the Directive.
With regard to analytical methods, the research concluded that most Member States use reference methods to test E. coli and Intestinal enterococci levels. Many Member States use more than one method, usually due to laboratory differences. The research was less conclusive about the effects of using different Limits of Detection (LODs), of which several different versions are used, even within a single Member State. While data should not be reported lower than the LOD (as this may have implications on the overall classification of a bathing water), the research nonetheless identified several instances where this may be the case. Further research is required to confirm this.
Only one-third of Member States were identified as having closed bathing waters for public use in 2016 that were not classified as poor in 2015, with just two reporting a significant number of such closures. The closures appeared justified, although information was at times, hard to find.
Short-term pollution (STP) was reported in roughly two-thirds of the Member States, ranging from
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 8 isolated incidents that lasted only a very short period, to bathing waters affected for more than 20% of the total bathing season. Generally, most bathing waters are not affected more than once per season. Most STP events last longer than the 72 hours recommended by the Directive, however, this may relate how quickly new samples can be analysed to confirm the end of an STP event. This research shows that the most common cause of STP is heavy rain, although birds, animals, and humans can also trigger an STP event. Most Member States do not have a system in place to predict such events, however. Member States take different approaches to defining an STP event, with some having a systematic approach to identifying and recording an STP event, and others taking a more case-by-case approach. The public are usually informed of such events by local media but may also be warned by signs in the vicinity of the bathing water or mobile phone apps. However, there is concern that the mitigation measures put in place to deal with these situations are neither adequately developed nor disseminated to the public.
The ‘abnormal situation’ exception is not often used by Member States. In the 2016 season, little more than one-third of Member States reported abnormal situations, with only one case where figures could be considered high. Analysis of the abnormal situations reported by the same Member States during 2013-2016 shows that the total figures could be considered high in five of those. In addition, abnormal situations were reported more than once for the same bathing water during this period in five of the Member States concerned. The main problems seem to be identification (i.e. the circumstances that fall under this concept) and reporting (i.e. providing justifications to the EEA/Commission) of abnormal situations. The BWD definition is broad and has not been further specified or refined at national level. An analysis of Member States’ practices shows that abnormal situations encompass a wide variety of events. Despite the definition in the Directive which refers to events impacting on bathing water quality, in practice, ‘abnormal situations’ are also understood as events when bathing and monitoring is not possible. The means used to inform the public about the occurrence of abnormal situations typically include both the bathing water quality website and signs in the vicinity of the bathing water, and are thus considered adequate.
In general, the number of poor quality bathing waters is decreasing throughout the EU. The main cause of poor quality (as identified by both competent authorities and stakeholders) is poor sewerage collection and treatment. This research did not always find an obvious relationship between poor quality waters and non-compliant agglomerations. In several Member States the causes of poor water quality, and the subsequent mitigation measures, are clearly set out in a way that is both easily accessible to the public and easily measurable (e.g. more rubbish bins in the vicinity of the beach, etc.). In other Member States, the causes of poor water quality and mitigation measures are less clear. The provision in the Directive requiring Member States to impose a bathing prohibition or advice against bathing in the season following a poor classification is not applied consistently throughout the EU. In a few Member States, it appears that bathing waters continue to be used for bathing, either officially or unofficially, without any evidence of such restrictions.
In general, efforts to inform the public on bathing water quality were noted across the Member States. All Member States use the Internet to provide information to the public (as required by the BWD). In some cases, information is spread across multiple websites, making access more difficult, while in others, the information is provided via regional websites, often with different levels of detail. In several cases, not all relevant information is provided online. Most of the Member States have publicly available profiles for the vast majority of their bathing waters. However, bathing profiles for certain regions of the country were not always available, were difficult to access on the national website, or were incomplete. The majority of Member States appear to revise the profiles in line with the requirements of the Directive, but serious issues were observed in two Member States. According to the information provided by stakeholders, most of the Member States provide information in the vicinity of the bathing waters. Problems highlighted included the inadequacy of the information provided to the general public, incomplete and inconsistent information across regions or, more seriously, the lack of any information.
Overall, the research found that in many cases, issues were either insignificant or problematic in only certain Member States. However, several broader issues were also apparent, such as the identification
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 9 of bathing waters, assessment and management of cyanobacteria, identification of abnormal situations, management of STP events, the management of poor waters and public information. The problems identified could be solved - or at least mitigated - through actions adopted at Member State and EU level. For instance, Member States should improve the scope and quality of the information disseminated to the general public via the different means (website, profiles, in the vicinity of bathing waters) and reported to the EEA and the Commission (e.g. including justification of the options used/actions taken). At EU level, collection and sharing of good practice among Member States could improve bathing water quality overall.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 10
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 THE BATHING WATER DIRECTIVE
1.1.1 The quality of bathing water
‘During the summer of 1973 […], I went on a family holiday to Cornwall. I have many vivid memories from that trip and like many abiding recollections some of the most powerful came from smell. As I bobbed about one day in the surf by the mouth of a little river on Porth Beach near Newquay there was a pungent aroma coming from the water. I didn’t know what the smell was but my grandmother found out, by collecting mussels from the rocks. That evening back at our holiday house she cooked them and after eating her newly harvested shellfish soon became violently sick – because the smell in the water was sewage.’1
Four decades ago (and even long after that in some Member States), it was common practice across Europe to discharge raw or partially treated sewage into surface and coastal waters, regardless of the danger to human and ecosystem health. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, high nutrient loads, from both the influx of untreated/insufficiently treated waste water and urban and agricultural run-off, resulted in widespread algae bloom in the Mediterranean, the Adriatic, and the Black Seas, clogging coastal waters to the point that swimming was not possible2. Faced with a growing tourism industry, increased awareness of threats to human health and concerns about the environment, in 1976 the EU adopted the first Bathing Water Directive (BWD, 76/160/EEC). The overall ambition was to improve bathing water quality within ten years, for public health reasons. The legislation pointed to the microbial contamination of water as posing the highest risk to achieving and maintaining adequate bathing water quality and defined limit values for 19 physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. Some of these values were Imperative (I) and some were considered desirable targets or Guideline (G) values. In addition, the Directive established monitoring standards, specifically sampling frequencies and reference methods for analysis3.
Following implementation of the 1976 BWD, bathing water quality improved across Europe, particularly in coastal waters, as evidenced by the annual reports published by the EEA. Despite these achievements, the legislation was criticised for being too technical and outdated, both in terms of its scientific basis (e.g. some of the parameters were obsolete or no longer relevant for monitoring or describing water quality) and its management approach4. In response, the Communication on developing a new bathing water policy was drafted, with a view to reviewing and updating the BWD. It stated that ‘[…] it has become clear that the issue of bathing water quality was not just a matter of “product control” but of real quality management and quality assurance’ (p. 3). A proposal for a revised BWD (2006/7/EC) was adopted in 2002 and came into force in 2006, eventually replacing the 1976 BWD in 2014.
1.1.2 Microbiological pollution: a threat to human health
The BWD is intended to protect human health from microbial risks by preserving, protecting and improving the quality of surface waters commonly used for bathing. With an increase in the recreational use of inland and marine waters in Europe (and indeed many countries worldwide), there is increased
1 Juniper, T. Europe, the Environment and the Smell of 1973, Huffington Post, UK, 12 April 2017, available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tony-juniper/europe-the-environment-an_b_9659420.html 2 Novotny, V. Water quality: Diffuse pollution and watershed management, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA, 2003. 3 European Environment Agency, European bathing water quality in 2015. EEA Report No 9/2016, 2016, available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-bathing-water-quality-2015 4 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Developing a new Bathing Water policy, COM/2000/0860 final.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 11 pressure to identify the hazards associated with the recreational use of coastal and freshwater environments, and to understand and mitigate their impacts on human health. There is a multitude of physical (e.g. cold, heat, other users, dangerous aquatic organisms), and chemical (contamination of beach sand, contamination by chemical and physical agents) hazards to human health, but it is microbial hazards that are at the core of bathing water policy and science5.
Bathing waters generally contain a mixture of pathogenic and non-pathogenic micro-organisms, such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa. These may cause gastrointestinal infections following ingestion or through body contact, e.g. by bathing in contaminated water. Gastrointestinal infections may not be the only outcome of coming in contact with contaminated water; other common health impacts include infections of the upper respiratory tract, ears, eyes, nasal cavity and skin, and may even include cholera, typhoid and hepatitis. The most commonly found type of pollution is faecal contamination.
The main sources of contamination include5:
◼ Pollution from sewage: sewage continues to cause bacterial contamination in some coastal zones as a result of waste water that is collected but discharged without treatment, sewage system failures, insufficiently treated waste water or pollution from storm water overflows. ◼ Diffuse pollution from agricultural land: run-off from farms may carry high nutrient loads, such as nitrates and phosphorus. In addition, the inadequate storage of manure or slurry may result in the pollution of rivers and eventually impact on water quality in downstream bathing water. The problem can be exacerbated through heavy rain flooding of nearby pastures, resulting in contaminated water in nearby bathing areas. ◼ Recreational population using the water: water users can also increase microbiological pollution of the water from defecation and/or shedding. ◼ Livestock, domestic animals and wildlife: animal faeces contains high levels of bacteria and can contribute to bathing water pollution if livestock, domestic animals, birds or other wildlife are maintained on or near local beaches. ◼ Poor sanitation infrastructure: individual or other sanitation systems that are poorly maintained or do not provide a sufficient level of environmental protection (e.g. cesspits or septic tanks) may result in untreated waste water directly entering streams and subsequently reaching nearby bathing waters. Misconnected drains and plumbing can similarly contribute to water quality deterioration.
In addition to the health threats posed by faecal contamination, there are naturally occurring micro- organisms that can be harmful to recreational water users5.
The presence of human or animal faeces in water is commonly detected by monitoring several faecal index bacteria, including faecal streptococci/intestinal enterococci and coliphages (viruses of the bacterium Escherichia coli). Although not all of these bacteria cause the health impacts described earlier, they nevertheless indicate the pollution of water through faeces and therefore the likely presence of pathogenic or microbiological organisms (such as noroviruses or campylobacteria), which are typically found in sewage or run-off from agricultural land3,5.
As the brief description of the causes of bathing water pollution illustrates, water quality is significantly influenced by the interaction between land and water. Any approach to protecting, improving and maintaining bathing waters in a state adequate for human use thus needs to go beyond the mere monitoring of quality parameters and target the integrated assessment and management of bathing waters and the land and water uses that potentially impact on their quality.
5 World Health Organization, Guidelines for safe recreational water environments. Vol 1: Coastal and fresh waters. WHO, Geneva, 2003, available at: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/srwe1/en/
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 12
1.1.3 The ‘new’ Bathing Water Directive
The ‘new’ BWD (2006/7/EC) entered into force on 24 March 2006. Until the 2011 bathing season, Member States were free to report under either the old or new BWD. From the start of the 2012 bathing season, reporting under the new Bathing Water Directive become mandatory (the first classification based on the new BWD was to be completed by the end of the 2015 bathing season, using data for the 2012-2015 period)6. Briefly, the 2006 BWD establishes a system for long-term quality assessment and management methods to reduce both monitoring frequency and monitoring costs. It applies to any element of surface water where the competent authority expects a large number of people to bathe and has not imposed a permanent bathing prohibition or issued permanent advice against bathing (Article 1, para 3). It includes inland and coastal waters and formulates separate quality standards for these two bathing water categories. Compared to the previous BWD, it reduces the number of quality parameters to be monitored whilst imposing more stringent limit values. The Directive stipulates better communication to the public and includes four quality categories for bathing waters: 'poor', 'sufficient', 'good' and 'excellent'. The Directive also requires bathing water profiles to be drawn up, describing the bathing waters, their potential impacts and threats to water quality. The likelihood of a degradation of bathing water quality due to storms, water shortages or one-off incidents (and the expected consequences on human health, etc.) needs to be demonstrated and a contingency plan proposed. The management of bathing waters should also be coordinated with other relevant water directives, especially the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC, WFD), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC, MSFD) and the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC, UWWTD).
1.1.4 Implementation of the Bathing Water Directive – a success story?
In 2017, the EU-28, together with Albania and Switzerland, provided data on bathing water quality for around 21,800 sites, a sample of which were included in the most recent EEA report on trends in bathing water and bathing water quality. This subset of bathing water sites has been classified each year from 1991 to 2017, usefully illustrating the following trends over that period3:
◼ In 1991, 56% of bathing water sites were classified as ‘excellent quality’, compared to 85% in 2017. ◼ In 2017, less than 1.5% of sites reported poor water quality, were closed or lacked adequate monitoring, compared to 25% of all sites failing to comply with the minimum standards at the beginning of the 1990s.
The BWD (in both its old and new versions) has thus been highly successful in improving bathing water quality across Europe and reducing detrimental impacts on human health. The EU water legislation is generally viewed as representing a crucial advance on previously existing national laws. In addition, it ‘triggered’ the establishment and improvement of monitoring programmes, the opening up of administrative structures, and made Member State governments more accountable to the public in respect of these resources7.
Despite the success of the BWD, significant problems remain in its implementation by Member States. Anecdotal evidence from reports and other related sources, as well as analysis of the datasets, highlights several implementation issues. The ambiguity of terms such as ‘a large number of bathers’ or ‘special geographical constraints’ leave the development of such definitions to the discretion of the Member States. Experience from the implementation of the BWD demonstrates that, despite efforts to develop, communicate and implement a common understanding of the monitoring and assessment provisions of the Directive, differences exist in the interpretation and implementation of the provisions. In addition,
6 European Environment Agency, Bathing Water Quality, 2017, available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-bathing-water-quality-in-2017 7 Kallis, G. and Butler, D., The EU water framework directive: measures and Implications. Water Policy 3, 2001, pp. 125- 142.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 13 there is insufficient macro-level understanding of the current practices in Member State, including how monitoring is carried out, how reports/data are compiled, particular problems in monitoring, assessment and reporting, and, finally, possible simplification or clarification of the process.
1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THIS REPORT AND METHODS USED
The objective of this report is to present a ‘reality check’ of the implementation of the BWD in the EU, focusing on identifying practical challenges linked to the monitoring and assessment of bathing waters, using both the officially reported data and other national and local sources of information. An initial list of issues to be assessed was provided in the technical specifications for this project. This list was revised following discussions with DG Environment and EU level stakeholders, and the review of relevant literature. The final list of issues was developed (taking account of data availability and the possibility of conducting systematic and automated assessments) and agreed with DG Environment:
◼ Identification of bathing waters; ◼ Location of monitoring points; ◼ Grouping of bathing waters; ◼ Geographical constraints; ◼ Cyanobacteria; ◼ Monitoring calendar; ◼ Analytical methods; ◼ Closed waters; ◼ Short-term pollution (STP); ◼ Abnormal situation; ◼ Management of poor quality waters; ◼ Public information.
These issues were not all assessed for all Member States. Rather, the latest EEA datasets (i.e. those available in 2016 when the assessment began) were used to identify the most relevant practical issues for each Member State. With the exception of identification of bathing waters and monitoring calendar - the two key obligations of the Directive and for which an assessment was always made - assessments were carried out where the datasets showed a certain issue to be relevant in a Member State. For example, where the data showed no groups of bathing waters in a Member State, this issue was not analysed in that Member State. On the other hand, where the data showed such groups, they were all analysed to the extent possible in that Member State. As the data reported to EEA allow only limited conclusions on the national relevance of four issues – location of monitoring points, analytical methods, cyanobacteria and public information – an assessment of these issues was carried out for all Member States.
Each of the issues had an associated research question. Taking into account the sources available, an assessment methodology was developed, together with specific assessment indicators, to try to answer each research question. To facilitate systematic and (where possible) automated assessments, the datasets available at EEA were used as the key source of information. This allowed a more problem- focused analysis and more objective conclusions, based on quantitative indicators developed for most of the issues covered in the datasets. Complementary qualitative indicators were also developed, which relied on other types of data, such as the accompanying document to the datasets, bathing water profiles or national water quality websites, and the input of competent authorities and stakeholders. These indicators were used to close possible data gaps encountered in the assessment, i.e. where no (or insufficient) conclusions could be drawn from the information in the EEA datasets. The assessment of the remaining issues (location of monitoring points, cyanobacteria, analytical methods, closed waters, management of poor quality waters, and public information) could not be based on the datasets reported to the EEA, either because the current reporting template does not cover these topics or because the data reported does not allow for any conclusive assessment. Here, the assessment was based solely on
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 14 qualitative indicators.
The assessment period in the BWD corresponds to four seasons. For this reason, the period 2013-2016 – the last assessment period for which a complete data set corresponding to the requirements of the new BWD was available8 – was used as the reference period for most9 of the quantitative indicators that used the datasets reported to EEA. For the assessment of the qualitative indicators, 2016 was used as the reference year. This is justified by the type of analysis required for the assessment of these indicators (mostly manual, requiring bathing water-specific research) as opposed to the type of analysis required for the assessment of quantitative indicators (mostly automated, using Excel formulas and other functions).
Where an issue was deemed relevant for a certain Member State, the quantitative assessment covered all relevant bathing waters. For the qualitative assessment, however, this was not always possible due to the type of analysis involved. Where necessary – and solely for the qualitative indicators that require the review of specific bathing water profiles - the analysis focused on a sample of bathing waters agreed with DG Environment (see Annex I for the list of the bathing waters analysed).
8 EEA data for a particular season is available from May the following year. The assessments for this report were started late 2017/early 2018, before the 2017 data were available. 9 The exception to this rule is the analysis of the number of bathing waters over time. Here, the numbers from 2011 to 2016 were compared in order to get a more accurate analysis.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 15
2 ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE BATHING WATER DIRECTIVE
2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF BATHING WATERS
According to Article 1(3) of the BWD, a bathing water is ‘any element of surface water where the competent authority expects a large number of people to bathe and has not imposed a permanent bathing prohibition, or issued permanent advice against bathing’. Article 2(4) further states that ‘Large number’ means, in relation to bathers, a number that the competent authority considers to be large, having regard to past trends or to any infrastructure or facilities provided, or other measures taken to promote bathing. Article 11 requires Member States to ensure the provision of opportunities for the participation of the public in the establishment, review and updating of their lists of bathing waters.
The purpose of this section is to determine whether Member States identify all relevant waters (i.e. those effectively used by a significant number of bathers) as bathing waters. This includes investigating whether there are:
◼ variances in the number of bathing waters reported by Member States (period 2011-2016); ◼ national provisions transposing the scope of the BWD (Article 1(3)) and the definition of ‘large number’ (Article 2(4)); ◼ guidance documents (additional criteria or specification) on the identification of bathing waters in line with the BWD; ◼ differences between national lists of bathing sites and the bathing waters reported to the European Commission in 2016; ◼ waters that meet the requirements in national law but are not included in the list of bathing waters reported to the European Commission in 2016; ◼ lists of bathing waters being subject to public consultation.
A range of sources were used to answer these questions, including data reported to the EEA, a review of national legislation and policy, desk research, interviews with stakeholders and questionnaires completed by Member State authorities. This issue was analysed for all Member States.
2.1.1 Number of bathing waters reported (2011-2016)
During 2011-2016, the number of bathing waters reported by Member States remained quite stable in most cases10. The largest increases occurred in Croatia (from 910 to 980), Latvia (48 to 56) and Portugal (517 to 580). The largest decreases occurred in Denmark (from 1,185 to 1,036), Czechia (186 to 157), Greece (2,155 to 1,542), Finland (331 to 302), Luxembourg (20 to 11) and Poland (401 to 267). The competent authorities of these Member States provided comments on the decreases, as discussed below. Figure 1 below represents the percentage changes in total bathing waters between 2011-2016.
10 In Croatia, Czechia France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain, the number of identified bathing water sites reported in the EEA dataset does not match the number of bathing water sites in the EEA annual reports. This discrepancy seems to stem from the fact that the identified bathing water sites in the EEA dataset include permanently closed bathing water sites.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 16
Figure 1: Change in total number of bathing waters between 2011 and 2016
Change in total number of bathing waters between 2011 and 2016 (%) -50.0 -40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0
-1.1 AT BE 0.8 BG 0.0 CY 0.0 -15.6 CZ -1.3 DE -12.6 DK -1.8 EE -28.4 EL ES 2.8 -8.8 FI FR 0.1 HR 7.7 HU 5.5 IE 2.9 -0.4 IT LT 7.0 -45.0 LU LV 16.7 MT 0.0 NL 0.4 -33.4 PL PT 12.2 RO 2.0 -4.9 SE SI 0.0 -8.3 SK UK 2.3
While no reason was provided by the Danish authorities for the decrease in 2011-2016, they noted that the decrease now seems to have plateaued and the number of bathing waters has stabilised.
According to the Czech competent authority, the change in the number of identified bathing waters that occurred between 2012 and 2013 was caused by two factors: the transposition of the BWD into Czech law and a reassessment of waters that were not used by a large number of people. Waters that are ‘artificially created confined waters separated from surface water and groundwater’ were no longer classified as Czech bathing waters, in line with the Directive.
Regional authorities were asked to reassess the numbers of swimmers using identified bathing waters before the 2013 season, leading to some bathing waters being removed from the scope of the BWD. While the law refers only to population density and the local importance as factors in the definition of ‘large number’, guidance recommends the identification of sites where bathers exceed 100 per day.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 17
In Finland, the decrease related to bathing waters that no longer fulfilled the criteria in the BWD (specifically, the presence of a large number of bathers evidenced by the existence of infrastructure or facilities) and were thus closed.
In Greece, the difference in the number of bathing waters reported in 2013 and in 2014 seems to be linked to the relationship between bathing waters and monitoring points. According to the Annual Bathing Water Quality Report for Greece 2013, prepared by the national authorities11, a revision of the monitoring network took place in that year, with the objective of assigning a single representative monitoring point at each bathing water.
The information included in that report showed that the number of monitoring points corresponded to the number of bathing waters in 2013, meaning that Greece may have actually reported each monitoring point as a ‘bathing water’, despite the location of more than one monitoring point at a single beach. However, a spatial check of the reported monitoring point coordinates excluded after 2013 shows that some of those missing points cannot be reasonably allocated to another bathing water, as they are separated by large distances, as illustrated in the three examples below:
Example 1: Only one of the two nearby bathing waters was de-listed. The remainder (in blue) could incorporate the missing one. This scenario is in line with the explanations given in the Annual Bathing Water Quality Report for Greece 2013, prepared by the national authorities.
11 See http://www.ypeka.gr/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=TlmxTH2LYck%3D&tabid=253&language=el-GR (in Greek).
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 18
Example 2: In the bay area, one in four bathing waters is still identified. It is a matter of discussion whether the remaining one can credibly replace the missing ones, as claimed in the Annual Bathing Water Quality Report for Greece 2013, prepared by the national authorities.
Example 3: No bathing waters in the bay area are reported from 2014. It is unlikely that bathing no longer takes place in the town, thus the de-listing of the monitoring points would not be explained by the justifications included in the Annual Bathing Water Quality Report for Greece 2013, prepared by the national authorities.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 19
In Luxembourg, the difference in the number of bathing waters is because the seasons 2011-2013 saw Luxembourg report nine bathing waters that were subsequently closed permanently. These sites were classified as poor quality in 2009 and reported to the EEA as closed in 201012.
While no reason was provided by the Polish authorities for the decrease in 2011-2016, they noted that the change in national regulations stimulated the identification of more bathing waters, which resulted in an increase in the number of bathing waters (up to 483 in 2018).
2.1.2 Scope of application of the BWD and the definition of ‘large number’: law, guidance and practice
Nearly all Member States transposed literally - or almost literally - the key provisions of the BWD on the identification of bathing waters, i.e. Articles 1(3) and 2(4).
Two Member States apply the Directive’s requirements regardless of the number of bathers expected. In Cyprus, even though the relevant provisions were transposed correctly, the competent authorities stated that all bathing waters suggested by local authorities are covered, even if the number of bathers is not considered large. In Italy, the law applies to surface water, or parts thereof, where the competent authority expects people to bathe and has not imposed a permanent bathing prohibition, without any reference to a ‘large number’.
Several Member States did not transpose the definition of ‘large number’13, but nevertheless appear to take it into account in practice, even if it is not always clear how the concept is applied. In Luxembourg, the requirements apply to the bathing waters listed by the competent authorities, but it is unclear how this list is established. In Poland, the term is used in legislation although it is not defined. Instead, in practice, it is up to the Municipal Councils to apply the concept on a case-by-case basis. In the UK, specifically in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the requirements apply to the national lists of bathing waters established to comply with the Directive. According to existing guidance, a reference number has not been established, as this would vary according to the size of the beach. Finally, in Denmark, no information was obtained on how this concept is applied in practice.
More than one-third of the Member States have specified - in law, guidance or practice - the meaning of ‘large number’, providing a reference number of bathers to determine whether the number of expected bathers should be considered large or not14. In the remaining Member States, the local authorities must determine whether a large number of bathers is expected, taking into account the BWD criteria, national laws and local knowledge.
Table 1: The meaning of ‘large number’ in different Member States
Member State Reference to number of bathers Source BE Walloon law references 50 bathers identified during the bathing season, Law in the daytime, when the weather conditions are optimal for bathing CZ According to the law, the assessment of ‘large number’ should take into Law and account population density and the local importance of the bathing Guidance water. Guidance notes that where the expected number of bathers in a day exceeds 100, the location should be identified as a bathing water. In some cases, there will be a need to include a site in the list of bathing waters even if fewer than 100 bathers can be expected in one day, due to other circumstances EE ‘Large number’ appears to be 100 bathers per day Practice FR ‘Large number’ is taken to mean more than 10 people Practice
12 European Environment Agency, Bathing water results 2011 – Luxembourg, p. 2. 13 See Section 1 in the respective country reports. 14 See Section 1 in the respective country reports.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 20
HU ‘Large number’ is not specifically defined but the definition of the term Law ‘bathing season’ contains the following reference to the number of bathers: ‘on a timescale of at least eight consecutive calendar weeks, during which the daily average number of bathers is expected to reach 100’. It should be noted that even if the daily average number of bathers does not reach 100, if the operator so requests, the competent authority must designate it a bathing site, if the other legal requirements are fulfilled IE Guidance provides an indication of what would constitute ‘large Guidance number’ – at peak periods during the course of the bathing season, sites that have: for smaller and/or remote areas, at least 50 beach users and/or at least 10 -15 bathers over the course of the day; or for larger and/or more accessible areas, at least 100 beach users and/or at least 20-30 bathers per day NL Guidance states that there must be at least 10 bathers in close proximity Guidance during summer days in inland waters and at least 100 bathers in close proximity during summer days in coastal waters PT ‘Large number’ is taken to be 100 bathers for coastal waters; for inland Practice bathing waters, island bathing, and in some coastal waters, the relevance at local level and the existence of infrastructures or facilities or other measures taken to promote bathing is considered SI Slovenian law refers to ‘past trends’, which would be three records of Law 300 bathers per day in a single bathing season SE The definition of ‘large number’ – approximately 200 persons per day – Guidance is provided through the ‘Recommendations’ section of HVMFS 2012:14
In several Member States, other criteria or considerations15 exist which must be taken into account when identifying a bathing water.
Table 2: Other criteria and considerations for identifying bathing waters
Member State Additional criteria Source BE In Flanders, a licence is needed to operate a bathing water (considered Law and an establishment). In Wallonia, a licence is needed to operate a bathing Guidance water and the water needs to be ‘acceptable’ in terms of security and health (bathing water quality) or at least must be able to become acceptable in the future by the implementation of corrective actions. A legal commitment is required from operators and administrative authorities to manage the bathing water and participate actively in the implementation of the measures of improvement (fences, urban waste water management measures, autonomous purification, etc.) CZ Existing guidance refers to the factors the Regional Hygienic Stations Guidance should consider when identifying a bathing water, including the recreational use of the site (in addition to bathing, activities such as water-skiing and wind-surfing), the suitability of the site for water recreation, and the characteristics of the local area. The guideline also sets out the following reasons for removing a site from the list of bathing waters: decline in interest in bathing, inadequate water quality, and conflict with other site users EE The national law transposing the BWD can be effectively implemented Law and only in cases where owners or operators of the sites where a large Guidance number of people bathe are willing to accept the designation of such sites as public bathing sites. The owners of such sites may not have sufficient incentive to apply for official status because it entails obligations, primarily building the infrastructure required by the national law (e.g. sufficient number of toilets). The Health Board can recommend establishing a public bathing site, but the recommendation is not binding
15 See Section 1 in the respective country reports.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 21
HU The competent authority confirmed that the national regulation Law differentiates between bathing waters with an operator, and those without. In the case of the former, the operator will request the designation as a bathing water, while in the case of the latter, the public health authority will designate an official bathing site if there are a large number of bathers visiting the site. The extent to which the operators of a bathing site can apply a definition different to that of 100 bathers per day is thus unclear HR According to the competent authorities, the lack of funding of local Practice government to manage bathing waters is taken into account in the identification of bathing waters LT According to the competent authorities, the lack of funding of local Practice government to manage bathing waters is also taken into account in the identification of bathing waters LV According to the competent authorities, the lack of funding of local Practice government to manage bathing waters is also taken into account in the identification of bathing waters PT According to the competent authorities, the quality of the water is also Practice taken into account, based on monitoring carried out prior to the identification. This monitoring takes place, at least in the year before the identification, during a period at least equivalent to the duration of the intended bathing season and is extended where the water quality shows high variability. A formal favourable assent from the regional health authority is requested and bathers’ safety issues (other than water quality) are also taken into account SI In order to be included on the official list of bathing waters, a site must Law meet a number of additional criteria, such as public access, adequate width and length of the surrounding slope, absence of urban waste water discharge, good chemical and ecological status of the given water body, no conflict with other uses and compliance with other legislation
These criteria come from laws, official guidance or common practice and appear to affect the number of bathing waters identified. This raises the question of what happens if these criteria are not fulfilled yet the site attracts a large number of bathers. An obvious solution is to issue a bathing prohibition or a permanent advice against bathing, but the information suggests that this is not the case, except where bathing conflicts with other uses and for security/safety reasons. Further examples are set out in the section below.
2.1.3 Other lists of sites for bathing and relevant sites not identified as bathing waters
In several Member States, the competent authorities publicise other lists of sites for bathing, which were compared to the official lists of bathing waters. Although some of these lists specifically mention that they include sites not frequented by a large number of bathers (Germany, Ireland, Latvia and Sweden16), the criteria to be included in other lists are less clear, as shown in Table 3 below.:
Table 3: Other lists of sites for bathing
Member State Other lists for bathing EE A list of unofficial sites can be found in the searchable database available on the webpage of the Health Board by using the filter ‘mitteametlikud’ (unofficial) – there were 65 unofficial sites in the 2018 season. The criteria behind this classification are unclear (they are not specified – although some appear to be former official bathing waters), as is the extent to which BWD requirements are implemented at the ‘unofficial’ sites. For example, according to the database, most of the unofficial sites were monitored in 2018 or 2017 (59) but some were last monitored in 2012 (1), 2013 (1), 2014 (1) and 2016 (3)
16 Further information is available in the respective country reports under point 1.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 22
ES There is a beach guidebook from the Ministry of the Environment available online, which includes beaches that are not identified as bathing waters. However, a note in the guidebook explains that ‘the content of the guide does not presuppose compliance with environmental quality requirements or other requirements related to the use of beaches and their waters’. It is not clear whether some of these additional waters would meet the requirements of the national legislation PL Poland has ‘sites occasionally used for bathing’, which were introduced to regulate extraordinary situations where it is necessary to organise a form of entertainment connected to bathing (e.g. organisation of a camp, cultural event or a competition connected with bathing) and can only be used for bathing up to 30 days in a calendar year. The basis on which municipal councils grant permission for a site occasionally used for bathing is unclear, as the wording in the Polish legislation is ambiguous (‘[i]f it is not justified to identify bathing waters’).
Stakeholders in several Member States mentioned specific examples of sites which appear to meet the criteria of the BWD or national law but are nevertheless not reported as bathing waters17.
Table 4: Possible additions to the list of bathing waters in Member States
Member State Possible additions to the list of bathing waters EL There are cases of tourist islands with inhabitants that do not have a single bathing water site (e.g. Agios Efstratios); uninhabited islands that attract many tourists for their water and beaches and where boats make daily tours that do not have a single bathing water site (e.g. Gavdos in Crete; Marathonisi in Zakynthos); or beaches with infrastructure and facilities for bathers not yet included in the list of Greek bathing waters (e.g. Gomati Beach in Limnos) FR ‘Plages de poches’ in Brittany, rocky inlets close to Marseille, and the long sandy beaches in Aquitaine HR Beach at the camping site ‘Pušća’ near Omišalj, island Krk LU Many rivers (e.g. La Sure, Our) attract bathers and are not listed as bathing waters. The presence of bathers is mainly explained by the presence of many camp sites located along those rivers SI Beaches in the areas of Žusterna-Izola and Piran
In Bulgaria and Romania18, the number of inland waters identified is fairly small. Given the size of these countries and the area occupied by watercourses and lakes, this may suggest that there are inland bathing waters used for bathing, some of which are possibly attended by large numbers of bathers, that are not included on the list of bathing waters.
2.1.4 Public consultation
Article 11 of the BWD requires Member States to encourage public participation and provide opportunities for the public concerned to find out how to participate, and to formulate suggestions, remarks or complaints, in particular for the establishment, review and updating of lists of bathing waters. However, it does not specify how this should be done. Some Member States have formalised their public consultation processes: in 22 Member States, the national law requires the annual list of bathing waters to be subject to a formal public consultation.
17 See Section 1 in the respective country reports. 18 The Romanian authorities claimed that these waters are used for therapeutic purposes and are thus subject to the exception in Article 1(3)(b) of the Directive on ‘confined waters subject to treatment or used for therapeutic purposes’.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 23
Figure 2: Percentage of Member States using a formal consultation procedure
Formal consultations on the identification of bathing waters are carried out (% of Member States)
No 21%
Yes 79%
The exceptions are Austria, Belgium (Wallonia), Croatia, Denmark, Latvia and Spain. In these countries, it appears that public consultation is limited to the online publication of the annual list of bathing waters and an option for the public to submit comments (which is not always easily accessible). However, even in some of the Member States with a formal consultation process, practical problems were identified, including the lack of easily accessible information and opportunity to comment (e.g. Estonia, France) or insufficient participation of the public evidenced by the limited number of comments received (e.g. Belgium (Flanders), Slovakia).
Good practice: Public consultation in the UK
Although the government of each country of the UK is responsible for establishing, reviewing, and updating its annual list of bathing waters, the specific process undertaken is also available on the website of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Applications are normally submitted by local authorities, which must carry out a user survey during the bathing season at times when peak usage would be expected to show a high level of users (they should also include information about any facilities available on the bathing water). In addition, they must provide evidence of the consultation process – during the application process, a six-week public consultation is held, with various stakeholders (such as the local authority and water company) invited to comment. Information about de-designation is also provided. This is only allowed for safety reasons or when there is evidence that the bathing water is no longer used for bathing, with applications for de-designation based on poor quality being rejected.
2.1.5 Conclusions
Some problems were identified with the ways in which Member States identify bathing waters. The number of bathing waters identified remained quite stable in the 2011-1016 period, with most significant decreases appearing justified. However, research (based primarily on the existence of alternative lists of waters for bathing and the opinion of stakeholders) indicates that there may be several waters which meet the requirements of the BWD but are not identified as bathing waters by Member States.
While this does not appear to be related to Member State transposition of the key provisions of the BWD concerning the identification of bathing waters, it may be linked to the application in practice of the concept of ‘large number’. Few Member States have specified either in law, guidance, or practice
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 24 the meaning of ‘large number’ by providing a reference number of bathers – varying between 10 and 300 – to determine whether the number of expected bathers should be considered large or not. The remainder leave it to the discretion of the local authorities. The discrepancies between the approach taken by the Member States to define ‘large number’ – a key concept for the proper application of the BWD – could be solved or at least mitigated if more specific guidance or criteria were to be developed. Some of the approaches taken at national level offer possible solutions that could be replicated at EU level, for example, setting a different reference number of bathers according to the size of the beach (Ireland) or taking into account the population density of the surrounding area (Czechia).
Several Member States use other criteria (legal, official guidance or common practice) when identifying a bathing water, which may restrict the number of bathing waters identified. There is no evidence that a bathing water not fulfilling these criteria would be subject to a bathing prohibition or a permanent advice against bathing. The financial costs related to the proper implementation of the Directive seem to play an important role in identification of bathing waters in several Member States and may sometimes lead to a decrease of monitoring due to policy decisions. It should be made clearer to Member States that while other criteria for the identification of bathing waters are admissible, if the criteria in the Directive are fulfilled then a site should be identified as a bathing water. If the use of other criteria in Member State indicate otherwise but a large number of bathers is expected, then a prohibition or advice against bathing should be issued, in line with BWD requirements.
