EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 41 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Germany Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans

{COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Table of contents Acronyms and definitions Foreword General Information Status of second river basin management plan reporting Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) Recommendations Topic 1 Governance and public participation 1.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.2 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 2 Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 2.3 Progress with the Commission recommendations Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in second RBMPs 3.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 3.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 4 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies

4.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 4.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 4.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 5 Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 5.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 5.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 5.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 6 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 6.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 6.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 6.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 7 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 7.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle for designation 7.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 7.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 8 Environmental objectives and exemptions 8.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 8.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 8.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 9 Programme of measures

9.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 9.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 9.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 10.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 10.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 10.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture 11.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 11.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 11.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 12 Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 12.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 12.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 12.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology 13.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 13.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 13.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies

14.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance 14.2. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 15 Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 15.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 15.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 15.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change 16.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 16.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 16.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Acronyms and definitions EQS Directive Environmental Quality Standards Directive FD Floods Directive Km Kilometre km2 Kilometre squared KTM Key Type of Measure PoM Programme of Measures QA/QC Directive Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Annex 0 Water Information System for Europe Member States reported the structured information on the second RBMPs to WISE ( Water Information System for Europe ). Due to the late availability of the reporting guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying what information they were unable to report and the reasons why. This Annex was produced using a template included in the reporting guidance. If Member States reported all the required information, this explanatory note was not necessary.



Foreword The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) requires in its Article 18 that each Member State reports its River Basin Management Plan(s) (RBMPs) to the European Commission. The second RBMPs were due to be adopted by the Member States in December 2015 and reported to the European Commission in March 2016. This Member State Assessment report was drafted on the basis of information that was reported by Member States through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) electronic reporting. The Member State Reports reflect the situation as reported by each Member State to the European Commission in 2016 or 2017 and with reference to River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States may have changed since then.





General Information Map A Map of River Basin Districts Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) International River Basin Districts (within European Union) International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) National River Basin Districts (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters The information on areas of the national RBDs including sharing countries is provided in the following table: Table A Overview of Germany‘s River Basin Districts RBD Name Size (km2) % share of total basin in DE Countries sharing RBD DE1000 Danube 56262 7 AT, BA, BG, CH, CZ, HR, HU, IT, MD, ME, MK, PL, RO, RS, SI, SK, UA, AL DE2000 Rhine 105455 54 AT, BE, CH, FR, IT, LI, LU, NL DE3000 Ems 17391 84 NL DE4000 Weser 49060 100 - DE5000 Elbe 99544 (96 269) 65.5 AT, CZ, PL DE6000 Odra 9692 7.7 CZ, PL DE7000 Meuse 3976 11.6 BE, FR, LU, NL DE9500 Eider 9344 - DK DE9610 Schlei/Trave 9214 99.95 DK DE9650 Warnow/Peene 21094 100 Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE Germany subsequently corrected some of the reported information (in brackets) The share of Germany in the respective international RBDs is 7 % (Danube), 54 % (Rhine), 84% (Ems), 65.5 % (Elbe), 7.7 % (Odra), 11.6 % (Meuse), 19 % (Vidaa/Wiedau), 99 % (Jardelund Groeft/Jardelunder Graben/Bongsieler Kanal) and 26 % (Krusaa/Krusau). Table B Transboundary river basins by category and % share in Germany Name of the international river basin National RBD Countries sharing RBD Co-ordination category 1 3 km² % km² % Danube DE1000 AT, BA, BG, CH, CZ, HR, HU, IT, MD, ME, MK, PL, RO, RS, SI, SK, UA, AL 56262 7.0 Rhine DE2000 AT, BE, CH, FR, IT, LI, LU, NL 105455 54.0 Ems DE3000 NL 17391 84.0 Elbe DE5000 AT, CZ, PL 99730 65.5 Odra DE6000 CZ, PL 9602 7.7 Meuse DE7000 BE, FR, LU, NL 3977 11.6 Vidaa/Wiedau (Rudboel Soe/Ruttebüller See) DE9500 DK 261 19.0 Jardelund Groeft/Jardelunder Graben/Bongsieler Kanal DE9500 DK 732 99.0 Krusaa/Krusau DE9610 DK 6 26 Source: WISE electronic reports Category 1: International agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMP in place.

Category 2: International agreement and permanent co-operation body in place. Category 3: International agreement in place. Category 4: No co-operation formalised.



Status of second river basin management plan reporting A total of nine RBMPs in Germany (Danube, Rhine, Ems, Elbe, Odra, Meuse, Eider, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene) were published on 22 December 2015, with the RBMP for the Weser RBD being published on 22 March 2016. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency (EEA) EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ .

Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMPs of Germany are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation A broad range of stakeholders were actively involved in the preparation of all RBMPs, via a range of mechanisms, including advisory groups. Germany’s RBMPs were coordinated with its FRMPs, and consultations for these two types of plans were conducted in parallel. Germany has strong cooperation with other European countries across six international RBDs where international cooperation is taking place in the frame of international agreements, permanent co‐operation bodies and international RBMPs and PoMs. One of Germany’s RBMPs, for the Weser RBD (DE4000) was not published in accordance with the timetable in the Water Framework Directive. ·Characterisation of the RBD There are still some gaps in the establishment of reference conditions. Germany reported inventories for all of its RBDs. The number of substances in the inventories ranged from nine to all 41 substances. According to the information subsequently provided by Germany a national methodological approach was published on the inventory and assessment of all priority substances and was used by all RBDs in the preparation of the RBMPs. It seems however that the RBMP for the Elbe clearly acknowledges that the inventory is incomplete. For substances deemed not relevant at RBD level, Tier 2 of the methodology (riverine loads) was implemented. For substances relevant at RBD level, either Tier 3 (pathway oriented approach) or a combination of Tiers 1 and 2 (point source + riverine loads) were implemented. This is in line with the Guidance Document. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status

Overall, since the first RBMPs there was an increase in the number of sites used for surveillance monitoring in all four water categories. However, some quality elements which were monitored for the first RBMPs, such as hydromorphological quality elements in coastal waters, and benthic invertebrates and fish in lakes, were not monitored now. There was a significant increase in the number of monitoring sites and proportion of water bodies in all four water categories monitored for operational purposes. Expert judgement was frequently used to classify lakes and rivers in terms of the hydromorphological quality elements, which might indicate some weakness in the monitoring and assessment methods. The supporting physicochemical quality elements are monitored but not classified in the vast majority of water bodies, as Germany reported that it understands the WFD as requiring classification of ecological status/potential only for biological quality elements. This applies in particular to nutrients in all water categories. Benthic invertebrates are still not used for classification in lakes. The number of surface water bodies in good or better ecological status/potential shows a slight decrease since the first RBMPs. However, it should be noted that the number of surface water bodies in bad status has also decreased and that the classification of status is now based on more extensive monitoring than was the case previously. Many heavily modified and artificial water bodies are still reported as having unknown ecological potential. The one-out-all-out principle has not been applied to the supporting quality elements. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies All water bodies have been classified as failing to achieve good chemical status. This is due in particular to the consideration of mercury in biota, in accordance with the Environmental Quality Standards Directive: the widespread exceedances found in monitored water bodies have been extrapolated to non-monitored water bodies. Germany has also used the revised, more stringent standards from Directive 2013/39/EU to assess status, so a direct comparison with the first RBMP is not possible. Overall 80 % of surface water bodies in Germany were classified for chemical status with high confidence, 18 % with medium confidence and only 2 % with low confidence. According to WISE, territorial waters have not been monitored or assessed for chemical status in any RBD. However the Ems RBD clarified that they monitored territorial waters and assessed their chemical status. Germany mentioned that monitoring sites were only reported to WISE if a priority substance was exceeding its standard at that site. The information reported to WISE is summarized below, however it may not fully reflect the monitoring performed. Between the two RBMPs, there was a net increase in monitoring sites and surface water bodies monitored for chemicals for operational and surveillance purposes. Between 31 and 41 Priority Substances are reported to be monitored in water across the ten RBDs in Germany for status assessment. Germany clarified that all relevant discharged substances are monitored. Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene were reported to be monitored in biota for status assessment in 6 RBDs. Monitoring frequencies in water and biota met the recommended minimum frequencies at most sites. At the remainder of the sites, these frequencies were not achieved. Germany subsequently clarified that expert judgement has been used to decide on the appropriate frequency. Between 1 and 14 Priority Substances are monitored in sediment / biota for trend assessment depending on the RBD. The spatial extent in terms of monitoring sites is variable and the monitoring frequencies met the recommended minimum frequency at some sites. Germany subsequently clarified that expert judgement had been used to decide the appropriate frequency in accordance with the provisions of the WFD. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies The number of monitored groundwater bodies increased as well as the number of monitoring sites. However, there are still some groundwater bodies that are not monitored for quantitative status. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies Monitoring is required by the German groundwater ordinance (Grundwasserverordnung 2010 ). According to the data reported in WISE, not all groundwater bodies are subject to surveillance and not all groundwater bodies at risk are subject to operational monitoring. The information on grouping of groundwater bodies is not fully clear for some of the river basin districts in Germany. ·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential

The methodology for heavily modified water bodies designation is explained for all RBMPs and includes all key aspects of the heavily modified water bodies designation method. Specific information on the outcome of the assessment of significant adverse effects and better environmental options is not documented in the RBMPs on the water body level. However, according to information provided subsequently by Germany, some Federal States provided such additional information through background documents. For the second RBMPs, a new harmonised method for defining good ecological potential has been developed at national level, which refers to improvements in the assessment methodologies related to fish and benthic fauna. Good ecological potential is defined in terms of biology using assessment methods for ecological status. Mitigation measures for defining good ecological potential have also been reported for all 10 RBDs, but no explicit information could be found on how the ecological benefits of the mitigation measures are assessed. ·Environmental objectives and exemptions Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies have been reported in all RBDs as well as for chemical and quantitative status of groundwater. Information is also provided on when the objectives will be achieved. The application of exemptions under Article 4(4) and Article 4(5) is described in the RBMPs and their background documents (including reference to agreed LAWA documents), in particular for the justifications for the application of each type of exemption. However, the information reported into WISE mainly refers to the text in the Common Implementation Strategy reporting guidance. ·Programme of Measures Very limited progress has been made with addressing the European Commission’s recommendations from the first RBMPs. No comprehensive summary of progress was provided for some RBDs. Although a number of measures addressing significant pressures have been reported as operational there are a number of significant pressures causing failure of objectives for which operational measures have not been identified. Measures are in place in most RBDs for the control of some River Basin Specific Pollutants. However, not all substances reported as responsible for the failure of surface water bodies to be in good status are specifically addressed by these measures. For Priority Substances, KTM are in place but they do not appear to address all substances causing failure of the objectives. The RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans were coordinated and joint consultation has been carried out and win-win measures identified. Measures in the Floods Directive have been adapted to take account of WFD objectives. Article 9(4) of the WFD has not been applied. ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity Some river basin districts have more than 10 % of groundwater bodies in bad quantitative status (Odra and Warnow/Peene) or more than 20 % of surface water bodies face significant abstraction and flow diversion pressures (Danube). Information on the Water Exploitation Index + has not been provided. The river basin management plans do not include a water resource allocation and management plan. There is a concession, authorisation, and/or permitting regime to control surface and groundwater abstractions and water impoundment. ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. Management objectives for nutrient pollution and a gap assessment for nutrients have been established for all RBDs. Implementation of basic measures under Article 11(3)(h) for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at source is ensured in all RBDs where the same rules apply across the whole RBD. Supplementary measures for reducing pollution from agriculture are reported as well as measures to reduce sedimentation from soil erosion and surface runoff.

The cost of the measures is not reported. The Programmes of Measures heavily rely on voluntary measures. Drinking Water Protected Areas have been established to protect water resources from agricultural pollution. ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture Germany has made progress on tackling nutrients from non-agricultural sources by implementing supplementary measures in the context of urban waste water treatment, such as improving the treatment technology. Further to the observation above in relation to Programmes of Measures, it seems that the Programmes do not always explicitly link measures to individual substances causing failure. ·Measures related to hydromorphology Significant hydromorphological pressures and operational KTMs to address these pressures are reported for all RBDs. However, there is still a significant number of water bodies where the sector/driver behind significant hydromorphological pressures is unknown/obsolete or indicated as "other" (not specified as one of the key sectors in the WISE reporting). In terms of ecological flows, work is in progress and there are still some gaps in the implementation. In the majority of RBDs, ecological flows are partly derived and implemented, but the overall work is still ongoing. Only in a few RBDs, where it was considered not to be a significant issue due to the small size of water courses ecological flows have not been derived for the relevant water bodies and there are no plans to do so during the second cycle. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies Whether environment and resource costs are calculated or internalised is not clearly described. No detailed information was reported on the application of the polluter pays principle. A narrow definition of water services has been used. There is no link between water status-pressure/impact analysis and the water service definition. ·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) Very few Protected Areas have a specific objective defined in the RBMPs. For those designated under the Habitats and Birds Directives, this is because the needs of water dependent interest features are not known. The reported monitoring of water bodies associated with Protected Areas is very limited and missing for some types of Protected Area and in some RBDs. ·Adaptation to drought and climate change Climate change was considered in various ways in all river basin districts. The plan for the Danube, which had not addressed climate change in the first cycle, does so in the second cycle. The plans for all basins have indicated climate change signals.

Recommendations

Work with the other countries in the international RBDs to improve international cooperation should continue, including efforts to coordinate the assessments of the technical aspects of the WFD. This would include ensuring a harmonized approach for status assessment and a coordinated PoM, to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. Germany needs to complete its work on the establishment of reference conditions, in particular on biological, hydromorphological and physico-chemical quality elements in lakes. Germany also needs to complete the inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances. In groundwater bodies shared by different Länder, coordinated methodologies and measures should be better described. The way national guidance is used should be explained in the different RBMPs. Germany should further improve the monitoring of surface waters by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories. Germany should complete the ecological status assessment for all water categories and quality elements. In particular, benthic invertebrates should be used for classification of lakes, and supporting quality elements should be used for classification of all water bodies, applying the one out all out principle. The classification of heavily modified and artificial water bodies should be completed. Germany should ensure that nutrient thresholds are sufficiently protective for good ecological status. Germany should further improve the confidence in the assessment for all water categories (including territorial waters, whose chemical status should be assessed). Germany should make sure all priority substances are monitored in the relevant matrix and that this information is fully reported. If reduced monitoring frequencies or a different matrix are used, it should make sure to provide the corresponding explanations, as required by the Directive. Germany should further improve trend monitoring for all relevant substances, in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage, in all RBDs. Germany should make sure it reports about groundwater bodies at risk (and the related parameters) as this is an important element in the status assessment and in the PoM. Germany should continue to progress on the designation of HMWBs by specifying information on the outcome of the assessment of significant adverse effects of restoration measures and better environmental options at water body level in all RBDs. The application of exemptions under Article 4(4) and Article 4(5) should be justified in more detail in the RBMPs and in the WISE reported information. In particular the reported justification on disproportionate costs is lacking details as it mainly refers to the text in the Common Implementation Strategy reporting guidance. Germany should provide better information on how measures are selected and targeted towards a water body; in particular, it should ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify the gap to good status and that the PoM is designed and implemented to close that gap. Germany should report operational KTMs against all the significant identified pressures, for all RBDs. Comprehensive information regarding the scope, the timing and the funding of the measures to be implemented should be included in the PoM so that the approach to achieve the objectives is clear. In the third RBMPs, a comprehensive gap assessment for diffuse pollutant loads from agriculture (nutrients, agri-chemicals, sediment, organic matter) across all waters in all RBDs should be completed and linked directly to mitigation measures in the third RBMPs (as per WFD Article 11(3)(h)), to facilitate the achievement of WFD objectives. The strategy for the delivery of WFD objectives should continue to be reviewed and developed further, in cooperation with the farming community and German CAP delivery authorities, to ensure the third RBMP is technically feasible and all relevant policies and instruments (e.g. RDP, CAP Pillar 1, ND etc.) contribute significantly to RBMPs. Additional actions are needed to prevent pollution induced by nitrates from agricultural pressures. Measures to address agricultural hydromorphological pressures that have been successful in some länder should be extended across all the lander. Additional actions are needed to prevent pollution induced by nitrates from agricultural pressures. Germany should continue to work towards the achievement of a correct balance between basic and supplementary measures and between mandatory and voluntary measures. Sources of funding (e.g. CAP Pillar 1, RDP) should be identified to facilitate the successful implementation of these measures. Germany should ensure that the actual and modelling impacts of specific measures are reported in WISE and that the new Nitrates Action Programme includes controls on phosphorus applications. In the next plans, individual substances should be explicitly linked to KTMs and specific measures to combat pollution, keeping in mind the principle of reducing pollution at source and distinguishing between the substances affecting surface and groundwater; furthermore, a gap analysis should be systematically performed to assess whether the planned measures are sufficient.