More effective public participation contributes to better identification of bathing waters, thus it is a BWD requirement. However, not all Member States require such participation and, where it exists, it may be limited to less accessible online information and commentary. The existence of a legal requirement for Member States to open a formal public participation procedure on the annual list of waters (national or local level) would improve this situation.
Overall, it appears that there is room for improvement in the identification of bathing waters throughout the EU, in particular in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden and Spain.
2.2 LOCATION OF MONITORING POINTS
Monitoring points should be located where most bathers are expected or where the greatest risk of pollution is expected (Article 3(3)) and the location should be included in the bathing water profile (Annex III, Point 1(f)).
The purpose of this section is to understand whether Member States select the monitoring (i.e. sampling) points in line with the requirements of the BWD, namely, to guarantee that monitoring takes place where it matters and that the results are comparable. This includes investigating:
◼ transposition of the requirements concerning the location of monitoring points (Article 3(3)) into national law; ◼ existence of guidance to determine the location of monitoring points in line with the BWD; ◼ frequency of revision of the location of monitoring points; ◼ locations where samples are taken are recorded and reported, to determine if samples are taken at the same monitoring point; ◼ inclusion and details of the location of monitoring points in selected bathing water profiles.
The bathing water profiles were analysed to determine how monitoring points are documented, and whether samples are taken at a fixed location (at least during the same bathing season). Authorities from all Member States were asked how monitoring points are chosen and whether they are updated on a regular basis.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 25
2.2.1 Criteria for the location of monitoring points – law and guidance
Nearly all Member States transposed Article 3(3) of the BWD, on the location of monitoring points, literally or almost literally. The only exceptions are England, Scotland and Wales, where the national law refers only to the option in Article 3(3)(a) of the BWD, and Luxembourg, which did not transpose any of the options in its national legislation.
Despite these exceptions, according to the information provided by the national competent authorities, all Member States follow the rules of the BWD and carry out their monitoring in line with at least one of the two alternatives provided by Article 3(3) (i.e. the location within the bathing water where most bathers are expected, or where the greatest risk of pollution is expected). In more than half of the Member States, both options can be used, depending on the circumstances. Otherwise, the option for the location where most bathers are expected is clearly preferred. Only two Member States prefer to carry out their monitoring at the location where the greatest risk of pollution is expected.
Figure 3: Option used by Member States to identify the location of the monitoring points
Option used to identify monitoring point 18
16 SE ES 14 PL MT 12 LU IT 10 IE UK FR SI 8 FI SK EE RO 6
DE LT Number of Member States Memberof Number DK LV 4 CZ HU HR EL 2 BG CY PT BE AT NL 0 Both Most bathers Risk of pollution
Although the BWD does not provide further detail in this respect, several Member States have defined processes to determine where most bathers or the greatest risk of pollution are expected. In most cases, this is determined by local authorities, taking into account their local knowledge and experience. However, some Member States mentioned specific criteria for choosing the monitoring point, such as the centre of the bathing water, the entrance to the bathing water or the presence of relevant infrastructure (hotels).
For example, in Bulgaria, the area with most bathers is identified as that closest to large hotels, to the access point to the beach, or where the seabed is in good condition, while the area with the greatest risk of pollution is identified as that closest to rivers and rainwater drains flowing into the sea. In Ireland and Denmark, the greatest risk of pollution is determined considering geographical factors, such as stream or river inputs and the location of waste water discharges, as identified in the bathing water profile. In Malta, the authorities also stated that monitoring points have been located next to sewage
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 26 pumping stations and on both sides of enclosed beaches so that the worst-case scenario is monitored vis-a-vis wind and current directions. Finally, in Slovenia, the competent authority explained that the location where the most bathers are expected is determined by taking into account areas with easy access to water, or where infrastructure is available.
The contribution of the general public is also important, especially when the number of bathers is used to determine the monitoring point. In the UK, the sampling location can be determined by a review of use by bathers, while also ensuring the location is as representative of the whole bathing area as possible. In Cyprus, a similar system allows for the re-evaluation of monitoring points following public consultation, before the commencement of the bathing season.
2.2.2 Monitoring practice – fixed points, revision of location and meaning of coordinates reported
According to the information provided by the national competent authorities, all Member States, in principle, have a fixed location sampling point. In most19, the location of the sampling point is not reviewed on a regular basis, although some national competent authorities mentioned that such revision occurs where it is justified by changes in the local conditions. Germany, Denmark, Lithuania and Poland on the other hand, frequently revisit the issue. While this is not required by BWD, regular revision of the location of the monitoring points - or at least a revision following changes in the bathing water - contributes to ensuring that the monitoring point is representative.
While in the majority of Member States, the coordinates for bathing waters reported annually to EEA/Commission mark the point for taking the samples, this is not the case for others.
Figure 4: Meaning of coordinates reported to the European Environment Agency
Do coordinates reported to the EEA represent sampling 20 SK points? 18 SI SE 16 RO PT 14 PL NL 12 MT LU 10 IT IE 8 HR FR 6
ES Number of Member States Memberof Number EE LT 4 CZ FI CY DK 2 BG UK DE HU AT LV BE EL 0 Yes No In most cases Unclear
19 Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, UK.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 27
2.2.3 Information included in the bathing water profiles
The bathing water profiles in all Member States include information about the monitoring point. Any gaps identified tended to be the exception rather than the rule. Typically, information on the location is provided through the geographical coordinates of the monitoring point and a map or aerial photo of the monitoring point. In several cases, a description of the location of the monitoring point is also provided, which gives both an indication of the choice of the options available in Article 3(3) of the BWD and also helps in drawing conclusions on the criteria used to define the exact location.
Figure 5: Information included in the bathing profiles on monitoring points
Information included in the bathing profiles on monitoring points 30
25 UK UK SK SK SI SI SE 20 SE RO PT PT NL PL MT NL LV LV 15 LU LU LT LT IT IT IE HU FR HR 10 FI FR UK ES FI PT Number of Member States Memberof Number EL ES MT EE EL LV DK EE IE 5 DE DK FR CZ DE ES SI CY CY EL SI PL BG BG EE LT LT BE BE DE DK IE 0 AT AT BE BG BG Maps Coordinates Description Photos Other
In some Member States, additional information is also provided. For example, Slovenia includes the distance between sampling point and coastline (e.g. 40 m) or the type of sampling (e.g. by boat, from the stairs). In Croatia, the water profile also specifies distances between locations of monitoring points for different types of beaches (see good practice below).
Good practice: Additional information and public information on monitoring points in Croatia
The government in Croatia includes detailed information on monitoring points, including a description of the distances between locations of monitoring points, as well as a description of the type of beach (e.g. pebble, sand, sea mouth, etc.). This information is communicated to the general public through a web application developed and maintained by the Institute for Oceanography and Fisheries (in cooperation with the Croatian Environment Agency and the Croatian Ministry of
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 28
Environment and Energy) on Sea Bathing Water Quality in Croatia. The app includes a map of sampling points for both inland and coastal waters and is available in both Croatian and English20.
In general, the stakeholders consulted at national level did not express any major concerns about the location of the monitoring points. In Bulgaria, an NGO raised an issue that may also be of interest to other Member States, whereby one bathing water site covers many beaches, some of which could be threatened by pollution from a nearby campsite, making a single sampling point insufficient to detect cases of pollution for the entire bathing water (see Figure 6 below). These situations should be solved by identifying/monitoring the individual beaches as separate bathing waters. If monitoring provides evidence of contiguity and common risk factors, the bathing waters could be grouped and monitored on a single monitoring point.
Figure 6: Map included in the bathing profile for Irakli – Boata (BG)
Note: Bathing area in stripes; the purple dot marks the monitoring point.
2.2.4 Conclusions
Overall, it appears that the manner in which Member States select and report the location of their monitoring points is in line with BWD requirements. Most Member States have transposed the options in Article 3(3) of the BWD effectively into their legislation and even those that did not nevertheless appear to follow the rules of the BWD and to carry out their monitoring according to at least one of the two alternatives (i.e. the location within the bathing water where most bathers are expected, or the where the greatest risk of pollution is expected). In more than half of the Member States, both options can be used. The remainder clearly prefer to use the location where most bathers are expected.
One of the most interesting findings concerns Member States’ different interpretations of the scope of the options (in the absence of a definition in the Directive) and its impact on implementation of the BWD. Thus, the location where ‘most bathers are expected’ is determined by local knowledge,
20 See http://baltazar.izor.hr/plazepub/kakvoca_detalji10
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 29 proximity to relevant infrastructure, or reference to the entry to the beach, with some of these criteria being more clear than others. The reasons determining the exact location of the monitoring point are rarely explained by Member States, suggesting that a common understanding of where ‘most bathers’ and ‘the greatest risk of pollution’ are expected would be useful. Some of the approaches taken at national level offer possible solutions that could be part of guidance on this issue.
Similarly, the level of detail included in the bathing water profiles with regard to the location of the monitoring points varies considerably from one Member State to the next, although geographical coordinates and maps/aerial photos are usually provided.
The location of the monitoring point is almost always fixed and reviewed at least when justified by changes in the local circumstances and/or reported to the EEA/Commission. As evidenced by the replies from Member State authorities, although desirable, it is not realistic to assume that monitoring can always take place at the same point – due to new infrastructure, geographical changes, etc. – and in such cases Member States should ensure that monitoring is still carried out in line with BWD requirements.
Finally, as pointed out by stakeholders, a document reflecting best practice in dealing with very long beaches would help to ensure that monitoring is indeed representative of the situation on the ground (e.g. multiple monitoring points after a certain length of the beach/ maximum of length that can be covered by a single monitoring point, more frequent samples in more visited beaches).
In general, all Member State appear to comply with the obligation regarding the location of the monitoring points, albeit with the reservation outlined above in relation to the exact meaning of the options in the Directive.
2.3 GROUPING OF BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this was identified as an issue in the following Member States: Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal.
Member States may subdivide or group together existing bathing waters for their quality assessment. Existing bathing waters may be grouped together only if these waters are contiguous, received similar assessments for the preceding four years, and have bathing water profiles all of which identify common risk factors or the absence thereof (Article 4(5)). Bathing water profiles defined in Article 6 may cover a single bathing water or more contiguous bathing waters.
The purpose of this section is to understand whether Member States follow the requirements of the BWD when grouping bathing waters. Monitoring obligations are less stringent once bathing waters are grouped, since the requirement to have a monitoring point per bathing water no longer applies (only one monitoring point is required for all grouped bathing waters). The following indicators were investigated:
◼ transposition of the criteria to group bathing waters (Article 4(5)) into national law; ◼ existence of guidance (additional criteria or specification) on the grouping of bathing waters; 21 ◼ monitoring results, classification and start and end dates of bathing season of grouped bathing waters reported in 2016 for the preceding four years; ◼ compliance with BWD criteria (geographical and pollution risk) in selected groups of bathing waters reported in 2016.
21 While not expressly required by the BWD, it is expected that bathing sites in the same group would have similar bathing seasons.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 30
A range of sources were used to answer these questions, including data reported to the EEA, a review of national legislation and policy, desk research, interviews with stakeholders and questionnaires completed by Member State authorities. This issue was analysed for the 10 Member States listed above.
2.3.1 Member States using groups in 2016
In Czechia, Finland, Lithuania and Luxembourg, the number of groups and grouped bathing waters remained the same throughout the seasons 2013-2016. In Denmark and Portugal, the variations were only minor, with the number of groups and grouped bathing waters decreasing slightly. In Italy, there was a slight increase in the last two bathing seasons. More significant changes were registered in Germany, where there was a decrease in the number of groups and grouped bathing waters in 2013, followed by minor increases in each of the following seasons; in Hungary, where there was a significant decrease in the number of groups and bathing waters in 2013; and the Netherlands, where the (very small) number of groups and grouped bathing waters tripled in 2015, but remained the same in 2016.
Table 5: Grouped bathing waters per year in Member States (2013-2016)
Grouped bathing waters per 2013 2014 2015 2016 year/Member State CZ Two bathing waters Two bathing waters Two bathing Two bathing in one group in one group waters in one waters in one group group DK 25 bathing waters in 22 bathing waters in 24 bathing waters 18 bathing waters 11 groups 10 groups in 11 groups in eight groups DE 15 bathing waters in Five bathing waters Eight bathing 10 bathing waters seven groups in two groups waters in three in four groups groups FI Two bathing waters Two bathing waters Two bathing Two bathing in one group in one group waters in one waters in one group group HU 115 bathing waters 74 bathing waters in 65 bathing waters 65 bathing waters in 40 groups 26 groups in 23 groups in 23 groups IT 576 bathing waters 576 bathing waters 580 bathing 605 bathing in 243 groups in 243 groups waters in 245 waters in 258 groups groups LT Six bathing waters in Six bathing waters in Six bathing waters Six bathing waters three groups three groups in three groups in three groups LU 11 bathing waters in 11 bathing waters in 11 bathing waters 11 bathing waters three groups three groups in three groups in three groups NL Two bathing waters Two bathing waters Six bathing waters Six bathing waters in one group in one group in three groups in three groups PT 69 bathing waters in 66 bathing waters in 66 bathing waters 66 bathing waters 27 groups 26 groups in 26 groups in 26 groups
2.3.2 Concept of ‘groups’ – law, guidance and practice
Most of the relevant Member States transposed Article 4(5) of the BWD, on the grouping of bathing waters, literally or almost literally. Exceptions include Luxembourg, which did not transpose this provision in its national law, and Czechia, where the legislation omits the requirement that grouped sites be contiguous and that they have received similar assessments for the preceding four years, stating instead that they must be able to be monitored by common monitoring points.
According to the information provided by the national competent authorities, only three Member States
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 31 further specified the criteria of the BWD in guidance or practice. In Finland, bathing waters may be contiguous if there is no separation between them. This can include waters on the same lake or on opposite shores of a river. In addition, definition of ‘similar assessments for the preceding four years’ is interpreted as similar classification assessments for four preceding years. In Hungary, the only further criterion requires bathing waters to be immediately next to each other, with no physical boundary between them (e.g. piers, reefs). In Portugal, in practice, it is considered that there is contiguity in neighbouring waters when there are no changes of environmental pressures on the body of water. In addition, ‘similar assessments for the preceding four years’ is interpreted as similar water quality classification.
The datasets reported to the EEA show that for the period 2013-2016, in half of the Member States (five), the grouped bathing waters in each group had the same classifications and start and end dates of the bathing season. However, four (Germany, Denmark, Hungary and Italy) exhibited minor problems related to different classifications (in Hungary, the main issue concerned different start and end dates of the bathing season). In Czechia, it was unclear whether the classifications aligned, due to the classifications being made under the ‘old’ BWD. It should be noted, however, that by the end of the assessment period, these problems were observed in only one Member State.
Table 6: Summary of issues with groups: number of bathing waters within a group with different bathing season start/end dates or classifications
Differences in season start/end 2013 2014 2015 2016 dates or classifications CZ Unclear if different 0 0 0 classifications22 DK 0 Four sites had One site had 0 different different dates, one classifications had different classification DE 0 0 0 One site had different classification FI 0 0 0 0 HU 20 sites had One site had One site had 0 different dates, one different dates different dates had different classification IT Six sites had 0 0 0 different classifications LT 0 0 0 0 LU 0 0 0 0 NL 0 0 0 0 PT 0 0 0 0
Some Member States define a common bathing profile for the group (e.g. Luxembourg), while others define different bathing profiles for the grouped waters (e.g. Portugal). In the latter case, the profiles do not always specify that the bathing water is part of a group. Similarly, in Czechia, an analysis of the profiles of the grouped bathing waters was not possible, as the profile for one of the grouped waters could not be identified. The bathing water profile for an individual bathing water may have been intended to serve as a joint profile, however, as the name of the profile is broad enough to encompass
22 In 2013, one of the two bathing waters in the group was categorised as “0”. This was due to the old reporting system, and means the site was not monitored because it was part of a group. It is thus unclear if the classification of the two bathing waters in the group were the same.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 32 both bathing waters and it briefly refers to the second bathing water of the group.
With regard to contiguity, the analysis of a sample of bathing water profiles found possible issues in five of the relevant Member States. In Germany, there seem to be some natural barriers (small headlands) between some of the grouped bathing waters examined in two groups.
Figure 7: Location of the German bathing waters Einfelder See, Minigolfplatz and Einfelder See, Schanze grouped under DESH_PR_NMS_G001 23
In Hungary, as shown below, there are several examples of cases where contiguity could be questioned. However, it appears to have taken steps to mitigate this problem, with several sites recently ungrouped because of lack of contiguity.
23 Maps are taken from the bathing profiles available at: http://efi2.schleswig- holstein.de/BG/files/BWProfile/NMS/0012_BWProfil_2011.pdf (Einfelder See, Minigolfplatz, DESH_PR_0012) and at http://efi2.schleswig-holstein.de/BG/files/BWProfile/NMS/0330_BWProfil_2011.pdf (Einfelder See, Einfelder Schanze, DESH_PR_0330)
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 33
Figure 8: Hungary’s Platán Strand - HUBW_01506 and Kodály utcai strand - HUBW_01507, part of Group HUBW_G150724 (EEA map viewer)
Figure 9: Hungary’s Huszka utcai strand – HUBW_01553 and Báthori utcai strand – HUBW_01552, part of the Group HUBW G1552 (EEA map viewer)
In Italy, for the 122 groups for which a map is available, grouped bathing water sites are always next to each other. However, for 11 groups, the presence of small piers, harbours or the morphology of the coast cast doubt on the contiguity of the bathing water sites.
24 This group has since been dissolved.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 34
Figure 10: Bathing water ‘Centro Spiaggia Serapo’ (IT012059009006) in Gaeta, Italy 25
In Luxembourg, even though grouped bathing waters are not separated by jetties, breakwaters, or piers, in one case they are located on the shore of a reservoir that winds around several bends.
Figure 11: Map indicating grouped bathing waters on Luxembourg’s Lac de la Haute-Sûre
In Portugal, the maps included in the profiles for most groups provide evidence that the grouped bathing waters are contiguous (typically the case for long sandy beaches). In 10 groups, however, the maps show some elements that could be interpreted as affecting contiguity. These include breakwaters, rocks or cliffs of different sizes or others.
25 Portale Acque, Gaeta, Centro Spiaggia Serapo (IT012059009006), viewed 11 January 2018: http://www.portaleacque.salute.gov.it/PortaleAcquePubblico/mappa.do
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 35
Figure 12: Bathing waters Ingrina and Zavial, Portugal
Fewer issues were identified in respect of the existence of common risk factors or the absence thereof. One common problem is that where there is a single bathing profile for the grouped bathing waters (i.e. a group profile), a distinction is not always made between the potential risks in different bathing waters, e.g. Germany and Luxembourg. While this could lead to the assumption that all grouped waters are subject to the same risk (if any), a clearer description of risks is desirable.
The stakeholders consulted at national level expressed no major concerns regarding the grouping of bathing waters.
2.3.3 Conclusions
Overall, Member States exercise the option to group bathing sites only infrequently. In the 2016 season, little more than one- third of Member States grouped bathing waters, with the numbers being very small in five of these. While Member States report to the EEA/Commission which of their bathing waters are grouped, this information is not always available at national level (i.e. on the national water quality website or in the bathing water profiles). The inclusion of this information, including justification, in the bathing water profiles would contribute to more effective information for the public.
Of the three criteria set out in the BWD for grouping bathing waters (contiguity, similar water quality assessments and common risk factors), the first appears to be the most problematic. The BWD does not define contiguity and this allows for different interpretations by Member States. In fact, only three of the relevant Member States (Finland, Hungary and Portugal) define ‘contiguous’ in guidance or practice and the national definitions are not always the same. Contiguity issues were identified in half of the Member States analysed, relating to physical separation elements (in the absence of a common definition, some elements are arguably more evident than others, given differences in scale and origin), such as natural elements - headlands or rivers winding around several curves – and man-made elements – piers, harbours, jetties, pontoons or breakwaters. These discrepancies could be solved if more specific guidance or criteria were developed at EU level.
In order to ensure that the requirements of the Directive are properly applied, in particular that the
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 36 grouping of bathing waters does not affect the bathing water quality assessment, other criteria could be considered. These could include the existence of a common bathing season for grouped waters (which should reasonably be expected for bathing waters that are indeed contiguous), and the requirement for all grouped waters to have at least good quality (it would be preferable to manage bathing waters separately in case of quality issues).
The fact that Member States only rarely justify the grouping of specific bathing waters either in the bathing water profiles or in the datasets reported to the EEA/Commission, makes it difficult to clearly understand the use of this option in practice, particularly in Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal.
2.4 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this was identified as an issue in the following Member States: Germany, Portugal and Spain.
Only three samples need to be taken and analysed per bathing season in the case of a bathing water situated in a region subject to special geographical constraints (Annex IV, Paragraph 2.b). The bathing water profile should include a description of the physical, geographical and hydrological characteristics of the bathing water (Annex III, Point 1(a)).
The purpose of this section is to understand whether Member States, when making use of the exception of ‘special geographical constraints’ take into account the objectives of the BWD. Since monitoring obligations are less stringent in these cases, it is important to ensure that the exception is used appropriately, which may be indicated by the:
◼ justified use of the exception ‘special geographical constraints’ in selected bathing waters; ◼ existence of a definition of ‘special geographical constraints’ at national level.
A range of sources were used to answer these questions, including data reported to the EEA, desk research, interviews with stakeholders, and questionnaires completed by the Member State authorities. This issue was analysed for the three Member States listed above.
2.4.1 Practical application of the concept of ‘geographical constraints’
The exception ‘special geographical constraints’ is used infrequently26. In 2016, only three Member States referred to special geographical constraints: Germany, Portugal and Spain, with the numbers of such constraints remaining stable or decreasing between 2013 and 2016.
Geographically constrained sites Percentage of total Total number of Member number of bathing reported bathing State 2013 2014 2015 2016 waters (%, 2016 waters (2016) figures) DE 1 1 1 1 2,292 0.043 ES 12 13 13 13 2,191 0.593 PT 3 1 579 0.172
According to the German competent authorities, no additional guidance or criteria have been issued to further define the meaning of geographical constraints. The same is true in Portugal, although the Portuguese competent authority believes that exceptional physical and hydrological characteristics that restrict sampling should be taken into account. In Spain, the concept of special geographical constraints
26 In the period 2013-2016, apart from Germany, Portugal and Spain, only France referred to special geographical constraints – this occurred only in 2014, for five bathing waters.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 37 is reflected in the national law through the inclusion of the definition of ‘restricted access area’, i.e. areas entailing a particular geographical difficulty or restriction in access to the beach.
In the datasets for the 2016 season, Germany referred to special geographical constraints in relation to a single bathing water - Naturbad Winterlingen (DEBW_PR_0309). With a water surface of more than 10,000m2 and located 789m above sea level, this is one of the highest natural baths in Germany. It is considered an important wetland habitat for crested, mountain and pond newts, and is under the special protection of the Nature Conservation Act. The bathing water profile, however, makes no reference to special geographical constrains, instead pointing to the shorter bathing season due to the altitude and climatic conditions27. Nor are any such constrains evident in the map (see below). Nevertheless, according to the information reported to the EEA, at least four samples were collected throughout the 2016 season for this bathing water.
Figure 13: Naturbad Winterlingen, Germany.
In the datasets for the 201628 season, Portugal referred to special geographical constraints in relation to a single bathing water, Conceição (PTAV9T), for which explanations are provided in the accompanying documents to the datasets. The bathing water concerned is located in Faial Island, an island in the Azores archipelago, one of the European Outermost Regions. This island has no laboratory facilities, thus the samples collected must be analysed at laboratories on the larger islands, subject to transport timetables (plane or boats), weather conditions and availability of sampling teams. For example, in 2016, it was not possible to ensure the timely collection (within the 72-hour limit time) of a sample to confirm the end of an STP event. No reference is made to special geographical constraints in the respective bathing water profile. According to the information reported to the EEA, at least four samples were collected throughout the 2016 season for this bathing water.
27 German authorities subsequently noted that the bathing season is shortened due to the high altitude of the site. The operator usually closes the site from September onwards when the temperatures are too low to attract a significant number of visitors. The German authorities acknowledged that changing the official bathing season dates may be a more appropriate approach, and this will be considered for further bathing seasons. 28 According to the information available on the national water quality website, samples were collected throughout the 2017 season for this bathing water.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 38
Figure 14: Faial Island, Portugal
In the datasets for the 2016 season, Spain referred to special geographical constraints in relation to 13 bathing waters29. However, no additional information was submitted with the datasets to explain the use of this concept. The profiles of these bathing waters (available on the national website) indicate that there is a geographical limitation although they are not described in detail. Seven of the bathing waters30 are located on small islands next to the mainland of Galicia (Islas Cies and Isla de Ons, shown with black arrows in the map below). Five of the bathing waters31 are located in isolated or semi-isolated areas in the region of Murcia. The remaining bathing water32 is an inland bathing water in the region of Aragon. According to the information reported to the EEA, at least four samples were collected throughout the 2016 season for each of these bathing waters.
29 See Annex II for the samples of bathing water profiles analysed for this issue. 30 Playa Melide (Illa De Ons) (ES114M004297) , Playa Dorna (Illa De Ons) (ES114M004298), Playa Area Dos Cans (Illa De Ons) (ES114M004299), Playa Canexol (Illa De Ons) (ES114M004300), Playa Rodas (Islas Cies) (ES114M057418), Playa Figueiras (Islas Cies) (ES114M057419) and Playa Carracido (Islas Cies) (ES114M057420). 31 Playa Calblanque (ES620M0161615), Playa Calnegre (ES620M0241630), Playa Punta De Calnegre (ES620M0241629), Playa Del Barco (ES620M0161616) and Playa Portman-El Lastre (ES620M0411659). 32 Rio Ara Fiscal (ES241C1092435).
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 39
Figure 15: Islas Cies and Isla de Ons, Spain
The stakeholders consulted at national level did not express any major concerns in respect of the use of the exception ‘special geographical constraints’.
2.4.2 Conclusions
Overall, the exception ‘special geographical constraints’ is rarely used by Member States. In the 2016 season, only three Member States invoked this exception, two of which used it for a single bathing water.
The fact that the Directive provides no further insight into the meaning of ‘special geographical constraints’ allows for different interpretations by Member States. It is unclear why this exception is applied to the German bathing water, for example, yet the application of the exception in Portugal refers to circumstances which are of exceptional character and go beyond its control. In Spain, the exception is used more widely and appears to apply to isolated or semi-isolated areas (including small coastal islands), with no explanation for the limited access. Thus, the concept is used by Member States to cover a range of situations and it would be advisable to clarify whether they are all in line with the spirit of the Directive.
Spain is the only Member State whose bathing water profiles specify that the bathing water is considered to have ‘special geographical constraints’. This is considered good practice and such information should ideally be required, i.e. potential need for use of exception and the justification, for all Member States. In practice, however, the use of this exception in the 2016 season was not deemed concerning, as, in all cases, at least four samples were collected throughout the season (mirroring the requirements for bathing water to which no such exception is applied).
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 40
2.5 CYANOBACTERIA
The Directive defines ‘cyanobacterial proliferation’ as the ‘accumulation of cyanobacteria in the form of a bloom, mat or scum’ (Article 2(12)). Appropriate monitoring is required when the bathing water profile indicates the potential for cyanobacterial proliferation (Article 8(1) and Annex III, Point 1(c)). When cyanobacterial proliferation occurs and a health risk has been identified or presumed, adequate management measures must immediately be taken to prevent exposure, including the provision of information to the public (Article 8(2)).
The purpose of this section is to understand whether Member States include an assessment of the potential for cyanobacterial proliferation in their bathing water profiles and how they inform and deal with incidents of cyanobacteria proliferation. This includes investigating whether Member States have:
◼ a national approach to the management of bathing waters with cyanobacterial proliferation; ◼ means to inform and deal with incidents of cyanobacteria proliferation; ◼ presented an assessment of potential for cyanobacterial proliferation in selected bathing water profiles.
The sources used to answer these questions include a review of the bathing water profiles, desk research, interviews with stakeholders and questionnaires completed by the Member State authorities.
2.5.1 Approaches to managing cyanobacteria proliferations
Based on the questionnaire responses from the competent authorities, Member States appear to take one of two approaches in identifying and managing risks of proliferations of cyanobacteria: (1) they may have a national approach in place that sets out the actions to be taken by operators in monitoring and responding to cyanobacteria outbreaks. Such approaches can be set out in national legislation, guidelines, a technical standard, recommendations or strategy documents. Generally, they advise on the steps to be taken if a bathing water profile indicates a potential for cyanobacteria proliferation and the responses to an outbreak (including the information to be provided to the public); (2) they may take a case-by-case approach, often leaving the decision on the approach to operators, or basing the approach taken on the risk of cyanobacteria proliferations in a specific bathing water.
The approaches taken by Member States are outlined in the table below.
Table 7: National approaches to manage cyanobacteria proliferations.
National approach Case-by-case approach Belgium Austria Cyprus Bulgaria Czechia Denmark Estonia Ireland Finland Latvia France Malta Germany Portugal Hungary Romania Italy Slovakia Lithuania Slovenia Luxembourg Spain Netherlands Sweden Poland United Kingdom
For Greece, it was not possible to ascertain whether or not a national approach is in place. In the case of Croatia, national legislation for inland bathing waters sets out a national approach for assessing the potential for cyanobacteria proliferation, but this is not included in the equivalent legislation for coastal bathing waters.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 41
In their response to the questionnaire, Poland reported that the national approach (as set out in national legislation) is complemented by a case-by-case approach. This is also likely to be true for other Member States with a national approach, whereby local measures are taken to adapt the approach to particular circumstances.
The decision of Member States to take a case-by-case approach may be linked to the likelihood of cyanobacteria proliferations in those countries. Four of the Member States that use a case-by-case approach – Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia – reported that there is little or no history of cyanobacteria proliferations in their countries.
2.5.2 Responses to cyanobacteria proliferations
Article 8 of the BWD sets out that when cyanobacteria proliferation occurs, Member States are required to ensure adequate management measures are taken immediately to prevent exposure. Article 8 specifically mentions public information as a management measure that may be used to prevent exposure. In their questionnaire responses, Member States mentioned a number of responses they take in response to cyanobacteria proliferations, outlined in the chart below33.
Figure 16: Responses to cyanobacteria proliferations
Responses to cyanobacteria proliferations 25
UK SK SI 20 SE PT PL NL MT 15 LV LU LT IT IE 10 HU HR PT
Number of Member States Memberof Number FR NL FI LT DK HU PT 5 CZ FR NL CY FI FR BG EL EE BE EE BE CZ AT DE AT AT DE 0 Public information Increased monitoring Recommendation Updating of bathing Measures to reduce risk (including website, (may include against/prohibition of water profile of outbreaks (e.g. waste information in vicinity of investigation of causes bathing water treatment bathing water, other and/or a risk improvements, media) assessment) rainwater management, measures in agriculture sector)
Note: Member States may have multiple response profiles, and are thus represented more than once in the graph.
33 Greece, Romania and Spain provided no information on specific management measures.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 42
Public information measures were the management measures most often reported by Member States as responses to cyanobacteria outbreaks. Latvia did not specify any particular responses beyond providing public information, instead stating that responses are decided on a case-by-case basis. This is also likely to be the case in other Member States, with specific measures decided in response to each individual case, especially as bathing water profiles outlined measures beyond those specifically identified by the Member States in their questionnaire responses.
2.5.3 Information about cyanobacteria proliferations in bathing water profiles
Under Article 6 and Annex III of the Directive, bathing water profiles must include an assessment of the potential for proliferation of cyanobacteria. In some Member States this information was entirely missing from at least some bathing water profiles. In Romania, this information was omitted from the bathing water profiles but was included in a supplementary document on the national Ministry of Health website (which omitted information only for the inland bathing water). In Croatia, while the profiles provide information on the potential for macroalgae and phytoplankton proliferation, information on cyanobacteria is missing. In some Member States – Greece, France and Hungary – information on cyanobacteria, although provided, is vague or difficult to find.
In other Member States, assessments of the potential for cyanobacteria proliferations are usually provided. Further and more detailed information (e.g. likely contributing factors, risk to bathers and response measures) is provided but inconsistently. In some cases (for example, Ireland), text in the profile states that there is no risk or that the section on cyanobacteria is not applicable to the particular bathing water, which is presumably based on an assessment of very limited risk of such proliferation.
Table 8: Information about cyanobacteria proliferation in bathing water profiles
Information included Member State in profiles Complete profiles Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia,Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia Incomplete or Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus34, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, missing profiles Sweden, Romania, UK
Good practice: information on cyanobacteria included in Slovenia’s bathing water profiles
In Slovenia, the bathing water profiles classify the risk of cyanobacteria proliferations occurring by describing the characteristics of each bathing water:
▪ conditions for cyanobacterial proliferation (e.g. good, moderate, poor); ▪ period during which the risk exists (e.g. all year, summer/autumn); ▪ evaluation of probability for the occurrence of conditions conducive to cyanobacterial proliferation (e.g. high, moderate, small); ▪ estimation of the duration of a potential occurrence (e.g. from few days to few weeks); ▪ assessment of the harmfulness of cyanobacteria to bathers' health (e.g. moderate, small).
Member States also adopted other means to provide information to the public on cyanobacteria. For example, in Belgium (Walloon region), information is provided on the national water quality website and at the bathing waters affected, as well as in an informative and user-friendly leaflet containing information on cyanobacteria available online.
34 Cypriot authorities subsequently reported that the risk of cyanobacteria proliferation in their waters is included in the revised bathing water profiles, prepared after the assessment for this study.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 43
Figure 17: Leaflet on cyanobacteria available online at the website of Belgium’s Walloon region
Milieu Ltd Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Brussels, January 2019 Bathing Water Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 44
Some German States (i.e. Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein) have produced brochures for the general public, which are available on their respective bathing water websites. Their bathing water websites also make explicit reference to the German Environment Agency’s recommendations, including a downloadable PDF version.
In Finland, the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) has produced instructions on citizen responses to cyanobacteria incidents (in Finnish, Swedish and English), the issuing of advice against bathing or bathing bans through symbols, additional monitoring (visual inspection), and (sometimes) microscopic examination of cyanobacterial species. Finally, the Italian competent authority has adopted a somewhat different approach, providing the relevant operators (e.g. lifeguards, commercial operators, local doctors) with information on cyanobacterial proliferations and possible consequences on human health so that they can identify the symptoms associated with exposure to the toxins. The operators should report suspected cases of intoxication from cyanobacteria to a dedicated Freephone number set up by local health agencies and contact the closest health unit/hospital. This ensures the dissemination of information by well-informed professionals
Good practice: establishing a working group to combat Blue-Green Algae in the Netherlands.
A research foundation in the Netherlands (STOWA) hosts the Blue-Green Algae Platform (Platform Blauwalgen) which was established in 2011 to replace the previous Working Group on Blue-Green Algae. Meetings are organised twice a year and the purpose of the group is to exchange knowledge and experience, giving advice on protocols and research questions, and deliver products in the field of blue-green algae and (swimming) water quality, including the Blue-Green Algae Protocol.
The Blue-Green Algae Protocol gives practical advice on how to deal with blue algae at bathing waters. The Protocol recommends that daily visual inspection be carried out whenever possible (and provides for monitoring and analysis parameters) while also identifying two levels of risk and a set of corresponding actions:
Risk level 1 - Low health risk: If the risk to public health is assessed to be low, this should be communicated to bathers. It is up to the province to issue a warning to the public and may relate to part of a bathing water rather than the whole site. As a communication statement, it is advised to use the following text: 'Warning of blue-green algae, chance of skin irritation and gastrointestinal complaints'. Monitoring frequency may be increased to weekly. Risk level 2 - Health risk: If there is a health risk, this should be communicated to bathers. As a communication statement, it is advised to use: 'It is advised not to swim'. Monitoring frequency may be increased to weekly.
The Platform’s ‘Beating the Blues’35 website provides additional thematic papers and guidance documents, such as the ‘Bathing water profile handbook: Blue algae. Tool for drafting the part of the bathing water profiles on blue-green algae’36.
2.5.4 Conclusions
Overall, cyanobacteria proliferations do not affect all Member States, and even where it does occur, it does not happen on a large scale.
Member States are evenly split in terms of whether they take a consistent national approach or a case- by-case approach to monitoring and responding to cyanobacteria proliferations. Case-by-case approaches appear to be favoured by Member States that consider the likelihood of an outbreak to be low, such as Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia.