Germany should continue the efforts to ensure an appropriate implementation of ecological flows in all RBDs. Germany should continue enhancing, where appropriate according to local/regional circumstances and conditions, the use of green infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements in water quality, flood protection, habitat conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. Germany should recover costs for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies. Any exemption should be justified using Article 9(4). Germany should also present in a transparent manner how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. The water-pricing policy should be set out in a transparent fashion and a clear overview of estimated investments and investment needs should be provided. Germany should consider developing drought management plans for areas more at risk of drought, particularly in light of the fact that abstraction is identified as a significant pressure for groundwater bodies in the country. Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.1.1Administrative arrangements – river basin districts Germany has designated 10 river basin districts (RBDs). In Germany, the Federal States (Länder) play a key role in implementing the Water Framework Directive. All but two of Germany's 10 RBDs are reported as being part of an international RBD (the exceptions being Weser and Warnow/Peene). 1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities Germany has listed 16 competent authorities for its 10 RBDs: one Competent Authority for each of the Federal States (Länder). 1.1.3River Basin Management plans – structure (sub-plans, Strategic Environmental Assessment) Germany reported sub-plans for one RBMP, the Weser, where sub-plans address increased salinity of the Rivers Werra and Weser due to potash mining. Germany’s RBMPs are divided into the following A- B- and C-level plans: ·International RBMPs (referred to as A-level plans in Germany) ·RBMPs at the level of national RBDs or related basins (referred to as B-level plans) ·RBMPs prepared at the level of the Federal States (Länder) for their portions of RBDs (C-level plans) As an example, for Germany’s portion of the Elbe international RBD, there is the international RBMP (the A-level plan), a national RBMP (at B-level) and further plans at Federal State level (C-level plans for Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein). A similar structure is seen for the Danube, Rhine, Ems and Weser, except that the latter is not part of an international RBD. The Working Group on water issues of the Federal States and the Federal Government represented by the Federal Environment Ministry (LAWA ), a long-standing body, has prepared guidelines and recommendations to promote a common approach. Moreover, the Länder have used standard text coordinated within LAWA for parts of their RBMPs. Germany reported that a strategic environmental assessment was carried out for each of its RBMPs’ PoM at national level .

1.1.4Public consultation For all the RBMPs, documents were available for public consultation for the required six months. The public and interested parties were informed by: internet, printed material, invitations to stakeholders and meetings in all RBDs; by local authorities in all but one RBD; by media (papers, TV, radio) in six RBDs; and by direct mailing in four RBDs. The consultation was carried out by: internet, in all the RBDs; direct invitation, in eight RBDs; direct involvement in drafting the RBMPs, in seven RBDs (see also active involvement); and exhibitions, in two RBDs. For all RBDs, the consultation documents were available for download and paper copies were available in municipal buildings. Stakeholder groups were actively involved in all 10 RBDs. The mechanisms used for active involvement were: involvement in drafting in eight RBDs; establishment of advisory groups in seven RBDs; formation of alliances in five RBDs and regular exhibitions in four RBDs. In addition, the RBDs used a range of informational events at regional and local levels, including round tables, conferences and, in one RBD, an information portal on measures. Two RBDs (Eider and Schlei/Trave) cited advisory councils at the river basin level. The stakeholders that were actively involved in all RBDs were: agriculture/farmers, fisheries/aquaculture, local/regional authorities, NGOs/nature protection and water supply and sanitation. Stakeholders for energy/hydropower, industry and navigation/ports were actively involved in seven RBDs; and consumer groups in four RBDs. Public consultation was reported to have had an impact in all 10 RBMPs. The impacts of the public consultation were: addition of new information, for all RBMPs; commitment to further research in eight RBMPs; adjustment to specific measures and commitment to action in the next cycle, in seven RBMPs; and changes to the selection of measures in six RBMPs. 1.1.5Integration with the Floods Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive In each of Germany's RBDs, the RBMP was coordinated with the Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) and the consultation of the RBMP and FRMP was conducted in parallel. Germany informed that the results of the WFD’s implementation steps have been integrated in the implementation of the MSFD. 1.1.6International coordination and co-operation Six of Germany’s 10 RBDs are part of an international RBD with international agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMPs in place (designated as category 1 cooperation): an international RBMP and a PoM were prepared, and explicit links to the national RBMPs are made within the international RBMP. These six RBDs are: Danube, Rhine, Ems, Elbe, Oder and Maas/Meuse . For these six RBMPs, there was international co-ordination on public participation (for further information see the reports on international coordination on the Water Framework Directive). In two RBDs, Eider and Schlei/Trave, there are international agreements on water management in place but without coordination body nor an international RBMP in the first cycle (designated as Category 3 cooperation): both these RBDs are shared with Denmark . No international co-ordination on public participation was reported for these two RBMPs. For all the international RBDs of which Germany is a part, the agreements listed in the 2012 Pressures and Measures study are still valid. Further developments in international coordination were seen in three of the international RBDs of which Germany is a part. In the Rhine, the 1996 Convention on the collection, deposit and reception of waste produced during navigation on the Rhine and Inland Waterways entered into force in 2009. For the Ems, a German-Dutch working group on silt was set up in 2015. For the Elbe, ad-hoc expert groups on sediment management, surface waters for shipping and water quantity management were established: their results were used in the second international RBMP. Further information on international cooperation with respect to measures is provided in Chapter 9 of this report. 1.2Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and PoM requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Germany should ensure the coordinated implementation of the Directive both at international level, as well as for the national parts of each of the RBDs. The implementation of the Directive should be coordinated across the RBDs, to ensure the achievement of the environmental objectives established under Article 4. In particular all PoMs are to be coordinated for the whole of the river basin district, including within a Member State. ·Further harmonisation of several aspects such as methodologies, design of measures considerations, terminology, reporting formats and measurement frequencies would contribute to a more streamlined approach across RBDs and Länder. Assessment: Germany has continued to follow a complex system with RBMPs at the level of both RBDs and Federal States (Länder). The Working Group on water issues of the Federal States and the Federal Government (LAWA) has prepared or updated guidance in several areas, including surface water monitoring and heavily modified and artificial water bodies. LAWA also developed a common catalogue that identifies categories of measures for the WFD , the Floods Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive . Moreover, the Länder have used standard text coordinated within LAWA for parts of their RBMPs. It can be noted that in the second cycle, a common inter-Länder plan (a B-level plan) was prepared for the German portions of the Danube and Rhine : in contrast, a common RBD plan was not prepared in the first RBMP for the German parts of these two major international RBDs. The preparation of these B-level plans should contribute to a higher level of harmonisation. On the other hand, a common, B-level plan was not prepared for Ems or Weser RBDs in the second cycle; however, a common plan was prepared for the Weser in the first RBMP (but not for the Ems) . The further guidance prepared by LAWA is expected to have improved the harmonisation of methods and to have strengthened coordination among the Länder. The development of B-level plans for the Rhine and Danube RBDs also suggested greater coordination among the Länder.

This recommendation is partially fulfilled.



Topic 2Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.1.1Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies There was a small increase since the first RBMPs in the numbers of coastal (74 to 75) and lake (712 to 730) water bodies and a small decrease (9069 to 8998) in the number of river water bodies delineated ( Table 2.1 ). The reasons for these changes provided in the RBMPs were better data and understanding of local morphological conditions, a revision of the understanding of the typology and the restoration of lakes. In RBD Warnow/Peene, the extra coastal water body was delineated by splitting in two the original water body due to its inhomogeneity. The RBMPs explain that the change in delineation makes the classification results difficult to compare in many cases. There was no change in the number of transitional water bodies overall. In Germany as a whole, there was a reduction in the number and proportion of river water bodies designated as heavily modified between the two cycles (Figure 2.1). In the first RBMPs there were 3531 heavily modified river water bodies and in the second RBMPs, 3178. This is a reduction from 39 % to 35 % of the total of river water bodies. At the same time there was an increase in number of natural and artificial river water bodies in the second RBMPs, and a reduction of total river water bodies in the second RBMPs compared to the first RBMPs. It is apparent that some heavily modified river water bodies in the first RBMPs may have been re-designated as natural or artificial, accompanied by an overall decrease in number of river water bodies. In contrast, more lakes were designated as heavily modified in the second RBMPs (105 or 14 % of all lakes) than in the first RBMPs (92 or 13 %) ( Figure 2.1). This was accompanied by a decrease of four in the number of artificial lakes and an increase of nine in the number of natural lakes: overall the total number of lakes increased from 712 in the first RBMPs to 730 in the second RBMPs. All transitional water bodies (five) were designated as heavily modified in both the first and second RBMPs. The one new coastal water body was designated as a natural water body, as shown in Figure 2.1 . Table 2.1 Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Germany for the second and first cycles Year RBD Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total length of water body (km) Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies 2016 DE1000 43 285 678 21,438 2016 DE2000 90 628 2,079 42,710 2016 DE3000 6 13 481 5,912 2 208 6 3,128 2016 DE4000 26 74 1,405 18,060 1 209 6 1,588 2016 DE5000 361 931 2,779 35,522 1 400 5 2,558 2016 DE6000 48 101 452 3,534 1 288 2016 DE7000 7 14 222 1,567 2016 DE9500 16 27 135 1,715 1 18 11 4,610 2016 DE9610 51 148 272 2,106 25 3,118 2016 DE9650 82 195 495 4,597 21 7,639 2016 Total 730 2,415 8,998 137,160 5 835 75 22,929 2010 DE1000 50 301 621 19,528 2010 DE2000 71 577 2,205 38,881 2010 DE3000 6 14 502 5,606 2 195 6 3,105 2010 DE4000 27 76 1,380 16,583 1 208 6 1,581 2010 DE5000 359 957 2,773 32,549 1 395 5 2,555 2010 DE6000 49 101 453 3,351 1 288 2010 DE7000 1 1 227 1,508 2010 DE9500 16 29 135 1,684 1 16 11 4,593 2010 DE9610 51 149 274 1,978 25 3,106 2010 DE9650 82 195 499 4,478 20 7,615 2010 Total 712 2,399 9,069 126,147 5 814 74 22,843 Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in Germany designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first cycles. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category

Source: WISE electronic reports Table 2 .2 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in Germany between the second and first cycles. There was a slight increase overall in the minimum length of rivers, which changed from an average minimum length of 0.67 km in the first RBMPs to 0.81 km in the second RBMPs, which likely relates to the aggregation of small water bodies shown in Table 2.4 . The minimum size criteria reported were 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and 0.5 km2 surface area for lakes. Four of the 10 RBDs in Germany reported an increased number of groundwater bodies in the second RBMPs, as compared to the first. Overall for Germany, there was a 19 % increase in the number of groundwater bodies between the two cycles ( Table 2.3 ). The reasons for these changes were described in the RBMPs to be due to better data availability related to pressures and hydrogeology. The largest increase was in the Danube RBD where 46 groundwater bodies had been delineated in the first RBMP and 170 (176) in the second RBMP. Table 2.2 Size distribution of surface water bodies in Germany in the second and first cycles Year RBD Lake area (km2) River length (km) Transitional (km2) Coastal (km2) Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average 2016 DE1000 0.54 77.04 6.64 2.11 204.29 31.62 2016 DE2000 0.15 400.55 6.97 0 239.96 20.54 2016 DE3000 0.85 5.41 2.2 0.95 92.37 12.29 11.5 196.77 104.14 141.2 1,825.74 521.26 2016 DE4000 0.42 27.7 2.83 0.32 147.56 12.85 209.25 209.25 209.25 70.56 419.5 264.71 2016 DE5000 0.5 102.04 2.58 0.03 232.1 12.78 399.93 399.93 399.93 34.64 1,998.66 511.58 2016 DE6000 0.35 10.29 2.1 0.27 87.08 7.82 288.15 288.15 288.15 2016 DE7000 0.6 5.69 1.93 1 28.4 7.06 2016 DE9500 0.57 6.01 1.68 2.28 111.02 12.7 17.93 17.93 17.93 48.26 2,136.54 419.11 2016 DE9610 0.48 29.58 2.89 0.08 37.03 7.74 1.01 2,071.92 124.72 2016 DE9650 0.5 32.37 2.38 1.02 40.31 9.29 1.26 4,769.82 363.76 2010 DE1000 0.36 76.26 6.02 1.61 223.08 31.45 2010 DE2000 0.15 394.76 8.13 0.54 222.53 17.63 2010 DE3000 0.94 5.37 2.32 0.21 111.85 11.17 10.28 184.78 97.53 125.76 1,824.73 517.57 2010 DE4000 0.37 28.45 2.82 0.28 131.4 12.02 207.84 207.84 207.84 68.6 417.69 263.48 2010 DE5000 0.32 102.43 2.67 0.15 233.17 11.74 395.09 395.09 395.09 34.52 1,998.71 511 2010 DE6000 0.33 10.36 2.06 0.11 86.93 7.4 287.57 287.57 287.57 2010 DE7000 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.91 26.74 6.64 2010 DE9500 0.54 7.86 1.8 2.27 109.65 12.47 16.36 16.36 16.36 52.2 2,151.71 417.52 2010 DE9610 0.48 29.24 2.92 0.08 34.26 7.22 0.85 2,071.59 124.26 2010 DE9650 0.46 32.42 2.37 0.55 39.16 8.97 1.54 4,772.49 380.77

Source:WISE electronic reports Table 2.3 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Germany for the second and first cycles Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 DE1000 170 (176) 30.75 4 306.79 356.46 2016 DE2000 457 0.01 5 910.01 231.14 2016 DE3000 40 6.32 1 420.90 348.78 2016 DE4000 144 0.91 1 398.37 328.07 2016 DE5000 228 5.71 3 669.54 437.88 2016 DE6000 25 19.19 2 752.83 385.45 2016 DE7000 32 0.55 356.69 124.53 2016 DE9500 23 5.79 921.35 232.55 2016 DE9610 19 17.98 1 261.36 428.48 2016 DE9650 39 0.64 959.78 359.29 2016 Total 1 177 2010 DE1000 46 174.81 4 701.03 1 318.16 2010 DE2000 399 0.01 5 577.09 264.19 2010 DE3000 40 6.32 1 435.31 350.58 2010 DE4000 144 0.91 1 422.16 328.18 2010 DE5000 224 5.7 3 431.29 444.77 2010 DE6000 23 27.61 2 551.88 412.18 2010 DE7000 32 0.63 356.5 124.55 2010 DE9500 23 5.46 923.7 226.97 2010 DE9610 19 17.51 1 261.44 425.7 2010 DE9650 39 0.64 959.81 359.3 2010 Total 989 Source: WISE electronic reports Note that the number in brackets were subsequently reported by Germany but do not match the numbers reported to WISE. Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by Germany on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles. The largest changes were for the codes of lake and river water bodies but there were also aggregation, creation and deletion of water bodies especially for river water bodies and groundwater bodies. Table 2.4 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in Germany between the second and first cycles Type of water body change for second cycle Ground-water Lake River Transitional Coastal Aggregation 204 Aggregation and splitting 140 Change to code 4 1 283 8 006 20 Change 5 Creation 261 37 287 2 Deletion 74 22 302 21 Extended Area 1 No change 904 5 53 Splitting 2 4 424 Total water bodies before deletion 1 251 1 346 9 363 26 75 Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 1 177 1 324 9 061 5 75 Source: WISE electronic reports 99 river water bodies from four RBDs and two lake water bodies from one RBD were reported by Germany as transboundary water bodies. Only one transboundary groundwater body was reported by Germany, in the Danube RBD. 2.1.2Typology of surface water bodies At the national level, Germany reported the same number of types for coastal, lakes and transitional waters in both the first and second RBMPs, and there was one fewer river type in the second RBMPs than in the first RBMPs. Generally, there were small increases or decreases in the river and lake types reported by the RBDs in the second RBMPs compared to the first RBMPs: there were also RBDs with no changes ( Table 2.5 ). For example, the RBD with the most river types (26) in the second RBMP was the Elbe: this was two more than in the first RBMP. The Rhine RBD reported 13 lake types in the second RBMP, four more than in the first RBMP. There were no changes in the number of transitional and coastal water types reported by the RBDs between the two cycles. Sixteen different type codes were reported for lakes in Germany. Fifty-one percent of the 775 lake water bodies in Germany had types that have been intercalibrated. There are examples where for the same type code an equivalent intercalibration type is reported and also "not applicable" is reported . In RBD Schlei/Trave, lakes of type 88 were reported to have a "not applicable" intercalibration type and for other RBDs LW-L-CB1 or LW-L-CB2 were reported. These two were classified as special types by Germany. For these two types, the typology has not been made biologically relevant. For the other 14 lake types information is provided for all four biological quality elements. Table 2.5 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Germany for the first and second RBMPs RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal first second first second first second first second DE1000 21 22 8 7 0 0 0 0 DE2000 25 25 9 13 0 0 0 0 DE3000 15 14 3 2 1 1 5 5 DE4000 24 25 10 9 1 1 5 5 DE5000 24 26 11 12 1 1 4 4 DE6000 13 15 6 6 0 0 1 1 DE7000 11 12 1 3 0 0 0 0 DE9500 6 6 3 3 1 1 5 5 DE9610 9 7 6 6 0 0 4 4 DE9650 8 8 5 4 0 0 4 4 Total 39 16 2 10 Source: WISE electronic reports Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs. The “null” types reported are included in the totals shown. Thirty-six different type codes were reported for rivers in Germany plus one "null" type. The typology is reported to have been made biologically relevant for all river types in Germany. As for lakes, there are examples where the same national type code is reported to be intercalibrated against more than one common intercalibration type and "not applicable" was also reported for the same type. For example, for national river type 12, three intercalibration types were reported (RW-R-C1, RW-R-C4, RW-R-C5) and also "not applicable" . All four options were reported in four RBDs. Also it should be noted that lake intercalibration types were reported against some river types both for natural and heavily modified water bodies. Around 30 % of river water bodies in Germany were reported not to have an equivalent intercalibration type. Germany reported 10 coastal water types plus a "null" type covering the 75 coastal water bodies. 43 % of the coastal water bodies had an equivalent intercalibration type. Two transitional types were reported for Germany and both were intercalibrated against TW-NEA11. For transitional and coastal water bodies it was explained in the RBMPs that the types have been developed based on system A, but no further information on the biological relevance was found.