35 http://cyanobacterien.stowa.nl/Zwemwater/Beating_the_blues.aspx?pId=245 36https://www.helpdeskwater.nl/algemene-onderdelen/structuur-pagina/zoeken-site/@177789/blauwalgen/
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 45
Public information is the management measure most commonly reported by Member States when asked to identify their measures for preventing exposure to cyanobacteria. Nevertheless, it is likely that Member States also use other management measures when proliferations occur, depending on the specific circumstances of the bathing water. A few Member States report other management measures, such as increased monitoring, recommendation against/prohibition of bathing, updating of bathing water profile or measures to reduce risk of outbreaks. A collection of good practices across the EU could inspire other Member States.
Information on cyanobacteria proliferations is a relatively common gap in bathing water profiles. Where information on the assessment of potential for cyanobacteria proliferations is provided, it can lack detail. Even if there is no risk of cyanobacterial proliferations, this should be made clear in the bathing water profiles. Problems were identified in relation to Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Spain and the UK. To help make public information on cyanobacteria more effective, Member States could be provided with more guidance on such information, such as communicating the risks associated with cyanobacteria more meaningfully and effectively to the general public.
2.6 MONITORING CALENDAR
A monitoring calendar for each bathing water is to be established before each bathing season, and monitoring shall take place no later than four days after the date specified in the monitoring calendar (Article 3(4)). Any suspension of the monitoring calendar must be reported to the European Commission, detailing the reasons for that suspension (Article 3(8)). This section focuses on three indicators: undertaking the pre-season sample shortly before the start of each bathing season (Annex IV, Point 1); at least four samples taken and analysed per bathing season, unless the bathing season is shorter than eight weeks or subject to special geographical constrains (Annex IV, Points 1 and 2); and the distribution of samples such that the interval between sampling dates never exceeds one month (Annex IV, Point 3).
The purpose of this section is to understand whether Member States carry out (and report to the EEA) monitoring at intervals in line with the BWD. This includes investigating:
◼ the presence of a pre-season sample37; ◼ the number of samples taken (no fewer than four samples are to be taken and analysed per bathing season, pre-season sample included)38; ◼ the interval between sampling dates (sampling interval never exceeds one month+4 days)39; ◼ the inclusion of sampling date and time in the monitoring calendar – and if justification is provided for any deviations to the monitoring calendar.
A statistical analysis was carried out based on data submitted to the EEA, with supplementary information from the Member State competent authority and any explanatory documents submitted to the EEA. As the monitoring calendars are not reported to the EEA, it was not possible to compare these with the reported data to EEA, which would be the only way to ascertain any failure to adhere to the monitoring calendar.
37 Excluding those bathing waters that reported abnormal situations/STP events, or other special management issues, such as temporary closures, new bathing waters, or those subject to changes in quality classification. This section does, however, include those bathing waters that reported the pre-season sample with the same date as the season start. 38 Excluding those bathing waters that reported abnormal situations/STP events, or other special management issues, such as temporary closures, new bathing waters, or those subject to changes in quality classification. Samples that were reported outside of the season (aside from the pre-season sample) were not counted as part of the four (three) samples taken per season, and are thus included in this section. 39 Including non-consecutive samples that are more than two months apart, as this would suggest the monitoring calendar has not been followed, even if the consecutive samples are one month and four days apart. This section does, however, exclude those bathing waters that reported abnormal situations/STP events, or other special management issues, such as temporary closures, new bathing waters, or those subject to changes in quality classification.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 46
2.6.1 Deviations from the monitoring calendar
Based on the data reported to the EEA, a number of Member States experienced at least some issues with the monitoring calendar, either missing pre-season samples, showing sample dates more than one month and four days apart, or fewer than the required number of samples. Figure 18 below shows an average percentage of sites affected by each of these indicators during the 2013-2016 period.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 47
Figure 18: Percentage of total bathing waters affected by monitoring problems (average 2013-2016)
Percentage of total bathing waters affected by monitoring problems (average 2013-2016) Percentage of total bathing waters per MS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
AT BE 0.2 BG CY 4.2 1.9 CZ Indicator 1 - Number 0.1 of bathing waters DE 0.5 0.03 without pre-season 0.1 DK 0.3 sample EE 0.5 1.9 0.5 EL 0.01 0.3 ES 0.3 0.03 Indicator 2 - Number 0.1 0.1 FI 0.6 of bathing waters 0.1 with sampling dates FR 1.3 0.1 more than one HR 2.0 month + 4 days 0.5 apart HU 1.3 1.2 IE 1.0 IT 2.8 Indicator 3 - Number 0.04 of bathing waters 5.4 LT 0.2 with fewer than minimum number of LU samples per season LV 0.9 analysed MT 0.03 NL 1.0 PL 0.2 PT 0.3 0.04 RO 1.2 1.0 SE 2.2 SI SK 0.1 UK 0.1
Although this figure suggests that most Member States struggle to comply with the requirements in the BWD (albeit for only a small percentage of their total bathing waters), the data show a clear improvement over time. Figure 19 below shows the situation in 2016, with almost all Member States
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 48 having eliminated the problems with at least two indicators. Aside from two exceptions, monitoring problems affected less than 5% of bathing waters in 2016. In both Czechia and Croatia, there were a high number of missing pre-season samples but the first samples were generally taken on the first day of the bathing season. The BWD requires the pre-season sample to be taken before the start of the season, thus these first samples cannot be considered pre-season samples.
Figure 19: Percentage of total bathing waters affected by monitoring problems in 2016
Percentage of total bathing waters affected by monitoring problems in 2016
Percentage of total bathing waters per MS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
AT BE Indicator 1 - Number of BG bathing waters without pre- CY season sample CZ 7.6 DE 1.5 0.04 DK 0.7 Indicator 2 - Number of EE bathing waters with sampling EL 0.1 dates more than one month ES 0.8 + 4 days apart FI 2.6 0.1 FR 0.2 0.03 Indicator 3 - Number of HR 6.8 bathing waters with fewer 0.4 HU 0.4 than minimum number of IE 0.3 samples per season analysed IT 4.4 LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO 1.6 SE 2.0 SI 1.8 SK UK
2.6.2 Number of samples reported per season
The BWD requires a minimum of four samples per season (three if the bathing seasons are less than eight weeks). Figure 20 below shows that all Member States reported, on average, more than four samples per bathing water per season, with the number remaining fairly consistent in the 2012-2016 period.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 49
Figure 20: Average number of samples per bathing water reported in 2016
Average number of samples reported in 2016 30
25 23.9
19.4 20 18.3
15
10.6 9.9 9.9 10.3 10 8.8 9 9.2 9.2 Number of samples of Number 8.5 8.6 7.5 6.7 6.8 7.1 7.2 5.9 6.2 5.3 5.3 5.4 4.5 4.7 4.9 5 5 4.1
0 FI HU SE EE LU CZ PL AT DE EL LV IT SK PT SI LT NL DK RO BG CY FR HR ES IE UK BE MT
In some Member States, such as Romania and Luxembourg, all bathing waters report the same number of samples. Others show clear patterns in the numbers of bathing samples reported. In Latvia, for example, most sites report five or 10 samples. It is worth noting that the Member State with the fewest samples (on average) is Finland, where bathing seasons are very short, making more samples practically impossible.
Not all samples taken by the Member States are reported to the EEA/Commission, as samples taken during the season and then discarded, or any other additional samples, need not be reported. All samples taken according to the pre-defined monitoring calendar must be reported, however, thus if the monitoring calendar foresees sampling on a weekly basis, the same number of samples should be reported, even if this is more than four samples per season. Without the monitoring calendar, it is impossible to confirm that each bathing water complies with the required number of samples per season.
2.6.3 Information included in the monitoring calendar
Member State authorities were asked what is provided in the monitoring calendar, with an almost unanimous response that the date for each sample is set out in the monitoring calendar40. In France, the Netherlands and Romania, the monitoring calendar also sets out the time at which the sample is to be taken41, while in Estonia it specifies the party that takes the sample (either the Health Board inspector or bathing site owner), and in Czechia, certain parameters and legal information is given. Several Member States also outlined the information to be provided when the sample is recorded. Austria, Croatia, and Spain require the time to be recorded, while Spain also records the climatological conditions.
2.6.4 Conclusions
In most cases, there were no significant problems with monitoring. Almost all bathing waters report a pre-season sample, have a sufficient number of samples per season, and do not have an interval greater
40 The Greek authorities did not provide any information. 41 In Slovenia, samples are usually taken before 1pm. It is not unclear if this is stipulated in the monitoring calendar.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 50 than one month and four days between samples. The data also show that the problems appear to be reducing each year, suggesting that steps are in place to improve problem areas. It appears that non- compliance can stem from unforeseeable weather conditions or STP events that prevent monitoring. Despite this positive conclusion, there is still room for improvement in a number of Member States, notably Czechia, Croatia, and Italy, all of which had a (relatively) high percentage of bathing waters experiencing problems. Similarly, Sweden was the only Member State to experience issues with all three indicators in 2016. It is recommended that the monitoring calendar is designed so as to allow for such events, for example, scheduling the pre-season sample at a distance from the season start date that allows for a contingency sample, or adjusting the frequency of sampling to ensure samples are not more than one month and four days apart.
As the monitoring calendar is not reported to the EEA/Commission, lack of adherence cannot be ascertained. This means that even if sampling is undertaken in accordance with the BWD, there may be instances of non-compliance if the monitoring calendar is more stringent than that of the Directive. It is recommended that the monitoring calendars, as an output required by the Directive, should also be submitted to the EEA/European Commission.
2.7 ANALYTICAL METHODS
Member States must ensure that the analysis of bathing water quality takes place in accordance with the reference methods set out in Annex I of the BWD for both Intestinal enterococci and E. coli (Article 3(9)). The same provision also states that Member States may use other methods or rules if they can demonstrate that the results obtained are equivalent to those reference methods set out in Annex I. In such cases, Member States shall provide the European Commission with all relevant information about the methods or rules used, and their equivalence.
The purpose of this section is to understand the analytical methods used by Member States to determine the water quality of each bathing water. This includes the use of:
◼ the reference method of analysis or of an equivalent method; ◼ an appropriate Limit of Detection (LOD).
The information used in this section comes from information reported to the EEA and the questionnaires answered by the Member State authorities.
2.7.1 Method used to analyse samples
The Member State authorities were asked which methods were used for the analysis of both Intestinal enterococci and E. coli. The following two graphs (Figure 21 and Figure 22) show their responses.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 51
Figure 21 and Figure 22: Methods used for the analysis of Intestinal enterococci and E. coli, as reported by Member State authorities
10 Methods used for the analysis of Intestinal enterococci
9 UK PT 8 SI PL 7 RO LV 6 LT LU 5 NL IE HU 4 MT FI HR SK 3
Number of Member States Memberof Number FR EE DK SE 2 BG CZ DE IT 1 AT CY BE ES 0 ISO 7899-1 ISO 7899-2 Mix Mix inc. non-reference method
Note: No information was provided by the Greek authorities, thus this figure shows 27 Member States
Methods used for the analysis of E. coli 10
9 UK 8 NL SK 7 MT SE 6 FR RO LU 5 DE PT IT 4 CY PL IE 3 Number of Member States Memberof Number SI BG LV HR 2 EE BE HU FI 1 CZ AT DK ES LT 0 ISO 9308-1 ISO 9308-3 Mix Mix inc. non- Non-reference reference method method Note: No information was provided by the Greek authorities, thus this figure shows 27 Member States
The figures show that most Member States use either using a single reference method or a mix of both. For those Member States that use a mix of reference methods, this is often determined by location. In Belgium, for example, ISO 7899-2 is used in Flanders, while ISO 7899-1 is used in Wallonia. Similarly, in Romania, one laboratory uses one reference method, while the second laboratory uses the other method. In Croatia, ISO 7899-2 is used in coastal waters, while both reference methods are used for
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 52 fresh water. For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that all samples for a particular bathing water are carried out using the same method, so as to avoid any issues with consistency.
Even where Member States reported the use of both reference methods (for both Intestinal enterococci and E. coli), the methods were not necessarily used equally. In Germany, for example, 90% of samples are tested for Intestinal enterococci using ISO 7899-1. In Finland, both reference methods for Intestinal enterococci are allowed under Finnish legislation, although, in practice, only IOS 7899-2 is used. In Hungary, Poland and Portugal, both reference methods are allowed for E. coli but only ISO 9308-3 is recommended/used.
Several Member States use non-reference methods, such as SS 028167:2 (Sweden), or method ISO 9308-2 (Luxembourg, Lithuania, Croatia, Finland, Sweden, Ireland). In Ireland it was noted that most laboratories are now using this non-reference method, although a few may still use ISO 9308-1 (a reference method). These remaining laboratories were to be advised on the suitability of the non- reference method prior to the 2018 bathing season. In several Member States, such as the UK and Spain, a membrane filtration method is used.
Another interesting practice was found in Ireland, where some local authorities use IDEXX Enterolert test kits to enable more rapid assessment of Intestinal enterococci during pollution events. These samples are not used for compliance assessments but for investigative purposes. Despite this, the results are still disseminated to the public on the national bathing water website, although they are not included in the assessment dataset nor are they part of the reporting to the European Commission.
2.7.2 Limits of Detection
Member State authorities were also asked to report the limit of detection (LOD), which is the minimum amount of a substance that can be detected with certainty by a certain method/equipment. While a lower LOD will give a more accurate result, it is also more costly and reliant on specialised equipment. LOD is thus determined by the resources available in each Member State and might vary between regions. Values lower than the LOD should be avoided, as they may affect the bathing water classification (i.e. by showing a poorer quality classification without actual deterioration of water quality42)
The figures below show the number of Member States using different LODs.
42 This is also dependent on other factors, such as the number of samples and the distribution of the data. Problems are more likely where there are few samples and significant variations in the data. A case-by-case analysis is beyond the scope of this assessment.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 53
Figure 23: LOD reported for the analysis of Intestinal enterococci
20 LOD reported for the analysis of Intestinal enterococci
18 SE RO 16 PL LV 14 LU LT 12 IT IE 10 HU PT HR MT 8 FI LU ES HU 6 EE HR Number of Member States Memberof Number DK FR 4 DE DK SE SI CZ UK DE IE 2 PT CY SE BG HR PL BE DE AT BE 0 LOD 0 CFU/100mL LOD 1 CFU/100mL LOD 10 CFU/100mL LOD 15 CFU/100mL Other
Figure 24: LOD reported for the analysis of E.coli
LOD reported for the analysis of E. coli 16
14 SE LV RO 12 LU PT LT PL 10 IT MT IE LU 8 HU HU HR HR 6 FI UK FR
Number of Member States Memberof Number ES SE DK 4 EE IE DE SE DE FI CY RO 2 SI CZ DK BG HR PT BE DE AT BE 0 LOD 0 CFU/100mL LOD 1 CFU/100mL LOD 10 CFU/100mL LOD 15 CFU/100mL Other
Notes: Member States could report more than one LOD per parameter. ‘Other’ refers to LODs of 2 (IE), 3 (HR), 5 (BE), and 50 (SE43) for Intestinal enterococci, and 3 (HR), 4 (RO), 5 (BE), and 50 (SE) for E. coli. In all cases, other LODs were reported for each parameter. No information was available for Greece, the Netherlands and Slovakia.
43 In Sweden, in 2017, the LOD for both parameters was lowered from 50 to 1 (E. coli) or 10 (Intestinal enterococci).
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 54
Reporting of different LODs typically depended on the laboratory analysing the sample and the analysis method used. This made it difficult to investigate whether data reported at values lower than the LOD affect bathing water classification. For example, laboratories may report samples with low concentrations, lower than the LOD of other laboratories in the Member State. In addition, if data lower than the LOD are reported in only a small number of samples (e.g. France), these samples will not impact the overall classification of a bathing water.
Note (b) (i) to Annex II of the BWD requires that results of 0 must be reported as LOD. However, in order to ensure accuracy, values below LOD should also be reported as LOD. This is not the case in all Member States, as indicated through a comparison of the EEA dataset and LOD values reported by the various authorities.
In Cyprus, samples at half the LOD have been reported when results were less than LOD, which is common practice for some reporting obligations under other EU water legislation. However, according to Cypriot authorities, in the future, such samples will be reported as LOD, as required by the BWD. In addition, in the past, Belgium has reported data lower than LOD, but this is no longer the case.
Generally, most Member States report values in line with the defined LOD. Further information would be required if certain conclusions were to be drawn on the effect of different minimum values reported and included in the quality assessment dataset.
2.7.3 Conclusions
Most Member States use reference methods to test samples for E. coli and Intestinal enterococci levels. It was also clear that many Member States use more than one method, usually due to different laboratories using different methods. It is assumed that all samples for a particular bathing water are carried out using the same method, so as to avoid any issues with consistency.
The section was more inconclusive about the effects of using different LODs. While it is clear that different LODs are used, even within a single Member State, it is assumed that all samples from a single bathing water are analysed in a consistent manner. Using different LODs is not considered a problem, if a bathing water is consistently analysed using the same method and LOD. It is, however, strongly recommended that data should not be reported lower than the LOD, as this may have implications on the overall classification of a bathing water. This section identified several instances where this may be the case, but further data are required to confirm this.
2.8 CLOSED WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this was identified as an issue in the following Member States: Czechia, Germany, Denmark, Spain, France, Greece and the UK.
Pursuant to Article 1(3) BWD, a bathing water is ‘any element of surface water where the competent authority expects a large number of people to bathe and has not imposed a permanent bathing prohibition, or issued permanent advice against bathing’. If a bathing water is classified as poor for five consecutive years a permanent bathing prohibition or permanent advice against bathing should be introduced (Article 5(4)). Member States should also notify the Commission annually before the start of the bathing season of all waters identified as bathing waters, including the reason for any change compared to the preceding year (Article 13(2)).
The purpose of this section was to determine whether a justifiable reason was given for any of the following actions:
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 55
◼ No longer identifying the bathing water, thus effectively declassifying it from the list of bathing waters reported before the start of the bathing season; ◼ identifying and reporting the bathing water as closed for public use, for reasons of water quality, physical accessibility or legal issues.
Research was undertaken on those bathing waters classified as closed for public use, or not identified in 2016 but not classified as poor or closed for public use in 2015, to determine the reasons for such changes.
Only seven Member States were identified as having bathing waters closed in 2016 that were not classified as poor or closed in 2015. Of those Member States, only Denmark and France were identified as having a large number of such bathing waters (17 and 20, respectively). Table 9 below sets out the reasons for all closures, based on desk research and interviews, although in several instances, Member State authorities were able to provide additional information.
Table 9: Reasons for closed bathing waters
Member State (number of Reason for closure waters affected) CZ (four Pollution and cyanobacteria outbreaks waters) DE (one water) Extensive remediation after flooding twice the preceding year DK (17 waters) High levels of E. coli and Intestinal enterococci, as well as increased algal growth potential due to industry, agriculture or sewage44 ES (four Low level of water (in a pond) or illegal creation of the beach45 waters) FR (20 waters) Closure of facilities such as campsites, the presence of cyanobacteria, construction work or the absence of lifeguards EL (one water) Damage caused by an earthquake UK (one water) Access issues due to erosion – sampling unable to be carried out
Research showed that the reasons for closing bathing waters for public use in 2016 that were not poor or closed for public use in 2015 are justified. In most cases, the closure for public use was due to pollution or renovation works that meant the site could no longer be accessed. In Spain, there was an interesting example in the Canary Islands, where the local newspaper stated that the bathing water area was closed by judicial order, due to ongoing investigations regarding the suspected ‘illegal creation’ of the beach. The beach was originally made out of stones and was reformed to be covered with sand without complying with the conditions set out by the Ministry of Environment. Spanish authorities reported the reason for closure as ‘access to the beach closed by works’, which, presumably, related to the modifications to the beach.
2.8.1 Conclusions
Only seven Member States were identified as having closed bathing waters in 2016 that were not poor/closed in 2015, and only Denmark and France had a significant number of such bathing waters. It appears that the reasons for these closures is justified, although specific information was, at times, hard to find. It is recommended that Member States clearly communicate the reasons for closing bathing waters for public use (especially if it is not because of poor water quality) so that the risks can be managed.
44 Danish authorities noted that bathing waters are often closed because only a small number of bathers use the water. It is understood that these bathing waters are not officially delisted, thus monitoring should continue. 45 Spanish authorities noted that the beach was closed as access was affected by works.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 56
While it is possible that Member States may close bathing waters for public use for cost reasons, further detailed investigation (beyond the scope of the study) seem unjustified, given the small scale of any potential problem. It is recommended that explanations are always given for closures in order that this risk can be monitored.
2.9 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this was identified as an issue in the following Member States: Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Estonia, Spain, France, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, and UK.
Pursuant to Article 2(8), STP is a microbiological contamination that has identifiable causes and is not normally expected to affect bathing water quality for more than 72 hours (approx.) after the bathing water quality is first affected and for which the competent authority has established procedures to forecast and respond (set out in Annex II). Samples taken during STP events may be disregarded (either a maximum of 15% of the samples for that period or maximum one sample per season, whichever is greater (Article 3(6) and Annex V)) and replaced by samples taken in accordance with Annex IV. In addition, the public must be adequately informed: when STP occurs, there is microbiological contamination, thus Member States must act to prevent bathers’ exposure by means of a warning or, where necessary, a bathing prohibition.
The purpose of this section is to understand whether Member States follow the requirements of the BWD when making use of the exception STP, since samples taken during an STP event can be discarded and will not count for the classification of bathing water. This included an analysis of the:
◼ transposition of the definition of STP (Article 2(8)) into national law; ◼ number of STP events reported in 2013-2016; ◼ duration of STP events reported in 2016; ◼ overall duration of combined STP events reported in 2016, compared to the length of the bathing season; ◼ justified use of the exception STP in selected bathing waters; ◼ means used to forecast and inform the public of STP events.
Information in this section is based on data submitted to the EEA, with additional information provided by Member State authorities.
2.9.1 Definition of short-term pollution in national legislation
In the vast majority of the Member States, the definition of STP was transposed either literally or effectively. In the case of Estonia and Hungary, the time limit of 72 hours for the incident to be considered an STP was not firmly transposed into law, while France transposed the term incompletely by omitting to refer to the criteria provided in Annex I to the Directive.
An analysis of the practical application of the BWD in respect of STP shows that Member States take different approaches. Some (Belgium France, Croatia Italy, Lithuania Malta, the Netherlands and Portugal) take a reactionary approach and declare an STP event when pollution is detected through regular monitoring (as per the monitoring calendar), while others including Cyprus and Malta, assign a role to the public in reporting STP. In other Member States, a more systematic and precautionary approach is adopted. For example, in Ireland, the Environmental Protection Agency has provided guidance to local authorities, focusing on the use of a risk matrix specific to their area to examine the likely correlation between rainfall or severe weather events and the possibility of deterioration of bathing water quality. Indeed, in Ireland, STP events eligible for discounting/sample replacement are only declared if notification was posted at the bathing water prior to the event.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 57
2.9.2 Number of short-term pollution events reported in 2013-2016
18 Member States reported STP events in 2016, ranging from two apiece in Germany, Greece, Ireland, and Malta, to 232 in Italy. Table 10 shows the total number of events reported in 2016 and preceding years.
Table 10: Number of STP events 2013-2016
Total number of Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 bathing waters (2016) BE 39 events (27 44 events (37 44 events (35 33 events (27 125 bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) CY Six events (six 26 events (23 21 events (17 32 events (26 113 bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) DE 0 0 0 Two events (one 2,303 bathing water) EE Four events (four 0 0 Three3 events 54 bathing waters) (three bathing waters) ES 79 events (71 94 events (89 135 events (114 111 events (98 2,223 bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) FR 88 events (70 159 events (129 146 events (115 107 events (83 3,380 bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) EL One event Four events (four Two events (two Two events (two 1,542 bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) HR 18 events (16 14 events (12 Seven events 13 events (11 980 bathing waters) bathing waters) (seven bathing bathing waters) waters) HU One event Four events (four Two events (two Six events (six 267 bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) IE Six events (six One event Five events (five Two events (two 140 bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) IT 158 events (142 229 events (203 181 events (156 232 events (203 5,530 bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) LT Two events (two 0 Two events (two 12 events (12 123 bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) MT 0 0 Six events (six Two events (two 87 bathing waters) bathing waters) NL 0 One event 0 Six events (six 724 bathing waters) PL Three events Five events (five Nine events Seven events 267 (three bathing bathing waters) (nine bathing (five bathing waters) waters) waters) PT Five events (five Five events (five 30 events (30 50 events (44 580 bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) SE Five events (five Four events (four Five events (five 18 events (18 444 bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) UK 17 events (nine 59 events (44 118 events (75 90 events (60 631 bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters) bathing waters)
There is only a hint of a pattern in the number of STP events reported in the period between 2013 and 2016. Certainly, some Member States with a larger number of bathing waters reported more STP events, with Italy reporting the largest number of events (232), followed by Spain (111) and France (107). However, Germany has more bathing waters than Spain, and only reported two STP events (both of which concerned the same bathing water). The Netherlands (with a total of 718 bathing waters),
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 58 reported six STP events, while the UK (with a total of 631 bathing waters) reported 90 events. These varying numbers between the Member States may be because of different local climate conditions (propensity for heavy rain/flash floods) or management measures (e.g. preventing sewer leaks), or they could be because of the number of pollution events actually reported as STP events, due to monitoring and reporting practices. In the UK, for example, the dramatic increase in the number of STP events during the 2013-2016 assessment period led to Member State authorities explaining the increased ability to identify and react to pollution events. A high number of STP events thus cannot be considered a sign that more pollution occurs, but, rather, that pollution is better anticipated and managed.
Trends over time show little consistent increase or decrease in the number of STP events reported, although just over half of the Member States reported a considerably larger number of events in 2016 than in 2013. At EU level, the number of STP events rose by just over 10%. This increase could be attributed to improved Member State management practices, including how STP events are identified, monitored and reported, or it could be due to exogenous factors, such as climate change. A longer time interval would be needed to identify clear trends and investigate the underlying factors, which is outside the scope of this study.
A number of bathing waters experienced more than one STP event in a given season, although this number was small in most Member States. In 2016, three Member States had exceptionally high numbers of bathing waters experiencing multiple STP events. In the UK, nine bathing waters experienced two STP events, while six experienced three. In Italy, 12 bathing waters experienced two events in 2016, seven experienced three, and one experienced four. In France, several bathing waters had two or three events in 2016 (nine and five, respectively) but one bathing water had six STP events in a single season. It is not clear why these bathing waters are experiencing multiple STP events, nor if there are any measures in place to reduce that number.
Figure 25 below shows the percentage of the total number of bathing waters affected by STP events. In two Member States, Belgium and Cyprus, STP affects more than 20% of all bathing waters identified. By contrast, in Germany and Greece, less than 1% of bathing waters are affected. In Germany, only one bathing water reported STP events in 2016, with no events reported in the whole of Germany in the previous three years. According to one stakeholder, this is likely due to the fact that samples are not taken often enough during the bathing season, so pollution is not identified. The German authorities also noted that some federal states have indicated that the requirements set out in the BWD on STP are complex and difficult to comply with in practice, leading to limited use of the STP option.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 59
Figure 25: Percentage of total bathing waters affected by STP in 2016
Percentage of total bathing waters affected by STP in 2016 25% 23% 22%
20%
15%
10% 10% 10% 8% 6% 4% 5% 4% 4% Percentage of total bathing waters bathing total of Percentage 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0.04% 0.13% 0% BE HR CY DE EE EL FR HU IE IT LT MT NL PL PT ES SE UK
2.9.3 Total duration of the short-term pollution events
Several issues were identified with respect to the duration of STP events. In 10 Member States, STP events were reported as lasting longer than the 72 hours recommended in the Directive (see Table 11 below), although this does not represent an average duration of all events in a particular Member State. For the most part, Member State authorities did not provide any information on why the events lasted so long. In both Cyprus and Malta, authorities clarified that the dates given as the end of the STP event were, in reality, the date of the next sample. The risk of STP is likely to have passed within 24 hours, but, in Malta, a confirmation sample takes a minimum of five days, while in Cyprus this can take up to 10 days. In the UK, on the other hand, the long duration of STP events (up to 192 hours) is reportedly due to multiple consecutive events. For example, heavy rainfall immediately followed by an unusually high tide would be reported as a single STP event, as the reporting schema used to record such events does not allow for the differentiation of events. It is recommended that the authorities take an additional sample to confirm that the incident has ended (i.e. STP end confirmation sample) within a maximum of 72 hours after the incident has been identified.
Table 11: Longest STP event in 2016, by Member State
DURATION OF THE LONGEST STP IN 2016 Days Member State 1 EL 1 NL 2 IE 2 DE 3 BE 3 IT 3 ES 3 SE 4 EE 4 PL 4 PT 5 MT 8 UK
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 60
DURATION OF THE LONGEST STP IN 2016 Days Member State 9 HU 10 HR 14 FR 14 CY 20 LT
2.9.4 Use of the exception
Pollution was identified as coming from a number of sources (see Table 12):
◼ Heavy rain; ◼ Accidents; ◼ Excrement from birds, dogs, horses, etc.; ◼ Humans, including rubbish from beach users, campers, dumping from ships/boats, (urban) sewage overflows and accidents linked to waste water collection/treatment, such as leakages.
Table 12: Sources of pollution typically causing STP events
Heavy rain Accidents Birds/animals Humans Other BE ✔ ✔46 ✔ CY ✔ ✔ DE EE ✔ ES FR ✔ ✔ ✔47 HR ✔ ✔48 HU ✔ IE ✔ ✔ IT ✔ ✔ LT ✔ ✔ MT ✔ ✔ NL ✔ ✔ PL ✔ ✔ PT ✔ ✔ SE ✔ UK ✔ ✔ ✔ Note: no information was submitted by the competent authority in Greece on the source of the pollution, and desk research found no relevant information.
The general cause of STP events is clear and in line with the Directive – heavy rain, flooding, accidents (including sewage leaks) or animal excrement. In many cases, however, information on the individual causes of the STP events was not available either in the report to the EEA/European Commission, nor in information provided to the public (either via the bathing water profiles or the bathing water website) in all 18 Member States in which the problem was identified. It is recommended that the reasons for STP be adequately archived, for example in the bathing water profiles or permanently on the bathing water website, in order to identify patterns of pollution and aid forecasting of new events. It is also imperative that this information is used to develop management measures to reduce the number and severity of STP events (as in several Member States); currently, although the sources of STP are identified and STP events are reported, little is being done to prevent future events.
46 Flanders only. 47 In France “other” includes upstream pollution in the region, and non-compliant monitoring by those in charge of the bathing water. 48 In Croatia the “other” source is high water temperatures.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 61
2.9.5 Means used to forecast short-term pollution and disseminate information
Most Member States do not have a system to aid them in forecasting STP events. Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, some of the municipalities in Sweden and the UK use modelling to forecast relevant events (see good practice below), while Poland, Portugal and Hungary take the weather forecast into consideration to determine the likelihood of an incident.
Good practice: using modelling to predict STP events in the UK
The English, Scottish, and Welsh authorities report that they use statistical ‘Black-box’ modelling to quantify the relationship between bathing water samples and predictive variables. Suitable variables are selected for inclusion if they are significant predictors of Intestinal enterococci concentrations in the bathing water. The effect of these variables is assessed daily against a distribution of samples equating to the WHO 10% probability of gastroenteritis. If the predicted quantity exceeds this distribution, then advice against bathing is issued.
The methodology used appears successful. NGO stakeholders confirmed that information on pollution risk modelling is useful to provide daily forecasts.
In disseminating information to the public, the Member States rely heavily on local media, with Germany, Estonia, Hungary and Lithuania particularly heavy users. They may also provide temporary signs, such as in Estonia Spain, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK, in the vicinity of the bathing water, and issue warnings on the websites of the competent authorities, as in Germany, Estonia Spain, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK.
Good practices have been noted in Malta, Croatia and the UKs, where the public can receive real- time updates through the use of mobile apps. In Malta, relevant information is also disseminated through social media, both when bathing is prohibited due to an STP incident and when the bathing water is once again suitable for bathing.
2.9.6 Conclusions
Declaring an STP event means that bathing water can be affected by pollution without any implications for its overall water quality. Research shows that Belgium and Cyprus have, on average, a significant portion of the bathing season affected by STP, followed by Lithuania and the UK. Lithuania also experienced an STP significantly longer than the 72 hours recommended by the Directive. However, the number and duration of STP events is not necessarily a good indicator of whether STP is a problem in a Member State – a high number of events may simply mean that a Member State is particularly good at identifying and reporting STP events, or it may mean geographical or climate conditions are especially likely to cause STP. At the same time, the duration of the event reported to the EEA/European Commission was found to reflect (in at least some cases) the time until the next sample, rather than the duration of the pollution itself.
According to information gathered during this study, it appears that STP events are usually due to heavy rain or pollution from animals, birds, and beach users, which would be in line with the Directive. However, in many cases the cause of the individual events was not available, either in the bathing water profiles or online. It is thus recommended that individual events, as well as their causes, are clearly documented, so that trends can be identified, and mitigation measures put in place. This could also be extended to including information about STP events that occur outside the pre-defined monitoring calendar sampling dates.
It is also recommended that Member States establish a formal procedure to deal with STP events. Research shows that Member States take different approaches, whether precautionary or reactive. If
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 62 modelling is used to forecast events, the results need to be publicly available. In areas subject to a high number of events or events which last longer than the recommended 72 hours, mitigation measures should be put in place.
2.10 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this was identified as an issue in the following Member States: Belgium, Germany, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the UK.
An abnormal situation means an event or combination of events impacting on bathing water quality at the location concerned and not expected to occur on average more than once every four years (Article 2(9)). During an abnormal situation, the monitoring calendar may be suspended but shall be resumed as soon as possible after the end of the abnormal situation (Article 3(7)).
The purpose of this section is to understand whether Member States follow the requirements of the BWD when making use of the exception ‘abnormal situation’, given that monitoring can be suspended in such cases. This includes an analysis of the:
◼ frequency of ‘abnormal situation’ events reported in 2013-2016; ◼ justified use of the exception ‘abnormal situation’, as reported in 2016 in selected bathing waters; ◼ means used to inform the public of ‘abnormal situation’ events; ◼ transposition of the definition of ‘abnormal situation’ (Article 2(9)) into national law.
A range of sources were used to answer these questions, including data reported to the EEA, a review of national legislation and policy, desk research, interviews with stakeholders and questionnaires completed by the Member State authorities. This issue was analysed for nine Member States.
2.10.1 Frequency of abnormal situation events
According to the information reported in the datasets submitted to the EEA/Commission, in three of the relevant Member States – Belgium, Ireland and Portugal49 – fewer than 10 abnormal situations were reported during 2013-2016, and none of the bathing waters concerned was affected more than once. It thus seems likely that these Member States are using this exception only in exceptional circumstances, in line with the Directive (see Tables 13 and 14).
Table 13: Instances of ‘abnormal situations’ 2013-2016
Total number of Member 2013 2014 2015 2016 bathing waters State (2016) AT 77 264 BE 1 8 125 BG 6 94 HR 4 980 CZ 8 157 DE 134 48 37 10 2,303 FR 42 10 29 64 3,380 EL 1 1542 HU 7 1 3 267 IE 1 140
49 In Portugal, two events - both related to insufficient flow - were requalified as abnormal situations in 2015: PTCQ3W – ALMACEDA and PTCX9C – SESMO. As these were originally reported as ‘special geographical constraints’ and only considered ‘abnormal situations’ after an exchange of correspondence with the national authorities, they were not taken into account for the purposes of this report.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 63
Total number of Member 2013 2014 2015 2016 bathing waters State (2016) IT 6 144 22 5,530 PL 2 267 PT 1 2 580 SK 1 33 ES 25 36 24 26 2,223 UK 10 12 23 18 631
In Italy, while the total number of abnormal situations reported is much larger (which may be partly due to the high number of Italian bathing waters), this occurred in only a single season and none of the bathing waters concerned was affected more than once. In Hungary, 11 abnormal situations were reported but two bathing waters were affected twice. In the remaining Member States, the total number of abnormal situations reported is higher (particularly in Germany, Spain and France) and there were always cases of bathing waters that were affected more than once during the period 2013-2016.
Table 14: Member States that reported abnormal situations in 2016
Member Abnormal situation Bathing sites Total number of Percentage of total sites State events (2016) affected bathing waters (2016) affected (2016)(%) BE 8 8 125 6.4 DE 10 10 2,303 0.4 FR 64 64 3,380 1.9 HU 3 3 267 1.1 IE 1 1 140 0.7 IT 22 22 5,530 0.4 PT 2 2 580 0.3 ES 26 24 2,223 1.1 UK 18 18 631 2.9
During 2016, only Spain reported a repeat abnormal situation event in one of its bathing waters. Two bathing waters (very close to one another) reported multiple abnormal situations during the 2016 season.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 64
Figure 26: Percentage of bathing waters affected by abnormal situations (2013-2016)
Percentage of total bathing waters affected by abnormal situations 7%
BE 6%
5%
4%
3% UK
2% FR HU 1% ES IE DE IT 0% PT 2013 2014 2015 2016
In most Member States, abnormal situations affected less than 3% of bathing waters in the 2013-2016 period. Only three Member States have peaks exceeding 3%: Germany (6% in 2013), the UK (4% in 2015) and Belgium (6% in 2016). In general, apart from these exceptions, trends are stable for the majority of Member States, remaining below 3%.
2.10.2 Concept of ‘abnormal situations’ – law, guidance and practice
All of the relevant Member States transposed Article 2(9) of the BWD, defining ‘abnormal situation’ literally (or close to literally). At the same time, none of these Member States’ competent authorities reported using criteria other than those in the Directive (i.e. impact on bathing water quality; not expected to occur more than once every four years) to define ‘abnormal situation’ in law, guidance or practice.
The information received from Member State authorities on previous instances of this exception shows that they interpret this concept differently. An analysis of the Member States’ practices indicates that ‘abnormal situations’ are reported when there is an impact on bathing water quality but also when monitoring is not carried out (e.g. because of limited access to the bathing water). This suggests that abnormal situations are reported when the event cannot be attributed to any one of the other exceptions set out in the Directive, such as STP or special geographical constraints.
Table 15: Circumstances where ‘abnormal situations’ were reported in the past
Member State Circumstances where ‘abnormal situations’ were reported in the past BE Microbiological quality-related events and flooding DE Microbiological quality-related events, flooding, inaccessible location, heavy rain, low water level, construction measures, landslides, others ES Microbiological quality-related, inaccessible location, drought, construction works, diffuse pollution, landslides FR Flooding, landslides, inaccessible location HU Flooding and cyanobacterial bloom IE Heavy rain IT Flooding
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 65
Member State Circumstances where ‘abnormal situations’ were reported in the past PT Low water level, heavy rain UK Microbiological quality-related events, flooding, landslides, inaccessible location, pollution events for sources other than microbiological contamination, heavy rain
Two-thirds of the Member States concerned (Belgium, Germany, Spain, Ireland, Portugal and the UK) explained the abnormal situations in the datasets reported to the EEA/Commission for the 2016 season, although in two cases – Germany and Spain - not all situations were reported. The explanations are similar to those used in the past. In Belgium (Wallonia), abnormal situations were due to several days of turbulent weather, which led to a significant elevation in river levels and a decrease in the bacterial level. In Germany, abnormal situations in inland bathing waters were due to flooding, while those reported for coastal bathing waters were due to storms.
Spain reported abnormal situations for cases of both very high and very low water levels, inaccessible locations and heavy rain. In Ireland, the single abnormal situation reported in 2016 was due to the presence of horse faeces on the beach, as well as the large bird population. Portugal reported abnormal situations due to seasonally late and very heavy rain, which postponed debris removal works. As these did not allow bathing activities (because of restricted access), they similarly prevented pre-season sampling. In the UK, abnormal situations were reported in cases of contamination from sewage, dead or decaying marine life on the beach, or animal waste on the beach.
2.10.3 Means of informing the public
According to information received from the Member State authorities, the means used to inform the public are (typically) a warning posted on the national bathing water quality website and signage in the vicinity of the bathing waters. The exception is France, where only the latter is used50. In some cases, social media is also used to report these events (e.g. Germany, UK).
The stakeholders consulted at national level expressed no major concerns about the use of the ‘abnormal situation’ exception. In France, however, one NGO stated that provision of information could improve, as it is currently available only through media, which do not differentiate between abnormal situations or other types of closures. However, the stakeholders themselves noted the difficulty in differentiating an abnormal situation from an STP event.
2.10.4 Conclusions
Overall, the exception ‘abnormal situation’ is seldom used by Member States. In the 2016 season, little more than one-third of Member States reported abnormal situations, with the figures considered high in just a single case (France). Looking at 2013-2016, however, the abnormal situations reported are considered high in five Member States. In addition, abnormal situations have been reported more than once for the same bathing water during this period in five of the Member States concerned.
The BWD defines an ‘abnormal situation’ broadly, and it has not been specified or developed at national level. An analysis of Member State practice shows that abnormal situations encompass a wide variety of events, indicating that abnormal situations are reported when an event cannot be attributed to any other exception set out in the Directive, such as STP or special geographical constraints. Despite the definition in the Directive referring to events impacting on bathing water quality, in practice, ‘abnormal situations’ are also understood as events where bathing and monitoring is not possible. Member States should be reminded that the use of this exception is reserved for events specifically related to bathing water quality. In addition, Germany and Spain reported several instances of abnormal situations, to the EEA/Commission, without giving a reason for the suspensions. Such explanations should be mandatory.
50 The information for Spain was unclear in this respect.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 66
The means used to inform the public of an abnormal situation usually include both the bathing water quality website and signage in the vicinity of the bathing water, and are thus considered adequate.
Overall, the figures for Germany, Spain, France and the UK, and to a lesser extent, Italy, can be considered problematic. Some Member States pointed out that this may also reflect their more regular sampling schedules. The main problem seems to be related to identification of abnormal situations in line with the spirit of the Directive (i.e. what constitutes an abnormal situation) and reporting of abnormal situations (i.e. providing reasons for the suspension of the monitoring calendar to the EEA/Commission). This is a horizontal issue, relevant for all Member States.
2.11 MANAGEMENT OF POOR QUALITY WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this was identified as an issue in the following Member States: Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Slovenia, and the UK.
Bathing waters are classified as ‘poor’ if the bathing water quality dataset for the last assessment period showed that percentile values for microbiological enumerations are worse than the ‘sufficient’ values set out in Annex I, column D (Annex II to the BWD). If bathing water is classified as ‘poor’ for five consecutive years, a permanent bathing prohibition or permanent advice against bathing shall be introduced (Article 5(4)). Bathing waters may be temporarily classified as ‘poor’ yet remain in compliance with the Directive. In such cases, Member States shall ensure that the conditions listed in Article 5(4) are satisfied with effect from the following bathing season, including imposing a bathing prohibition or advice against bathing, with a view to preventing bathers' exposure to pollution. Member States must publish information on the causes of pollution and the measures taken to prevent bathers' exposure to pollution and to tackle its causes (Article 12(2)).
The purpose of this section is to understand the types of management measures taken by Member States in these cases (including setting a bathing prohibition during the season after its classification as poor) and whether:
◼ these measures are part of a comprehensive strategy or programme to deal with poor bathing water quality; ◼ there is a national approach to the management of bathing waters classified as ‘poor’; ◼ there is a relationship between bathing waters classified as ‘poor’ and non-compliant agglomerations for the purposes of the UWWTD.
A range of sources were used to answer these questions, including data reported to the EEA, a review of national legislation and policy, desk research, interviews with stakeholders and questionnaires completed by Member State authorities.
2.11.1 Number of poor bathing waters
According to the Directive, Member States should ensure that by the end of the 2015 bathing season, all bathing waters are at least ‘sufficient’ (Article 5(3)). Despite this, in 2016, there were 17 Member States with poor bathing waters (see Figure 27 below). While many had only a small number of poor bathing waters, in Ireland, more than 4% of all identified bathing waters were classified as poor in 2016.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 67
Figure 27: Percentage of total bathing waters classified as poor in 2016
Percentage of total bathing waters classified as 'poor' in 2016 4.5 4.3% 4 3.5 3.2% 3.0% 3 2.6% 2.4% 2.5 1.8% 1.8% 2 1.6% 1.4% 1.5 1.1% 0.9% Percentage of total of Percentage 1 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5 0.2% 0 BE BG CZ DE DK ES FI FR HU IE IT NL PL PT SE SK UK
During the assessment period (2013-2016), nine of the 17 Member States saw a drop in the number of bathing waters classified as ‘poor’, some of which were quite significant. In Belgium, for example, 13 bathing waters were poor in 2014 compared to one in 2015 and 2016. In France, the number of poor waters gradually dropped from 104 in 2013 to 82 in 2016. Eight Member States either remained steady in their number of poor bathing waters, or the number fluctuated. In Bulgaria, for example, one poor water was reported in 2013, three in 2014 and 2015, and one in 2016. One of the reasons identified for these fluctuations was the switch from the old to the new BWD, which changed the pollutants and thresholds considered in classifying a bathing water as poor, making comparison difficult51,52. In the UK, for example, six bathing waters were poor in 2014, rising to 31 in 2015 when the new Directive came into force. In 2016, however, the number dropped to 20 (thus the UK was counted among the nine Member States that saw a drop in the number of poor waters).
51 The ‘old’ BWD listed 19 pollutants to be tested to determine the classification of bathing waters. The ‘new’ BWD lists only two: Intestinal enterococci and E. coli, neither of which were individually referenced in the old BWD. As the assessments focused on different pollutants, the water quality assessments (and thus, the classification of bathing waters) undertaken through the old system cannot be compared to those under the new system. 52 Only five Member States used the ‘old’ BWD parameters for some years during the 2013-2016 period (BG, IE, PL, RO, UK).
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 68
Figure 28: Number of poor quality bathing waters in 2013-2016
Number of poor quality bathing waters, 2013- 2016 140 120 100 IT 80 FR 60 40 ES 20 UK NL 0 2013 2014 2015 2016
BE BG CZ DE ES FI FR HU IE IT NL PL PT SE SK UK DK
2.11.2 Reasons for a poor classification
Research was carried out to investigate the causes of the poor water quality. Several Member States did not clarify the cause of the pollution for some of their bathing waters, with Sweden, for example, noting that the cause of one such pollution was unknown. Hungary stated that the quality of its bathing waters does not depend on them but on neighbouring countries, since the water comes from abroad. The graph below shows the causes of pollution: whether they are linked to sewage issues (leaks, overflows, misconnections, non-compliant urban waste water treatment plant, etc.), animals (birds, dogs), beach users, agriculture, or port/industrial emissions. Overall, sewage-related issues are the most common reason for a poor bathing water classification.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 69
Figure 29: Causes of poor classification
Causes of poor classification 16
14 UK SE 12 ES SK 10 PT NL 8 IT IE 6 HU
Number of Member States Memberof Number FR UK SE 4 FI NL UK UK PL DE IE NL NL HU 2 BG FR HU FR HU DK BE DE FR BG FR CZ 0 Sewage Animal waste Agriculture Beach users Port/industrial Unclear emissions
Note: Member State could report more than one cause of poor bathing water, thus the total is greater than the total number of Member States with poor bathing waters
2.11.3 Reopening a bathing water the year following a poor classification
The BWD states that each bathing water classified as poor must implement certain measures from the bathing season that follows its classification. These measures include adequate management measures, including a bathing prohibition or advice against bathing, with a view to preventing bathers’ exposure to pollution (Article 5(4)a)). Desk research and interviews were undertaken to investigate whether the bathing waters that were poor in 2016 were closed (i.e. under a bathing prohibition or advice against bathing) in 2017. It should be noted that opening a bathing water in 2017 is not a sign of non-compliance with the Directive; however, should a bathing water be listed in the official poor quality bathing water list, a bathing ban or advice against bathing would need to be made clear to the public. This issue was raised by the competent authorities, which noted that poor bathing waters could be opened the following year, provided there were bathing restrictions in place at times when bathers could be exposed to pollution.
In most Member States, bathing waters are open the year following a poor classification (see Table 16 below). The bathing waters that were open in 2017 often had recommendations not to bathe in place for at least some of the season. The dissemination of this information varies. For example, in the Netherlands, the online profile for a poor bathing water53 highlights the result of the most recent sample (which was sufficient, at the time of the assessment), and the classification of the bathing water over the last four years (which was also sufficient). Only by reading further could the public become aware of the poor classification the previous year. Several Member States had poor bathing waters without any restrictions on bathing, with the Spanish media noting that bathing water operators are reluctant to
53 See e.g. NLBW02_9008 Klein Zwitserland, available at http://www.zwemwater.nl/ (accessed April 2018).
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 70 close bathing waters, despite poor water quality classifications.54 In Poland, there were reports55 that the one poor bathing water56 was still used for swimming, even though it was no longer an official bathing water.
Table 16: Reopening a bathing water the year following a poor classification
Poor bathing water Member State Situation in 2017 in 2016 BE One Closed for public use BG One No information CZ One Open, warnings on the web DE Five Three closed for public use, two open DK Eight Five closed for public use, two open, one unknown ES 39 Open FI Two Open FR 82 Majority closed for public use, some open (numbers unclear) HU Four Open IE Six Closed for public use, warnings in place IT 100 71 closed for public use, 21 open, the others unclear NL 19 Unclear PL One Open PT Four Open SE Six Closed for public use SK One Closed for public use UK 20 Open, warnings in place
2.11.4 Measures to mitigate poor quality waters
The management measures put in place for poor bathing waters were not always clear, with the bathing water profiles outdated in some cases and insufficient measures in others. Generally, where measures were listed, they included a ban or advice against bathing. Other common measures included repairs to sewage connections/treatment plants and increased monitoring. In France, as well as several other Member States, it was noted that beach operators could decide whether to put measures in place to mitigate the water quality or close the site.
Several Member States appear to have concrete procedures in place: in Portugal, a programme of measures must be developed and approved; similarly, in Ireland a management plan is required, which is then reviewed and the implementation assessed; in Sweden, the authorities responsible for bathing waters at risk/classified as poor are contacted by the national authority to ensure that they are aware of the regulations and that they undertake the necessary measures.
In France, mitigation measures were clearly set out in the bathing water profiles (see information box below), while other Member States have measures such as renovating a pump station (Sweden), reducing birds and adding rubbish bins and toilets for beach users (the Netherlands). Some Member States (Denmark, Germany, and Italy) identify bathing prohibitions as measures, while Finland may increase monitoring. In the UK, individual bathing waters set out comprehensive measures to be taken and their end results. In Hungary, Italy, Spain, and Slovakia, mitigation measures were found in a limited number of bathing water profiles and tended to be vague.
54 See https://www.elespanol.com/ciencia/ecologia/20160726/142986612_0.html (in Spanish, accessed April 2018). 55 See https://plus.gk24.pl/wiadomosci/a/przygotowuja-plaze-do-sezonu-letniego-2017,12180956 (in Polish, accessed February 2018) 56 Kąpielisko morskie "Jarosławiec-Wschód”-PL4221305232000058
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 71
In Bulgaria, Czechia, and Poland, no measures were found.
Good practice: measures to manage poor quality bathing waters in France
Reactive measures taken to prevent bathers' exposure to pollution and to tackle its cause can include:
◼ A broad recommendation not to bathe close to the rivers discharge points, particularly after rainfall; ◼ Regular visual inspection on site; ◼ Highly specific actions addressing local sources.
Proactive/corrective measures to prevent bathers' exposure to pollution and to tackle its cause can include:
◼ Checking the conformity of recent waste water connections to collecting systems; ◼ Creation of new collecting systems; ◼ New/additional connections to collecting systems that discharge into the environment; ◼ Repair works on waste water treatment plants; ◼ Limiting cattle and another animal access to waterbed; ◼ Raising public awareness of polluting behaviours; ◼ Raising awareness among local farmers; ◼ Increased/improved monitoring of private connections to collecting systems; ◼ Checking local waste water treatment facilities (such as campsites, etc.).
One of the stakeholders interviewed stated that having management measures in place can help to bring the bathing water into compliance with the BWD. However, they noted that there are no provisions that set a timeline for implementing measures. It is their belief that there are too many loopholes in the BWD as it relates to the management and operation of poor bathing waters.
2.11.5 Impacts of Urban Waste Water Treatment
One relevant factor often affecting bathing water quality is a low level of connection of households to collecting systems and subsequently to treatment plants. All bathing waters classified as poor in 2016 were analysed to determine if they are located in the vicinity of non-compliant urban waste water treatment plants, as this could be assumed to be a major source of pollution. Based on that analysis, 11 Member States57 showed no evidence that treatment plants caused any pollution – either there were no non-compliant treatment plants or they were situated far from the bathing waters in question. In the remaining six Member States58, non-compliant urban waste water treatment plants near bathing waters may have been partly responsible for the poor bathing water quality in at least some of the poor bathing waters (see the UK example below). In other cases, the non-compliant treatment plants were not in the vicinity of the bathing water, but upstream (see the French, Italian, Irish and Spanish examples below). In the Member States where poor waste water management is potentially an issue for bathing waters, the stakeholders and the bathing water profiles often mentioned sewer overflows and leaks as a significant problem. In Slovakia, for example, individual sanitation systems (in particular sewage tanks from about 180 private chalets) were identified as possibly leaking and causing pollution in Gazarka.
Of the 20 bathing waters classified as poor quality in 2016 in the UK, two (Nairn – Central and Nairn – East) are located close to the waste water treatment plant in Nairn, which was reported as non- compliant with the UWWTD in 2014 (see map below)59.
57 Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden. 58 France, Ireland, Italy, Slovakia, Spain, UK. 59 See http://uwwtd.oieau.fr/; UWWTD compliance data are from 2014.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 72
Figure 30: Poor bathing waters near non-compliant urban waste water treatment plants in the UK
Figure 31: A poor bathing water downstream from two non-compliant urban waste water treatment plants in France
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 73
Figure 32: A poor bathing water downstream from a non-compliant urban waste water treatment plant in Italy
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 74
Figure 33: Poor bathing water near non-compliant urban waste water treatment plant in Spain
2.11.6 Conclusions
In several Member States, the causes of the poor water quality, and the subsequent mitigation measures, are clearly set out in a way that is both easily accessible to the public and easily measurable (France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden). Other Member States have measures for some bathing waters only, or their measures are more vague (Hungary, Italy, Spain, and Slovakia). In Bulgaria, Czechia and Poland, no mitigation measures were found. Here, as well as in those Member States with limited measures, it should be a priority to identify potential measures needed to improve the classification.
The BWD provision requiring the permanent closure of a bathing water that has been classified as poor for five consecutive years appears to cause confusion. Firstly, because of the repealing of the old Directive (Member States argue that classifications under the old and the new Directives are not comparable) and, secondly, due to changes in classification (Member States may originally report a bathing water as ‘changes: classification not yet possible’, only to have it reclassified as ‘poor’ after discussions with the EEA/European Commission).
The procedure following the classification of a bathing water as poor is described as misleading. In many cases, bathing water operators open the site as usual following the classification, but either implement permanent or temporary restrictions on bathing (whether a ban or advice against bathing). In a few Member States, including Czechia, Finland, Hungary, Portugal, Spain, and the UK, however, bathing waters continue to be used for bathing, either officially or unofficially, without any evidence of such restrictions.
In some Member States, a number of bathing waters are in rural areas that are only inhabited by a large number of residents during the summer months, which might have a negative effect on the maintenance of waste water treatment infrastructure. However, it is necessary to ensure that sewage leaks and waste
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 75 water discharges (including those from non-compliant urban waste water treatment plants) are contained and managed. This follows the wider goal of the UWWTD to ensure that all waste water is appropriately managed in the EU.
2.12 PUBLIC INFORMATION
The purpose of this section is to understand whether Member States follow the requirements to provide the public with information about bathing water quality, as set out in the BWD. The provision of information to the public on bathing water quality is a key element of the Directive (Article 1(c)), which sets out provisions under which Member States must provide this information:
◼ the requirement to prepare bathing water profiles for each bathing water (Article 6) in line with the information and review requirements set out in Annex III; ◼ the requirement to provide information to the public in the immediate vicinity of each bathing water and through ‘appropriate media and technology’.
In addition, Article 2(7) defines public information and bathing water profiles as management measures that can be used to achieve the objectives of the Directive.
The table below summarises the public information requirements set out in the Directive.
Table 17: Public information requirements of the BWD
Bathing water ‘Appropriate Vicinity of each profiles media and bathing water technologies’ Description of the bathing water ✓ ✓ ✓ Annex III(1)(a)60 Article 12(2) 61 Article 12(1)(b)62 Identification and assessment of causes ✓ of pollution Annex III(1)(b) Information on potential of proliferation ✓ of cyanobacteria Annex III(1)(c) Information on potential for proliferation ✓ of macroalgae and/or phytoplankton Annex III(1)(d) Details of STP, including management ✓ ✓ ✓ measures (if any risk exists) Annex III(1)(e) Article 12(2) Article 12(1)(c) Location of monitoring point ✓ Annex III(1)(f) Current bathing water classification ✓ ✓ Article 12(2) Article 12(1)(a) Any prohibition or advice against ✓ ✓ bathing Article 12(2) Article 12(1)(c) Article 12(1)(e) Details of abnormal situations (if any) ✓ ✓ Article 12(2) Article 12(1)(d) Details of permanently closed bathing ✓ ✓ waters (if any) Article 12(2) Article 12(1)(f) Details of more complete information ✓ ✓ sources Article 12(2) Article 12(1)(g) List of all bathing waters ✓ Article 12(2)(a)
60 Including a description of relevant physical, geographical, hydrological characteristics and other surface waters in the catchment area that could be a source of pollution. 61 In non-technical language. 62 In non-technical language.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 76
Bathing water ‘Appropriate Vicinity of each profiles media and bathing water technologies’ Classification of all bathing waters, ✓ including monitoring results Article 12(2)(b) Information on ‘poor’ quality bathing ✓ waters, including causes and Article 12(2)(c) management measures (if any)
This section analyses how Member States address the following public information issues within the framework of the BWD:
◼ national bathing water quality website; ◼ bathing water profiles; ◼ information available in the vicinity of bathing waters.
The analysis is based on information collected through desk research, interviews with stakeholders and Member State responses to the information gathering questionnaire.
2.12.1 National bathing water quality website
Under Article 12(2) of the Directive, Member States are required to use ‘appropriate media technologies, including the Internet’ to actively disseminate information.
All Member States use the Internet to disseminate information to the public, with most having a national website dedicated to bathing water quality. In many Member States, regional and/or municipal websites also provide information on local bathing waters. Often, the national website provides a direct link to regional websites (e.g. Germany).
In some cases, information is provided via regional websites rather than a comprehensive national website. This is the case in Bulgaria, where the national Ministry of Health website does not include a dedicated bathing water page but instead links to bathing water information on the websites of the regional competent authorities. In Belgium, information is provided on the websites of the regional environmental authorities. In the UK, separate bathing water quality websites exist for England, Wales (see example box below), Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Gibraltar.
Good Practice: use of mobile app and social media in Wales
In addition to the Welsh bathing water quality website, Natural Resources Wales launched a mobile app in 2014 that provides regularly-updated information about the quality of the water at each designated bathing water. The history of pollution risk forecast stays online for the rest of the calendar year, as do previous STPs. Twitter also provides a record of STP predictions.
All bathing waters in Wales that use the Environment Agency prediction model also display the STP result at the top of the webpage. Cemaes and Swansea have separate links to the model outputs in the pollution risk forecasts section.
This practice communicates information to the general public in a concise and easily accessible way, and allows for real-time information.
In some cases, information is spread across multiple websites, making it difficult for the public to locate all relevant information. In Czechia, information on bathing water quality is spread across the websites of different authorities, including the Ministry of Health website (list of bathing waters and an interactive map), the Ministry of Agriculture website (bathing water profiles), and in the bathing water profiles available on the website of the relevant regional authority. In Belgium, the assessment found
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 77 that in the Wallonia region, information was spread across two different websites, making it difficult for users to access a comprehensive set of information63.
Where information is provided on local or regional authority websites, the level of detail can vary. This was noted in Denmark, where most information is provided through municipal websites, resulting in uneven coverage. Some authorities provide overviews and summaries on their relevant websites, while others merely link to the bathing water profiles. In Croatia, information on inland bathing waters was less comprehensive than information for coastal waters. In other cases, the information on national and regional websites may not align (e.g. Italy).
Websites often omit specific items of information required under the BWD. Details of waters subject to STP were not found on nine national websites (Belgium (both Flanders and Wallonia), Hungary, Portugal Romania, Estonia, Sweden, Greece, Italy, and Spain). Similarly, information on poor quality bathing waters was not found on the bathing water websites of six Member States (Belgium- Flanders, Czechia, Hungary, Italy, Romania, and Sweden). In some cases, the absence of information may be appropriate, for example where there are no bathing waters currently classified as poor quality (e.g. Romania). In other cases, the missing information is not featured on the website, but can be found in the relevant bathing water profiles (Belgium, Czechia, Greece, Romania, Sweden, Estonia, Italy and Portugal).
2.12.2 Bathing water profiles
The assessment is based on a review of a representative sample of profiles in all Member States. The profiles were reviewed for their availability, completeness and revision.
2.12.2.1 Availability of bathing water profiles
In general, Member States have made most of their bathing water profiles available to the general public. Some minor issues were identified, however:
◼ In some cases, bathing profiles were not available for certain regions of the country. In Italy for example, profiles for all bathing waters are provided on the national website, except for those located in one region (Umbria). In Croatia, even though coastal bathing water profiles are available, those for some inland bathing waters are still in development. ◼ In Italy and Spain, the bathing water profiles were not available or downloadable from the national water quality website during the assessment. ◼ In many cases, the profiles can be difficult to access on the national website. For example, in Latvia, the naming conventions used make the profiles difficult to locate within an alphabetical list. ◼ In Italy and Portugal, NGOs complained that the websites were not user-friendly, although no further detail was provided. ◼ Finally, in two countries, multiple profiles were consolidated into one document: in Hungary, the profiles of 72 bathing waters on one lake are compiled into a single document; in Romania, all bathing water profiles are presented in one Excel sheet. In both cases, the information is incomplete and gives insufficient detail.
2.12.2.2 Information included in bathing water profiles
In terms of completeness of the information provided in the profiles, the bathing water profiles reviewed did not always comprehensively include the information required by the BWD. Most frequently, information was missing in at least some of the sampled bathing water profiles in the following areas:
63 Since the assessment was carried out, information for the region has been consolidated on one website.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 78
◼ Information on potential of proliferation of cyanobacteria (Annex III(1)(c)): gaps in at least some profiles in Bulgaria, Italy, Spain. ◼ Information on the potential for proliferation of macroalgae and/or phytoplankton (Annex III(1)(d)): gaps in at least some profiles in Bulgaria, Czechia, Italy, Spain, ◼ Details of STP, including management measures (if any risk exists) (Annex III(1)(e)): gaps in at least some profiles in Italy, Malta, Spain, Sweden. Even in Member States where profiles were generally comprehensive, detailed information on management measures for STP and/or poor quality sites was missing (e.g. Denmark, Germany, Slovakia and UK).
A small number of Member States were missing BWD-required information for a significant number of profiles. In the cases of Romania and Hungary, significant gaps appeared in the profiles compiled in a single document. In other Member States – Germany, Italy, Spain – variations in the completeness of information were observed between different regions.
Some specific good practices were also observed. The drafting of profiles at local level but based on a common national template helped to provide specific local information in a consistent manner in Denmark and France. A number of countries included additional information in the bathing profiles, such as the number of bathers, information about awards and images of the bathing sites (Finland, Ireland and Slovenia).
2.12.2.3 Revision of bathing water profiles
The Directive requires bathing water profiles to be reviewed regularly, and updated if needed, in line with the minimum frequencies set out in Annex III:
◼ for bathing waters classified as good: at least every four years; ◼ for bathing waters classified as sufficient: at least every three years; ◼ for bathing waters classified as poor: at least every two years.
Profiles for bathing waters classified as excellent need to be reviewed only if the classification changes. In addition, profiles need to be reviewed following significant changes that could impact the quality of the bathing water (e.g. significant construction works, changes in infrastructure, changes in the vicinity of the bathing water).
In general, most Member States appear to revise their profiles in line with the requirements of the Directive. However, issues with revisions were observed in some Member States. In Slovenia and Spain, most of the profiles analysed have not been reviewed since 2011. Research also identified some profiles that did not appear to have been reviewed in line with the Directive in Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Netherlands and Sweden. In Romania, it is difficult to ascertain when profiles were most recently reviewed, as relevant dates were not provided.
In other Member States, profiles are updated more frequently than required under the BWD (Austria, Luxembourg, UK (Northern Ireland)).
2.12.3 Information in the vicinity of bathing waters
Article 12(1) requires Member States to ensure that certain information is made available during the bathing season in an easily accessible place in the near vicinity of each bathing water. Investigation of whether Member States meet this requirement was based on feedback from stakeholders and, where possible, desk research. For some Member States, it was not possible to confirm whether this information is provided in line with the Directive.
In some jurisdictions, stakeholders reported that the relevant information is either absent or only partly displayed. In Bulgaria, the relevant information is not provided. In Slovakia, information boards are
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 79 missing at most bathing waters. In Italy, most bathing waters do not have information boards or, if they do, they are not always up-to-date. At bathing sites where bathing was prohibited, signs were often missing.
◼ In some countries, information is provided inconsistently, often depending on the operator of the bathing water. In France, for example, as many as four different classification systems are used, sometimes simultaneously, making it difficult for bathers to easily understand bathing water quality. ◼ Stakeholders reported that even though information is provided in line with the Directive, it is often provided in an unclear or highly technical way that does not meaningfully inform bathers of the water quality. An NGO in Germany criticised the complexity of the information and encouraged the use of a simpler traffic light system. In France, stakeholders mentioned that classifications do not represent the actual state of the waters, giving the example of Huveaune in Marseilles and St Jean de Luz where ‘excellent’ beaches are closed for more than 10 days each summer due to pollution. ◼ In many cases, information is only provided - or is more comprehensive - at officially identified bathing waters that are also Blue Flag beaches. Information was reported to be better at Blue Flag beaches in Malta, Spain Portugal and Italy. In Greece and Cyprus, it was reported that no information is provided in the vicinity of bathing waters except at Blue Flag beaches or those operated by private operators. In Lithuania, information is only provided for the most heavily frequented bathing waters, while in Poland information is only provided at guarded beaches.
Some good practices were identified that may improve the quality of information communicated to bathers in the vicinity of bathing waters:
◼ In some countries, information is updated frequently: at popular sites in Latvia, information is updated daily during the bathing season. ◼ In the UK (Scotland), a network of electronic signs is used to communicate real-time information about water quality. ◼ In Ireland and France, administrative authorities and interested organisations have developed apps that allow for an easy access to and dissemination of information. ◼ In some countries (Croatia, Portugal, Slovenia, Romania), basic information is provided in multiple languages, according to the language profile or the local population needs and/or the tourist population.
Figure 34: Bilingual signage in Slovenia (regions with linguistic minorities)
2.12.4 Conclusions
In general, efforts to inform the public on bathing water quality were noted across the Member States. Public information is a key element of the BWD and Member States seem to be aware of this.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 80
All Member States use the Internet to provide information to the public, as required by the BWD. In most cases, this occurs through a single national website dedicated to bathing water quality. However, in some cases, information is spread across multiple websites, making access more difficult, while, in others, the information is provided via regional websites, often with varying levels of detail. It is recommended that, where possible, Member States centralise all relevant information, or, where information is provided at regional or local level, that a common template is used.
Not all relevant information is provided online (i.e. neither via the website or the profiles available online). The most commonly omitted information relates to STP and poor quality bathing waters.
Most Member States have publicly available profiles for the vast majority of their bathing waters. In some cases, however, bathing profiles for certain regions of the country were not available, while in others, the profiles can be difficult to access on the national website. While some Member States go beyond the requirements of the Directive in terms of the information included in profiles, some do not provide the information specified by the BWD. Most frequently, information was missing in at least some of the sampled bathing water profiles in relation to potential of proliferation of cyanobacteria, macroalgae or phytoplankton, and on details of STP, including management measures. All of these elements relate to incidents with the potential to have direct impacts on the health of bathers, thus Member States should ensure that they are always included. The majority of Member States appear to revise profiles in line with the requirements of the Directive, with serious issues noted in two cases (Slovenia and Spain).
According to stakeholders, most Member States provide information in the vicinity of the bathing waters. Problems identified related to the inadequacy, incompleteness and inconsistency of the information provided to the general public, or, more seriously, its absence entirely. In general, information is more complete at those identified bathing waters that have been awarded Blue Flag status. The information provided can sometimes be overly complex and does not help bathers easily understand the quality of bathing waters. Member States should encourage the use of a common simplified template for information boards and ensure that the boards are updated as necessary.
Overall, there is room for improvement in the provision of information to the public throughout the EU, in particular in Bulgaria, Italy, Hungary, Romania and Spain.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 81
3 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The research undertaken on the various issues identified at the beginning of the project revealed that in many cases, issues were either insignificant, or problematic in only certain Member States. Several issues appeared more broad-based, including the identification of bathing waters, assessment and management of cyanobacteria, identification of abnormal situations, management of STP events, management of poor waters and public information.
The identification of bathing waters was problematic for many Member States for several reasons. Firstly, it is often not undertaken in a systematic way. For example, the assessment of ‘large number’ of bathers is subjective and other criteria may play a role in the final identification. In addition, there was no evidence of adequate public consultation in many Member States. It is recommended that Member States adopt a systematic and formal approach to identifying bathing waters and ensuring that this is publicly available, for example in an official guidance document or on the bathing water website. At EU level, a collection of good practices across the EU could support Member States to improve and harmonise their approaches.
Cyanobacteria proliferation does not affect all Member States and even in some of the Member States where it does occur, it does not happen on a large scale. However, few Member States have a systematic approach to predicting proliferations, even fewer have concrete mitigation measures in place, and many bathing water profiles failed to include an adequate assessment of the potential for such proliferations. It is recommended that Member States adopt a systematic approach which first identifies the potential for proliferation and then proposes measures. If there is no risk of cyanobacterial proliferations, this should be made clear in the bathing water profiles. Measures should be specific, quantifiable and consider the needs and geographical characteristics of different regions/localities. At EU level, a collection of good practices across the EU could assist Member States.
Abnormal situations are not identified in many Member States, with the research suggesting that this provision is used as a ‘catch-all’ for any events that may disrupt the monitoring calendar. Member States should ensure that this provision is only used for events (or combinations of events) impacting bathing water quality, in line with the Directive. Member States could develop guidance documents to remind bathing water owners/operators of their obligations. In addition, it is recommended that the reasons for an abnormal situation are reported, to allow checks on the appropriate use of the provision.
Both STP and high concentration of E. coli and/or Intestinal enterococci (leading to classification as ‘poor’) are reported infrequently by Member States, and in both cases, the reasons appear to be justified. In addition, the frequency at which they are reported is declining over time. However, there is concern that the mitigation measures put in place to deal with both of these situations are neither adequately developed nor publicly available. For example, even in Member States with comprehensive bathing water profiles, measures to prevent or mitigate STP and poor quality water were vague, unspecific, and unquantifiable. Such measures are not conducive to promoting long-term protection and improvement of bathing waters. Member States are recommended to identify specific and quantifiable measures focusing on both short-term and long-term effects for all poor bathing waters and waters subject to systemic STP events. Ideally, these measures should be published in the bathing water profiles but could also be available on the bathing water website. For poor waters, management measures should clearly include measures to prevent bathers’ exposure to pollution, and should include either advice against bathing or a bathing ban. At EU level, guidance or an official communication should advise Member States that it is expected that in the year following a poor classification, bathing will be prohibited or an advisory against bathing issued.
All Member States use the Internet to provide information to the public, as required by the BWD. Often, however, not all relevant information is provided online or access is difficult. There are also several cases of incomplete, difficult to access or even non-existent bathing profiles. Similar problems
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 82 were identified in relation to the information provided in the vicinity of bathing waters. Public information is one of the key pillars of the BWD, as bathing water quality is as much a health issue as an environmental one. Member States must therefore ensure that the information they provide – whether on their websites, in bathing water profiles or in the vicinity of bathing waters - is complete, easy to access, user-friendly and up-to-date.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 83
ANNEX I – LIST OF BATHING WATERS ASSESSED (ALL MEMBER STATES)64
This Annex lists all the bathing waters that were researched for those issues that required desk research and/or analysis of the bathing water profiles. For each bathing water, data reported to the EEA for the 2016 season was collated to determine how many bathing waters reported each issue (groups, geographic constraint, closed bathing waters, short-term pollution, abnormal situations, and poor bathing waters). In almost all cases, all bathing waters were researched if they reported these issues. In some rare cases, however, the number of bathing waters reporting a particular issue in a single Member State (for example, groups or short-term pollution) was too high to allow in-depth research on each bathing water. In such cases, samples were selected using the same methodology as ‘Sample A’ (see below). The table below summarises the total number of bathing waters reporting each issue in 2016 (with the exception of Sample A), the number of bathing waters analysed in the quantitative analysis and what percentage of the total number of bathing waters this is.