2.1.3Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Germany with reference conditions established for the first and second RBMPs. Reference conditions were developed for some but not all hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements in all types . The "null" type was reported as none for each group of quality elements. Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types in Germany with reference conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of types in each category Water Category Water types Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Physicochemical quality elements Lakes (16) All Some 100% 100% 100% None Rivers (39) All 90% Some 8% 97% 97% None 2% 3% 3% Coastal (10) All 40% Some 50% 90% 90% None 10% 10% 10% Transitional (2) All 100% Some 100% 100% None Source: WISE electronic reports Germany reported on the establishment of reference conditions for 39 river types. Reference conditions have been established for all relevant biological quality elements for 35 of the 39 river types. They have been established for some biological quality elements for three of the remaining types and for none of them for one type. Reference conditions have been established for some hydromorphological and for some physicochemical quality elements for 38 types. For the remaining types reference conditions have not been established for any quality element. The state of development of reference conditions for all 16 lake types was reported to be "some" for the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. The two transitional water body types have reference conditions established for all biological quality elements, and for some hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. For coastal water bodies, for four types reference conditions have been developed for all biological quality elements, for one there were no reference conditions for biological quality elements and for the remaining types reference conditions were developed for some biological quality elements. 2.1.4Characteristics of groundwater bodies The main geological formation of the aquifer type was reported for 71 % of groundwater bodies, but there was no information for 29 %, as explained in the Annex 0 from Germany. There was also no information for 82 % of groundwater bodies in terms of whether they are layered or not. All groundwater bodies were reported not to be linked to surface water bodies and 81 % were linked to terrestrial ecosystems. The Annex 0 for Germany explains that this will be reported correctly in 2021. 2.1.5Significant pressures on water bodies Figure 2.2 shows the 10 most significant pressures on surface water bodies. For Germany as a whole, 11 significant pressure types were reported for coastal waters: the two most significant types were diffuse atmospheric (100 % of coastal water bodies affected) and diffuse agriculture (92 % of coastal water bodies). 35 different significant pressure types were reported to be affecting lakes in Germany. 63 % were affected by diffuse atmospheric pressures, 53 % diffuse agriculture pressures and 17 % by point source storm overflows. Rivers were reported to be affected by the highest number of significant pressure categories (53) with the most significant being diffuse agriculture (65 % of river water bodies affected), diffuse atmospheric deposition (61 %), pressures arising from the physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore because of agriculture (39 %) and because of flood protection (31 %). Point source pressures from urban waste water affected 23 % of river water bodies and pressures from storm overflows affected 25 %. Transitional water bodies were affected by 11 different pressure types with diffuse agricultural pressures, diffuse atmospheric deposition and physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore because of flood protection affecting all five transitional water bodies.

Figure 2.2 The 10 most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in Germany for the second cycle Source: WISE electronic reports

It is difficult to compare the significance of pressures between the two cycles because of changes in the definition of pressures types, in the data used and in the delineation of surface water bodies. In the first RBMPs, Germany reported pressures only at an aggregated level (e.g. diffuse source). The data for the second RBMPs have been aggregated to this level for some tentative comparisons and are shown in Figure 2.3 . In the first RBMPs, 92 % and 0 % of coastal water bodies were reported to be affected by diffuse and point source pressures, respectively. In the second RBMPs, this had increased to 100 % and 5 %, respectively. There were similar increases between the two cycles for diffuse source pressures on river water bodies (76 % in the first RBMPs, 98 % in the second RBMPs), and on lake water bodies (56 % in the first RBMPs, 100 % in the second RBMPs). In terms of point source pressures, there was an increase in the proportion affected in lakes from 19 % in the first RBMPs to 21 % in the second RBMPs, and in rivers from 29% in the first RBMPs to 43 % in the second RBMPs. Figure2.3 Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Germany in the first and second cycles. Pressures are presented at the aggregated level. NB - there were 9,808 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 9,860 for the first cycle

Source: WISE electronic reports Overwhelmingly, the most significant pressures on groundwater bodies in the second RBMPs in Germany were diffuse pressures from agriculture, which were reported to affect 41 % ( Figure 2.3 ). The most significant point source pressure was from contaminated sites which only affected 2 % of groundwater bodies. There has been a significant increase in the number of groundwater bodies between the two cycles (989 to 1177) and also a change in the definition of pressure types. Bearing these changes in mind, there was an apparent decrease in percentage of groundwater bodies affected by point source pressures between the two cycles (6 % in the first RBMPs, 3 % in the second RBMPs) and an increase in the percentage affected by diffuse source pressures (36 % in the first RBMPs, 51 % in the second RBMPs). A combination of numerical tools and expert judgement were reported to be used to assess the significance of all types of pressures assessed on surface and groundwater. The definition of significance has been defined in terms of thresholds and is linked to the potential failure to meet objectives in all RBDs in Germany. The RBMPs state that the harmonisation process within Germany for the criteria for identification of pressures has been further developed. This led to a more detailed list of criteria for defining pressures, which also makes a direct comparison between the first and the second cycle not possible. The LAWA document "Produktdatenblatt 2.1.2 - Überprüfung und Aktualisierung der Bestandsaufnahme nach Wasserrahmenrichtlinie bis Ende 2013 -Kriterien zur Ermittlung signifikanter anthropogener Belastungen in Oberflächengewässern, Beurteilung ihrer Auswirkungen und Abschätzung der Zielerreichung bis 2021" explains that these changes are required due to new legal requirements and to implement the comments of the European Commission on the first RBMPs. The overall aim was to have one guidance document for all authorities in Germany. The document also explains the detailed changes in the methodology and lists the new criteria which should be applied across Germany. In most cases it appears that a significant increase in pressures was due to the new methodology being applied. 2.1.6Significant impacts on water bodies Altered habitats due to morphological changes impacted all transitional, 93 % of river and 35 % of lake water bodies. All transitional water bodies were also impacted by nutrient pollution as were 92 % of coastal waters, 78 % of rivers and 75 % of lake water bodies. It is difficult to compare the reported impacts for the two cycles because of changes in the definition of impacts and re-delineation of water bodies. However, in terms of altered habitats, 71 % of river water bodies were impacted in the first RBMPs and 93 % in the second RBMPs. Nutrient enrichment impacted all transitional, 92 % of coastal, 55 % of river and 53 % of lake water bodies in the first RBMPs. In the second RBMPs, nutrient pollution impacted all transitional, 92 % of coastal, 78 % of rivers and 75 % of lake water bodies. The most striking difference was in terms of chemical pollution. In the second RBMPs almost all surface water bodies (99 %) were impacted by chemical pollution while in the first RBMPs only 12 % were reported to be contaminated by Priority Substances . In the second RBMPs it was reported that diffuse atmospheric deposition was a significant pressure and a possible source of chemical pollutants. In terms of impacts on groundwater bodies in Germany, chemical pollution impacted the largest number of water bodies, at 40 % (across nine RBDs), followed by nutrient pollution (12 % of groundwater bodies across eight RBDs) and abstractions exceeding groundwater resources (4 % of groundwater bodies across five RBDs) ( Figure 2.4 ). The reported impact types are not comparable between the two cycles. Figure 2.4 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Germany for the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies. Source: WISE electronic reports 2.1.7Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status In Germany as a whole, 46 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing good chemical status. 46 different groundwater pollutants were reported to be causing a risk. Overwhelmingly, nitrate was the pollutant responsible for the greatest risk, with 25 % of groundwater bodies in Germany being at risk, followed by ammonium and sulphate, with 5 % of groundwater bodies being at risk.

8 % of groundwater bodies in Germany are at risk of failing good quantitative status with water balance being the cause of the risk in the largest proportion of groundwater bodies (7 %), followed by impacts on groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (4 %), saline intrusions (1 %) and impacts on surface water (0.3 %). 2.1.8Quantification and apportionment of pressures Germany reported comprehensive information on the apportionment of pressure types (e.g. diffuse source pressures) among responsible sectors and activities, with the gaps that need to be filled to achieve objectives in groundwater and surface waters. For example, point source pressures have been apportioned with gaps for urban waste water (10 RBDs), storm overflows (nine RBDs), non-industrial emissions directive plants (seven RBDs), industrial emissions directive plants (six RBDs), aquaculture (five RBDs), contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites (four RBDs), mine waters (four RBDs) and waste disposal sites (three RBDs). Diffuse source pressures have been apportioned among agriculture (10 RBDs), atmospheric deposition (seven RBDs), contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites (five RBDs), mining (five RBDs), discharges not connected to sewerage network (four RBDs), transport (four RBDs), aquaculture (three RBDs), urban run-off (three RBDs) and forestry (two RBDs). Abstraction or flow diversion pressures have been apportioned among six sectors, pressures arising from physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore among four sectors/activities and pressures arising from dams, barriers and locks among seven sectors/activities. Gaps to be filled to achieve environmental objectives in groundwater were reported for seven chemical substances. The substance most commonly reported with a gap was cadmium in four RBDs. For surface waters, 16 chemical substances causing failure of objectives in surface waters were reported with gaps that had to be filled to achieve the objectives. Mercury was reported by all RBDs. 2.1.9Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQS Directive) requires Member States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances and other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I of the EQS Directive for each RBD, or part thereof lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States to further target measures to tackle pollution from priority substances. It should also inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in reducing (or suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for priority substances. Germany reported inventories for all of its RBDs. Two of the 10 RBDs reported an inventory for all 41 Priority and other Substances. Four RBDs had one missing substance, one had two missing substances and one had four missing substances. The Danube RBD had 11 missing substances and the Warnow/Peene RBD had an inventory for only nine substances. The substance that appeared in the fewest inventories (two RBDs) was chloroalkanes C10-13. Germany explained that in all RBDs Substances were not included in the inventories if no discharge was expected. The two-step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 has been followed for all substances considered in the inventories. For substances deemed not relevant at RBD level, Tier 2 of the methodology (riverine loads) was implemented. For substances relevant at RBD level, either Tier 3 (pathway oriented approach) or a combination of Tiers 1 and 2 (point source + riverine loads) were implemented. This is in line with the Guidance Document n°28, which recommends using higher tiers of the methodology for substances relevant at RBD level. The data quality was not reported. 2.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle The main changes between the first and the second cycle were that four of the 10 RBDs in Germany reported an increased number of groundwater bodies for the second cycle compared to the first. The largest increase was in the Danube RBD where 46 groundwater bodies had been delineated in the first RBMP and 170 (176 ) in the second RBMP. Overall for Germany there was a 19 % increase in the number of groundwater bodies. Proportionally there was a small increase in the numbers of delineated coastal (74 to 75) and lake (712 to 730) water bodies and a small decrease (9069 to 8998) in the number of river water bodies delineated. There was no change in the number of transitional waters (5). In Germany as a whole, there was a reduction in the number and proportion of river water bodies designated as heavily modified between the two cycles. In the first RBMPs, there were 3531 heavily modified river water bodies (39 % of total river water bodies) and in the second RBMPs, 3178 (35 % of total river water bodies). There were similar increases between the two cycles for diffuse source pressures on river water bodies (76 % in the first RBMPs, 98 % in the second RBMPs), and on lake water bodies (56 % in the first RBMPs, 100 % in the second RBMPs). In terms of point source pressures there was an increase in the proportion of affected lakes from 19% in the first RBMPs to 21 % in the second RBMPs, and in rivers from 29 % in the first RBMPs to 43 % in the second RBMPs. There has been a significant increase in the number of groundwater bodies between the two cycles (989 to 1177) and also a change in the definition of pressure types. These changes make any direct comparison impossible, but it appears that there was a decrease in the percentage of groundwater bodies affected by point source pressures between the two cycles (6 % in the first RBMPs, 3 % in the second RBMPs) and an increase in the percentage affected by diffuse source pressures (36 % in the first RBMPs, 51 % in the second RBMPs). 2.3Progress with the Commission recommendations ·Recommendation: Fill existing gaps regarding lacking reference conditions. ·Assessment: There are still gaps in the establishment of reference conditions for all types in all water categories for the different groups of the required quality elements . In particular reference conditions have only been established for some (not all) hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements for all types in rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters. 13 of the 14 river types in the Ems RBD, 22 of the 25 river types in the Weser RBD, 14 of the 15 river types in the Oder, and all 12 river types in the Maas RBD now have reference conditions established for all relevant biological quality elements. In terms of coastal waters, two of the three types in the Elbe RBD now have reference conditions for all relevant biological quality elements but for one coastal water type in the Oder RBD, reference conditions have only been established for some biological quality elements. All six lake types in the Oder RBD only had reference conditions for some biological quality elements. In summary, there has been some progress with this recommendation, particularly for the biological quality elements in rivers, but there are still gaps in all water categories and all three different groups of quality elements. As such, progress has been made in addressing this recommendation, which is partially fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Provide more transparent information regarding how waters were classified in order to avoid gaps (e.g. why no transitional water bodies have been identified). ·Assessment: The three RBDs to which this recommendation applies have not reported any transitional water bodies in the second RBMPs. Transitional water bodies have not been defined in the Schlei/Trave RBD because there are no waters which contain the adequate levels of salinity. The reason why no transitional water bodies were defined by Germany in the Baltic Sea is that the inner coastal waters of the Baltic Sea have been categorised as coastal waters, as they are not under tidal influence but have wind-driven current dynamics, usual for coastal waters. Given the information provided, this recommendation has been considered as fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Refine the significance of the pressures by quantifying those which are likely to prevent the achievement of environmental objectives. Assessment: Germany reported a wide range of different pressures. Only one pressure (diffuse-other) was reported as not being assessed for surface waters, while all pressures were assessed for groundwater. The significance of pressures has been defined in terms of thresholds and is linked to the potential failure of objectives for both surface waters and groundwater in all 10 German RBDs. It was reported that the assessment methods for the biological quality elements are generally sensitive to all impacts in all water categories: the information is generally consistent across Germany. Progress has therefore been made on this recommendation.



Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1.Assessment of implementation and compliance with the WFD requirements in second RBMPs 3.1.1.Monitoring of ecological status/potential Monitoring programmes Article 8(1) of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of the status and potential of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. Germany reported separate monitoring programmes for groundwater and surface waters. The surface water programmes covered the categories of water identified in each of the RBDs. Monitoring sites Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes in each cycle, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMPs. Figure 3.1 shows the proportion of surface water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Germany for the first and second RBMPs. Table 3.1 Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Germany for the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported for the first RBMPs, the second RBMPs’ data do not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Surv. Op. Surv. Op. Surv. Op. Surv. Op. second RBMP DE1000 38 1155 11 30 0 0 0 0 DE2000 110 4 887 42 64 0 0 0 0 DE3000 9 (577) 0 9 19 5 24 17 DE4000 48 2 004 2 21 18 7 20 14 DE5000 60 2 853 81 430 3 2 9 8 DE6000 4 211 6 40 0 0 1 1 DE7000 3 284 5 6 0 0 0 0 DE9500 6 207 0 4 3 1 7 8 DE9610 21 396 6 35 0 0 10 16 DE9650 7 552 9 77 0 0 4 34 Total by type of site 306 13 106 162 716 43 15 75 98 Total number of monitoring sites for surveillance and/or operational purposes 13 317 824 56 151 first RBMP DE1000 54 948 12 37 0 0 0 0 DE2000 102 3388 5 35 0 0 0 0 DE3000 9 137 0 8 1 10 3 17 DE4000 43 880 2 (25) 1 6 2 19 DE5000 48 2321 28 246 2 4 5 5 DE6000 8 328 6 34 0 0 1 1 DE7000 4 89 0 1 0 0 0 0 DE9500 3 62 0 4 1 7 8 DE9610 9 105 6 33 0 0 10 16 DE9650 7 90 8 26 0 0 4 34 Total by type of site 287 8 348 67 482 5 20 32 100 Total number of monitoring sites for surveillance and/or operational purposes 8 561 516 24 117 Sources: Member States electronic reports to WISE in first and second RBMPs. The numbers in parenthesis were subsequently communicated by Germany. Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in Germany Monitoring Purpose Lakes Rivers Coastal Transitional BWD - Recreational or bathing water - WFD Annex IV.1.iii 8 1 CHE - Chemical status (618) (666) 101 11 DWD - Drinking water - WFD Annex IV.1.i 4 76 ECO - Ecological status (793) (14177) 111 44 HAB - Protection of habitats or species depending on water - WFD Annex IV.1.v 0 19 INT - International network of other international convention 16 9 INV - Investigative monitoring 26 1 250 NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 22 530 OPE - Operational monitoring 716 13 371 98 15 REF - Reference network monitoring site 6 40 RIV - International network of a river convention (including bilateral agreements) 0 78 SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring 25 166 SUR - Surveillance monitoring 162 308 75 43 TRE - Chemical trend assessment 15 478 12 UWW - Nutrient sensitive area under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 22 456 158 56 Total sites irrespective of purpose 947 15 717 158 56 Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.1 Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Germany for the first and second RBMPs. NB - no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring.