‘Sample A’ is used to identify a sample of bathing waters taken from the total number of bathing waters identified by the Member States and reported to the EEA for the year of 2016. Several issues required an analysis of all bathing waters (location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of the bathing water profiles). However, the high number of bathing waters reported meant that in-depth research was not feasible for every bathing water. Instead, a sampling method was developed. Sample A was to comprise of at least eight bathing waters, and a minimum of 2% of the total number of bathing waters reported for a given Member State. Bathing waters were selected based on category (lake, river, coastal) and class (excellent, good, sufficient, poor) in order to draw a sample which is as representative as possible. As secondary criterion, bathing waters were selected based on geography (including different regional authorities or federal states). When an assessment found that a particular bathing water was unsuitable for analysis (for example if the bathing water profile was not available online) that bathing water was replaced by another of the same category and class.
It is worth noting that only 2016 data is used in order to determine whether an issue is relevant for a Member State or not. For example, if a Member State reports short term pollution in 2015 but not in 2016, the issue is not considered relevant for this study. Similarly, a bathing water profile in Sample A might address short term pollution, but unless that same profile is also part of the STP sample, it will not be included in the section on STP.
64 For more information please see https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/interactive/bathing/state-of-bathing-waters .
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 84
1 AUSTRIA
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 264 8 3 Groups 0 n/a n/a Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 0 n/a n/a Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 0 n/a n/a
1.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 264 AT3350004100210010 REITHER SEE, BADEANSTALT Sample of 8 AT3350003100130010 BADESEE KRUMMSEE, SÜD (3.0%) AT3420002400010010 ALTER RHEIN, LUSTENAU AT1240001600270010 HERRENTEICH, LITSCHAU AT1260007800190020 DONAU ALTARM, GREIFENSTEIN AT3230004300050010 BADESEE ST. GEORGEN65 AT3420003800020010 BAGGERSEE PASPELS, RANKWEIL AT3130005200120010 WALDHAUSEN BADESEE
1.2 GROUPS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Austria.
1.3 GEOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINT
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Austria.
1.4 CLOSED WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Austria.
65 Note that this site has not been a bathing water since 2016.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 85
1.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Austria.
1.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Austria.
1.7 POOR QUALITY BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Austria.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 86
2 BELGIUM
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 113 8 7.1 Groups 0 0 0 Geographic 0 0 0 constraints Closed 0 0 0 STP (distinct sites) 27 14 51.9 Abnormal sites (distinct 8 8 100 sites) Poor BW 1 1 100
2.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 113 BE162 MIDDELKERKE - EXCELSIOR Sample of BE2400022000000B04 LA PLAGE DE RENIPONT 8 BE79300 HOOGSTRATEN - DE MOSTEN (7.1%) BE3600006000000E01 LE LAC DE FÉRONVAL BE296600 LILLE - LILSE BERGEN (GROTE VIJVER) BE300 BLANKENBERGE - KERKSTRAAT BE6400002000000H34 LA SEMOIS À BOUILLON (PONT DE FRANCE) BE875460 BRUGGE - SINT-PIETERSPLAS
2.2 GROUPS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Belgium.
2.3 GEOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINT
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Belgium.
2.4 CLOSED WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Belgium. This study is looking at bathing water sites that were closed in 2016 and not classified as poor in 2015; delisted sites were excluded from the analysis.
2.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘short-term pollution’ were assessed in relation to the causes of
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 87 short-term pollution and relative measures.
Number Bathing water ID Name Pollution period(s) of sites 27 BE107760 BOCHOLT - GOOLDERHEIDE Three instances: Sample of 06/06/2016 - 09/06/2016 14 (51.9%) 22/08/2016 - 25/08/2016 05/09/2016 - 08/09/2016 BE115800 KINROOI - BATVEN Two instances: 13/06/2016 - 16/06/2016 25/07/2016 - 28/07/2016 BE170 OOSTENDE - RAVERSIJDE-BAD 24/06/2016 - 27/06/2016 BE185 OOSTENDE - NORTHLAAN 24/06/2016 - 27/06/2016 BE200 OOSTENDE - DUIN EN ZEE Two instances: 12/08/2016 - 15/08/2016 13/09/2016 - 16/09/2016 BE201040 SINT-NIKLAAS - DE STER 50-M BAD Two instances: 30/05/2016 - 02/06/2016 29/08/2016 - 01/09/2016 BE210 BREDENE - TURKEYEN 12/08/2016 - 15/08/2016 BE3200012000000E05 LE PLAN D'EAU DE LA MARLETTE Two instances: 28/06/2016 - 01/07/2016 23/08/2016 - 26/08/2016 BE454840 ZONHOVEN - HEIDESTRAND 13/06/2016 - 16/06/2016 BE570150 GENT - BLAARMEERSEN STRAND- BADZONE 13/06/2016 - 16/06/2016 BE6400002000000H19 LA SEMOIS À BOUILLON (PONT DE LA POULIE) 05/07/2016 - 08/07/2016 BE79300 HOOGSTRATEN - DE MOSTEN 18/04/2016 - 21/04/2016 BE848775 DESSEL - CAMPINASTRAND 14/06/2016 - 16/06/2016 BE848795 MOL - FAMILIESTRAND POSTEL 30/05/2016 - 02/06/2016
2.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘abnormal situation’ were assessed in relation to the causes of abnormal situation.
Number Bathing water ID Name Start and end date of sites 8 BE6500001000000H07 LA SEMOIS À CHINY 1/06/2016 – 30/06/2016 BE6400004000000H16 LA SEMOIS À HERBEUMONT 1/06/2016 – 30/06/2016 BE6400002000000H19 LA SEMOIS À BOUILLON (PONT DE LA 1/06/2016 – 30/06/2016 POULIE) BE6300004000000H23 L'OURTHE À MABOGE 1/06/2016 – 30/06/2016 BE6400002000000H34 LA SEMOIS À BOUILLON (PONT DE 1/06/2016 – 30/06/2016 FRANCE) BE7100015000000I09 LA SEMOIS À MEMBRE 1/06/2016 – 30/06/2016 BE7100015000000I11 LA SEMOIS À ALLE-SUR-SEMOIS 1/06/2016 – 30/06/2016 BE7100015000000I12 LA SEMOIS À VRESSE-SUR-SEMOIS 1/06/2016 – 30/06/2016
2.7 POOR QUALITY SITES
The bathing water sites listed under ‘poor quality sites’ were assessed in relation to the issues of management measures for poor quality sites and closing of poor quality sites.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 88
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 1 BE774055 BRUGGE - LANGEREI
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 89
3 BULGARIA
Total waters (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 94 8 8.5 Groups 0 n/a n/a Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 0 n/a n/a Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 1 1 100
3.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name waters 94 BG3320353120008019 ALBENA Sample of BG3410407079002018 BURGAS - PLAZH CHERNOMORSKI SOLNITSI 8 BG3310610135003007 SV. KONSTANTIN I ELENA-DO MINERALEN BASEYN (8.5%) BG3242661710017001 YAZOVIR PCHELINA 2 BG4251606567009001 YAZOVIR KARDZHALI - PLAZH 1 BG3410407079002020 BURGAS - TSENTRALEN PLAZH BG3310610135003011 VARNA - OFITSERSKI PLAZH BG3411344094002037 LOZENETS - TSENTRLEN PLAZH
3.2 GROUPS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Bulgaria.
3.3 GEOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Bulgaria.
3.4 CLOSED BATHING SITES
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Bulgaria.
3.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Bulgaria.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 90
3.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Bulgaria.
3.7 POOR QUALITY SITES
The bathing water site assessed in relation to the issues of management measures for poor quality sites and closing of poor quality sites was the following.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 1 BG3310610135003011 VARNA - OFITSERSKI PLAZH
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 91
4 CYPRUS
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 113 8 7.1 Groups 0 n/a n/a Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 26 13 50 Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 0 n/a n/a
4.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 113 CY0003101000000006 VRYSI C Sample of CY0004000000000040 FOINIKOUDES 1 8 CY0006000000000132 DIMOTIKA MPANIA (7.1%) CY000310000000013A LOUKKOS TOU MANDI CY0006104000000120 KOLYMPOS CY0005013000000090 DASOUDI 2 CY0004000000000041 FOINIKOUDES 2 CY0006000000000125 PACHYAMMOS A
4.2 GROUPS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Cyprus.
4.3 GEOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Cyprus.
4.4 CLOSED BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Cyprus.
4.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘short-term pollution’ were assessed in relation to the causes of short-term pollution and relative measures.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 92
Number Bathing water ID Name Pollution period(s) of sites 26 CY0003100000000015 VATHIA GONIA Two instances: Sample 05/09/2016 - 15/09/2016 of 13 03/10/2016 - 13/10/2016 (50.0%) CY0003100000000019 AGIA THEKLA 11/07/2016 - 21/07/2016 CY000310000000011A AMMOS TOU KAMPOURI 05/09/2016 - 15/09/2016 CY0003101000000004 PERNERA BAY 22/08/2016 - 01/09/2016 CY000410600000024A ALOUPOTRYPES Three instances: 16/05/2016 - 26/05/2016 11/07/2016 - 21/07/2016 08/08/2016 - 18/08/2016 CY0004107000000024 XYLOFAGOU 16/05/2016 - 26/05/2016 CY0005124000000075 APHRODITE 25/04/2016 - 05/05/2016 CY0005124000000076 ARMONIA Two instances: 25/04/2016 - 05/05/2016 30/08/2016 - 09/09/2016 CY0006000000000125 PACHYAMMOS A 04/10/2016 - 14/10/2016 CY0006000000000129 ALYKES 14/06/2016 - 24/06/2016 CY0006020000000136 KOTSIAS Two instances: 12/07/2016 - 26/07/2016 04/10/2016 - 14/10/2016 CY0006100000000119 RANTI FOREST Two instances: 12/07/2016 - 26/07/2016 04/10/2016 - 14/10/2016 CY0006344000000146 KAMPOS TOU SOULIOU 23/08/2016 - 02/09/2016
4.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Cyprus.
4.7 POOR QUALITY BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Cyprus.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 93
5 CZECHIA
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 154 8 5.2 Groups 1 1 100 Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 4 4 100 STP (distinct sites) 0 n/a n/a Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 1 1 100
5.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 154 CZ_KO531201 RYBNÍK ROSNIČKA Sample of CZ_KO620303 VN BRNĚNSKÁ PŘEHRADA - SOKOLSKÉ KOUPALIŠTĚ 8 CZ_KO610202 RYBNÍK ŘEDKOVEC (5.2%) CZ_KO610201 RYBNÍK KACHLIČKA CZ_KO520901 VN ROZKOŠ - U AUTOKEMPINKU CZ_PK420551 RYBNÍK CHMELAŘ CZ_KO320901 LOM - JEZÍRKO KOŠUTKA CZ_KO311402 STAŇKOVSKÝ RYBNÍK
5.2 GROUPING OF BATHING WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘groups’ were assessed in relation to the issues of contiguity and water classification of grouped bathing water sites.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 1 group CZ_KO520701 Group ID: CZ_G01 CZ_KO520702
5.3 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Czechia.
5.4 CLOSED WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under 'closed but not poor' were those bathing waters that were classified as ‘closed’ in 2016 but were not classified as ‘poor’ or reported as ‘closed’ in 2015. They were assessed to find out why they were closed.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 94
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 4 CZ_KO320501 RYBNÍK HNAČOV CZ_KO810603 VN OLEŠNÁ -MÍSTEK CZ_KO810604 VN OLEŠNÁ - PALKOVICE
5.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Czechia.
5.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Czechia.
5.7 POOR QUALITY BATHING WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘poor quality bathing waters’ were assessed in relation to the issues of management measures for poor quality bathing waters and closing of poor quality bathing waters.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 1 CZ_KO311402 Staňkovský rybník
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 95
6 GERMANY
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 2292 46 2 Groups 4 4 100 Geographic 1 1 100 constraints Closed 1 1 100 STP (distinct sites) 1 1 100 Abnormal sites (distinct 10 10 100 sites) Poor BW 5 5 100
6.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number Bathing water ID Name of waters 2292 DENI_PR_TK25_2212_01 NORDSEESTRAND NEUHARLINGERSIEL – sample DESH_PR_0044 NORDS;SYLT;HOERNUM-OST;OSTSTRAND of 46 DESH_PR_0262 SCHLEI;HAGAB (2.0%) DEMV_PR_1_0203 OSTSEE, ZINGST, MÜGGENBURG, PARKPLATZ DEBY_PR_WUG_0065 HAHNENKAMMSEE, HEIDENHEIM, BADESTRAND DEBY_PR_WUG_0064 ALTMUEHLSEE, GUNZENHAUSEN, SCHLUNGENHOF, SEEZENTRUM SCHLUNGENHOF DEBY_PR_WUG_0063 ALTMUEHLSEE, GUNZENHAUSEN, WALD, SEEZENTRUM WALD DEBY_PR_A_0095 KUHSEE, AUGSBURG DERP_PR_0021 SCHALKENMEHRENER MAAR DETH_PR_0003 SEE PAHNA DESN_PR_0017 BADESEE COSWIG-KOETITZ DERP_PR_0001 LAACHER SEE DEHB_PR_9015 WALLER FELDMARKSEE DETH_PR_0036 TALSPERRE ZEULENRODA, UFER BIOSEEHOTEL DERP_PR_0052 BAGGERSEE NEUBURG DEST_PR_0053 STRANDBAD STRASSFURT DEHE_PR_0009 HEUCHELHEIMER SEE II DERP_PR_0051 BAGGERSEE LEIMERSHEIM DEHH_PR_5900 NATURBAD STADTPARKSEE DERP_PR_0042 HERRNSHEIMER BADESEE DEBE_PR_0018 WANNSEE DESL_PR_06001 BOSTALSEE STRANDBAD NORD DETH_PR_0151 SUEDBAD SCHLEICHERSEE DEBE_PR_0020 GROSS GLIENICKER SEE, NORD DEBW_PR_0197 FRONREUTE, HAECKLERWEIHER
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 96
DENI_PR_TK25_2509_01 NATURBAD KLEINES MEER (HIEVE) - MARIENWEHR DEHE_PR_0024 BUGA-SEE DENI_PR_TK25_3423_01 FREIBAD - FRANZ SEE - MANDELSLOH DESN_PR_0008 TALSPERRE BAUTZEN DEBB_PR_0131 GROßE PLÖTZE, LÖWENBERGER LAND OT NEUENDORF DEBB_PR_0237 OBERUCKERSEE, WARNITZ, FERIENHAUSSIEDLUNG DENW_PR_0030 FREIBAD EINRUHR RURTALSP./SCHWIMMER DESH_PR_0279 BADESEE;LINDEWITT DESH_PR_0028 KUECHENSEE;RATZEBURG;AM HALLENBAD AQUA SIWA DEMV_PR_2_0065 GOLDBERGER SEE, BADESTRAND DESH_PR_0134 OSTS;BOTTSAND DEMV_PR_1_0727 OSTSEE, HERINGSDORF, SEEBRÜCKE DEBY_PR_MB_0226 SCHLIERSEE, SCHLIERSEE, LIEGEWIESE FISCHHAUSEN DERP_PR_0055 SAEGMUEHLWEIHER DERP_PR_0044 BADEWEIHER AUF DEM KNAUS DEBW_PR_0055 WELDINGSFELDEN, BADESEE DENI_PR_TK25_3524_02 SILBERSEE LANGENHAGEN DEST_PR_0075 SÜßER SEE ASELEBEN DENI_PR_TK25_3416_01 DUEMMER SEE - LEMBRUCH, BIRKENALLEE DEBW_PR_0059 KUENZELSAU, KOCHERBADEBUCHT DEBW_PR_0012 ERISKIRCH, STRANDBAD
6.2 GROUPING OF BATHING WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘groups’ were assessed in relation to the issues of contiguity and water classification of grouped bathing water sites.
Number of Bathing water ID Group ID groups 4 DESH_PR_0048 Group ID: DESH_PR_NF_G001 DESH_PR_0049 DESH_PR_0050 DESH_PR_0012 Group ID: DESH_PR_NMS_G001 DESH_PR_0330
DEST_PR_0003 Group ID: DEST_PR_G_0003 DEST_PR_0001
DEST_PR_0005 Group ID: DEST_PR_G_0006 DEST_PR_0006 DEST_PR_0007
6.3 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘geographic constraint’ were assessed in relation to the causes of geographic constrains.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 97
Number Bathing water ID Name of waters 1 DEBW_PR_0309 WINTERLINGEN, NATURBAD
6.4 CLOSED WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under 'closed but not poor' were those bathing waters that were classified as ‘closed’ in 2016 but were not classified as ‘poor’ or reported as ‘closed’ in 2015. They were assessed to find out why they were closed.
Number of Bathing water ID Bathing water name Classification in 2015 waters and status in 2016 1 DEBW_PR_0068 ELLMANNSWEILER, BADESEE Excellent in 2015 and closed in 2016.
6.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘short-term pollution’ were assessed in relation to the causes of short-term pollution and relative measures.
Number Bathing water ID Name Pollution period(s) of waters 1 DERP_PR_0004 STADTWEIHER BAUMHOLDER Two instances: 13/06/2016 - 15/06/2016 27/06/2016-29/06/2016
6.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘abnormal situation’ were assessed in relation to the causes of abnormal situation.
Number Bathing water ID Name Start and end date of waters 10 DEBW_PR_0008 ERSINGEN, GROSSER BAGGERSEE 18/07/2016 - 25/07/2016 DEBW_PR_0023 KRESSBRONN, CAMPINGPLATZ 16/08/2016 - 23/08/2016 GOHREN DEBW_PR_0025 LANGENARGEN, STRANDBAD 16/06/2016 - 23/06/2016 DEBW_PR_0059 KUENZELSAU, KOCHERBADEBUCHT 4/07/2016 - 18/07/2016 DEBW_PR_0079 SPIELBERG, BOEMBACHSEE 6/06/2016 - 15/06/2016 DEBW_PR_0132 BUESINGEN, STRANDBAD 12/07/2016 – 15/07/2016 DEBW_PR_0223 RUSCHWEILER, RUSCHWEILER SEE 20/06/2016 - 27/06/2016 DEBW_PR_0295 WEINGARTEN, DIETENBACHSEE 8/08/2016 - 11/08/2016 DEBW_PR_0313 WUESTENROT, FINSTERROTER SEE 20/06/2016 - 4/07/2016 DEBW_PR_0317 SUNTHAUSER SEE 13/06/2016 - 21/06/2016
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 98
6.7 POOR QUALITY BATHING WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘poor quality bathing water sites’ were assessed in relation to the issues of management measures for poor quality sites and closing of poor quality waters.
Number of Bathing water ID Bathing water name waters 5 DEBW_PR_0059 KUENZELSAU, KOCHERBADEBUCHT DEBW_PR_0313 WUESTENROT, FINSTERROTER SEE DEMV_PR_1_0221 OSTSEE, STRELASUND, TREMT DENI_PR_TK25_3416_01 DUEMMER SEE - LEMBRUCH, BIRKENALLEE DENI_PR_TK25_3416_02 DUEMMER SEE - LEMBRUCH, SEESTRASSE
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 99
7 DENMARK
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 1036 21 2 Groups 8 8 100 Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 17 17 17 STP (distinct sites) 0 n/a n/a Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 8 8 100
7.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 1036 DKBW1183 TRELDE NÆS, KULVIG Sample of DKBW1371 ENDELAVE, SØNDERMØLLE 21 DKBW581 LYSTBÅDEHAVNEN (2.0%) DKBW1192 STILLINGE STRAND DKBW35 KLINTHOLM ØST DKBW347 BLYKOBBE DKBW954 SØNDERSTRAND DKBW312 TJELE LANGSØ, BIGUM SØBAD DKBW317 VIBORG SØNDERSØ - SØNDERSØ CAMPING DKBW1196 TYSTRUP SØ DKBW729 SYD FOR HOU HAVN DKBW1154 ÅGERUP DKBW343 HØL DKBW1248 KVIE SØ DKBW364 FARUM SØ, DOKTORENS BUGT DKBW182 SKAVEN STRAND SYD DKBW1563 CHRISTIANSGAVE DKBW243 KARBY DKBW1109 HØVE STRAND VED SKOVEN DKBW326 MELSTED DKBW1014 NAVN SØ
7.2 GROUPING BATHING WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘groups’ were assessed in relation to the issues of contiguity and water classification of grouped bathing water sites.
Number of Bathing water ID Group ID groups 8 DKBW188 Group ID: GRP10 DKBW192 DKBW207 Group ID: GRP11 DKBW208
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 100
Number of Bathing water ID Group ID groups DKBW526 Group ID: GRP13 DKBW527 DKBW528 DKBW529 DKBW58 Group ID: GRP14 DKBW1432 DKBW56 Group ID: GRP15 DKBW1124 DKBW1298 Group ID: GRP16 DKBW1330 DKBW211 Group ID: GRP8 DKBW212 DKBW220 Group ID: GRP9 DKBW221
7.3 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Denmark.
7.4 CLOSED WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under 'closed but not poor' were those waters that were classified as ‘closed’ in 2016 but were not classified as ‘poor’ or reported as ‘closed’ in 2015. They were assessed to find out why they were closed.
Number of Classification in 2015 and Bathing water ID Bathing water name sites status in 2016 17 DKBW1064 SOLBJERG SØ 2015: excellent; 2016: closed DKBW1116 ENSTEDVÆRKET NORD 2015: excellent; 2016: closed DKBW1259 FLANSBÆK STRAND 2015: excellent; 2016: closed DKBW1261 LYNGSODDE 2015: excellent; 2016: closed DKBW1288 SNOGHØJ, BALLESVEJ 2015: excellent; 2016: closed DKBW1302 SNOGHØJ, FÆRGEGÅRDSVEJ 2015: excellent; 2016: closed DKBW1316 SNOGHØJ, VEJRMOSEGÅRDS 2015: excellent; 2016: ALLE closed DKBW1495 LØKKEBO STRAND S 150 M 2015: excellent; 2016: closed DKBW1558 ANE'S LAGUNE 2015: excellent; 2016: closed DKBW1604 SØLLERØD SØ, VED SØENGEN 2015: (delisted?); 2016: closed DKBW430 TØRSLEV HAGE 2015: good; 2016: closed DKBW474 FALSLED VED MØLLEBÆK 2015: excellent; 2016: closed DKBW478 HORNE SOMMERLAND 2015: excellent; 2016: closed
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 101
Number of Classification in 2015 and Bathing water ID Bathing water name sites status in 2016 DKBW567 ØRNEHØJ FØNS 2015: excellent; 2016: closed DKBW605 BAGENKOP N 2015: excellent; 2016: closed DKBW776 KRAGE STRAND 2015: excellent; 2016: closed DKBW885 UD FOR KODALRENDEN 2015: excellent; 2016: closed
7.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Denmark.
7.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Denmark.
7.7 POOR QUALITY BATHING WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘poor quality bathing waters’ were assessed in relation to the issues of management measures for poor quality waters and closing of poor-quality waters.
Number of Bathing water ID Bathing water name sites 8 DKBW1563 CHRISTIANSGAVE DKBW1592 GUDENÅVEJ DKBW1611 FISKE- OG BADEBRO LINDHOLM DKBW182 SKAVEN STRAND SYD DKBW649 GERÅ STRAND DKBW658 HESSEL DKBW703 HASLEVGAARDE STRAND DKBW842 TREND STRAND
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 102
8 ESTONIA
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 54 8 14.8 Groups 0 n/a n/a Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 3 3 100 Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 0 n/a n/a
8.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number Bathing water ID Name of sites 54 EE00401002LUIDJA LUIDJA Sample EE00201002RAVAPJ RAVA PAISJÄRV of 8 EE00101026HARKU HARKU RAND (14.8%) EE00201016TYRIJ TÜRI TEHISJÄRV EE00201009KALIJARV KALIJÄRV EE00505017VALUOJA VALUOJA JÄRV EE00401005KARDLA KÄRDLA EE00403022VANAPARN VANA-PÄRNU RAND
8.2 GROUPS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Estonia.
8.3 GEOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Estonia.
8.4 CLOSED BATHING SITES
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Estonia.
8.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘short-term pollution’ were assessed in relation to the causes of short-term pollution and relative measures.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 103
Number Bathing water ID Name Pollution period(s) of sites 3 EE00101026KAKUM KAKUMÄE RAND 8/08/2016 – 12/08/2016 EE00301004KAUKSI KAUKSI RAND 15/08/2016 - 18/08/2016 EE00301023 SILLAMAE SILLAMÄE 19/07/2016 - 22/07/2016
8.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Estonia.
8.7 POOR QUALITY SITES
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Estonia.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 104
9 GREECE
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 1 542 31 2 Groups 0 n/a n/a Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 1 1 100 STP (distinct sites) 2 2 100 Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 0 n/a n/a
9.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing Water ID Name sites 1 542 GRBW019141037101 KATAKOLO - KAVOURI Sample of 31 GRBW029120066101 PLATYS GIALOS (2.0%) GRBW029242019101 VRACHATI 1 GRBW039248016101 SELINITSA GRBW049121046101 NIKIANA 1 GRBW059118029101 PERITHEIA - AGIOS SPYRIDONAS GRBW069220056101 DIKASTIKA SCHINIA GRBW069208006101 KOLONA GRBW079109002101 AGIOS DIMITRIOS GRBW079151055101 NEA STYRA - VENUS GRBW089105024101 KATO LECHONIA - POUNTA GRBW099047006101 OLYMPIAKI AKTI GRBW109057050101 KRYOPIGI - KALLITHEA 2 GRBW119027004101 ASPROVALTA - VRASNA 2 GRBW129006007101 DIMOTIKH PLAZ ALEXANDROUPOLIS GRBW139309122101 LIMANAKI ANALIPSIS GRBW139309137101 DRAPANOS GRBW149294204101 TSERDAKIA GRBW149263148101 ZEMATAS GRBW149266355101 LIMNOS GRBW149300320101 ASTERIA GRBW149296236101 RENI KALATHOU - THOLARI GRBW099070001101 VEGORITIDA GRBW029134112101 DAFNI 1 GRBW049128053101 GRIMPOVO GRBW059118037101 PALAIOPOLI GRBW069229028101 ELEFSINA DYTIKA GRBW109057030101 KRYOPIGI - KALLITHEA 1 GRBW149268002101 NEIMPORIO GRBW069216020101 LIMNI VOULIAGMENIS GRBW029140117101 PALAIOCHORI - BOYKA
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 105
9.2 GROUPING OF BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Greece.
9.3 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Greece.
9.4 CLOSED WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under 'closed but not poor' were those sites that were classified as ‘closed’ in 2016 but were not classified as ‘poor’ or reported as ‘closed’ in 2015. They were assessed to find out why they were closed.
Number of Bathing Water ID Name Issue sites 1 GRBW049121034101 GIALOS DRAGANOU Excellent in 2015, closed in 2016 (temporarily for either part or the whole season)
9.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘short-term pollution’ were assessed in relation to the causes of short-term pollution and relative measures.
Number of Bathing Water ID Bathing Water name Period of pollution sites 2 GRBW069208007101 PERDIKA 28/06/2016 -29/06/2016 GRBW069208008101 PANAGITSA 28/06/2016 -29/06/2016
9.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Greece.
9.7 POOR QUALITY BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Greece.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 106
10 SPAIN
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 2191 44 2 Groups 0 n/a n/a Geographic 13 13 100 constraints Closed 4 4 100 STP (distinct sites) 98 49 50 Abnormal sites (distinct 24 24 100 sites) Poor BW 39 39 100
10.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 2 191 ES705M0191776 PLAYA COCHINOS (LOS) (EL COCHINO) PM1 Sample of 44 ES111M067161 PLAYA RAPOSIÑOS PM1 (2.0%) ES213M0142484 PLAYA MURIOLA PM1 ES120M025497 PLAYA DE XAGÓ PM2 ES615M0421481 PLAYA LA REDONDELA PM1 ES612M0322213 PLAYA BAJO DE GUIA-BONANZA PM1 ES611M0131279 PLAYA COSTACABANA PM2 ES612M0071355 PLAYA ZAHARA DE LOS ATUNES PM1 ES615M0211468 PLAYA NUEVO PORTIL PM2 ES611M0751326 PLAYA COSTA TRANQUILA PM1 ES522M040983 PLAYA DEL GURUGU PM1 ES514M004783 PLAYA DE LA MARTINENCA PM1 ES512M034713 PLAYA CALA CRISTUS-SES TORRETES PM1 ES531M0541232 PLAYA DES CANAR PM1 ES620M0161606 PLAYA LOS NIETOS PM1 ES113C0222338 EMBALSE DE CASTRELO CASTRELO DE MIÑO PM1 ES416C1152182 EMBALSE LINARES DEL ARROYO MADERUELO PM1 ES300C1331979 EMBALSE SAN JUAN SAN MARTÍN DE VALDEIGLESIAS PM2 ES421C0571988 LAGUNA SANTO MORCILLO OSSA DE MONTIEL PM1 ES211C0132117 EMBALSE ULLIBARRI GAMBOA BARRUNDIA 03 PM1 ES512C0152031 EMBALSE BANYOLES BANYOLES PM2 ES413C1962444 RIO ANCARES VEGA DE ESPINAREDA PM1 ES113C0111923 RIO MAGROS BEARIZ PM1 ES114C0122369 RIO RÍO CABANELAS COTOBADE PM1 ES423C1972004 RIO CUERVO SANTA MARÍA DEL VAL PM1 ES241C1892327 RIO VELLOS PUÉRTOLAS PM1 ES213M044602 PLAYA DE EREAGA PM1 ES514M906861 PLAYA DEL CAP ROIG PM1 ES709M0012080 PLAYA TROYA I (AMÉRICAS I) PM3 ES111M02254 PLAYA AREA LONGA - CEDEIRA PM1 ES130M020543 PLAYA BRAZOMAR PM1 ES614M1732211 PLAYA LA CHARCA PM5 ES523M2041050 PLAYA DEL BARRI DE PESCADORS PM1 ES511M121663 PLAYA DEL VARADOR PM1
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 107
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites ES532M0401178 PLAYA CIUTAT JARDÍ PM1 ES112C0071910 RIO LADRA BEGONTE PM1 ES111C0021902 RIO TAMBRE AMES PM3 ES113C0391931 RIO CABRAS LAZA PM1 ES432C1482025 RIO JERTE PLASENCIA PM2 ES213M0442150 PLAYA DE LAS ARENAS PM1 ES111M00811 PLAYA GANDARÍO PM1 ES111M00813 PLAYA O PEDRIDO PM1 ES120M036514 PLAYA POO PM1 ES113C0052147 RIO RÍO LIMIA BALTAR PM1
10.2 GROUPING OF BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Spain.
10.3 GEOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINTS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘geographic constraint’ were assessed in relation to the causes of geographic constrains.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 13 ES114M004297 PLAYA MELIDE (ILLA DE ONS) PM1 ES114M004298 PLAYA DORNA (ILLA DE ONS) PM1 ES114M004299 PLAYA AREA DOS CANS (ILLA DE ONS) PM1 ES114M004300 PLAYA CANEXOL (ILLA DE ONS) PM1 ES114M057418 PLAYA RODAS (ISLAS CIES) PM1 ES114M057419 PLAYA FIGUEIRAS (ISLAS CIES) PM1 ES114M057420 PLAYA CARRACIDO (ISLAS CIES) PM1 ES620M0161615 PLAYA CALBLANQUE PM1 ES620M0241630 PLAYA CALNEGRE PM1 ES620M0241629 PLAYA PUNTA DE CALNEGRE PM1 ES620M0161616 PLAYA DEL BARCO PM1 ES620M0411659 PLAYA PORTMAN-EL LASTRE PM1 ES241C1092435 RIO ARA FISCAL PM1
10.4 CLOSED WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under 'closed but not poor' were those bathing waters that were classified as ‘closed’ in 2016 but were not classified as ‘poor’ or reported as ‘closed’ in 2015. They were assessed to find out why they were closed.
Number of Classification in 2015 Bathing water ID Bathing water name sites and status in 2016 4 RIO RABAL CHANDREXA DE QUEIXA 2015: good; 2016: closed ES113C0291927 PM1 LAGUNA LA REDONDILLA OSSA DE 2015: excellent; 2016: ES421C0571984 MONTIEL PM1 closed 2015: excellent; 2016: ES705M0121721 PLAYA TAURO PM1 closed 2015: closed; 2016: ES705M0091707 PLAYA BOCABARRANCO PM1 closed
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 108
10.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘short-term pollution’ were assessed in relation to the causes of short-term pollution and relative measures.
Number Bathing water Name Pollution period(s) of sites ID 98 ES212M069587 PLAYA DE ONDARRETA PM1 16/08/2016 - 17/08/2016 Sample of 29/08/2016 - 31/08/2016 49 (50.0%) ES212M069588 PLAYA DE ONDARRETA PM2 18/07/2016 - 20/07/2016 1/08/2016 - 3/08/2016 ES431C0802019 RIO GUADIANA MEDELLÍN PM1 5/07/2016 - 7/07/2016 ES432C2062512 GARGANTA RIO MORO VIANDAR DE LA 5/07/2016 - 7/07/2016 VERA PM1 ES511M0192471 Playa de Sant Sebastià PM1 23/05/2016 - 26/05/2016 ES511M019630 PLAYA DE LA MAR BELLA PM1 23/05/2016 - 26/05/2016 ES511M019634 PLAYA DE LA NOVA MAR BELLA PM1 23/05/2016 - 26/05/2016 ES511M019635 PLAYA DE LA NOVA ICÀRIA PM1 23/05/2016 - 26/05/2016 ES511M029639 PLAYA DE CABRERA (VINYALS) PM1 23/05/2016 - 26/05/2016 ES511M194671 PLAYA DEL FÒRUM PM1 23/05/2016 - 26/05/2016 ES511M270687 PLAYA DEL GARRAF PM1 25/07/2016 - 28/07/2016 22/08/2016 - 25/08/2016 ES512M047716 PLAYA D'EMPURIABRAVA PM1 11/07/2016 - 14/07/2016 ES512M048720 PLAYA DE SA CONCA PM1 8/08/2016 - 11/08/2016 ES512M062728 PLAYA DEL REC DEL MOLÍ PM1 25/07/2016 - 28/07/2016 22/08/2016 - 25/08/2016 ES512M117743 PLAYA DE PORT BO PM1 25/07/2016 - 28/07/2016 ES512M118748 PLAYA CALA ESTRETA PM1 8/08/2016 - 11/08/2016 ES512M160764 PLAYA DE SANT POL PM1 23/05/2016 - 26/05/2016 ES514M038806 PLAYA DE CAP DE SANT PERE PM1 25/07/2016 - 28/07/2016 ES514M905860 PLAYA CAPELLANS PM1 8/08/2016 - 11/08/2016 5/09/2016 - 8/09/2016 ES521M047887 PLAYA DE LA FOSSA PM1 2/08/2016 - 4/08/2016 ES521M047888 PLAYA DE CANTAL ROIG PM1 2/08/2016 - 4/08/2016 ES521M082921 PLAYA DE LA CALA BLANCA PM1 2/08/2016 - 4/08/2016 ES521M9022535 PLAYA CALAS DE ROCAMAR PM1 7/06/2016 - 9/06/2016 ES522M027970 PLAYA DEL MORRONGO PM1 22/08/2016 - 24/08/2016 ES523M2041048 PLAYA MEDICALIA PM1 5/07/2016 - 6/07/2016 29/08/2016 - 31/08/2016 ES523M2351063 PLAYA DE MOTILLA PM1 25/05/2016 - 27/05/2016 19/07/2016 - 20/07/2016 28/06/2016 - 1/07/2016 ES531M0481210 PLAYA CALA BASSA PM1 10/08/2016 - 11/08/2016 ES531M0481214 PLAYA BADIA SANT ANTONI PM1 9/05/2016 - 10/05/2016 23/05/2016 - 25/05/2016 ES531M0542288 PLAYA CALA MARTINA PM1 16/05/2016 - 18/05/2016 6/07/2015 - 8/07/2015 ES532M0031079 PLAYA MARINA PM1 14/06/2016 - 16/06/2016 ES532M0111101 PLAYA DE PEGUERA PM2 27/09/2016 - 28/09/2016 ES532M0111103 PLAYA DE PALMA NOVA PM1 13/06/2016 - 15/06/2016 23/05/2016 - 25/05/2016 ES532M0111108 PLAYA SANTA PONÇA PM1 27/09/2016 - 28/09/2016 29/06/2016 - 30/06/2016 ES532M0111111 PLAYA CALA VINYES PM1 29/06/2016 - 30/06/2016 ES532M0112386 PLAYA SES PENYES ROGES (EL TORO) PM1 29/06/2016 - 30/06/2016
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 109
Number Bathing water Name Pollution period(s) of sites ID ES532M0131114 PLAYA SES COVETES PM1 12/07/2016 - 14/07/2016 ES532M0222223 PLAYA CALA SA NAU PM1 11/07/2016 - 13/07/2016 ES532M0331156 PLAYA CALA ANTENA PM1 11/07/2016 - 13/07/2016 ES532M0401180 PLAYA CALA ESTÀNCIA PM1 6/09/2016 - 8/09/2016 ES532M0401188 PLAYA DE PALMA PM6 7/06/2016 - 9/06/2016 ES532M0421191 PLAYA D'ALBERCUIX( PORT DE POLLENÇA) 9/05/2016 - 11/05/2016 PM2 ES532M0421195 PLAYA DELS TAMARELLS (PORT DE 13/09/2016 - 14/09/2016 POLLENÇA) PM1 ES532M0571246 PLAYA CALA ESMERALDA PM1 27/07/2016 - 28/07/2016 ES532M0571247 PLAYA CALA EGOS PM1 27/07/2016 - 28/07/2016 20/09/2016 - 21/09/2016 31/05/2016 - 2/06/2016 ES532M0611256 PLAYA PORT DE SÓLLER PM4 7/06/2016 - 9/06/2016 ES533M0151125 PLAYA CALA EN BLANES PM1 9/05/2016 - 12/05/2016 ES533M0151126 PLAYA CALA EN FORCAT PM1 9/05/2016 - 12/05/2016 ES533M0321155 PLAYA CALA BINIDALÍ PM1 13/06/2016 - 15/06/2016 ES704M0141732 PLAYA CORRALEJO VIEJO (SUR LA GOLETA) 7/11/2016 - 9/11/2016 PM1
10.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘abnormal situation’ were assessed in relation to the causes of abnormal situation.
Number Bathing water ID Name Start and end date of sites 24 ES421C0571984 LAGUNA LA REDONDILLA OSSA DE 8/06/2016 – 25/09/2016 MONTIEL PM1 ES425C0452012 EMBALSE CAZALEGAS CAZALEGAS 16/08/2016 – 29/08/2016 PM1 ES705M0162283 PLAYA CONFITAL (EL) PM1 19/07/2016 – 27/07/2016 ES705M0161758 PLAYA ALCARAVANERAS PM3 10/10/2016 – 13/10/2016 ES422C0632109 RIO BULLAQUE PIEDRABUENA 03 PM1 13/09/2016 – 20/09/2016 ES422C0632110 RIO BULLAQUE PIEDRABUENA 04 PM1 13/09/2016 - 20/09/2016 ES422C9012536 RIO BULLAQUE ROBLEDO (EL) PM1 5/07/2016 - 11/07/2016 13/09/2016 – 20/09/2016 ES130M085568 PLAYA DE LA CONCHA PM1 1/08/2016 -9/08/2016 ES705M0161757 PLAYA ALCARAVANERAS PM2 10/10/2016 – 13/10/2016 ES705M0161756 PLAYA ALCARAVANERAS PM1 10/10/2016 – 13/10/2016 ES709M0382456 PLAYA VALLESECO PM1 20/06/2016 – 4/07/2016 ES422C9012537 RIO BULLAQUE ROBLEDO (EL) 02 PM1 21/06/2016 – 19/07/2016 13/09/2016 – 20/09/2016 ES130M075558 PLAYA VIRGEN DEL MAR PM1 6/06/2016 – 13/06/2016 ES705M0121721 PLAYA TAURO PM1 1/03/2016 – 30/11/2016 ES300C0081974 RIO ALBERCHE ALDEA DEL FRESNO 15/05/2016 - 9/06/2016 PM1 ES708M0341813 PLAYA FLAMINGO PM1 4/07/2016 – 24/07/2016 ES704M0031692 PLAYA CALETA FUSTE (CASTILLO) PM1 4/10/2016 – 30/11/2016 ES422C0632108 RIO BULLAQUE PIEDRABUENA 02 PM1 13/09/2016 – 20/09/2016 ES709M0012080 PLAYA TROYA I (AMÉRICAS I) PM3 11/07/2016 – 25/07/2016 ES422C0241993 PANTANO EMBALSE CARBONERAS 13/09/2016 – 20/09/2016 BRAZATORTAS PM1 ES425C0612013 RIO ALBERCHE ESCALONA PM1 4/07/2016 – 18/07/2016
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 110
Number Bathing water ID Name Start and end date of sites ES112C0281915 RIO MIŃO LUGO PM2 24/05/2016 - 5/07/2016
10.7 POOR QUALITY BATHING WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘poor quality bathing waters’ were assessed in relation to the issues of management measures for poor quality bathing waters and closing of poor quality bathing waters.
Number of sites Bathing water ID Name 39 ES111C0131903 RIO TAMBRE BRIÓN PM3 ES111C0462123 RIO FURELOS MELIDE PM1 ES111C0702127 RIO EUME PONTES DE GARCÍA RODRÍGUEZ (AS) PM1 ES111C0741908 RIO ROIS ROIS PM1 ES111M00811 PLAYA GANDARÍO PM1 ES111M00812 PLAYA GANDARÍO PM2 ES111M0192487 PLAYA ARNADOS PM1 ES111M02356 PLAYA ESTORDE PM1 ES111M02358 PLAYA LIRES PM1 ES111M053136 PLAYA A VIRXE DO CAMIÑO PM1 ES111M0572373 PLAYA TESTAL-TARAMANCOS PM3 ES111M0752162 PLAYA SADA DELICIAS PM1 ES111M9012128 PLAYA A CONCHA- CARÑO PM1 ES112C0142230 RIO CHAMOSO CORGO (O) PM1 ES112C0221913 RIO PARGA GUITIRIZ PM1 ES112C9012353 RIO NEIRA BARALLA PM1 ES113C0851937 RIO TÁMEGA VERÍN PM1 ES114M004292 PLAYA AGRELO PM1 ES114M029358 PLAYA SOBREIRA PM1 ES114M041374 PLAYA RAXÓ PM1 ES114M045382 PLAYA AREALONGA - REDONDELA PM1 ES114M057409 PLAYA CALZOA PM2 ES120M034504 PLAYA 1ª Y 2ª DE LUARCA PM1 ES241C1092435 RIO ARA FISCAL PM1 ES241C9011970 RIO SUBORDAN VALLE DE HECHO PM1 ES243C0742443 EMBALSE MEQUINENZA CASPE PM1 ES411C0972249 RIO TORMES HORCAJADA (LA) PM1 ES411C1572368 ARROYO CIMORRO NAVALACRUZ PM1 ES413C1962436 RIO CÚA VEGA DE ESPINAREDA PM1 ES425C0612013 RIO ALBERCHE ESCALONA PM1 ES431C0802019 RIO GUADIANA MEDELLÍN PM1 ES512M062728 PLAYA DEL REC DEL MOLÍ PM1 ES523M2041048 PLAYA MEDICALIA PM1 ES532M0111100 PLAYA DE PEGUERA PM1 ES532M0571247 PLAYA CALA EGOS PM1 ES614C0942049 RIO MAITENA GÜEJAR SIERRA PM1 ES614C0942050 RIO GENIL GÜEJAR SIERRA PM1 ES617C0062065 RIO GENAL ALGATOCÍN PM1 ES617C0642070 RIO GENAL JUBRIQUE PM1
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 111
11 FINLAND
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 301 8 2.7 Groups 1 1 100 Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 0 n/a n/a Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 2 2 100
11.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 301 FI121529003 NUNNALAHTI Sample of FI127405003 MYLLYSAARI 8 FI133197006 VEHKALAHTI (2.7%) FI114270004 MOISIO FI121501001 PIILJÄRVI FI122406001 LAPPI FI121577001 OINILA FI118350003 KNIPAN
11.2 GROUPS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘groups’ were assessed in relation to the issues of contiguity and water classification of grouped bathing water sites.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 1 FI110780001 Group ID: FIG181078001 FI110780006
11.3 GEOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINT
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Finland.
11.4 CLOSED BATHING SITES
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Finland.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 112
11.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Finland.
11.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Finland.
11.7 POOR QUALITY SITES
The bathing water sites listed under ‘poor quality sites’ were assessed in relation to the issues of management measures for poor quality sites and closing of poor quality sites.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 2 FI118350003 KNIPAN FI143545001 FAGERÖ
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 113
12 FRANCE
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 3359 67 2 Groups 0 n/a n/a Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 20 20 100 STP (distinct sites) 83 42 50.6 Abnormal sites (distinct 64 64 100 sites) Poor BW 82 82 100
12.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water waters listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 3 359 FR281501026M066120 PLAGE D'EN BAUX Sample of FR282403001M013510 LES GOUDES 67 FR282501027M083555 PLAGE DE PORT GRIMAUD (2.0%) FR281301143M034015 POSTE DE SECOURS CENTRAL FR283201038M02B240 NEGRO FR282501041M083420 PLAGE RAYOL OUEST FR294004002M974045 PLAGE D'ETANG SALE LES BAINS FR282301016M006115 MIDI FR252401056M056177 POULADEN FR292003009M972137 SALINES : MILIEU TABLE DU DIABLE FR252401041M056040 LE PERELLO FR252104015M022110 LE GUEN-LANRUEN FR251503051M085057 FORT LARRON FR251103032M044070 BRAMBELL FR282502018M083325 PLAGE MIRAMAR FR283101020M02A020 CHIUNI FR291000107M971504 PLAGE DE SALEE - BANANIER FR252204081M029757 KERBINIGOU FR252104072M022320 BREHEC PORT FR282502016M083320 PORQUEROLLES-PLAGE D'ARGENT FR281301101M034045 LA REDOUTE FR253203037M017358 PLAGE DU GROS JONC FR252204051M029765 TORCHE FR225201023M050475 SOL ROC FR261501011M064010 LES CAVALIERS FR261202150M033160 PYLA LA CORNICHE FR282501020M083460 PLAGE GIGARO FR281502007M066495 PLAGE DU LIDO (BARCARES) FR252401052M056205 CASTERO FR281303031M034156 FRONTIGNAN PLAGE - OUEST DU PORT FR252403070M056540 LA MINE D'OR FR291000113M971140 BAS DU FORT FR282404009M013240 PLAGES DE LA SAULCE ET DE SAINTE CROIX
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 114
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites FR271804001D074080 THONON SAINT-DISDILLE FR262402129D032130 LAC DE ST CLAR FR271601156D069022 MIRIBEL-PLAGE DE LA BARAKA FR282202035D005560 CHANTERENNE FR241401188D088007 LE LIT D'EAU FR282603031D084112 LES SALETTES FR243401089D090600 ETANG DU MALSAUCY FR221304042D051060 GIFFAUMONT PLAGE DU CAMPING (DER) FR271703004D073236 PLAN D'EAU D'ALBIEZ LE JEUNE FR242104031D067050 BAIGNADE MUNICIPALE WAGELROTH ERSTEIN FR261103118D024090 ETANG DE NEUF FONT (GRDE PLAGE) FR281102010D011099 LAC DES FERRIÈRES FR252303072D035120 LAC DE TREMELIN FR271101020D001580 BREGNIER-CORDON - PLAN D'EAU COMMUNAL DE GLANDIEU FR262102093D009030 LAC DE SAINT YBARS FR253101120D016040 LA GRANDE ILE FR283102019D02A103 MULINACCIU FR261103185D024215 PLAGE DU CAMPING MUNICIPAL DE TOCANE FR252204080M029925 QUESTELAND FR282302001M006455 FORUM FR282302018M006635 MARQUET FR230203005M062110 AUDINGHEN CENTRE PLAGE FR292001010M972265 BATELIÈRE FR225202123M050075 JONVILLE FR282403011M013665 CYRNOS FR272401001D063005 PLAN D'EAU D'AMBERT FR262701113D081021 RIVIERE TARN AIGUELEZE FR281201063D030657 LE PONT NOYE FR292003009M972130 CARITAN: FACE HOTEL FR281402052D048203 PLAN D'EAU DE GRANDRIEU FR271203026D007432 L'EYRIEUX A LA PLAGE DU CHAMBAUD FR253203005M017045 PLAGE DE LA PLATERRE FR261104034D024002 LES VALADES FR281401021D048110 PONT DE MONTBRUN
12.2 GROUPING OF BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for France.
12.3 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for France.
12.4 CLOSED WATERS
The bathing water waters listed under 'closed but not poor' were those waters that were not open in 2016 but were not classified as poor in 2015. They were assessed to find out why they were closed.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 115
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 20 FR210302061D078060 CAMPING LA PLAGE AUX CHAMPS FR210303002D078100 ACHÈRES PLAGES - BAIGNADE DE L'ÉTANG DES BAUCHES FR226201060D058081 ETANG DE LA FOUGERAIE FR226301040D071001 L'ETANG NEUF FR226403102D089480 VILLENEUVE SUR YONNE - PLAGE DU SAUCIL FR252102034D022670 ETANG DES SOURCES - KERVOUGARD FR252403076D056030 ETANG DU MOULIN NEUF FR261102019D024027 ETANG DE LA MONERIE CV ANAS FR262501028D046010 LAC VERT FR263202134D023165 LE CHEIX FR263303025D087029 LE LAC FR271402081D038002 LE PIN - LAC DE PALADRU FR272101040D003030 ETANG DE PIROT FR272102111D003095 PLAN D'EAU DES OZIERES FR281202061D030523 BONICOLI FR281302006D034230 HERAULT-BAIGNADE DU VILLAGE FR281402092D048211 BARRAGE DE GANIVET FR293001002M973127 PLAGE DE MONTRAVEL FRFR6278107D081003 CAMPING SAINT-CHARLES FR210302061D078060 CAMPING LA PLAGE AUX CHAMPS
12.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
The bathing water waters listed under ‘short-term pollution’ were assessed in relation to the causes of short-term pollution and relative measures.
Number Bathing water ID Name Pollution period(s) of sites 83 FR223201313M076153 STE-MARGUERITE-PLAGE 5/08/2016 Sample Three instances: of 42 2/08/2016 – 03/08/2016 FR230203001M062160 BOULOGNE CENTRE PLAGE (50.6%) 21/06/2016 - 22/06/2016 5/08/2016 - 5/08/2016 Two instances: FR230203051M062170 LE PORTEL CENTRE PLAGE 1/08/2016 - 3/08/2016 20/06/2016 - 21/06/2016 Three instances: 5/08/2016 - 6/08/2016 FR230204030M062220 CAMIERS SAINTE CECILE 5/07/2016 - 6/07/2016 2/08/2016 - 3/08/2016 Three instances: 5/07/2016 - 6/07/2016 FR230204030M062230 CAMIERS SAINT GABRIEL 2/08/2016 - 3/08/2016 5/08/2016 - 6/08/2016 FR252103045M022515 LE BOURG NORD 18/08/2016 - 19/08/2016 FR252104117M022295 SAINT MARC 19/08/2016 - 20/08/2016 FR252401056M056175 KERHOSTIN 14/06/2016 - 20/06/2016 FR252403003M056510 CROMENACH 19/07/2016 - 21/07/2016 FR252403092M056440 PORT MARIA 5/09/2016 - 7/09/2016 FR253202067M017500 LA PETITE PLAGE 16/08/2016 - 18/08/2016 Two instances: FR253203006M017355 PLAGE DE LA GRANGE 10/08/2016 - 12/08/2016 18/08/2016 - 19/08/2016 Six instances: FR253203007M017035 PLAGE DU PLATIN NORD 25/08/2016 - 26/08/2016
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 116
Number Bathing water ID Name Pollution period(s) of sites 2/08/2016 - 3/08/2016 4/08/2016 - 5/08/2016 9/08/2016 - 12/08/2016 12/07/2016 - 15/07/2016 26/07/2016 - 30/07/2016 Three instances: 23/08/2016 - 25/08/2016 FR253203007M017040 PLAGE DU PLATIN SUD 27/07/2016 - 1/08/2016 10/08/2016 - 19/08/2016 FR253203039M017300 PLAGE NORD 5/07/2016 Two instances: FR253203045M017370 PLAGE DE LA CIBLE 4/08/2016 - 5/08/2016 25/08/2016 Two instances: FR253203052M017317 PLAGE DE LA SALEE 5/09/2016 - 6/09/2016 18/08/2016 - 19/08/2016 BAIGNADE AMÉNAGÉE RIVE GAUCHE FR253204066D017873 CHARENTE 31/08/2016 - 1/09/2016 FR261501034M064060 MARBELLA 16/08/2016 FR261501037M064092 OUHABIA SUD 14/09/2016 FR261501037M064096 PARLEMENTIA 29/08/2016 Two instances: LA GLUEYRE A LA PLAGE DE ST FR271202030D007540 4/07/2016 - 7/07/2016 SAUVEUR 1/08/2016 - 4/08/2016 L'ARDECHE A LA PLAGE DU GRAIN DE FR271202081D007175 SEL 11/07/2016 - 13/07/2016 FR271203006D007560 L'EYSSE A LA PLAGE D'ARCENS 4/07/2016 - 7/07/2016 Two instances: FR272103001D003001 PLAGE DES CELESTINS 10/07/2016 - 12/07/2016 1/08/2016 - 3/08/2016 FR272404121D063200 PLAN D'EAU DE SERVANT 16/06/2016 - 18/06/2016 FR282301016M006080 DU TROU 15/09/2016 FR282301016M006090 GARE MARCHANDISES 15/09/2016 FR282301016M006100 FONT DE VEYRE 15/09/2016 FR282301016M006120 NOUVEAU PALAIS 15/09/2016 FR282301016M006145 GAZAGNAIRE 15/09/2016 FR282403001M013552 L'HUVEAUNE 30/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR282403009M013620 BESTOUAN 16/06/2016 FR283201001M02B145 FICAGHJOLA 21/07/2016 - 26/07/2016 FR283201047M02B195 MARINE DE PIETRACORBARA 30/05/2016 - 2/06/2016 FR283201069M02B163 PLAGE DU FLENU 1/09/2016 - 3/09/2016 FR283202006M02B040 CATERRAGGIO 7/07/2016 - 11/07/2016 FR283202007D02B025 LE TAVIGNANO_PONT D'ALTIANI 30/08/2016 - 31/08/2016 Two instances: FR294000410D974100 BASSIN BLEU 8/03/2016 - 15/03/2016 9/02/2016 - 12/02/2016 FR294002005M974060 PLAGE DE LA GENDARMERIE 5/01/2016 - 8/01/2016 Two instances: FR294002005M974065 PLAGE CENTRE VILLE DE SAINT-PIERRE 1/01/2016 - 7/01/2016 7/02/2016 - 11/02/2016 Three instances: 7/06/2016 - 13/06/2016 FR294002005M974070 PLAGE DE TERRE SAINTE 1/01/2016 - 7/01/2016 7/02/2016 - 11/02/2016
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 117
12.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
The bathing waters listed under ‘abnormal situation’ were assessed in relation to the causes of abnormal situation.
Number Bathing water ID Name Start and end date of sites 64 FR243201016D039090 LA LOUE AU PONT DE BELMONT 13/06/2016 - 1/07/2016 FR243201088D039100 LA LOUE AU PONT DE PARCEY 13/06/2016 - 1/07/2016 FR243202239D039085 LA LOUE AU PONT D'OUNANS 13/06/2016 - 1/07/2016 FR243202263D039016 LA LOUE AU PONT DE PORT LESNEY 13/06/2016 - 1/07/2016 LA LOUE AU PONT DE FR243202061D039095 13/06/2016 - 1/07/2016 CHAMPAGNE/LOUE FR243201001D039110 LE PRE MARNOZ - LE DOUBS 13/06/2016 - 1/07/2016 FR251103005M044250 FACE AV. DU GAL DE GAULLE 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103005M044260 FACE AV. DE LA GRANDE DUNE 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103035M044600 LES GRANDES VALLEES 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103003M044010 PONT MAHE 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103003M044020 PEN BE 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103004M044190 VALENTIN 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103004M044200 ST MICHEL 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103004M044210 LA GOVELLE 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103005M044240 BENOIT 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103006M044670 ROCHE MARIE 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103006M044680 GRANDE PLAGE FACE MAIRIE 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103006M044685 PLAN D'EAU 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103006M044690 FACE AV. LOUIS GAUTIER 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103016M044140 SAINT JEAN DE DIEU 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103016M044150 LE CASTOUILLET (BAIE) 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103016M044160 PORT AUX ROCS 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103016M044180 PORT LIN 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103027M044050 CABONNAIS 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103030M044700 LE PRE VINCENT 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103033M044470 PORT GIRAUD 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103033M044480 LE MOUTON 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103042M044380 PLAGE DES PINS 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103033M044490 JOALLAND 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103033M044460 LE CORMIER 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103035M044610 LA NOEVEILLARD 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103042M044400 PLAGE DE L'OCEAN 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103035M044620 LA SOURCE 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103001M044350 VILLES MARTIN 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103042M044410 PLAGE DES ROCHELETS 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103035M044630 LA BIROCHERE 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103042M044420 PLAGE DE L'ERMITAGE 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103035M044560 PORTMAIN 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103035M044640 LA JOSELIERE 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103035M044570 LE PORTEAU 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103035M044580 LES SABLONS 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103035M044590 MONBEAU 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103035M044650 LA FONTAINE AUX BRETONS 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103042M044425 PLAGE DE LA PIERRE ATTELEE 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103035M044660 LA BOUTINARDIERE 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103035M044550 L'ETANG 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103038M044520 GRANDE PLAGE 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103048M044440 LE REDOIS 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103038M044500 L'ANSE DU SUD 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 118
Number Bathing water ID Name Start and end date of sites FR251103038M044510 LA RAIZE 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103048M044450 THARON 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103038M044530 MARGARET 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103001M044360 FACE AV. VINCENT AURIOL 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103038M044540 PORT MELEU 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103048M044430 GOHAUD 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103042M044370 PLAGE DES POILUS 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103001M044300 LES JAUNAIS 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103001M044310 MONSIEUR HULOT SAINT MARC SUR MER 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103001M044320 ST MARC SUR MER LA COURANCE 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103001M044330 PORCE 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103001M044340 BONNE ANSE 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 FR251103016M044170 LES SABLES MENUS 28/05/2016 - 31/05/2016
12.7 POOR QUALITY WATERS
The bathing waters listed under “poor quality waters” were assessed in relation to the issues of the management measures for poor quality waters and closing of poor quality waters.
Number Bathing water ID Name of sites 82 FR222103001D002400 ÉTANG D ISLE FR222301047M080340 CABINE DE SAUVETAGE FR225201052M050430 SAINT NICOLAS SUD FR225201119M050480 FACE AU CD 241 FR225203002M050347 LA POINTE D'AGON FR225203080M050350 FACE AU CD 73 FR226401054D089410 COULANGES-SUR-YONNE FR226403069D089475 SAINT-JULIEN-DU-SAULT FR230203001M062160 BOULOGNE CENTRE PLAGE FR230206012M062080 ESCALLES CENTRE PLAGE FR242105079D067290 BAIGNADE MUNICIPALE NEUBILTZ REICHSTETT FR242106030D067200 CAMPING-PLAGE DU FLECKENSTEIN LEMBACH FR243201016D039090 LA LOUE AU PONT DE BELMONT FR243202239D039085 LA LOUE AU PONT D'OUNANS FR243202263D039016 LA LOUE AU PONT DE PORT LESNEY FR252201018M029262 CROIX (FACE ACCES) FR252201018M029265 BARRACHOU FR252201032M029378 GWISSELIER FR252201032M029381 CHATEAU (FACE RUISSEAU) FR252201049M029358 TREOMPAN (FACE RUISSEAU) FR252201049M029370 KERDENIEL FR252201063M029415 MAZOU FR252201064M029519 MOULIN BLANC (CANTINE) FR252203034M029175 GUILLEC FR252203054M029156 THEVEN (COTE DROIT) FR252204014M029684 RIS (MILIEU) FR252403003M056510 CROMENACH FR253203007M017035 PLAGE DU PLATIN NORD FR253203007M017040 PLAGE DU PLATIN SUD FR261101057D024420 PLAGE DU BOURG DE LIMEUIL FR262201001D012107 LA MALADRERIE FR262201049D012056 LE MOULIN
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 119
Number Bathing water ID Name of sites FR262201071D012043 LA ROQUE FR262201079D012121 SAINT ROME PLAGE FR262502016D046995 CAMPING MUNICIPAL FR262502033D046026 PONT D'ESPAGNAC FR262802039D082370 ARDUS PLAGE FR263202025D023025 L'ECLUSE FR271201004D007085 L'ARDECHE AU PONT DE BALAZUC FR271201017D007456 LA LIGNE AU CAMPING LES RANCHISSES FR271201034D007236 LA BEAUME A LA PLAGE DE PEYROCHE FR271202030D007540 LA GLUEYRE A LA PLAGE DE ST SAUVEUR FR271203026D007432 L'EYRIEUX A LA PLAGE DU CHAMBAUD FR271203035D007505 LA DORNE A LA PLAGE DE LA GANDOLE FR271301001D026219 DROME CENTRE DIE FR271301001D026268 DROME AVAL DIE FR271301048D026210 DROME DE BEAUMONT A LUC EN DIOIS FR272103001D003001 PLAGE DES CELESTINS FR272301054D043076 ALLIER PONT DE LAVOUTE CHILHAC FR272303003D043133 BASE MULTISPORTS FR281302029D034045 GRAVEZON - BAIGNADE DES CHUTES FR281303043D034100 HERAULT-LES GORGES FR281401014D048108 PONT DE BIESSE FR281401014D048109 PONT DE QUEZAC FR281401024D048128 AVAL QUEZAC FR281402052D048203 PLAN D'EAU DE GRANDRIEU FR282301014M006355 LE GRAND LARGE FR282301016M006120 NOUVEAU PALAIS FR282302100M006545 MARINIERES FR282403011M013680 SAINT JEAN FR282501048D083190 BAIGNADE DE LA MUIE FR282603018D084090 PONT ROMAIN (OUVEZE) FR283101079D02A200 PONT DE CAMERA FR283201039D02B120 LE BEVINCO_PONT GENOIS FR283202069D02B085 LE GOLO_GRIGIONE FR291000112M971490 LES BASSES FR291000118M971190 VIARD FR291000131M971528 ANSE MIRE FR291000134M971301 VALLEE VERTE FR292003009M972130 CARITAN: FACE HOTEL FR293001001M973140 MONTABO "SECTEUR COLIBRI" FR293001001M973145 MONTABO "SECTEUR ZEPHIR" FR293001001M973150 MONTABO "CHEMIN HILAIRE" FR293001001M973155 MONTABO "SECTEUR GRANT" FR293001002D973225 LAC SACCHARIN FR293001004D973130 CRIQUE TOUSSAINT FR293001005D973150 CRIQUE MORPIO FR293001005D973160 CRIQUE ORGANABO FR293001007M973195 PLAGE DES HATTES FR293001012D973020 FOURGASSIER FR293001013D973158 CRIQUE PATATE FRM976040 JIVA
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 120
13 CROATIA
Total waters (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 949 19 2 Groups 0 n/a n/a Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 11 11 100 Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 0 n/a n/a
13.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name waters 949 HR-BWC-COAST-HR3-7127 OTOK MASKIN - FKK, JUZNA STRANA OTOKA Sample of HR-BWC-COAST-HR3-6016 ODMARALISTE STOIMENA 19 HR-BWC-COAST-HR3-6116 UVALA DUMBOKA (2.0%) HR-BWC-COAST-HR3-7118 AC VESTAR - UVALA SREDINA HR-BWC-COAST-HR3-7052 TN LANTERNA - PLAZA CRNIKA HR-BWC-COAST-HR4-2007 DRASNICE HR-BWC-COAST-HR4-4111 UVALA DUGOVACA HR-BWC-COAST-HR4-2012 PLAZA - CENTAR HR-BWC-COAST-HR4-1146 KOBAS HR-BWC-COAST-HR4-1005 HT. EPIDAURUS HR-BWI-INLAND_2100RGT3 TK JEZERO - RUŽICA GRAD 3 HR-BWI-INLAND_1000SPT2 SAVA KUPALIŠTE POLOJ 2 HR-BWC-COAST-HR4-4090 OBALNI POTEZ HR-BWC-COAST-HR3-7065 HOTEL RIVIERA - ISPOD HOTELA HR-BWC-COAST-HR4-1150 KUPALISTE VK CAVTAT HR-BWI-INLAND_1000SPT3 SAVA KUPALIŠTE POLOJ 3 HR-BWC-COAST-HR4-1117 USCE HR-BWC-COAST-HR4-2059 TORAC HR-BWI-INLAND_1600KFT1 KORANA FOGINOVO KUPALIŠTE
13.2 GROUPING OF BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Croatia.
13.3 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Croatia.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 121
13.4 CLOSED WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Croatia.
13.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘short-term pollution’ were assessed in relation to the causes of short-term pollution and relative measures.
Number Bathing water ID Name Pollution period(s) of waters 11 HR-BWC-COAST-HR4-1005 HT. EPIDAURUS 27/06/2016 -28/06/2016 HR-BWC-COAST-HR4-1020 HT. DUBROVNIK PALACE 1/06/2016 – 4/06/2016 HR-BWC-COAST-HR4-1021 HT. VIS 2 1/06/2016 – 4/06/2016 HR-BWC-COAST-HR4-2057 GOJACA 2/09/2016 – 5/09/2016 HR-BWC-COAST-HR4-2058 KAMP Three instances: 17/08/2016 -18/08/2016 2/09/2016 – 5/09/2016 16/09/2016 - 26/09/2016 HR-BWC-COAST-HR4-2059 TORAC 2/09/2016 – 5/09/2016 HR-BWC-COAST-HR4-3114 MORINJE 25/05/2016 -30/05/2016 HR-BWC-COAST-HR3-6234 UVALA PADOVA 1 4/07/2016 – 5/07/2016 HR-BWC-COAST-HR3-7174 AC MEDULIN - RESTORAN 6/07/2016 – 7/07/2016 FINANCA HR-BWC-COAST-HR3-7252 PLOMINSKI ZALJEV - DRAZINE 2/08/2016 – 3/08/2016 ZAPAD HR-BWC-COAST-HR3-7253 PLOMINSKI ZALJEV - DRAZINE 2/08/2016 – 3/08/2016 ISTOK
13.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Croatia.
13.7 POOR QUALITY BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Croatia.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 122
14 HUNGARY
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 253 8 3.2 Groups 23 23 100 Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 6 6 100 Abnormal sites (distinct 3 3 100 sites) Poor BW 4 4 100
14.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of sites Bathing water ID Name 253 HUBW_01972 HOTEL CLUB TIHANY STRAND Sample of 8 HUBW_01930 ESTERHÁZY STRANDFÜRDÔ (3.2%) HUBW_01608 RAKAMAZI SZABAD STRAND HUBW_00313 KISKUNMAJSAI TÓFÜRDÔ HUBW_00301 KAMARÁS DUNA SZABAD STRAND HUBW_00312 TISZAKÉCSKEI SZABAD STRAND HUBW_01612 VÁSÁRHELYI ÚTI STRAND HUBW_00805 GYÔR, ARANYPART I.
14.2 GROUPING OF BATHING WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘groups’ were assessed in relation to the issues of contiguity and water classification of grouped bathing water sites.
Number of groups Bathing water ID Group ID 23 HUBW_00403 Group ID: HUBW_G0403 HUBW_00404* HUBW_01501 Group ID: HUBW_G1503 HUBW_01502* HUBW_01503 HUBW_01585 HUBW_01506 Group ID: HUBW_G1507 HUBW_01507 HUBW_01504 Group ID: HUBW_G1508 HUBW_01508 HUBW_01509 HUBW_01511 Group ID: HUBW_G1511 HUBW_01512 HUBW_01513 HUBW_01514 HUBW_01515 Group ID: HUBW_G1516 HUBW_01516 HUBW_01521 Group ID: HUBW_G1525 HUBW_01524
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 123
Number of groups Bathing water ID Group ID HUBW_01525 HUBW_01526 Group ID: HUBW_G1526 HUBW_01533 HUBW_01528 Group ID: HUBW_G1532 HUBW_01529 HUBW_01530 HUBW_01531 HUBW_01532 HUBW_01534 Group ID: HUBW_G1534 HUBW_01540 HUBW_01542 HUBW_01536 Group ID: HUBW_G1537 HUBW_01537 HUBW_01538 HUBW_01550 Group ID: HUBW_G1551 HUBW_01551 HUBW_01554 HUBW_01552 Group ID: HUBW_G1552 HUBW_01553 HUBW_01549 Group ID: HUBW_G1556 HUBW_01556 HUBW_01557 HUBW_01566 Group ID: HUBW_G1566 HUBW_01576 HUBW_01564 Group ID: HUBW_G1574 HUBW_01567 HUBW_01568 HUBW_01574 HUBW_01575 HUBW_01581 Group ID: HUBW_G1582 HUBW_01582 HUBW_01579 Group ID: HUBW_G1590 HUBW_01590 HUBW_01905 Group ID: HUBW_G1905 HUBW_01906 HUBW_01910 HUBW_01953 Group ID: HUBW_G1953 HUBW_01955 HUBW_02005 Group ID: HUBW_G2006 HUBW_02006 HUBW_02010* HUBW_02012 HUBW_02008 Group ID: HUBW_G2013 HUBW_02011 HUBW_02013 *These sites were not listed as official bathing sites in 2016.
14.3 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Hungary.
14.4 CLOSED WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 124
Hungary.
14.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘short-term pollution’ were assessed in relation to the causes of short-term pollution and relative measures.
Number of sites Bathing water ID Name Pollution period(s) 6 HUBW_00705 PANORÁMA PARTSZAKASZ, 14/06/2016 - PISZTRÁNG UTCAI STRAND 23/06/2016 HUBW_00706 SPORT BEACH CAMPING & 14/06/2016 - STRAND 23/06/2016 HUBW_01104 TISZAFÜREDI SZABAD STRAND 13/06/2016 - 19/06/2016 HUBW_01805 SZAJKI-TÓ 6. SZ. TÓFÜRDÔ 26/07/2016 - 29/07/2016 HUBW_01806 MÁRIAÚJFALU, HÁRSAS 26/07/2016 - STRAND 29/07/2016 HUBW_02020 GÉBÁRTI TÓSTRAND 26/07/2016 -1/08/2016
14.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘abnormal situation’ were assessed in relation to the causes of abnormal situation.
Number of sites Bathing water ID Name Start and end date 3 HUBW_00407 VÁROSERDEI SZABAD 27/06/2016-11/07/2016 STRAND HUBW_00805 GYÔR, ARANYPART I. 14/07/2016 –25/07/2016 HUBW_01403 SZENTENDREI DUNA-PART, 15/06/2016 -30/06/2016 POSTÁS SZABAD STRAND
14.7 POOR QUALITY SITES
The bathing water sites listed under ‘poor quality sites’ were assessed in relation to the issues of management measures for poor quality sites and closing of poor quality sites.
Number of sites Bathing water ID Name 4 HUBW_00312 TISZAKÉCSKEI SZABAD STRAND HUBW_00616 MAROS KALANDPART HUBW_01602 GERGELYIUGORNYAI SZABAD STRAND HUBW_01604 JÁNDI SZABAD STRAND
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 125
15 IRELAND
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 140 8 5.7 Groups 0 n/a n/a Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 2 2 100 Abnormal sites (distinct 1 1 100 sites) Poor BW 6 6 100
15.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number Bathing water ID Name of sites 140 IENWBWC190_0000_020 MARBLE HILL Sample 0 of 8 IEEABWC100_0000_0300 BRAY SOUTH PROMENADE (5.7%) IESHBWC070_0000_0400 KILKEE IESWBWC010_0000_0100 TRAGUMNA IEWEBWC420_0000_0200 ROSS BEACH, KILLALA IESHBWL25_191a_0100 BATHING PLACE AT PORTUMNA IEEABWC020_0000_0400 LOUGHSHINNY BEACH IEWEBWT170_0700_0200 BALLYLOUGHANE BEACH
15.2 GROUPING OF BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Ireland.
15.3 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Ireland.
15.4 CLOSED WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Ireland. This study is looking at bathing water sites that were closed in 2016 and not classified as poor in 2015; delisted sites were excluded from the analysis.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 126
15.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘short-term pollution’ were assessed in relation to the causes of short-term pollution and relative measures.