Source: WISE electronic reports Overall in Germany there was an increase in the number of sites used for surveillance monitoring from the first to the second RBMPs. Proportionally, the largest increase was in transitional waters (5 for the first to 43 for the second RBMPs) followed by lake (67 to 162 sites) and coastal (32 to 75 sites) water bodies. There was a relatively small increase in river sites from 287 for the first RBMPs to 306 for the second. At the RBD level, there were decreases in three RBDs in terms of river sites and in terms of lake sites in one RBD. In all other RBDs and water categories there were either increases or no changes in the number of surveillance sites. According to the reporting in WISE, in Germany overall there were considerably more operational (~13000) than surveillance (~300) monitoring sites in rivers. There were also more operational than surveillance sites in lakes and coastal waters. The reverse was the case in transitional waters where 15 sites were used for operational purposes and 43 for surveillance. There was a small decrease in the number of operational monitoring sites in coastal waters from the first to the second RBMPs (100 to 98) with a proportionally larger decrease in transitional waters (20 to 15). In contrast there was a 1.6 fold increase in operational monitoring sites in rivers and lakes. There were increases in nine of the 10 RBDs in the number of river monitoring sites with a decrease in the other RBD. For lakes there was an increase in numbers of operational sites in seven RBDs, no changes in one and a decrease in the other two.

Information provided in the documents supporting the electronic reports indicated that the LAWA had developed a national guidance document "RaKon Monitoring und Bewertung von Oberflächengewässern" which addressed the surface water monitoring programme for the second RBMPs. Changes with respect to the programme of the first RBMPs were due to the experience gained and also to reflect the European Commission’s recommendations. However, that document does not show explicitly the changes made since the first RBMPs. Generally the reasons for changes in the number of monitoring sites were not provided. Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of water bodies subject to surveillance monitoring within each ecological status class. Figure 3.2 Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that is included in surveillance monitoring in Germany. Source: WISE electronic reports There was only a small change in the number of delineated coastal water bodies from the first to the second RBMPs, with one more being identified for the second compared to the first. There was an increase in the numbers and proportion of coastal water bodies monitored for all three required biological quality elements in is the second RBMPs (irrespective of monitoring purpose). The most commonly used biological quality element for the second RBMPs was benthic invertebrates, which was monitored in 73 % of coastal water bodies. In terms of lakes, there was also a small increase in the number of delineated water bodies for the second RBMPs (730) compared to the first (712). However, whilst there was a significant increase in the numbers and proportion of lake water bodies monitored for phytoplankton (from 61 % for the first RBMPs to 90 % for the second) there were significant decreases in the number and proportion monitored for benthic invertebrates (25 % for the first to 3 % for the second) and for fish (25 % for the first to 3 % for the second). In the case of rivers, there was a small reduction (<1 %) in the number of water bodies from the first to the second RBMPs. There was a significant increase in the number and proportion of water bodies monitored for each of the required biological quality elements. The same number (five) of transitional water bodies was identified for both cycles. There were only small or no differences in the number of transitional water bodies monitored for other aquatic flora, benthic invertebrates and fish but two transitional water bodies were reported to be monitored for phytoplankton in the second RBMPs compared to only one for the first. In Germany as a whole, there was a considerable increase from the first to the second RBMPs in the number (4026 for the first RBMPs to 7122 for the second) and proportion (44 % to 79 %) of river water bodies monitored for operational purpose. There were also increases in the number and proportion of lakes, coastal and transitional water bodies included in operational monitoring. Three biological quality elements were reported to be used in the operational monitoring of coastal waters for the second RBMPs. Benthic invertebrates were used in 88 % of coastal water bodies included in operational monitoring, phytoplankton in 83 % and other aquatic flora in 55 %. In terms of the biological quality elements used in the operational monitoring of lakes, phytoplankton was the most commonly used (93 % of lakes included in operational monitoring), followed by other aquatic flora (50 %), fish (5 %) and benthic invertebrates (3 %). The predominant biological quality elements used in the operational monitoring of rivers was benthic invertebrates (90 % of river water bodies included in operational monitoring), followed by other aquatic flora (71 %) and fish (65 %). All four relevant biological quality elements were monitored in transitional waters for operational purposes. Benthic invertebrates were monitored in four of the five transitional water bodies included in operational monitoring and the other three biological quality elements in one water body each. Transboundary surface water body monitoring Germany reported 99 transboundary river water bodies from four RBDs and two transboundary lake water bodies from one RBD. In total Germany reported 78 river monitoring sites from four RBDs that are part of the international network of a river convention and 16 lake and nine river monitoring sites from four RBDs that are part of international networks of other international conventions. Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) Table 3.3 illustrates the quality elements used for monitoring of surface waters for the second plan: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. Table 3.3 Quality elements monitored for the second RBMPs in Germany (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). NB - Quality element may be used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Phytoplankton Macrophytes Phytobenthos Benthic invertebrates Fish Angiosperms Macroalgae Other aquatic flora Other species Hydrological or tidal regime Continuity conditions Morphological conditions Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Transitional Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Coastal Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes General physicochemical quality elements Transparency conditions Thermal conditions Oxygenation conditions Salinity conditions Acidification status Nitrogen conditions Phosphorus Conditions Silicate Other determinand for nutrient conditions Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Coastal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Transitional Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Source: WISE electronic reports - Germany subsequently stated that macroalgae was monitored in coastal and transitional waters in some RBDs, this might be a reporting error.

In terms of the quality elements monitored, the Ems RBD did not report any quality element for the monitoring of coastal waters in the first RBMP but reported three biological quality elements, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements for the second RBMP, which indicates clear progress. All the expected quality elements were monitored in five of the seven RBDs with identified coastal waters for the second RBMPs. However, in two RBDs (Oder and Warnow/Peene) hydromorphological quality elements were not reported to be monitored for the second RBMPs but had been monitored in the first, indicating some deterioration in the scope of monitoring . For lakes, all 10 RBDs reported the monitoring of phytoplankton and other aquatic flora for both cycles, while only two RBDs reported benthic invertebrates and five RBDs fish for the second RBMPs, compared to nine and 10 RBDs, respectively, for the first RBMPs, again indicating some deterioration in the scope of monitoring. There was also a decrease in the number of RBDs who reported monitoring hydromorphological quality elements, from eight in the first RBMPs to five in the second. Physicochemical quality elements were reported not be monitored in the Warnow/Peene RBD for both cycles . All required biological quality elements were reported to be monitored in rivers for both cycles. Hydromorphological quality elements were monitored in all 10 RBDs for the first RBMPs but this was reduced to eight RBDs for the second. There were gaps in the monitoring of the required biological quality elements in transitional waters for both cycles. Phytoplankton was not reported to be monitored in three RBDs for the first RBMPs and two for the second. Benthic invertebrates were reported for four RBDs for the first RBMPs and three RBDs for the second. Hydromorphological quality elements were reported for the four RBDs with transitional waters for the first RBMPs but only for three RBDs for the second. Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a RBMP i.e. six years. For phytoplankton, this should be done twice during the monitoring year and for the other biological quality elements once during the year. Operational monitoring should take place at intervals not exceeding once every six months for phytoplankton and once every three years during the six-year cycle for the other biological quality elements. Greater intervals may be justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. Germany sampled 11 of the 19 biological quality elements used for the surveillance monitoring of surface water bodies at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites in which they were monitored. The lowest rate of alignment with the recommended frequencies was for phytoplankton in transitional waters (50 % of sites). In comparison, only two of the 11 biological quality elements used for operational monitoring of surface water bodies were sampled at the minimum recommended frequency at all of the sites where they were monitored. The lowest rate of alignment with the recommended frequencies was for phytoplankton in transitional waters (no sites). River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored In Germany as a whole, 309 different chemical substances were reported as River Basin Specific Pollutants for the second RBMPs, 300 being monitored in water, 84 in suspended sediment, 82 in settled sediment, 60 in sediment, 11 in other biota and seven in fish. In addition, 702 "other" chemical substances were also reported to be monitored in water, sediment and biota. However, it should be noted that the value of 702 is an over-estimation because there was no standardised way of reporting these substances, leading to substances with the same numerical identifier being reported a number of times slightly differently by the different RBDs. Germany reported 5802 monitoring sites as monitoring River Basin Specific Pollutants ( Table 3.4 ): this represents 35 % of the total reported surface water monitoring sites in Germany. Most sites were in the Elbe RBD (43 %) and the fewest in the Danube RBD (1.7 %): all 10 RBDs reported some sites monitoring River Basin Specific Pollutants. Of the 5802 sites, 98 % were used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants in water, 39 % in sediment and 0.4 % in biota. Sediment and biota were monitored in coastal waters, rivers and transitional waters. In lakes, River Basin Specific Pollutants were monitored in water and sediment. Table 3.4 Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants reported in the second RBMPs and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants reported in the first RBMPs in Germany. NB - The data from both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and also not all Member State reported information at the site level meaning that there were no equivalent data for the first RBMPs RBMP Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal second Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 321 5380 11 90 first Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants 108 2473 6 30 Sources: WISE electronic reports Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements: once every three months is recommended for “other pollutants” which are taken here to equate to river basin specific pollutants. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a river basin management plan i.e. six years. For river basin specific pollutants this should be done four times for the surveillance year; and for operational monitoring four times a year for each year of the cycle. Of the 298 substances included in surveillance monitoring, 11 % were monitored at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all of the sites where they were monitored, and for 20 substances at none of the sites. Of the 263 substances included in operational monitoring, 0.8 % were monitored at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all of the sites where they were monitored, and for 48 % at none of the sites. Germany subsequently commented that only 162 pollutants are identified in the 2011 Surface Water Ordinance as River Basin Specific Pollutants (monitored for the first RBMPs). The 2016 Surface Water Ordinance lists 67 River Basin Specific Pollutants for the next RBMPs. Use of monitoring results for classification Member States are required to report the basis of the status classification for each of the quality elements used. For coastal waters, monitoring results are predominantly used for classifying phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates, hydromorphological conditions and physicochemical quality elements. However, expert judgement is predominantly used for angiosperms, although monitoring results and grouping are also used. Grouping is also used for the other quality elements used for classification, as is expert judgement except for benthic invertebrates. This implies that the assessment method for angiosperms is not as robust as those used for the other biological quality elements. Grouping has not been used for any biological, hydromorphological or physicochemical quality element used to classify lakes: it is used to a small extent for River Basin Specific Pollutants. Expert judgement is overwhelmingly used (97 % of classified lake water bodies) to classify lakes in terms of the hydromorphological quality elements (perhaps indicating some weaknesses in the monitoring and assessment methods). Expert judgement was also used to classify 72 % of lake water bodies classified for River Basin Specific Pollutants, 25 % using monitoring data and 3 % by grouping. The results from monitoring biological quality elements and physicochemical quality elements were mainly used to classify lakes.