Number Bathing water ID Name Pollution period(s) of sites 2 IEWEBWC250_0000_0300 DOOEGA BEACH, ACHILL ISLAND 12/09/2016 - 14/09/2016 IEWEBWC250_0000_0200 KEEL BEACH, ACHILL ISLAND 12/09/2016 - 14/09/2016
15.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘abnormal situation’ were assessed in relation to the causes of abnormal situation.
Number Bathing water ID Name Start and end date of sites 1 IEEABWC090_0000_0200 Merrion Strand 12/09/2016 – 13/09/2016
15.7 POOR QUALITY WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘poor quality waters’ were assessed in relation to the issues of management measures for poor quality bathing water sites and closing of poor-quality bathing water sites.
Number Bathing water ID Name of sites 6 IEEABWC020_0000_0200 PORTRANE, THE BROOK BEACH IEEABWC020_0000_0400 LOUGHSHINNY BEACH IEEABWC090_0000_0200 MERRION STRAND IEWEBWC100_0000_0100 TRÁ NA BHFORBACHA, NA FORBACHA IEWEBWT170_0700_0200 BALLYLOUGHANE BEACH IEWEBWT270_0100_0100 CLIFDEN BEACH
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 127
16 ITALY
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 5518 110 2 Groups 258 129 50 Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 203 51 25.1 Abnormal sites (distinct 22 22 100 sites) Poor BW 100 100 100
16.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 5 518 IT019081013002 TORRE NUBIA Sample of 110 IT006032006008 EXCELSIOR (2.0%) IT008038006005 LIDO DELLE NAZIONI - PUNTO C IT007011014003 ARENA IT007010059003 FOCE CANALE RAVINO IT007008021001 PENNELLO PONENTE AREGAI IT009053003003 SPIAGGIA LAGO DI BURANO IT009046005001 ARLECCHINO IT007010025026 VIA GIANELLI IT007008065005 CALANDRE IT007008039008 RIO CARRUBO IT009049009018 CALAFURIA IT009049017021 LUNGOMARE MONTE ALLA RENA IT009053009004 CLUB NAUTICO IT009053006014 LATO NORD FOCE FIUME BRUNA IT009046033004 MARINA DEL PARCO IT012058032006 250 MT SX FOCE FOSSO MALPASSO IT011044023007 250 M NORD FOCE TESINO IT012058116004 1250 MT SX FOSSE CUPINO IT013069033001 75 MT SUD STAZIONE FF.SS. FOSSACESIA M. IT018079009001 LOCALITA'MAGLIACANE IT016071060027 1000 MT A DX P. 158 IT018079061001 300 MT SUD TORRENTE S.GIORGIO IT018080088006 KM 106.5 DELLA SS 106 IT016075043005 SPIAGGETTA ROCA LI POSTI IT017077021002 POLICORO LIDO - LATO SUD IT018078137001 TORRENTE S.LEO IT018079012004 LOCALITA'CINO' IT016071008012 LE BARACCHE DEL TRIESTINO IT016073022003 LIDO SILVANA 'CAMPING' IT016075097006 TORRE CHIANCA IT016075057005 VILLAGGIO VALTUR-A SUD SCARICO IT015061027018 PINETA DI PATRIA NORD
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 128
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites IT018102030002 700 MT SUD SPIAGGIA RIACI IT015065134001 CAMMARELLE IT017077003004 FOCE BRADANO - 150 MT. MARGINE SUD IT018078108014 100 MT SX TORRENTE CINO PICCOLO IT014070046003 CAMPING COSTA VERDE IT015063031004 CITARA IT016075097015 100 MT A NORD OVEST DEL PUNTO 140 IT016072029005 SC. CIT.RUVO TERLIZZI T.CALD.NO 500 M.S. IT016110009010 500 MT NORD FOGNA CIT.NA TRANI IT016072030008 LA MANDIA (200 M NORD) IT016073027015 SPIAGGIA HOTEL TRITONE-LIDO AZZURRO IT015063019004 CASTIGLIONE IT020090089002 PUNTA NEGRA - CALA DI VACCA IT020092050006 SANTA MARGHERITA IS MORUS HOTEL IT020091085005 MARE LA TORRE IT020095047004 MITZA S'ARRADELI IT020104022018 PORTO POZZO CAMPING ARCOBALENO IT020090064005 PORTO PALMAS IT020090089009 LE VELE IT020107019003 CALA SU TURCU IT020095067004 PORTO ALABE-LIMITE SUD IT019088009004 PIAZZA TORRE IT019084032007 100 M SX FOCE TORRENTE MULE' IT019089017027 MAZZARRONA IT019081009002 CALAROSSA IT019081012003 BAR PIZZERIA TABACCHI S.VITO IT019081008003 PROSPICENTE HOTEL BAIA DEI MULINI - EX PARK HOTEL IT019083104003 VIA LUNGOMARE INCROCIO VIA DEL VESPRO IT019081008001 KM 9 STRADA TRAPANI - BONAGIA IT019089001004 COZZO GALERA-KM 0,4 SUD CAPO CAMPOLATO IT003012045002 LIDO II IT006030124001 LATO S/W LOC.RIO DA COUT DI FRONTE CAMP. IT001003062002 BAR LEONARDI - PIROLINO IT003097008001 LIDO DI PUNCIA IT001103033004 PANIZZA IT005023086006 FORNARE IT011043012002 SPIAGGIA KAMBUSA IT012056015001 LIDO FOGLIANO IT012056045002 LA SCALETTA IT012056045001 RIVA FIORITA IT012056045003 RISTORANTE SAN SOUCI IT012056015002 RISTORANTE BELLA VENERE IT012057002001 LE CONCHE 1 IT006030137002 FIUME TAGLIAMENTO - LOCALITA' CORNINO CIMANO IT006093046001 TORRENTE MEDUNA - LOCALITA' CAMPING IT005029040010 ISOLA ALBARELLA - MARE VOSTRUM IT016071025008 3 - DA FOCE CAPOIALE VERSO FOCE VARANO IT019083032008 m 150 NORD FOCE FIUME ALCANTARA IT005027008007 ISOLA VERDE 1100 M SUD INIZIO DIGA DX FOCE FIUME BRENTA IT007010004002 RIO DEL POGGIO IT012058117006 250 MT SX FOCE CANALE BIFFI IT015065134002 LUNGOMARE DI SAPRI IT020107001007 100 M. NORD FOCE FLIMINIRIANNU IT019089017035 LUNGOMARE ALFEO IT003014046002 FRONTE CAMPEGGIO CORTI
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 129
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites IT005025020002 SARATHEI IT001003043001 SP.CICOGNOLA IT012058022002 3000 MT DX EMISSARIO IT003012123002 CANOTTIERI IT001103017005 OSSIDI METALLICI IT016071008005 BAGNO VARANO IT007008050002 FOCE TORRENTE CARAVELLO IT011043042019 450 M SUD FOCE FIUME POTENZA IT018080014006 I.D. BRANCALEONE IT020090003021 VIA CARDUCCI IT019089017002 EX LIDO AZZURRO IT003013119001 RIVA DEL TENCIU' IT003012120001 CIRCOLO SESTESE IT011109034009 200 M NORD FOCE TENNA IT009053018020 LATO SUD FOCE FIUME ALBEGNA IT009046005002 FOCE FOSSO DELL'ABATE IT013067035007 ZONA ANTISTANTE FOCE F. CALVANO IT015063083002 LIDO AZZURRO IT020092050012 SU STANGIONI IT019089013010 FOCE FIUME ASINARO IT003012113001 LIDO CERESIO IT001103033002 VILLA VOLPI
16.2 GROUPING OF BATHING WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘groups’ were assessed in relation to the issues of contiguity and water classification of grouped bathing water sites.
Number of Bathing water ID Name Group ID groups 258 IT007008008008 LEVANTE PUNTA MIGLIARESE IT007008008A001 Sample of 129 IT007008008009 MADONNA DELLA RUOTA (50.0%) IT007008008010 GIUNCHETTO IT007008008003 STAZIONE FF.SS. IT007008008A002 IT007008008004 PASSAGGIO A LIVELLO IT007008008005 EX CASINÒ IT007008027004 VIA CAIROLI IT007008027A001 IT007008027008 FOCE RIO VARCAVELLO IT007008027003 CROCE ROSSA IT007008027A002 IT007008027006 FOCE RIO LEVANTE HOTEL JASMINE IT007008027007 FOCE RIO MORTOLE IT007008039003 VILLA SADA IT007008039A001 IT007008039009 HOTEL MADISON IT007008054006 FOCE RIO INFERNO IT007008054A001 IT007008054007 MARINA DI S. LORENZO IT007008055009 CASELLO IT007008055A001 IT007008055014 DEPURATORE CAPO VERDE IT007008055007 CORSO MAZZINI IT007008055A002 IT007008055008 TRE PONTI IT007010004003 ZONA FONTANA IT007010004A001 IT007010004004 ZONA PONTETTO IT007010059005 ROCCHE SAN BARTOLOMEO IT007010059A001 IT007010059010 EST PUNTA MANARA
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 130
Number of Bathing water ID Name Group ID groups IT007011016016 SOTTO IL ZANEGO IT007011016A001 IT007011016017 SPIAGGIA DELLA MAROSSA IT009045003001 MARINA DI CARRARA IT009045003A014 IT009045003002 BAGNO STELLA DEL MARE IT009045010001 BAGNO GIOVANNI IT009045010A016 IT009045010005 CAMPEGGI IT009045011001 BAGNO ALPEMARE IT009045011A001 IT009045011002 DESTRA TORRENTE VERSILIA IT009045011003 SINISTRA TORRENTE VERSILIA IT009045011A002 IT009045011004 CONFINE MASSA CARRARA-LUCCA IT009049001003 VIA DEL MARE IT009049001A003 IT009049001004 MARINA DI BIBBONA SUD IT009049001005 CAMPING IT009049001006 CAMPING IL CAPANNINO IT009049003004 LOC. CAVOLI IT009049003A004 IT009049003007 GALENZANA IT009049004005 LOC. LE CALANCHIOLE IT009049004A008 IT009049004006 CAPOLIVERI LIDO IT009049004008 GOLFO STELLA OVEST IT009049004A009 IT009049004014 MARGIDORE SUD IT009049004003 SPIAGGIA DI PARETI IT009049004A012 IT009049004004 SPIAGGIA DI MORCONE IT009049005001 LOC LE GROTTE IT009049005A005 IT009049005005 CAPRAIA NORD IT009049006003 BAGNI SHANGRI- LA', LODOLO IT009049006A004 IT009049006004 BAGNI S.LUCIA, SIRENA IT009049006005 MARINA DI CASTAGNETO CENTRO IT009049006006 BAGNO LIDO IT009049006007 CAMPING CONTINENTAL IT009049006011 LE COLONNE IT009049006A006 IT009049006013 MARINA DI CASTAGNETO SUD IT009049007004 LA TERRAZZA IT009049007A005 IT009049007005 MARINA DI CECINA IT009049007006 BAGNI OLIMPIA, FARO IT009049009010 ROTONDA D'ARDENZA IT009049009A012 IT009049009011 SCOGLIERA ROTONDA ARDENZA IT009049009012 RIO ARDENZA IT009049009A013 IT009049009013 TRE PONTI SUD IT009049009018 CALAFURIA IT009049009A019 IT009049009019 CALIGNAIA IT009049009021 QUERCIANELLA IT009049009A020 IT009049009024 TORRENTE QUERCIANELLA IT009049010005 LOC. PROCCHIO IT009049010A007 IT009049010006 LOC. CAMPO ALL'AIA IT009049010009 LA GUARDIOLA IT009049012001 GOLFO DI BARATTI IT009049012A002 IT009049012002 S.CERBONE IT009049012016 PUNTA SALTACAVALLO IT009049012010 QUAGLIODROMO IT009049012A012 IT009049012011 TORRE DEL SALE IT009049012003 PROMONTORIO DI PIOMBINO IT009049012A018 IT009049012020 FOSSO DELLE CANNE IT009049012021 SAN QUIRICO IT009049015004 LUNGOMARE KENNEDY - CAVO IT009049015A003 IT009049015008 MONTE LE PAFFE
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 131
Number of Bathing water ID Name Group ID groups IT009049017006 BAGNO LA BARACCHINA IT009049017A006 IT009049017007 CASTIGLIONCELLO - PORTICCIOLO NAUTICO IT009049017008 VILLA CELESTINA IT009049017A016 IT009049017009 CASTIGLIONCELLO-PORTOVECCHIO IT009049017003 BUCA DEI CORVI IT009049017A017 IT009049017004 BAIA QUERCETANO SUD IT009049017019 CASTIGLIONCELLO-BAIA DEL QUERCETANO IT009049018004 BAGNO NETTUNO IT009049018A003 IT009049018005 SAN VINCENZO CENTRO SUD IT009049018012 RIMIGLIANO SUD IT009049018A010 IT009049018013 LA TORRACCIA IT009050031001 CASERMA GUARDIA DI FINANZA IT009050031A001 IT009050031002 MACCHIA S. ROSSORE IT009050037001 FOCE BUFALINA IT009050037A001 IT009050037002 MARINA DI VECCHIANO IT009053003001 SPIAGGIA LA TORBA IT009053003A001 IT009053003002 SPIAGGIA MACCHIA TONDA IT009053003003 SPIAGGIA LAGO DI BURANO IT009053006001 CAMPEGGIO PUNTA ALA IT009053006A002 IT009053006002 CAMPEGGIO BAIA VERDE IT009053006003 CAPO CIVININI IT009053006019 VAL DEL PIASTRONE IT009053006012 SUD PUNTA CAPEZZOLO IT009053006A008 IT009053006013 DAVANTI BAR CIRO IT009053006016 LA PINETINA IT009053006A011 IT009053006017 CAMPEGGIO ETRURIA IT009053009001 VILLAGGIO SVIZZERO IT009053009A002 IT009053009002 VILLAGGIO SVIZZERO IT009053009003 LUNGOMARE ITALIA 160 IT009053009A003 IT009053009004 CLUB NAUTICO IT009053009005 RISTORANTE PARRINI IT009053011001 LOC. LE MARZE IT009053011A001 IT009053011011 SAN LEOPOLDO IT009053011012 LOC. CANOVA II IT009053011002 DAVANTI BAGNO FF.SS. IT009053011A002 IT009053011003 MARINA DI GROSSETO CENTRO IT009053011005 LATO SUD FOCE S. ROCCO IT009053011A004 IT009053011006 LOC. LE PIGNACCE IT009053011007 PRINCIPINA A MARE IT009053011A005 IT009053011013 INIZIO PARCO PRINCIPINA MARE IT009053011008 MARINA ALBERESE NORD IT009053011A009 IT009053011009 MARINA DI ALBERESE IT009053011010 COLLELUNGO PARCO DELL'UCCELLINA IT009053016004 PORTO S.STEFANO - LA CANTONIERA IT009053016A003 IT009053016018 PORTO S.STEFANO - PUNTA NERA IT009053016005 PORTO S.STEFANO - IL MOLETTO IT009053016A004 IT009053016006 PORTO S. STEFANO SILURIPEDIO IT009053016010 PORTO S.STEFANO - ISOLA ROSSA IT009053016A007 IT009053016011 PORTO S.STEFANO - CALA CANNELLE IT009053018002 LOC. TALAMONE - BAGNO DELLE IT009053018A002 DONNE IT009053018003 LOC. TALAMONE - DIGA FORANEA
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 132
Number of Bathing water ID Name Group ID groups IT009053018014 FENIGLIA - 1 CAMMINAMENTO IT009053018A020 FORESTALE IT009053018015 FENIGLIA - KM 3,00 IT009053024002 CALA VIOLINA IT009053024A006 IT009053024004 CALA FELICE IT009053024008 CALA FRANCESE IT012056008006 CAMPING CHEZ VOUS IT012056008A002 IT012056008010 FOSSO DELLA PIANTATA IT012056008011 FOSSO DEL PIANALE IT012056008003 500 MT. DX FOSSO MELONA IT012056008A007 IT012056008015 FOSSO MELONA IT012056008004 ALL.TO STRADA S.ANTONIO IT012056008A008 IT012056008016 FOSSO TURONE IT012056028002 C.PESCHIERA-CASA COLONICA IT012056028A003 FERRATA IT012056028006 FOSSO DEL RIGO IT012056035001 PESCIA ROMANA IT012056035A002 IT012056035006 AMICI DEL CAMPING IT012056035002 BAR TONINO IT012056035A004 IT012056035003 BAR GABBIANO IT012056035007 FOCE FOSSO CHIARONE IT012056035A007 IT012056035008 COSTA SELVAGGIA IT012056035011 TOMBOLO FOCE VECCHIA IT012056036003 CASALE GABELLETTA IT012056036A001 IT012056036007 FOSSO DEL CARPINE IT012056036008 FOSSO DEL MALTEMPO IT012056036002 DISTRIBUTORE CARBURANTE IT012056036A003 IT012056036004 MOLO ORSO DEL PIANO IT012056036010 FOSSO ORTO DEL PIATTO IT012056050001 CAMPEGGIO EUROPING IT012056050A001 IT012056050002 CANCELLO N.4 IT012056050003 CANCELLO 1 - CAMPING RIVA DEI TARQUINI IT012056050007 RIVA BLUE IT012056050A007 IT012056050008 PORTO CLEMENTINO IT012056050010 STABILIMENTO CALI IT012057013006 SPIAGGIA S.ANATOLIA IT012057013A005 IT012057013007 SPIAGGIA Campeggio IT012057022001 SPIAGGETTA IT012057022A001 IT012057022002 PONTILE DEI PESCATORI IT012057050006 FOSSO PRATOSTRETTO ( FIUMARA) IT012057050A004 IT012057050007 SPIAGGIA TEIETO IT012057050008 GOLA CAMPEGGIO TEIETO IT012057050A005 IT012057050009 SPIAGGIA ALTOBELLI ( B.GO S. PIETRO) IT012058005002 1300 MT DX PUNTA IL PIZZO IT012058005A003 IT012058005003 CABINA ENEL IT012058005001 400 MT SX PUNTA IL PIZZO IT012058005A005 IT012058005008 PUNTA PIZZO IT012058007001 MT 250 SX FOSSO CAVALLO MORTO IT012058007A001 IT012058007010 FOCE FOSSO SECCO IT012058007002 MT 250 DX FOSSO CAVALLO MORTO IT012058007A002 IT012058007009 FOCE FOSSO DELLO SCHIAVO IT012058007008 250 MT DX FOCE FOSSO SCHIAVO IT012058007A003 IT012058007012 STABILIMENTO IL TRITONE IT012058007011 FOCE TOR CALDARA IT012058007A004
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 133
Number of Bathing water ID Name Group ID groups IT012058007013 FORNACI PAIELLA IT012058013001 TORRACCIA IT012058013A001 IT012058013002 250 MT SX FOCE FOSSO DEL DIAVOLO IT012058013016 FOCE FOSSO DELLA LOBBRA (not analysed as profile could not be found) IT012058013005 250 MT DX FOCE FOSSO DEI QUADRI IT012058013A003 IT012058013006 250 MT SX FOCE FOSSO DELLA MOLE IT012058013007 250 MT DX FOCE FOSSO DELLA MOLE IT012058013A004 IT012058013008 250 MT SX FOCE FOSSO GROTTA RENARA (not analysed as profile could not be found) IT012058022001 1750 MT DX EMISSARIO IT012058022A001 IT012058022002 3000 MT DX EMISSARIO IT012058029002 250 MT DX FOSSO ZAMBRA IT012058029A003 IT012058029003 RIMESSAGGIO BARCHE RENZI-MT 1000 PNT.49 IT012058032001 LOC.LA FRASCA (MT 1300 DX PNT. 26) IT012058032A001 IT012058032008 TORRE S. AGOSTINO IT012058032005 250 MT DX FOSSO SCARPATOSTA IT012058032A005 IT012058032006 250 MT SX FOCE FOSSO MALPASSO IT012058072001 300 MT DX CONFINE DI ANZIO IT012058072A001 IT012058072002 CASTELLO S.GALLO-MT1200 DX DALL`INCROCIO IT012058079001 MT 250 SX FOSSO DI PRATICA IT012058079A001 IT012058079007 250 MT SX FOCE FOSSO CAMPO ASCOLANO IT012058079010 FOCE FOSSO CAMPO ASCOLANO IT012058091005 850 MT SX PONTILE OSTIA IT012058091A002 IT012058091006 700 MT DX PONTILE OSTIA IT012058091007 2000 MT DX CANALE DEI PESCATORI IT012058091A004 IT012058091008 3000 MT SX FOSSO FOCETTA IT012058091011 550 MT DX FOCE CANALE DELLO STAGNO IT012058091001 250 MT DX FOCE FOSSO CONCA IT012058091A007 IT012058091002 250 MT SX FOCE FOSSO CASACCI IT012058097011 250 MT DX FOCE FOSSO S.MARIA IT012058097A005 MORGANA IT012058097015 250 MT SX FOCE FOSSO CASTEL SECCO IT012058097007 VILLA MARAVIGLIA-ISTITUTO MATER IT012058097A006 GRATIAE IT012058097012 250 MT DX FOCE FOSSO CASTEL SECCO IT012058097008 MT 250 SX FOCE FOSSO QUARTACCIO IT012058097A007 IT012058097017 250 MT DX FOCE FOSSO DELLE BUCHE IT012058097016 FOCE FOSSO ERI IT012058097A009 IT012058097018 FOCE FOSSO SMERDAROLO IT012058116002 400 MT DX FOSSO SANGUINARA IT012058116A003 IT012058116006 250 MT DX FOCE FOSSO SANGUINARA IT012058117002 MT 250 SX FOSSO DEL DIAVOLO IT012058117A006 IT012058117010 250 MT DX CANALE BIFFI IT012058120009 250 MT DX COLLETTORE ACQUE ALTE E IT012058120A007 BASSE IT012058120012 500 MT SX COLLETTORE ACQUE ALTE E BASSE IT012058120019 FOCE COLLETTORE ACQUE ALTE E
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 134
Number of Bathing water ID Name Group ID groups BASSE IT012058120002 1200 MT DX FOSSO DELLE CADUTE IT012058120A012 IT012058120003 MT 250 SX FOSSO TRE DENARI IT012058120015 250 MT DX FOCE FOSSO DELLE CADUTE IT012058120007 2000 MT DX FOCE F. ARRONE IT012058120A018 IT012058120008 3500 MT DX FOCE F. ARRONE IT012059007001 100 MT DX FOCE CANNETO IT012059007A001 IT012059007002 TRE LANTERNE IT012059009004 SX TORRE SCISSURA IT012059009A003 IT012059009005 CENTRO SPIAGGETTA ARIANNA IT012059009006 CENTRO SPIAGGETTA DI SERAPO IT012059009A004 IT012059009007 400 MT DX DEL FARO IT012059009010 NORD SPIAGGETTA SERAPO IT012059011001 1400 MT DX ACQUE ALTE-FOCE VERDE IT012059011A003 IT012059011002 400 MT SX VIA CASILINA IT012059011006 800 MT DXS FOCE3 CANALE ACQUE ALTE IT012059011004 800 MT DX IDROVORA CAPOPORTIERE IT012059011A005 IT012059011005 150 MT SX FOCE DEL DUCA IT012059011007 500 MT SX FOCE RIO MARTINO IT012059011A006 IT012059011009 FOCE DEL DUCA IT012059014001 100 MT SX RIO CAPO D'ACQUA IT012059014A001 IT012059014009 SPIAGGIA A SX TORRE SCAURI IT012059014002 100 MT DX RIO CAPO D'ACQUA IT012059014A002 IT012059014003 STAB.BALNEARE AURORA IT012059018015 CALA DEI PESCATORI IT012059018A015 IT012059018020 PUNTA TRAMONTANA IT012059018021 FARAGLIONI DI MEZZOGIORNO (DX) IT012059018003 SPIAGGIA FRONTONE IT012059018A016 IT012059018010 GAVI LA PARATA IT012059018011 CALA GAETANO IT012059018012 CALA INFERNO IT012059018017 PUNTA NERA IT012059018018 CALA DEL CORE IT012059024001 2300 MT DX RIO MARTINO IT012059024A001 IT012059024011 500 MT DX RIO MARTINO IT012059024002 100 MT SX IDROVORA LAVORAZIONE IT012059024A002 IT012059024012 FOCE IDROVORA LAVORAZIONE IT012059024013 600 MT DX IDROVORA LAVORAZIONE IT012059025001 500 MT DX GROTTA DELLA MAGA IT012059025A001 CIRCE IT012059025012 TORRE PAOLA SFC IT012059025002 550 MT SX FARO DI TORRE CERVIA IT012059025A009 IT012059025013 ALFONSO AL FARO - FARO P.CERVIA - IT012059025015 PUNTA ROSSA IT012059030006 SPIAGGIA DI LEVANTE-STAB.TO IT012059030A003 D'ARCANGELO IT012059030007 LOC.BAZZANO INIZIO SPIAGGIA IT012059030008 CENTRO INSENATURA DX TORRE CAPOVENTO IT012059032013 SCAFA DI PONTE IT012059032A002 IT012059032014 TUMULETTI IT012059033007 PUNTA ROMANELLO IT012059033A004 IT012059033008 CALA PUNTA SPASANO IT014070051001 CASELLO F.S. N.28 (EX TORRETTA) IT014070051A001
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 135
Number of Bathing water ID Name Group ID groups IT014070051002 MARINA DI PETACCIATO IT014070078016 HOTEL JET IT014070078A004 IT014070078017 RISTORANTE GRATTACIELO IT014070078018 HOTEL GLOWER IT014070078019 VILLAGGIO MARE PULITO IT014070078A005 IT014070078020 PALAZZINA IMPICCIATORE IT014070078010 S. ANTONIO LIDO PANFILO MEDUSA IT014070078A007 IT014070078011 S. ANTONIO LIDO STELLA MARINA IT018080013003 BOVA EST IT018080013A001 IT018080013004 DISCOTECA MIRAMARE IT018080029001 CRISAPULLI IT018080029A001 IT018080029002 CENTRO IT018080043001 RIONE SBARRE IT018080043A001 IT018080043002 STAB.LOCRETTA IT018080045003 IONICO TOURST IT018080045A001 IT018080045004 LIDO CALURA IT018080057001 LIDO LA QUIETE IT018080057A001 IT018080057006 VILLAGGIO DUE PINI IT018080067003 CAMPING ALBABIANCA IT018080067A001 IT018080067004 HOTEL GIANFRANCO IT018080088003 PASSAGGIO A LIVELLO VIA TASSO IT018080088A001 IT018080088004 FABB.MATERAZZI IT018080091002 REDIDENCE PAOLA IT018080091A001 IT018080091003 KM 126 DELLA SS 106 IT020106001003 COSTA VERDE S'ARCUENTU IT020106001A003 IT020106001004 COSTA VERDE SPIAGGIA CENTRO
16.3 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Italy.
16.4 CLOSED BATHING WATERS
This study is looking at sites that were closed in 2016 and not classified as poor in 2015. Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Italy.
16.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘short-term pollution’ were assessed in relation to the causes of short-term pollution and relative measures.
Number of Bathing water ID Name Pollution period(s) sites 203 IT001103050004 SPIAGGIA LIDO CENTRO 22/08/2016 - 24/08/2016 Sample of SPORTIVO 51 (25.1%) IT005027008009 ISOLA VERDE 500 M NORD INIZIO 20/06/2016 - 22/06/2016 DIGA SX FOCE FIUME ADIGE IT006032006014 DIGA FORANEA DEL PORTO 14/06/2016 - 15/06/2016 FRANCO VECCHIO DI TRIESTE - 06/09/2016 - 09/09/2016 DIGA VECCHIA SUD IT007009049002 MONUMENTO AI CADUTI 18/04/2016 - 20/04/2016
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 136
Number of Bathing water ID Name Pollution period(s) sites IT007010046003 CASTELLO RAPALLO 17/08/2016 - 19/08/2016 IT007010047006 BARACCHETTA BIAGIO 13/06/2016 - 15/06/2016 IT007010054004 SCOGLIERA PAGANA 14/06/2016 - 16/06/2016 IT008038025004 SCANNO - PUNTO C 25/07/2016 - 27/07/2016 IT008039007002 MILANO MARITTIMA - 100 M N 13/06/2016 - 14/06/2016 CANALE IMMISSARIO SALINE 05/09/2016 - 07/09/2016 IT008040008002 PORTO CANALE CESENATICO 13/06/2016 - 14/06/2016 SUD IT008099002001 CATTOLICA - TRA 1^ E 2^ 13/06/2016 - 14/06/2016 SCOGLIERA 05/07/2016 - 06/07/2016 IT008099013001 RICCIONE - RIO ASSE (profile not 13/06/2016 - 14/06/2016 found) IT008099013003 RICCIONE - FOCE MARANO 50 05/09/2016 - 06/09/2016 MT S IT008099014009 RIMINI - FOCE MARECCHIA 50 MT 09/05/2016 - 10/05/2016 S IT009046005002 FOCE FOSSO DELL'ABATE 16/05/2016 - 19/05/2016 30/05/2016 - 01/06/2016 IT009046024002 FOCE FOSSO MOTRONE 30/05/2016 - 01/06/2016 IT009046024003 FOCE FOSSO FIUMETTO 30/05/2016 - 01/06/2016 19/09/2016 - 21/09/2016 IT009053011006 LOC. LE PIGNACCE 26/04/2016 - 29/04/2016 IT009053024006 SUD EMISSARIO 16/08/2016 - 18/08/2016 IT011043013007 IN DIREZIONE FOSSO MARANELLO 13/06/2016- 16/06/2016 IT011043042001 100 M SUD FOCE FIUME MUSONE 24/08/2016 - 26/08/2016 05/09/2016 - 08/09/2016 19/09/2016 - 22/09/2016 IT011043042014 300 M SUD FOCE FIUME POTENZA 13/06/2016 - 16/06/2016 08/08/2016 - 10/08/2016 19/09/2016 - 22/09/2016 IT011043042015 300 M SUD FOCE FIUME MUSONE 08/08/2016 - 10/08/2016 05/09/2016 - 08/09/2016 19/09/2016 - 22/09/2016 IT011043042016 400 M NORD FIUME POTENZA 16/05/2016 - 18/05/2016 IT011043042018 350 M SUD FOCE FIUME POTENZA 13/06/2016 - 16/06/2016 08/08/2016 - 10/08/2016 19/09/2016 - 22/09/2016 IT011043042019 450 M SUD FOCE FIUME POTENZA 13/06/2016 - 16/06/2016 27/06/2016 - 29/06/2016 08/08/2016 - 10/08/2016 IT011043043002 100 M NORD SCARICO 13/06/2016 - 16/06/2016 DEPURATORE COMUNALE 27/06/2016 - 29/06/2016 IT011109006002 500 M SUD FOCE TENNA 19/09/2016 - 22/09/2016 IT011109034001 900 M SUD FOCE CHIENTI 13/06/2016 - 16/06/2016 08/08/2016 - 10/08/2016 22/08/2016 - 25/08/2016 IT011109034007 500 M SUD FOCE FIUME CHIENTI 13/06/2016 - 16/06/2016 27/06/2016 - 29/06/2016 22/08/2016 - 25/08/2016 IT011109034008 700 M SUD FOCE FIUME CHIENTI 13/06/2016 - 16/06/2016 27/06/2016 - 29/06/2016 08/08/2016 - 10/08/2016 22/08/2016 - 25/08/2016 IT012056045003 RISTORANTE SAN SOUCI 01/07/2016 - 04/07/2016 IT012058117004 MT 250 SX FOSSO CAFFARELLA 19/09/2016 - 22/09/2016
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 137
Number of Bathing water ID Name Pollution period(s) sites IT012058117005 250 MT DX FOCE FOSSO MOLETTA 19/09/2016 - 22/09/2016 IT012058117006 250 MT SX FOCE CANALE BIFFI 19/09/2016 - 22/09/2016 IT012059032009 500 MT DX CANALE PORTATORE 06/09/2016 - 09/09/2016 IT013067037003 580 MT A NORD ANGOLO VIA 13/06/2016 - 15/06/2016 L'AQUILA 11/07/2016 - 13/07/2016 IT013067037005 ZONA ANTISTANTE PIAZZA 13/06/2016 - 15/06/2016 FILIPPONE IT013067040007 ZONA ANTISTANTE FOCE T. 20/04/2016 - 22/04/2016 CERRANO IT013067047004 VILLA ROSA 13/06/2016 -15/06/2016 08/08/2016 - 10/08/2016 IT013068028001 ZONA ANTIS.TE ROTONDA V.LE 11/07/2016 - 13/07/2016 RIVIERA NORD IT013069035008 140 M SUD FOCE FOSSO SAN 17/05/2016 - 19/05/2016 LORENZO 08/08/2016 - 10/08/2016 IT013069058012 50 MT A NORD FOSSO CINTIONI 15/06/2016 - 17/06/2016 08/09/2016 -10/09/2016 IT013069099008 ZONA ANT.TE F.SSO DELLA 25/07/2016 - 27/07/2016 PAUROSA 22/08/2016 - 24/08/2016 IT016071029004 CENTRO LAVORATIVO FORESTALE 21/06/2016 - 24/06/2016 SIPONTO 20/07/2016 - 23/07/2016 IT018078061002 RIST. MIRAMARE 08/08/2016 - 10/08/2016 IT018079133003 PILACCO 03/08/2016 - 05/08/2016 IT018079137004 LIDO MIRAMARE 06/09/2016 - 09/09/2016 IT018079137005 LIDO OTTAGONO 06/09/2016 - 09/09/2016 IT018079137009 LOC. CORVO 06/09/2016 - 09/09/2016 IT020104023003 CALA CODA CAVALLO 20/07/2016 - 22/07/2016
16.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘abnormal situation’ were assessed in relation to the causes of abnormal situation.
Number of Bathing water Name Start and end date sites ID 22 IT012057004001 SPIAGGIA ASCREA 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 IT012057004002 FOSSO BULGARETTI (CASA DIROCCATA) 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 IT012057013001 FOSSO DEI CARAPELLE 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 IT012057013002 GOLA FOSSI IAELLUCCO E DELLA 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 CRETARA IT012057013003 SPIAGGIA CASTEL DI TORA 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 IT012057013004 SPIAGGIA DI FRONTE TRATTORIA DEL 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 TASSO IT012057013005 SPIAGGIA DI FRONTE SEDE COMUNITA 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 MONTANA IT012057013006 SPIAGGIA S.ANATOLIA 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 IT012057013007 SPIAGGIA Campeggio 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 IT012057019001 GOLA SOTTO PAESE 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 IT012057019002 SPIAGGIA VILLAGGIO GIORNALISTI 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 IT012057019004 SPIAGGIA COLLE DI TORA 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 IT012057022001 SPIAGGETTA 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 IT012057022002 PONTILE DEI PESCATORI 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 IT012057048001 SPIAGGIA PAGANICO 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 IT012057062001 FOSSO COLLE IRTO 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 138
IT012057062002 SPIAGGIA VILLAGGIO TURISTICO ( DX 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 DIGA) IT012058007011 FOCE TOR CALDARA 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 IT012058007013 FORNACI PAIELLA 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 IT012058072001 300 MT DX CONFINE DI ANZIO 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 IT012058072002 CASTELLO S.GALLO-MT1200 DX 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016 DALL`INCROCIO IT012058072003 500 MT DX FOSSO LORICINA 24/08/2016 -30/09/2016
16.7 POOR QUALITY SITES
The bathing water sites listed under ‘poor quality sites’ were assessed in relation to the issues of management measures for poor quality sites and closing of poor quality sites.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 100 IT003012072001 LIDO DI GAVIRATE IT003012126001 PARCO COMUNALE BERRINI IT003013119001 RIVA DEL TENCIU' IT007008050002 FOCE TORRENTE CARAVELLO IT007011019001 CANALE VALLE IT008099013003 RICCIONE - FOCE MARANO 50 MT S IT008099014009 RIMINI - FOCE MARECCHIA 50 MT S IT009045010008 MAGLIANO IT009049007009 FOSSO NUOVO IT009049009009 RIO FELCIAIO IT011041013005 30 M NORD TORRENTE ARZILLA IT011042018002 HOTEL LUCA IT011042032007 ZI NENE' IT011042032008 NORD FOCE MUSONE IT011043042001 100 M SUD FOCE FIUME MUSONE IT011043042002 500 M SUD FOCE FIUME MUSONE IT011043042013 300 M NORD FOCE FIUME POTENZA IT011043042014 300 M SUD FOCE FIUME POTENZA IT011043042015 300 M SUD FOCE FIUME MUSONE IT011043042016 400 M NORD FIUME POTENZA IT011043042018 350 M SUD FOCE FIUME POTENZA IT011043042019 450 M SUD FOCE FIUME POTENZA IT011109034001 900 M SUD FOCE CHIENTI IT011109034007 500 M SUD FOCE FIUME CHIENTI IT011109034008 700 M SUD FOCE FIUME CHIENTI IT012058117005 250 MT DX FOCE FOSSO MOLETTA IT012058117008 250 MT DX FOCE RIO TORTO IT012058117009 250 MT SX FOSSO GRANDE IT012058120005 250 MT SX FOCE FIUME ARRONE IT012058120006 250 MT DX FOCE FIUME ARRONE IT013067001004 250 MT A SUD FOCE F. VIBRATA IT013067025005 250 MT A NORD FOCE F. TORDINO IT013067037007 300 MT A SUD FOCE F. TORDINO IT013067047006 250 MT NORD FOCE F. VIBRATA IT013068012001 300 MT A NORD FOCE F. SALINE IT013068028004 ZONA ANTISTANTE VIA BALILLA IT013068028008 ZONA ANT.TE F.SSO VALLELUNGA IT013069058007 200 MT A SUD FOCE F. ARIELLI IT013069058008 350 MT A NORD FOCE F. FORO
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 139
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites IT013069058009 350 MT A SUD FOCE F. FORO IT013069058010 400 MT A NORD FOCE F. ARIELLI IT013069058012 50 MT A NORD FOSSO CINTIONI IT013069086002 100 MT A NORD FOCE F. FELTRINO IT013069086003 50 MT. A SUD FOSSO CINTIONI IT013069091004 300 MT A SUD FOCE F. SANGRO IT015061027010 PINETA GRANDE SUD IT015061027011 VILLAGGIO AGRICOLO IT015061088001 SUD FIUME GARIGLIANO IT015063024002 EX CARTIERA IT015063024003 VILLA COMUNALE IT015063049013 S GIOVANNI A TEDUCCIO IT015063049014 PIETRARSA IT015063060001 LIDO DI LICOLA IT015063060002 STABILIMENTO BALNEARE IT015063064001 EX BAGNO RISORGIMENTO IT015063064002 LA FAVORITA IT015063083004 NORD FOCE SARNO IT015065011001 SPIAGGIA DI ATRANI IT015065014001 SPINETA NUOVA IT015065014002 LIDO SPINETA IT015065050004 NORD FIUME SELE IT015065099003 MAGAZZENO IT015065099006 LA PICCIOLA IT015065116001 EST FIUME IRNO IT015065119005 SCARIO IT015065157004 MARINA DI VIETRI PRIMO TRATTO IT018078058003 150 MT SX TORRENTE MADDALENA IT018078091015 200 MT S. CANALE PROSP. DEPURATORE IT018078091016 T. SAN DOMENICO IT018078101003 SBOCCO C.LE SOTTOMARLANE IT018078101004 50 MT SX CANALE FIUMARELLA IT018080014006 I.D. BRANCALEONE IT018080038001 PONTILE N IT018080063003 GALLICO - LIMONETO IT018080063005 GALLICO - LIDO MIMMO IT018080063007 PENTIMELE IT018080063010 CIRCOLO NAUTICO IT018080063011 LIDO COMUNALE PONTILE N IT018080063012 LIDO COMUNALE PONTILE S IT018080063013 LIDO COMUNALE VILLA ZERBI IT018080063019 PELLARO - LUME IT018080063023 500 M N TOTT. ANNUNZIATA IT018080063024 CIRCOLO VELICO IT018080097005 DELTA MESIMA IT018102003002 LA ROCCHETTA IT018102025008 200 MT A DX F. MESIMA IT019083048028 M 50 SUD OSPEDALE IT019083048029 M 50 NORD TORRENTE ANNUNZIATA IT019083084010 FOCE TORRENTE INGANNO IT019083107002 STAZIONE FF.SS. IT019084041016 TORRENTE GANETICI IT019085007005 EST T. GATTANO IT019085007010 OVEST FIUME GELA IT020090003021 VIA CARDUCCI
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 140
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites IT020090058004 100 MT AD EST FOCE FIUME SANTO IT020107001005 120 MT SUD FOCE F. MANNU
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 141
17 LITHUANIA
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 114 8 7 Groups 3 3 100 Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 12 12 100 Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 0 n/a n/a
17.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 114 LT0032100101001 GIRULIU Sample of LT0086866170400304 PLATELIŲ –PLATELIU MIESTELIO 8 LT006548030050070 SAUKENU (7.0%) LT006717941040040 ARIMAICIU LT009435050040303 ZARASAICIO LT00A1312010001 NERIES LT006547730050001 UZVENCIO LT00A1312040143 SALOTES
17.2 GROUPING OF BATHING WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘groups’ were assessed in relation to the issues of contiguity and water classification of grouped bathing water sites.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 3 groups LT0032100101001 Group ID: LT0032100101002 LT0032100101002 LT0032100101003 Group ID: LT0032100101004 LT0032100101004 LT0032100101005 Group ID: LT0032100101005 LT0032100101006
17.3 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Lithuania.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 142
17.4 CLOSED WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Lithuania.
17.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘short-term pollution’ were assessed in relation to the causes of short-term pollution and relative measures.
Number Bathing water ID Name Pollution period(s) of sites 12 LT001157010030314 ILGIO 01/09/2016 - 01/09/2016 LT0032520010720 RAZES 01/08/2016 - 03/08/2016 LT003882010050553 ZEMAICIU NAUMIESCIO 01/08/2016 - 16/08/2016 LT0038850100201100 KURSIU MARIU 16/08/2016 - 05/09/2016 LT005670141010850 LEVENS 01/08/2016 - 08/08/2016 LT0062941050044 PRUDELIS 18/07/2016 - 21/07/2016 LT0096212241933 PASTOVIO 05/07/2016 - 13/07/2016 LT00A421510050291 ELEKTRENU 01/08/2016 - 16/08/2016 LT00A799412030219 TOTORISKIU 29/08/2016 - 05/09/2016 LT00A867112110001 ZEIMENOS 22/06/2016 - 29/06/2016 LT0021910050001 KAUNO MARIŲ II 11/07/2016 - 15/07/2016 LT0021910010002 PANEMUNES 25/07/2016 - 28/07/2016
17.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Lithuania.
17.7 POOR QUALITY BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Lithuania.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 143
18 LUXEMBOURG
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 11 8 72.7 Groups 3 3 100 Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 0 n/a n/a Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 0 n/a n/a
18.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing Water ID Bathing Water Name sites 11 LU_600005008000000016 LAC DE LA HAUTE SURE-INSENBORN Sample of LU_600008006000000007 ETANGS REMERSCHEN-ZONE 1 8 (72.7%) LU_600005008000000014 LAC DE LA HAUTE SURE-BURGFRIED LU_600005007000000018 LAC DE LA HAUTE SURE-LIEFRANGE LU_600005008000000017 LAC DE LA HAUTE SURE-LULTZHAUSEN LU_600005001000000019 LAC DE LA HAUTE SURE-ROMMWISS LU_600005008000000015 LAC DE LA HAUTE SURE-FUUSEFELD LU_600001007000000002 LAC DE WEISWAMPACH-ZONE 2
18.2 GROUPS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘Groups’ were assessed in relation to the grouping of bathing waters.
Number of Bathing Water ID Group Name sites 3 LU_600008006000000007 ETANGS DE REMERSCHEN LU_600008006000000008 LU_600008006000000009 LU_600005001000000019 LAC DE LA HAUTE SURE LU_600005008000000014 LU_600005008000000015 LU_600005008000000016 LU_600005008000000017 LU_600005007000000018 LU_600001007000000001 LAC DE WEISWAMPACH LU_600001007000000002
18.3 GEOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINT
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 144
Luxembourg.
18.4 CLOSED BATHING SITES
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Luxembourg.
18.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Luxembourg.
18.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Luxembourg.
18.7 POOR QUALITY SITES
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Luxembourg.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 145
19 LATVIA
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 56 8 14.3 Groups 0 n/a n/a Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 0 n/a n/a Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 0 n/a n/a
19.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 56 LV00766760001 LIMBAŽU NOVADA SKULTES PLUDMALES PELDVIETA „LAUČU Sample of AKMENS” 8 LV00364141301 PĀVILOSTA (14.3%) LV00505000005 LIELAIS STROPU EZERS LV00317000003 KARJERS "BEBERLIŅI" LV00909000003 LIELUPE, JELGAVAS PILSĒTAS PELDVIETA LV00601000009 VAKARBUĻĻI LV00713000000 BULDURI LV00388780001 ROJA
19.2 GROUPS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Latvia.
19.3 GEOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINT
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Latvia.
19.4 CLOSED BATHING SITES
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Latvia.
19.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 146
Latvia.
19.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Latvia.
19.7 POOR QUALITY BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Latvia.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 147
20 MALTA
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 87 8 9.2 Groups 0 n/a n/a Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 2 2 100 Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 0 n/a n/a
20.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 87 MT0150153700000C15 IL-BAJJA TAL-MELLIEHA (DAWRET IT-TUNNARA) Sample of MT0150153700000C12 IL-BAJJA TAL-MELLIEHA (OPPOSITE MAXIMA) 8 MT0120125900000B11 L-EXILES (9.2%) MT0260264300000D18 IL-BAJJA TA' DAHLET QORROT MT0260265400000D08 DWEJRA INLAND SEA MT0260262200000D01 XATT L-AHMAR MT0130131500000A15 IL-BAJJA S-SABIEHA (JETTY ON RIGHT HAND SIDE) MT0260264200000D07 IL-BAJJA TAX-XLENDI (R/H SIDE OF BAY)
20.2 GROUPS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Malta.
20.3 GEOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINT
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Malta.
20.4 CLOSED BATHING SITES
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Malta.
20.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘short-term pollution’ were assessed in relation to the causes of short-term pollution and relative measures.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 148
Number Bathing water ID Name Pollution period(s) of sites 2 MT0120125900000B14 BELOW QUI-SI-SANA STEPS 27/05/2016 –1/06/2016 MT0150155500000C22 TAX-XEMA 4/08/2016 – 9/08/2016
20.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Malta.
20.7 POOR QUALITY SITES
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Malta.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 149
21 THE NETHERLANDS
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 718 14 2 Groups 3 0 100 Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 6 6 100 Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 19 19 100
21.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water waters listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 718 NLBW95_SCHEVNGBSD SCHEVENINGEN NOORDERSTRAND Sample of NLBW89_VLISSGNLBSD VLISSINGEN NOLLE BADSTRAND 14 NLBW33_2404 T VEENMEER, TYNAARLO (2.0%) NLBW38_345600 OOSTERPLAS NLBW92_HINDLPBPVJN BADPAVILJOEN IJSSELMEER, HINDELOOPEN NLBW89_SCHOTSMCPBSD SCHOTSMAN CAMPENSWEG BADSTRAND NLBW94_NOORDGVDPBSD NOORDERGAT VAN DE PLOMP, BADSTRAND NLBW89_SINTANLBSD SINT ANNALAND BADSTRAND NLBW33_5405 MOEKESGAT, TER APEL NLBW27_245580 RAUWBRAKEN DIEP NLBW59_SCH02 VAKANTIEPARK HELLENDOORN PLAS ZUID NLBW42_O8076R BRAAKMANKREEK (ZWEMBAD VAN CAMPING) NLBW13_ROP180116 RECREATIEPLAS TOOLENBURG, SPEELVIJVER NLBW11_PMW007 MAARSSEVEENSE PLASSEN STRANDBAD
21.2 GROUPING OF BATHING WATERS
The bathing waters listed under ‘Groups’ were assessed in relation to the grouping of bathing waters.
Number of sites Bathing Water ID Group Name 3 groups NLBW13_RO539 Group ID: NLBW13_RO607 NLBW13_BWG_RO607 NLBW27_245540 Group ID: NLBW27_245541 NLBW27_BWG_245540 NLBW27_245695 Group ID: NLBW27_245697 NLBW27_BWG_245695
21.3 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for the Netherlands.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 150
21.4 CLOSED WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under 'closed but not poor' were those sites that were classified as ‘closed’ in 2016 but were not classified as ‘poor’ or reported as ‘closed’ in 2015. They were assessed to find out why they were closed. Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for the Netherlands.
21.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
The bathing waters listed under ‘short-term pollution’ were assessed in relation to the causes of short- term pollution and relative measures.
Number Bathing water ID Name Pollution period(s) of sites 6 NLBW27_245506 LACO STRANDBAD NUENEN, KLEINE BAD 30/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 NLBW27_245565 BEEKSE BERGEN ZONE 1 13/06/2016 - 14/06/2016 NLBW27_245567 BEEKSE BERGEN ZONE 2 30/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 NLBW27_245581 RAUWBRAKEN ONDIEP 13/06/2016 - 14/06/2016 NLBW27_245640 MEERSE PLAS 30/05/2016 - 31/05/2016 NLBW27_270203 KLEIN OISTERWIJK STREEKPARK 13/06/2016 - 14/06/2016
21.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for the Netherlands.
21.7 POOR QUALITY WATERS
The bathing waters listed under ‘poor quality waters’ were assessed in relation to the issues of management measures for poor quality waters and closing of poor-quality waters.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 19 NLBW02_9006 DE LEIEN, ROTTEVALLE NLBW02_9008 DAGRECREATIETERREIN KLEIN ZWITSERLAND, SUMAR NLBW02_9021 ZWEM- EN SURFCENTRUM BALK, BALK NLBW02_9022 DE KUILART, KOUDUM NLBW11_HBP012 GROENSTRAND, OUDERKERKERPLAS NLBW11_MBP003 STRAND MEENT, LOOSDRECHTSE PLASSEN NLBW12_534019 HET TWISKE; VENNEGATSTRAND NLBW13_ROP003A03 SPEELVIJVER EUROPAPARK NLBW13_ROP06703 WATERSPEELPLAATS CRONESTEIJN NLBW13_ROP180116 RECREATIEPLAS TOOLENBURG, SPEELVIJVER NLBW13_ROP30921 PEDDELPOEL NLBW14_20130 VOORVELDSE POLDER (SPEELVIJVER) NLBW15_OW203-011 WATERSPEELTUIN KORFTLAAN NLBW33_1405 URNENHOEVE, WEDDE NLBW39_KOP 0105 ZWANEWATER NLBW40_YOP 0727Z PLAS CLARABOS NLBW42_O6038R DE VOGEL, ZWEMBAD
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 151
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites NLBW44_36-009 CAMPING DE BERGVENNEN NLBW91_CHATEN50 RECREATIESTRAND RESORT MARINA OOLDERHUUSKE
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 152
22 POLAND
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 201 8 4 Groups 0 n/a n/a Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 5 5 100 Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 1 1 100
22.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing Water ID Bathing Water name sites 201 PL6321104122000057 Ostrowo wejście nr 35 Sample of 8 PL6110303204000017 Ośrodek Szkoleniowo-Wypoczynkowy Wodnego (4.0%) Ochotniczego Pogotowia Ratunkowego Borówno PL4210701532000032 Kąpielisko Łukęcin PL4156401130000028 Kiekrz-Krzyżowniki PL4210508532000016 Kąpielisko Mrzeżyno "Wschód" 1013PKAP0001 Kąpielisko "Tatar" na akwenie wodnym Ośrodka Sportu i Rekreacji PL6321107222000055 Puck plaża po wschodniej stronie części falochronu portu jachtowego na Zatoce Puckiej PL6226201128000024 Kąpielisko Skanda
22.2 GROUPING OF BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Poland.
22.3 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Poland.
22.4 CLOSED WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Poland.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 153
22.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘short-term pollution’ were assessed in relation to the causes of short-term pollution and relative measures.
Number of Bathing Water ID Bathing Water name Period of pollution sites 5 PL6336201122000008 GDYNIA REDŁOWO 1/08/2016 – 3/08/2016
PL4220905232000046 SARBINOWO 213 22/08/2016 - 25/08/2016 PL4221301132000056 KĄPIELISKO "DARŁÓWKO Two incidents: WSCHODNIE" 8/08/2016 -12/08/2016 23/08/2016 - 26/08/2016 PL4221501132000088 KĄPIELISKO NR 3 - NAD JEZ. Two incidents: TRZESIECKO PRZY TERENIE 25/07/2016 - 27/07/2016 ZAWANYM POTOCZNIE 22/08/2016 - 24/08/2016 "MYSIA WYSPA" PL4220807232000093 KAPIELISKO USTRONIE 22/08/2016 - 25/08/2016 MORSKIE- PLAŻA CENTRALNA
22.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Poland.
22.7 POOR QUALITY SITES
The bathing water sites listed under ‘poor quality sites’ were assessed in relation to the issues of management measures for poor quality sites and closing of poor quality sites.
Bathing Water ID Bathing Water name PL4221305232000058 KĄPIELISKO MORSKIE "JAROSŁAWIEC-WSCHÓD"
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 154
23 PORTUGAL
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 579 12 2 Groups 26 26 100 Geographic 1 1 100 constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 44 22 50 Abnormal sites (distinct 2 2 100 sites) Poor BW 4 4 100
23.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 579 PTMH9W PRAIA DA LAJE Sample of PTCV3J FOZ 12 PTCX9Q PRAIA D'EL REI (2.0%) PTCJ7C FIGUEIRINHA PTCH7U GARRÃO-NASCENTE PTAX8Q PRAIA DOS MOÍNHOS PTCX7N MONTES PTCL3C CAVEZ PTCJ7U VIMIEIRO PTCJ7P JANEIRO DE BAIXO PTMH9T GORGULHO PTCP9J JARDIM DE OUDINOT
23.2 GROUPS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘groups’ were assessed in relation to the issues of contiguity and water classification of grouped bathing water sites.
Number of Bathing water ID Group ID groups 26 PTCJ2F PTCD2UG PTCJ2Q PTCF7T PTCD3LG PTCW7C PTCT2P PTCF2MG PTCU7F PTCD7N PTCH2KG PTCF7K PTCD2V PTCK3LG PTCV8W PTCE9X PTCK7PG PTCP8F PTCE7V PTCK8DG
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 155
Number of Bathing water ID Group ID groups PTCK3F PTCP8X PTCH3C PTCK9FG PTCJ2E PTCK9V PTCL8P PTCQ3K PTCT8K PTCW9X PTCF9H PTCL3WG PTCV8D PTCF3P PTCL7JG PTCJ2K PTCP2E PTCL8UG PTCW2K PTCJ3N PTCN3WG PTCU8X PTCH7U PTCQ2MG PTCP3H PTCK8J PTCQ7NG PTCX2F PTCF3H PTCQ9JG PTCU8C PTCF3U PTCT3VG PTCH8T PTCN2K PTCT3K PTCT9D PTCV7J PTCE8U PTCT7UG PTCH9F PTCE2C PTCT9LG PTCN3U PTCV7M PTCD7K PTCV7PG PTCF8L PTCH3V PTCV8HG PTCX3J PTCK8L PTCW3DG PTCN2M PTCP2J PTCW7VG PTCW2D PTCV9L PTCW8HG PTCW2C PTCK8L PTCW8LG PTCN2M PTCF7X PTCW8QG PTCJ8N PTCK2H PTCN9J PTCX3N PTCL2F PTCX7PG PTCQ8L
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 156
23.3 GEOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINTS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘geographic constraint’ were assessed in relation to the causes of geographic constrains.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 1 PTAV9T Conceição
23.4 CLOSED BATHING SITES
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Portugal.
23.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘short-term pollution’ were assessed in relation to the causes of short-term pollution and relative measures.
Number Bathing water ID Name Pollution period(s) of sites 44 PTAJ8L PONTA DA FERRARIA 29/08/2016 - 1/09/2016 Sample of PTAK3T POÇO DOS FRADES Two incidents: 22 (50%) 25/08/2016 - 28/08/2016 12/09/2016 - 15/09/2016 PTAV9T CONCEIÇÃO 21/07/2016 - 25/07/2016 PTCD9V MIRAMAR 13/07/2016 -15/07/2016 PTCE8W PAÇO D'ARCOS 6/09/2016 - 8/09/2016 PTCJ9N SECA Two incidents: 20/06/2016 - 22/06/2016 24/08/2016 - 26/08/2016 PTCL3C CAVEZ 9/08/2016 - 11/08/2016 PTCP3J ADAÚFE 30/08/2016 - 2/09/2016 PTCP9U FARO-MAR 16/08/2016 - 18/08/2016 PTCQ2N FRENTE AZUL Two incidents: 20/06/2016 - 22/06/2016 24/08/2016 - 26/08/2016 PTCQ3W ALMACEDA 6/07/2016 - 8/07/2016 PTCQ7H VALE JUNCAL 19/07/2016 - 22/07/2016 PTCQ9L CAXIAS 6/09/2016 - 8/09/2016 PTCT7E PONTILHÃO DA VALETA 16/08/2016 - 19/08/2016 PTCU3T AREIA BRANCA 29/08/2016 - 31/08/2016 PTCU7J FAROL 8/08/2016 - 10/08/2016 PTCW3Q LAGOA 29/08/2016 - 31/08/2016 PTCX8H MOLHE LESTE 5/07/2016 - 7/07/2016 PTMH9T GORGULHO Two incidents: 4/07/2016 - 6/07/2016 16/08/2016 - 18/08/2016 PTMJ9M PORTO SANTO-FONTINHA 11/07/2016 - 14/07/2016 PTMQ9D PORTO SANTO-RIBEIRO COCHINO 11/07/2016 - 14/07/2016 PTMU2P S. ROQUE 9/08/2016 - 12/08/2016
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 157
23.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘abnormal situation’ were assessed in relation to the causes of abnormal situation.
Number Bathing water ID Name Start and end date of sites 2 PTCN2L ALDEIA RUIVA 07/06/2016 - 21/06/2016 PTCH3E FRÓIA 07/06/2016 - 21/06/2016
23.7 POOR QUALITY BATHING WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘poor quality bathing waters’ were assessed in relation to the issues of management measures for poor quality bathing waters and closing of poor quality waters.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 4 PTCP9J JARDIM DE OUDINOT PTCW8C PRAIA DO FORTE PTMH9T GORGULHO PTMU8Q POÇAS DO GOMES-DOCA DO CAVACAS
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 158
24 ROMANIA
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 50 8 16 Groups 0 n/a n/a Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 0 n/a n/a Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 0 n/a n/a
24.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 50 RO2230009006580001 CONSTANTA I DELFINARIU Sample of RO2230009055040003 VENUS II HOTEL SILVIA 8 RO2230009055040002 VENUS PERLA VENUSULUI (16.0%) RO2230009055040006 VENUS I ZONA 2 HOTEL AFRODITA RO2230009055030001 OLIMP II ZONA 1 Piscina Oltenia RO2250008200330001 TULCEA LAC CIUPERCA RO2230009055030002 OLIMP II ZONA 2 Zona Protocol RO2230009053600002 EFORIE SUD II CAZINO
24.2 GROUPING OF BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Romania.
24.3 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Romania.
24.4 CLOSED WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Romania.
24.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Romania.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 159
24.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Romania.
24.7 POOR QUALITY BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Romania.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 160
25 SWEDEN
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 444 9 2 Groups 0 n/a n/a Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 18 9 50 Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 20 20 100
25.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing Water ID Name sites 444 SE0A21480000000518 Stora Amundön Sample of 9 SE0A21490000003594 Almenäs badplats, Öresjö (2.0%) SE0822580000003237 First Camp (Arcus camping) SE0441287000000442 Dalabadet SE0110181000001339 Nya Malmsjöbadet SE0A11383000000627 Björkäng SE0110180000001841 Mälaren, Maltesholmsbadet Ö SE0441283000000311 Örby Ängar SE0110180000001838 Mälaren, Kaananbadet Ö
25.2 GROUPING OF BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Sweden.
25.3 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Sweden.
25.4 CLOSED WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Sweden. This study is looking at bathing waters that were ‘closed’ in 2016 but were not classified as ‘poor’ or reported as ‘closed’ in 2015.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 161
25.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
The bathing water sites listed under ‘short-term pollution’ were assessed in relation to the causes of short-term pollution and relative measures.
Number Bathing Water ID Bathing Water name Period of pollution of sites 18 SE0210305000000758 Kalmarsandbadet 20/07/2016 - 22/07/2016 Sample of SE0441284000000489 Höganäs, Kvickbadet 11/07/2016 - 14/07/2016 9 (50%) SE0441284000000491 Höganäs, Margreteberg 8/08/2016 - 11/08/2016 SE0441284000000492 Strandbaden 8/08/2016 - 11/08/2016 SE0441290000000677 Snickarhaken 8/08/2016 - 11/08/2016 SE0611780000002378 Vänern Skutberget 27/06/2016 - 30/06/2016 SE0611780000002379 Ilandatjärn 27/06/2016 - 30/06/2016 SE0A11382000000546 Rosendals havsbad 28/06/2016 - 30/06/2016 SE0A11384000000458 Tjolöholm 8/08/2016 - 11/08/2016
25.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Sweden.
25.7 POOR QUALITY BATHING WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘poor quality bathing waters’ were assessed in relation to the issues of management measures for poor quality bathing waters and closing of poor-quality bathing waters.
Number Bathing Water ID Name of sites 20 SE0110180000001841 Mälaren, Maltesholmsbadet Ö SE0441283000000318 Hittarp SE0441283000003890 Fria bad SE0632183000002907 Karlslund SE0A11380000002976 Hagöns campingplats SE0A11383000000627 Björkäng
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 162
26 SLOVENIA
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 47 8 17 Groups 0 n/a n/a Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 0 n/a n/a Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 0 n/a n/a
26.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 47 SI00C4009000K62010 NARAVNO KOPALIŠČE AVTOKAMP LUCIJA Sample of SI0094400300K64010 NARAVNO KOPALIŠČE GRAND HOTEL TOPLICE 8 SI00D0501700K02060 KOPALNO OBMOČJE KOLPA, POBREŽJE–FUČKOVCI (17%) SI00B5504600K09010 KOPALNO OBMOČJE NADIŽA SI00D3808500K07010 KOPALNO OBMOČJE KRKA, STRAŽA SI00B3708400K13010 KOPALNO OBMOČJE SOČA PRI SOLKANU SI00D0501700K02070 KOPALNO OBMOČJE KOLPA, PRIMOSTEK SI00B5512800K08010 KOPALNO OBMOČJE IDRIJCA V BAČI PRI MODREJU
26.2 GROUPING OF BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Slovenia.
26.3 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Slovenia.
26.4 CLOSED WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Slovenia. This study is looking at bathing water sites that were closed in 2016 and not classified as poor in 2015; delisted sites were excluded from the analysis.
26.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 163
Slovenia.
26.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Slovenia.
26.7 POOR QUALITY BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Slovenia.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 164
27 SLOVAKIA
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 33 8 24.2 Groups 0 n/a n/a Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 0 n/a n/a STP (distinct sites) 0 n/a n/a Abnormal sites (distinct 0 n/a n/a sites) Poor BW 1 1 100
27.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing water sites listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 33 SKREK028 ZEMPLÍNSKA ŠÍRAVA - PAĽKOV Sample of SKREK019 POD BUKOVCOM 8 SKREK020 DRIEŇOK (24.2%) SKREK026 ZEMPLÍNSKA ŠÍRAVA - MEDVEDIA HORA SKREK023 ZEMPLÍNSKA ŠÍRAVA - BIELA HORA SKREK022 VEľKÁ DOMAŠA - POľANY SKREK003 VEľKÁ DOMAŠA - VALKOV SKREK007 GAZARKA
27.2 GROUPING OF BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Slovakia.
27.3 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Slovakia.
27.4 CLOSED WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under 'closed but not poor' were those bathing waters that were classified as ‘closed’ in 2016 but were not classified as ‘poor’ or reported as ‘closed’ in 2015. Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Slovakia.
27.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 165
Slovakia.
27.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for Slovakia.
27.7 POOR QUALITY BATHING WATERS
The bathing water sites listed under ‘poor quality bathing waters’ were assessed in relation to the issues of management measures for poor quality bathing waters and closing of poor-quality bathing waters.
Number of sites Bathing water ID Name 1 SKREK007 GAZARKA
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 166
28 THE UNITED KINGDOM
Total sites (2016) Total in sample % of total Sample A 631 18 2.9 Groups 0 n/a n/a Geographic 0 n/a n/a constraints Closed 1 1 100 STP (distinct sites) 60 30 50 Abnormal sites (distinct 18 18 100 sites) Poor BW 20 20 100
28.1 SAMPLE A
The bathing waters listed under ‘sample A’ were assessed in relation to the following issues: location of monitoring point, cyanobacterial proliferation, completeness of information in the bathing water profiles, revision of bathing water profiles.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 631 UKS7616064 ELIE (HARBOUR) AND EARLSFERRY Sample of UK05800 SEAHAM BEACH 18 UK08800 TUNSTALL (2.9%) UK11100 DOVERCOURT UKS7616033 LUSS UK22500 DAWLISH TOWN UK38400 NEWGALE UKGBNIPA3_20021 PORTBALLINTRAE (SALMON ROCK) UKGIB10 EASTERN BEACH UKS7616039 NORTH BERWICK (MILSEY BAY) UK09800 HEACHAM UK15400 WORTHING UK35000 MINEHEAD TERMINUS UK37940 WISEMAN'S BRIDGE UK43260 MORECAMBE SOUTH UKGBNIPA3_20013 CRAWFORDSBURN UKS7616012 CRUDEN BAY UKS7616028 IRVINE
28.2 GROUPING OF BATHING WATERS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for the United Kingdom.
28.3 GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information reported to the EEA for 2016, this issue was not considered relevant for the United Kingdom.
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 167
28.4 CLOSED WATERS
The bathing water waters listed under 'closed but not poor' were those waters that were classified as ‘closed’ in 2016 but were not classified as ‘poor’ or reported as ‘closed’ in 2015. They were assessed to find out why they were closed.
Number of Classification in 2015 Bathing water ID Bathing water name sites and status in 2016 UK2657 WHITSAND BAY (SHARROW) 2015: excellent; 2016: closed
28.5 SHORT-TERM POLLUTION
The bathing waters listed under ‘short-term pollution’ were assessed in relation to the causes of short- term pollution and relative measures.
Number Bathing water ID Name Pollution period(s) of sites 60 UK07200 ROBIN HOODS BAY 11/08/2016 - 12/08/2016 Sample of UK14150 ST LEONARDS 23/06/2016 - 25/06/2016 30 (50%) UK24000 PAIGNTON PRESTON SANDS 29/06/2016 - 30/06/201621/05/2016 - 22/05/2016 UK24200 GOODRINGTON 29/06/2016 - 30/06/2016 UK25300 SALCOMBE SOUTH SANDS 19/08/2016 - 20/08/2016 UK27100 READYMONEY 2/08/2016 - 4/08/2016 UK34400 WOOLACOMBE VILLAGE TWO INCIDENTS: 20/06/2016 - 21/06/2016 2/08/2016 - 3/08/2016 UK35300 BURNHAM JETTY NORTH 22/08/2016 - 24/08/2016 UK36900 SWANSEA BAY TWO INCIDENTS: 7/06/2016 - 7/06/2016 29/06/2016 - 1/07/2016 UK41300 AINSDALE 16/09/2016 - 24/09/2016 UK41500 SOUTHPORT 7/07/2016 - 10/07/2016 UK41800 ST ANNES 8/06/2016 - 11/06/2016 UK42100 BLACKPOOL SOUTH THREE INCIDENTS: 24/07/2016 - 26/07/2016 24/08/2016 - 25/08/2016 21/09/2016 - 24/09/2016 UK42300 BLACKPOOL CENTRAL 24/07/2016 - 26/07/2016 UK42500 BLACKPOOL NORTH THREE INCIDENTS: 24/08/2016 - 26/08/2016 21/09/2016 - 24/09/2016 24/07/2016 - 26/07/2016 UK42600 BISPHAM THREE INCIDENTS: 24/07/2016 - 26/07/2016 7/08/2016 - 8/08/2016 21/09/2016 - 24/09/2016 UK43000 FLEETWOOD THREE INCIDENTS: 17/06/2016 - 19/06/2016 22/07/2016 - 29/07/2016 15/09/2016 - 24/09/2016 UK43260 MORECAMBE SOUTH 5/08/2016 - 6/08/2016 UK43550 MORECAMBE NORTH 20/06/2016 - 22/06/2016 UK44300 WALNEY SANDY GAP 21/09/2016 - 24/09/2016
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 168
Number Bathing water ID Name Pollution period(s) of sites UK44800 HAVERIGG TWO INCIDENTS: 17/06/2016 - 18/06/2016 23/08/2016 - 26/08/2016 UK46000 ALLONBY SOUTH THREE INCIDENTS: 2/07/2016 - 4/07/2016 4/09/2016 - 6/09/2016 16/09/2016 - 17/09/2016 UK46100 ALLONBY THREE INCIDENTS: 6/07/2016 - 7/07/2016 5/08/2016 - 6/08/2016 4/09/2016 - 6/09/2016 UKS7616028 IRVINE TWO INCIDENTS: 27/06/2016 - 27/06/2016 8/09/2016 - 11/09/2016 UKS7616033 LUSS BAY TWO INCIDENTS: 22/06/2016 - 22/06/2016 7/07/2016 - 11/07/2016 UKS761604 AYR (SOUTH BEACH) TWO INCIDENTS: 11/07/2016 - 12/07/2016 11/08/2016 - 13/08/2016 UKS7616047 ROCKCLIFFE TWO INCIDENTS: 6/06/2016 - 6/06/2016 2/08/2016 - 6/08/2016 UKS7616050 SANDYHILLS 20/06/2016 - 20/06/2016 UKS7616071 HEADS OF AYR TWO INCIDENTS: 3/08/2016 - 3/08/2016 11/08/2016 - 13/08/2016 UKS7616076 LOSSIEMOUTH (EAST) TWO INCIDENTS: 16/06/2016 - 17/06/2016 25/07/2016 - 27/07/2016
28.6 ABNORMAL SITUATION
The bathing waters listed under ‘abnormal situation’ were assessed in relation to the causes of abnormal situation.
Number Bathing water ID Name Start and end date of sites 18 UK24300 BROADSANDS 16/05/2016 –19/05/2016 UK06650 MARSKE SANDS 31/05/2016 – 2/06/2016 UK06000 SEATON CAREW NORTH 14/06/2016 –16/06/2016 UK06200 SEATON CAREW NORTH GARE 14/06/2016 –16/06/2016 UK06100 SEATON CAREW CENTRE 14/06/2016 –16/06/2016 UK34700 COMBE MARTIN 12/07/2016 –14/07/2016 UK19800 SWANAGE CENTRAL 5/08/2016 – 6/08/2016 UK42500 BLACKPOOL NORTH 22/08/2016 –24/08/2016 UK42600 BISPHAM 22/08/2016 –24/08/2016 UK41800 ST ANNES 22/08/2016 –24/08/2016 UK41900 ST ANNES NORTH 22/08/2016 –24/08/2016 UK42800 CLEVELEYS 22/08/2016 –24/08/2016 UK43000 FLEETWOOD 22/08/2016 –24/08/2016 UK42100 BLACKPOOL SOUTH 22/08/2016 –24/08/2016 UK42300 BLACKPOOL CENTRAL 22/08/2016 –24/08/2016 UK40700 PRESTATYN 17/06/2016 –18/06/2016 UK40400 COLWYN BAY 15/07/2016 –18/07/2016
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)
EU Overview Report / 169
UKS7616046 PRESTWICK 29/07/2016 – 4/08/2016
28.7 POOR QUALITY WATERS
The bathing waters listed under ‘poor quality bathing waters’ were assessed in relation to the issues of management measures for poor quality bathing waters and closing of poor quality bathing waters.
Number of Bathing water ID Name sites 20 UK07400 SCARBOROUGH SOUTH BAY UK11550 CLACTON (GROYNE 41) UK12630 WALPOLE BAY, MARGATE UK34000 INSTOW UK34500 ILFRACOMBE WILDERSMOUTH UK35300 BURNHAM JETTY NORTH UKGIB60 WESTERN BEACH UKGBNIPA3_20016 BALLYHOLME UK40050 CEMAES UKS7616012 CRUDEN BAY UKS7616022 EYEMOUTH UKS7616037 NAIRN (CENTRAL) UKS7616038 NAIRN (EAST) UKS761604 AYR (SOUTH BEACH) UKS7616045 PORTOBELLO (WEST) UKS7616050 SANDYHILLS UKS7616063 YELLOW CRAIG UKS7616071 HEADS OF AYR UKS7616072 KINGHORN (HARBOUR BEACH) UKS7616088 MONIFIETH
Milieu Consulting SPRL Support to the assessment of Member States' compliance with the Bathing Water Brussels, March 2019 Directive 2006/7/EC (BWD)