The classification of the biological and physicochemical quality elements for rivers was mainly based on monitoring results, but grouping and expert judgement were also used. Where the hydromorphological conditions were used to classify river water bodies, this was mainly based on expert judgment (52 % of classified river water bodies), with 41 % based on monitoring results and 7 % on grouping. For River Basin Specific Pollutants, expert judgement and monitoring results were equally used, with grouping used to a lesser extent. The classification of the quality elements for transitional waters was only based on monitoring results. 3.1.2.Ecological Status/potential of surface water The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Germany in the second plans is illustrated on Map 3.1 . Map 3.1 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Germany Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). High Good Moderate Poor Bad Unknown RBDs Countries outside the European Union Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) Figure 3.3 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. Figure 3.3 Confidence in the classification of ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Germany based on the most recently assessed status/potential Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.4 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in Germany for the first RBMPs with that for the second RBMPs and that expected by 2015. Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological status/potential. The information for Germany is shown in Figure 3.5 . Figure 3.4 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Germany for the second RBMPs, for the first RBMPs and expected in 2015. The number in parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for both cycles. NB - The period of the assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2012 to 2013. The year of the assessment of status for the first RBMPs is not known. Source: WISE electronic reports

Figure 3.5 Expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Germany. The number in the parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each category Source: WISE electronic reports Overall around 90 % of surface water bodies were in less than good ecological status/potential for the second RBMPs. However, in several RBDs (Danube, Elbe, Oder, Warnow/Peene) there are a few lakes (less than 10 % of all classified natural lakes in Germany), as well as a few natural rivers in the Danube and Rhine RBDs (0.5 % of all classified natural rivers in Germany) that are also reported as good or higher. There are also still several water bodies with unknown ecological status/potential, in particular artificial and heavily modified lakes and rivers in the Rhine, Weser and Elbe RBDs. Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element The supporting general physicochemical quality elements are monitored but not classified in the vast majority of water bodies. This applies in particular to nutrients in all water categories. Furthermore, there are still very few lake water bodies classified for benthic invertebrates. Figure 3.6 shows the percentage of water bodies in terms of the biological quality element used for classification. Figure 3.7 compares the classification of biological quality elements in terms of ecological status/potential for the first and second RBMPs. This comparison should be treated with caution as there are differences between the numbers of surface water bodies classified for individual elements and differences in methodologies from the first to the second RBMPs. Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 illustrate the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers and lakes in Germany for the second RBMPs. The classification of the individual quality elements is illustrated in Figure 3.10 . Figure 3.6 Ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of lakes and rivers in Germany. NN - water bodies with unknown status/potential have been excluded from the presentation Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.7 Comparison of ecological status/potential in Germany according to classified biological quality elements in rivers and lakes between the two cycles Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.8 The classification of the ecological status or potential of rivers and lakes in Germany using one, two, three or four types of quality element. NB - The four types are biological; hydromorphological, general physicochemical and River Basin Specific Pollutants.

Source : WISE electronic reports

Figure 3.9 The percentage of river and lake water bodies in Germany where no biological quality element or no hydromorphological (HYMO) or no general physicochemical (PHYSCHEM) or no RBSP (River Basin Specific Pollutant) has been used in the classification of ecological status or potential

Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.10 Basis of the classification of ecological status/potential in Germany. The percentages are in terms of the number of waterbodies in each category. Source: WISE electronic reports No improvements have been seen overall in ecological status since the first RBMPs. The number of rivers in good or high status shows an apparent slight deterioration in many RBDs due, as explained below, mainly to better data and methodological changes. Many heavily modified and artificial water bodies are reported as having unknown ecological status in most RBDs. For natural water bodies, there are very few water bodies with unknown ecological status. Member States were asked to summarise the main changes in ecological status/potential between the two cycles in their second RBMPs. In the case of the Elbe, Warnow/Peene, Schlei/Trave and Oder RBDs the RBMPs give a list of reasons why there are changes in the ecological status/potential status of surface water bodies between the first and second RBMPs. These are: ·better and more monitoring data has become available; ·methodological changes in the assessment methods; ·natural variations in the biological quality elements; ·the effects of the PoM in place. In the RBMP for the Land North-Rhine Westphalia within the Rhine RBD, the Eider and Schlei/Trave RBDs, the reasons given are: ·the water bodies are only comparable to a limited extent, the delineation and location of the water body may differ significantly; ·the types of water bodies have been changed; ·assessment procedures have changed; ·the monitoring results from the second monitoring cycle (2009-2011); ·in the second monitoring cycle, phytobenthos are monitored at significantly more measuring sites: this has in some cases resulted in degraded classifications; ·so far, the biocenosis has not had enough time to adapt to the changes based on the measures implemented. In addition there is a natural variation of biological quality elements. It is stated that no big changes could be found between the first and second RBMPs in a detailed assessment. Member States were requested to report whether any change between the first and second RBMPs in status/potential for each quality element was considered to be a real change or due to changes to monitoring and assessment methods. For Germany, the change in ecological status/potential at the quality level is reported as unknown for the large majority of water bodies, but is given for some water bodies in all RBDs for all the quality elements that have been used for classification. The changes go in both directions, and no obvious pattern is visible. The reason for the changes is also given in these cases. Some changes are reported to be real and some are due to changes in methodologies. For natural water bodies most of the inconsistent changes are due to monitoring changes, while for the heavily modified and artificial water bodies these are also due to changes in assessment methods.

Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements Germany reported biological assessment methods for all the relevant biological quality elements in all water categories. The assessment methods are sensitive for all relevant impacts (nutrients, organic, acidification, hydromorphological). LAWA developed a national guidance document "RaKon Monitoring und Bewertung von Oberflächengewässern" which addressed surface water assessment methods for the second RBMPs. Changes in relation to the first RBMPs are due to the experience gained, reflect the European Commission’s recommendations on the first RBMPs, but are also intended to close gaps in the assessment methods. However, the document does not show explicitly the changes made since the first RBMPs. Intercalibration of biological assessment methods and national classification systems Most national water body types are linked to common intercalibration types in all RBDs. Some national types (e.g. type 12) are used for both lakes and rivers with related typology factors in terms of altitude and geology. A few national types (e.g. type 12) overlap several intercalibration types, but the class boundaries used could still be based on the actual typology factors for each water body within the national type, choosing the intercalibration type that best matches each water body. Some national types do not match any common intercalibration type, so information on class boundaries is not available in the WISE reporting. For non intercalibrated national water body types, for example for stream waters, the RBMPs indicate that all multimetric indices for benthic invertebrate assessment and their reference values were derived for all water types according to the same principles on the basis of comparable stress gradients. As only a few minor adjustments were required to the German watercourse procedures, it is assumed that there is no need for adjustment even for non-intercalibrated river types. Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements All relevant hydromorphological quality elements in all water categories were reported to be assessed in terms of ecological status/potential and their classification boundaries are related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements.